Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "History Hustle"
channel.
-
19
-
4
-
4
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, 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]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kids can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
4
-
@HistoryHustle In February 1942, the decision was taken to "flatten Germany".
That came with a price tag GB could not burden.
End effect? Bankruptcy.
Outcome? After WW2, GB could no longer stand up against its rivals, Washington DC (yup, it was a rival for markets) the commies in Moscow.
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 Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
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".
3
-
3
-
@HistoryHustle Finally.
In evidence to support the above theory that the entire reasoning behind "Area Bombing" was to remove Germany as a "power" in the Balance of Power scheme of things.
Usually the rhetoric justifying intentionally targeting civilians in city centers goes along the lines of "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
No Bauxite = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
Evidence for the above? WW1. There was no strategic bombing, and the Allies outproduced Germany/Austria-Hungary easily.
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
3
-
3
-
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
People, don't waste your time arguing with immoral people.
Simply tell them the outcome of own actions.
2
-
Dresden is just a tiny piece in the puzzle called "the big picture".
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
2
-
2
-
The removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them, London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
2
-
@HistoryHustle That it was a fitting end by "switching the lights off".
Europe was "lights out", and those far away from squabbling Europeans took over.
WW1 was the first time in 20 years "the lights in Europe would go out", and Europeans would not see them go on again...ever.
They would flicker again 1919, to 1939, and then go out again.
With that, they had sacrificed their position of rulers of the world, and others would take over...
Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
2
-
@HistoryHustle The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
So...friends one day, enemies the next...
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
Again, geography decided on "friends" or "enemies".
2
-
@HistoryHustle So to conclude: London was not on friendly terms with Berlin, because of an own policy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note here, "London", and not the other "99%" of the people, business partners, organizations, etc. which got along just fine with Germany before they became the strongest continental economy.
Why was this policy fundamentally flawed?
Because as the alpha male it is much wiser to take the strongest entity as "the friend", as the default setting (politically friendly, and/or a partner).
Not to make it "the rival" in peacetime, and "enemy in war", as the default setting, as London did.
Note.
The policy came first.
It existed long before Germany even existed, "nasty Wilhelm" or anyone else stepped into the scene.
It predetermined "friend" or "enemy".
It had little to do with what any German leader did politically.
Why was it wiser to make the stronger entity "a friend"? (Entente, alliance, or likewise)
Simple answer.
Because it saves "empires", if you have an empire to protect.
And it makes empires, if one wishes to create "empires".
Washington DC showed London how the game is best played.
Make the strongest country/state/alliance/entity the "friends", not the other way around...
Out went Rule Britannia/Pax Britannica...
In stepped The American Century/Pax Americana...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
2
-
2
-
The decision to "area bomb" entire cities was not only immoral, but also counterproductive.
The "price tag" for London came after the war...
Logically, also fatally flawed:
Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944?
Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe?
Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns?
If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?
Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k?
At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional.
It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k.
Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works.
At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so.
At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack.
Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
2
-
Harris, Portal, and Churchill had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or did they "deserve it" also?
Stop the pathetic apologia of despicable human beings.
2
-
2
-
For hundreds of years the London/British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations, especially "little nations". Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
The photographs look a lot like Coventry, don't they?
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right?
From wiki: "Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!... I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase." William Cobbet
Excellent indeed.
His wish would one day become true, long after he was dead and gone, but surely not according to his dreams...
So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs".
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not getting bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless towns and villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. Later, in Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think that terror bombing people unable to defend themselves against superior technology, is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby keeping the peace, lol...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exciting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Such great fun, mowing down weaker nations who had only spears and old fashioned muskets, with cannons and machine guns. Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps ("penal colonies" for cheap labor), and then burning evidence of crimes right through into the 1960s (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Not so great having own cities and streets turned into mere verbs, right?
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to turn cities into mere verbs finally came true.
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Southamptonization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
Then, all of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff.
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
2
-
2
-
2
-
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, 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 narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "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]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
1
-
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
1
-
1
-
@ChrisCrossClash Do you understand how simple it is to implement a "divide and rule"-strategy?
From a position of power, pick a favorite or two...
As simple as that.
*If you wish to know who the biggest "losers" of history were, because they fell for the "divide and rule"-strategy of a bigger power, then please go to the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary) and choose "latest comments first" (three little bars at the top of each comments section).
Great Britain and France did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had tried to set up in Europe, and the British Empire did not gain by the own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons and French (average citizens) also lost BIG TIME.
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, that video cmments section has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
Please go there...or not.
Personally, whether you go there and read the essays there, or don't because you think it is too much to read, it doesn't matter to me.
1
-
@rickglorie Great question.
IMO, most people get along just fine, irrelevant of differences. As long as nobody meddles in peoples affairs too much, differences are usually settled peacefully. Of course, there are always troublemakers.
