The people of Coventry might disagree with you, because it was the centre of engineering and production during WW2 it was very heavily bombed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz
Sorry, but I don't think your view of history is correct. Germany bombed its route all the way to Paris in the west. Their Stuka divebombers were famous. They had practised in Spain beforehand as well.
I wonder if Russians would think that they were not bombed by Germany?
The first massive bombing raid in the UK was of Coventry. Raid after raid was sent on the same night and the city was flattened. They even coined a new verb to describe it: to coventrate.
People came out of their shelters to find that the street they lived in was no more. Many of those who were lucky enough to still have a house found that their places of work had been demolished.
Coventry was an industrial centre that made much to support the war effort. In true British bulldog style, it was not long before productivity was even greater than it was prior to the raids.
Ports were bombed. Even Swansea, in Wales, was bombed. They tried to bomb the airfields out of existence as well so they could have air superiority. All that happened prior to the more famous London bombings.
"Can you believe that the "Good Guys" were so good that they even dropped atomic bombs?"
-- Who let your quivering vagina in here?
"I bet Germany and Japan were just trying to implement basic immigration laws,"
-- Was that what Japan was doing when it sneak-attacked the US at Pearl? Was that what Hitler was doing when he declared war on the US? (Both countries were also attempting to develop nuclear weapons.)
I bet you're a troll.
"Sorry I had to tell you this, I too was outraged when I found out."
-- You're both sorry and outraged about something that happened fifty years before you were born?
"Who gave America the intel Japan would attack if they did an oil embargo?"
-- Again, that's beside the point. Not attacking the US was an option available to both countries, and they chose not to take it. Had they not done so, they would have probably been victorious in a two-separate-theater war that the US sat out of, and both would likely have enjoyed their vast empires for at least as long as the Soviets did in actuality.
It is easy, of course, to insist that cabal players ran the political structure of all three, in which case the implementation and result of the war were a foregone conclusion. However, if one accepts that thesis, then they should likewise be pouncing upon nonsenses such as "I bet Germany and Japan were just trying to implement basic immigration laws", as that would be the last thing on the minds of a bunch of cabal bankstas.
"Who really won WW2? Germany and the US both suffered immeasurably."
-- The US was the only developed nation that didn't have its industrial infrastructure completely annihilated, or lose a measurably significant percentage of its population (military or civilian). And also, the Khazarian mafia, safely emigrated before the outbreak of war, that wrangled its own new country out of the deal after sacrificing the lives of millions of the shed Jewish skinsuits (always taking the blame for everything Khazarian). And of course, Stalin, recipient of unbeatable amounts of US "lend-lease" (more appropriately titled "give-keep"), who became the richest tyrant in human history, as the entirely of the Soviet empire was essentially his private property.
The German Panzers weren't fit for function and especially the later ones seem to have been designed in a vacuum from the logistical needs of the army. In a bid to earn the approval of the party, tank designs were blighted with redesigns which meant tooling and processed had to be constantly revised. Just look at how much difference there is between the different iterations of Panzer IV and Panzer III. This led to an ultimately catastrophic shortage of spare parts because other than the T34 and Sherman, they never bothered standardizing their designs.
The later Panzers were, quite frankly, fucking jokes overhyped by inept historians. The Panther had such an abysmally designed drive drain system that the final drive was prone to breaking in the span of a single tank of gas; a catastrophic failure that would require the tank to be returned to the factory which is why there are so many panthers still in museums; the allies were capable of simply picking them up and towing them away after the crews left them due to a drive failure. Sure, they had amazing armor and impressive firepower which was capable of defeating even the Jumbo Sherman, but their overreliance on train transport (whose tracks, especially in france during 1944, were continually being sabotaged by resistance efforts) and inability to move up or retreat for prolonged areas proved a fatal flaw. The Tiger II was just retarded; a fuel guzzling monstrosity designed in a time where the german army barely had any of them left It is estimated that the absolute majority of Tiger II losses were caused by intentional crew abandonment because they simply became immobile, as moving the tank from the station to the frontline would chug up most of its fuel.
The Sherman and T34 was less impressive, but that isn't a negative for a tank, because they were reliable, had fairly good defences, and were consistently upgunned to meet the needs of the battle. They got shit done. Germans build their tanks with the assumption they could leisurely tow them back to their factories. The Sovjets had no time for that and the US didn't find it logistically feasible to bring tanks back to Detroit, as such, their tanks were build with reliability and ease of repair in mind. And as any military leader can tell you: In war, reliable equipment beats efficient equipment every fucking time. The Germans would've done a lot better iterating on the PzIV and Tiger 1 onwards than wasting resources, engineering time and factory space on the Panther, Tiger II and the fucking Maus, of all things. But the party demanded new shinies and their sycophant engineers eagerly complied, pushing out unproven design after unproven design while abandoning things that had proven their worth throughout the war.
