Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @thevillaaston7811  Of course the Americans were delighted. Whoever said they weren't? Of course they reassured the British they'd done nothing wrong, and rewarded them lavishly with old destroyers and lotsa war goodies... They were far far away. The USA was in no danger. Get it? Meanwhile, the Entente Cordial was a dead letter. Meanwhile, Washington D.C. stepped in and offered the offended French a generous shoulder to cry on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Vichy_France New "best fwiends"...oh, how it warms my heart...
    1
  2.  @thevillaaston7811  From historians.org: " Just exactly what was Britain’s ability to keep on with cash payments in December 1940? She had entered the war in September 1939 with about 4.5 billion dollars of gold and investments in securities in the United States. Most of these belonged to private British citizens and British companies. During the first year of the war the British government had bought these holdings from its citizens, paying for them in British government bonds. Then it sold the securities and gold reserves for dollars, and pooled the whole amount in one fund. This process produced a supply of dollars on this side with which Britain could purchase war goods in the United States. From September 1939 to the end of 1940 the British managed to realize some 2 billion dollars—in addition to the 4.5 billion dollars mentioned above—from sales of gold newly mined in the British Empire, from exports, and other sources. But this additional amount had been spent in 1940 for war purchases, chiefly in the United States. Thus, by December 1940, the British supply of dollars was down to about 2 billion. About 1.5 billion of this would be needed to pay for munitions and supplies already ordered in the United States but not yet delivered. So low was Britain’s dollar reserve that new orders for war goods had almost stopped at the time when she needed them most." All that cash for the American Century coffers. Bleeding Empire dry... Nothing's free baby. Yes, yes....
    1
  3.  @thevillaaston7811  Cash, cash, cash....for the coffers of the American Century... https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it Thanks GB. You not only practically financed the development of our nukes, costing around 2 billion dollars, you also gave us your scientists to help the US develop them... Thanks "best fwiends" :-)
    1
  4.  @thevillaaston7811 Yes. Your "best fwiends" over on the other side of the Atlantic, far far away from the action...in no danger whatsoever...and the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world works... Ever wonder why the "best friends" over in the New World didn't sail in like heroes to help out in 1939 or 1940? Because during WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals. Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke... But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... The USA said to the rest of the world, including "good friends", you shall not have nuclear weapons! https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"... Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine". @TheVilla Aston Cash, cash, cash....for the coffers of the American Century... https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it Thanks GB. You not only practically financed the development of our nukes, costing around 2 billion dollars, you also gave us your scientists to help the US develop them... Thanks "best fwiends" :-) That is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me. A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
    1
  5.  @thevillaaston7811  Do you believe in fairy tales?
    1
  6.  @thevillaaston7811  From nr.1 to merely "on par" with Washington D.C. after WW1, down to 3rd fiddle during the Cold War.... Good thing "best fwiends" stand together. Such a "special relationship". Forevermore. Such a nice story. Sniff. Sniff...
    1
  7.  @thevillaaston7811  Whatever dude... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-science-of-sarcasm-yeah-right-25038/ Still better than being a moron....
    1
  8.  @thevillaaston7811  Strawmanning, Red Herrings, name calling, pathetic attempts at deflection... The full nine yards of fallacies.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Why didn't your American Century "best fwiends" give you nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim your Empire's Balance of Power on the continent?
    1
  9.  @thevillaaston7811  Looks like I'll have to answer my own question again... They didn't because there was nothing "in it" for Washington D.C. Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... Of course "not enough nukes", or "there are just tooooo many of them Winnie", and "it's soooooo risky, my fwiends" were made. A fool, is one who cannot distinguish between "excuses" and "ulterior motives"... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... Stalin: "I figured out Washington isn't going to support you in your efforts to restore the post-WW1 Balance of Power, so I changed my mind about the Percentages Agreement we made. Here's Greece, now eff off and I'll take the rest 100%. Whadda ya gonna do about it?" Churchill: "...but, but, but...you pwomised..."
    1
  10.  @thevillaaston7811  German General: "Just look at zis mess, Alles Kaput....sorry, we're really not up to zis anymore..." France: "Don't look at me pal...remember Mers? Hmmm?"
