Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "British Thought Leaders" channel.

  1. HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source) In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003 Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided". The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century. After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
    1