Furthermore, the London Blitz was specifically done due to the percieved effectiveness of terror bombardment, which the Germans had also employed against Rotterdam and was used when they assisted in the Spanish Civil war. Why didn't it extend past London?
Well, simple answer: logistics. Germany expected the UK to be scared into signing a peace treaty with them, but instead the UK turned it around for propaganda and began bleeding dry their airforce, which is why by the time D-Day happened, allied AA vehicles were used for anti-infantry operations; there simply weren't any german aircraft left for them. This is not to say that they didn't have plans to do so; they were hoping to develop intercontinental bombers to target New York with, and had some prototypes ready, but nothing ever manifested because they already had the US knockin on their door. That being said, to make up for their lack of bombing fleets, they just used far less precise Vengeance missiles instead, which had questionable accuracy (11km deviation from impact at their peak) at best and were therefor used exclusively for terror bombing.
As for Japan; m8, Japan did bombing raids out the ass. Not only did a bombing raid of what was by warlaws a civilian target start their war with the US, they carried out the terror bombing of Chongqing in their war with China, and they extensively bombed Australia during 1942. Why did they stop? Well, the US simply controlled too much of the airspace from that point onwards and again, they had bigger concerns.
The nuclear bombings would've also been a lot less costly for human life than a ground invasion of Japan would've been. As it is said; the US is still using purple hearts stamped in anticipation for the Japan mainland invasion. There is no good or bad in war, only the simple practical of victory or oblivion, and any rules we percieve it as having are only ever followed if one thinks they can afford to.
Please if you wish to engage in revisionist history do first get a adequate understanding of the history you are advising, instead of underqualified dipshits from the discovery channel hyping up the Axis forces to the point that explaining their loss requires several layers of irony.
Anticipated casualties of Operation Downfall (proposed invasion of mainland Japan) were over 1 million US servicemen. We won the nuclear arms race (with the help of German and Italian scientists) and used the bomb first to hopefully avoid that outcome. The second bomb was all Japan's doing after they refused to surrender following Hiroshima. And for the record, the incindiary bombing of Tokyo caused more death than your therapy-inducing atomic bombs did.
Again, its the simple practical of war. You should read up on the matter, after Okinawa the US was incredibly weary regarding the prospect of invading the mainland, assuming that they would face an unprecedented degree of civilian resistance. Casualties were expected to be in the Western Front range; about 720000 casualties (dead and wounded) was the most positive estimate, however, with such a massive degree of civilian resistance, it could end up as high as 4 million with 800k dead soldiers. Civilian deaths would be estimated to top 5 million, as the only effective way to really quash such widespread civilian resistance is by basically just flattening every city you come across. To mitigate such damage there was open discussion of just wiping their asses with war laws and employing acid gas bombardments to clean out cities.
On top of that, it was already known to US intelligence that Japan had directives to execute all US POW's should the mainland be invaded, which were to be about 100000 at that point.
At the end of the day, the simple practical of war applies, and the only just war can be a swift war, for all war is an abomination, the prolonging of which is a crime against mankind. 100000 people were burned on the nuclear pyre to shock the nation into compliance. Its crude, it isn't a moral decision at all, but the human cost of throwing the bombs was but a fraction of that of an invasion, and most importantly, the cost would be wholly on the shoulders of the Japanese.
Are we remembering the Fall of the Cabal series as we write our posts, or is the emotion taking over? Remember the Cabal financed both sides and the longer wars lasted the more money they made.
Back to the roots!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MYHTpUW9KAXQ/
Watch this seven part series then the sequel to the fall of the cabal. 17 parts
Both are long but well worth the time
These helped me understand what is happening, why it is happening and the need for it to happen
Bombing cities to destroy enemy factories, and their of means of production for their war machines is a central component of a specific military doctrine called "strategic warfare." It is a specific type of warfare doctrine adopted by various nations of the world- like the US, and Britain, and others, that dictate how warfare campaigns are prepared for, and military objectives are to be achieved prior (usually) to a war actually starting.