    1
  11.  @thevillaaston7811  Has the penny dropped yet?  As long as you use the "destroy Germany"-filter, rather than the "protect Empire"-filter, you'll end up with same effect: You can relish in the accomplishment of destroying Germany, and cry forever about the effect of a collapsed empire... Nobody once begged your geostrategists to make Germany "the enemy by default" (aka London's unilaterally and secretly decided upon Policy of Balance of Power) so deal with the effects of own historical choices... What came first dipshit? How does a timeline work? Familiarize yourself with causality and self-fulfilling prophecy. Who started it? Imagine London wasn't ruled by such arrogant stiff upper lipped idiots and ars*holes, and you'd actually introduced reforms to adapt your Empire to the new values of the 20th century. Aw well. Too late. From "the sun never sets on the British Empire", to "can't seem to make a Top 5 list of anything these days anymore" ...in less than a lifetime. So sad...
    1
  12.  @thevillaaston7811  British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever.... They 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, or alienating France was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Not hindsight, but a lack of foresight (aka "short-sightedness") 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 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... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... 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. And down went the British Empire too... Sad. So sad...
    1
  13.  @thevillaaston7811  Oh my God. My entire logic and reasoning totally crushed by a oneliner... I'm totally devastated.
    1
  14.  @thevillaaston7811  Why didn't your American Century "best fwiends" give you nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim your Empire's Balance of Power on the continent?
    1
  15.  @thevillaaston7811  Before WW1, Belgium was a tool to protect the British Empire by "balancing powers" on the continent (back then France/Russia vs. Germany). After WW1, Versailles (and her little brothers, like Trianon, etc.) "balanced powers" on the continent, in order to protect The British Empire. Before WW2, Poland was a tool to protect the British Empire by "balancing powers" on the continent (now, Nazi Germany vs. SU). If your little 2 dimensional brain cannot compute this reality, that is your problem...
    1
  16.  @thevillaaston7811  Why didn't your American Century "best fwiends" give you nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim your Empire's Balance of Power on the continent? Do I have to give you the answer why a European "Balance of Power" dictated by London, favored London, and why a Global "Balance of Power" determined by Washington, favored Washington? I highlighted the important bits...just for birdbrains. I'm so kind :-)
    1
  17. 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...
    1
  18. Big winner? The "divider". Who benefitted most from European division and hate? Correct answer? The American Century. No wonder the "emperor" FDR was always smiling so benignly...lol
    1
  19.  @dovetonsturdee7033  What did the ultimatum state about the safety of French subjects in N.Africa who would be left to the mercy of any "hyena" wishing to exploit the temporary French weakness in June/July 1940?
    1
  20.  @dovetonsturdee7033  Because that was the raison d'etre of a French soldier. Protect French citizens.
    1
  21.  @dovetonsturdee7033  A French soldiers doesn't have to answer "British orders". His orders are to await French orders. In case these had been dishonorable, he would then be free to scuttle his own ships rather that hand them over. Examples for such actions by honorable soldiers exist on all sides, in case a political decision is deemed "dishonorable". What makes you think any French admiral/captain would have simply handed over his ship in case a political peace treaty signed under duress had been forced to be signed? What makes you think an ally had even less honor than the Germans who did exactly that ? (Versailles leading to the scuttling of the German navy in Scapa Flow)
    1
  22.  @dovetonsturdee7033  It didn't have to be "brought up" or even "on record". The above considerations are universal, often relayed in casual conversation (or "hints") and are "given factors".
    1
  23. Errr... on the 3rd of July there was no "Vichy" yet.
    1
  24.  @dovetonsturdee7033  And?
    1
  25. Of course, they could also have "shown their resolve to fight" by coming to the aid of Poland, and engaging Germany in a 2-front war they would most likely have lost in 1939 already, seeing how the most/best German divisions were fully occupied in Poland, leaving only token/weak divisions in their west. Correct?
    1
  26.  @johnrogers1423  The premise was stil "showing a resolve to fight (to Washington DC)". "At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."[11] General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."[12] From wiki The correct number of available forces were 40 divisions, 78 artillery regiments, and 40 tank battalions. Irrelevant of success or not, their immediate attack would have forced the Germans to withdraw significant number of troops from Poland, giving the Poles a "breather" and possibly even have saved Warsaw. There is no reason to believe that the Western Alles and the SU would have clashed, had London/Paris informed Warsaw (after the 17th) that they would have to accept the loss of their eastern territories (east of the post-WW1 Curzon Line), and that London/Paris would under no circumstances continue their assault on Germany in the west, should Polish forces decide to attack the SU. The people who lived east of the Curzon Line were overwhelmingly White Russians and Ukrainians, so there would have been no moral obligation to oppose the SU from "taking them back".
