Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Intelligence Squared"
channel.
-
At 16:40 mins
Hastings criticizes the "massive territorial demands" by Germany, yet at the same time, British politicians and diplomats were GRANTING massive territorial claims to countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, and later organisations and nations like the Arabs and Zionists, in order to coerce them to join the war on their side.
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'these three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'
I couldn't agree more.
71
-
61
-
42
-
38
-
36
-
30
-
28
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
So Arthur Harris was "just following orders" I heard...
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think, if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any...
10
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez You are obviously struggling with your hatred of children, trapped in a dictatorial regime...
So, allow me to help you out...
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/concentration-camps-1933-39
In 1937, there were 4 ( four ) concentration camps, for political enemies, mainly "commies" (or people so-termed at the time).
The conditions here, were similar to Guantanamo. So, nothing wrong with that, in the context of the times . Correct?
Because a few years earlier, hordes of commie street fighters had made the streets of dozens of German cities unsafe. with plunder and random violence...cough, cough..."real terrorists".
So.
What was wrong with the average German thinking that it was about time to "get tough" on those commie crooks?
9
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez My background is military.
"Revenge" might be a great motivator, but it is a terrible basis for a policy or military doctrine.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests, because he couldn't see the big picture...
The big picture is that the USA's goal was destroying the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (global domination, Google The American Century).
On the other side, was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest).
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a 2 power system, and came up with Unthinkable...too late...
The resources of Empire had been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany".
You see, David. Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire. That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent "Alles Kaputt".
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
France, a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir)
There was nobody left to ally with, and nobody to fight to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
There was in fact a far better strategy possible, which I'll post below...
9
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez There was an alternative option.
It meant letting the 2 evils of the world battle it out, while staying mainly on the sidelines, only supporting the losing g side sufficiently not to collapse completely.
That way, the Eastern Front would have stabilized between Leningrad and the Black Sea somewhere.
D-Day would then have resulted in all of Europe being liberated from the west...
But here's the thing.
When Churchill finally woke up, came up with Unthinkable (in end effect, the Policy of Balance of Power), there was nothing left to "balance" the SU with.
Now, if your answer is "Empire" and "US", my answer is "lol".
Because the USA, right from the start, had the intention to turn the world into a 2-power system, and by 1945 that "2nd power" was not "Empire"...
[Google the American Century, and the newer "Project for the New American Century" or PNAC]
"Empire" had exhausted itself, was in financial ruin, and would come in handy as a post-war "lapdog". The Suez Crisis made that perfectly clear = Washington whistled, the Lapdogs (London/Paris/Tel Aviv) cowered...
If you really understand global power, and geostrategy, you'd realize that appart from the German cities, and German people, that there was a third "victim" of the financially ruinous, and hugely ineffective, "Area Bombing Policy (carpet bombing of city centers)...The British Empire.
After WW2 it lacked the strength to stand up the Communism and US corporate imperialism.
The key to saving the Empire was change: turning it into a "Pound block of equals", and protecting it with a strong and united central Europe.
Churchill, was an advocate of the EU, but like conservatives, propagated it 20 years too late.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@strugat Actually...no.
Hitler had given the military strict orders to withdraw at even the slightest hint of resistance.
And what then?
What should GB and France had done if the Nazis had withdrawn back behind the Rhine?
Note here, that this would have taken the Wehrmacht only a few hours, so that it would have been accomplished before the British were over the Channel.
Furthermore, the "should have" logic ignores the international situation.
At the time, Communism was expected to be a threat.
Google the Comintern, the rise of communist parties after the 1929 Depression, the Communist Manifest, the Soviet takeover in Mongolia, the Soviet invasion of China in 1934, the massive Soviet re-armament under the 5-year plans of 1928 and 1933, Deep Battle (the first ever "Blitzkrieg" doctrine), paratroopers, the Tupolev long range bombers....do you need more?
Allied leaders at the time didn't have a time machine, to figure out how history would unfold later on.
Western leaders obviously wanted to keep the option of allying with Germany in case of any aggressive Soviet expansion into their spheres of influence...
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway). Perfect, for Ralph Cochrane's Pathfinder Mosquitoes...
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
7
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez First query:
The answer to the question posed by the first comment, of it being "unjustified" to start wars.
I agreed with that, and posted a link to the invasion of Iraq, a war not sanctioned by international consensus, and a "war of choice" for the USA and a few political lapdogs...
So, obviously, if every German citizen is personally liable for the damage caused by the war started by their government, then also every US citizen is liable for the damage caused in Iraq in 2003...
Same thing.
The Jesus comment at the bottom, points at the obvious sarcasm of my comment.
So.
You start a war, you pay?
Can't have your cake and eat it now, can we?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
7
-
6
-
6
-
George the Kafir Maybe. Alternative history is a tricky topic, since there are so many variables.
Germany would certainly have won, if Hitler could have somehow swung GB to sign a peace treaty in 1940. That way, there would have been no blockade, and fuel, rubber, and other raw materials could have flown freely to aid production.
It would also have needed for the other Axis partners to join in (Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc.). Alone, Germany lacked the manpower to ward of the Russians with their constant 'human waves' of attacking, and never surrendering even under hopeless conditions. This caused around 100,000 German deaths in the first six months of the campaign.
The SU would certainly have collapsed if Turkey had allowed the Italian fleet to sail through the Bosporus (which would have allowed attacks in the Ukraine, dispersing Soviet troops along the Black Sea coast), and if Japan had likewise attacked in the east, binding the Siberian Army.
Furthermore, if the peoples had been promised freedom and independence in return for fighting Stalin and communism, millions of Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians, White Russians and others would have laid down their arms and joined the invaders.
That however, was made impossible by the Nazi ideology of the Nazi elite, who viewed these people as subhuman, and not fit to be considered as allies.
Until much later that is, after the setbacks of 1942 and 1943 made them change their minds...
6
-
Your comment almost completely ignored the effect of naval power.
Firstly (as already pointed out in this thread), the effects of the blockade, which already had an effect on the German economy as early as 1915.
Secondly, and even more importantly, the fact of how the RN bottled up the German Navy in their home ports. Without this, the German Navy would have roamed the Med and Atlantic in large force, sinking or confiscating ships bound for France, interrupting trade with French colonies, or blockading French ports.
I think both the numerical and qualitative superiority of the German ships, and their organisation and leadership, would have overwhelmed the French Navy in 1914 and 1915.
6
-
6
-
6
-
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?
What is your best answer?
6
-
Of course, the term "precision" was relative, but if one sends out ones forces in well-thought out operations, like Operation Bellicose, one can have real effects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bellicose
Men who advocated this, like Ralph Cochrane, were not supported sufficiently from the top.
At the top, they stuck to the intention to "area bomb" city centers.
That meant bombers were sent to intentionally "dehouse" civilians, thereby wasting them away on attacks which did more to hasten the financial end of Empire, ending in GB's post-war ruin, rather than effectively contributing to the end of the war.
6
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
6
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+ryans77 That the Brits and French were caught "off guard" is a myth.
Both sides re-armed at an increasing rate from 1938 on wards. The problem was that the British and French increased their arsenals, and the their troop strengths, but NOT the vital tactics of battle.
In other words, while the armies grew in size, they did not upgrade their doctrine.
In 1939/1949, the combined French and British land forces were already superior to Germany in numbers.
They had more tanks, better tanks, more artillery and more soldiers.
The French and British navies dwarfed the tiny Kriegsmarine.
Only the German Luftwaffe was superior in numbers.
Much of the British pre-war effort at re-armament was "pasive". In other words in the form of preparation. That included such things as the Shadow Aircraft Factory Scheme, Chain Home and Fighter Command ground control (to ward off the threat of the feared bomber), and long term naval re-armament (for example the "Hunt" class escort destroyers).
All of these measures were pre-war, and ordered by the Chamberlain government.
When Churchill took power in 1940, these effort started to bear fruit, and Churchill took the all the glory.
That wasn't very nice, was it? :-)
I'd say, give credit were credit is due. Chamberlain deserves the credit for the victory in the Battle of Britain, since the measures he implemented in 1938 and 1939 brought the Brits their greatest victory.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Smart leaders.
Too bad we had too few...
Let them 2 "slug it out" to utter exhaustion.
Without the logistics of Lend Lease's 600,000 vehicles of all types (note: almost as much as Nazi Germany produced in 5 years), 1000 steam engines, etc. the Eastern Front would have stabilized somewhere between the Baltic States and the Ukraine.
Recipe for success?
Just enough Lend Lease to avoid the collapse of the SU.
Not enough for them to storm into Central Europe (see "logistics" = trucks, etc.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
A little bit of gain for the Nazis for a few months, a little bit of gain for the commies for a few months. See-sawing their way into oblivion.
Then, in 1945: D-Day
Our soldiers and tanks rolling past Berlin (shooting Hitler "like a snake" along the way), then liberating Warsaw, Prague, Budapest...
No Nazis.
No commies.
No Cold War.
No Russians storming past Berlin and gaining access to German technology, which they'd use against us after 1945.
(Capturing nuclear and rocket scientists, Tabun and Sarin poison plants, chemical engineers, radar technology, latest jet engine tech, entire underground production plants, etc., etc.)
