Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
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
-
@patrickbotti2357 At the end of it all, someone "ran off" with the British Empire and the old slogan "speaking German" is just simplistic chanting for the meek, to cover up how British leaders lost their Empire through incompetence and greed.
"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]
How'd that work out after WW2?
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.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
The only "special" thing about that "relationship" was that somebody had to be the one who had to bend over...
You see "speaking English" doesn't save anybody either :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pbotti A good comment.
Of course, it makes little sense "whining" about the course of a specific historical event, without exploring viable alternatives.
Of course such an alternative already existed.
It is even mentioned in almost every history book about wars.
Re. "viable alternatives", at the time, and easily implementable, I repeat: I find it 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, given "objectives", not specific orders.
That is so true.
Lesson learnt? I fear not.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly order" 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 "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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, it wasn't only "the French thinking about French interests (their "Empire") which must be considered, but also Brits thinking about their Empire, thereby ignoring common sense.
Unfortunately, rules went out the back door, but not logic...
British leaders were fools, and ignored 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.
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 Germany, nor "dissing" one of these "balancing tools" (France), 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, 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...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
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...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture in regards to the potential Anglo-German Alliance.
Let's not forget there is always a big picture.
"The Naval Laws (German: Flottengesetze, "Fleet Laws") were five separate laws passed by the German Empire, in 1898, 1900, 1906, 1908, and 1912."
[wiki]
Note that these had to be approved and passed in the German Reichstag (Berlin parliament), and were therefore not secret.
Without sufficient support, any bill (such as in any democratic process) could have been downvoted.
British "offers" re. "an alliance", or limiting the effects of blockades, or at least the "heartfelt desire" (LOL) of neutrality in case of a European War made to the continent's most powerfull country (alliance):
1898: The Chamberlain/Balfour offers re. "an alliance" (1898), serious efforts to achieve are generally considered (by most historians) as to have pettered out and ending in 1903.
1906: ...
1908: The Hague International Law 1899 and 1907 (an attempt by the international community in London in 1908 to limit the effects of blockades to short range blockades of ports only, which would therefore not affect neutrals or non-belligerents). This was negotiated, agreed upon, signed, but then not ratified by London.
1912: The Haldane Mission (1912). Berlin of course soon found out that Haldane was there to "talk, not negotiate"...
Weird...
Bait and switch....
Make a "sweet offer"...
Dangle a juicy carrot in front of the donkeys, hoping that the "other side" were "lions lead by donkeys"...
Potentially influence members of the German parliament, in the way they would vote on the Naval Bills (the typical "undecided" minister could be potentially "swung"). Or "dragging feet" with regards to negotiations themselves, until the date of the vote, thereby torpedoeing its implementation.
Re. the critical question concerning the obvious correlation between the dates of the German naval bills, and sudden London "friendly offers" re. alliances, talks regarding changes to International Law which would deeply affect London's "grip" (via the Royal Navy) on a continental power, or a neutrality accord with the continent's most powerfull state (and alliance, the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary).
Of course "What about the missing 1906?" is a perfectly valid question.
The "naval act" of 1906 was merely an insignificant amendment, without great weight.
"1906 Amendment: Approved 19 May 1906; strength unchanged except for 5 extra large cruisers for the foreign fleet plus 1 extra large cruiser in material reserve, and 48 additional torpedo boats."[from wiki]
Here the lack of any special London interest in the leadup to the German parliament voting on the bill of 1906 is even more conspicious that the cause for London's "offers" is related the German Naval Acts, and that there is a direct connection between these (cause and effect).
But surely the dates are "purely coincidence" or could simply be "correlation", not causal (search for "correlation does not imply causation").
None whatsoever.
London considered itself the "balancer of powers", and had no intention of having her hands tied re. the way they intended to fight in any "next great war", whichever way it unfolded, whoever "started it", or whatever the causes and reasons for such war could be (no hindsight, since of course nobody knew there would be a war in 1914: but "policy" was "policy" regardless).
