Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to your attention the bombing of Dresden, the most due-processy event in the history of due process.
It almost as if something important took place between the bombing of Dresden and the Nuremberg trials. Something that might have been called “an unconditional surrender.”
We have people in office who are Candace Owens-style morons. She’s also very upset by the bombing of Dresden because – you guessed it – there was no due process.
Clarissa's Blog 
If we are going this way, bombing of Dresden, and of Germany and Japan in general, occurred in the course of war that was properly started, according to the due legal process of starting a war. Furthermore, the US citizens were not divided 50/50 about Dresden being part of Germany. And yet people are still debating if bombing of Dresden (or Hiroshima) were too much, and/or if there was enough military reasons to do it beyond intimidating the enemy into submission.
LikeLike
Those are perfect examples.
It’s been 80 years since those things happened.
Was anybody ever criminally prosecuted for those actions?
Were any laws written or changed to make a repeat of those things illegal, or impossible?
If not, then it’s a pointless, feelings-based exercise in moral self-inflation, not a discussion of legal issues.
LikeLike
That sort of due process was followed in the case of the TDA boat as the cartel has been declared a terrorist organization and the US war on terror has been going on for 25 years.
But that’s not what the people clamoring for due process mean. They clamor for arrests and trial.
I also need to mention that the people debating the need to bomb Dresden are Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and that Nazi dude Tucker keeps inviting. The one who’s into the whole “Churchill caused WW2 and Hitler was a cute little kitten” narrative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Martyr Made is a national treasure. You clearly haven’t listened to his podcasts. He has literally a 20+ hour multi-episode series on Israel-Palestine and told with so much compassion and sensitivity it’ll make you cry. It certainly brought me to tears at times.
lol @ “nazi dude.”
I also need to mention that the people attacking him are Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, Mark Levin, and hundreds of other parasites in the media/business/politics who hate america and americans and only think of this country as an instrument to further their own nation’s interests.
LikeLike
He hates the Western civilization. I imagine his compassion is not for Westerners but for Arabs?
I lived in Montreal. I can’t deal with any more compassion for Arabs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s just not true. I’m subscribed to his substack, I listen to almost everything he puts out and read all his articles, and nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I’m not sure you’ve actually listened to his podcasts and interviews. This seems to be second-hand knowledge you seemed to have acquired from his haters (who hate him for precisely one reason – that he doesn’t worship Israel).
LikeLike
I very sincerely never heard of this guy in the context of Israel. I only heard what he had to say about WW2 and it’s standard anti-Western stuff.
I wonder, though, who is he compassionate towards in his podcasts about Gaza?
LikeLike
The children being murdered daily. Not exactly a headscratcher, you know.
LikeLike
So not Westerners? Which is exactly what I said. He doesn’t care about the West. The West is always to blame and always in debt.
LikeLike
a) Israel is not “the west.” Hasbaratrons have made it their life mission to conflate the two and I’m glad that this effort is succeeding less and less.
b) That is a ridiculous argument.
*Israeli sniper headshots a baby for fun.
Me: “this is bad”
You: “Your anti-west bias is showing.”
This would be like if someone accused me of being anti-black for denouncing the stabbing on the train.
“So not Blacks? Which is exactly what I said. You don’t care about the Blacks. The Blacks are always to blame and always in debt.”
LikeLike
Again, I am not the one who brought Israel into this conversation. What I heard this guy say had nothing to do with Israel. It was deeply anti-Western which is why I don’t like him. Now it turns out that his other favorite topic is the deep compassion for people who are ruining Europe, harassed me daily when I lived in Montreal. Pro-Muslim is anti-West.
Israel was never remotely the reason why I don’t like this dude. Given as I had no idea he was interested in the region.
LikeLike
You called him a nazi. Which would make his views on jews somewhat relevant, don’t you think? That is why I referenced his body of work in our discussion.
LikeLike
I called him a Nazi because he said Hitler wasn’t to blame for WW2.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a flat out lie. For someone who is so passionate about the precise use of language, you certainly play hard and fast with the truth. Once again, have you listened to his interview? You feign ignorance about him and yet you are so goddamn sure he said Hitler wasn’t to blame for WW2. Anyway, this is going nowhere. Let’s just disagree on this.
LikeLike
“Martyr Made is a national treasure”
“compassion and sensitivity it’ll make you cry”
Compassion and sensitivity for who?
I don’t know from Israel but I do know post 1989 C/E Europe and everything he says about it is wrong and I’m not interested in knowing whether he’s wrong from ignorance or malice because it makes no difference.
From his “thoughts on Ukraine”
“We start pushing NATO past the eastern border of Germany”
NATO did not push, it was dragged past Germany by countries that did not want to be invaded by russia…. That, whatever else you think about it, is the entire purpose of NATO, which might be called the “We don’t want russia to invade us” organization.
And russia has never shown any particular concern about NATO invading russia (in the last few years it pulled almost all the soldiers on its NATO borders away and sent them to Ukraine to be killed).
My guess is that he’s backed, at least partly, by russian money so anything he says is the fruit of the poison tree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, so he’s a Russian shill, too. I’m not surprised.