5
-
5
-
antred11 Firstly, Goebels and all the other Nazi elite were criminals. The Berlin speech was a staged propaganda show, and you are therefore quoting a criminal (speaking in front of a bunch of commandeered party followers) to justify the act of soldiers killing unarmed civilians. Hitler ans his criminal clique did not have the authority to speak for the German nation, since he was a dictator (who, against popular myth, was NOT voted for).
When did I ever say that I was generally against the use of bombing to limit the industrial power of an enemy?
I said I was against the use of armed soldiers (under the ORDER of a higher command) to kill unarmed civilians. Research the RAF's Directive Nr. 5, issued to Bomber Command in February 1942 (for example on Wikipedea). It was an order issued to soldiers kill civilians.
Your last paragraph is the result of incorrect comparisons. German bomber crews were never given the direct order to kill civilians. There was always a military/industrial/infrastructure target. This is also true for RAF raids until the March 1942 raid on Rostock. Rostock was the first WW2 attack in which the bomber crews were given the direct order to "de-house" civilians (a palatable way of ordering soldier to target and kill unarmed and innocent civilians).
Proof of this is the fact that Goering (head of the German Luftwaffe) was never accused of illegal orders in respect to the bombing of targets in cities, even though he had been captured. If the German raids were illegal, why was he not accused?
IMHO, this change of targets after the Directive Nr. 5, was a war crime. If you are going to insist that directly targeting civilians is a fair way of combat, you must also accept that terrorists are going to use the same argument (i.e. that the people working in the World Trade Center were contributing to the US economy, by way of the taxes they paid, etc., and therefore fair game).
Again, to make it perfectly clear, the Nazi invasions and subsequent atrocities were terrible war crimes, but but it did not justify the killing of people who were not responsible for these crimes. Furthermore, bombing people who don't know why they are being attacked is counter-productive. It merely make them mad at the attacker, and stiffens their resistance. They will fight back, and rally around the only place they can turn to. Their leadership. The result was a LONGER war, not shorter. The best case scenario was that it made no difference.
Thank you for reading and at least giving my opinion a thought.....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment of entire populations(with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever. To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 Normandy
The 13th June 1944 was the blackest day in the history of the British 7th Armored Division. In the space of 15 minutes, Michael Wittman, commander of a Tiger tank, went on a rampage, and killed 230 young British soldiers, and 29 AFV's (tanks and APCs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would Wittman have been able to to the same on 13th June 1944, had his Tiger tank been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would he have been able to single-handedly kill 230 young men, if he had been sitting on a bicycle, armed with an old rifle ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
My personal conclusion?
Utter folly to gloat over the deaths over hundreds of thousands, and there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted". Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Sophie Dockx True. Back then, the world was as complicated as the one we live in today.
The leaders back then had it just as difficult as our leaders do today — since a reliable crystal ball has not been invented yet :-)
That leaves leaders to take calculated risks...
In case of 'who caused WW2?' Chamberlain or Hitler, the answer for me is easy — Hitler and Stalin :-)
The two villains, who had signed the dirty deal which caused WW2, since without knowing how Stalin would react to a German invasion of Poland, Hitler's hands were tied...
The reason I say Hitler and Stalin, and not Chamberlain and Daladier, is because Chamberlain's carefully laid out strategy of containing Nazi Germany by using Poland as a proxy (based on the belief of an irreconcilable hatred between the 2 entirely different ideologies separating Nazism and Stalinism) was foiled when Hitler sent feelers, and Stalin greedily offered the N/A pact in August 39 (with its land-grabbing 3rd partitioning of Poland, amongst others).
Could that really have been foreseeable in 1939?
That basically blew Chamberlain's plan, and the fact that it was so unexpected shows how far most people (leaders and commoners alike) had underestimated the two totalitarian dictators.
Can we really blame the people at the time for this?
IMO, Chamberlain's actions did not cause the war, since it is really irrelevant what Chamberlain did or didn't do, there would have been a war anyway.
I prefer to base my criticism of past events on whether an action was motivated by higher or lower moral reasoning.
In this case my personal opinion is that I'll forgive Chamberlain, for his intentions were pure (keep Czech independence intact), by 'signing away' the 3 million German speakers who should never have been a part of the artificial entity called "Czechoslovakia" in the first place (...the failings of Versailles are an entirely different debate, but a given factor in 1938...)
Furthermore, Chamberlain's motivation was peace, whereas the two dictators motives were war.
Stalin knew EXACTLY that Hitler would invade Poland, the moment the pact was signed, leaving millions of Poles to their fate....
In August 1939, the sole determining factor of 'war or peace', was Josef Stalin.
He could have chosen life for millions of people, yet he chose death...
4
-
4
-
4
-
John Koslowsky Look no further than the mass stupidity of most human beings, and inability to think for themselves --then you will know why wars are always possible.
Are you saying that wars are fought solely because of the interests of the '1%-ers' of the world? I entirely agree. Anybody who believes that wars are fought because of 'our friends need help' or ' oh, those poor people' is obviously an ignorant fool, who will simply allow himself to be used as a tool to advance the agenda of others.
In this game, the one sides fools are as stupid as the others. They allow themselves to be herded like sheep, manipulated like 5-year olds, and ordered around like dogs. All for the goal of being king of the mountain.
They are all losers though....
Is this entire process steered by unseen forces?
I guess this is where we part. There is simply no need for great conspiracy theories, since human characteristics ( fear, greed, ignorance, indifference, pride, patriotism, stupidity, lack of empathy, hate, gullibility, etc.) is enough to set in motion, and keep in motion this process of mistakes/ misunderstandings, leading to crises, and leading to wars.
Do bankers, financiers, industrialists and other '1%-ers' make enormous profits from the misery of wars? If course they do.
Do they also have to conspire to start wars? No need, since there is enough stupidity going around to make them rub their hands in glee for the next thousand years...
4
-
4
-
4
-
Speer is always quoted when he said something which seemingly supported "area bombing" civilians.
Yet, he is never quoted when he pointed out why it failed.
After the Hamburg attack, Allied commanders remained committed to their sharply divergent strategies...and that, in end effect, led to a diversification of the Allied strategic warfare effort.
Instead of focusing and eliminating one key sector of the German war effort at a time, the forces available were wasted on many separate points of attack, blunting their impact.
Speer even sharply criticized this.
He mentioned how the limited forces used in some bombing attacks, led to damage which could be (mostly, not always) relatively quickly repaired. After such repairs, which aided productivity, the plants production was often higher than before the raid. This effectively cancelled out any lost production achieved by the raid.
Furthermore, Speer criticized the long duration between attacking the same targets, meaning that production levels were retained or even increased.
Speer is often quoted for saying things which seem to support the Allied bombing campaign, but he is never quoted when he said something critical.
How come?
4
-
4
-
@nekroneschwartz2013 To address your previous comment of why GB and France did not declare war on the SU after the 17th of September 1939 (Soviet invasion).
Poland was established in 1919, as a geostrategic barrier between Germany and Russia/SU to protect the British Empire .
It was used the same way as Belgium in 1914 (geostrategic barrier between France and Germany), set up in 1815.
When the SU invaded, it served no further purpose in protecting the Empire, and was dropped like a hot potato...
For more information as to the background of this, I suggest Google "British policy of Balance of Power for the continent of Europe", and Mackinder's theory of the Heartland (Pivot of History). In a nutshell, the theory stated that if the entire Heartland (roughly Urals to Central Europe) would fall to a single hegemony, the British Empire would collapse.
The theory proved correct.
In 1945, the SU stormed into the Balkans and Central Europe, Churchill's desperate attempts to avoid it failed (Percentages Agreement and Operation Unthinkable), and the Empire collapsed within a decade...
4
-
Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
Or, so we were being told...
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bolivar2153 More bs from the bs-department :-D
No, Germany did not "invent" the concept of "waging war on civilians".
In fact, if you really knew your history, you'll find thousands of examples, in most wars, and at all times, and by all sides.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence.
That is what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
Any sympathy for "poor Japanese" or "poor Chinese"?
No?
Or did they simply stand in the way of expanding "Empire"?
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the long distance blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..
Any sympathy for "poor Danes"?
How about "propaganda ministers" cheering their own "Copenhagenizing" of "enemies", including women and children?
Any criticism on your behalf there on the innocent citizens which your RN bombarded?
No?
Guess not...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
4
-
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.
A well, who cares, right?
As long as you can quote from the Bible, with 'an eye for an eye', or "reap the whirlwind...'
4
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
4
-
4
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war (see below).
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
From wiki/US General Smedley-Butler: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps: I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Rinse, repeat in a few years...
Forget.
I guess he was just another "conspiwacy theorist".
Everybody not rattling down the narrative, is always a "conspiwacy theorist".
I assume many have read Smedley Butler since the 1930s.
Not to correct wrongs, but to profit from wrongs themselves.
A very few, who determine the existence not only of our wellbeing, but today also the existence of our entire planet.
Today there are too few warning voices who counter the "My country, wrong or right"-arrogance of power rhetoric with the only correct standpoint. "If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Senator Carl Schurz, February 29, 1872.
“The dumbing down of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on...
Another "warning voice", ignored and forgotten.
In more detail:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
His "foreboding" of course not only concerned the USA, but this desease of ignorance, indifference, and complacency is rapidly spreading all over the western world.
There is no need for anybody in Europe or anywhere else in the West to "pat the own back" and "point at America" while laughing.