Politics however, can't make all the people happy all the time, so it should aim to make most of the people happy most of the time. "Perfection" doesn't exist, because it's utopian.
It only really becomes problematic if politicians enter the scene with the intention to gain from differences, rather than to smooth these differences over by implementing decent laws or policies. Populists often try to appeal to the lowest moral values, and then use these as tools to divide.
IMO, that is what we witnessed with Trump in the USA.
The same can happen in any European country of course.
IMO, the EU (Brussels) shouldn't meddle too much in cultural or local issues.
Central governments should only take care of the bigger issues to facilitate trade between European regions, remove barriers, or implement changes (say industrial norms) to make the exchange of goods and services easier.
In fact, what I personally like about European countries, is that they are different. It would be boring if they all became the same.
1
-
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, as a matter of an own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
No, this is not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section):
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy. For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
1
-
The post war "price tag"?
Bombing German cities was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German factories was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival by the new alpha of the world, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"At the end of the war, 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]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Rape of Belgium, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian.
Let's start at the beginning by painting the broad picture of Belgians, "British sense of justice"-style.
From wiki: "In the period from 1885 to 1908, many well-documented atrocities were perpetrated in the Congo Free State ... These atrocities were particularly associated with the labour policies used to collect natural rubber for export. Together with epidemic disease, famine, and a falling birth rate caused by these disruptions, the atrocities contributed to a sharp decline in the Congolese population. The ... population fall over the period is disputed, with modern estimates ranging from 1.5 million to 13 million."
Oh I see.
The Belgians who lived in the early-20th Century were greedy profit-driven slavery fanboys/fangirls.
"The boom in demand for natural rubber ... all vacant land in the Congo was nationalised, with the majority distributed to private companies as concessions. Some was kept by the state. Between 1891 and 1906, the companies were allowed free rein to exploit the concessions, with the result being that forced labour and violent coercion were used to collect the rubber cheaply and maximise profit. The Free State's military force, the Force Publique, enforced the labour policies. Individual workers who refused to participate in rubber collection could be killed and entire villages razed...." (wiki)
Of course the poor inhabitants were brutalized and enslaved by militarist merciless Belgian invaders.
These rascist "lordpeople" (Herrenmensch) organized "operational groups" (Einsatzgruppen) calling themselves the ForSSe Publique, and pillaged and murdered, thinking that nobody could ever pillage and murder them back.
"The severing of workers' hands achieved particular international notoriety. These were sometimes cut off by Force Publique soldiers who were made to account for every shot they fired by bringing back the hands of their victims. These details were recorded by Christian missionaries ... were made known in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the United States and elsewhere.." (wiki)
Everybody knew.
Obviously, every single one of them was in on it, because they did not revolt against their king.
No public overthrow/revolution against their state = as a nation they were in accord.
A typical way Belgians terrorized and brutalized the locals placed under their protection: "One junior officer described a raid to punish a village that had protested. The officer in command "ordered us to cut off the heads of the men and hang them on the village palisades ... and to hang the women and the children on the palisade in the form of a cross".[35] After seeing a Congolese person killed for the first time, a Danish missionary wrote, "The soldier said 'Don't take this to heart so much ... The Commissioner has promised us if we have plenty of hands he will shorten our service.'"[36]." (wiki)
Everybody knew what they were doing, because "Belgian Hans" went home proudly telling everybody, while showing off his fortune as he told stories of millions of "severed hands".
Of course that means these Belgians WERE ALL THE SAME.
They knew for years, and did nothing to overthrow their king and government.
The Belgian troublemakers had "sown" for fifty years, and terrorized their poor subjects.
They were a militarist warlike people, who had stolen the land and resources of the impoverished original inhabitants: they sowed the wind, and in 1914 to 1918 they reaped the whirlwind...
From wiki: "The Rape of Belgium (French: viol de la Belgique, Dutch: verkrachting van België) is a name given to the pillage of Belgian towns and systematic murder and mistreatment of Belgian civilians by German troops during the invasion and occupation of Belgium in World War I ... the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, including the destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]"
Suddenly, everybody was reminded of all that "empire"-plundering they had engaged in themselves, growing fat off the suffering of millions of slaves.
Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
That's when the whining started..."Boo Hooooo, oh poor us".
Spare me the tears.
Cry more.
They obviously deserved everything they got.
Had there been a "one-for-one" revenge, every single Belgian would have been killed.
They got off lightly, considering what they had done.
Pity it wasn't more who were enslaved and brutalized, because the oppression of The Congo continued right through into the 1960s (de-colonialisation, with more murder and plunder).
Today the Belgians are nice people, but back then they just had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
And thus ends the nice story of the Rape of Belgium, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian...
1
-
Dresden was no coincidence nor an effect.
It was a cause, decided loooooong before WW2.
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1