    1
  27. Lots of comments here accusing the French of being pompous or arrogant in their refusal to deal with a "mere captain". Imagine a reversal of the situation: say (after a hypothetical invasion of GB) it was about the future of Gibraltar, and the French had sent an ultimatum that British ships leave immediately, disarm or blow themselves up, and a French admiral had sent a captain "to negotiate"... Oh..."the outrage"...lol Right or wrong? Easy. Refer to your bibles. Do not judge, if not "in the shoes" of others.
    1
  28. Correct. The "prove we were going to fight" is another attempt at misleading. London had a proven track record and history of being a "turncoat" who'd "hop over here, hop over there (aka "loyalties") for short-term gain, all under the guise of "balancing powers". "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] A "turncoat" screaming "turncoat" is Tu Quoque... If anybody had to fear that London would suddenly "hop onto" Berlin to balance out the remaining rest of the world (USA plus SU), then that had more to do with London, not the French...
    1
  29. Obviously, the only mistake France ever made was choosing GB as a "friend". When it comes to history, it doesn't take long for historians large and small, to appear on the scene with "shouda done"-logic. Of course, everybody else "shouda just" done this or done that, then the world "wouda been" such a gweat place... Japan for example. Japan suffered from a geographical dilemma typical of powers which lacked the ability (economy/industry) to focus on one strategy, like France. Just like France, which also had (a result of geography) political forces which divided economic/industrial/financial power between a "navy league" of supporters, and an "army league", resulting in both being less powerfull. Japan, as an island, should have concentrated on the navy at the expense of the army, just like GB which was also an island. Its failure was trying to do both, at the expense of her own population (domestic economy). If one sees the logic of that: Same with France. So where are the historians pointing out that France "coulda" started a rapprochement with Germany after "Francophobe"-Bismarck took his hat, thereby enabling France to concentrate on its navy and its empire? Obviously, with a treaty in its pocket, there would be no need for such a powerful army. France instead "chose" Russia, thinking that there would be more "in it" for herself (imperialism). End effect 50 years later, is that it went down. Some would say that this was a good thing. "Obviously", millions dying to "end colonialism" was a great thing, since no other option ever ever ever existed... So. Back to square one. Where are these "shouda done" historians stating that France should have simply morphed its own empire into a "franc block of equals" (economic/military block of equal partners), avoiding their own bloody colonial/decolonisation history altogether, which would even have made Machiavelli very happy in his grave indeed... Of course, according to the "finger pointers", it's only always and ever only the other guy who always only ever "shouda done" something different. Never the own leaders. Never point back at the own self, or "best friends"... The above is of course the "false dilemma", stating that the own "dear leaders" only and ever always had that 1 choice, and made the right one, while everybody else was always just "wrong/evil". From wiki: "A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist". (end of quote) The truth is of course that everybody always had multiple choices at most times in history, and own leaders simply did not choose correctly, but were enticed by their "darker side" to step towards the wrong side of history. France's main mistake was not Mers el Kebir, but choosing GB as a "best friend" looooong before WW1.
    1
  30. Goes both ways...
    1
  31.  @TomFynn  They were British. Backstabbing and opportunism goes with the territory.
    1
  32.  @m00nch11d  Betrayed came at a price. Because there was the big picture...and this is 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, neither totally destroying Germany, nor dissing France, was either wise or 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.
    1
  33.  @sylvainprigent6234  Never let a short-term gain (Mers el Kebir), come before a long-term loss (geopolitics). After Mers, France leaned across the Atlantic, to seek shelter under Washington D.C.'s ample wings... No wonder the FDR was secretly pleased. He served the American Century... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Whatever weakens the British Empire, is good enough. Even the demise of the Entente Cordial. Brits were extremely bad at this game of geopolitics.
    1
  34. The French ran off to seek shelter under Washington D.C.'s wings... No wonder the "emperor" FDR was pleased. He served the American Century... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Whatever weakens the British Empire, is good enough. Even the demise of the Entente Cordial. Brits were extremely bad at this game of geopolitics.
    1
  35. They became an "associated power" because in their hour of need in May 1940 nobody came to help. No Spitfires & no American soldiers. Only France pitted against a vastly superior enemy in all major respects (economy, size, population). They became an "associated power" in NATO, as soon as they became a nuclear power. Weird huh? Do you believe in coincidences?
    1
  36. In end effect the French ran off to seek shelter under Washington D.C.'s ample wings... No wonder the "emperor" FDR was so pleased. He served the American Century... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Whatever weakens the British Empire, is good enough. Even the demise of the Entente Cordial.