4
-
4
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
4
-
4
-
Bombing German factories 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, 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.
4
-
4
-
3
-
tigerhunter77 The reality was that it was all three countries which were responsible for the mess that was central Europe during the second half of the 30s.
After WW1, the ' Big Three' created the artificial entities of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and tried to impose a French rule over Europe, by condoning a very pro-French dominance (Franco- Polish alliance, and the 'Little Entente')
These diplomatic and political failures led to discontent.
After WW1, the USA and GB hoped they could stay out of future continental affairs, since the conditions created at Versailles was hoped to keep Germany permanently under the French boot.
Unfortunately, the French had a bigger appetite for power than their rotten teeth could bite off :-)
Also unfortunate was that Russia and Germany recovered from WW1, and found that the political situation in no way reflected the economic size of the countries.
Unfortunately, the post- WW1 democracy in Germany was replaced by a dictatorship. It would have been far better to address German grievances with a democratic leadership still in power during the 1920s.
That would have gone a long way to avoiding Hitler, and gaining a strong partner for standing up to the rise of communism.
By the time Chamberlain came along, central Europe was already a shithole, the result of past failures...
3
-
3
-
3
-
+James Roach
It was not exactly "brilliant" if the cost of keeping the LW out of Russia, was the end of the British Empire :-)
Even conservative calculations admit that the strategic bombing campaign was the single most expensive undertaking during WW2, and contributed greatly to the post-war decline of the Empire.
Since there was no real alternative than to build up the RAF and Bomber Command, the least one could have expected for this financial drain was an EFFECTIVE use of the weapons. Not a single thesis or report concludes that killing "enemy" civilians was an effective contribution to ending the war, and every bomber sent out with specific orders to kill German civilians was wasted.
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0413102-132317/unrestricted/Rigole_thesis.pdf
IMO, it was at best "mediocre".
I completely agree that it was brilliant to let the two tyrants bash it out among themselves, wearing each other down and taking care of two threats at the same time.
However, Stalin and the SU should have been supported only as much as absolutely necessary, to bind the three quarters of the resources the Germans had on the Eastern Front. Lend Lease should have been constantly adjusted (or tweaked) in such a way that only effective defense was possible, but not to provide the ability for the vast sweeps far into Eastern Europe (for example, by a drastic reduction in trucks and Jeeps)
With the Red Army only powerful and mobile enough for short advances, there would have been no need to sell off the entire Central Europe and the Balkans (100 million people in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Balkan states, the Baltic states, etc.)
Central Europe, liberated from the west might have resulted in higher US and British casualties , but it would have made the Warsaw Pact impossible, and the communist states in a much weaker position during the Cold War.
No Korea...no Vietnam....none of the hundreds of proxy wars in the years following WW2....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Robert Sundahl IMO, what you are ignoring (in fact, what most historians ignore) when they create alternative histories (or "what-ifs"), is the reaction a particular action would have resulted in.
Let's take your "German invasion of Czechoslovakia" (in case there had been no deal at Munich) in your fist comment.
Hitler's later actions proves that he ALWAYS cleared his back before he made any move. In the case of a hypothetical war with Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, he would have first cleared his "back" by making a deal with Poland. The feelers were already in place.
http://www.polishforums.com/history-34/president-moscicki-hermann-ring-hunting-together-47942/
Poland's past actions had also shown that Polish leaders were also inclined to expand their own empire, at the expense of others. Hitler would certainly have "sold off" the few remaining Germans in the corridor, and promised Lithuania to Poland, in return for some form of alliance against the SU (bear in mind, a non-aggression pact with Poland was already in place.)
Furthermore, that Czechoslovakia could have stood up to a German invasion is a popular myth.
IMHO, studying what happened in Yugoslavia in 1941 (i.e. Croats, Slovenians, etc. surrendering in droves and not fighting for the "rights" of Serbs to rule them from Belgrad), the same would have happened in case Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia.
What were the chances that the 8 million Slovaks, Ukrainians, Germans, Hungarians and others (trapped within borders which did not represent their interests) would have fought for a country ruled from Prague? It would have been left to 7.5 milion Czechs to fight for "Czechoslovakia".
Czech borderline defenses were completely unhinged when Germany annexed Austria, and Slovenian Nationalists would have quickly cut a deal too (as they did in 1939), opening up the entire eastern border.
Also, the superiority of a whole new concept (the, at the time unproven, Blitzkrieg) vs. a few weapons which were better, was later proven. In May 1940, French and British tanks and defenses were also better than German (and the Czech tanks they had taken over), but it did not make much difference. Most alternative histories also do not take into account the impact of air power. Like in most other nations of the time, this aspect had been ignored by the Czechs.
It would probably have been over in days, leaving Germany in a similar situation but WITH Poland as an ally..
3
-
George the Kafir Most nations which ended up fighting in WW2, did so voluntarily (both on the Axis and the Allied side). In case you mean the major nations, you are entirely correct.
Almost all the other minor Allied nations joined by own free choice, without being threatened or attacked. These included all the dominions (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada), and independant states like Brazil. Most Allied nations only joined as a token show of support, and hardly bothered making a front line contribution, for example Portugal, which greatest contribution was allowing VLR ASW aircraft to operate from the Azores, closing the Black Gap in the Atlantic for German submarines.
Colonies like India weren't even consulted, and GB declared war for them without bothering to ask any of the local leaders.That pissed off many Indian nationalists like Bose, who joined the Axis cause.
Stalin was indeed a very unpredictable fellow. He signed the Percentages Agreement concerning the division of Eastern Europe, and subsequently double crossed Churchill, and took over all of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania.
He only honored Greece, as you have written.
3
-
3
-
Sophie Dockx My knowledge of pre-1900 history is pretty stretchy, so thanks for that interesting read.
I agree that all this secret diplomacy and all those decisions behind closed doors will be our undoing one day. At some point, someone always misjudges and people start dying.
I always try to image what it would have been like as an average citizen at any particular time in history, and what knowledge would have been available to me as an 'average Joe'.
If I had been an American who lived in 1968, I would have believed that Vietnam broke out because North Vietnam attacked the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin. Today we know it was a false flag.
If I had been German in 1939, I would have believed that Poland attacked Germany (Gleiwitz Incident, also a false flag).
So what about today?
One would have to be really naive to think that it is not the same today.
Today, the news informs us about what's happening, but we still don't know.
I guess to 'know' and understand what is really happening today, we'd have to stick around for 50 or 60 years, and then read a good history book :-)
3
-
Blaming Chamberlain for being the main cause of WW2 goes a bit far.
In order to understand WW2, as a concept, one needs to look at the history of Poland directly after WW1.
When that war was over, Poland basically misused the temporary weakness of 2 great WW1 powers (Imperialist Russia and Germany), to increase its size and power by force.
Poland 'grabbed' parts of both empires, with the consent of the 'winners' of WW1, and later endorsed by the League (western border).
In a nutshell - that was a mistake.
Misusing the temporary weakness of a neighbor, can only have grievous effects later on when the balance of power is reversed. By including around 6 million Ukrainians, White Russians and Lithuanians, and around 2 million Germans (at the time) under Polish citizenship, against the wish of these 'minorities', seriously destabilized the state (of the total population of 31 million inhabitants during the 1930s, around 10 million were 'minorities').
That set the stage for future trouble.
In 1939, two despots, Hitler and Stalin found few problems temporarily settling their grievances, and signing a 'N/A pact'....including a 3rd partitioning of Poland...
Why was that so easy?
The main direct causes of WW2, was Hitler and Stalin signing the N/A pact.
That would have happened irrelevant of how Munich unfolded, because the long term effects of Versailles gave the crooks without moral values (Hitler and Stalin), the means to manipulate the situation (central European borders after Versailles) to a much higher extent than the democracies, who at least in part had to consider public opinion....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
At 22:05 mins
'...the smallest target the RAF could actually hit in 1942, was a town or a city...'
WRONG
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
http://ww2today.com/3rd-march-1942-the-rafs-largest-raid-so-far-on-paris
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers and 'enemy civilians' as the main target.
Allied soldiers died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head an think.?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
eugenlitwin Yes, I know. That part where I wrote 'speaking German' was more of a joke on my part.
Before and during WW1 there were no plans to force the people of the new independent countries, like in the short-term Caucasus Republics, Finland, or the Baltic States to 'Germanize'. These people had fought for their own freedom, which came about as an indirect result of the Russian defeat in 1917.
IMO, it was one of the biggest western mistakes in history ever to force Germany to rescind the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and withdraw German (and Austrian- Hungarian) soldiers from eastern Europe, since that was the only thing that bound the SU to peace on these regions.
The Reds used the power vacuum when the Germans retreated, and then invaded and subjected millions of Armenians, Ukrainians, and others to the yoke of communist oppression.
All of these areas could have been free after WW1, if the Allies had simply allowed a certain measure of German political oversight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They 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.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
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...
3
-
Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
As you know, 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.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
I don't wish to overcomplicate this, but to KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = 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.)
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
-
3
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. 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.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
3
-
3
-
Correct.
For Bomber Command and the leaders like Lindemann who advocated "Area Bombing" it was premeditated.
Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars was basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed.
The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, or immoral, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on the production in any continental European country).
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no "hindsight/learning curve"-argument).
