“The Bombers and the Bombed” by Richard Overy was reviewed by NYT reviewer Ben Macintyre. His review wasn’t a review at all, just another bit of Anti-America, Anti-Europe and Anti-West bent minded BS, excuse the low tone. A book review is supposed to review the book, not smuggle in the opinions of the reviewer. The reviewer is trying to run against history with his claim; not the claim of the books author, his claim that “Area bombing was a brutally wasteful way to conduct a war that might have been fought more effectively, and less bloodily, by diverting those resources to other spheres. “MIGHT HAVE BEEN”? Why doesn’t Macintyre wrote “COULD HAVE BEEN”? After all , that’s his premise. He knows if the tactics of America and Europe are changed from being effective to being inhumane, America is condemned. That’s the idea behind a really distorted article, an opinion piece of the reviewer, who is, perhaps unwittingly, supporting the losing side.
Macintyre knows that. He wrote: “… the devastation left ordinary Germans demoralized, exhausted and frightened”. That’s real clear evidence that the bombing was effective. More evidence of the success of bombs is the Bush Doctrine of Shock and Awe, as well as the speedy surrender after two nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombs sure took away the will to fight of Imperial Japan and transformed Japan into a successful culture.
Here’s hoping some Rotten Tomatoes show up at the New York Times over the fabrication masquerading as a book review by Macintyre.