Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The Rest Is History"
channel.
-
3
-
The documentary is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the ideologues of Atlanticism (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" as continued divide-and-rule policy was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with Churchill's Iron Curtain (1946) and the Truman Doctrine (1947), and the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992), all of which consider Europeans as "chess pieces" to be played with (The Grand Chessboard/Zbigniew Brzezinski/1997).
Footnote:
"Atlanticism, also known as Transatlanticism, is the ideology which advocates a close alliance between nations in Northern America and in Europe..." (wiki)
It is false of course.
Not "Europe" which is a defined term.
Parts of North America, and PARTS of Europe, which is "divide-and-rule".
There.
Fixed it...
2
-
2
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"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]
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends" only, in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because "Poland" was merely a means to an end. To divide continental Europeans, and effected at Versailles.
-------------
Who gains if there is disunity everywhere else in the world? The deceivers, obfuscators, narrative creativity fans, spinners, framers, all the way over to the outright liars (by omitting). All those who wish to gain from the division of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering.
It is their entire nature. Avoid unity everywhere, avoid answering questions, avoid addressing the effects of their own politics, avoid addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, VETO, DENY, BLOCKADE... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering divisions all over the globe, even within their own peoples...
This can only be achieved from a unique position of the higher ground: geography/power. It has nothing to do with being "right".
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe.
The Big Picture. Yet, for you, the little minion, they have neatly "compartmentalized" the history lesson you must rote-learn for class...
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys".
Just remember that there will always be a "bad guy" waiting for you. All you have to do, is to believe the story...
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distorted version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend the truth to fit their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the manipulators, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. To bear false witness (KNOWingly lie) is a cardinal sin, which results in EFFECTS.
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Get away from them and let them march into their trenches.
The entire above patterns of rhyming history means wrongdoers will simply always cherry pick their logic, usually by determining the own timeline of events, leaving out data which does not suit the own storyline.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. The "mommy's basement hero" or the similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a geopositional advantage. The own standpoint can be richly, proudly, carnivorously (greed) and hectoringly, all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson, defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being so vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state, the advocate will never face or expects never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". This can of course be quite amusing, if the debater is merely some teen childishly arguing from the safety of his mommy's basement, using every false premise, every cognitive bias, and every fallacy in reasoning imaginable, whilst trumpeting the own "rights", all the while faraway from the events loudly cheered for...
If these are our leaders, then the situation is different. In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. These "others" are usually not their own kin, or friends. The intention of the latter is to provoke a reaction to an own unjustified standpoint, then quickly run off into the own safety zone and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". These leaders actually have the clout to implement the actions they proclaim as "correct", unlike the powerless "mommy's basement hero". Both however, stand nothing to lose. Or, so they think. Supporting such "heroes" is the worst strategy in a democracy, since one actually ends up with the worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The manipulator. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? The place where you can actually stand to lose something?
Then listen/read very carefully.
Of course, this argument cannot be simply thrown back at the originator of the universal principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero" as introduced into memes and folklore and as explained above. A principled standpoint means NOT to get into such positions as "the standoff" in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. Unfortunately our species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, and evolutionary wired to pass all of this on as "stories" without thinking too much about what they pass on as a "story." Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
1
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire keeps on voting for an imperialist?
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get-well-soon-card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
"When the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, your safety assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote another establishment billionaire slimeball into power...
-----------------------------------------
One of the most common counter-arguments to criticism of the American "forever wars" these past 250 years, is that "The USA isn't an empire, because it never sought territorial gain."
True, but one doesn't have to change any borders if one has already reached the top of the mountain, looking down at the minor powers one will play divide-and-rule with.
During the Era of European Imperialism, and carrying on seamlessly for the past 100 years or so, the world has been global Apartheid with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "control", and with "gardens for a few" and "jungles" for the rest around the perimeter, and any deep changes can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. With the silent consent of the USA/collective West during the First Cold War (1947-1990), the REGIONAL HEGEMONY in South Africa was allowed to play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of their world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-control/rule. It was CONTROL of their own borders, and control OVER the neighbors, which they sought. Notice that the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway. According to the same "logic" it should be fairly easy to brush away any criticism of the actions of the Apartheid state South Africa and its "forever wars" during the Apartheid era, with a flippant "The RSA never sought territorial gain." All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings and they had different sets of "rules" for "me and for thee" as rules-based ordering others around, and considered this state of affairs perfectly OK. Of course, imposing such "rules", paid off handsomely in the upkeep of the "gardens". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, from their "gardens", as "my rules trump your rules", just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divde the "jungles", to keep the "gardens with pools" nice and luxurious...
Divide-and-control/rule.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
1
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with SYSTEMIC EXPANSION, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
World War 5, the next LONG WAR...
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 with the Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe/Central Powers, but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world savior"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
Fun fact? It does not even matter what you think, or how you respond to this essay, because "how" and "that" are different premises, and the individual brain must be capable of processing such data.
1
-
1
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with SYSTEMIC EXPANSION, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How"* and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
World War 5, the next LONG WAR...
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 (Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primary" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim.
Written down, for all to see.) and this time the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe, but rather China and Russia. Only this time the new rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corrupt position because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
Fun fact? It does not even matter what you think, or how you respond to this essay, because "how" and "that" are different premises, and the individual brain must be capable of processing such data.
1