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

  1. 13
  2. 10
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 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
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 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
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 1
  20.  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
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1