People REALLY fucking need to quit calling WW II an "Allied" effort.
The Russians did a markable job slowing the Nazi advance in Russia. Although 90% of the entire war material was imported from the US.
The US single handedly and without any meaningful support whatsoever defeated the Japanese in the Pacific Theater.
The US single handedly turned the tide of battle in North Africa and kicked the Germans off the continent - while the pompous British faggot Montgomery pranced around and tried to take credit.
Montgomery was back to COMMAND US (and some British) troops in Operation Market Garden in Europe. The only significant defeat of American forces since Batan.
The US single handedly defeated the Italians and then the Germans in Western Europe. The British supplied LAND from which the US could organize our war effort. The only significant action the British took was their militarily ineffective TERROR raids conducted as night bombing against population centers. Their crude aircraft and navigation could not hit anything smaller than a city. A sprawling steel plant might as well have a deflector shield over it. On a good night 1 bomb in 250 might hit near the stated target. This also happens to be why Americans bombed during the daytime. Even with the 20 year more advanced US technology we were still unable to hit a military target at night.
But yes. Dresden will always stand out as possible the greatest war crime ever committed (and that is coming from someone that doesn't believe there is such a thing as a war crime). But the war was already won. Dresden was the most despicable act since the yankees raped and burned their way across Georgia.
It wasn't the only German city that was fire bombed.
"The Prime Minister said that we hoped to shatter twenty German cities as we had shattered Cologne, Lubeck, Dusseldorf, and so on. More and more aeroplanes and bigger and bigger bombs. M. Stalin had heard of 2-ton bombs. We had now begun to use 4-ton bombs, and this would be continued throughout the winter. If need be, as the war went on, we hoped to shatter almost every dwelling in almost every German city. " (Official transcript of the meeting at the Kremlin between Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin on Wednesday, August 12, 1942, at 7 P.M.)
"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories." -- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris, Commander in Chief, Bomber Commander, British Royal Air Force, October 25, 1943 quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.
Is the deliberate mass murder of civilians on a huge scale ever justified? This article does not have an answer for this question. However, it is important to note that this was a very specific goal of England and America in World War II as the quotes above show. Germany and Japan also bombed civilians but the scale of what they did was a tiny fraction of their opponents. More people died in the bombing of Hamburg alone that in the entire German bombing campaign against England. Was the Anglo-American bombing necessary or moral? Many serious military experts feel it was a poor choice in terms of military priorities. What follows is documentation from both sides. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma....2/Bombing.htm
Michael Hoffman is one of the worlds' finest researchers. For (((this))), he is persecuted. His books and articles can be found here.
The British fought well in the North Atlantic, the Med, North Africa, and of course in the skies over England. It wasn't that they didn't do shit but that they were led by a complete ass.
Churchill was hailed as one of the great men of the last century but I think he was an absolute disaster who destroyed the British Empire over nothing but his personal stubbornness.
He masterminded the Gallipolli campaign in WW1 which was a disaster.
He masterminded the Dakar effort in WW2 which was an absolute clusterfuck.
I believe he masterminded Dieppe. My grandfather was there, picking up the remnants of that force and bringing them back to the UK and it was a massacre. Only part of the war he never talked about.
He stayed in a senseless war against Germany of course.
He mortgaged Britain's future to the United States so that the USA could then use Britain as an aircraft carrier. We were paying WW2 war loans off until 2006 I think. Our debts then led to the US being able to grab us by the nuts during the Suez Crisis.
He declared war because of Poland, and Poland was occupied at the end of the war.
Dresden is just one of many awful events which can be laid at his door. The narrative about WW2 being sold to Britain is just unbelievable. It was a disaster for all of Europe and Britain didn't win shit. We won the battles but the battles were pointless and wasteful.
The winners are the judeo-communists and judeo-bankers. There were no other winners. Coincidence?
Churchill is said to be jewish. Churchill himself said they were not going after Hitler because of ideology but because of economics. The judeo-bankers will not allow a country to stand without jewish control of its economy.
It is worth replying to clarify I didn't mean the British people, especially those in military service, did not try. As you said their best leaders were fools. Churchill was a singularly wicked man, a founder of the Devos crowd before the crowd had that name.
There is a particularly sordid affair with Churchill and stock margins at the point of the 1929 stock market crash. Nothing to do with England and I can't right now remember the details. But I do recall many laws were broken and unheard of exceptions made to protect him from the consequences of bad stock bets. It is probably worth looking up just for fun.
But yes. The thing the UK lacked above all else was military leaders. The Royal Navy couldn't even managed an evacuation under the undeclared cease fire of Dunkirk. Simple incompetence doesn't fully explain the span of time from 1890 - 1970. The inventors of civilization don't experience 4 generations of abject failure without some external guiding malice.
Briton still had a military class. Which means you didn't hold leadership rank by merit. It was still largely about family, purchased titles, and purchased ranks.
I don't know if that's the case with Montgomery, but I always assumed.
view the rest of the comments →
acheron2012 ago
ENGLAND!
People REALLY fucking need to quit calling WW II an "Allied" effort.
