Please forgive an unusual intrusion from a retired medic who has crusaded for much of his life promoting the human aspects of conflict. The tit-for-tat discussions about who committed the worst atrocities and collateral damage in conflict are indeed informative, should reflect a fair balance of history but, ironically may lead to further polarisation. The truth is that few nations' performances in war are without blemish. Imperial concentration camp laagers in the 2nd Boer War, the terrible but considered civilian damage caused by Allied Bomber Command in WW2, Napalm in Vietnam, recent germ warfare in Iraq and Syria etc. are clear examples. The only issue is to remain totally even and fair with one's arguments. Radical polarisation of views should not really be necessary with serious historical students. Due consideration of strategic options open to commanders need to be as carefully studied as do the post hoc consequences!