Warfare doctrines adopted by nations detail which types of war machines are to be built, recruitment requirements, types of training focuses for soldiers, resource priorities, and planning objectives, etc. Everything a nations military is expected to do during a war in order to win is detailed within the "master plan" of their respective warfare doctrines.
The "strategic warfare doctrine" calls for a focus on equipment, and planning needed to destroy enemy factories as a top priority to achieve the victory goals specified in the doctrine. Long range bombers capable of surviving deep incursions into enemy territory, and dropping enough bombs to obliterate factories, production targets, and logistical targets are essential for strategic warfare objectives.
Thus, at the start of the war the US and GB already had lots of these heavy bombers built, and ready to carry out missions according to strategic warfare doctrine objectives. Result- nazi cities got the shit bombed out them, and the nazis couldn't build their fancy high tech toys to continue terrorizing Europe after a few short years of experiencing what strategic warfare doctrine was capable of.
Conversely, the warfare doctrine adopted by the nazis was "blitzkrieg" or "lightning warfare" which required different types of war machines, objectives, and planning, and was focused on capturing large areas of territory as fast as possible, and gaining control of enemy factories, and production, rather than destroying those enemy assets. As a result, the nazis did not focus production on long range, heavy bombers, nor did they plan on needing to destroy enemy factories- because according to their blitzkrieg doctrine, they believed they could capture those assets with speed, and surprise instead.
Gotta destroy the old cultures and old cultural learning centers in order to bring about a new culture. That's why I KNOW we're in a for a real nasty physical fight with these asshats in yh near future. There's no way [they] finish finalizing the NWO without utterly destroying America like [they] did to Germany, Italy, and Japan.
The Allies destroyed more knowledge than Hitler's and Mussolini's book burning did, combined.
Ok, statistically that may or may not be true, my gut reaction was to say "pearl harbor has entered the chat" but then I remembered that the real sides in WW2 were the elites vs the innocent people of the world.
and then at the end you did the whole "OMG teh JOOS" thing.
knock it off.
The people of Coventry might disagree with you, because it was the centre of engineering and production during WW2 it was very heavily bombed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz
Sorry, but I don't think your view of history is correct. Germany bombed its route all the way to Paris in the west. Their Stuka divebombers were famous. They had practised in Spain beforehand as well.
I wonder if Russians would think that they were not bombed by Germany?
The first massive bombing raid in the UK was of Coventry. Raid after raid was sent on the same night and the city was flattened. They even coined a new verb to describe it: to coventrate.
People came out of their shelters to find that the street they lived in was no more. Many of those who were lucky enough to still have a house found that their places of work had been demolished.
Coventry was an industrial centre that made much to support the war effort. In true British bulldog style, it was not long before productivity was even greater than it was prior to the raids.
Ports were bombed. Even Swansea, in Wales, was bombed. They tried to bomb the airfields out of existence as well so they could have air superiority. All that happened prior to the more famous London bombings.
Oh, and wasn't there a small raid on Hawaii?
"Can you believe that the "Good Guys" were so good that they even dropped atomic bombs?"
-- Who let your quivering vagina in here?
"I bet Germany and Japan were just trying to implement basic immigration laws,"
-- Was that what Japan was doing when it sneak-attacked the US at Pearl? Was that what Hitler was doing when he declared war on the US? (Both countries were also attempting to develop nuclear weapons.)
I bet you're a troll.
"Sorry I had to tell you this, I too was outraged when I found out."
-- You're both sorry and outraged about something that happened fifty years before you were born?
Bet confirmed.
Everything is an Cabal inside-job.
That's not the point. The point is, after sufficient insulting by FDR, Japan attacked, and then Germany joined in.
Neither had to (despite voluminous lists of excuses), but they did.
There is one "universal crime": stupidity.
"Who gave America the intel Japan would attack if they did an oil embargo?"
-- Again, that's beside the point. Not attacking the US was an option available to both countries, and they chose not to take it. Had they not done so, they would have probably been victorious in a two-separate-theater war that the US sat out of, and both would likely have enjoyed their vast empires for at least as long as the Soviets did in actuality.
It is easy, of course, to insist that cabal players ran the political structure of all three, in which case the implementation and result of the war were a foregone conclusion. However, if one accepts that thesis, then they should likewise be pouncing upon nonsenses such as "I bet Germany and Japan were just trying to implement basic immigration laws", as that would be the last thing on the minds of a bunch of cabal bankstas.
"Who really won WW2? Germany and the US both suffered immeasurably."