London had no intention of using the diplomatic means realistically at London's disposal to limit the risk of a war breaking out, by attempting to alleviate the tension between the three powers in question (Germany/France/Russia). It suited the London lords just fine that Germany was wedged in between GB's main historical imperialist rivals for territory and gain (Russia and France), and the lords had no intention of sacrificing the potential situation that all continental powers, engaged in a "total war", would end up "mutually exhausted", thereby strengthening the grip a little nation of 40 million people had on world affairs ("weight"). Of course, if everybody else ended up "totally exhausted" and "totally demoralized", one's own "power"/"leverage" would automatically rise respective to others.
Of course, for politicians who considered the presence of an opposing army in Belgium as a threat, as Casus Belli, or a "pistol pointing at the heart of London", the fact that Russian soldiers were less than 100 miles from Berlin, and of great worry (two-front war) to Berlin, is pure hypocrisy.
Even a simple neutrality accord or non-aggression pact between London and Berlin would have taken a great burden off Berlin's shoulders, since a war (any war threatening the balance of power) would have automatically included GB/Empire.
Berlin was confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war), but with GB thrown into the deal as the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers", it would have to be a "short war" through Belgium (note: "in strategy" or "an explanation", not to be confused with "apologia" or "sympathy for invading armies" for which there is none on my part).
A pre-war neutrality agreement or non-aggresion pact between London and Berlin would have meant Berlin could return to the pre-1905 situation (no single contingency plan, aka the so-called "Schlieffen Plan" only, but rather multiple war plans adapted to expected circumstances as had existed prior to 1913), comfortable in mastering any potential Russian or French aggression should such aggression ever arise. Lastly, with any form of long-term mutually beneficial treaty/alliance/accord in place and ratified, Germany would also not have needed a bigger navy.
History is not set in stone, and any positive changes along the way would have effected events on the timeline.
1
-
1
-
Churchill lost the British Empire.
It was far more than just 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons.
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, given "objectives", not specific orders.
True.
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 "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...
It was neither "necessary", nor wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 There is a much deeper issue never discussed in documentaries or videos like this, which is geopolitics.
If a state always does what it can, rather than what it should, then these actions will have effects.
An "issue" I've never seen discussed, except for the false "Roosevelt had to be impressed"-narrative, is the attitude of the USA.
Concerning WW2, it had the geographical advantage of being able to sit on the fence, and "steer" events for the own advantage.
According to the logic of "never let a crisis/war go to waste", the American Century aimed to benefit from the mistakes of its rivals. Yes, the British Empire was a rival.
The "Roosevelt had to be impressed"-narrative is false.
All the American Century fanboys in Washington DC were waited for was to see (after France), was how the alliances were going to play out, who was going to end up fighting whom, before investing in the war.
The USA was safe.
[I'll copy a longer comment re. "geographical advantage" below this one]
For the American Century, it was purely a matter of knowing that GB would keep on fighting the Axis powers, and for that an attack on the Axis powers somewhere would also have sufficed.
What Mers effectively ended, was the "cordial" part of the "entente". Regarding the way ensuring how The British Empire was indirectly protected on the continent, that was one of the last "nails in the coffin" of Empire. After Mers, France (figuratively) went across the Atlantic to cry on the ample American shoulder, and was no longer a "power" protecting the British Empire [I'll post a longer comment regarding how "balancing powers" on the continent, protected the British Empire indirectly].
Mers was a geopolitical disaster, because of its political effects.
On the other hand, giving viewers "options" about "what else could have have done", but leaving out the obvious (or not considering it a viable option) is known as "false dichotomy". Implying that there were no other options, even though there were, and better ones.
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 The British Empire was indirectly protect on the continent. GB never had the population or the industrial might to rule a quarter of the globe, and indirectly achieved this aim successfully for more than a 100 years.
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 on the continent by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
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 irreparable, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
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 angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings.
After Mers, France was out of the equation.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = sold off, and overrun by the commies
After WW2, there was nothing left to "balance" with...
