Yes, I saw that. It's a guy saying he thinks it's a war crime. Just as you say you think it's a war crime. However, in order to come to that conclusion you have to exclude an awful lot of other data and just look at it at face value.
You know, it's a bit like Shane when discussing snooker players. A player can have a 20 year career, be a generally great bloke for that time and all the etc, but if Shane thinks he's worn a hat inside and shane thinks that's proof that the player is disrespectful by nature, then that's what he wants to talk about and the only thing he'll talk about regarding a player.
I mean, WW2, that's one really big event, right. The British were involved in a heck of a lot of events during that time. Most of those events really do bring a lump to your throat in just how awesome they were. And the people they were holding out against, my, but they were some uniquely nasty opposition weren't they. You'd have to be really digging around with one very specific objective to, firstly,
want to find some dirt on the British during that time and, secondly, to
want to deliberately and specifically emphasise and magnify any dirt you do manage to find.
I mean, what do you want? Do you want all the British high command to be posthumously stripped of any positivity and put on trial for war crimes? Is that what you're asking for? If not, why go to the extreme of a mono-perspective absolute of stating "it was a war crime", do you even understand the severity of your position?