Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Imperial War Museums"
channel.
-
4
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, 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.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "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."
I'm sure he read a lot...
4
-
3
-
3
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@katarn999 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.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"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
The mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom.
1
-
1
-
Gravediggers....of the British Impure...hoooorah...
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : 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. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
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".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
In the new setup, the new global balance of power which favored Washington DC, London was a useful tool. They'd fight the new "default enemy" (communism) without needing much prodding.
You see, the commies wanted to rule the world, and the new alpha needed useful tools.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as a matter of policy, and able to do so because of a geographical advantage, London wanted to "rule the world" by creating a divided continent (divide and rule). In the end they themselves became a tool, because as time progressed and technology advanced, the geographical advantage passed to Washington DC.
They therefore became a tool of others, same as what they intended for their brothers across the English Channel.
Everything came a full circle.
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Using other people are "cheap ways" to advance the American Century. "Cheap" to the tune of 113 BILLION dollars to date, for probably the easiest avoidable war of the century, so far...
"To be clear, aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine, is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security." - Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist*
Imperialist arguing about the price tag for such "services rendered."
During the 1930s, the imperialists in Berlin, and the imperialists in London haggled about what should be considered a "fair price" in order for Germany to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union after the successful implementation of Moscow's 5-Year Plans, leading to a rapid steep rise of Soviet industrial- and military power during the 1930s, which threatened British rule over South Asia (see the history of the Second Tournament of Shadows (the rekindled "Great Game" of the 19th Century).
Notice that such "haggling" can take place without a single direct meeting.
Or, it can be explained by looking at actual events.
It is in fact revealed by reality, created by the events.
Place the EVENTS first.
So...first on the "list": a nice big navy...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
A little piece of Germany back...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland
A tiny sliver of Czechoslovakia...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
A nice little increase of political and military WEIGHT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel
(Based on a famous song from "To be or not to be" by Mel Brooks, 1984)
If German taxpayers were going to pay and work to "man the parapets" of the limitrophe, to balance out Russia on the other side of the WALL, there was going to be "price tag." Like it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
Europe wanted it that way and implemented this geopolitically with the Treaty of Versailles.
In the 1930s, Europe then GOT what it wanted, and what had been set up.
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
Versailles was the "divide and rule" of and over continental Europeans, by outsiders of course. Everything following in its wake, was the EFFECT. Like it or not, reality does not care what any individual thinks.
At Versailles, the people of Europe were "divided" with a "ruling." Such a "divide and rule"-strategy on the "dark side," lay the foundation of problems which have a clear causal chain of political problems leading right through to WW2, and even right through to today. This was done for own gain after WW1 (obviously, weakening Central Europe by "carving it up," indirectly resulted in gaining more own strength/ more POWER for the dividers, by subtracting it from those divided). The dividing powers were obviously wrong, because to an overwhelming extent, nobody bothered asking the people so divided what political future they wanted for themselves by means of referenda/plebiscites (overwhelmingly NOT carried out). Obviously also a BIG wrong, because by that time the leaders already knew what "dark divide and rule" might/could lead to in some possible future...
"In 1980, I heard Ralph Raico give a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on World War I. At the time, I thought how great it would be to have those lectures published. I am extremely happy that this second edition provides the student of liberty with Ralph's ideas and the research evidenced by his extensive footnotes. His article on World War I is the best, most concise statement regarding the real causes and effects — the costs—of World War I that I have seen. The title of his article, "World War I: The Turning Point" indicates that World War I, which culminated in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, constituted the turning point for all of Western civilization. It set the stage for wars throughout the remainder of the 20th century, and virtually assured that another war would occur in Europe ..." From "The Costs of War" : America's Pyrrhic Victories / edited with an introduction by John V. Denson. — 2nd expanded ed.
Set the stage.
Lay the foundation.
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"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
The mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harris was a liar. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians.
He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever.
After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie I personally researched a few years ago concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed".
Here is the truth: Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF "area bombing" city centers, with "spillover" sometimes hitting something of value
The overwhelming majority was by US daylight precision bombing raids.
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others.
He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and thieves?
1
-
1
-
Tolkien said "they were all of them deceived..."
For example the mistaken "logic" of "we had to aim for a cathedral and burn down entire cities because maybe we would hit a factory" turned the entire notion of collateral damage upside down.
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers as the main target.
They died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head and think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AAaa-wu3el "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." Strategies as revealed from a primary source, from the memory of those present at a speech Stalin allegedly made on the 19th August 1939, just before enterring a non-agression pact with Germany, the alpha of the system of fascist states, and self-declared enemy of the system of communism. The SU was a power on the periphy of Europe, with vast natural resources which could potentially steer a war in Central Europe, by controlling key raw materials like oil or manganese needed to wage modern wars. By allowing or restricting the flow of such economic means and resources to Germany as a result of an economic treaty as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, the SU could steer events and extend limited wars past a point where it might have naturally stopped previously, by drying up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
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..."
Effect: 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 (around 1900) offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, 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 either signatory. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by making it clear that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignored warnings in re. to such actions). 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 have, and should have turned masses of "inferiors" within 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 mercenanies" which came from mere "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, was 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 termed "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've demoted to "inferior".
1