Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The Cold War"
channel.
-
The reality/status quo around 1900:
A geographical advantage (island status) gave Britain (unlike land powers) the ability to choose alliances without consequences, as long as she had an overpowering navy which could ward of invasions.
London was in the lucky geographical position (island) to be able to simply shift her temporary alliances (aka "favoritism") back and forth.
During peace times: "friends" one day, "rivals" the next.
During war: "ally" in one war, "enemy" in the next war. Note: the cogs in this clockworks tick almost imperceptually slowly. Most people simply don't care or don't notice.
Anyway...
London thus "balanced powers". By own confession: hop on "the scale" here one time, hop on another side another.
Her army was always kept small in times of peace, and rapidly "boosted" in times of war, and thrown in on the side of the weaker power/country/alliance.
Her navy was always the major military investment (irrelevant of war or peace) to keep enemies at bay. Worked well up to WW2, when a sudden technological boost (aviation/nukes) meant that that age-old strategy was no longer effective.
Land powers did not have this advantage of being able to distance themselves from neighbors.
Since (logically) they could be invaded much simpler, especially if such countries/alliances had long borders. Land forces are far simpler to "boost" for invading neighbors (aka "mobilization"), than to rapidly increase a navy to invade GB which already had the advantage of an overpowering navy in peacetime.
In a nutshell: You can stick a gun into the hand of a factory worker or farmer overnight, and have a million+ army within a few days, but you can't conjure a massive navy out of a sleeve in the same time.
Up to WW1, it was geography which gave London the upper hand re. "choice".
From the turn of the century, gaining rapid momentum after WW1, the geographical advantage which London enjoyed for around a hundred years, shifted rapidly to the USA. After 1945 the USA had the geographical advantage, the technological edge, the overwhelming economic power, the inancial leverage = political leverage, the military might (now including the advantage of the largest navy) to simply do what it wanted, and have the "leverage" re. deals made, and the advantage to be able to simply walk away without having to fear consequences (same as London did until WW1).
A rather simple exercise in "who rules the world"...
5
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Thank you for the positive feedback.
The essay is a part of something much bigger, which is how the world is "divided", then "ruled" over.
All it needs, is as explained in the OP, a "position of superior power."
The dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling"* European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" (quote Thomas Jefferson) leaderships.*
Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoratism" (see footnote).
In case you wish to know more about the impact of divide and rule/conquer in the current and past geopolitics and grand strategy, please go to the "Kai--ser Wil.helm_II" video on the "Hi-sto.ry R__oom" educational channel (distorted because such messages are often autoblocked). I wrote a series of essays here, so please select the "latest comments first" by clicking on the three little bars at the top of the comments section. I also left a comment for you there, but please read as far back as you wish, and leave a comment wherever you wish.
Footnote:
Divide and rule is a defined term: "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents [incl. imperialist rivals], by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition..." (or similar definitions)
One of the key techniques is the strategy of "chosen ones" (favoratism).
Note, to be clear: there was never any provable intention by Washington DC/London of direct rule over Europe.
But a definition is a definition.
It does not change depending on who makes the argument.
It does not matter what justifications or explanations one gives for the actions or events.
As long as the actions fit the definition of the term favoratism, any attempts at deflection, become "whataboutism."
It does not matter how one skirts the issue, by jumping from one criteria to the next: words have meanings and definitions.
US actions in regards to Europe "around 1900" fit the definition of favoratism/"divide and rule".
It does not matter how one justifies these actions.
The definition is indifferent to anybody's favorite empire.
The definition does not pay heed to anybody's biases, nor cares about any explanations or personal opinions, and it does not matter which authority proclaims these. Furthermore, nobody even has to know that they've become a tool of someone else's divide and rule (google the term "useful idiot/innocent", which are also defined). A definition does not care about whether it concerns a "good empire" or a "bad empire".
Look at the actions/events and then determine whether they fit the definition.
2
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes, I agree about your conclusions.
Yes, specifically Wilson, and that most US Presidents were mere figureheads, there only to fill a post while the real geopolitics/grand strategy decisions were made by "back rooms" (think tanks, strategic study centers, etc.).
Most people are completely unaware that his "14 Points" were largely written by a think tank called The Inquiry (New York based) and that according to the rules of power, Wilson simply took the credit, while others had done the work.
Also. most people don't realize that the "14 Points" was a divide and rule strategy, hidden behind a plethora of words.
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Once one cuts out all the bs. created by words, and reduces the policies to the core words, the strategy lurking behind emerges to the foreground.
I wish you and your family and friends, and all citizens of the Ukraine, safety and well-being, and hope this gastly war will soon end, and the leaders get around the table and start talking. Unfortunately, Europeans have no idea how they were once manipulated by the USA and the British Empire (London), and this "divide and rule"-policy carried on after the Cold War right through to today, following the strategies of the "think tanks", in order to keep the USA position as "top dog" in the world.
2
-
2
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes you are of course 100% correct.
All "theory" comes to an end the minute one is physically attacked. Then, one must defend oneself in first line, and leave the theory for later.
It is the same as when you're out in street, and guy storms you with a knife: of course, nobody asks whether this attacker had a difficult childhood, or whether he is short of money, or has hungry kids to feed.
There is "right" and "wrong", and Russia is plain wrong, regardless of all other reasoning.
Mearsheimer would also do the same, if mexico attacked the USA, regardless of how he theorizes about other regions of the planet.
Yes, a lot of South Africans left SA in the 1990s, but I personally left a lot earlier, during the early-1980s, because I wanted to travel, and just got stuck in Europe, where I live now. Yes, I'm on the old side :-)
I think the theory of "divide and rule" and Mearsheimer's "buckpassers/buck catchers and bloodletting wars"-theory has more to do with the leadup to crises and wars, and if these conditions can't be resolved before, then the guns start firing, and the "sword must decide".
1