Moral Combat Analysis - Part 1 (introduction)

Michael Burleigh has written a rather interesting book on the Second World War. As much as I hate writing in a way to suggest that this is a book review but the occasion demands it. Burleigh aims at an historical view of the moral issues of fighting the Second World War, in fact he says so in his introduction:
       "A lawyer or philosopher would write a different, perhaps more prescriptive book, using the past to dictate present or future conduct in under the guise of writing history, This book is different in that it deals with on-the-spot behaviour, rather than how these things look in armchair-hindsight."
Key example right above here.
Possibly my favourite part of his intro is this rather cynical line where he presents his views on moral relativism (a form of revisionism, which I hate so very, very much).
       "......This exercise in moral relativism (and crude conspiracy theory) is sometimes excused on the grounds that the author is a novelist daringly experimenting with forms that resemble a child's scrapbook. In reality, any half-competent historian would have no difficulty assembling a small book in which Hitler appeared to be defending (German) human rights, or a directory of every leading Nazi's best Jewish friends."
I cannot pretend, neither can anyone else really, at this time that Burleigh is not making a jab, be it in literature, at the ever condemned David Irving. This can be noticed by his mention of Hitler as the directory of Jewish friends as Irving himself did call Hitler the Jews best friend, which is not the most accurate or profoundly intelligent statement made in the history of mankind, unless you are believe in the legitimacy of the Hitler Diaries (Not even I can resist the temptation to slander Irving). Attacking Irving's works and beliefs is not a tremendously hard task, it can be quite very easily likened to swimming down stream. Making a mockery of Irving is in my eyes an easy way to gain credibility for your own work by distancing it from Irving's cesspit of ignorance.
But why should I mention this at all when I'm talking about Dresden? Because Burleigh mention's the Allied bombing campaign one sentence over, and I like making fun of Irving.
".....,some German historians are bent on inculpating Allied bomber crews in war crimes by the not very subtle method of allowing the German terminology of mass murder to leach into this context."
This is Irving and his side of the Dresden argument's methodology.
To summarise this blog Hitler plus six million Jewish murders does not equal the Allied bombing campaign and it's five hundred thousand or so casualties.