-- The US was the only developed nation that didn't have its industrial infrastructure completely annihilated, or lose a measurably significant percentage of its population (military or civilian). And also, the Khazarian mafia, safely emigrated before the outbreak of war, that wrangled its own new country out of the deal after sacrificing the lives of millions of the shed Jewish skinsuits (always taking the blame for everything Khazarian). And of course, Stalin, recipient of unbeatable amounts of US "lend-lease" (more appropriately titled "give-keep"), who became the richest tyrant in human history, as the entirely of the Soviet empire was essentially his private property.
The German Panzers weren't fit for function and especially the later ones seem to have been designed in a vacuum from the logistical needs of the army. In a bid to earn the approval of the party, tank designs were blighted with redesigns which meant tooling and processed had to be constantly revised. Just look at how much difference there is between the different iterations of Panzer IV and Panzer III. This led to an ultimately catastrophic shortage of spare parts because other than the T34 and Sherman, they never bothered standardizing their designs.
The later Panzers were, quite frankly, fucking jokes overhyped by inept historians. The Panther had such an abysmally designed drive drain system that the final drive was prone to breaking in the span of a single tank of gas; a catastrophic failure that would require the tank to be returned to the factory which is why there are so many panthers still in museums; the allies were capable of simply picking them up and towing them away after the crews left them due to a drive failure. Sure, they had amazing armor and impressive firepower which was capable of defeating even the Jumbo Sherman, but their overreliance on train transport (whose tracks, especially in france during 1944, were continually being sabotaged by resistance efforts) and inability to move up or retreat for prolonged areas proved a fatal flaw. The Tiger II was just retarded; a fuel guzzling monstrosity designed in a time where the german army barely had any of them left It is estimated that the absolute majority of Tiger II losses were caused by intentional crew abandonment because they simply became immobile, as moving the tank from the station to the frontline would chug up most of its fuel.
The Sherman and T34 was less impressive, but that isn't a negative for a tank, because they were reliable, had fairly good defences, and were consistently upgunned to meet the needs of the battle. They got shit done. Germans build their tanks with the assumption they could leisurely tow them back to their factories. The Sovjets had no time for that and the US didn't find it logistically feasible to bring tanks back to Detroit, as such, their tanks were build with reliability and ease of repair in mind. And as any military leader can tell you: In war, reliable equipment beats efficient equipment every fucking time. The Germans would've done a lot better iterating on the PzIV and Tiger 1 onwards than wasting resources, engineering time and factory space on the Panther, Tiger II and the fucking Maus, of all things. But the party demanded new shinies and their sycophant engineers eagerly complied, pushing out unproven design after unproven design while abandoning things that had proven their worth throughout the war.
Furthermore, the London Blitz was specifically done due to the percieved effectiveness of terror bombardment, which the Germans had also employed against Rotterdam and was used when they assisted in the Spanish Civil war. Why didn't it extend past London?
Well, simple answer: logistics. Germany expected the UK to be scared into signing a peace treaty with them, but instead the UK turned it around for propaganda and began bleeding dry their airforce, which is why by the time D-Day happened, allied AA vehicles were used for anti-infantry operations; there simply weren't any german aircraft left for them. This is not to say that they didn't have plans to do so; they were hoping to develop intercontinental bombers to target New York with, and had some prototypes ready, but nothing ever manifested because they already had the US knockin on their door. That being said, to make up for their lack of bombing fleets, they just used far less precise Vengeance missiles instead, which had questionable accuracy (11km deviation from impact at their peak) at best and were therefor used exclusively for terror bombing.
As for Japan; m8, Japan did bombing raids out the ass. Not only did a bombing raid of what was by warlaws a civilian target start their war with the US, they carried out the terror bombing of Chongqing in their war with China, and they extensively bombed Australia during 1942. Why did they stop? Well, the US simply controlled too much of the airspace from that point onwards and again, they had bigger concerns.
The nuclear bombings would've also been a lot less costly for human life than a ground invasion of Japan would've been. As it is said; the US is still using purple hearts stamped in anticipation for the Japan mainland invasion. There is no good or bad in war, only the simple practical of victory or oblivion, and any rules we percieve it as having are only ever followed if one thinks they can afford to.
Please if you wish to engage in revisionist history do first get a adequate understanding of the history you are advising, instead of underqualified dipshits from the discovery channel hyping up the Axis forces to the point that explaining their loss requires several layers of irony.
I wish I could upvote this more
Idiot. Seriously stop talking.
