Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "euronews" channel.

"You are in my house...." Classic.
13
Pentagon: Do you want us to reduce our troops, or remove all of them? Germany: Yes....
10
People who believe corporate advertising without question are the same people who believe corporate news....
5
" In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians say the remark was part of an informal conversation.[82] The provocation was sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrians responded by firing at the tractors and shelling Israeli settlements.[83][84] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel "provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land".[85] UN officials blamed both Israel and Syria for destabilizing the borders." For sources, see the original wiki text Looks like crime does pay. Great lesson there, dear leaders....
5
Do you also practice what you preach? You sound like the kind of guy who steals candy from kids. But, yeah. Spoils of aggression...
4
Dean Keepers Boo hoo you nazi. Boo hoo you don't like my killer heroes. Waaah waaah, you don't like my empire....boo hoo. What an original retort. Congrats.
3
Dean Keepers So Bomber "do our worst" Harris set of to flatten Germany, ruining the financial foundation of the British Empire in the process. Hadn't he heard of THE AMERICAN CENTURY? Maybe they didn't have google back then. Too bad... What was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine? What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians, and sending out bombers to level city centers? How much "bang for the buck" did it result in. Google, download and read: BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines for those who are too lazy. The same people who started terror bombing civilians on a grand scale in Mesototamia in the 1920s... [Google: bbc(dot)com/news/magazine-29441383] ...thought that all one needed to do to "win" was to scale up the terror. End effect = they "bombed "empire" into financial oblivion, with little real effect for the soldiers on the front lines. The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available to stand up to Communism and The American Century after the war was over... [Google: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/American_Century] ...and down went London's interests... Time for others to "rule the world".
3
This war literally shows how you can repeat the history of the "settler colonisation" of North America, Australia, South America, South Africa, etc. in front of the entire watching world and nothing happens...
3
No they don't teach you how to properly research in school. Because the "strategic" war effort on ANY continental European country is (and was during WW2) a waste of time and money. Europe has hardly any raw materials, specifically key raw materials for mass production. In a nutshell. No tungsten = no tools No oil = no fuel No chromium = no high-grade steel No rubber = no tyres To make a long story short. German production would not have been significantly higher, even if not a single bomb was dropped. The Germans didn't build 1 million trucks, because they would have needed horses to pull them around.... The only one smart enough to know how the western Allies were wasting the money was Stalin. He used tanks and blood to create facts. We spent the next 70 years fighting commies. You know, those "enemies", who used to be our "friends".
3
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942, entire cities were to be targeted. How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at Henschell in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. Henschell wasn't the target of this raid and Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000). I assume the "poor Russians" these raids were supposed to have aided, and the Allied tankies in their tin can Shermans weren't amused. Sir Charles "Lancasters sow death until Empire's last breath" Portal Sir Arthur "thinking about bombing a tank plant, makes me wanna rant" Harris Sir Winston "Lancasters soar, British Impure no more" Churchill Whadda team....
2
LOL...looks like it's a real dog eat dog world out there...
2
" In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians say the remark was part of an informal conversation.[82] The provocation was sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrians responded by firing at the tractors and shelling Israeli settlements.[83][84] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel "provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land".[85] UN officials blamed both Israel and Syria for destabilizing the borders." For sources, see the original wiki text Looks like crime does pay. Great lesson there, dear leaders....
2
Reap as you sow counts for all. The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2. Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire. With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible. Empire's "fwiends"? Of course, they had their own agendas. Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... [Google: The American_Century] If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... [britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power] The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. [Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944] There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... [Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin] Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?" Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
2
So Bomber "do our worst" Harris set of to flatten Germany, ruining the financial foundation of the British Empire in the process. Hadn't he heard of THE AMERICAN CENTURY? Maybe they didn't have google back then. Too bad... What was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine? What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians, and sending out bombers to level city centers? How much "bang for the buck" did it result in. Google, download and read: BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines for those who are too lazy. The same people who started terror bombing civilians on a grand scale in Mesototamia in the 1920s... [Google: bbc(dot)com/news/magazine-29441383] ...thought that all one needed to do to "win" was to scale up the terror. End effect = they "bombed "empire" into financial oblivion, with little real effect for the soldiers on the front lines. The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available to stand up to Communism and The American Century after the war was over... [Google: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/American_Century] ...and down went London's interests... Time for others to "rule the world".
2
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much.... When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs. Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind". In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea). The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment). A fallacy. It is only half the story, or "lying by omission". Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with. Read Hosea. Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations. By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
2
Reap as you sow counts for all. The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2. Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire. With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible. Empire's "fwiends"? Of course, they had their own agendas. Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... [Google: The American_Century] If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... [britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power] The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. [Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944] There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... [Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin] Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?" Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
2
Pentagon: Do you want us to reduce our troops, or remove all of them? Germany: Yes....
2
@FreeIsraelll So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"... Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944] Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany. Lose your Empire, and then some... Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
Now, how about a 120-year "celebration" marking the American invasion and overthrow of an independent nation? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
1
Dean Keepers Reap as you sow counts for all. The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2. Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire. With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible. Empire's "fwiends"? Of course, they had their own agendas. Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... [Google: The American_Century] If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... [britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power] The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. [Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944] There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... [Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin] Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?" Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
1
@bolivar2153 Apparently they didn't. Production actually went up until the last month's of the war, when land forces began cutting off sources of raw materials from outside Germany.