At the same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (again no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
3
-
At 25:30 mins "..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
-
3
-
"The bombing of Plzeň in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated that the Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons", and that "because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons. "The Americans received a rapturous welcome when they liberated the city. Zinn wrote: I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the 'Skoda works' (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)—not five."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Henry Kissinger
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bolivar2153 I always condemn any form of "waging war on civilians" incl. the use of Zeppelins and Gothas.
Because my standpoint is (always) that of the civilian suffering. I don't care about language, ethnicity, religion, someone's "empire dreams", or any other criteria.
I don't make exceptions.
That's all.
Any sympathy for the Danes, Japanese and Chinese , and hundreds of others, your Empire bombarded, starved, threw into concentration camps, mowed down (while desperately trying to defended their homelands) throughout history to gain control/dominance, spheres of influence, and markets?
3
-
3
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
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.
[Search for London's Policy of 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. 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.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
[britannica(com)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."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, machines, scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dismantled and carted off hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
3
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
Payback is certainly a bitch, or...didn't mommy ever warn what would happen if you made the wrong friends?
3
-
I was waiting intently if any of these historians were going fall into the "well-honed rhetoric" of "having to stop Germans, wanting to rule the world" who just "had to be stopped"...
Of course the reality is that there were never any concerted efforts by Berlin to "rule the world" or to take down the British Empire, and the markets contained here. The many quotes by influencial Germans or ideas written down were of course never anything which could ever fit the definition of "a plan".
1) Words, for example by Wilhelm in 1907: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
Such words written down without the intention of ever becoming public, only give a clear indication of intent, but are not a plan.
It isn't enough "evidence" of "wanting to rule the world", as I'm sure everybody will agree.
Words can easily be taken out of context, and spun to mean anything one wishes.
Believe me, it means nothing.
2) During WW1, German strategist envisioned a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" to control: Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under German supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" (sic.) for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.). German strategists even suggested that "the destroyed parts of Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of exploiting" (sic.) Africa."
Of course the Germans were simply thinking about the psychology of the beaten and battered, and how good it must feel to be at least "able to kick down" if ones own future looks bleak.
Perfectly OK strategy, believe me...
3) At the same time, German strategists like Moltke or Hindenburg seemed to favor the idea that since there was a lack of civilized origins in Southern and Eastern Europe ... "and since the processes of government are destined to operate for a long time in the future, in many of these countries, in ways which are strange and uncongenial to Germans ... Berlin should make no moral distinctions with respect to local governments, whether they are democratic in nature or authoritarian ... only an examination of German interests at stake not just political, but economical as well ... should be in order when assessing foreign relations in Southern and Eastern Europe. Moltke goes on to recommend the naked exertion of German national power in influencing the behavior of new states, short of the use of military force, while downplaying the multilateral binding obligations that might result from the new systems system of Conferences." (loosely quoted)
Of course in the minds of such strategists, it is the people's own fault if their destiny was to become only superficially "quasi independent/sovereign" states, with own leaders to be dominated and directed as mere German puppets, and the people controlled by a police state financed from and by Berlin (and a few other "chosen few"). If some "scraps" fall off the richly-lain tables at home, onto the locals they should not complain, but be happy about such scraps...
In such a system, everybody in power understood that disloyalty would be met by immediate repercussions: a little "regime change invasion" here, and coup there, or propaganda campaigns of "discontent" funded from outside, or "disgrunted masses" suddenly finding themselves funded by sh*tloads of cash from secret slush funds...all depepending on what strategy best suited the country and times.
All with the subtle "message" to all others to "be nice, or else..."
Of course, all of the above were simply "ideas floated" on how to control "lesser people" so that 3% of the population in this sphere of influence (so-called "Grand Area") can then control 50% of the wealth contained here.
Nothing wrong with that of course, since such instincts of greed are normal, as we shall see.
The "plan" to "rule the world" is of course based on loosely gathered strings of information from official and inofficial sources (incl. NGOs), strung together into a giant story.
For the average readers/viewer, the quotes above are of course part of "a plan" or "the perfect evidence" of how Germans wanted to "rule the world", and subdue the British Empire, their biggest rival.
Only...
...the words...
Are not German.
The first paragraph was made by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy (whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist) and taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire (1960) by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
The second and third paragraphs were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers": "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
Parts 1), 2) and 3) in the first half were taken verbatim from US leaders, and only changed to mask the country of origin. I did this to make a point, which is hopefully understood...
These strategies by leaders who "wanted to rule the world" is simply a part of that "1%" of history which just does not make it to the mainstream for wider audiences...
3
-
3
-
3
-
For all those Eastern European "new friends" out there watching this.
Welcome to a united Europe.
Hopefully, it will stay this way, and we are never again divided by scrupulous leaders with evil "divide and rule" intentions.
And if you feel the urge to state "...revenge for Warsaw, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiew..."
Just remember one thing.
Not even a year after 1945, and your dear family and relatives were lucky that the Americans didn't decide to join up for Operation Unthinkable, and nuke Warsaw, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiew...
Great "friends".
Yes, even the theory that London got rid of Sikorski is perfectly plausible, seeing how he insisted on justice for those murdered by the communists.
Operation Unthinkable was just another example of London's deceitfull ways, same as it was most likely London who sacrificed Polish leader Sikorski in return for better relations with the more powerfull Moscow.
London: "Poland? Who cares about little Poland, if the alternative is a big friend Russia? Little Poland: off you go. Crocodile feed..."
London would pay for their eternal deceit after the war, when their "best friends" in Moscow tore up the Percentages Agreement re. markets for British goods in Eastern Europe, and a percentage of political influence. London had deceived the Bible, and "allied with the devil" (Stalin), because they thought there was more "in it" for them.
So when "the devil" cheated them out of "a deal" they should not have been surprized.
That was how their "Empire" failed.
They made no friends.
London only made "deals" for the own benefit, and sold off "little nations" or "old friends" whenever it suited them.
But that is not the end of the story.
Finally, London was deceived by Washington DC.
When nuclear weapons were proven to work (1945), Washington DC tore up the Quebec Agreement and refused to hand over the mutually developed nukes to London.
London therefore had no way to force or threaten Stalin with a little "unthinkable" operation to uphold the Percentages Agreement, or a share of political influence in eastern Europe.
Washington DC. "No hard feelings [tears up the agreement and smirks]. It's just a scrap of paper..."
Stalin (1945): "Sooooo, London: You've got a big navy and lots of battleships? You've got Brrrrrr-Lancasters? Cool. Who cares? You want to be "fwiends"?" [tears up the Percentages Agreement and smirks].
And so.
The deceivers.
Got deceived.
Lovely...
3
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
3
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment (with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever.
To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or hitting the "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
Answer: there is no objective answer, and it depends more on the "feelings" of most observers, rather than "facts" and data.
Around two years later this policy resulted in one of the most feared German weapon systems NOT eing targetted.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
The Henschell Plant on the edge of the center of Kassel, a multi-square kilometer complex, was the sole source of Tiger I and II tanks.
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. The selected TARGET AREA this night was the town square, not the stacks of the Henshell plant. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
I assume the young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942, were not amused. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,...maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
Why are there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted"?
Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Germany was not "bombed to defeat", but was successfully invaded and, ultimately beat by ground forces.
The strategic bombing campaign played a role, but was not even near to being worthwhile "return on the investment".
Had the effort put into building up the strategic air forces instead been invested into proper tanks, APCs or other forms, the war would have been over sooner...
The "recalled fighters" argument.
Firstly, the recalled fighter were single engine day fighters, recalled due the the arrival and threat posed by the USAAF, not Bomber Command.
Secondly, since one should only opposed to the use of soldiers fighting against civilians, and not strategic bombing in general, the efforts the Germans undertook to counter US daylight raids should not flow into this comparison. Therefore, the Germans would have needed to invest the resources they put into defending their cities anyway, even if the RAF had decided to bomb only valid military or strategic targets with token forces. Bear in mind, that the Germans would have needed to protect their industrial centers with a similar effort of AA guns and Flak soldiers, even if ONLY valid targets had ever been chosen.
GB and the Commonwealth which could have redirected a large part on their resources on more pressing worries (for example defeating the submarines with an all out effort in 1942 instead of mid-1943, which would have saved thousands of sailors lives and millions of tons of supplies) Many ships in convoys could have been saved, if the efforts had been focused on escort carriers with Swordfish aircraft.
3
-
Alternatives?
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think?
3
-
After WW1, the London lords thought that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
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 those London lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
Long before that, an own policy called Policy of Balance of Power made Germans the enemy as a default setting.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy which made the strongest continental power the "rival in peace/enemy in war" as the default setting, irrelevant of right or wrong.
Ah well. Too bad.
So the London lords stiff-upper-lipped their crumbling Empire into extinction...
3
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too. Crumbling between the "hammer" of communism and the anvil of the American Century.
Sad.
Too sad...
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
3
-
3
-
3
-
EPISODE V:
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
A massive strategic air force, was a form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
3
-
3
-
Your "heroes" 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]
3
-
+Joshua Brooks Why not let Germans economically dominate central Europe?
What God given right does one nation have over another?
Why not share the world more equally?
WW1 was avoidable, and the result of (yet another) Balkan crises.
Ah, I see.
