Thanks for the confirmation, and for the admonishment, ttn. ;-) In no way do I wish to belittle the bravery or duty done in the Army's Land Campaign as it fought its way from Normandy to Germany. That is the point, though. It was a separate campaign to the Bombing Campaign, which should have had its own Campaign Star from the start. The fact that it did not, that all air operations over Europe qualified for the Aircrew Europe Star before D-Day, meant that afterwards it shared the France Germany Star with those in direct tactical support of the Army's advance in their land campaign. Harris was wrong to want a "Bomber Command Medal", that I'll concede, but his aircrew should have received a "Bombing Campaign Star" (or some such) for the 1939-45 Strategic Bombing Campaign that cost them so dear.
To try to desperately haul myself back on board the OP's thread, I have never understood the moral superiority often expressed by those who espoused neutrality in WW2. Here we had the choice of either fighting dictatorships that invaded and brutally repressed their neighbours, and then threatening their neighbours in turn, or of simply sitting on the sidelines and seeing how things turned out. Quite well, it would seem, for most whose neutrality survived the war. Certainly Sweden and Switzerland never looked back, though Portugal and Ireland seemed to have had little to offer the combatants other than intrigue. Perhaps Franco's Spain can be said to have made best use of the opportunities offered, though I wouldn't consider that any of these countries elevated neutrality to a moral high ground, rather they hoped that one side or the other would prevail, but were not betting their shirts. Expedient? Pragmatic? Sure. Morally superior? Hardly.