veep :-
As for indiscriminate, in his memoirs Air Commodore Lionel Charlton described it as such, at one point referring to it as close to wanton slaughter. Charlton and other contemporary accounts also refer to very large numbers of civilian casualties. So if the practice was as you described, to warn the occupants before commencing bombing, then it was ineffective at protecting civilians. Even if we were to accept that every measure was taken to prevent civilian casualties, (and dismiss these contemporary accounts) there is a limit to how humane punitive bombing raids can be.
The point I have been trying to make, Veep, is that you share with jenns a tendency to make statements of fact from mere impressions, allegations, and general condemnations of historical figures. As has been pointed out before, judge not lest ye be judged! I know that history is now treated simply as a means of expressing modern prejudices by laying them on supposed injustices from the past. One day you will be the past and you and your cohorts will also be condemned, so a little more introspection and a little less condemnation might be in order. To destroy a man's reputation because all the impressions, allegations, and condemnations tick the boxes that allow you to is mere mob rule. The same applied to the breaking of a paediatrician's windows by concerned individuals bent on routing out those who molest children.
So Harris no doubt observed the way that armed insurrection in a mandated territory could be greatly (and economically) reduced by the mere threat of bombing and drew a greatly exaggerated lesson of its efficacy. So what? It simply meant that as AOC-in-C of Bomber Command in WWII he believed in what he was doing! That was just as well, given the loss rate suffered even under the protection of night time. His was the only way of bringing the war to the enemy homeland which obliged them to make appropriate dispositions accordingly. It is my belief (and only that, not facts written on tablets of stone!) that led directly to ultimate Allied victory. Just as wars are not won by withdrawals, they are not won solely by defensive measures. If all the resources thrown at Bomber Command had instead been thrown at Coastal Command say, it would no doubt have had direct effect on the Battle of the Atlantic and cut some of the appalling losses suffered in that campaign, but I cannot see how that would have led to victory. Indeed it might have meant success for Germany on the Eastern Front and in successfully repelling us on D-Day. These are all what ifs, known unknowns perhaps, but the Bombing Campaign was an essential ingredient in the defeat of the scourge of fascism in my book. If that is so then so was Harris, and he should therefore be celebrated rather than condemned. Just saying....
Oh, PS, could you please elaborate on this statement of yours also?
an incident in which British aircraft reportedly machine gunned women and children, Churchill himself protested to the Chief of Air Staff over the brutality of these methods and called for the court martial of those responsible.
again, Where and When, please?