[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Yes, but 'following orders' isn't the point I'm trying to make. Harris was not the only individual responsible for the mass killing of civilians, but is the only individual on the Allied side to receive these accusations of 'War Criminal'.

I didn't say he was 'following orders', I said his actions were sanctioned and approved by the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

If you accuse Harris, you must accuse Churchill, Eaker, Doolittle, Eisenhower, Tedder, LeMay and many others who sanctioned and approved the bombing of cities wherever it occured during the whole conflict.

Actually, you are right here. But as usual, the way these people are handled nowadays plays a major role.

But people don't. They just point the finger at Harris and shout 'Witch!' 'Heretic!' 'Burn Him!'.

He has become the scapegoat for the entire 'Strategic Bombing Campaign' in Europe.

No-one mentions Eaker or Doolittle. No-one seems to wish to discuss LeMay's actions in Japan, a man who holds the world record for the mass killing of civilians with 'conventional weapons', as they prefer to focus their attentions on Harris or the A-Bombs. Was Trueman a 'War Criminal'?

And that does wonder you? The UK is the only nation still playing the war time propaganda flute, constantly and activly rubbing the morales in other's faces while stylizing itself as the white knight, unlike the US (not anymore, at least), or Russia, who both keep their hero worshipping to themselves and do not constantly try to profit from the war expirience on a diplomatic or even personal level when it comes to Germany (Though I think Russia has her own track record in eastern Europe when it comes to abusing WW2 in pushing her interests).
No offense, but that this kind of behaviour causes counter reactions aimed mainly back at the UK should not come as a suprise. The war is over 70 years now and nobody in this debate participated in this one or has any claims on morale superiourity, still the british act like the war was only finished yesterday in their evaluation of those events. It's like talking to a time capsule.

Which brings me to Nuremburg. Of course the Trials were necessary, but I doubt that all of the outcomes were 'Just'. Some were found guilty who most probably weren't - Kesselring being the most obvious to me. Some seemed to get off lightly such as von Braun and Speer, along with SS veterans who still during interviews express both their pride in being selected and their admiration for Hitler without any detectable regret or remorse. Again, my opinion.

So yes, it was 'Standard Setting' but also in some instances 'Winners Justice', but also in some cases didn't go far enough. But then any number of miscarriages of justice can be pointed at in modern times, so in this Nuremburg was by no means unique.

Naturally you are right here, and judging the events of those dark times is immensly complex. However, these trials helped to establish some new concepts in national and international politics modern Germany still believes in, but which are constantly broken by their own paladins. And that brings us to the gist of this debate: The major gripe here comes from the fact that the UK refuses to be judged by the very same standarts it pushed onto others but argues by an old testament like "they started it" line. The "Eye for an eye" rule is not a concept that will bring you far in any modern court.
Constantly starting wars with other nations both before and after WW2, actually up to this very day, also does not really help the case.

Edit: I just found the perfect quote illustrating the whole problem:

U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.