Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
46
-
38
-
32
-
For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
19
-
18
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Bombing German factories was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German "factories" was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"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]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
5
-
4
-
Before WW1, Belgium was both a strategic barrier, as well as a strategic gateway, depending on how a potential continental European war developed.
The "gatekeepers" sat in London.
In case the European Balance of Power was threatened by Germany (as happened), the propaganda machine would term Belgians as "poor Belgians".
In case of another "Napoleon", and the scenario of the European Balance of Power threatened by France, the gateway that was Belgium would open. In that case, the propaganda machine in GB would term Belgians as "evil Belgians", who were simply "reaping what they had sown in The Kongo"...
Poor "Jack the Plumber", sitting in the pub, quietly drinking his ale: oblivious to what the London lords were up to behind closed doors...
4
-
I would have reminded French leaders of the role their own leaders played in escalating the July Crisis.
[From wiki]
"In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"
Viola....a French "blank cheque"?
[Continued]
"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"
Me: So much for the "we just want peace"- version of events.
[Continued]
"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"
Bearing false witness?
4
-
4
-
4
-
Versailles had no real winners.
Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come....
There were only short term winners.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone.
Or, so the plan...
British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"...
To counter that, they created policies for the continent...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
...and/or followed their instincts...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
[Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)]
Anyway. Versailles.
Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability.
Two, were not invited.....
Two were dissed...
And many were standing on the outside, hoping for a better world....
Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
4
-
3
-
3
-
@BoffinGrusky Correct.
French leaders were dumb as a pile of bricks concerning geopolitics and geostrategy.
...because after the "won" WW1, it was the USA and GB which divided the "rule of the world" amongst themselves.
According to Mahan, those who rule the oceans, rule the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan
France finished WW1 with a mighty army, but was not granted the "rule" of the World Island with this army (see Heartland Theory).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Unattainable for the French economy anyway, since according to one historian France had a "giant appetite, but had rotten teeth" (meaning that the willpower of their elites to rule and dominate was not matched by the economy or political landscape which was a shambles after WW1).
In other words, London had the "leverage" to control the destiny of the French Empire (naval power), but in return France did not have the leverage to control the destiny of the British Empire (land forces).
A bad deal, in my books...
France relinquished it's position as a first class naval power in return for "a deal" to dominate or share a few regions (Balkans, ME , Central Europe), but not the geostrategically vital Heartland (aka the "pivot" of Eurasia from which the destruction/dismantling of the British Empire by land forces was possible).
According to London, if London could not rule this herself, or by proxy, it would be divided or "balanced " amongst several rivals.
France allied herself to another power which could simply hop across the channel if a war didn't turn out as expected...
3
-
@taylorlibby7642 As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB, and could have stated their conditions for British neutrality (for example, but not limited to: no German navy actions in the Channel, no occupation of French Channel ports, respect of neutrality declarations, no expansion of the war to the colonies, respect of freedom of the seas, etc.)
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@baahcusegamer4530 Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
3
-
Very funny.
But also sadly true, and Stalin knew it.
Churchill was a terrible grand strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts.
The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, resources, skilled workers for the Gulags, not to mention new 100 million commie slaves in Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much...so kind of you", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half.
Also very funny.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad".
That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be controlled or balanced out.
Right or wrong? Not really relevant...according to these leaders.
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
It says nothing about bad leaders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
London refused.
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
2
-
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Churchill was a terrible grand strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts: The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
Ivan Karaschuk Yup.
Good ol' balancing powers game...
GB didn't join "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders making free choice, which had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...because it greatly contributed to the decline of Empire itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@taylorlibby7642
Many people look back at history, and "filter" the information with a current "lens", which distorts reality.
Facts:
Declarations of war back then were official state acts. By declaring war, a state (obviously) makes it clear that it would fight.
Declarations of neutrality were also official state acts.
By declaring neutrality, a state officially declares that it wants no part in a dispute. Omitting an official declaration of neutrality, a state signals that it would fight.
By refusing to stay neutral, after being asked for "a deal", a state clearly states that it would involve itself (this was the case).
