Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
351
-
206
-
166
-
117
-
58
-
56
-
51
-
44
-
22
-
19
-
Most Germans interested in military history, are not apologetic about the military actions of the armed forces (Wehrmacht, Heer, KM and LW), unless these were clearly criminal (using acceptable criteria for the word "criminal").
The other thing is the political actions of the Nazi government, such as the intentional killing and genocide of those seen as 'inferior' or by using racial criteria (Holocaust, etc.). In this case, ONLY Neonazis and other idiots use the debating tactics of apologia, finger-pointing, misdirection, misinformation and misinterpretation, to make bad excuses for the actions of their 'heroes'....
18
-
16
-
15
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
King Baldwin IV In case you are looking for a new job, don't try fortune telling :-)
About me, I simply decide on wrong or right, based on the wisdom proclaimed in the the US Constitution.
You know..."liberty", "self-determination"...blah, blah...ALL that stuff.
The end effect of not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply come back to haunt your own nation at some point.
You should read up on how Poles (as a nation) imposed themselves on neighbors, starting with a war of aggression....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
Educate yourself.
The end effect of that was that 20 years later, TWO mass-murdering dictators decided that they could play that game too....
Yup...Karma is really a big fat bitch...
3
-
3
-
3
-
King Baldwin IV Your point is that the bank robber did not achieve his aim of robbing the bank, because he signed a piece of paper promising not to do it.
Well, FYI the 'bank robber' (North Vietnam) marched into the bank and took what he wanted.
That is called 'not honoring an agreement', and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The only thing the US 'won', is a piece of worthless paper. You may now display your 'piece of paper' in a display cabinet in Washington (note here, NOT in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City), and declare yourself the...ahem...'winner'...
Obviously, very few people see things the way you do.
You would probably have tried to enforce the peace treaty, by resuming the war in 1975, pouring billions more into a useless cause, sending thousand of more GIs to the death, killing more Vietnamese civilians, enforcing the stupid 'body count' policy (resulting in overzealous lower ranks murdering Vietnamese civilians, simply declaring them to be VC)...torn the national unity back home in the USA apart with uprisings and riots.....all for 'a principle'...LOL
Look up 'cause and effect', and try not to confuse these. There is also an entire science based on 'confusing cause and effect'.
If you wish, you can do more reading about the subject of logic.
If you don't wish to, that is solely your prerogative.
The US cause was to avoid the North taking over the South, and you didn't achieve that goal.
Trying to avoid the Vietnamese nation from independence and uniting was a lost cause, and they proved it by first throwing out the French, and then the US foreign meddlers. They fought for 30 years, and would have fought ANOTHER 30 years.
The USA had their chance to support Vietnam in its quest for freedom in 1945, and blew it. Personally, I would have preferred to see a friendly, pro-western independent Vietnam come out of WW2.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
King Baldwin IV You are like the kid in class wailing about how he failed the exam 'because the teacher hated me', because 'the books are terrible', because 'I had so much else to do', because 'my parents didn't support me enough', because 'I just broke up with my girl-friend', because...because...
Do you see a pattern here?
"Communism is evil?"
Who the hell EVER said that communism wasn't evil? Of course it was. We are NOT discussing concepts of 'good' or 'evil'. That is an ENTIRELY different debate, and your comment is clearly the old attempt at obfuscating the point under discussion.
The US simply extricated herself out of a pointless situation (OWN decision to intervene in the Vietnamese nation's strive for independence as a united nation) by making a deal in Paris and sneaking out the back door.
Promises of support were broken, and the cause of your puppet ally abandoned.
Here is a short overview of the BIG PICTURE in 1973.
1) world opinion = where were your allies?
2) home front = a continuation of war if the peace accord was broken was out of the question
3) opposition = willingness to accept almost unlimited losses, with the FULL support (as proxy) of China and the SU.
In view of the big picture, only a FOOL would have tried to cling to the initial objective.
It was therefore a lost cause.
The North won.
The USA and the region paid the price for western power players' with their colonial attitude of dominance, and their unwillingness to come to terms with the new reality which had been strengthened during WW2.
The Vietnamese nation's declaration of independence in September 1945, should simply have been accepted as the reality of things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sebi One OK, I read again, and see what you mean.
Basically you are stating the principle of 'cause and effect' or the principle 'causation'.
Or, as the propaganda machines would have it, 'reap what you sow', or 'get what you deserve' :-)
I don't mind discussing theories of causation, as long as these are based on facts.
Then, one would also clearly have to define what the topic of discussion is, to avoid confusion.
An example:
The statement, 'the German LW first killed innocent civilians in WW2', is entirely correct.
However, the statement 'the British RAF first use indiscriminate bombing of civilians as a result of doctrine and as a matter of policy', is also correct.
