Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
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