[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US [warmaking strategy"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, now we can figure out the agenda of the manufacturers of the above patently ridiculous claim. For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Always" is certainly overstating the case. However, the cold war strategy of nuclear deterrence (fortunately never carried out) would have entiled massacre of civilian populations (on both sides). Sherman's march to the sea in the civil war also intentionally inflicted a lot of civilian casualties. I'm not sure we could have won WWII without killing a lot of civillians. That doesn't mean I like it, especially the firebombings in Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There seem to be two schools of thought as to how necessary the use of nukes in Japan was to securing Japan's surrender without invading (which would have killed a lot of American troops, Japanese troops and Japanese civillians. I'm not sure who I believe on this.