Agree, except this bit: >> The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very

Agree, except this bit: >> The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very arrogant leaders stop their war. None of the leaders actually cared a single bit, the Nazis even wanted to burn down Germany for having lost the war. Industrial output was not really impacted, numbers and assessments from both sides show that, while moral of the bombed was actually stiffened. Including Axis POWs in Normandy being debriefed (understandable, if someone bombs my house and family I do not nexessarily like them much). All the strategic bombing of Germany did was satisfy hunger for revenge (especially in the case of Bomber Harris, whom seemed to be extremely butt hurt after the Blitz), despite knowing strategic bombing doesn't do much after the Blitz. That, and showing Stalin that the Western allies did something on the continent. The only time strategic bombing had some impact in Europe, was the preparation of Overlord, when Eisenhower basically forced US and UK bomber commands to focus at logistical networks, hubs and oil installations above cities. And even then, civilian casualties, including in France and the Low Countries, were way to high for the results. Again, USAAF and RAF assessments show that. And yet the bombing of civilians continued unabetted. There is simply no defending this.