Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

  1. Something like 42% of voters wanted to make Germany great again, and a leader who put Germany first. Any questions?
    46
  2. Excellent programme. Great look at an interesting part of the history of WW2.
    38
  3. Reynolds is a fantastic historian. One of the best.
    32
  4. For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness... What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime. With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance. Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire. After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world. After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC. From the complete Yes Minister: "Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see." How funny.... So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime. Down they went. Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
    19
  5. Just like the current war in the Ukraine, WW1 was probably the easiest war to avoid ever.
    18
  6. Why so little mention of Josef "destroy the west" Stalin? "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Stalin 19th August 1939
    10
  7. 24th August 1939 Stalin, "the enabler" rolled out the red carpet...
    10
  8. You're actually not far off with that :-) Because we're all human (well, more or less), the "micro level" (workplace, neighborhood, family) is remarkably similar to the "macro level" (nations, states, alliances).
    8
  9. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    6
  10. That a false equivalency. Most protesters are peaceful. You are conflating 2 different things (criminals/agitators wishing to exploit a situation, and those peacefully protesting as is their 1st Amendment right). You do so because you have no sympathy for their cause (police violence), and because you and your family/friends are not a victim of police violence. Correct?
    5
  11. GB could not have "lost" the Battle of Britain, because they had a geographical advantage. The LW didn't have the right planes, nor enough of the wrong ones. Didn't have the "right planes" = long range air superiority fighters which could cover all of the British Isles. Not enough of the "wrong planes" = not nearly enough short range aircraft to keep up an indefinite local air superiority of a supposed invasion area. Even if the LW had proved itself individually superior in late-1940, Dowding would have simply withdrawn the RAF squadrons north of London, into the depths of the land, and there would have been nothing the LW could have done about it. Sure. SE England would in that case have been bombed flat as a pancake, but any German attempt at invasion to try and exploit a temporary air superiority, would have failed as soon as the RAF returned. In fact, a sort of mini version of "Why did Barbarossa fail".
    5
  12. This documentary has too much whining. They made their own bed at Versailles... Now, they had to sleep in it. As they sowed, so they shall reap.
    5
  13. Bombing German factories was counterproductive in 2 main ways. 1) German "factories" was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials. 2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism. GB, and Empire was seen as a rival, and was "cut down to size". London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war. Economic warfare is an old established method. "At the end of the war, 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] So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under... So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets. And that's how "leverage" works. Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?" Sad reality? There was nothing London could do about it. Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
    5
  14. What is the slogan of the Hamburger and Pommes eaters? A: Mein Mampf What is the slogan of the the Climate Change deniers who what to return to burning coal for energy? A: Mein Dampf What is the slogan of the fitness freaks? A: Mein Krampf Oh, never mind...lol
    4
  15. Before WW1, Belgium was both a strategic barrier, as well as a strategic gateway, depending on how a potential continental European war developed. The "gatekeepers" sat in London. In case the European Balance of Power was threatened by Germany (as happened), the propaganda machine would term Belgians as "poor Belgians". In case of another "Napoleon", and the scenario of the European Balance of Power threatened by France, the gateway that was Belgium would open. In that case, the propaganda machine in GB would term Belgians as "evil Belgians", who were simply "reaping what they had sown in The Kongo"... Poor "Jack the Plumber", sitting in the pub, quietly drinking his ale: oblivious to what the London lords were up to behind closed doors...
    4
  16. I would have reminded French leaders of the role their own leaders played in escalating the July Crisis. [From wiki] "In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]" Viola....a French "blank cheque"? [Continued] "In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]" Me: So much for the "we just want peace"- version of events. [Continued] "Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]" Bearing false witness?
    4
  17. Yup, it is about time to remind our dimwitted leaders....
    4
  18. “Peace does not demand winners or losers, but rather brothers and sisters who, for all the misunderstandings and hurts of the past, are journeying from conflict to unity” Pope Francis They went to Versailles to divide, not unite. They would "reap" what they sowed later.
    4
  19. Versailles had no real winners. Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come.... There were only short term winners. In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great) For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone. Or, so the plan... British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"... To counter that, they created policies for the continent... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power ...and/or followed their instincts... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"... [Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)] Anyway. Versailles. Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability. Two, were not invited..... Two were dissed... And many were standing on the outside, hoping for a better world.... Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
    4
  20. The winners/losers of wars are not "decided on the battlefields". The "winners/losers" are decided by boring men in suites, in boring back rooms, making "deals". You end up with no leverage? You lose. Simple as that.
    3
  21.  @sgonzo5572  Correct. All the major European states who voluntarily involved themselves in what later became "the Great War" or "WW1" could also have stopped it from happening. So all European leaders are pretty much in the same boat, as far as "not avoiding WW1" is concerned. Unlike WW2 (Franco-British-Polish defense treaty) there were no binding defense pacts before WW1.
    3
  22.  @BoffinGrusky  Correct. French leaders were dumb as a pile of bricks concerning geopolitics and geostrategy. ...because after the "won" WW1, it was the USA and GB which divided the "rule of the world" amongst themselves. According to Mahan, those who rule the oceans, rule the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan France finished WW1 with a mighty army, but was not granted the "rule" of the World Island with this army (see Heartland Theory). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History Unattainable for the French economy anyway, since according to one historian France had a "giant appetite, but had rotten teeth" (meaning that the willpower of their elites to rule and dominate was not matched by the economy or political landscape which was a shambles after WW1). In other words, London had the "leverage" to control the destiny of the French Empire (naval power), but in return France did not have the leverage to control the destiny of the British Empire (land forces). A bad deal, in my books... France relinquished it's position as a first class naval power in return for "a deal" to dominate or share a few regions (Balkans, ME , Central Europe), but not the geostrategically vital Heartland (aka the "pivot" of Eurasia from which the destruction/dismantling of the British Empire by land forces was possible). According to London, if London could not rule this herself, or by proxy, it would be divided or "balanced " amongst several rivals. France allied herself to another power which could simply hop across the channel if a war didn't turn out as expected...
    3
  23.  @taylorlibby7642  As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire.... First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire. British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to. British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB, and could have stated their conditions for British neutrality (for example, but not limited to: no German navy actions in the Channel, no occupation of French Channel ports, respect of neutrality declarations, no expansion of the war to the colonies, respect of freedom of the seas, etc.) In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war. According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli. Correct? Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli... Also correct? Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that. Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation). Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time. That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext. British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to. Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
    3
  24.  @giuseppenero110  WW1 was a war of choice for all nations involved. Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium. There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame. Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was. The original intent was to rectify the imbalance of power with a new alliance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance Pre-WW1 Russia used (or rather misused) the new ambitious Balkan state Serbia as a strategic barrier, to avoid such an alliance between Berlin and Constantinople becoming effective (by disrupting river and rail connections). Of course the existing alliance system was lopsided. As soon as London joined Paris/St Petersburg, the Central Powers were at a strategic disadvantage. An alliance between Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, and Constantinople would have rectified the existing imbalance, making a war of aggression by Paris and St Petersburg on the Central Powers less likely.
    3
  25.  @mns8732  Apart from the above, "Versailles" (and the various other treaties like St Germaine, or Trianon) was about faaaaar more than merely Germany. It was an NWO which drew "lines on the map" and "carved up power", leaving millions on the wrong sides of borders. Typical "divide and rule" tactics. Just enough stability to give peace a chance at the best of times, just enough hatred and division to avoid unity.
    3
  26.  @baahcusegamer4530  Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine". Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions. At the time it was the Balkans. Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic. Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time. The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality. Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness. That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness. Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy). There were two others. Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires. The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest. Easily explained empire 101... Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves. Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance. Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism"). And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism): Russia today. Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right? Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh? Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore? Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm? Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door. Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right? What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started. Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore... Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad... Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends": Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest). Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary. The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure... Anyway. What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm? Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled? Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement". Not so nice, eh? (Google "hypocrisy") The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot. Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
    3
  27. Very funny. But also sadly true, and Stalin knew it. Churchill was a terrible grand strategists. February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production). A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, resources, skilled workers for the Gulags, not to mention new 100 million commie slaves in Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much...so kind of you", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half. Also very funny.
    2
  28. There are no more "massive lost treasures" anywhere in the world. Sad reality in the "dog-eat-dog" world is that there is no such thing as a "secret". The minute two people know, there is no secret. This, and other "lost treasures" have most likely (in case they even exist) been betrayed in return for something else, and then "carved up" amongst the "finders keepers"-types, and looters.
    2
  29.  pammens miss  Calm down. Take your meds....
    2
  30.  @TheMattTrakker  Correct. Which is why I prefer a scientific approach (facts, analysis) to history. The entire "left" vs "right" approach is just politicizing history in order to pander to the "fluffy feelings" of the observers...
    2
  31. How can GB claim to be the "guarantor of peace" in Europe on one side... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica ...whilst on the other secretly chose sides in a contradictory policy? https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power Or, openly pat ones own back as a "peacekeeper", but secretly contradict that mission with a secret backroom policy, made by a few lords, which is aimed at the continent's strongest power, irrelevant of "right or wrong"? That's duplicitous and hypocritical in my books. Sorry London. No "goody two shoes for you"...
    2
  32. Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad". That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be controlled or balanced out. Right or wrong? Not really relevant...according to these leaders. Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations... It says nothing about bad leaders. https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power There was only one consideration. To uphold a balance. Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers. All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia. London refused. After unification and industrialisation, Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it". It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
    2
  33. GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). And so "poor little Belgium" was born. Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-) "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
    2
  34. More like the "13 miles" (of the English Channel) which saved GB in the summer of 1940.
    2
  35.  @indy_go_blue6048  Wilhelm did not talk about "how to win a war" with Ferdinand.
    2
  36. Churchill was a terrible grand strategists. February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production). A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts: The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)... Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War. Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
    2
  37.  @taylorlibby7642  GB started both world wars (by declaration) in order to protect the British Empire. You'd have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time. WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1. Why would you say WW1 was necessary?
    2
  38.  Ivan Karaschuk  Yup. Good ol' balancing powers game... GB didn't join "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies". https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent. It was British leaders making free choice, which had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do. The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...because it greatly contributed to the decline of Empire itself.
    2
  39.  @BoffinGrusky  Thank you, but IMHO it's kinda pointless. Mostly because, just like today, people would have to admit own mistakes. Of course, just like today "looking for splinters in the own eyes" isn't a priority. Blaming others, and finger pointing elsewhere as a distraction from own faults is human nature. Human beings recognized how destructive this is more than 2,000 years ago, yet even today...human beings can't manage not destroying themselves. I wrote another little "tongue in cheek"-essay at the top of the video, about how Europe lost its position as the dominant powers in the world due to 2 "world wars" which might interest you. Rgds
    2
  40.  @taylorlibby7642  Belgium had no responsibility for the war. It was a victim of Imperialism. Belgium was established as a geostratic barrier, by family members from the aristocracy from the top down, in an effort to stop wars. Nobody asked the people what they wanted at the time, or any time after that for that matter. Unlike countries created from the bottom up, like Switzerland, these "top down" decisions tend to be "unhappy" as nations... https://youtu.be/4go1RXOBF0s [Dutch comedy] It was once created to protect Central Europe from France. By 1914, that intention had morphed, and now France stood "behind Belgium", throwing pebbles at Berlin in attempts at antagonizing its rival.
