Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "War Stories"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sharongelfand5065 It was a part of the strategy of divide-and-rule. At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, 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 (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
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-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and 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 of Empire" 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 forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). 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 political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's 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. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines 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/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. 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. 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 tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan 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.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
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."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speech" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
@Andy_Babb Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1