Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Armistice: The Bitter Endgame Of World War One | Armistice | Timeline" video.

  1. 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 “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told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