The roughly 6 million deaths, the millions of civilian deaths, the suffering, the hatred, the endless stories of mutilated and shell shocked 'lucky ones' who survived. Endless more millions, traumatized by PTSD for years to come, to avoid 'sharing the world' were well worth it. The enormous debt, only recently fully paid (2010 was the last British installment).
All well worth it.
Right?
Let's explore the world it led to together, shall we?
2
-
2
-
+Albert Samuel The entire moral issues side is pointless. By focusing on this aspect, allows historians to completely ignore a complete different, and VERY valid issue, which is ; Was the bombing effective?
I don't know if you are familiar with the expression 'pulling wool over somebody's eyes '? The focus on the justified or not, allows historians to distract our attention.
That's exactly what is happening here.
Fact remains, that the entire strategic bombing campaign was ineffective, ill coordinated, ill conceived, based on bullshit assumptions, and a waste of OWN resources.
Allied countries wasted resources on something which did not work.
These resources could have been used for more valuable forms of support for the soldiers.
The topic of the debate is about 'justified', and that includes issues like 'Were the deaths of 55,000 dead RAF airmen who died, JUSTIFIED if one considers what little they achieved in return'.
Or, 'Were the enormous resources GB poured into RAF Bomber Command, JUSTIFIED if one considers that it hardly aided the fight of the soldiers who fought on the front lines?'.
2
-
2
-
+jake hubelot
Wielun, or the German name Welun, was not an example of indiscriminate bombing of civilians according to an official government policy, or a military doctrine (which at the time was ' Blitzkrieg')
Quoting Wielun as an example of 'indiscriminate bombing of civilians according to an official government policy' is incorrect. What policy?
It was, plain and simple, a case of ' interdiction'.
In case you state otherwise, you will ALSO have to believe that the Germans invaded Poland to free the 'oppressed German minority Poland (sic. - source Nazi propaganda made for Germans at the time) only to have German pilots 'terror bomb' their OWN ethnic brothers and sisters. With 10 to 50 % of the civilian population in the border regions believed to be ethnic Germans, you are going to try and convince me that 'ze Krauts' bombed here for pure pleasure, and not to aid the advance of their ground forces. Honestly, do you even realize how stupid that theory sounds?
The truth is that Wielun was a mistake, and was drawn in as an HQ of a Polish cavalry brigade. So, in reality it is an example of interdiction, and in the words of our western historical apologists (for example when explaining away the 20,000 French civilian deaths at and around the time of D-Day) 'there was a war going on, and no time to be nice' :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A bit of crackpot logic presented by Patrick Bishop.
16:19 "They were not afraid to boast in their propaganda..." They are actually quoting Nazi propaganda, in other words the twisted logic of criminals, to justify the killing of civilians
16:40 "...the Germans talked..." Which Germans? Was Orwell actually there?
17:55 "...the words of Thomas Mann...", speaking from the safety of exile. I wonder what Mann would have said if he had been sitting in the middle of Lubeck with firebombs falling all around, frying his kids to cinders?
18:50 " ...those were desperate times..." BS, the USA had just turned into a fully fledged Ally, only the worst pessimist would be thinking of losing.
19:09 "...in the spring of 1942...war was going Germany's way..." In reality, the Germans were freezing to death in Russia, and Rommel had been kicked out of Egypt, all the way back to his starting point a year before....
19:20 "...in January 1942...the Wannsee Conference..." Did they know the Wannsee Conference took place when the area bombing order was given a month later (in Febr 1942)? Obviously not, so that's an EXCUSE (given in 1945), and not a REASON (which existed in February 1942)
2
-
A bit of crackpot logic presented by Patrick Bishop.
16:19 "They were not afraid to boast in their propaganda..." They are actually quoting Nazi propaganda, in other words the twisted logic of criminals, to justify the killing of civilians
16:40 "...the Germans talked..." Which Germans? Was Orwell actually there?
17:55 "...the words of Thomas Mann...", speaking from the safety of exile. I wonder what Mann would have said if he had been sitting in the middle of Lubeck with firebombs falling all around, frying his kids to cinders?
18:50 " ...those were desperate times..." BS, the USA had just turned into a fully fledged Ally, only the worst pessimist would be thinking of losing.
19:09 "...in the spring of 1942...war was going Germany's way..." In reality, the Germans were freezing to death in Russia, and Rommel had been kicked out of Egypt, all the way back to his starting point a year before....
19:20 "...in January 1942...the Wannsee Conference..." Did they know the Wannsee Conference took place when the area bombing order was given a month later (in Febr 1942)? Obviously not, so that's an EXCUSE (given in 1945), and not a REASON (which existed in February 1942
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nyctasia A strong argument.
I have one question concerning your statement:
"With Ireland, the Germans were taking sides, a shipment of 50,000 rifles was hardly a non-commital action"
Do you have a reference for that?
I can't find anything on the www, concerning direct or indirect sales of arms by Germany. As you mentioned, these sales were covert, and did not have (at least on the surface) official support.
I'm sure the Brits would not have reacted kindly if direct sales of arms, or any form of open support in an area which could be considered a British sphere of influence, had taken place.
IMO, it is meddling which results in affront, and from there leads to war. Sorting out afterwards who should be seen as "responsible" is often influenced by nationality or ideology.
You're probably right in your final paragraph, in that everything is a form of escalation, and the first tiny steps in this process of escalation often lie in events far back.
Personally, I don't like the "blame game". As far as I'm concerned, all I see is guilty men, and not much innocence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
At 18:50 mins
Brest-Litovsk.
IMO, one of the gravest outcomes of the Armistice and a fact seldom mentioned, was the result of the renunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
The armistice demanded the immediate removal of German (also Turkish and A-H) forces, and the resulting power vacuum was quickly exploited by the Reds, who rolled over Ukraine, Poland and the Caucasus region, whose population had only just plucked up the courage to declare their independence.
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the Eastern front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property.
Even worse, the returning German troops subsequently roamed the streets of Berlin, or signed up for private militia, a serious risk to the shaky new democratic Weimar Republic.
My conclusion?
It would have been better for the peoples of these areas if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had remained intact, since it legally bound Russia (or rather the SU), to peace in these areas.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Hindsight?
Certainly, but there isn't much in history which isn't....
2
-
2
-
2
-
39:20 "...Minsk, Smolensk in the SU..."
I find the British obsession for defending Stalin pretty weird.
From 1939 to 1941, the "hero" leader (the cute "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent the oil to fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry, and provided the ores to build bombs which rained down on London. Stalin's help to the Nazis continued literally to the last minute. At 3.00 o'clock in the morning of June 22nd 1941, the last train load full of oil crossed the border, just before the German invasion began.
Furthermore, grains from the Ukraine helped to make the RN attempts at blockading Nazi Germany pointless. Britain's most powerful weapon was a blunt sword, thanks to the "good ol' Uncle Joe"....
From 41:00 mins "the blood guilt..."
So, British pilots were sent to their deaths, bombing German women and kids, to revenge Russians?
BS "logic" for the uninformed.
The Brits "owed" Stalin nothing.
Not even a f*cking penny....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Rooney That is all correct.
Again, well thought through, and well written.
As you stated, it is all about the implications of judging future events, and how to deal with these future hypothetical scenarios.
Judging hypothetical scenarios on the basis of current situations, is also impossible, since the future of a state also depends on it's leadership, and whether the leadership of a "competing empire" will also always show goodwill to one's own empire.
Bear in mind that by alienating Germany based on assumptions about the possibility of future ill intentions, GB and her Empire automatically opened the back door to becoming "second fiddle" to another rising "empire".
That of the USA.
Basically, by leaning towards the USA from an early stage (say, roughly the time of WW1), British leaders placed a heavy bet on that the USA would always remain a stable democracy.
British leaders have placed high hopes (from an early 20th century POV) that the USA would always stay "the USA" (as we know it today), and not at some stage adopt a leadership with ill intentions towards the British Empire.
Luckily, that never happened, as the example of the SU shows.
It remains an interesting "what if".
What if GB had simply stayed out of WW1.
IMO, it might have saved the Empire for a few more decades, and led to a current "third block", based on the Commonwealth and the Pound, and which would have had the strength and influence to compete with the Dollar and the Euro ("continental Europe" dominated by Germany and France).
Today, the Commonwealth is a sad left over of former glorious times.
Involving herself in continental affairs, certainly hastened the end of the British Empire, and the Commonwealth as a power base, since GB simply lacked the funds to appease the colonies and dominions under her influence.
Even during WW1, GB turned from the world's biggest creditor, to the world's biggest debtor.
The question is "what for?"
Based on the assumptions of a few?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is simply a question of what the elites consider worthwhile to protect their vested interests.
The 'poor people' don't play a role, otherwise GB would never have started so many wars and invasions herself.
Belgium was a pretext.
There was no defense treaty, and if the elites had wanted to stay out, or even saw it as more opportune for their vested interests to join Germany, they would have simply changed their propaganda tune....
Then, we would have heard all about what terrible people 'the Belges' were. How they murdered 10,000,000 innocents in the Congo. How they brutally cut the hands of kids, simply because they didn't manage to gather enough rubber...
Yup...those evil 'Belges' certainly 'deserved what they got', and were simply 'reaping what they had sown'.
Beware, of the propaganda tales of our elites...WMD and all that...
2
-
At 58:40 mins
The "hardliner's" approach.
I find the British obsession for defending Stalin pretty weird.