Therefore, the 'who started it'-debate is entirely ridiculous, unless one defines parameters.
The entire bombing war was a matter of escalation, one step on the one side, being 'countered' by another tiny step on the other. Mostly, it is only civilians (not people with military training and background) who argue about the 'who started it', confusing the issues due to an improper use of terminology and definitions, based on a lack of knowledge, or a lack of real interest in the topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Regarding WW2 and the SU on the Eastern Front...
"1) had more humanity to throw away and more willingness to waste human life" = same, ditto, Ho thought the same...
"2) they were winning battles" = the north didn't care, because they fought a different type of war, with a different focus (final outcome)
"3) they were taking ground" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective
"4) they took all of the ground en route to the Berlin" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war with a different focus
"5) that is still about 1/2 of the whomping that US put on the NVA" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective and focus
"6) compelled the German government to submit (that treaty thing that you don't understand)" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting type of war, with a different objective and focus
You didn't think that post through very well, did you?
You seemed to miss a lot.
You either did not see it or you were trying to be deceptive, so which was it?
Were you ignorant or deceptive?
1
-
1
-
King Baldwin IV Buddy, have YOU got your history screwed up. I don't even know where to begin....
1) Whoever said that the communists were not terrible people?
I said (all along) that the north ACHIEVED their initial OBJECTIVE.
The USA didn't.
That is the point.
As a general rule, the point of politics is to achieve an objective, and politicians USE the military to achieve that if diplomacy fails.
The military is there as an extended arm of politicians. NOT the other way around...
If politicians fail to achieve their objective, and the military can't enforce/dictate/achieve a stated objective (keep communist out of South Vietnam), then you've lost.
2, 3, 4) No they didn't. In 1975, their flag was flying over Saigon.
OWN objective achieved.
One side wins if they can stop another side from achieving its objectives.
You see, Ho didn't give a shit about your objective (and the excuses you make for not achieving it), because he had his own and he actually achieved it....
Some of your other points....
"They did get the term that they stated. Kissinger wanted to initiate the peace sooner but Nixon thought that the Communists needed some additional instruction."
Nope, he wanted a 'face saving' way out, so these sorry-ass US leaders murdered a few hundred thousand more Vietnamese military and civilians, and own soldiers, and wasted a few billion dollars more...
That objective (face saving way out) was achieved.
"The Communists left for 3 years because they HAD to. They knew that they could not confront Nixon, he ate their lunch."
They regrouped, and kept on planning to achieve their stated objective....one nation...
"They saw their opportunity with a defeatist, sympathizer Democrat party in charge of the House...blah, blah..."
Who the fuck cares.
It is still the USA. It's one nation, not "military", "Democrats", "us", "them", blah, blah....excuses, excuses, obfuscating, finger-pointing....
"The enforcement of the peace was the job of the Legislative Branch, who failed."
See above....
"Similar to the transition from WWI to WWII, Britain, France, etc. failed to enforce Versailles, so they fought ANOTHER WAR."
Nope.
The allies clearly won that war, and dictated a stupid one-sided peace treaty.
The stated goals of the sides fighting during WW1 and WW2 were COMPLETELY different.
Different war. Different objectives.
"Just like after WWI, Poland fought the Soviet invasion of Europe in 1920. It waas not the same war, even though it occurred even sooner after the peace treaty."
See above. Different war DIFFERENT objectives.
LOL, buddy....starting your timeline when it's convenient for your argument again?
Did you forget that after WW1 that the military dictatorship in Poland was the aggressive expansionist regime attacking neighbors?
Did you conveniently forget Polish aggressive expansion into a neighboring state (the Ukraine) in 1918, triggering a Soviet response?
Who invaded who?
Yup.
Not for the first time in history...trampling over the right of self-determination of nations had long term effects...
Look up causality, or as 'Joe the plumber' would say...."Karma is a bitch", "get what you deserve", or...my personal favorite for all those...ahem...'good Christians' out there: "reap what you sow..."
1
-
gameaddict836 Your grandfather didn't adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.
The end effect of your nations leaders not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply came back to haunt your own nation.
See the above apologia of...note the 'nobility'-, upper class 'establishment'- attitude of apply named King Baldwin, who obviously thinks Poles had the right to rule over Lithuanians, Ukrainians, White Russians, and others....just like the kings ruled in the good ol' days of the Middle Ages....
Of course, those Poles dreaming of the...ahem...'Lebensraum' of the Greater Polish Empire of the 17th century, and who invade other nations, are heroes.
Go figure....
Constitution states clearly.
Power, liberty, equality, justice and property...
Liberty and self-determination as the highest ideals.
Do you honor the Constitution?
1
-
"My grandfather held the Constitution in the same light as he held the Bible."
He couldn't have.
He valued the Constitution, and the justice and values proclaimed here FOR HIMSELF.
