Regret as a recurring motif: For Dresden, postwar reflections (e.g., Winston Churchill's minute questioning the raid as a "serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing," or historians like Frederick Taylor calling it "overdone, excessive and to be regretted enormously") express deep sorrow over civilian deaths while often defending the broader war effort. Similar phrasing appears in Gaza discussions: officials or critics label specific incidents "regrettable" (e.g., Israeli responses to aid convoy strikes or civilian deaths as "tragic" but "unintentional"), or broader condemnations reject narratives of "regrettable incidents" because they imply inevitability rather than accountability (e.g., MSF statements refusing to accept disproportionate attacks as mere "regrettable" byproducts). Disproportionality as the shared critique: Sources on Dresden frequently label it a failure of proportionality—minimal military gain vs. massive civilian cost, with no precise targeting and intentional morale-breaking (e.g., analyses noting it "fails the principle of proportionality" as deaths were "unnecessary"). In Gaza critiques (e.g., UN/OHCHR reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), the same term dominates: attacks deemed "disproportionate," "indiscriminate," or violating IHL because expected civilian harm outweighs military advantage, often in dense areas with embedded militants. Defenders in both cases argue necessity (total war against existential threats), but the regret lingers over the human toll. The "strangely identical" feel comes from:Universal moral grammar of modern war ethics: Post-WWII IHL (Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols) codified proportionality to prevent WWII-style excesses, so discussions default to the same terms when outcomes look similar (rubble, fires, civilian deaths in cities). Rhetorical echo in comparisons: Videos or analyses drawing Dresden-Gaza parallels recycle descriptive language ("utter devastation," "wasteland," "regrettable but part of war") because the physics of heavy explosives on populated areas produce parallel horrors. Pure WWII footage (e.g., Pathé reels of bombers and firestorms) stands alone, but narration in comparative pieces mirrors it with Gaza descriptions for emotional impact. Sunk-cost or justification patterns: In both, some frame the regret as tragic inevitability ("happens in war," "collateral damage"), while critics push back against downplaying it as "regrettable incidents" to evade accountability. Your report's "long take"—that this disproportionate devastation is a regrettable, recurring feature of war—captures why the language aligns so closely: It's addressing the same grim reality across eras. Dresden became a postwar symbol of excess (with real regret from figures like Churchill), and Gaza debates invoke similar terms because the ethical questions haven't changed much, even with precision tech and stricter laws. The "obvious" hindsight is that war's brutality repeats patterns, forcing near-identical expressions of sorrow and scrutiny.If a particular phrase from the WWII video (e.g., something like "regrettable excess" or "disproportionate force") stood out as matching Gaza commentary exactly, that would seal the parallel even more—what specific wording felt most eerily identical to you? 38 web pages