From 1939 to 1941, the "hero" leader (the cute "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent the oil to fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry, and provided the ores to build bombs which rained down on London. Stalin's help to the Nazis continued literally to the last minute. At 3.00 o'clock in the morning of June 22nd 1941, the last train load full of oil crossed the border, just before the German invasion began.
Furthermore, grains from the Ukraine helped to make the RN attempts at blockading Nazi Germany pointless. Britain's most powerful weapon was a blunt sword, thanks to the "good ol' Uncle Joe"....
Blood guilt ?
WTF?
So, 55,000 British highly trained pilots and crew were sent to their deaths, bombing German women and kids, to satisfy the demands of Stalin?
BS "logic" for the uninformed.
The Brits "owed" Stalin nothing.
Not even a f*cking penny....
Not a single drop of blood...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bishop's speech was total BS, starting with the first comment.
"The Germans talked..." - the Germans were not all Nazi's
Lübeck was the first mass firebombing against civilians anywhere. By 1942 it was clear that Germany could never strike back, therefore the mass murder of civilians was cowardly.
"The Wannsee conference" as justification for the bombing campaign?Retrospectively, maybe, but in 1942 it was decided to raze Germany to the ground, irrelevant of what was decided by the Nazi leadership.
All weapons of war he mentioned (Oboe, 4-engined heavies, etc.) took YEARS to develop, tool up for, train, and put into action. These decisions were taken LONG BEFORE the war even started. It was policy.
Coventry cannot hold as justification for mass-murder on the scale of Dresden and Pforzheim. Any raid which has the OBJECTIVE of destroying a legitimate target (even if it misses), is justifyable. (Therefore also early RAF raids on Essen, and later raids like the Dambustersetc. were justifyable).
GB had "limited means"? What BS, the Empire and it's Dominions had "more means" that the land-locked Axis.
None of these conclusions are "in hindsight", as they were well-known by the time WW2 started.
2
-
2
-
2
-
George the Kafir Many Churchill fans propose that Churchill would not have made a deal with Hitler in 1938. If that had been so, events could have turned out for the worse, since it is unlikely that Czechoslovakia would have held out for long in case of a German invasion.
Furthermore, the Nazis were holding secret talks with the dictatorial regime in Poland, and Hitler would have certainly concluded some kind of deal with the Poles (Polish PM Mosciki and Goering were hunting buddies), and Slovaks, before moving on Czecho(slovakia).
In case there had been no agreement at Munich, GB and France would have looked like warmongers, who chose war over ' 3 million Germans who wished to join their motherland' (sic). Not only in the dominions, but also in many other parts of the world, like the Americas, the people would not have agreed that '3 million Germans' was a valid reason for yet another world war.
It was March 1939, when German troops marched into Prague, that the world's eyes were finally opened. It would have been difficult to foresee this, since Hitler had actually never broken an international agreement he had negotiated and signed himself.
Many Churchill fans ignore this, and cling to his prophetic statement. Fans forget that Churchill was not in any position of power, and had nothing to lose by making that statement. On the other hand, he had everything to gain politically, in case he turned out to be correct about Hitler. Even today, it is easier to criticise those in power, if one isn't in power oneself.
Unlike Versailles, and other treaties imposed on Germany from outside following WW1, there was no excuse in March 1939. Hitler was clearly the aggressor.
Chamberlain was a wise man.
Sadly underrated.
2
-
George the Kafir Again, 100% in agreement.
It's also easy to forget that the main reason for the British successes in the early war years, were a result of the thorough preparations during the Chamberlain years. Chain Home and Fighter Command ground control, the Hunt-class escort destroyers, preparations for the immediate use of convoys in case of war, the Shadow Aircraft factories, prototype orders for the new heavy bombers, to name just a few.
British successes under Churchill owed a lot to to Chamberlain's foresight.
New research has also revealed that Chamberlain was far from being the 'naive old buffer' he is often depicted as. He knew for a fact that he was making a pact with the devil, and could only hope for a positive outcome.
It wasn't Hitler who set a trap, and baited Chamberlain. It was actually the other way around. By signing, and only by signing a proposition for lasting peace, Hitler was forced to make his intentions clear. After March 1939, no amount of Nazi propaganda and misdirection could cover up Hitler's territorial ambitions anymore.
I don't understand the almost religious obsession some people have of historical figures. To me, both Churchill and Chamberlain were merely human beings, with strengths and weaknesses, same as all of us. Like all of us, historical figures get some things right, and some things wrong.
Some Churchill fans get extremely upset when their hero is criticized. It's considered almost blasphemy to criticize him, making an objective discussion almost impossible.
This discussion is a breath of fresh air, a nice change from the usual.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sophie Dockx Spot on with your analysis again :-)
Yes, there is definitely something like a 'national mindset', which makes it very difficult to discuss controversial topics concerning the history or current events of GB (but also the USA) with citizens of these nations.
Mind you, I hate generalizations, and I've had great discussions about history with Americans and Brits. So, off course there are many exceptions to this phenomena.
However, when discussing the national history of GB and the USA, people quickly get offended, and quickly take a valid cause for criticism as a personal affront.
This seldom happens when discussing history with citizens of other nations or states.
It seems as if excessive patriotism is the cause.
Excessive patriots can't accept criticism, and every and any form of criticism is almost immediately interpreted as a personal attack.
Frustrating, to say the least....
2
-
2
-
Agreed.
Yes, of course 'honorable and righteous' countries also blockade their neutral neighbors, as the RN did with more than 30,000,000 Dutch, Danes and Swedes, who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the power mongers struggle to be "king of the mountain", yet were included in a long distance blockade anyway.
Note, such an action was not sanctioned by the Hague Convention....
British excuse? "We didn't want to risk our ships in a close blockade of German ports...."
Note, nobody starved to death, but personal fortunes were ruined, companies went bust, and by 1918 food strikes and turmoil were the order of the day....
What a nice way to treat innocent people :-(
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Marcus I. Keil As Jake said, the study of history isn't complete unless the interested person learns to distinguish between the meanings of certain key words.
For example, we have 'the pretext' as opposed to 'the valid reason'.
Hitler did not invade Poland, in order to 'avenge poor ethnic Germans'. Of course, the mistreatment cannot be excused, but this was not why Hitler attacked. You mentioned the first documented atrocity against ethnic Germans being the 31. August. How do you explain then, that the the first date of the attack on Poland was fixed for the 27th August? (this attack date was cancelled by Hitler, literally the last minute, on the night of the 26th)
How can something which happened on the 31st, be a justification for something which was initially planned to commence on the 27th?
Furthermore, the intention behind the attack was clearly to wipe Poland off the map. If not, why did Hitler form at least a remnant of a free Polish nation, even a puppet one, for the areas with overwhelming Polish populations?
The 'poor Germans' was clearly a pretext.
It was an invented justification, in order to fool the German population into believing that the invasion was a just cause.
2
-
Marcus I. Keil What evidence do you have for the mass killing of ethnic German before 1st September 1939?
Apart from a quick mention by Hitler in a speech justifying the war, there is no solid evidence for this allegation.
Secondly, it doesn't even make sense. In case you have forgot, the Germans won that war (invasion of Poland), so where are the books,newspaper articles, and Int Red Cross reports about mass murder and mass graves? Why didn't the Nazis call in neutral examiners (similar to Katyn), to document, and store (in neutral countries), the evidence of these alleged crimes?They did so when they discovered Katyn, so why didn't they do it in October or November 1939?
As for your allegation of Stalin attacking Finland and East Poland.
You seem to confuse 'nations' with 'friends in real life'. Nations or states don't have friends, only interests. This is a fact, and nations don't fight wars, in the same way you might come to the aid of friend being attacked by crooks. In case a nations interests are not involved, there is also little incentive to send young men to die. That is the bottom line.
Apart from that, there is also a 'logical' explanation why GB and France did not declare war on the SU in 1939.
The history of Eastern Poland is entirely different from that of the Corridor and Danzig.
Danzig was 'signed away' to Poland after WW1 (Versailles), and according to international law, it was a multinational agreement, with guarantors (mainly France).
Eastern Poland was stolen by the Poles after a war with the SU in the early-20s. It was a bilateral agreement (only Poland and the SU), and there were no international guarantors for the territorial changes. Furthermore, the population of these ares were predominantly (over 90%) Ukrainians, White Russians, and Lithuanians.
Why should British and French soldiers die in a war, to avoid the return of Ukrainians and Russians back into the SU?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael Moore No LINK. Sorry.
Where?
Instead of calling names, why don't you try again...
Bear in mind, that you made a statement, and now have to follow it up. For example by quotes made by foreign politicians, speeches, or interviews with thousands of people ALL chanting 'glory, glory USA, 'murica' yeah, USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA.....'
Wait a minute...oh, yes, I AM confused.
Only stupid Americans do that...LOL.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Even worse than merely "war crimes".
These efforts of "flattening entire cities" were war crimes which aided the commies.
Who likes commies here anybody? Speak up!
Right.
Sadly, I don't know if our leaders are stupid or just incompetent.
Because in the end, the 2nd only real winner was......Stalin.
Why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939 [attributed to a speech he made from the memory of those present]
Yup, that Stalin.
So many of "our boys" were sent to their deaths to make his "commie dream world" become a reality.
