Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "OverSimplified"
channel.
-
August 1914: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
September 1939, Poland: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
1964, Vietnam: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
2001, Afghanistan: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
2003, Iraq: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
Uhm, do I spot a pattern here?
4
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
3
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
2
-
WW1 FOR DUMMIES
Episode 1: 1870 - 1890
Germany: Can we be friends? I mean, look at nasty Rusky over there, trying to steal India from you. And don't even get me started with those Frenchies....Napoleon, ha, ha, ha...
London: uhm...err...well...don't mind us, we're just splendidly isolated over here. Peacefully minding our own business. [grins] Why don't you build some ships? Here's some plans, ships, and technology....
Germany: Gee, great, thanks. Shall we discuss becoming real friends? You know, like allies?
London: unm...err..well...ahm...not today, I'm not feeling well...next week?
Germany: oh ok
Episode 2: 1890-1910
Germany: So, can we be friends now?
London: uhm..errm...I've got quite a schedule. Bills, letters...you know [smiles]
Germany: oh well, I'm off to the sun then...
London: no
Germany: what?
London: Errr...sun is dangerous. Sun burn, you know...
Germany: oh, and you?
London: well, that's something else
Germany: Really? Who decided this?
London: Uhm...me and my friends?
Germany: Friends? What friends?
London: Russia, France, Japan, Italy, the USA...
Germany:
Episode 3: 1914
Germany: What a mess.
London: Well...just don't go through Belgium.
Germany: OK, so if we go through Belgium, it means war?
London: yes
Germany: OK, so if we dont go through Belgium it means you'll stay neutral...
London: no
Germany: What? If we don't go through Belgium, it also means war?
London:
Germany: Has anybody ever called you a psycho?
2
-
2
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
The advocacy for "total war", more "total" than one can imagine, counts for all...
The intended complete destruction of Germany as a "power", and removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them as a "sphere of influence", London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
"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." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent by the alpha go south. Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe/the world herself.
An entirely and easily avoidable WW1, lead to a (sadly) unavoidable WW2 which although it was declared wisely, was implemented disastrously...
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany, available for download as PDF file]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany, available for download as PDF file]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
It wasn't "a wrong turn" which started WW1. It "triggered" WW1...
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (the Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1