    2
  41.  @taylorlibby7642   Many people look back at history, and "filter" the information with a current "lens", which distorts reality. Facts: Declarations of war back then were official state acts. By declaring war, a state (obviously) makes it clear that it would fight. Declarations of neutrality were also official state acts. By declaring neutrality, a state officially declares that it wants no part in a dispute. Omitting an official declaration of neutrality, a state signals that it would fight. By refusing to stay neutral, after being asked for "a deal", a state clearly states that it would involve itself (this was the case). The facts are: 1) Russian mobilization ended the diplomatic series of events and started the military reality. With Russian mobilization, diplomacy concerning the Balkan Crisis was finished. Unbeknownst to Berlin, Paris and St. Petersburg had already coluded deciding this during a visit by Poincare in July 1914. No sooner was he on a boat back to Paris, than Russia mobilized. An act of war... 2) After that, France refused neutrality. By refusing neutrality, like Italy initially did, France stated clearly that it would attack Germany (Plan XVII). 3) GB also refused neutrality. By refusing neutrality, GB stated clearly that it would join at some later point, irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not. With only 2 enemies, German leaders would have opted for their shelved "Aufmarschplan II" and there would have been no invasion of Belgium. London declared war in order to "Balance the Power". https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power Note: neither France nor GB were faced by a real and imminent danger, and could simply have avoided war, by declaring their neutrality. Neither Italy, France or GB were in a position of danger or threat, and could have chosen/opted out of the war if they had wanted to by declaration of neutrality. Only Italy chose this option. In diplomatic terms that meant that by chosing not to stay neutral, these 2 states signaled that they would fight. Note also, that by official treaty obligations, neither France nor GB was obliged to "stand by" Russia, which had chosen to mobilize without having a defense pact with Serbia.
    2
  42.  @Argozification  Deflection... "Belgium" was the child that had to be pushed into water first, in order to "save it" and be a hero... Omission bias: The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions). [Wiki] So, of course "invading Belgium" (Germany) is seen as worse as not saving it (France and Great Britain) by declaring neutrality. Note, a conditional declaration of neutrality, guarding own interests, was an option at all times... A bias, and it's easy to mislead people. GB didn't have a defense pact or treaty with Belgium. British leaders signed the same treaty with Belgium that Dutch leaders signed in 1839. The keen observer of history notices that the Netherlands didn't declare war in 1914, because (of course) it wasn't a defense pact. Simple... Because most people are not biased, and can make up their own minds if the "lying by omission"-side would simply state all the facts.
    2
  43.  @davidbocquelet-dbodesign  Revenge is an emotion. It's always the same people who are fooled by "appeals to emotions" which is a logical fallacy...the snowflakes :-) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion For elites, the real reasoning behind all this is geostrategy, power, influence, and it's all about who collects the taxes, controls the raw materials, and who controls the Rhine...
    2
  44. The political spectrum has 4 axis, not only 2. Only those who wish to oversimplify things, would ever state "2 axis". Far right authoritarianism is called "Fascism", whilst far left authoritarianism is called "Communism" and variations like Stalinism, Maoism, etc. "Lazy" is pointing out the similarities, whilst ignoring the big differences for example concerning private property, tolerating religion, land ownership (farms), etc., etc.
    2
  45.  @andrewfusco8580  The far-left (Communism) advocates a collective system, without private ownership at all. Everything is collectivism. Factories, farms, housing... no private property at all (apart from small individual objects). Conclusion: capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive. The "enemies" of the typical far-left are symbols of domination, like banks, super rich, capitalists, status symbols like cars, etc. Fascism (far-right) doesn't do the above. Private property is not frowned upon. Conclusion: capitalism and fascism is not mutually exclusive. The "enemies" of the far-right are usually individuals or other ideologies which opposes own domination (like communists).
    2
  46.  @pauldavies5611  Yes, racism played a large role. It happened because "overhumans" thought they were better than "underhumans" and that the so-called "underhumans" should not be allowed to rule themselves. Too bad. That attitude problem eventually caught up with London, and they lost their Empire. Of course, the elite club of London lords could have simply recognized the signs of changing times, and started a timely process of turning their Empire into a Pound block of equals of sorts. Too bad. They didn't. So they stiff-upper-lipped themselves into extinction...
    2
  47. Strange how these "creation stories" are all so similar. In on it's dove sent out coming back with a leaf. In the other it's a mammel, coming back with mud...
    2
  48. A solution for the Ukraine already existed in 1917/18 and the British and French intention was to torpedo the peace achieved after Brest-Litovsk, for the millions of people living here. The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states. Unfortunately for these millions, the "spheres of influence"-schemers on the "good guy"-side had other plans for the inhabitants. "On December 23, 1917, the day after the first session of the preliminary Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, representatives of Great Britain and France met in Paris and secretly concluded an agreement to dismember Soviet Russia. The agreement was entitled L’Accord Français-Anglais du 23 Décembre, 1917, définissant les zones d’action françaises et anglaises. According to its terms, England was to receive a “zone of influence” in Russia, giving her the oil of the Caucasus and control of the Baltic provinces; France a “zone” giving her the iron and coal of the Donets Basin and control of the Crimea. This secret Anglo-French treaty inevitably shaped the policy these two nations were to pursue towards Russia throughout the next several years." THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA BY MICHAEL SAYERS AND ALBERT E. KAHN "Churchill’s take on the Ukraine, specifically, is fascinating and echoes instructively. “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told the House of Commons in a speech on March 26. [1919]" churchillstyle dot com The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the ex-Eastern Front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self-centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others. Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property. The hordes of "Reds" obviously profitted from the "power vacuum" which the forced removal of German soldiers had resulted in, and they covered an already largely pacified region of the world with "rivers of blood". The Ukraine could have already been independent after 1918. All it would have needed was a deal and a signature. We should stop pretending that our leaders care about people. Neither today, nor in the past. Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'. There was no real difference between any of them. They sit in their cosy offices, behind impressive desks drawing their "green lines" on the maps without consulting those who actually live there. Oh, what a "burden" for these "white men". Just remember: If you (personally) don't live in a region of interest to such "gentlemen", you'll be written off with a warm-hearted "thought and prayer" the minute a crisis or war starts. Just a "thought" and "a prayer", but not much else...
    2
  49. The similarities of the events following both Deyer's Amritsar massacre and the USA's Lt Calley (Mei Lei Massacre/Vietnam) are striking, as indeed all European and US atrocities met with massive apologia on the "home front" of the perpetrators. Calley was sentenced, but received a Presidential pardon, after large scale protests of his trial, and all the murderers escaped justice. In both cases "living with shame" seemed to have been the only "punishment" for being responsible for the murder of hundreds of civilians.
    2
  50. Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..." Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet. In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire. The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false. At the time, the issue was mainly China. Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc. It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option. Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure"). The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today. In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles. According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..." True. The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races. Machiavelli... What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding? "And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505 Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of... Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals". They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals". The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes. Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire). "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire". The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure. Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad". You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ". You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid". You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
    2
  51. Far worse. Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists). Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it." Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place... In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies. Recipe for success? Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright. And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die? Stalin. "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Stalin 19th August 1939 Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars... No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling. He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
    1
  52.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  Sorry buddy. Italians were "first"...
    1
  53.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  The criteria you chose was the first to use bombs dropped from a plane (or airship). That was Italy. Unless you wish to start "criteria hopping" to "how big the bombs", or "how modern the planes", or "only a few victims doesn't count", then "first" is the criteria. That was Italy, starting 1911/12 in Libya against the Ottoman Empire. It can be easily Googled.
    1
  54.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I didn't create the criteria. You did.
    1
  55.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  Yes, an explosive device dropped on tents in 1911 would constitute an act of terror.
    1
  56.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  British "historian" logic: iF iTalY haD nukEs bacK thEn thEy woudA useD tHem... Me: ROTFL
    1
  57. Nothing's as profitable as building stuff at the taxpayers expense, intended to be blown up/destroyed...
    1
  58.  @indy_go_blue6048  GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). And so "poor little Belgium" was born. Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-) "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
    1
  59. True. Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works. 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 protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"... London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? 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] Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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. Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
    1
  60. Awwww...how brave. Mowing down people protecting their own homelands. But, hey...I guess we gotta be grateful, if not "the whoooole world would be speaking Zulu today" 😂🤣
    1
  61.  @WoollyWanderers  Spot the imperialist, defending "his" particular flavor of imperialism. Please DO explain, how imperialists and killers born in Glasgow, London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Hull, Southampton, Dover, etc. BELONGED in Africa?
    1
  62.  @philipmcdonagh1094  True, but plenty of that simply ended up at the bottom of the oceans in wrecks (storms or wars), or ended up in the private vaults of individuals who are not accountable for their "stashes" (unlike states who must comply to laws and state their national reserves). Who knows how much gold changes hands constantly in small amounts "off the record" in private? Millions of transactions combine to form massive amounts which are off the radar of controllers.
    1
  63. Why "leftwing"? Do you prefer "right wing" documentaries?
    1
  64. Wow. All the "losers" of WW1, and the "dissed gf's" of the so-called "Allied side" ending up in the same boat 20 years later. ROTFL See what happens if one follows dumb leaders, with agendas of "wanting to rule the world". That was The American Century, vs. the British Empire. Sorry Empire. You screwed up the peace, meaning you'd lose the "empire" you fought for 20 years later....
    1
  65. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    1
  66. Awwww...how sweet. Did he get his balls blown off? 🤣😂
    1
  67. You mean "yak milk" 😂😂😂👍
    1
  68. Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). And so "poor little Belgium" was born. Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-) "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
    1
  69.  Simon McCreath  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. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... 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 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still more than 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." 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 "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: '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." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? It does not matter. 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 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line. What could possibly go wrong? I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave... 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke 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 Empire. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old 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. Pitty BBC never told you...
    1
  70. Before "bad military leadership", there is always bad political leadership.
    1
  71. Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works. 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 protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"... London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? 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] Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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. Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
    1
  72.  @shanemedlin9400  Ah...the "they would have done"-excuse for own immoral actions....
    1
  73.  @shanemedlin9400  Brest-Litovsk, either directly (Ukraine) or indirectly (Finland, Baltic States, the entire Caucasus) gave the peoples of the Russian Empire their first hope of independence. It was the weakness of St.Petersburg, later Moscow, which gave the people here the incentive to call out own independent countries, without Moscow dominating and imposing their rule (which they had often done through excessive force). What was wrong with that?
    1
  74.  @MaladjustedLabel  "Satellite states" like the happy Irish, or absolutely enchanted Indians, etc. in a "pound block" called Empire? Sure. Why not?
    1
  75. Oh the "good friends" Winnie made... On one side, Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... And the other "good friends"? The cute "uncle Joe"? Stalin figured out that Washington DC (US Senate and Congress) wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?" And down went GB and her interests, and empire. From unmistakable nr.1 in the year 1900, down to third fiddle in less than a lifetime.