Our leaders gave away half of the world to a crook and mass-murderer, and we then spent 50 years, trillions of Pounds and Dollars, and hundreds of thousands of body bags, fighting him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment of entire populations(with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever. To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 Normandy
The 13th June 1944 was the blackest day in the history of the British 7th Armored Division. In the space of 15 minutes, Michael Wittman, commander of a Tiger tank, went on a rampage, and killed 230 young British soldiers, and 29 AFV's (tanks and APCs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would Wittman have been able to to the same on 13th June 1944, had his Tiger tank been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would he have been able to single-handedly kill 230 young men, if he had been sitting on a bicycle, armed with an old rifle ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
My personal conclusion?
Utter folly to gloat over the deaths over hundreds of thousands, and there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted". Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
2
-
2
-
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Same as "Belgium" was an excuse for war, and not a reason.
"The neutrality of Luxembourg had been guaranteed by the Powers in the Treaty of London of 1867. [After the German invasion]...The prime minister immediately protested the violation at Berlin, Paris, London, and Brussels. When Paul Cambon received the news in London at 7.42 a.m. he requested a meeting with Sir Edward Grey. The French ambassador brought with him a copy of the 1867 treaty – but Grey took the position that the treaty was a ‘collective instrument’, meaning that if Germany chose to violate it, Britain was released from any obligation to uphold it. Disgusted, Cambon declared that the word ‘honour’ might have ‘to be struck out of the British vocabulary’."
https://blog.oup.com/2014/08/2-august-1914-luxembourg-british-cabinet-demonstration/
So what exactly then?
Were the Treaty of London in 1839 and 1867 "binding defense pacts", and/or "an obligation to act", or wasn't it?
Or maybe simply the truth: the Treaty of London was an excuse for war, not the reason.
The objective was to incense feelings of hate in GB, because GB had a volunteer army which needed "angry young men" to flock and enlist...
Of course, had Germany never invaded Belgium, London would have simply looked for some other excuse somewhere along the way...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mister3Pac We live in a gl8bal world.
Advances in technology meant that in 1939, Poland was connected (geostrategy) to Manchuria (Khalkin Gol), in the very same way that in 2014 Venezuela was connected to Iran, and Putin sending strategic bombers there...
In the same way that "Belgium" was set up as a geostrategic barrier to protect the British Empire. Morphed out of the desire to protect Central Europe, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Today, Putin sending forces to Venezuela (threatening the age-old Monroe Doctrine's validity), is exactly the same "game" which the Nazis played with the Legion Condor in Spain in 1938.
The actions are similar, because the actors use the same tools they have used for thousands of years.
It's all about Sun Tzu (Art of War) and Machiavelli....
When studying history, beware of falling for superficial explanations about the 'how' and 'why' events unfolded the way they did.
Oh, and BTW.
The fact that you cannot grasp the way the world works behind closed doors, doesn't mean that it isn't the reality we live in.
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, your lords don't agree with you.
They didn't in 1914, and they don't today...
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
This "debate" is a total waste of time.
Either intentionally, or unintentionally, the focus of viewers is shifted away from "What really happened".
Reality?
GB/London never ever set out to "save the world" or "pwotect poor Eastern Europeans", or "save the world", but to misuse them as tools to protect and expand their own Empire.
For them, it was always and ever about their own "Empire".
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
OWN INTERESTS, not yours...
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
EMPIRES DON'T MAKE "FRIENDS":
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
2
-
So after fighting a war of which a lord said "lights would go out in Europe", London continued setting up Europe for failure (see below).
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Frankfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did not do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
2
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more pig's breaksfast...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After WW1, the London lords thought that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
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 those London lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
Long before that, an own policy called Policy of Balance of Power made Germans the enemy as a default setting.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy which made the strongest continental power the "rival in peace/enemy in war" as the default setting, irrelevant of right or wrong.
Ah well. Too bad.
So the London lords stiff-upper-lipped their crumbling Empire into extinction...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to 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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dakerthandark Countries with mixed ethnicities which are created by the people (from the bottom up) like the USA and Switzerland, unite against an invader.
Countries with mixed ethnicities, which are created by force "from the top down", the opposite happens. For example Yugoslavia in 1941, which collapsed in 11 days, mostly because millions of Croats, Slovenians, Bosniaks, and others, refused to fight "for Belgrade".
Same would have happened in 1938, had there been a war between the 7.5 million Czechs, and the more than 80 million Germans.
What makes you think that the 3.5 million Germans, the 700 000 Hungarians, and 300 000 Ukrainians would have fought "for Prague"? [Note, these citizens were never asked what they wanted for themselves in 1919, and simply awarded to the artificial state "Czechoslovakia"]
What makes you think that the 2.3 million Slovaks, when given the option of Independence by Hitler (as indeed happened in 1938) would have preferred fighting "for Prague"?
Finally, what makes you think that the German Panzer pinzers would have attacked at the strongest fortresses, instead of going through Austria and Slovakia, into the unprotected belly?
[Note, in 1940, the Panzers didn't attack the Maginot Line directly, and they in fact did attack through a completely unexpected route]
2
-
@lord2529 WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
2
-
@lord2529 Same as today, emotional arguments are always a good substitute of the legal basis for war is missing.
WW1's "Serbian brothers" or "poor Archduke", and "poor Belgians" were all emotional arguments, to cover the fact that there was no legal foundation for the various actions carried out.
It fact, the only legal declarations of war was done by Germany.
Because after the French gave their blank cheque to Russia, and Russia mobilised, Germany had every right under international law at the time to carry out a preventive/preemtive war against Russia and France.
Google "Caroline Incident", which was the guidelines followed by the world's nations to determine "preventive war" or "just war" at the time...
The Caroline Incident.
Anticipatory self-defense
This incident has been used to establish the principle of "anticipatory self-defense" in international politics, which holds that it may be justified only in cases in which the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". This formulation is part of the Caroline test. The Caroline affair is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around preemptive strike (or preemption doctrine).
[note here that Russia and France failed the Caroline Test, because it does not cover 3rd parties, like Serbia. In other words, Russia could not claim to be legally correct, by pointing at "poor Serbs" (emotional argument), because they had no treaty with Serbia, and only had a French "blank cheque" in their pocket]
2
-
@mtlicq Thank you for reading.
Yes, please copy (and do your research re. the key points I refer to).
Yes, everything I write can be googled for more info. My comment are not just cheap "conspiracy theories", but based on the biblical wisdom re. "the seeds we sow", and if "bad seeds" are sown, there will be a "harvest", to "reap".
The following essay re. causality might also interest you. I'll copy it in below.
rgds
This debate is 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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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... "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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
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 American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the first.
See what happens when ones leaders try to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own?
2
-
You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin), and a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
2
-
Correct.
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They 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.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
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...
2
-
2
-
@bubiruski8067 The so-called "winners" play games with human lives, to advance their own "empires" and dominiation.
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs? ROTFL
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to NOTHING.*
Errrr...shouldn't our leaders have considered what they were going to do (considering the danger of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction), before the guns started firing?
What is the pattern here?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Germany was not "bombed to defeat", but was successfully invaded and, ultimately beat by ground forces.
The strategic bombing campaign played a role, but was not even near to being worthwhile "return on the investment".
Had the effort put into building up the strategic air forces instead been invested into proper tanks, APCs or other forms, the war would have been over sooner...
The "recalled fighters" argument.
Firstly, the recalled fighter were single engine day fighters, recalled due the the arrival and threat posed by the USAAF, not Bomber Command.
Secondly, since one should only opposed to the use of soldiers fighting against civilians, and not strategic bombing in general, the efforts the Germans undertook to counter US daylight raids should not flow into this comparison. Therefore, the Germans would have needed to invest the resources they put into defending their cities anyway, even if the RAF had decided to bomb only valid military or strategic targets with token forces. Bear in mind, that the Germans would have needed to protect their industrial centers with a similar effort of AA guns and Flak soldiers, even if ONLY valid targets had ever been chosen.
GB and the Commonwealth which could have redirected a large part on their resources on more pressing worries (for example defeating the submarines with an all out effort in 1942 instead of mid-1943, which would have saved thousands of sailors lives and millions of tons of supplies) Many ships in convoys could have been saved, if the efforts had been focused on escort carriers with Swordfish aircraft.
2
-
@bolivar2153 No, Lancs weren't built in shipyards, but if thousands of merchant ships weren't being sunk by subs, these could've been converted to MACs.
You know, deck it over, no hanger, 5 or 6 Swordfish, off they go...
Instead, ships were sent off, without air cover ...and ended up blub, blub, blub on the sea bed.
Awww well. Too bad.
Too bad Brits got their priorities wrong, sent bombers brrrrrrrrr over Germany to target city centers, where they were also shot down in large numbers.
See what happens if leaders get their priorities wrong?
2
-
@bolivar2153 This is not about what German leaders did.
This is what British leaders got waaaaaay wrong, even without hindsight.
The fact that UBoats dove away at the first sight of an aircraft was well-known in 1940. It didn't matter what aircraft it was, or whether it was dangerous to the sub (at this time, most planes weren't). But, it doesn't matter, because when an aircraft showed up, the subs dove away.
Instead of being able to go 17 or 18 knots, with good allround vision, they were down to 4 or 5, with abysmal vision.
In surfaced condition, a sub had excellent chances of spotting, and sinking ships.
If it was forced to dive away by an aircraft, it lost most of its "vision" (apart from narrow field of vision periscope) and slow, and was practically blind.
