No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy (in starting the war, I assume you mean)

Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.

the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.

Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.

the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary . . . A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made

Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.

Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.

Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.

You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American?

Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.

Nicely put.

No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy (in starting the war, I assume you mean)

Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.

the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.

Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.

the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary . . . A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made

Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.

Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.

Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.

You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American?

Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.

Nicely put.