    1
  76. So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "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. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Never a "price tag" for own actions... Right? WRONG Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. What could possibly go wrong? "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] A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire". US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends". Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"... And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hopped into extinction.
    1
  77. They should have left Manchuria in Japanese hands, and offered a conditional surrender to Tokyo. Condition: US or western troops occupy Manchuria (with Japanese soldiers as auxiliaries) until a fair democratic process had decided on the future of Manchuria. Outcome? A new bulwark against communism = fifty million less commies to worry about.
    1
  78. @Mars Attacks I agree. The OP is completely naive. "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War Thousand year old wisdom, ignored. So we "sowed", and we "reaped" 50 years of Cold War. China, Korea, Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of body bags of "own boys". Billions wasted in proxy wars. Lives ruined. Right through to today. Two Koreas. Taiwan as "disputed" territories...costing billions to defend...
    1
  79. The Big Three at Versailles. There used to be a "Big 4" but Italy was sent scurrying home because her demands wouldn't be addressed... So how did Versailles go from the Fontainebleau Memorandum (aka "good intentions" for a lasting peace) to a 400+ paragraph disaster treaty with a "blaming losers"-mentality? Easy. For a divided Europe (to be ruled over) to function, Paris had a list of demands and a Sword of Damocles (aka "the silent threat"). If her demands weren't met, she could simply walk out too, just like Italy did. Italy wasn't a "weight" on the scale of things important enough, but France was. If France walked out, a remaining "Big Two" would have had little influence to steer events, especially if Paris threatened to conclude a separate peace with Germany (something which they should have done anyway). France had to be "kept in the boat" in order to ensure a divided continent, so the concessions from the other "Big Two" were rolling...and the stage set for disaster.
    1
  80. Even worse. Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists). Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it." Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place... In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies. Recipe for success? Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright. And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die? Stalin. "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Stalin 19th August 1939 Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars... No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling. He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
    1
  81. Very interesting. But that does not mitigate what the buyers, the arms profiteers who sold weapons in Africa, the traders, those transporting, or keeping slaves like animals, or traded them like cattle, did to other human beings.
    1
  82.  Pete is never wrong  She's actually got a point :-) If you can accept that religion (any religion) is nothing else but ideology, in other words a tool which can be used to pull a tidal wave of human beings for a "cause", then all those "believers" have certainly played a role in history...
    1
  83.  Pete is never wrong  First hippie on a mule, pot smoking and preaching the Buddhist philosophy he had learned during a South East Asia trip... It's true. I saw it on TV :-)
    1
  84.  @AnRAY5050  One day, Ann, you'll wake up and realize that all you need to be human is the Golden Rule. You might know it as the Biblical "do onto others as you wish for yourself"...
    1
  85. Of all the M-A-I-N causes for WW1, three were basically a given factor, while only one could have been politically changed, to avoid the potential scenario of "a great (European) war". Militarism and imperialism were deep-seated traditional "values" (lol) at the time, and along with the rather new appearance of nationalism, were deeply entrenched beliefs, shared by a large percentage of the populations of all European states. That was unchangeable. The alliance system was however flexible. It could, and should have been changed. Furthermore, few of the the leaders wanted to accept that colonialism/imperialism was an outdated model, that would have needed to be deeply reformed in a changing world, with the changing realities at the time. Instead of changing, they steamed full speed ahead, like the Titanic in a region of icebergs, tempting disaster, over confident of their own superiority.
    1
  86. 1:00 The Millennium Falcon. 🙂
    1
  87. Versailles had no real winners. Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come.... There were only short term winners. In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great) For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone. Or, so the plan... British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"... To counter that, they created policies for the continent... [Google: britannia/balance-of-power] Do you want to know the real reason why there was so much war and hatred in Central Europe? It was because the British feared ONLY for the British Empire, and therefore proposed "balancing" the power in Europe. That way, the people of Central Europe would be busy squabling with each other, and their Empire would be safe. As long as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Russia were enemies, there was less danger to the British Empire. The strategy of dividing potential opposition, is known as "divide and rule". The British also used this method in their colonies. They would get the people in their colonies to fight each other, and then it would be easier to rule with less soldiers. [Google: Divide_and_rule] The British used human beings as "tools" for "balancing" Russia and Germany, and when it failed they did nothing for Czechoslovakia and Poland. In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"... [Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)] Anyway. Versailles. Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability. Two, were not invited..... Two were dissed... One went home cross the ocean to face ridicule... And many were standing at the door, hoping for a better world.... Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
    1
  88.  @bolivar2153  Look at your own reply to Unitedsoul. On July 28th....there was no "world" war. There was a 3rd Balkan War As long as nobody else involved themselves voluntarily (i.e. no treaty obligations) it would remain so. On August 1st...there was no "world" war. On August 3rd...there was no "world" war. Only a "Continental European War". As long as nobody else involved themselves voluntarily (i.e. no treaty obligations) it would remain so.
    1
  89.  @bolivar2153  Belgium was a geostrategic barrier, same as Serbia, and misused as such by great powers (aka imperialism). When were the people who lived here ever asked whether they agreed to this imposed status? Unlike the previous "Concert of Europe" in 1815, there wasn't even any agreement amongst the elites, and no "democratically" reached consensus amongst the elites.
    1
  90.  @bolivar2153  The "child pushed into the water" is not an emotional argument, it is an allegory which perfectly represents what happened. Would London have stayed out of the Continental European War, if Germany had not invaded Belgium?
    1
  91.  @bolivar2153  As long as you deflect with "apples and oranges"-style comparisons, debating you is pointless. When London told Berlin about their position about Belgium, the geopolitical situation was entirely different. GB and Russia were enemies, fighting in Asia ("the Great Game"), and GB and France were intense rivals (Imperialism). Germany and GB (Empire) had no serious squabbles. Germany "taking care of France", and teaching her "a lesson" could therefore be interpreted as favorable to London. Little did Berlin know that they were already the "enemy as a default setting" https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong".
    1
  92.  @bolivar2153  Again "apples and oranges". The geopolitical situation was completely different. Belgium was created to save Central Europe from France. According to London, Paris "was the enemy by default". There was no "Germany" yet. London played "divide and rule" with the continent, and after WW2 that attitude (reached own choice, not decided on "in concert") came back to bite you... Again. In 1914. Would GB have remained neutral if Germany had not invaded Belgium?
    1
  93.  @bolivar2153  If there had, for any reason whatsoever, been a war between GB and France, would "poor Belgians" have mattered? Be honest. You know they wouldn't.
    1
  94.  @bolivar2153  Germany did not "assist" Austria-Hungary. It gave the assurance that should Russia try to misuse Serbia as a geostrategic barrier, by protecting those in Belgrade who had supported an act of international terrorism, that Germany would not abandon Vienna. Yes. That's honorable ;-) [lol, the "emotional argument" for poor sods again]
    1
  95.  @bolivar2153  Balance of Power is nothing else but a variation of "divide and rule". Same as "divide and rule" always ends in bloodshed, so did London's Policy of Balance of Power, imposed on Europe, not decided upon in in any way. See my comment further up. 1945: GB = pikachu face Washington DC and Moscow stepped in, London's interests took a back seat (see Percentages Agreement"), and London's "divide and rule" went down the drain...
    1
  96.  @bolivar2153  "Apologia" like spreading the misconception that the Entente's between London, Paris, and St Petersburg were only to reduce tensions... How dumb do you think the rest of the planet is? Counterfactual argument. If you can reach an "Entente" with your enemies at the time, why not also with Germany? (Note, at this point in time there was no "German colonies" or "nasty, nasty navy" yet...only the *London's Balance of Power which predetermined that berlin was already "the enemy" in case of war as the default setting) Stop your dumb "apples and oranges" comparisons...
    1
  97.  @bolivar2153  "They knew full well what Russia was going to do..." Yes. Step down. Like 1908.
    1
  98.  @bolivar2153  I know what they contain. Why not reach an "Entente" with Berlin?
    1
  99. @Bolivar  Whoever said "an Entente" about "colonies"? Oh right, you did.... [Strawmanning....la di da.....strawmanning...hum da dooo....] Why not reach an "Entente" with Berlin about other/any issues, for example on the continent? Berlin (under Caprivi) did seek this. Don't lie.
    1
  100.  @bolivar2153  The "Haldane mission" ....lmfao I already asked you before: how dumb do you think the rest of planet is?
    1
  101.  @bolivar2153  Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire. The old "Wilhelm wanted to destroy the British Empire" is at best a self-fulfulling prophecy.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy ...at worst a lie. Wilhelm had no such intentions. In fact, if he (or any German leader at the time during the late-19th Century) had really wanted to do that, they could have done that... Up to the late-1900th/early-20th century, Russia was aggressively expansive, clashing with the British Empire. St Petersburg would have loved an alliance with common goals with Berlin, in order for them to achieve their geopolitical goals. German leaders refused. St Petersburg would have loved to crush the Ottoman Empire, and thereby clash with GB, and take the Dardanelles (free access to the Med). Also to eclipse British interests in the ME (Persia, etc.), see "The Great Game". For that, a strong alliance with Berlin would have been a prerequisite. Together, they could have "ruled the world", if only Berlin were willing to "sell off" Vienna, and crush the French in the west... Together, St Petersburg and Berlin sat on the "pivot" of the world, and nothing could have stopped them from dominating Europe and Asia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History Neither Bismarck nor Wilhelm II were interested. I assume that would make them both very popular in the UK...for "saving the British Empire" :-) But, Berlin was not interested in the dubious privilege of eternal war that comes with ruling the world.
    1
  102.  @bolivar2153  Why are you lying "by omission" about the Haldane Mission"? Berlin knew exactly what London would do in case of a war on the continent. They admitted it themselves, or one could say had been tricked into admitting it themselves during the Haldane Mission in 1912. Most English books or websites simply conclude a very simplistic "Haldane went to try and find a solution for the Naval Arms race, but the...ahem...'nasty arrogant Krauts' refused", or something like that....lmfao "British history"... Berlin wanted London to recognize that it had a right to defend itself from an unprovoked attack. I'll add a German link, because this part is often "omitted" from English speaking sites, twisting the perception of readers... Berlin suggested (amongst other) "British neutrality in case of a war [on the continent] in which Germany could not be seen as the aggressor" [exact translation of the request] Note, that this was a kind request to London, to stay out of it, if Germany is attacked without causing/provoking an attack herself (obviously, even if not mentioned, by Russia and France). In other words, the purest form of self-defense imaginable. GB refused. https://historyretros.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/haldane-mission-in-berlin/ In return Berlin offered to substantially reduce the Navy. GB refused, because London knew that Germany could not possibly bear the financial strain of competing with the massive French and Russian land forces re-armament, and would have to reduce her naval expenses anyway. Germany needed to free resources to strengthen the army, to counter French/Russian aggressive re-arming, meaning less ships could be financed. GB had already "won" the Naval Arms race, because Germany would have to counter the aggressively re-arming French/Russian militaries. It was after the failure of this meeting, that Berlin accepted the fact that whatever the cause of a war, GB would be the enemy. There was no other way to interpret the British stance in 1912. Two wrongs, never make "a right". Also, it doesn't really matter how one justifies London's stance, because London's stance on having the "God given right" to "balance powers" on the continent without compromise, or negotiations, lead to the failure of Europe as "the centre of world power". Also, it played a large role in the fall of the British Empire itself. The idea of the elites to "balance powers" in order to avoid wars, had morphed into an arrogant one-sided affair based on the imperialist rivalry. It was not decided "in concert" as in 1815, but simply dictated to Europe.
