In an otherwise successful thread at Unamusement Park, I alleged that the Germans invented city bombing, mainly because the Germans invented city bombing. As I expected, a commenter dismissed the August 6, 1914 raid on Liege as having been done with "firecrackers". As to the next relevant war, the raid on Guernica was dismissed as "tactical bombings in support of an advancing army in the field". 1939 raids on Warsaw, Frampol, and Wieluń were dismissed likewise.
So "tactical bombing" can't be "city bombing" (presumably for the same reason that "quantitative easing" doesn't equal "intentional debasement of the currency"). All that matters, as it were, is "strategic" bombing, supposedly invented by the British in 1940. (In reality it was invented in a previous World War, by Germans armed with "firecrackers". It is also false to think that German raids were only with airships, or even that Zeppelins were always airships. The Zeppelin plant also produced heavy airplanes designed for bombing, as did Gotha.) But of course, I never asserted that the German invented strategic bombing or effective bombing.
So why move the goalposts? Why does city bombing not matter while "strategic bombing" does? Why does the German alliance with Stalin (1939-1941) not matter while the US-British alliance with that monster (1941-1945) does? Why does Roosevelt reflect poorly on the United States, and Churchill reflect poorly on the UK, while Hitler only reflects poorly on "the Nazis"?
Or, more generally, why is that, whatever the subject, whatever the historical epoch, the British and/or Americans are bad guys? Well, let's think: what do the UK and the USA have in common? It could be English, which is a second-class language even in the most American part of the British Commonwealth.
Or could it be a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon attitude towards guilt?
I think it is a bit of both. People will project guilt where it sticks, and refrain from blaming those who become are liable to become aggressive. It's no surprise that we can't figure out how treat someone who can't take responsibility; all our other values are inverted as well. We treat thin-skinned athlete types as "alpha males", so why shouldn't we marginalize and abject someone for daring to show remorse?
Still, I don't think the Anglo-blame habit is simply a function of a British or American mindset. It is also a function of the tragically large number of people who speak and write English as a second language. Anyone with an axe to grind from virtually any country can write a screed trying to make Anglophones feel bad about themselves. If we reply in kind, we are replying a in language that our accusers view as a tool, not as the core of their ethnicity. You simply can't insult someone in a second language as effectively as you can in their native language.
Of course, loads of native English-speakers reflect the "blame the Anglophones first" attitudes, but this is partly due to a third influence: tons of foreigners are in teaching positions in the United States at least (maybe also in the UK; I don't know). Our universities are filled with people from country X who can tell you in detail how the USA mistreated country X and how as a consequence we owe them foreign aid. Pretty much anyone from wherever can purport to know our countries better than we know them ourselves. That, combined with home-grown Anglo-American political correctness, has over time corroded our self-image and our mental boundaries.