The Russians did a markable job slowing the Nazi advance in Russia. Although 90% of the entire war material was imported from the US.
The US single handedly and without any meaningful support whatsoever defeated the Japanese in the Pacific Theater.
The US single handedly turned the tide of battle in North Africa and kicked the Germans off the continent - while the pompous British faggot Montgomery pranced around and tried to take credit.
Montgomery was back to COMMAND US (and some British) troops in Operation Market Garden in Europe. The only significant defeat of American forces since Batan.
The US single handedly defeated the Italians and then the Germans in Western Europe. The British supplied LAND from which the US could organize our war effort. The only significant action the British took was their militarily ineffective TERROR raids conducted as night bombing against population centers. Their crude aircraft and navigation could not hit anything smaller than a city. A sprawling steel plant might as well have a deflector shield over it. On a good night 1 bomb in 250 might hit near the stated target. This also happens to be why Americans bombed during the daytime. Even with the 20 year more advanced US technology we were still unable to hit a military target at night.
But yes. Dresden will always stand out as possible the greatest war crime ever committed (and that is coming from someone that doesn't believe there is such a thing as a war crime). But the war was already won. Dresden was the most despicable act since the yankees raped and burned their way across Georgia.
AdValorem ago
It wasn't the only German city that was fire bombed.
"The Prime Minister said that we hoped to shatter twenty German cities as we had shattered Cologne, Lubeck, Dusseldorf, and so on. More and more aeroplanes and bigger and bigger bombs. M. Stalin had heard of 2-ton bombs. We had now begun to use 4-ton bombs, and this would be continued throughout the winter. If need be, as the war went on, we hoped to shatter almost every dwelling in almost every German city. " (Official transcript of the meeting at the Kremlin between Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin on Wednesday, August 12, 1942, at 7 P.M.)
"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories." -- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris, Commander in Chief, Bomber Commander, British Royal Air Force, October 25, 1943 quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.
Is the deliberate mass murder of civilians on a huge scale ever justified? This article does not have an answer for this question. However, it is important to note that this was a very specific goal of England and America in World War II as the quotes above show. Germany and Japan also bombed civilians but the scale of what they did was a tiny fraction of their opponents. More people died in the bombing of Hamburg alone that in the entire German bombing campaign against England. Was the Anglo-American bombing necessary or moral? Many serious military experts feel it was a poor choice in terms of military priorities. What follows is documentation from both sides. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma....2/Bombing.htm
Michael Hoffman is one of the worlds' finest researchers. For (((this))), he is persecuted. His books and articles can be found here.
https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2017/02/72nd-anniversary-of-slaughter-bombing.html
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/02/16/the-allied-holocaust-in-dresden/
Well_Deserved_Brew ago
The British fought well in the North Atlantic, the Med, North Africa, and of course in the skies over England. It wasn't that they didn't do shit but that they were led by a complete ass.
Churchill was hailed as one of the great men of the last century but I think he was an absolute disaster who destroyed the British Empire over nothing but his personal stubbornness.
He masterminded the Gallipolli campaign in WW1 which was a disaster.
He masterminded the Dakar effort in WW2 which was an absolute clusterfuck.
I believe he masterminded Dieppe. My grandfather was there, picking up the remnants of that force and bringing them back to the UK and it was a massacre. Only part of the war he never talked about.
He stayed in a senseless war against Germany of course.
He mortgaged Britain's future to the United States so that the USA could then use Britain as an aircraft carrier. We were paying WW2 war loans off until 2006 I think. Our debts then led to the US being able to grab us by the nuts during the Suez Crisis.
He declared war because of Poland, and Poland was occupied at the end of the war.
Dresden is just one of many awful events which can be laid at his door. The narrative about WW2 being sold to Britain is just unbelievable. It was a disaster for all of Europe and Britain didn't win shit. We won the battles but the battles were pointless and wasteful.
RoundWheel ago
The winners are the judeo-communists and judeo-bankers. There were no other winners. Coincidence?
Churchill is said to be jewish. Churchill himself said they were not going after Hitler because of ideology but because of economics. The judeo-bankers will not allow a country to stand without jewish control of its economy.
Churchill is proved right.
acheron2012 ago
It is worth replying to clarify I didn't mean the British people, especially those in military service, did not try. As you said their best leaders were fools. Churchill was a singularly wicked man, a founder of the Devos crowd before the crowd had that name.
There is a particularly sordid affair with Churchill and stock margins at the point of the 1929 stock market crash. Nothing to do with England and I can't right now remember the details. But I do recall many laws were broken and unheard of exceptions made to protect him from the consequences of bad stock bets. It is probably worth looking up just for fun.
But yes. The thing the UK lacked above all else was military leaders. The Royal Navy couldn't even managed an evacuation under the undeclared cease fire of Dunkirk. Simple incompetence doesn't fully explain the span of time from 1890 - 1970. The inventors of civilization don't experience 4 generations of abject failure without some external guiding malice.
RoundWheel ago
Briton still had a military class. Which means you didn't hold leadership rank by merit. It was still largely about family, purchased titles, and purchased ranks.
I don't know if that's the case with Montgomery, but I always assumed.