Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "TLDR News Global"
channel.
-
2
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1