    1
  103.  @bolivar2153  "Germany wanted some colonies". So what? How is that even "an argument"? Make a mutual agreement (ahem...an "Entente") and acknowledge each other's right to have a share of world rule. Easy...
    1
  104.  @bolivar2153  Ah...navies. And why Germany wanted a "coast defense navy". [Note: not a Blue Water Navy according to Mahan ....do you even know there is a difference?] Please read, and then answer an interesting question concerning CAUSALITY. You know: cause and effect. Or "the timeline". Or "what comes first?" Or "who started it?" I'll highlight a few key points. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Heligoland "The Danish naval blockade of the German North Sea coast was their most effective effort in the war. German shipping was so much under threat that many German ships were reflagged as Russian to evade interception. The exasperated Prussians persuaded the Austrians to help break the blockade." https://dawlishchronicles.com/2019/12/17/franco-prussian-battle-of-havana-1870/ "France had a large navy, Prussia a few ships only, and those small..." Why did the newly united German States initially want a navy?
    1
  105.  @bolivar2153  Note in this early stage, German naval re-armament (to counter the threat of naval blockades) was aided by GB. So no "conspiracy theory for the uninformed"-bs please... Thank you...
    1
  106.  @bolivar2153  A few quotes does not change the facts. Here are the facts, as anybody can discover for himself: as a general rule, navies are divided into certain categories... Also, as a general rule, "global reach" can only be achieved by a Blue Water Navy... https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy ...as advocated by Mahan, and that is as true today as it was in 1850, 1900, or 1950. No blue water navy = no global reach The global reach achieved by a Blue Water Navy is composed of two elements. 1) the design of the ships themselves 2) logistics / naval bases As to point 1 and 2. If one studies the design of the German ships themselves, and German naval bases, one can only reach one conclusion. Before WW1 there were never any plans for "global reach", i.e. any attempt to "rule the world" as often claimed. As design criteria, one can simply look at the drawing (flared or raked bow = Blue Water Navy) and a few statistics like size, range, and livability. The design elements of ships (true even today) are divided into two main criteria : offensive elements (firepower, speed and seakeeping) vs. defensive elements (armor protection, nr. of watertight compartments, sturdy construction). Nations which desire "global reach", built fast, large, high firepower, long ranged, seaworthy vessels, supported by a dense network of naval bases, and international ports (either by alliance, or by own construction) supported by large fleets of tankers, repair ships, and replenishment ships. Less emphasis is placed on armour, and much more on speed and range. Nations which wish to concentrate on the own doorstep, built smaller, sturdier, ships with smaller caliber guns and more/thicker armor, and with with stubby bows (seakeeping less important, since designed for coastal waters). In short, one can gather information about the policies of a nation, by merely looking at the design of its weapons. And this is as true for tanks as it is for ships... A nation that built the S-tank (Sweden) had no desire to "rule the world" :-) As for the design of the the Imperial German Navy's ships.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_German_Navy ....and you can see that from the destroyers (called "torpedo boats" right through to the big gun battleships, the design criteria fits that of the coast defense navy (today called "Green and Brown Water Navies"). You don't have to look at all of them, but maybe click on a few links and look at the specifications, and filter it with the information above. As for the numbers of units built, that was a result of the alliance system. As the Russians found out at Tsushima, there was no point sending a large fleet halfway around the world, if the ships and crews were going to arrive in bad shape... (No recreational facilities, docks, replenishment, etc.) Simply having a lot of ships, doesn't imply wishing to "rule the world". To conclude: any accusations of Germany trying to "steal something from the British Empire", or "trying to overpower the Royal Navy" or "threatening GB" are at best misconceptions, at worst straight out lies.... Germany has ports in the North Sea, and every right to protect these. Your throwing in "North Sea" doesn't answer my question. So I'll answer it myself: The newly united Germany built a navy to protect her shores/coastal towns and cities. That fact is proven by the design of the ships themselves.
    1
  107.  @bolivar2153  Google Tirpitz Risk Fleet. There never was the intention to "outbuild the RN" (sic.) or any other lie usually told. In case that is your "point", please prove it with evidence.
    1
  108.  @bolivar2153  Uhm. Yes. The strategy behind the "risk fleet" was a more assertive position towards GB, which had decided (without asking anybody) to become the "balancer of power" on the continent. In case of war, any war, Germany would be the enemy. That was a predetermined situation. In that scenario, dictated by London, having a large fleet to ward off coastal bombardment, or the blockade of ports, was the correct thing to do. (See my comment about the Haldane Mission: Berlin suggested (amongst other) "British neutrality in case of a war [on the continent] in which Germany could not be seen as the aggressor" [exact translation of the request])
    1
  109.  @bolivar2153  Why did you write "[German Navy was built] to threaten British trade a few comments up? Fact: It was built in self-defense. After London decided to make every single German an enemy as the default setting. After the RN went around all over the world "Copenhagenizing" and burning cities down. https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite... All that missing is the weird "propaganda minister" making fun of Coventrisation... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagenization Kagoshima, Sebastopol, Alexandria, Kanton....such great fun "bombarding everyone". Cause: you have a history of bombarding everyone Effect: people bundle their newly found wealth (taxes, donations), and protect their shores....
    1
  110.  @bolivar2153  Can we stick to the timeline, instead of hoping around through history? Like I suggested before? Stick to "the timeline". Or "what comes first?" Or "who started it?"
    1
  111.  @bolivar2153  Don't you check the links I add? From Britannica.... " Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself. Naval supremacy and its virtual immunity from foreign invasion enabled Great Britain to perform this function..." When was this ever "democratically" determined (aka mutually decided) amongst European leaders, like during the the age of the Concert of European nations (1815)?
    1
  112.  @bolivar2153  After unification, and their industrial revolution... https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-economy-1890-1914 ...who was the strongest continental power and therefore the enemy by default in case of a continental European war?
    1
  113.  @bolivar2153  Where does such misconception of "Germany wanting war" or "Wilhelm wanted to rule Europe", or variations of that come from? Do you have any evidence for such a plan/scheme/strategy/etc? Obviously, if this was true, it would have a name, or someone who advocated it. So who or what was it? Wilhelm was the "Trump" of that era, no arguments there, but he wasn't a warmonger. He was an idiot who put his foot in his mouth all the time, but nothing else. Also, scroll up to my comment starting with Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire. If German leaders had wanted to rule Europe, or "rule the world", they could have done so.
    1
  114.  @bolivar2153  We've already discussed this elsewhere. Yes, Berlin had little direct interest in Balkan affairs. Rather, "by proxy", via Vienna... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance Pre-WW1 Russia used (or rather misused) the new ambitious Balkan state Serbia as a strategic barrier, to avoid such an alliance between Berlin and Constantinople becoming effective (by disrupting river and rail connections). Of course the existing alliance system was lopsided. As soon as London joined Paris/St Petersburg, the Central Powers were at a strategic disadvantage. An alliance between Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, and Constantinople would have rectified the existing imbalance, making a war of aggression by Paris and St Petersburg on the Central Powers less likely. That was the intention. If Serbia didn't want war, maybe they should have kept their house clean, and swept out the subversive elements from their government. The old "poor little Serbia" is bs apologia.
    1
  115.  @bolivar2153  What you wrote is not evidence for the allegations of "wanting to rule the world/Europe", or "destroy GB/Empire" or any variations of that. The intention was to rectify an imbalance of power, caused when London joined up and created the Tripple Entente.
    1
  116.  @bolivar2153  Uhm... London didn't mind Austria attacking Serbia. [Fact, they didn't declare war on Austria or Germany for that] Why do you?
    1
  117.  @bolivar2153  What Mitteleuropa?
    1
  118.  @bolivar2153  The alliances were "interest groups". They were not defense treaties. Yes, see "Italy". Just like Italy, all the other nations could have declared their neutrality and let A-H and Serbia settle matters. Russia first. Then Germany. [Note, only in that order] Then, followed by the rest of Europe. GB declared war to "uphold the balance of power". I've already sent you the link.
    1
  119.  @bolivar2153  Again. What is your personal obsession with protecting "poor Serbia"? London didn't care, so why do you?
    1
  120.  @bolivar2153  Italy gave a formal declaration of neutrality. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Italian_Declaration_of_Neutrality#:~:text=The%20Marquis%20di%20San%20Giuliano,27%2C%201916%2C%20against%20Germany.&text=Therefore%20Italy%20would%20have%20to%20declare%20herself%20neutral.
    1
  121.  @bolivar2153  You mean the September Programm? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm Apparently, we are told, that leaders who have "war aims" are also the ones who "want war" and would instigate to have war... But there were actually two September Programs. https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Diplomatic_history_of_World_War_I The former just happens to be more widely discussed, and therefore more famous than the second. The keen observer notices that points 3 through 13 entirely contradict point 2 on "the list" drawn up by own war mongers. Small wonder that the Bible states that there is no place in heaven for the hypocrite. Splinters in the own eyes, and all that...
    1
  122.  @bolivar2153  Sure, the "Austrians were sooooo nasty" [hint hint... anybody willing to give us Triest and the Adriatic coastline for our eternal Mare Nostrum dream ...hint hint] Do you really understand diplomacy?
    1
  123.  @bolivar2153  Ah...the "shopping list". That has been refuted so thoroughly in serious debates. Why are you bringing this up *as a cause for war*. Fact: it was an effect of the course of the war, which was expected to end soon (note, before the Marne Battle ended hopes for a quick victory) It's a dumb allegation to claim that it was a cause for the war. That's like saying "The Allies started WW2 and Yalta is the evidence for this". [Hint, it will then quickly be pointed out that such "reasoning" is faulty and bs]
    1
  124.  @bolivar2153  Can you just answer your obsession with Serbia when almost nobody else in Europe did (apart from St Petersburg/Paris). What is your personal obsession with protecting "poor Serbia"? London didn't care, so why do you?
