Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "RealLifeLore"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zerpersande The ME was a so-called "contested sphere of influence".
Moscow's intention was to stir up trouble here, focussing western attention, so it could agitate elsewhere. A proven "art" of war. See Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz. Still valid today, as it was a 200 or a thousand years ago.
Had the "alpha" of the west (Washington DC) escalated here, Moscow would have gained somewhere else. SE Asia (Vietnam), or Central America, for example.
Egypt meant nothing to Moscow. Same as the "poor Republicans of Spain", and Spanish democracy during the Spanish Civil War 40 years before that.
The aim was to lure the west in, embroiling it in costly wars, and then to agitate and gain elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While Wilhelm ruled Germany, and unfortunately "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War). Too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "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. 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]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...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".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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 the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
When your new "friends" come, please, please bow down and smile along, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll the be "good people," on the crucial "right side of history." Don't be naughty like the islanders of Puerto Rico 100 years ago and create resistance movements. Remember, when the money elites come from major US and other cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist.
Dear Greenlanders, for inside these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future which will rhyme, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. In 10, 20, or 30 years' time, forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs laws, if you got "guns and freedom baby".
When they come to your shores, because "it's all legal now, cos we made the rules", they are not going to "see" what you lost, but they will concentrate on what they themselves can GAIN, and history will rhyme.
Dear Greenlanders. So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers (see The Great Rapprochement/1895, as "friends" simply made deals at faraway green tables, and YOU were the one sold out).
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't go on the wrong track and think "capitalism," promises made, and signed agreements are actually important. See the histories of the First Nations of North America and their 350 signed accords... or the artificially created "Panama" as exemplary. A hundred years ago, the minor powers in Colombia dared thinking they could determine the price tag themselves, at a time they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore and today there are countless American imperialist voices all over the internet already loudly complaining how they want "their" canal "back", and there are more than sufficient voices from the mommy's basements actually thinking "he" built it, or "he" paid for it...
And when they set out imperialist/militarist Smedley-Butler-style just remember that systemically (grand strategy/geopolitics) nobody cares.
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Your future on their marching route, depends on how you resist.
What they care about, is what is UNDER your feet, as resources or the strategic location on the map.
It's about MONEY and POWER and LAND. This story will rhyme eternally whilst the MSM sings the tune of "justice" and "freedom".
Today, many Americans stuck in their daily grind ask themselves why all these US dollars are being globally spread so copiously all over the world as they personally struggle to cope, whilst their government/elites are funding dictators and democracies alike, funding peace and war at the same time, funding corruption with one hand while fighting it with the other, paying for destruction over there and reconstruction somewhere else. All they have to do is read their history. It was never different at any point in history. Because the elites playing global divide-and-rule comes with a "price tag": YOU.
Victorian Era Brits should know. They also wallowed in poverty, as their Empire "ruled the world" from a position of power, with division, and their rulers did the same.
Dear Greenlanders.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
Imperialism never ended.
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again.
They covet thy land and its resources, and will get it. A tale as old as the Bible. Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story. Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue. Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
Dear Greenlanders. You might not like your current status quo as European/Danish territory. The "game" for CONTROL already started a dozen years ago as "history" rhyming. Your future is the past of Hawaii, whose history of foreign domination and CONTROL (divide-and-rule) started as foreign meddling around the 1850s, in slow methodical steps, and with gathering momentum following the 1890's. Once the locusts of capitalism have grazed everything off so these stakeholders benefit themselves and global shareholders far away, then you might just think back about the proverb by the Cree nation (attr.): “Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.”
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "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. 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]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...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".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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 the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1