You didn't actually. You said something entirely different: that the numbers meant that the two couldn't be compared but that in this case it still can't be used as an excuse. Which seems to admit that the numbers might be significant and could be used an excuse. I'm saying something wholly different: that the numbers don't matter and can never be used as an excuse. Mine's unequivocal.
Er, right. You really need to read what you've been writing.
I answered a question you posed. Planning is sufficient cause for a charge: even if the results were nil. Moreover planning or conspiring to kill can be far more serious than just killing people: Nuremburg showed that.
You do realise that the charge wouldn't have accrued to the pilots or bombardiers right?
I have no concern whatsoever for whatever the common usage of a word in a language other than English in an English forum generally speaking. There might be some instances where I do: but this ain't one of them. It should have been patently obvious that Say1988 was not arguing that Blitzkrieg, a strategy, was a war-crime in of itself.
What's this response nonsense then?
I'm not suggesting that you are! I'm just suggesting that it was the wrong line to take in light of the argument being made. And I'm not sure if the Allies were inclined to prepare the war materials they had on hand with the paltry arsenals of the Luftwaffe.
Material and effort maybe. It certain diverted a significant proportion of Allied resources and a not insignificant amount of effort. However in terms of lives expended? It was cost-effective compared to other more direct means of fighting. The key is that the Allies seem to have thought that the bombing offensive was having a good military effect or they wouldn't have continued on with it.
I don't see any relation and logic in your post. I don't see how my point of view which can be generlised as "The allied strategic bombing of Hamburg and other German cities was a war crime, and the people responsible fot it should have got centances, but didn't because they were the winnig side" is a nonsense. And if you want to answer such nonsense do it by just saying : "No, i think the allied bombings were not a war creim beacase..." But instead you focus on the word Bltz(whcih i already explained) and other irrevelant to the maiin topic things which don't change anything at all. Don't try to sell your cheap sophism here.