    1
  125.  @bolivar2153  Ah, the "poor little (sovereign) nations"... Spare me the snot and tears lecture. More like the "hypocrisy of history"... At the time, all major powers continued their ambitions of territorial expansion at the cost of minor sovereign states. France attacked Siam, with a subsequent "little bit of land grabbing" (Laos) in 1893. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Siamese_War ...or.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis Apparently, oh so righteous France didn't care much about the sovereignty of "little nations" when it came to expanding an own sphere of influence... WIlhelm II who stood up for the "little nation" here (obviously, and as always in history with an own ulterior motive) was labeled the "bad guy". Elsewhere, the USA eclipsed and annexed the "little nation" called the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898, and invaded and carved up Colombia when it wanted to build its Panama Canal... https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia Of course, the locals were absolutely enchanted... Constant British attempts to annex the internationally recognized Boer Republics because of own geopolitical ambitions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War Of course, Wilhelm II, again "standing up for the little nation" was the "bad guy"...go figure... Apparently, the sovereignty of little nations wasn't a big deal, while one was doing the invasions, regime change, or wars oneself: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/albion/article/methods-of-barbarism-and-the-rights-of-small-nations-war-propaganda-and-british-pluralism/E9B59C4BAC89A7859AB33D8901F2C406# As always, it only becomes "an issue" when one "rules the world" and the roles are reversed.... http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml In the endless lists of crises, wars, military conquests, false flags, intrigues, and "expeditions" by warlike private companies, all with the objective of expanding the own sphere of influence, Wilhelm II's Germany must have seemed like a haven for pacifists to a neutral observer of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%9344 Death was lavishly sown in return for own gain. But yeah... "Poor Serbia". No, I would not have fought for them in 1914, in the same way I would not have fought for the "sovereignty of poor Iraq" in 2003. Would you? If not, why contribute to the deaths of more innocents than necessary, by warmongering?
    1
  126.  @bolivar2153  No. Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy. That's not my style. I'm not saying it was right if anybody did it. I'm saying it's wrong because everybody was doing it (Imperialism) I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of cherry-picking whatever criteria needed just to be able to "jump on the bandwagon".
    1
  127.  @bolivar2153  Yes, Wilhelm II was (strangely enough) internationally termed the "trouble maker" for standing up to "the Imperialist cool club", pointing out that little nations should have rights too. Instead of seeing the logic in that, the "cool kids" bunched up on the "new kid in town" who dared wave a moralistic finger in their direction. (note, unlike the typical apologist, I know and admit that the ulterior motive was to gain access to the world's markets aka colonies, which others were rapidly carving up with lines on the map, and the world which others were jealously guarding as "theirs". I never knew it belonged to anybody.)
    1
  128.  @bolivar2153  So again. What is your personal obsession with "poor Serbia"? London didn't care about "the sovereignty of the little guy". Obviously the moralistic "sovereignty of the little guy" was a propaganda tool, to rouse the fluffy "feelings" of folks back home. AKA "propaganda". None of the Machiavellian power players back then (apart from the few own moral apostels) gave a hoot about "sovereignty", so why is this such an issue for you today when choosing sides? (note here, that I've clearly stated my point and my personal position here: stay out, just like 2003. Do not bandwagon)
    1
  129.  @bolivar2153  Russia was first on board. Russian mobilization was (and still is) a military action, the first military action of all who later involved themselves. Before that there were only diplomatic actions. Russia escalated the "3rd Balkan War". [PS: do you know the difference between diplomatic acts, and acts of war? ]
    1
  130.  @bolivar2153  Yes, GB made a few well-meant but pointless "suggestions" which in no way addressed the issue. The intention was the age-old washing hands in innocence. (or, the proclamation: "look here world, I'm trying my best...) What's your point? In 2003 the entire world had good suggestions but it didn't stop the US/British.... *AHEM regime change invasion either... Name one "suggestion", I'll explain how it was pointless.
    1
  131.  @bolivar2153  States don't need reasons to declare war. States make excuses in order to expand their sphere of influence, and to get dumb people on board to get their balls blown off... "The poor Archduke" = "WMDs" = excuses. Same thing. 2003 is totally relevant. No, I've got nothing against anybody, including GB/British Empire. In 1939 GB/France/Poland had a DEFENSE TREATY so going to war was fully justified. See? I'm neutral. I analyze facts and don't dwell on fluffy "feelings". Get it? There were no defense treaties before WW1, so WW1 was a WAR OF CHOICE. GB would have joined anyway, to BALANCE THE POWERS, a decision made before the war even started. Get it? Don't like war? Well stay out by declaring neutrality = simple.
    1
  132.  @bolivar2153  What is the difference between "talking tough" and "drawing your gun" in a Wild West shootout?
    1
  133.  @bolivar2153  @Bolivar  "Grey turned Belgian neutrality into his cause célèbre. He told Prince Lichnowsky [German ambassador in London], that it would be extremely difficult to restrain public feeling in Britain if Germany violated Belgian neutrality. Lichnowsky asked whether Grey could ‘give me a definite declaration of the neutrality of Great Britain on the condition that we [Germany] respected Belgian neutrality’. It was an astonishing suggestion, an enormous concession and one that could have spared Britain and Belgium the horrors of war. Lichnowsky was prepared to concede exactly what Grey claimed the British Cabinet wanted. Belgian sovereignty would be respected in exchange for a promise of Britain’s neutrality. Duplicitous as ever, Grey blurred the issue and avoided an honest reply, reassuring Lichnowsky that ‘for the present there was not the slightest intention of proceeding to hostilities against Germany’. Lichnowsky to von Jagow, London, 1 August 1914, DD596, in Geiss, July 1914, p. 346. Why did you stab all those poor Belgians in the back if you could have saved them with a conditional declaration of neutrality?
    1
  134.  @bolivar2153  Facts don't lie. Are you claiming this "never happened"?
    1
  135.  @bolivar2153  Oh really? So if you have a disagreement with your neighbor which includes "talking tough", then you pull a gun on him? Really Bolivar? Is that your moral standpoint?
    1
  136.  @bolivar2153  BS. If Russia "wanted peace" it should have told its client state Serbia to sweep out the subversive elements from government. If not, Russia would withdraw all diplomatic and military support... SEE HOW EASY IT IS IF A STATE WANTS PEACE?
    1
  137.  @bolivar2153   Strawmanning, Red Herrings, constantly changing the topic, confusing issues, attempts at deflection... The full nine yards of fallacies.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies This isn't your GCSE exams where you get "points" for "giving right answer". Just address the premise.
    1
  138.  @bolivar2153  Why the (alleged) discussion between Grey and the German ambassador is (according to Occam's Razor) the most likely to be true, even if one claims "it never took place"? Let's stick to this as our premise. 1) because according to the British Policy of Balance of Power, GB would never grant the status of neutrality, a military alliance, or any variation of Non-Aggression Pact with the most powerful continental country/alliance, whichever it is (after 1871, and German industrialisation, it just happened to be Germany) It was nothing personal. GB would always ally against the most powerful country/alliance in case of war. Therefore, any treaty of friendship with the most powerful country/alliance would contradict the Policy of Balance of Power. If it seems as if war is imminent, or unavoidable, or inevitable (whatever), GB would never declare its neutrality, sign a N/A Pact or any of the sort with the most powerful continental state or alliance. That is what the policy practically dictates, and Grey followed it. 2) further proof is the Haldane Mission, in which the German delegation were informed that their request for British neutrality in case Germany was attacked, even if unprovoked could not be given = complete in line with London's stance ("we are the balancer of the continent"). 3) that the Germans would justify their invasion of Belgium after they won the war. Yup. You are simply too fixed on what happened, and therefore ignoring what could have happened. Fact: Germany intended to win, and prepared for that eventuality. In case Germany (whatsoever reason) had won WW1, their "written history" would have needed bloody good reasons for invading a neutral nation. Obviously, the German ambassador also knew Grey would never accept it. Why? Because of the Haldane Mission, Berlin already knew what the British stance was, and that London would refuse again, just like 1912. The 2 requests were the German justification for when they won a war.
    1
  139.  @bolivar2153  OK, thank you for the link. It refers to (or relates) to the "big picture", which was Europe. Remember, Russia and France were both rapidly and massively arming themselves, and had own contingency plans to attack Germany (French Plan XVII, Russian Plan 19 aka "the steamroller to Berlin"). Of course, this did not threaten GB. It did threaten Germany. We can gladly discuss this further, but it isn't a part of the defined premise (see my previous comment). So firsty: I assume you agree with me that the German offer of not invading Belgium, in return for a British declaration of neutrality, is then "most likely true"? [Note, not the reasons why London refused, but the fact (or rather the "reasoning behind") that Berlin made this suggestion. Note: these are 2 different things, or "confused issues"]
    1
  140.  @bolivar2153  Your 2nd comment refers again to the "big picture". Would GB stay out of a continental European war? (irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not) Note that you've already answered this question/issue in a debate we had around a month ago. I remember your answer :-) [The History Room channel's video about Kaiser Wilhelm II] Remember London's Policy of Balance of Power. Remember my advice to any serious fan of history. London's stance was nothing personal. London did not care "who won". You do, and that it is (IMHO) why you draw false conclusions. London's main objective, under any scenario, war or peace, was a "balanced continent".
    1
  141.  @bolivar2153  Your 2nd comment's real issue. Do you think Lichnowsky personally knew about London's secret Policy of Balance of Power?
    1
  142.  @bolivar2153  Concerning your first comment. Yes, the British position could certainly have been suspected, or deducted "in broad strokes" to anybody with at least some access to power. Deducted, but not known. When we get to the micro level, IMO we must always filter information with "who knew what and when" did they know it. Ambassadors are mostly nothing else but "glorified messager boys" asked to convey certain messages "from sealed envelopes" so to speak. Unless officially determined to negotiate (like Ribbentropp in Moscow before the Soviet-German N/A Pact in Aug 1939), they had no power to determine policy. No, Lichnowsky wasn't stupid, but he wasn't a strategist either. He was a diplomat, and therefore gave diplomatic (aka "nice/pleasing") answers. We shouldn't overestimate the words he used significance. Grey on the other hand "filtered" every response according to the "logic" of how to keep European powers balanced. That is what was demanded of him. The discussion wasn't a negotiation. Grey's intent was to favor Russia and France, not "keep the peace" or anything else. Note: nowhere in the policy are words like "peace", "war", "treaty", "pact", etc. mentioned. The means on how to keep the balance was left to whomever had the position to decide, whatever time we are discussing. The policy didn't have any restrictions on *means*. Consider the balance of power on the continent in 1914, and in this case specifically July/August 1914. Austria-Hungary was way more powerful than Serbia. Russia/Serbia was more powerful than Austria-Hungary. Germany/Austria-Hungary was more powerful than Serbia/Russia, as well Serbia/Russia/France. Conclusion? London's position favored France, seen as in the weaker position. Note: Grey's position as you noted it, granted France the "right" to implement her Plan XVII (plus by implication, Russia her Plan 19), favorable to London.
    1
  143. I'll upvote your comments I agree with completely. But we must find a new singular premise. If you wish, you can determine it. If we don't specify which, the debate will go off on a tangent again :-)
    1
  144.  @bolivar2153  In which way was it a negotiation? In order for it to be a "negotiation" (in other words, fitting the definition of the word), both sides must have been equally empowered (power to negotiate) by the states they served.
    1
  145.  @bolivar2153  I can't see your entire comment. I assume you edited it before it got "placed", meaning that it got swiped by YT. From the part I can see in my notification panel. Correct. Berlin didn't give him the powers of negotiation. Especially not unlimited powers of negotiation, because he wasn't a military strategist... As long as he got the (expected) negative/inconclusive/evasive answer from Grey, then that was all Berlin wanted. Of course, Grey could have positively surprised him, and given him a British declaration of neutrality. One which did not endanger any British interests (for example, no German invasion of neutrals, no German navy in the channel, no expansion of the war to the colonies, etc. This is a "list" to which you can gladly contribute to, in case you consider anything else a "British interest") Fact: The Policy of Balance of Power practically dictated that GB would not remain neutral. "Belgium" had nothing to do with it.