1
@bolivar2153 German production actually rose until late-1944, by which time the land campaigns were cutting off Germany's last remaining sources of strategic raw materials (Tungsten from Portugal, Molybdium, Chromium etc. from Turkey, Spain, Finland. Bauxite from the Balkans, France and Greece...you can research this yourself). It's too tedious to fit into a single comment. After WW2, and his release, Speer was trying to get into the west's "good books" again. WTF did you think he was going to say?
1
@bolivar2153 Wrong again. By mid/late-1944 the massive fleets of heavy bombers, coupled with an almost complete lack of properly co-ordinated defense, made it feasable to burn down entire cities. However, if you lived in GB (not the USA), you were "protected" indirectly, on the continent. Destroying any continental country completely, would therefore lead to an inbalance of power, which can then be exploited by "the last man standing". Who was the "last man standing"? Was his ideology "friendly" towards "empires" and the western way of life? (freedom, liberty, self-determination, capitalism, etc.) London: oH dEar, wE diDn'T thiNk thAt fAr No "balanced" continent = no political leverage = no Empire Too bad So sad. Down they went. Others would benefit.
1
@bolivar2153 Yes, yes...YAWN. I know the narrative. But in 1943, several intentional attempts at creating firestorm still failed.
1
@bolivar2153 ....but when they did they burnt down Central Europe, the leverage they would have needed post-war to determine future relations to the other "winners". There. Completed your thoughts 😆😅
1
@bolivar2153 They "learnt that" from themselves. Copenhagen burnt nicely when bomb(bar) ded... One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which cities "burnt well", and that is what the RAF were sent to attack.
1
@bolivar2153 Well, isn't it just too bad that Empires "best fwiends" had other plans regarding the concept of a "Big Three ruling the world" when the war was over. Weird. I don't remember a "Big Three" after the war. More like a "Big Two", each with an assortment of client states. Bolivar: tHat it wHat mY Lords alWayS stRofe foR. ThY actuaLLy cleverLy planNed to becoMe the AmerIcaN cenTury's junior paRtner beCausE beCaUse they weRe soooOOo tiRed of thEir eMpire... ROTFLMFAO Dude. They were scammed out of their inheritance. Just drop the outdated "stiff upper lip" and accept reality.
1
@bolivar2153 Whose "plans" for "domination" was buried by WW2? Certainly not mine. That of the British Empire? Sure. Every bomb dropped in excess of what was needed = one more nail in the coffin of the own "empire".
1
@bolivar2153 Yes. "Got what >insert entity < deserved" is an emotional argument (I suggest googling that). I will use it according to biblical principles. If someone makes use of emotional argumentation, so will I...
1
Nah. No oil. Booooring...
1
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"... Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944] Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany. Lose your Empire, and then some... Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
@bolivar2153 It says "an eye for an eye". It does not say "an eye" for "the other guy's eye" I temporarily made my friends as I hop around the world making the same people temporary friends one day and temporary enemies the next day in order to divide and rule others so I can turn up whenever I want and RULE THE WORLD... The Bible is far smarter than you. A thousand years of observations can't be beat.
1
@bolivar2153 In that case, Spain "deserved" a a thousand "Guenikas" for the millions they killed. GB "deserved" a thousand "Coventrys" for the millions they killed. Russians "deserved" a thousand "Stalingrads" for their past crimes. And Belgium? They would have needed a million "rapes" for what they did in the Congo alone (10 million victims of greed). BS "logic" for snowflakes and "empire fanboys" who quickly start making up "categories" for why they never "deserve" anything...ROFL
1
Robert Giggles Their God said "do not steal", and "reap what you sow". Let's see how causality plays out.
1
@kalijaheyolya-ralph9944 Who did Jewish leaders negotiate with when they declared their rule over the three quarter majority in Palestine? Who did they ask?
1
@kalijaheyolya-ralph9944 Oh, so your allies of WW1 (Arabs) were "birds and vermin" in 1919? Nice. Tells me a lot about who you really are.... Remember Laurence of Arabia?
1
This is as "surprizing" as the US-lead invasion of Iraq in 2003. Meaning...not surprizing at all.
1
Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa had laws too. Your comment means ZERO...
1
Crazeee Peeps Straw man argument. I never said that. The approach of "key industry" (strategic bombing of key industry, i.e. "ball bearings" and "synthetic oil") and direct/ indirect support for a SPECIFIC ground operation (i.e. infrastructure behind a front line aka indiction) was very VERY effective. Scroll up. I wrote "PRODUCTION would not have been higher" [because PRODUCTION is effected by the key ingredients: raw materials, manpower, ability. If any ONE of these is missing/short supply, the ENTIRE production process is limited. In other words: obviously you can't use wood to make a tank, if you don't have high-grade steel, even IF the other 2 factors (manpower/ability) is available] Everything else was a waste. Furthermore, who ever said I would have wasted MY resources to help commies invade half the world?
1
Crazeee Peeps Yes. German production peaked in 1944. Most of it should have gone east to battle communism. You know, "cute Uncle Joe" who was...ahem..."a friend". Honestly. Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer? Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to him and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left. LMFAO.... Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
1
@pkond1460 The...ahem..."Jews" who...ahem... "returned" to their...hint, hint..."promised land" after 1919 were not the same as those who left 2,000 years ago....ROTFL. The biggest scam in history, following the scam which is "religion"... They were nothing else but predominantly white converts. Yup. Whites. Look at the DNA studies. They are mostly plain old "white" scam artists with a nice story... Read up about the history of "white colonialism", and then you'll see what's really happening. Divide and rule. Don't be a fool.
1
@pkond1460 LOL, no. Read the DNA studies. It's called "intermarriage". You are "Jewish" if you can prove that your grandmother was "Jewish". To find out what I'm talking about, simply google "DNA studies in..."
1