The excessive preoccupation with WW2 and the need to blame it on Britain definitely has Russian fingerprints all over it.
This idea was launched into the US media space simultaneously from several directions. It can’t possibly be organic that several US media figures simultaneously started pushing WW2 revisionism of the exact same flavor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“WW2 and the need to blame it on Britain definitely has Russian fingerprints “
I wonder if they still blame Poland too…. That was a thing they started sometime after 2000, WWII was Poland’s fault because they were being mean to perfectly reasonable German requests…. (Britain was involved there too, IIRC Poland was too cocky because they had believed the nefarious Brits).
The idea of the UK as the ultimate Big Bad is apparently also common in russian pulp novels like “Comrade Gitler”
https://cepa.org/article/comrade-hitler-and-other-russian-fantasies/
LikeLike
That is really funny! Biggest nation on earth, blaming a wee island nation for everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s also a clear line here in that Hitler wanted to eliminate Slavs. And who’s been eliminating Slavs at the fastest clip since Hitler? Putin. Who clearly prefers Central Asians.
LikeLike
lmao I didn’t know you guys got MSNBC in Poland.
LikeLike
As I’ve said many times, muslims are not a problem in america. They’re a problem in europe (and I hope they fix this!) but that’s not our problem.
Our problem is this. No amount of retarded somalis and haitians can compete with this. And unlike cat-eating haitians, these creatures have an inordinate amount of influence in how our country is governed.
LikeLike
“Biggest nation on earth, blaming a wee island nation”
One explanation I’ve heard that makes some sense is that in the putinesque worldview…. it’s less about the UK and more about the US. If the UK hadn’t existed then the US wouldn’t become a superpower and then there would be no challenger for russian world domination….
There’s also the uncomfortable tendency for former British colonies, despite the problems and dysfunction of British rule, to still like and admire and emulate the UK in many ways (and to want to move there) while russian colonialism leaves no such warm memories. Soft power envy… russia’s soft power is limited to countries like India that have no political/military history with russia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s exactly what it is. It’s hard to blame the US for WW2. But Britain is the mother of the US, so it’s the next best thing to blame.
WW2 is Russia’s greatest hangup because that’s what it claims as the reason for world leadership. There’s no other achievement. It’s “look what we did for you, and you bastards are not grateful.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m trying to stay out of this one as I am busy and don’t want to get dragged into the back and forth. But I would like to make two points in a drive by posting sort of way.
1st – to call the UK a small island nation is looking at the 20th century through the eyes of the 21st century. If you are looking at the UK as it stands today, then yes it would be absolutely laughable. However the UK of the 20th century was a different beast all together. It was an empire covering 25% of the world, and it had the military to match. It had the largest fleet in the world, and enough ground forces to guard that empire, plus fight in Africa and in Europe, even after the early disaster at Dunkirk.
Its the same as thinking of the French at the time as we do today. Today we call them surrender monkeys and laugh about white flags. However they were a legitimate threat at the time. The area the Germans went through was supposedly safe, and thus garrisoned with green newly trained troops. Their actual armies were split, some guarding their colonies around the world, and a large amount garrisoning the Maginot line, which if attacked would have absolutely ground down the German forces.
The French leadership surrendered when the capital unexpectedly fell, if it was up to the military, they likely would have gone to do battle to reclaim Paris. But as France was and is a Republic that means that the military is under the command of the president or whatever the french use. So when he surrendered they were forced to as well by their own laws.
The 2nd thing I wanted to point out is this. While I am not going to blame the Poles even if there is a legitimate case for doing so. What Hitler demanded was in fact entirely reasonable. The land in question was German territory, and the people living in said land were Germans. Hell he even stated that the thing strip of land to connect to that territory with Greater Germany would be left completely under the control of the Poles. Effectively nothing would change for the corridor except that the German citizens could use that then strip of land to get to back and forth.
Anyway I am going to stop there as like I said I don’t have time to get drug down into a major argument today, I’ve made the two points I wanted to make, so I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
Yes, we know.
But, you know, how do Russia’s population base and exploitable natural resources compare to the UK’s over a similar period of time?
It honestly seems like a gigantic self-own for RUS to adopt that attitude about the UK. “Why yes, this country with a tiny fraction of our human and geographic resources, is THE problem and smoked everybody.”
Like, well, why is that? Why, with such a comparatively small resource base, did they so outperform everybody else? What’s the secret sauce, and why didn’t RUS, or Germany, or France, or any of these other larger landmasses that weren’t culturally and genetically descended from the UK…. why don’t they measure up?
And why would RUS want to highlight their inferiority?
LikeLike
Exactly. Great Britain conquered the world, created the most amazing system of government, justice and education. The inhabitants of its former colonies are beating their way into the country with a stick. And it was a small island with crap weather and no significant resources. It’s extraordinary.
Great Britain was truly great. The marvel of history. And Russia is great in territory and natural resources but that doesn’t translate into any other greatness. Hence the endless resentment.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“…and no significant resources.”
Kid, they had oatmeal savages, my grandfather claimed that the Lord only gave us the secret of whisky to keep us from ruling the entire world ;-D
LikeLike
Why the Russians would want to highlight inferiority, no idea. But I can give you an answer as to why with such a small base Britain did so well for itself.