    1
  146.  @bolivar2153  I've already answered that :-) Remember the comment I wrote that "states don't need reasons for war"? That is basically it. Initially, Wilhelm wanted Austria-Hungary to "teach pesky Serbia" a lesson, and to "settle matters quickly" before anybody could react and the crisis to draw wider circles. The last thing that was needed was long drawn out debates, which wouldn't solve the core issue anyway (Russia using Serbia a strategic barrier, while itself having ambitions to gain the Dardanelles). That Russia would support Belgrade was a no-brainer, so that a few threats to scare off Russia was deemed to be enough. A little holiday in Norway, and once he returned, a new ruler for the defeated Serbia could be decided on. The bloodless (for Germany) reward would be unhindered access to Constantinople. Next holiday. The Topkapi Palace, and an alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople was the aim. Effect: a truly balanced continent, in which Germany did not have to fear becoming the victim of potential future Russian (Plan 19) and French (Plan XVII) aggression. That was the intention. Like I said. States don't need a reason for war. They make excuses, and for the Central Powers "the poor Archduke" was what would rally the support against "nasty Serbia". There is no need to point out that this backfired. There were multiple reasons why this backfired, and not all of it was Berlin or Vienna's fault.
    1
  147.  @bolivar2153  Concerning the topic "bad geopolitics/geostrategy" one could say "ditto". Last time I checked on my map, I didn't see any "Empire" there either :-)
    1
  148.  @bolivar2153  No, it was GB which joined to form the Tripple Entente: that caused the imbalance.
    1
  149.  @bolivar2153  I'm a realist. Germany wishing to squash Serbia for strategic gain, is no different to "Empire" wishing to squash the Boer Republics to get gold, diamonds, and a Cape to Cairo railway :-)
    1
  150.  @bolivar2153  ...I forgot to add the evidence for my first post. Why do you think WW1 took 4 years, and wasn't "over by Christmas"? Oh, right. The alliances were fairly balanced :-)
    1
  151.  @bolivar2153  Yes, then we have that in common. I also don't like any form of subjection, oppression, or arrogance of power. Not reaching consensus after mutual agreement, by undemocratic means should belong to the past. That is also my main objection to London's unilateral decision to become "the balancer" of power for Europe. They didn't ask anybody, and that lead to problems because it was contradictory. Unlike 1815, when at least the major players reached their "balance of power" after negotiation. For example the naval arms race. Germany started building ships in order to defend herself, and that then escalated. Obviously, if London objected to Germany building ships, then the logical conclusion should have been that the RN took over this task in the Baltic and North Sea, after reaching an Entente, Alliance, or other form of political/military treaty with Germany. The Balance of Power neither "allowed" for the scenario of Germany building ships to protect her shores, nor did it "allow" a treaty of sorts with Germany when it became the continent's strongest power. A self-destructive cycle, as we noticed. Simply refusing an alliance, but arrogantly stating "thou shallt not build ships" was a contradiction.
    1
  152.  @bolivar2153  Your above argument is too "GB focused". There are also several built-in misconceptions, a result of constant repetition/recital, without anybody bothering to check up whether the original premise was ever correct. Germany's main continental enemies were France and Russia. GB and Germany or her predecessor states initially had few issues (say, around 1860 to 1880) with Germany. There was even active British support for a German navy. Initially it was France which quickly recovered after 1871, and also rebuilt her Navy. Germany had to respond to this (see my comment somewhere up here, for more detailed description). Initial German naval construction was 'solely* aimed at France. When France and Russia joined forces, Germany now had to content with the possibility of tow rivals. Russia, to attack/blockade the Baltic ports, France the North Sea. So, in this phase, German naval re-armament was mainly aimed at these two states, which had allied against Germany, not the other way around. German naval re-armament was defensive. Yes, Germany also built small cruisers and small gunboats for overseas work, but Germany was also very careful not to antagonize GB(for example, by limiting the size of guns). By keeping the ships smaller than GB's, but especially by not setting up own collier stations, naval bases, etc. but buying this from GB. This condition existed right up to WW1 in 1914. German subjected itself to GB on the global level taking great care not to be seen as "ruling the world" or "taking away" anything from GB. If war broke out, the leverage was 100% in GB hand, as the first few months of WW1 clearly showed. Say around 1900, that is also were the situation could have "frozen". Here is your own main misconception: GB decided on her own policy of Naval superiority. This was not aimed at Germany. This was aimed at the next TWO navies. No countries or states are mentioned. It just happened to be Germany, and as with the Policy of Balance of Power...it was nothing personal. GB tried to outbuild the next 2 navies, and Germany was only 1 of these. The other one being her own ally. Obviously, also a result of a decision taken in London. Conclusion: there was no "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race". There was a European Naval Arms Race. British naval re-armament was aimed at all continental states (at this stage, the USA was not a factor yet, but it soon would be), and to remain superior to all, or any realistically possible continental alliance. When British allies (if I remember correctly, France had the next biggest naval construction programmes) built more ships, GB also had to address that. When it simply became to much of a burden, GB changed the policy (again, this was too long ago and I'm too lazy to google now, but I believe the policy was changed to "building 60% of the next 3 navies"). My point here is that when it suited London, it changed her policy to accommodate her allies which were also carrying out re-armament, to which Germany then also had to react. A vicious circle. Why not address the root cause? Why not change the Policy of Balance of Power?
    1
  153.  @bolivar2153  The Tirpitz Risk Fleet developed after 1898. I'm still in the late-19th Century, not the early-20th Century. You missed my key points. Why not address the root cause? Why not change the Policy of Balance of Power? Any policy can be changed. Why not simply conclude a treaty/entente with Germany, and pledge to guard her ports/coasts?
    1
  154.  @bolivar2153  WW1 was the result of bandwagoning. It was a "war of choice". How is Germany or Austria responsible for decisions taking in London, Paris, or St Petersburg?
    1
  155.  @bolivar2153  Any policy can be changed. Why not simply conclude a treaty/entente with Germany, and pledge to guard her ports/coasts? In case you think this would have been in anyway disadvantageous to GB and the interests of Empire, then how? (note, this would address the premise of my argument of "Any policy can be changed. Why not simply conclude a treaty/entente with Germany, and pledge to guard her ports/coasts?)
    1
  156.  @bolivar2153  Interestingly, but not related to what we are discussing, we can see today a situation analogous to those days: the current USA vs. Chynaa sh*tshow, which will most likely also result in a new Cold War. If I had lived back then (say 1900), I would probably also have predicted the "sh*tshow". Machiavelli almost dictates it to be so....
    1
  157.  @bolivar2153  Why not grant the 2nd biggest European power a "place in the sun"? This is something I already asked before, and you didn't address. Why not simply discuss the issues, grant a suitable slice "of the action" to Germany, rather than rivals like France. Sabre rattling? If I remember correctly, GB and Russia were doing a bit more than "rattling sabers", yet you had no problem in concluding an entente with a real enemy. Again. What was the issue with Germany, apart from the fact that it was London herself which had unilaterally made Berlin "the rival in peacetime/enemy as a default setting in case of war. Not the other way around. I can't see the logic in this so please help me out. Let's leave out the rest of your comment to concentrate on the core issues. I'm not going to defend the actions of a "Trump-style ars*ehole" like Wilhelm.
    1
  158.  @bolivar2153  How would an entente "tie British hands. Did your entente with France and Russia "tie your hands"?
    1
  159.  @bolivar2153  Note also that the above Anglo-German alliance would have been able to stand up the the American Century, which did have aspirations of taking away/unravelling the British Empire, and would do so after WW2 (a little bit of hindsight, but still).
    1
  160.  @bolivar2153  Thank for offering stiff resistance my theory. Of course, I'm not claiming the ultimate solution, just a scenario of balanced ambitions as I understand it. Yes, Vienna would subject Belgrade. But that would have already be countered. Please read my theory again: France would be "checked" by the RN (sea) and by around 30% of Germany's army. Faced with two opposing powers (GB and Germany), France would not have supported Russia (by giving her a "blank check" as Poincare did in July 1914.) Paris would have backed down. Note also, faced by 70% of Germany's army, Russia would have backed down. Effect. Regime change in Belgrade, most likely bloodless, or a small scale "limited war" at most.
    1
  161.  @bolivar2153  To the to above scenario of an Anglo-British Alliance in say 1880, to 1890... Germany would not have needed to "waste" any resources on navy, and almost all would have gone to an army. In that scenario, the German army would have been so dominant that a Berlin assurance of "Ive got your back Vienna", would have weight far more...
    1
  162.  @bolivar2153  How so? Do you seriously think St Petersburg would have offered resistance to a treat of 70% of a far larger German Army? They didn't offer resistance to Vienna annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, when France backed down. OK, our premise hould be this then, IMO. Why should they ever consider that in the scenario I painted above? (Anglo-German alliance, pulling on one side not opposite sides)
    1
  163.  @bolivar2153  Yes, agreed. Due to the attitude of London, not Berlin. Berlin was open to this after Wilhelm removed pro-Russia Bismarck, and put pro-British Caprivi in place (see "New Course"). Why didn't London acknowledge this, seeing how Russia and Empire were at war? (Great Game). Conclusion: dump the Policy of Balance of Power.
    1
  164.  @bolivar2153  Yes, correct. That actually supports what I wrote. Lesson to be learned? Don't back Russia. Policy: keep France from supporting Russia, concerning the Dardanelles (Real Russian reason for supporting Serbia, leading to WW1). Effect, a Dardanelles controlled by 50% British military/commercial interest (presence of the RN), and a 50% commercial interest by Berlin/Vienna/Budapest (but no military presence, i.e. "occupation forces") Effect. No Russian meddling to get into the Med (see Krim War). In case they ever tried. Berlin: "look buddy, don't even think about it..."
    1
  165.  @bolivar2153  In case of your first comment. Russia developed due to (mainly) French financial aid (loans) and technical support (industrial/military). Yes, its "industrial revolution" started later than GB, France or Germany, so that in the "no war scenario" they'd have been a force to be reckoned with, flexing its muscles and whining about "our Dardanelles" eternally... Answer: the German Army (without having resources "wasted" on a navy, would have opposed this). Answer to an increasingly more powerful Russia in the long run? Stick to developing Japan, keeping it a mostly British alliance partner (pro-European sphere of influence, opposing the westwards expansion of the USA). Result: a globe with 3 main power blocks. Europe, dominated by the Anglo-German alliance would have been invincible in any foreseeable future. Most likely "drawing in" the mini-powers on its rim. "Also rans" like Italy, Ottoman Empire or Spain could hardly have resisted the "pull factors" of an overpowering alliance. Russia, with only (surrounded) France as a possible weak ally. Isolated USA, as the dominant power in the New World (North and South America), but culturally "friendly" towards all of western Europe (immigration). Considering how the world really turned out, not a bad end effect.