As for moral values, he should have read the Bible more carefully, so that when his immoral leaders called him up to fight against the wishes of another nation for INDEPENDENCE after 400 years of colonialism...he should have recognized the injustice (BOTH 'constitutional' AND 'Christian'), and joined the resistance.
"Have you served?"
Yes I have. As an officer, and I would have refused an immoral order, and I would have refused to fight in a war in which my own country was on the wrong side of history.
The ONLY just war, is if one is attacked, or an ally with EQUAL ethical standards, is attacked...without undue provocation.
NOTHING else.
I'm not a puppet, I am a patriot.
" It's disgusting. When he got off his flight back in the states, people were spitting on him, calling him a monster. It's really easy to take moral high ground when you have no fucking clue what these men went through. So go on; keep telling people how horrible we are."
I agree.
Those demonstrators were pathetic and should have directed their anger at the source.
The pathetic US leaders, who did not value the wisdom of the Constitution, when Vietnamese leaders approached them at the end of WW2, with a plea for support for independence after 400 years of French rule.
Your leaders said...'tough shit, back to Colonial rule for you, and exploitation, greedy French bureaucrats, injustice, theft of raw materials....deal with it...'
Sometimes shit thrown at a fan comes right back at ya...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
King Baldwin IV First off, I actually admire the USA. What I see though is a small percentage of Americans who constantly undermine everything the USA supposedly represents (freedom, democracy, liberty, property, justice).
I have already CLEARLY stated that I have no sympathy for the causes of non of the two sides.
My entire sympathy goes to the inhabitants of Vietnam, who were trampled between the interests of crooked regimes in a war of proxy.
Your heartfelt empathy for 'poor locals' is fake.
If you had any sympathy at all, you would have agreed that the alternative history of granting the Vietnamese nation an own state (pro-western style democracy) in 1945 was FAR more desirable than the chaos which followed, due to dominating colonial attitudes at a time that it should have been foreseeable that colonialism as a form of rule was outdated.
Your leaders supporting "a friend" (France) which did not represent the values proclaimed in the Constitution was hypocritical.
So far, you have not addressed this, which is telling...
Your misplaced romantic view of colonialism as a form of kindness and benevolence to the local inhabitants is a joke.
In almost every case, if left alone to develop without meddling, the locals would have developed better than under the yoke of colonialism.
South America is a good example.
Instead of the "alternative history" of independence with own leaders in 1945, you would have wished for an "alternative history" of more of this for the locals...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726
....or this....
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-vietnam6aug06-story.html
What does that tell the observer about you?
Furthermore, if I were you, I'd google a few of the claims you make.
Idi Amin was NOT a communist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/revealed-how-israel-helped-amin-to-take-power-100683.html
He was supported by the west to overthrow the government of Uganda. Another typical example of the meddling attitude that caused so many problems in Africa.
Apparently, crooks make good business partners....
Your statements are entirely confusing and contradictory.
For example:
"The British Empire was a very successful colonial power that improved the lives of nearly every peoples that were fortunate enough to be incorporated into it..."
Why did the...ahem....'fortunate peoples' of the USA opt out then?
Can you explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michał Kilijanek I completely agree with your first paragraph. I have absolutely no sympathy for a rich German aristocrat crying over spillt milk (lost land). What is gone, is gone.
However, we have laws, and it is his right to clarify whether a claim is valid.
IMO, it should not be valid, since (as you have pointed out) it would be unfair to the people who live there now, often also displaced from eastern areas of pre-WW2 Poland after the war.
It would simply be a revolving system of injustice.
With your paragraph 2, you have pointed out exactly what happens when opportunistic politicians involve themselves in what are basically personal disputes. Oil is thrown on fires, and moleheaps turn into mountains — the press gets involved, and soon people get carried away with senseless violence.
IMO, politicians should only be allowed to involve themselves if there is a justified grievance, stated by an objective way, for example a signature gathering action (petition signatures), or official polls.
Politicians on a personal crusade in order to gather support for his/her personal career is a big put off for me.
They often don't really care about the situation, but simply use it as a tool to gain public support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Wimberly WW2 practically started in 1919.
It was unresolved issues. Versailles and Trianon was enforced onto millions of Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, Croats, Poles, Slovens, and others.
These ill fated decisions taken in 1919 came back to Europe to haunt us when Adolf came to power.
He saw there was a chance to divide and rule....
If you understand the principle of "claiming something by force", then you also understand that the term ' Sudetengerman' is actually artificial. These were Austrians living in a state called Austria-Hungary for 200 years.
After WW1, they were " taken by force", literally at gunpoint...
Yes, sometimes bad things come back to haunt us....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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."
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.
Do you know who enebled WW2, because he wanted your 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...
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
Usually in debates like in these in the comments sections, it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use."