There are a few factors that came into play all at the exact time that allowed Britain to become a worldwide empire. If any of them had not then they would have likely still been a major power, but nowhere near to the level they were by the world wars.
The 1st came from the Age of Colonization. The Brits were not the only nation with ambitions of Imperialism. Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and even Russia.
The thing was that a mix of wars and disasters struck the most of the various competitors.
Spain took huge swaths of land, but as time progressed they ended up destroying their own currency because they kept flooding their country with more and more gold and silver coinage. With their currency destroyed they were really unable to stop the various rebellions in the colonies and eventually lost complete control being forced back to Spain and their nearby holdings in Morocco.
France didn’t expand nearly as far, though that might have been because of internal instability. They too lost a lot of their colonies, though it was to the Brits in War and to the US by purchase after Napoleon took charge. By the time the Napoleonic wars were over, France had more or less lost all interest in territory outside of Europe. Probably because it was still putting out internal fires.
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure why Portugal stopped its colonization efforts. It could be they decided enough was enough, or that it wasn’t worth it, but they didn’t keep pushing after a certain point.
The Germans got into the game late, and so their only real colonies were in Africa. When WWI ended part of the demands by the allies was to surrender said colonies. So by WWII they were stuck only on Europe.
The Dutch had some colonies, but they were pretty widely spread out. Some in North America which they lost to the English via the English immigrating into New York. The biggest remainder was in Indonesia. But they really didn’t have the manpower needed to expand unlike everyone else.
Russia had Alaska, but they sold it. They really didn’t do much expansion at this period of time. They were having internal issues if I recall correctly.
Italy tried to colonize parts of Africa and failed miserably. This is why Mussolini wanted Ethiopia so badly. He wanted to wipe the stain of their failure away.
So basically the Brits were the only ones who didn’t suffer massive internal issues, defeats in war, and had the manpower necessary. This allowed them to take huge amounts of territory and hold it.
The 2nd thing was that unlike today, at the time Britain for sure, and probably the others as well made it illegal to produce finished goods in colonies. You could grow stuff, or harvest natural resources, but you weren’t allowed to manufacture items. The colonies also were required to purchase and sell only to Britain itself. This allowed a huge industrial powerhouse to be built on the island, as it was constantly supplied by raw materials from the colonies and an endless demand for finished goods and products.
Naturally this attracts pirates, add in multiple wars with France and Spain, and you need a dedicated war-fleet as well as a second fleet of dedicated patrol forces. Thereby forcing them into a massive naval buildup. Likewise there were constant rebellions that needed to be put down, which meant they also needed a large enough ground force to deal with revolting colonies. Which in turn meant a huge buildup in manpower, though it was supplemented by local auxiliary troops.
Non of this was over a few years or decades, this was over centuries. Britain’s opposition went from disaster to disaster leaving it the only real player in the game. Circumstances demanded two large navies for two very different tasks, as well as a large ground army. Their laws, though repealed at some point built up huge amounts of industry on an island that normally would never have seen that level of build up.
So like I stated at the beginning, if any of these had gone differently they would likely have still been a major power, just not the behemoth they were at the start of WWII.
LikeLike
A note, on the Spanish. What they did was as gold and silver flowed in from Central and South America, they took it and minted it into new coins. They effectively doubled their supply of money again and again. Which sounds like a decent idea until you understand that without a need via increased population that tends to devalue your currency.
The US government keeps printing new dollars. Every time they do this, the currency is worth a bit less, you dollar doesn’t go as far. This is done by the government because it gives the government more dollars to purchase stuff with. It was the same for Spain at the time. More coin, more purchasing power. Its just really bad for people at a family or individual level.
You do need some increase in amount of currency as your population increases. This is where the false idea that inflation is a good thing comes from. However when you create huge amounts of money it devalues what is already available.
As an example, lets say there are 1,000 sports cars of Model YY produced a year. Because there are only 1,000 they are priced much higher than the average car. However lets say the company decides to put Model YY into general production, now there are millions of that model. The price is reduced because it is not limited like it was previously. It is worth less because there is more of it.
In the US and Spain’s case, there needs to be some increase in the amount of currency because as new people are added, you need to “slightly” increase the amount of money because if you don’t each dollar will become worth more and that can actually cause a different type of issue. You want a happy median. Unfortunately in both the case of Spain in the past, and the US today. The powers that be decided to print or mint as much as they could, leading to the currencies becoming effectively worthless until in Spain’s case it collapsed.
In the US’s case about 95% of the value of the dollar is gone by this point. Frankly I have no idea why were aren’t in a full scale worse than the Great Depression monetary crash. Probably the fact that the government and media lies honestly, but it cant last forever.
LikeLike
Wow, W, I also use precisely this analogy with Spain in my teaching. It’s truly the perfect historical example for what’s happening.
It’s an absolute crime how the value of the dollar is being pissed away. Being THE world’s currency is such a boon. Throwing it away because of sheer gluttony and stupidity is a crying shame.
Thank you, love this comment.
LikeLike