    1
  166.  @bolivar2153  Yes, almost everything I write concerns the crucial time "window" of the 1880s/1890s. After around 1900 or so, I fear that "door" for the Anglo-German Alliance had closed.
    1
  167.  @bolivar2153  Yes, let's just leave it there. Just remember that the British policy, which came first, was always going to "diss" the same guy. Wilhelm just happened to be an easy target, being kinda an assh*le :-) Rgds
    1
  168.  @Infinityxxxxxx  Thank you. Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad". That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be controlled or balanced out. Right or wrong? Not really relevant...according to these leaders. Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations... It says nothing about bad leaders. https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power There was only one consideration. To uphold a balance. Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers. All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia. London refused, even though an Entente with Germany, would have been very easy in the 1880s and 1890s. After unification and industrialisation, Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it". It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
    1
  169. A solution for the Ukraine already existed in 1917/18 and the British and French intention was to torpedo the peace achieved after Brest-Litovsk, for the millions of people living here. The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states. Unfortunately for these millions, the "spheres of influence"-schemers on the "good guy"-side had other plans for the inhabitants. "On December 23, 1917, the day after the first session of the preliminary Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, representatives of Great Britain and France met in Paris and secretly concluded an agreement to dismember Soviet Russia. The agreement was entitled L’Accord Français-Anglais du 23 Décembre, 1917, définissant les zones d’action françaises et anglaises. According to its terms, England was to receive a “zone of influence” in Russia, giving her the oil of the Caucasus and control of the Baltic provinces; France a “zone” giving her the iron and coal of the Donets Basin and control of the Crimea. This secret Anglo-French treaty inevitably shaped the policy these two nations were to pursue towards Russia throughout the next several years." THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA BY MICHAEL SAYERS AND ALBERT E. KAHN "Churchill’s take on the Ukraine, specifically, is fascinating and echoes instructively. “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told the House of Commons in a speech on March 26. [1919]" churchillstyle dot com The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the ex-Eastern Front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self-centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others. Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property. The hordes of "Reds" obviously profitted from the "power vacuum" which the forced removal of German soldiers had resulted in, and they covered an already largely pacified region of the world with "rivers of blood". The Ukraine could have already been independent after 1918. All it would have needed was a deal and a signature. We should stop pretending that our leaders care about people. Neither today, nor in the past. Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'. There was no real difference between any of them. They sit in their cosy offices, behind impressive desks drawing their "green lines" on the maps without consulting those who actually live there. Oh, what a "burden" for these "white men". Just remember: If you (personally) don't live in a region of interest to such "gentlemen", you'll be written off with a warm-hearted "thought and prayer" the minute a crisis or war starts. Just a "thought" and "a prayer", but not much else...
    1
  170.  @Adrian-zd4cs  The USA "involuntary/voluntarily joined" WWII because China was a contested sphere of interest.
    1
  171.  @avd-wd9581  Which ones? Do you have documented evidence?
    1
  172.  Robert Anderson  They would soon choke on their own naivety, when the body bags came in from all over....China, Korea...
    1
  173. Tolkien: "...but they were all of them deceived...for there was another ring..." Their "service to king and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire... Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords they served, had set off to set Europe up for failure... And they repeated it TWICE. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "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. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions... Right? WRONG Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. What could possibly go wrong? "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] A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire". US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends". Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"... And after the war ended? The "winners" became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers" when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords who were busy desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. Sad...
    1
  174. Whoever said Japan had to be invaded?
    1
  175. LOL.
    1
  176. I would have reminded French leaders of the role their own leaders played in escalating the July Crisis. [From wiki] "In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]" Viola....a French "blank cheque"? [Continued] "In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]" Me: So much for the "we just want peace"- version of events. [Continued] "Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]" Bearing false witness?
    1
  177. If somebody came from outside to instate themselves on the lands you were born on, would you simply roll over and surrender? Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914: "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91) In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem: "We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)
    1
  178. British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945. The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945. Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works... Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals. Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke... But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!" [Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program] Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"... Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine". 1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?" That's how leverage works. Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century. Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana. Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
    1
  179. British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945. The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945. Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works... Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals. Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke... But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!" [Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program] Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"... Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine". 1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?" That's how leverage works. Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century. Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana. Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
    1
  180. You mean...uhm....how geography and the previous Chamberlain government's foresight saved the day? Oh, ok....
    1
  181. Lots of appeals to emotion in the comments section. Weak arguments for weak minds. With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed. 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. A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL... 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. Sad...
    1
  182.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  As I informed you before, I'm South African. You seem a bit slow. What's up? Altzheimer? If you wish to affront me with your ignorance, you'll have to mock the skeletal Boer women and and kids your "heroes" stuck into concentration camps, or starved with scorched earth policies. I don't care about Europeans. London, Coventry, Hull? The smell of burning Brits? I couldn't care less. A necessary evil to ensure the end of the British Empire. Good riddance 👋👋👋
    1
  183. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    1
  184.  @gustavagenbacht6600  I like people who do the right thing, and don't lose their Empire...
    1
  185.  @gustavagenbacht6600  It goes far deeper than that. It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too. British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin. "At the end of the war, 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] So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back. It cost the Brits their Empire... Self own...
    1
  186. The point... It's what happens if you make the wrong friends. 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. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... 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 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still more than 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." 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 "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: '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." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? It does not matter. 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 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke 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 Empire. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
    1
  187.  @neuralvibes  The Congress of Vienna was a wise attempt at peace, by "drawing lines on the map", and "division of power", and the creation of "geostrategic barriers". Wise, because it ensured relative peace for almost a hundred years. In a nutshell, it was a "top down" decision, which resulted in little opposition from the taxpayers, which were "carved up" by "lines on the map"... Wise also, because said "taxpayers" did not consider it unusual at the time. They had no voice, little in the way of representation (influence) and even more important, no awareness. In short, they (the rulers) did nothing wrong, considering the situation/reality which existed at the time... Leaders who ignored realities of changing times, are not "wise". Because something changed between 1815 and 1919. The people changed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_liberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Not acknowledging that, would create the foundation of future conflict. Note also that it is irrelevant of whether one personally identifies with a movement which originates from the people, and is spread within the people from the bottom up, or not. One can ignore or deny reality, but reality won't ignore you. You will end up in a trench, shooting at some other bloke in his trench, because leaders who don't want to accept the reality of changing times.
    1
  188.  @neuralvibes  It worked for almost a hundred years. Why wasn't it "wise", considering the times? (Post Napoleonic Europe)
    1
  189. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    1
  190. Uhm...attacking Poland?
    1
  191. Re.: Carpet bombing city centers. "Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant. Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling... Because there's always a big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all... The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. [Google: britannica & balance-of-power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to play "balancing games" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town... From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West". And down went the British Empire too... I wouldn't waste time arguing with immoral people. Simply tell them the outcome of own actions.
    1
  192. So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"... Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944] Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany. Lose your Empire, and then some... Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It doesn't say "more than the measure".
    1
  193. Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). And so "poor little Belgium" was born. Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-) "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
    1
  194. 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. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... 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 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still more than 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." 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 "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: '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." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? It does not matter. 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 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line. What could possibly go wrong? I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave... 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke 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 Empire. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old 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.
    1
  195.  si james  I guess the OP really wanted to write "It sucks that I don't own a Picasso..." He got his premise all muddled :-)
    1
  196.  @mastercommander4535  With "a Picasso" I meant the oil paintings, not the other stuff he did. If you have an oil painting, get it evaluated (for example, at a reputable high-end auction house like Sotheby).
    1
  197. Yes, correct. The LW didn't have the right planes for a drawn-out strategic war against an island, and not enough of the wrong planes for a tactical situation (air umbrella to guard Sealion).
    1
  198. There is a very simple formula why the LW lost the BoB. They had didn't have the right planes, and not enough of the wrong ones... 1944 showed what would have happened if the LW had long range escort fighters, or at least the 5 to 1 superiority in numbers the combined air forces of the USAAF and RAF had at this point. In 1940, the roughly 1.5 to 1 superiority in numbers the LW had over the RAF was not nearly enough for a sustained strategic air campaign.
    1
  199. London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent... London's standpoint, by own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time." Primary source material: [Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war. And so the London lords played their "balancing games". From: The Complete Yes Minister: "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe. Not satire at all. That's what happened. How absolutely funny... The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas. That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain. Millions dead. Millions mutilated. Too bad. So sad. Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire. Good riddance. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction... Sad. Good riddance.
    1
  200. Rather look at the day "peace failed", which was the 15th March 1939. The "deciders" of Munich did nothing to defend the borders they had imposed on Czechoslovakia. That is what they do. Impose. Do nothing, if you living somewhere in the world, isn't important enough for a war for themsleves...
    1
  201. Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). And so "poor little Belgium" was born. Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-) "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
    1
  202. "1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Balance of Power; The Nuttall Encyclopedia; Balance of Power ; A phrase in international law for such a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations as should. prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power…" https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Technology-of-war-in-1914 [Britannica] In principle, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, by 1914 the 2 "blocks" of alliance partners had completely skewed the old system of "balancing" the power of countries. The two resulting blocks were fairly equally balanced in terms of GDP, military forces, education of the population, industrial might, technology, etc. But concerning other criteria re. "power", like a strategic advantage, access to raw materials, population, global reach, etc. the Tripple Alliance was becoming rapidly "outbalanced" by the Tripple Entente, and intended to correct this resulting "imbalance". European leaders had long foreseen the potential disaster of a "great war" scenario in times of modern warfare. Improvements in technology, meant ever more devastating weapons. Industrialization, the potential for all encompassing "total wars". From Moltke the Elder in the mid-19th century [The days are gone by when, for dynastical ends, small armies of professional soldiers went to war to conquer a city, or a province, and then sought winter quarters or made peace. The wars of the present day call whole nations to arms.... The entire financial resources of the State are appropriated to military purposes...] to Churchill in 1901 [ We must not regard war with a modern Power as a kind of game….A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle (ending) in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. —1901, 13 May, House of Commons] The inflexibility of the alliance system would turn out to be the end of Europe. According to common practice "states can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances." [Britannica] Because none of the other powers were willing to address the increasing imbalance (as the years passed), Germany/Austria-Hungary set upon a path of increasing both their "power" as well as a more favorable strategic position, by allying with the Ottoman Empire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
    1
  203. An "impossible" peace? More like "how can the winners sweep their guilt for the war under the carpet"... France for example: Unbeknownst to Berlin/Vienna, there was another "blank cheque" issued during the state visit of a French delegation to St Petersburg. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9 (See: July Crisis) Excerpts: "When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[22] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[23] In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[19] Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[19]" " Poincaré arrived back in Paris on 29 July and at 7 am on 30 July, with Poincaré's full approval, Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas affirming that: in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.[24]" "In his diary entry for the day, Poincaré wrote that the purpose of the message was not to prevent war from breaking out but to deny Germany a pretext and thereby obtain British support for the Franco-Russian alliance.[24] He approved of Russian mobilization.[24] " The intention of the French "blank cheque" was clearly to expand the crisis, or the intended (at the time, by Vienna) "limited war" with limited impact in northern Serbia. Furthermore, also to drag GB in on their side. Smart, and admirable, according to some...