Why do you think Roosevelt "was really pleased"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williambradley9419 Another "good book" for you, if it isn't too TLDR for you...
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
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 protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
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, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
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]
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.
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.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
@soapmaker2263 The "fiat currency" was a global policy created in the New World (USA) to overpower the Old World (Europe).
All the strategists in Washington DC (Internationalists soon to become the American Century) had to do was keenly observe...
A London policy made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "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 was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
Who "wanted to rule the world"?
Every "empire" eventually turns into what they accuse others of being (projection).
1) In 1907 Kaiser Wilhelm said: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
Such words written down without the intention of ever becoming public, give a clear indication of intent...
Believe me, it means nothing.
You WILL change your mind regarding "what it sounds like", in less than 2 minutes.
2) After WW2, German strategist envisioned a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" to control: Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under German supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" (sic.) for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.). German strategists even suggested that "the destroyed parts of Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of exploiting" (sic.) Africa."
Of course the Germans were simply thinking about the psychology of the beaten and battered, and how good it must feel to be at least "able to kick down" if ones own future looks bleak.
Perfectly OK strategy, believe me...
You WILL change your mind regarding "waht it sounds like", in less than a minute, if you continue reading...
3) At the same time, German strategists seemed to favor the idea that since there was a lack of civilized origins in Southern and Eastern Europe ... "and since the processes of government are destined to operate for a long time in the future, in many of these countries, in ways which are strange and uncongenial to Germans ... Berlin should make no moral distinctions with respect to local governments, whether they are democratic in nature or authoritarian ... only an examination of German interests at stake not just political, but economical as well ... should be in order when assessing foreign relations in Southern and Eastern Europe. Moltke goes on to recommend the naked exertion of German national power in influencing the behavior of new states, short of the use of military force, while downplaying the multilateral binding obligations that might result from the new systems system of Conferences." (loosely quoted)
Of course in the minds of such strategists, it is the people's own fault if their destiny was to become only superficially "quasi independent/sovereign" states, with own leaders to be dominated and directed as mere German puppets, and the people controlled by a police state financed from and by Berlin (and a few other "chosen few"). If some "scraps" fall off the richly-lain tables at home, onto the locals they should not complain, but be happy about such scraps...
In such a system, everybody in power understood that disloyalty would be met by immediate repercussions: a little "regime change invasion" here, and coup there, or propaganda campaigns of "discontent" funded from outside, or "disgrunted masses" suddenly finding themselves funded by sh*tloads of cash from secret slush funds...all depepending on what strategy best suited the country and times.
All with the subtle "message" to all others to "be nice, or else..."
Of course, all of the above were simply "ideas floated" on how to control "lesser people" so that 3% or 4 % of the population in this sphere of influence (so-called "Grand Area") can then control 50% of the wealth contained here.
Nothing wrong with that of course, since such instincts of greed are normal, as we shall see.
The "plan" to "rule the world" is of course based on loosely gathered strings of information from official and inofficial sources (incl. NGOs), strung together into a giant story.
For the average readers/viewer, the quotes above are of course part of "a plan" or "the perfect evidence" of how Germans wanted to "rule the world", and subdue the British Empire, their biggest rival.
Only...
...the words...
Are not German.
The first paragraph was made by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy (whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist) and taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire (1960) by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
The second and third paragraphs were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers": "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
NOTE:
Parts 1), 2) and 3) in the first half were taken verbatim from US leaders, and only changed to mask the country of origin. I did this to make a point, which is hopefully understood...
These strategies by leaders who "wanted to rule the world" is simply a part of that "1%" of history which just does not make it to the mainstream for wider audiences...
1
-
1
-
The French Fleet at Mers was no threat to the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
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...
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of US corporate capitalism (Washington D.C.) and communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and had 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...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
So yes.
The superior geostrategists in Washington D.C. won.
No wonder, that the "smiling emperor" FDR was pleased with Churchill.
1