Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "FRANCE 24 English" channel.

  1. 😅😂
    44
  2. Excellent analysis. Well done, but the footage at 15.00 minutes isn't 1940. More likely 1942 or 1943, since the StuGs (long barrel 75mm) and AT vehicles (converted French Renault's) shown in the newsreel didn't exist in 1940.
    14
  3. Holding up Swedish/Finnish NATO membership "because of terrorism" was most likely a pretext. Governments almost never say out out in the open what they really aim to achieve, and in this case Turkiye was most likely looking for a "bigger fish" (tradeoff).
    11
  4. Well, this "hoax" has now infected 27,000 Americans and killed 300, rapidly rising.... Aww well, April and warmer weather is around the corner, so it'll go away....
    10
  5. Blocking the Dardanelles keeps NATO out of the Black Sea. It works both ways.
    4
  6. Versailles is what happens if ordinary people don't pay attention to what tbeir leaders do.
    3
  7. 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.
    3
  8. There was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced, because after the communists started growing the SUs power, Germany was needed to "balance out" the SU. London was not going to "enforce Versailles". Paris would not have acted without the support of London. Simple as that... That makes any and every "we should done"-logic wishful thinking. Note that if one suggests an alternative history, it should at least be viable at the time. Enforcing Versailles wasn't viable. It was neither politically desirable, nor would it have received support from populations which had just lost millions in a World War. London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent, in an effort to protect their "Empire", and achieved exactly the opposite.
    2
  9. What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history", with the bigger overall European "picture"? It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things... Exemplary: When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today. Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers. These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology). Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy. The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet? Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC? Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens). Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint. The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely. No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video. Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory. **As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
    2
  10.  @Joeyknows924  Too bad for them. I sincerely hope they do not go out the way of the "buck catcher."
    2
  11. This is what unfettered greed does to society.
    2
  12. Lots of English and Americans commenting here, criticizing how the continent tried to mop up the mess created by their bloody war in 2003. Their "holier than thou" attitude makes one want to grab them by the neck and slap them silly. Don't want crises, terrorism, refugees and wars? Well, how about NOT STARTING WARS?
    2
  13. Deir Yassin 2.0
    1
  14. Amazing how white people brandishing an ideology in one hand, and weapon in the other, think they can set up shop wherever they want without permission from the local population, and expect no resistence...
    1
  15. Is this about Blackwater mercenaries?
    1
  16. Divide and Rule strategy...
    1
  17. Nice reminder that Earth can survive without us, but we cannot survive without Earth.
    1
  18. Good...
    1
  19. I've seen more footage of refugees these last 7 days than in the previous 20 years of US-led western "forever wars"... Why that?
    1
  20. American Zionist settler colonist in 2121, occupying a house which doesn't belong to him: "If I don't steal your house, somebody else will..."
    1
  21.  @avniceylan7322  Turkiye will be better off aligning with China and Russia, then to work towards creating stability in the ME. Via economic bonds, infrastructure development, and brokered security agreements. The USA/collective West must be squeezed out of the ME. Their hundred year old policies of "divide and rule," starting with WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration) have brought the peoples of the ME nothing but crises, wars, division... The root cause being the wish of outsiders to CONTROL the ME, by DIVISION. Kissinger said this clearly. "Who CONTROLS the energy, can control the world..." The ME should create regional "hubs," and built knowledge about the destructiveness of "divide and rule" into their policies. It must become common knowledge in the ME, in Africa, in Asia... The dividers will come. They pose as friends. Again and again. They make promises... Until the end of the Age of Oil. Oil, they wish to CONTROL.
    1
  22. Thanks NATO expansion. Thanks a lot...really...
    1
  23. 1) Build ten. 2) Sell ten. 3) Then, build the next ten. 4) Sell the next ten. Repeat steps 1 to 4 until the project is finished. Basic capitalism, does not need "megalomania" nor "greed".
    1
  24. Trump can't wait to reopen his hotels in time for Easter. Business must be grinding to a halt... And soon he will be on the golf course, for his regular dose of million dollar taxpayer financed weekends....
    1