Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
3
-
As for the introduction, agreed.
As for the date chosen ("1888") to "save Europe"...nope
It starts off with 2 false premises.
1) "smart" Bismarck kept Germany (and by extension, Europe) safe
2) Bismarck "cleverly isolated France and thereby politically isolated it"
Both are wrong.
While 1) is correct in that it isolated revanchist France from finding allies, it did not avoid the 2-front war scenario for Germany.
Number 2) is also incorrect, in that it is only "half the truth". It was not only Berlin which "isolated France" politically, but also London (see Splendid Isolation), and of course the rapidly rising USA, Russia (and also theoretically Austria-Hungary). While it was unlikely that A-H would have ended French political isolation, all the others could have, by own choice.
And after her defeat in 1871, that is exactly what happened. Being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty present to the American people). And since the Franco-Prussian War had removed Napoleon III from power, the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, opening the door to better relations.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC), it was now Washington DCs turn to play some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalists?
Isolated France/Paris, dissed by her neighbors...
3
-
2
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
2
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1