Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "euronews"
channel.
-
13
-
10
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1