Fury And The Flames - Operation Thunderclap: The Blitz On Dresden - Full Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Fury And The Flames - Operation Thunderclap: The Blitz On Dresden
The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, during World War II. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed more than 1,600 acres of the city centre. An estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people were killed. Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on 2 March aimed at the city's railway marshalling yard and one smaller raid on 17 April aimed at industrial areas.
Please subscribe to the Documentary Base UA-cam Channel: / @documentarybase
#Fury&TheFlames #WW2 #Dresden
The background music made the narration hard for me to hear. What a pity. It looks like a great documentary.
I lived in Dresden for years and loved it. However, when people make the argument about the Allies unnecessarily bombing Dresden, I always remind them of Germans bombing Guernica in Spanish Civil War 1937, Warsaw 1939, Coventry, London, etc etc...
All of that was peanuts compared to Dresden. 500 died at Coventry. More people died at Dresden than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
And, of course, there was also the Holocaust. I believe the Allies knew about what was happening, at least to some extent, by 1943. Of course that was people in the governments, not the civilians. The leaders knew, and knew it had to be stopped. Dresden also wasn't only the people we saw in the documentary, and others like them. There was a major railroad junction there, communications, and industry supporting the war. One other objective of the bombing was to slow the movement of German troops from the West to the East, which the Soviets had requested due to their heavy losses being sustained as they approached Silesia.
This isn't to say whether it was right or wrong, justified or indefensible. These are, however, part of the facts people need to weigh when considering what they think. Also, the debate over Dresden was much inflated at the time, and shortly after, due to Josef Goebbels. In response to the bombing, he made outrageous claims about the bombing, starting with stating that 200,000 people had been killed there. His propaganda went into overdrive regarding Dresden, and fueled a lot of the debates people are still having today.
@@butchoharechicago6657 The SS, who were responsible for collecting, counting, burying and burning the victim's bodies at Dresden determined between 23,000 and 25,000 died during the raid. A *minimum* of 70,000 died at Hiroshima alone.
The SS would have no interest in under reporting the numbers when they can be used for propaganda purposes.
@@butchoharechicago6657 Is the reason you're pissed off the fact that the British did a better job bombing Dresden than the Nazis did bombing London?
you must be from Poland
Please subscribe to the Documentary Base UA-cam Channel: ua-cam.com/channels/X1v-zaMxcg4OAaLs7GAT8g.html
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
When you sow the wind.........you can expect to reap the whirlwind
☹️🏴🇬🇧
do you waNT TOTAL WAR;.? THEY SCREAMED YES
Quite! 🇬🇧👏
Does your "screaming" also count for the wars started by the USA or The British Empire?
OR ARE YOU PARTIAL, AND DON'T REALLY GIVE A SH*T?
There is no possible justification for the deliberate targeting of civilian, residential, medical, historical or cultural centers, shortening the war or affecting civilian morale cannot be used to allow the total disregard of established regulations such as: all military operations must target enemy military or related industrial installations and civilian casualties must be considered and kept to a minimum. And if no such rules exist, humanitarian law will be used to regulate the conduct of war along ethical lines. Unfortunately, the allies forgot those basic principles and committed the most unjustifiable and cruel war crime in human history. Bomber Harris:
"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 on 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 "Bomber" Harris, Commander in Chief, Bomber Command, 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.
Another promising documentary program spoiled by the narration competing with the background music, so annoying, and as a result, unwatchable.
Nice video ...are allies using new bombs ( burning white phosphorus ) ?
Never understood how the English took German rule so easily.
I die a lot, I'm happy, only I live a little bit, your people, you are this.
incredible what the people of Germany lived thru and amazing how German stamina rebuilt after such devastation.War,so terrible,may we all learn from the past.Thank you for this enlightening documentary.
andreas schonfelder the nazi bastards got exactly what they deserved after starting the war and committing numerous atrocities
Germany had LOTS of help from the United States to rebuild.
I think it's fair to say that the people of Europe went through a whole lot during World War II. The Poles, the Soviets, the Dutch, the Czechs, Yugoslavians, Hungarians, Norwegians, the whole continent suffered so much because of that war. The American homefront didn't, but its military sure did, too. We can't forget what happened throughout Asia, too. Beginning in 1937, (or 1931 depending on whose view it is) the Chinese were absolutely battered by the Japanese, who ended up getting battered by the Americans. The Americans did, though, contribute a whole lot to the rebuilding efforts, and helping the afflicted societies get back to some kind of normal life. The Japanese had brutalized their way through all of the territory they attacked and put under their stark, unfeeling, violent control. Even Switzerland and Spain weren't exempt from repercussions of the war, despite neutrality and/or non-belligerent status.
There are also the citizens of Africa who were killed in a war of two (to start) European countries fighting over the land that was the African's homeland, begun by Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia, now called Ethiopia. People tend to not think about the citizens and soldiers of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Ethiopia, Madagascar, South Africa, and every other African country, which were all involved in or affected by the war some way, but mostly go unacknowledged in our histories.
Today, we see nearly the same kind of thing going on in Ukraine, with Russia's unprovoked and vicious violence. The Ukrainians are, once again, suffering from a state of war they didn't initiate, but was started by a another warlord in much the same way the European part of World War II was started by Hitler. The amazing, and hopefully helpful, difference this time is that the rest of the world didn't try to appease him or wait around doing nothing.
@@philipwebb960 You mean the United States TAXPAYERS, don't you?
@@paigetomkinson1137 Italy did not "start" imperialism.
Imperialism is based on the policy of "divide and rule", which has survived into the present.
Possibly one of the first documented cases of an individual trying to overcome the divide and rule system of a stronger power (Rome) was Jesus Christ, trying to build up a "bottom up" movement in an effort to try to overcome the top down strategy of divide and rule by the Roman Empire.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
*It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".*
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is *favoratism:* it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. *Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies.* Therefore *you* as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
*The favorite = the proxy.*
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
*All that is needed is a position of superior power.*
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
*It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.*
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
*The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.*
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
*"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.*
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit *you* (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
*** *only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...*
When the Nazis convinced themselves that bombing non-military targets and killing non-combatants was legitimate the allies did the same. The entire evil enterprize culminated in the single largest event of murder in history with the drop of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Truman spent the rest of his life trying to justify himself.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
*Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...*
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
*Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".*
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
*Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.*
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
*No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.*
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
*All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries*
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Gee, you wrote all that and no one read it.
@@perniciouspete4986 Thanks for reading...
@@ralphbernhard1757 I didn't.
Arthur Harris, another Great Briton. 👏🇬🇧☘️
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks off the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existence, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident - two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive - this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
*The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.*
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
The cool thing about invisible power is one can create cool things with, like democracy and other systems, protected by constitutions, and then swim in it like a fish in the sea, driving multiple tier policies, which then ensures the survival of the perpetual motion system, of divide and rule...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Kl.
@@DaveSCameron Not nearly as cool as "what really happened"...
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, *events* don't lie, steal, or kill.
*Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...*
London lords thought they could "divide and rule" over their continental neighbors, and ended up getting screwed over by Washington DC, who saw "London" as nothing else but "markets".
*As London played divide and rule with the continental powers, Washington DC played divide and rule with Europe, which from their perspective simply included London and the British Empire.*
"You have sown the wind, and now you will reap the whirlwind". "Bomber Harris"
Sir Arthur *"sow fire, reap the end of Empire" Harris,* knocking nails into the coffin of his own empire...