    1
  37. The French would have sunk their ships, irrelevant what the armistice said, or some farraway politician in Paris signed with the Nazis under duress.
    1
  38. Whoever said the French would have joined the Nazis?
    1
  39. Google false premise...
    1
  40.  @gabriellang7998  If you're on the topic of assumptions about others, whoever said GB wouldn't make a deal with Hitler?
    1
  41.  @gabriellang7998  No, "the whole event" was that no political long-term agreement had yet been reached about who would protect French N. African possessions from (most likely event = Italian "hyena") invasion, if the French navy left.
    1
  42.  @gabriellang7998  Rgds and same here. Stay safe.
    1
  43. Correct. If Churchill had actually sent an admiral with the full power of negotiation the outcome would have been completely different.
    1
  44. There were no "French delusions" of grandeur. Only the wish to defend North Africa from invasion. Who was going to defend Algeria if the French navy left?
    1
  45. Get off your high horse. Study what happened on the Channel Islands, when the Brits of the greatest generation who remained behind did EXACTLY the same as all civilians in occupied nations at any point in history ever did -- some resisted and some collaborated, some hid Jews, and others turned them in, some spit at the Germans, and others cowered and obeyed, some avoided the occupiers while others invited them for tea or a glass of Champagne. Grow up and face reality. In case GB had ever been invaded and occupied, you would have seen the same scenes in GB as in France. GB was saved by geography, more than anything else.
    1
  46. Pity about the lost lost Empire...
    1
  47. Hmmm. "Error", or "justification" ;-)
    1
  48. Easy answer: French citizens in Algeria against (main threat) "the hyena" Italy hoping to gain from the French defeat in Europe.
    1
  49. Hindsight is one of the most common historical fallacies. If the squadron had sailed and abandoned French citizens in North Africa, and Italy had then seized the opportunity of an easy conquest, by "being hyena" and attacking/invading Algeria, De Gaule and historians would then have accused Gensoul of being a traitor, by abandoning his duties and leaving millions of French citizens to their doom. Hindsight is easy peasy. You see, with politicians, and "historians" it really doesn't matter what one does. It's about what one emphasizes for gain... There is only one real question (no hindsight) to be answered here, which nobody seems to want to face up to and answer. Who stepped in and offered to protect Algeria (French North Africa) "to the last bullet" when the French squadron left?
    1
  50. THE BARBARY WARS; AND LUISIANA The Barbery Wars were of course not about "ending slavery." The Barbary States employed an economy partly based on plunder and slavery, and it was attacked by a new state (USA) which partly based its economy on plunder and slavery. Sweden was still an imperialist power back then, and "player." Why the US economy was based on plunder, and land-theft? See the consecutively running Indian Wars, accompanied by land theft and attrocities. US slave trade and slavery was only decided 50 years later, during the Civil War. Search for the "appeal to emotion. There were no "good guys" vs. "bad guys" at all, only the stronger, better organized, and technologically more advanced ingroup ("us") vs. the weaker outgroup ("them"). How do the Barbary Wars fit into the global picture, which was the Napoleonic Wars, just kicking off in earnest? (1803) Because at this early point in time, the USA needed a few "friends" in North America, and paying tribute to deflect the forces of the Barbery States (affiliated with the Ottoman Empire) away from the own trade interests, meant that this money and these resources could then be employed by pirates to attack others: and both Spain and France were needed as friendly powers (Luisiana Purchase). One could hardly expect a solid foundation of a better political understanding, whilst US resources were employed to attack those one wished to align with. A "gift" was needed. A war to ...cough, cough..."end slavery"... Such land purchases were of course not to be understood the same way we as commoners "buy" houses. These were simply the exchange of "spheres of influence" under which the understanding was that the "seller" would no longer meddle in the affairs of the "buyer," and that the "buyer" could do with the territory as seen fit. A similar deal was later also struck with Spain (1819/Adams-Onis Treaty), already too weak to really influence matters globally anymore, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe collectively and conveniently "extended" all the major European powers. US money was simply re-routed from "paying pirates" to "buying a sphere of influence," in broad terms. Outside powers paid the Barbary states tribute, which meant safety for the own, whilst directing the pirates at whomever was not paying tribute. That meant richer states with means to pay could direct the attacks away from themselves, at others. In other words, the Berbers were the proxies of whoever paid them. How the Barbary Wars fit into the bigger overall global geopolitical "picture," see below...
    1