[End of quote]
It was not as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" who was ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My comment is is not aimed against strategic bombing as such, but purely "the folly of trying to terror bomb cities" (as implemented with the Area Bombing policy/directives in 1942).
Your point:
Even if only legit targets (oil refineries, large area industrial plants, etc.) had been targeted, everything you wrote concerning German resources would still have been implemented by the Nazis.
In fact, had most raids concentrated on key industries right from the start, like (again) oil and chemical plants, even more German AA guns, fighters, etc. would have been concentrated here, relieving the front lines.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My initial comment is based on Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars.
Basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed. The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
IMO (debatable) the issue was not "a learning curve", but a fundamental misunderstanding of geography/resources/balance of power.
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
My key point: German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on production).
Why?
I'll point out in a separate comment which I'll copy and paste in below.
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no hindsight/learning curve).
At tbe same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (again no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
Let's KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
Right from the start of the war, it bugged London and Paris that Germany could basically import all the iron ore from Sweden they needed. There was nothing they could do to avoid it, since Norway and Sweden were neutral, and for good reasons intended to remain so.
From ibiblio(dot)org
"Norway and Sweden were to be warned that their conduct as neutrals worked out in practice to the advantage of Germany; that this was the more intolerable because Germany in principle was the enemy of the independence and rights of small Powers, of which the Allies were the champions; and that in consequence the Allies reserved the right to take the appropriate action."
[End of quote]
Apparently, GB and France put pressure on Norway/Sweden, by trying to shame them into giving up their neutrality (or at least "neutral" according to International Law).
Those "poor defenseless neutrals" so "deemed to be saved by the heroes of freedom" (lol) were not impressed, and did not trust British/French sincerity in actually protecting them
From ibiblio(dot)org
"...it was still hoped [by GB/France] that the Scandinavian Powers would so interpret their obligations as members of the League of Nations as to allow Allied forces to cross their territories to help the Finns against acknowledged aggression. The result was a prolonged diplomatic wrangle. Both Norway and Sweden were genuinely desirous of helping the Finnish cause by all means short of their own implication in the war. But they consistently refused to court the fate of Poland, for whose defence the Western Powers seemed to have done absolutely nothing, by allowing Allied forces, even in the guise of 'volunteers' to cross their territory into Finland, either to preserve Finnish independence, or for their own protection against a hypothetical Russian (or German) advance..."
I wonder why neutrals came to the conclusion that the "heroes" who wanted to "protect them" had absolutely zero intention to fight to the last bullet to "protect poor neutrals"?
Weird...
1
-
1
-
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Franfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did not do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
1
-
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the USSR would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. A Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented).
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, sidelining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
Today.
The "Blackrock"-leaders.
They are not "connected to the land", regardless of what they say.
Read Machiavelli.
(This connects to the three top comments. Cheers.)
1
-
1
-
Let's start at the beginning.
With grand strategy.
A truism of grand strategy and at the beginning of every analysis should be the various intentions of the powers, and how they aimed to achieve their goals.
After WW1, the two remaining European Empires set up the foundation for the protection of their Empires in Europe (Versailles, St Germaine, etc.)
Empires with vast resources and therefore the strategic advantage aim to fight "long wars", slowly drawing in their superior resources, whilst expanding the war to the periphery, away from their own homelands.
GB and France were looking for "soft overbellies" (😊) to deflect the war away from their own homelands.
Those in an inferior strategic position, with limited resources, aim for "short wars" (or a series of "limited wars") building up to the final goal.
For Germany, the final goal was the SU (the resources in the Heartland/ Mackinder "Pivot of History"/Heartland Theory)
Germany had no interest in invading Norway. A neutral Scandinavia gave it everything it needed, and the last thing they wanted was to be forced to disperse resources away from their main objective.
There is your filter.
Against that (grand strategies), all theories must be tested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the Histo4y Room channel's "Wilhelm II" documentary, has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divide and ruled" over (around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised about the current global mess, accompanied by ample finger pointing? The USA is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully constrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
In case anybody living in the present, actually thinks this is such a familiar-sounding reality of the present, I suggest searching the origin of this quote (see footnote). Today, you (reading this) are watching the full glory of aggregated fiat capital, creating little minions for the steering, managing, moderating, empire, and you are already a minion/buck catcher, unless to belong to a very small, select circle.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omitting") and deceit are an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single individual, group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. The people's share in divide-and-rule working is quite simple: unfortunately too many people would rather believe a lie that sounds nice, than the truth which sounds even slightly negative.
-------------------
Footnote:
Grover Cleveland (POTUS), State of the Union, 1885
Granted, not as famous as Eisenhower with his warning of the Military Industrial Complex, and therefore on par with Adams warning about the USA becoming the "dictatress of the world", one thing all these warnings have in common: They were all of them, ignored...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1