The facts are:
1) Russian mobilization ended the diplomatic series of events and started the military reality. With Russian mobilization, diplomacy concerning the Balkan Crisis was finished. Unbeknownst to Berlin, Paris and St. Petersburg had already coluded deciding this during a visit by Poincare in July 1914. No sooner was he on a boat back to Paris, than Russia mobilized. An act of war...
2) After that, France refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, like Italy initially did, France stated clearly that it would attack Germany (Plan XVII).
3) GB also refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, GB stated clearly that it would join at some later point, irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not. With only 2 enemies, German leaders would have opted for their shelved "Aufmarschplan II" and there would have been no invasion of Belgium.
London declared war in order to "Balance the Power".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note: neither France nor GB were faced by a real and imminent danger, and could simply have avoided war, by declaring their neutrality.
Neither Italy, France or GB were in a position of danger or threat, and could have chosen/opted out of the war if they had wanted to by declaration of neutrality.
Only Italy chose this option.
In diplomatic terms that meant that by chosing not to stay neutral, these 2 states signaled that they would fight. Note also, that by official treaty obligations, neither France nor GB was obliged to "stand by" Russia, which had chosen to mobilize without having a defense pact with Serbia.
2
-
@Argozification Deflection...
"Belgium" was the child that had to be pushed into water first, in order to "save it" and be a hero...
Omission bias: The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions).
[Wiki]
So, of course "invading Belgium" (Germany) is seen as worse as not saving it (France and Great Britain) by declaring neutrality. Note, a conditional declaration of neutrality, guarding own interests, was an option at all times...
A bias, and it's easy to mislead people.
GB didn't have a defense pact or treaty with Belgium.
British leaders signed the same treaty with Belgium that Dutch leaders signed in 1839.
The keen observer of history notices that the Netherlands didn't declare war in 1914, because (of course) it wasn't a defense pact.
Simple...
Because most people are not biased, and can make up their own minds if the "lying by omission"-side would simply state all the facts.
2
-
2
-
The political spectrum has 4 axis, not only 2.
Only those who wish to oversimplify things, would ever state "2 axis".
Far right authoritarianism is called "Fascism", whilst far left authoritarianism is called "Communism" and variations like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
"Lazy" is pointing out the similarities, whilst ignoring the big differences for example concerning private property, tolerating religion, land ownership (farms), etc., etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A solution for the Ukraine already existed in 1917/18 and the British and French intention was to torpedo the peace achieved after Brest-Litovsk, for the millions of people living here.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Unfortunately for these millions, the "spheres of influence"-schemers on the "good guy"-side had other plans for the inhabitants.
"On December 23, 1917, the day after the first session of the preliminary Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, representatives of Great Britain and France met in Paris and secretly concluded an agreement to dismember Soviet Russia. The agreement was entitled L’Accord Français-Anglais du 23 Décembre, 1917, définissant les zones d’action françaises et anglaises. According to its terms, England was to receive a “zone of influence” in Russia, giving her the oil of the Caucasus and control of the Baltic provinces; France a “zone” giving her the iron and coal of the Donets Basin and control of the Crimea. This secret Anglo-French treaty inevitably shaped the policy these two nations were to pursue towards Russia throughout the next several years."
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA BY MICHAEL SAYERS AND ALBERT E. KAHN
"Churchill’s take on the Ukraine, specifically, is fascinating and echoes instructively. “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told the House of Commons in a speech on March 26. [1919]"
churchillstyle dot com
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the ex-Eastern Front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self-centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property. The hordes of "Reds" obviously profitted from the "power vacuum" which the forced removal of German soldiers had resulted in, and they covered an already largely pacified region of the world with "rivers of blood".
The Ukraine could have already been independent after 1918.
All it would have needed was a deal and a signature.
We should stop pretending that our leaders care about people.
Neither today, nor in the past.
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'.
There was no real difference between any of them.
They sit in their cosy offices, behind impressive desks drawing their "green lines" on the maps without consulting those who actually live there.
Oh, what a "burden" for these "white men".
Just remember: If you (personally) don't live in a region of interest to such "gentlemen", you'll be written off with a warm-hearted "thought and prayer" the minute a crisis or war starts.
Just a "thought" and "a prayer", but not much else...
2
-
2
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
2