    1
  204. Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..." Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet. In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire. The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false. At the time, the issue was mainly China. Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc. It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option. Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure"). The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today. In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles. According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..." True. The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races. Machiavelli... What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding? "And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505 Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of... Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals". They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals". The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes. Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire). "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire". The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure. Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad". You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ". You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid". You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
    1
  205.  @bolivar2153  According to your own government, and most historians: "When the Allies met in Versailles to formulate the treaty to end World War I with Germany and Austria-Hungary, most of Wilson’s 14 Points were scuttled by the leaders of England and France. To his dismay, Wilson discovered that England, France, and Italy were mostly interested in regaining what they had lost and gaining more by punishing Germany. Germany quickly found out that Wilson’s blueprint for world peace would not apply to them."
    1
  206.  @bolivar2153  Yes I did. Germany was not the only nation "sold out" at Versailles. There were many others, incl. The Ukraine. From wiki: "Thus Ukrainian representatives Arnold Margolin and Teofil Okunevsky had high hopes for American mission, but in the end found it even more categorical than French and British: This meeting, which took place on June 30, made a tremendous impression on both Okunevsky and me. Lansing showed complete ignorance of the situation and blind faith in Kolchak and Denikin. He categorically insisted that the Ukrainian government recognise Kolchak as the supreme ruler and leader of all anti-Bolshevik armies. When it came to the Wilson principles, the application of which was predetermined in relation to the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Lansing said that he knew only about the single Russian people and that the only way to restore Russia was a federation modeled on the United States. When I tried to prove to him that the example of the United States testifies to the need for the preliminary existence of separate states as subjects for any possible agreements between them in the future, he evaded answering and began again stubbornly urging us to recognise Kolchak. [...] Thats how in reality these principles were implemented. USA supported Kolchak, England — Denikin and Yudenich, France — Galler... Only Petliura was left without any support. — Arnold Margolin, Ukraine and Policy of the Entente (Notes of Jew and Citizen)" Too bad they didn't honor the principles of the "14 points", but started to (typically human) "watering it down" to suite predetermined criteria. 20 years later, they would all suffer the consequences of their duplicity. Yes, also your country's citizens would suffer, if where you live today fought in WW2. There were no "winners". Unless you consider a few parades and speeches as "winning, so much winning, tired of all the winning".
    1
  207.  @bolivar2153  And the "winners" got what they deserved in 1939... "Winners" turning to "whiners". Too bad.
    1
  208. London first sold their soul for a 5-5-3-2-2 deal with the USA. Then they lost their Empire to the smarter geopolitics of Washington D.C...
    1
  209.  @robertmoore6149  Europe and Japan could have easily stood up to the USA, even after WW1 (Balance of Power). Of course the Brits also sold their soul at Versailles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Like a boxer who didn't see the left hook coming.... Oh well. Too bad.
    1
  210.  @robertmoore6149  London was looking in the wrong direction. They thought "divide and rule" of the continent would secure their position as nr.1 in the world... So in the beginning there was a king on a golden throne, surrounded by lords, who made every single continental citizen "the enemy" as a default setting... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
    1
  211.  @robertmoore6149  Geopolitics is everything. It is the "ring which rules all the other rings"... Unfortunately, GB had short-sighted politicians. With their own "Policy of Balance of Power", they dug a deep grave into which Europe fell first, then followed by their own Empire.
    1
  212.  @robertmoore6149  It's about a lot more than a mere arms limitations treaty. It's about geopolitics. We always read about the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Yet, hardly a "history book" or "BBC doc" which says what happened to it. One day it was there, then it was gone... Just like Mers El Kebir was about geopolitics. What happened to the Entente Cordial? One day it was there, then it was gone... You are missing the big picture. Think BIG, real BIG.
    1
  213.  si james  Maybe you can explain how GB went from Nr. 1 to "merely on par" with the USA after WW1, down to "3rd fiddle" in the Cold War? From the "ruler of the world", to "flat broke" in less than a lifetime... From "sun never sets on Empire" to "can't find myself on a top 5 list anymore"... [Note: pop music doesn't count :-)] WTF happened?
    1
  214.  @robertmoore6149  Don't pretend there wasn't a choice. Read my comments again.  @robert moore  Europe and Japan could have easily stood up to the USA, even after WW1 (Balance of Power). Of course the Brits also sold their soul at Versailles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Like a boxer who didn't see the left hook coming.... Oh well. Too bad.
    1
  215.  @robertmoore6149  Like all dogmatist, incl. most British leaders, you're missing the obvious...
    1
  216.  @robertmoore6149  I wrote a percentages agreement with Germany. I didn't say the 1944 Percentages Agreement between Stalin and Churchill. Obviously, if it can be done in 1944, it could also have been done in 1918/19 as part of a peace treaty between Berlin and London. Are you British?
    1
  217.  @robertmoore6149  No, what London was doing was claim to be the "guarantor of peace" in Europe on one side... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica ...whilst on the other secretly choose sides in another, contradictory policy... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power Or, openly and proudly pat its own back as a "peacekeeper", but secretly contradict that mission with a backroom policy, made by a few lords, which is aimed at the continent's strongest power, irrelevant of right or wrong. That's duplicitous in my books. Sorry London. No "goody two shoes for you" ;-) No, obviously London didn't "owe" anybody on the continent anything. It owed its own people peace, but gave them death and misery and a soon to be ruined Empire. Don't try to point elsewhere or look for splinters in the eyes of others. There was only London to blame for that (as indeed all nations only have their own leaders to blame apart from Belgium, the only real victim).
    1
  218.  @robertmoore6149  I didn't delete anything.
    1
  219.  @robertmoore6149  Here, I'll repeat it. Instead of being so dumb as to rescind the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, London should have insisted on separate peace negotiations, and concluded a percentages (of influence) treaty with Germany in 1919, seeing they'd already surrendered (Armistice)
    1
  220.  @robertmoore6149  Maybe you can explain how GB went from Nr. 1 to "merely on par" with the USA after WW1, down to "3rd fiddle" in the Cold War? From the "ruler of the world", to "flat broke" in less than a lifetime... From "sun never sets on Empire" to "can't find myself on a top 5 list anymore"... [Note: pop music doesn't count :-)] WTF happened?
    1
  221.  @pauldavies5611  Alternative history is always tricky, but I'm certain that if a more liberal-minded leadership had introduced timely change (same as with the British Empire), such as "United States of Austria"... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria ...that the Balkans would have been a more content region, without the grievances and duress. Grievances, or duress, of course were (and are still today) always a perfect scenario for the "pied pipers" with their "agendas". Yes, history would certainly have been a lot different, had Austria-Hungary managed a timely metamorphosis into a "United States"...
    1
  222.  @robertmoore6149  Of course I understand the concept of "going broke". Just like I understand it on the micro level (individuals, businesses or families), I also understand it on the macro level (countries, empires). It's called "overreach", or "biting off more than can be chewed", or simply "making the wrong friends" :-) London did all of the above, over-reached, and lost their Empire.
    1
  223.  @SeasiderPhil  In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.” http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..." The London lords said, "Nah...want to keep my place in the sun." Meanwhile, some were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"... https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it ...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore. With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds. Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon". Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt." Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
    1
  224.  @MyDogmatix  Nah. Nothing to do with "dark matter". Rather own leaders with a lack of "grey matter", or "working brain cells". Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works. 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 protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"... London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". What could possibly go wrong? 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] Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, 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...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Now, fill in the blanks yourself. 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, they 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. Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
    1
  225. The the biggest mistake in 1919, not allowing self-determination to "draw the borders". Men in suites "drew lines on the map", naively believing millions would simply put up with being "carved up" and seperated from business partners, work, family or friends... Twenty years later their misguided logic come back to haunt them. The "seeds sown" at the end of WW1 had to be "reaped", just as it says in their Bibles....
    1
  226. For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it? Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive... From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..." Excellent indeed... London, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham...suitably Coventrized. Nice "verb" that, according to the lords... When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared... Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing... No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh? All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff... Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
    1
  227. Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists). Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it." Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place... In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies. Recipe for success? Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright. And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die? Stalin. "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Stalin 19th August 1939 Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars... No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling. He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
    1
  228.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  Yeah, I guess after being told in WW1 that "German soldiers were bajonetting babies" German citizens shoulda totally believed everything written on a leaflet dropped by their opponents. Makes perfect sense...
    1
  229.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  According to the "British historian logic" (not mine) Belgium simply reaped what they sowed in the Congo. 6,000 civilian deaths and a few thousand slaves were the price to pay for 10-20 million brutalized and dead slaves/oppressed black people. Belgians used to be terrible people, but after being taught a lesson during WW1, they are OK now...
    1
  230.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  As logical as if the murder of Germans had taken place at the hands of the Jews their fellow countrymen had killed.
    1
  231.  @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684  There were no "bajonetted babies" in Belgium in WW1. It's a myth.
    1
  232. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    1
  233. In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world. Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life. Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...” The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night. Only... ...the speech... ...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914. "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war... Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power. Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
    1
  234. OK, the big picture then. Unfortunately, although declared wisely, WW2 was implemented unwisely... Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes. In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"... One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... And the other "friends"? On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin. Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
    1
  235. Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..." Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet. In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire. The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false. At the time, the issue was mainly China. Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc. It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option. Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure"). The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today. In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles. According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..." True. The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races. Machiavelli... What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding? "And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505 Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of... Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals". They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals". The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes. Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire). "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire". The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure. Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run. You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad". You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ". You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid". You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
    1
  236.  @michaellinch5828  The motivation for Indians to fight was "salary", not patriotism. Furthermore, most of those who fought (Sinks or Gurhkas) were on the winning side of a colonial policy "divide and rule". Ever heard of divide and rule? If not, I suggest google....
    1
  237. It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2. With a London policy. I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting. The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] According to London's own policy: "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself." The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power). They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. Note: nothing personal. The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy. It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around... Enjoy.
    1
  238. In 1919, peace failed for the same reason why peace failed in 1914. Too many M-A-I-N types, and everyone wanted to be the boss.
    1
  239. If your leaders love total war, they should also expect "total" results, and if your leaders love total control, they should also expect total loss if they fail. London set up Europe to fail TWICE. At the end of WW2 they lost their "my precious Empire" to their "best friends" thanks to their love of total war. The only thing that saved their "my precious Empire" for a few more years was the fact that the new alpha Washington DC needed them as tools to defend against the commies they had granted enhanced powers in the new balance of power scheme they had set up to supercede London... And so the game continued: "best fwiends" one day, enemies the next...."best fwiends" one day, enemies the next...."best fwiends" one day, enemies the next...."best fwiends" one day, enemies the next...."best fwiends" one day, enemies the next...."best fwiends" one day, enemies the next.... Keep on cheering.
    1
  240. Yup. What you dish out is what you get. Counts for all, right? Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"... Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944] Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany. Lose your Empire, and then some... Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It doesn't say "more than the measure".
    1