Anticipated casualties of Operation Downfall (proposed invasion of mainland Japan) were over 1 million US servicemen. We won the nuclear arms race (with the help of German and Italian scientists) and used the bomb first to hopefully avoid that outcome. The second bomb was all Japan's doing after they refused to surrender following Hiroshima. And for the record, the incindiary bombing of Tokyo caused more death than your therapy-inducing atomic bombs did.
get help
And credibility just dropped even further.
btw..."you're" not "your"
Again, its the simple practical of war. You should read up on the matter, after Okinawa the US was incredibly weary regarding the prospect of invading the mainland, assuming that they would face an unprecedented degree of civilian resistance. Casualties were expected to be in the Western Front range; about 720000 casualties (dead and wounded) was the most positive estimate, however, with such a massive degree of civilian resistance, it could end up as high as 4 million with 800k dead soldiers. Civilian deaths would be estimated to top 5 million, as the only effective way to really quash such widespread civilian resistance is by basically just flattening every city you come across. To mitigate such damage there was open discussion of just wiping their asses with war laws and employing acid gas bombardments to clean out cities.
On top of that, it was already known to US intelligence that Japan had directives to execute all US POW's should the mainland be invaded, which were to be about 100000 at that point.
At the end of the day, the simple practical of war applies, and the only just war can be a swift war, for all war is an abomination, the prolonging of which is a crime against mankind. 100000 people were burned on the nuclear pyre to shock the nation into compliance. Its crude, it isn't a moral decision at all, but the human cost of throwing the bombs was but a fraction of that of an invasion, and most importantly, the cost would be wholly on the shoulders of the Japanese.
Pearl Harbor.
Are we remembering the Fall of the Cabal series as we write our posts, or is the emotion taking over? Remember the Cabal financed both sides and the longer wars lasted the more money they made.
Back to the roots!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MYHTpUW9KAXQ/ Watch this seven part series then the sequel to the fall of the cabal. 17 parts Both are long but well worth the time These helped me understand what is happening, why it is happening and the need for it to happen
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MYHTpUW9KAXQ/ Watch the first set the look up Sequel to the fall of the cabal. Both are good, both are long
England ...after the war… Went into Germany and dismantled all of their manufacturing plants and brought them over to the UK.
Add to that the Americans brought over all the German scientist they could in operation paperclip.
Bombing cities to destroy enemy factories, and their of means of production for their war machines is a central component of a specific military doctrine called "strategic warfare." It is a specific type of warfare doctrine adopted by various nations of the world- like the US, and Britain, and others, that dictate how warfare campaigns are prepared for, and military objectives are to be achieved prior (usually) to a war actually starting.
Warfare doctrines adopted by nations detail which types of war machines are to be built, recruitment requirements, types of training focuses for soldiers, resource priorities, and planning objectives, etc. Everything a nations military is expected to do during a war in order to win is detailed within the "master plan" of their respective warfare doctrines.
The "strategic warfare doctrine" calls for a focus on equipment, and planning needed to destroy enemy factories as a top priority to achieve the victory goals specified in the doctrine. Long range bombers capable of surviving deep incursions into enemy territory, and dropping enough bombs to obliterate factories, production targets, and logistical targets are essential for strategic warfare objectives.
Thus, at the start of the war the US and GB already had lots of these heavy bombers built, and ready to carry out missions according to strategic warfare doctrine objectives. Result- nazi cities got the shit bombed out them, and the nazis couldn't build their fancy high tech toys to continue terrorizing Europe after a few short years of experiencing what strategic warfare doctrine was capable of.
Conversely, the warfare doctrine adopted by the nazis was "blitzkrieg" or "lightning warfare" which required different types of war machines, objectives, and planning, and was focused on capturing large areas of territory as fast as possible, and gaining control of enemy factories, and production, rather than destroying those enemy assets. As a result, the nazis did not focus production on long range, heavy bombers, nor did they plan on needing to destroy enemy factories- because according to their blitzkrieg doctrine, they believed they could capture those assets with speed, and surprise instead.
Gotta destroy the old cultures and old cultural learning centers in order to bring about a new culture. That's why I KNOW we're in a for a real nasty physical fight with these asshats in yh near future. There's no way [they] finish finalizing the NWO without utterly destroying America like [they] did to Germany, Italy, and Japan.
The Allies destroyed more knowledge than Hitler's and Mussolini's book burning did, combined.
Ok, statistically that may or may not be true, my gut reaction was to say "pearl harbor has entered the chat" but then I remembered that the real sides in WW2 were the elites vs the innocent people of the world. and then at the end you did the whole "OMG teh JOOS" thing. knock it off.