Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Real Royalty"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Could say the same for GB.
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
@mariettadechavez6144 Here is the past.
What does it tell you about the present?
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
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). Set up everybody against everybody else.
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 families. 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".
Never a "price tag" for own actions.
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
The "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "special relationship BFFs" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring": Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world".
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "new temporary divide-and-rule best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did Washington DC ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on, incl. high-tech jet technology, in an effort to save the Empire if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not. Washington DC needed a junior partner, not an equal...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
The history of the British Empire: Hop over here for a temporary advantage one time, then hop over there for a temporary advantage another time. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. In 1945, there was nobody left to "hop onto".
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
1
-
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
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). Set up everybody against everybody else.
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 families. 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".
Never a "price tag" for own actions.
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
The "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "special relationship BFFs" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring": Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world".
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "new temporary divide-and-rule best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did Washington DC ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on, incl. high-tech jet technology, in an effort to save the Empire if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not. Washington DC needed a junior partner, not an equal...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
The history of the British Empire: Hop over here for a temporary advantage one time, then hop over there for a temporary advantage another time. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. In 1945, there was nobody left to "hop onto".
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
1