Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zerohour5747 AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
-----------
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized sysyems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a "variation" of reality. They are playing “5D chess” with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the rains of people who think they are “smart”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
Of course 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 mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
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.
1
-
"1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Balance of Power;
The Nuttall Encyclopedia; Balance of Power ;
A phrase in international law for such a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations as should. prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power…"
https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Technology-of-war-in-1914
[Britannica]
In principle, not a bad thing.
Unfortunately, by 1914 the 2 "blocks" of alliance partners had completely skewed the old system of "balancing" the power of countries.
The two resulting blocks were fairly equally balanced in terms of GDP, military forces, education of the population, industrial might, technology, etc.
But concerning other criteria re. "power", like a strategic advantage, access to raw materials, population, global reach, etc. the Tripple Alliance was becoming rapidly "outbalanced" by the Tripple Entente, and intended to correct this resulting "imbalance".
European leaders had long foreseen the potential disaster of a "great war" scenario in times of modern warfare. Improvements in technology, meant ever more devastating weapons. Industrialization, the potential for all encompassing "total wars".
From Moltke the Elder in the mid-19th century [The days are gone by when, for dynastical ends, small armies of professional soldiers went to war to conquer a city, or a province, and then sought winter quarters or made peace. The wars of the present day call whole nations to arms.... The entire financial resources of the State are appropriated to military purposes...] to Churchill in 1901 [ We must not regard war with a modern Power as a kind of game….A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle (ending) in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. —1901, 13 May, House of Commons]
The inflexibility of the alliance system would turn out to be the end of Europe.
According to common practice "states can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances." [Britannica]
Because none of the other powers were willing to address the increasing imbalance (as the years passed), Germany/Austria-Hungary set upon a path of increasing both their "power" as well as a more favorable strategic position, by allying with the Ottoman Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
1
-
An "impossible" peace?
More like "how can the winners sweep their guilt for the war under the carpet"...
France for example:
Unbeknownst to Berlin/Vienna, there was another "blank cheque" issued during the state visit of a French delegation to St Petersburg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9
(See: July Crisis)
Excerpts:
"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.[22] 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.[23] In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[19] Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[19]"
" Poincaré arrived back in Paris on 29 July and at 7 am on 30 July, with Poincaré's full approval, Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas affirming that: in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.[24]"
"In his diary entry for the day, Poincaré wrote that the purpose of the message was not to prevent war from breaking out but to deny Germany a pretext and thereby obtain British support for the Franco-Russian alliance.[24] He approved of Russian mobilization.[24] "
The intention of the French "blank cheque" was clearly to expand the crisis, or the intended (at the time, by Vienna) "limited war" with limited impact in northern Serbia.
Furthermore, also to drag GB in on their side.
Smart, and admirable, according to some...
1
-
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".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes I did.
Germany was not the only nation "sold out" at Versailles.
There were many others, incl. The Ukraine.
From wiki:
"Thus Ukrainian representatives Arnold Margolin and Teofil Okunevsky had high hopes for American mission, but in the end found it even more categorical than French and British:
This meeting, which took place on June 30, made a tremendous impression on both Okunevsky and me. Lansing showed complete ignorance of the situation and blind faith in Kolchak and Denikin. He categorically insisted that the Ukrainian government recognise Kolchak as the supreme ruler and leader of all anti-Bolshevik armies. When it came to the Wilson principles, the application of which was predetermined in relation to the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Lansing said that he knew only about the single Russian people and that the only way to restore Russia was a federation modeled on the United States. When I tried to prove to him that the example of the United States testifies to the need for the preliminary existence of separate states as subjects for any possible agreements between them in the future, he evaded answering and began again stubbornly urging us to recognise Kolchak. [...] Thats how in reality these principles were implemented. USA supported Kolchak, England — Denikin and Yudenich, France — Galler... Only Petliura was left without any support.
— Arnold Margolin, Ukraine and Policy of the Entente (Notes of Jew and Citizen)"
Too bad they didn't honor the principles of the "14 points", but started to (typically human) "watering it down" to suite predetermined criteria.
20 years later, they would all suffer the consequences of their duplicity.
Yes, also your country's citizens would suffer, if where you live today fought in WW2.
There were no "winners". Unless you consider a few parades and speeches as "winning, so much winning, tired of all the winning".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertmoore6149 No, what London was doing was claim to be the "guarantor of peace" in Europe on one side...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
...whilst on the other secretly choose sides in another, contradictory policy...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Or, openly and proudly pat its own back as a "peacekeeper", but secretly contradict that mission with a backroom policy, made by a few lords, which is aimed at the continent's strongest power, irrelevant of right or wrong.
That's duplicitous in my books.
Sorry London.
No "goody two shoes for you" ;-)
No, obviously London didn't "owe" anybody on the continent anything.
It owed its own people peace, but gave them death and misery and a soon to be ruined Empire.
Don't try to point elsewhere or look for splinters in the eyes of others. There was only London to blame for that (as indeed all nations only have their own leaders to blame apart from Belgium, the only real victim).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeasiderPhil In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", 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.”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The London lords said, "Nah...want to keep my place in the sun."
Meanwhile, some were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...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."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
@MyDogmatix Nah.
Nothing to do with "dark matter".
Rather own leaders with a lack of "grey matter", or "working brain cells".
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
-
1
-
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
London, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham...suitably Coventrized. Nice "verb" that, according to the lords...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling.
He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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.
1
-
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life.
Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”
The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night.
Only...
...the speech...
...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
1
-
OK, the big picture then.
Unfortunately, although declared wisely, WW2 was implemented unwisely...
Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But 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 people/territory/powers" 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...
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"...
And the other "friends"?
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
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".
1
-
1
-
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.
1
-
1