Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
@chieftenphatts7048 It was far more than a tragedy.
It was a geopolitical/grand strategy disaster.
They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The 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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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 a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
After WW2, London had no leverage to further enforce or secure agreements, and down went the British Empire.
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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 or dissing it, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying the continental balance of power, 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...game over...
Yup.
Well done.
Like pulling the rug from underneath one's own feet and then falling over.
1
-
1
-
Lastly, they came for the British Empire, but there was nobody left to speak for them...
"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.
-----------------------------------
"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]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," please respond...
1
-
All the more reasons why "generals in a Chateau miles away from the front lines, should never give orders".
A recipe for disaster.
Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons (communications).
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, when given "objectives", rather than specific orders.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "stated objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 In view of more than 3 million Germans, yes, the British contribution after Dunkirk was "token".
Furthermore, after Dunkirk, these token forces overwhelmingly "hugged" the coasts, where they could quickly hop on a boat and evacuate when the heat turned up.
The own air defenses were already held back by Dowding, so the combined effort suffered from a lack of air cover.
I've given the overall grand strategy overview at the top, under the video.
In view of the fact that in mid-June 1940 France was basically alone, Brits more inclined to view defending the continent a "lost cause", so France surrendered rather than needlessly sacrificing more French soldiers, civilians, and property destruction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher The British didn't have the power of clairvoyance, re. Nazi Germany's intentions. Mistrust of the the "word" of Berlin was justified, seeing that Hitler had agreed to the Munich Accord, only to break it (his own signature and "word") just 6 months later.
What the British did have have firm assurances, and orders to scuttle or sabotage own ships, in case of a danger of a takeover.
From critical(dot)org(uk):
"[During the negotiations between Somerville and Gensoul]...Gensoul produced orders from Darlan dated to June 24th stating that the French fleet was to be moved to the United States or sabotaged in case of an attempt to capture them by Germany."
Had Somerville been granted full negotiating powers, and an objective (say "ensure that the French Fleet does not fall into Axis hands"), rather than an ultimatum and the knee-jerk panicky "settle matters quickly"-order an agreement ensuring that the French Fleet was out of the reach of either Berlin or Rome, could have been reached.
Mers el Kebir is what happens when a nation doesn't trust its own military, but prefers to meddle politically, with specific orders, from faraway "chateauxs", rather than trusting the skill and integrity own competent military leaders, who then lead from the front.
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher Yes, that is correct.
French military = ensures the safety and protection of the French Empire, against enemies, whoever they were.
In the context of Mers, it was Germany, or a supposed "handover to the Nazis"-rhetoric.
No, the French did not "owe" GB, and the British Empire anything.
British military = ensures the safety and protection of the British Empire, against enemies, whoever they were.
Same logic counts for all.
After GB refused further aid to protect France (for example, sending more fighter planes to counter the LWs air superiority, which Dowding refused), no side owed anything to the other side anymore.
I can produce a long list of "British betrays to France" in the leadup to the French decision to accept an armistice, so both "sides" can play the "being betrayed"-game.
It goes both ways.
I'm neutral btw.
I have zero sympathy for what I term "dumb Europeans" who with cases like these (like Mers), against a backdrop of a changing world ("geopolitical" big picture) squandered away their inheritance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
99% of the video, and 99% of the commentary here is totally beside the point, because it leaves out a key actor: The USA.
Wiki: Robert Greene, 48 Rules of Power (edited as a selected few); " 2. Never put too much trust in "best fwiends", learn how to use rivals (as "proxies" for example London/Paris) 3. Conceal your intentions (from fwiends too) 4. Always say less than necessary ... 7. Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit (edit: "heavy lifting") 12. Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim 13. When (edit: attempting own goals); appeal to people’s self-interest (imperialism), never to their mercy or gratitude 14. Pose as a friend, work as a spy (aka gathering information by posing as "a fwiend")... 20. Do not commit to anyone ... Play on people’s need to believe to create a cultlike following [ze "freedumb and democwacy"- argument, which works like a dream] ... 31. Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal (ahem..."lease and lend" help to select "favorites") 32. Play to people’s fantasies 33. Discover each man’s thumbscrew (money/influence/desire for power and control) 34. Be royal in your own fashion: act like a king to be treated like one 35. Master the art of timing ... 38. Think as you like but behave like others (imperialism/neoimperialism for example employing "acts of ENABLING") 39. Stir up waters to catch fish (for example "send a gunboat/military, wait to get shot at, or 'a Maine explosion', to then 'act in self-defence', or 'for the poor people', or whatever...") 40. Despise the free lunch ... 42. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter ... (take out the main opposition to own goals, in this case Berlin) 44. Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect (hypocrisy is a strategy, not "an oversight") 45. Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once ("conservatism" is an -ism and a bias) 46. Never appear too perfect (In other words, have a few massacres and regime change opps/invasions oneself, to "blend in" with the other kids in the imperialist club) 47. Do not go past the mark you aimed for: in victory, learn when to stop (strategy aka "one step at a time")"
1
-
@Thoradim They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The 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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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 a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 I "speak English", so how could I ever ever intend harm? :-D
Just like everyone who "speaks English" must be "a fwiend", right?
Right...
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
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 2:
"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]
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...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the pathetic "Empire".
Of course, in both cases the gentlemen in control were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course the "ship" was steering.
Reminds me of Captain Smith on the Titanic shouting "Full speed ahead!".
Do you understand why I left SA as soon as I reached the age of reason?
For the British Empire.
1) Make timely internal changes:
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for all the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:
That pitted GB/Empire against the strongest continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
Aww.
Too bad.
Like your "London lords" who once stiff-upper-lipped their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", you are simply too proud and arrogant to accept the reasons your pathetic "Empire" faded away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with your "new best fwiends" (lol) the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All "engineered" by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools" (because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage), that London once used when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century)...
Sorry :-)
LOL. No, not really...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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 a continental power or dissing it, 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1