Why do you think that the sea lanes around the British were the first to be (reasonably) secured? Why do you think subs were forced to do their "Wolf Pack"-thingy further and ever further from the areas were aircraft operations took place?
2
-
@bolivar2153 Oh I have no trouble seeing the "big picture".
After over-exerting themselves needlessly, instead of going "popcorn and chips" while the commies and Nazis tore each other to shreds, the "smart London lords" decided on "flattening Germany", thereby contributing greatly to their own postwar financial implosion.
London's "commie best fwiends" in Moscow, and the American Century® "best fwiends" said "thank you very much", and took over. The British Empire got ploughed under during the Cold War. Third fiddle, down for the nr. 1 slot just a short lifetime before.
Whoever thought actions don't have consequences?
Of course they do.
Unless one is a "finger pointer".
Always "looking for splinters" (...but, but, but.... the other guy ...boo, hoo). Two thousand year old logic, still as valid as ever...
World history in a single sentence :-D
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
Logic almost dictates that London should have sought to unite Europe, not play their "divide and rule" games with the continental powers.
After WW1, the British Impure descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
2
-
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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
2
-
2
-
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and tales of the "Big Three" for fools who don't understand how the world 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!"
https://www.atomicheritage.org/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".
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
2
-
2
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment (with the subsequent RETROSPECTIVE justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever.
To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 The Battle of Hochwald Gap
The few days following the 26th February 1945 were some of the blackest day in the history of the Canadian military. In the space of a few days, more than 5300 Canadians were killed or badly wounded. A large measure of these heavy casualties at such a late date, could still be attributed to a few hundred tanks (incl. the dreaded Tiger).
http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/10742/the-battle-of-hochwald-gap-one-of-the-largest-armor-engagements-you-probably-have-never-heard-of
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would the German side have been able to to the same in February 1945, had the 100 Tiger tanks been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would the German tankers have been able to kill or wound 5300 Canadians, if they had been sitting on bicycles, armed with old rifles ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
I assume the Allied tankies in in Normandy, and in a hundred other battles, also weren't amused facing the Tiger (if if it only plaed a minor part in the west)....
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the Eastern Front battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942.
Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
My personal conclusion?
Why are there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted"?
Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN ground forces...
2
-
Chamberlain went to Munich, and with the formulation "to resolve that our nations never to go to war again" he made Hitler a historical offer.
Of course that was a diplomatic feeler and a suggestion for a foundation for further negotiations of "favored status".
To take over the role of main continental "balancing power" from France.
When Hitler invaded Rest-Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, that British offer was off the table. Understandable. Because there is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
After trying to fool the world with the "just uniting Germans"-lie, Hitler revealed his true plans. Czechs were not Germans.
With Munich, a "wrong" of Versailles had been righted, and Hitler ignored that.
He was heading for the Heartland.
For he "who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
From there, the economic overpowering, and/or military invasion, and/or political dislocation the British Empire step by step, was possible.
2
-
The decision by British to "area bomb" entire cities to the ground reminds me of a guy smashing the air conditioning and then wondering "why is it suddenly so hot in here"....
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 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. 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.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tonight we learn how the Brits lost their Empire...
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED
GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY
BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED
PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED
EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As always, there is the big picture that goes far beyond ruins in Berlin and Dresden...
A big picture of geostrategy is hardly ever the focus of documentaries.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests and the British Empire, because he couldn't see the big picture and didn't understand the policy of Balance of Power on the continent, as a tool to protect the British Empire.
The big picture was that there were forces in the USA whose goal it was to bring about the end of the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (which was global domination: Google "The American Century" or "PNAC Project for the New American Century", for more info).
On the other side, there was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the entire world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest)....note, including the British Empire. Nuff said...
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a two power system, and that "the other system" would probably not be the British Empire. He came up with Operation Unthinkable...but too late...
The resources of Empire had already been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany" (Google "the financial cost of the British policy of Area Bombing", which took between a third and half of the entire British war effort).
Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, which as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire had protected Empire for 400 years.
That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent everything was basically "Alles Kaputt", or alienated...
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
The Balkans? Fruitless attempts at "carving up interests" (Google Percentages Agreement)
France, alienated and now a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir).
There was nobody to ally with in order to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
Even in war all choices are options.
Politicians choosing the worst options always have far-reaching effects...
2
-
The strategies of the people who lead us remain the same.
The people who lead us in democracies change.
What they do in regards to foreign policy once in power remains fairly constant, irrelevant of who leads at any particular time.
The old sayings of "exchanging our leaders every few years" might avoid encrusted domestic politics and structures to a degree, but it has almost no effect on foreign policy. The way we vote has almost no influence on foreign affairs, which are mostly the effects of the long term policies of a few "corridors of power"-players.
Unfortunately not any of the highly visible televised leaders we vote for...
Remember that thought for a while. The essay will address it again at the very end.
Of course we should never allow the leaders' good or bad achievements concerning domestic affairs to interfere with analysing the equally important foreign policy. These are entirely different topics which does not interest people equally. It should.
Clinton: "It's the economy stupid".
Machiavelli: "Keep the masses well-fed and...oh never mind..."
Most people in a country won't react to foreign policy blunders, unless the effects of such blunders start affecting their own lives.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Whether we are discussing Trump, or Clinton or Biden, or Wilhelm II or the "proud rich hektoring squibbing London lords" (quoting Jefferson) of the past is irrelevant: they and their second and third tiers read the same books. We "commoners" mainly judge based on our bellies and bank accounts. We should start paying attention, because the reason why very small factions within governments (democracies or more authoritarian governments) succeed in their eternal ways, is because a majority of people don't react until their emotions are "triggered" by a major event...
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common. No matter how many truly good people we point at or give noble Nobel Prizes to, they cannot affect the actions of "the few" who have made it their perennial aim to divide.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Re. the topic "age old strategies", which remain fairly similar across the ages.
Just now, at a fundraiser in New Orleans Donald Trump made an insider joke re. an age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
An "insider joke" at an "insider event", just like John "Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" McCain once made one waaaaay back. The same John McCain who just so happens to have gone to Kiew in 2014 to "support best fwiends". Supporting the "proud and rich and hektoring and squibbing" new friends who always need "help and support" of course (another "insider joke"). Regarding their own internal/foreign policy matters, it is different of course. The standpoint is to never to allow an outside power to affect/effect an internal problem, or to allow anybody else to get involved when an own foreign policy strategy is implemented, unless as "a best fwiend" of course.
When it comes to others and their problems? Answer: "Meddling" for "own interests" is perfectly OK.
Of course in regards to solving own political differences, never expect an outside power to come to "help out": there will be a "price tag".
My advice when somebody shows up to help: Have a close look at the background of exactly who is coming, and what "strategic studies"-centers they subscribe to. Be nice, but be-ware...lol
Of course Trump's "joke" (send US aircraft to the Ukraine in Chinese markings, to get Russians and Chinese fighting) belies an age-old strategy.
A scheme as old as the mountains, and has a limitless variety of nuance. In 1939, Stalin of course, was fully aware of how to "get others to fight", and then sit on the fence smoking a cigar..." enjoying the "racket". Just sell raw materials to Nazi Germany and being "nice" to all while waiting to see who "wins". Of course, for the "finger pointing" Moscow in 1939: they could point at the "inferior greedy capitalists" who "just can't get it right" and always end up at war. Stalin in August/September 1939: "Ima gonna wash my hands in innocence." A trick as old as the Bible itself.
Once the desired region of the world is at war, one can do business and keep the racket going (I'm sure Stalin was amused by reading "War is a Racket"/Smedley Butler or something similar). Or even worse: once entire regions of the world have been turned into "sh*tholes" (another Trump quote in a different context) the "good guys" can gain from the misery of others.
Whilst "in the own shoes", everybody is the "good guy".
In the eyes of the commies they were the good guys of course.
From an own perspective, everybody is the "good guy", and only strategies matter.
Solution: Figure out the strategies, which is boring and tedious.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
The intended or desired outcome of "the scheming few" and their "insider jokes"? Get others to fight (in the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the formulation is "to foment trouble") and then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn" (Trump).
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
How to put a stop to all this? An endless struggle. No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
The first step is to acknowledge and admit the issue, and to stop doing the bidding of these fine gentlemen in suits, or be fooled, or to deny their existence, or become a tool of these "few" and scream and denounce those warning us.
In regards to our own governments these "splinters in the own eye" are indeed tiny but powerfully irritating, until removed.
1) During the early-1990's (Gorbachov as President of the UdSSR and Yelsin as President of Russia), the option of "an agreement of sorts" (a suggested "morphed NATO" suitably changed to adapt to the changed times) existed to replace the Cold War setup (old global balance of power during the Cold War).
2) At around the turn of the century (around the year 2000, and the first Putin term) local wars started to cloud the optimism of the 1990s, but it was still realistic.
3) Then after 2010 our leaders should have at least aimed for "neutrality of some kind" between the players.
First a new hope, offered by a new situation, followed by a "diss"...
The only thing which changed between "around 1900" and "around 2000" was the alpha.
Finally.
Today one often sees the "...but, but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice...".
The answer to the rhetoric?
True. Whoever said they didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
But that is what happens if one ends up with highly televised ex-comedians and ex-boxers as leaders and figureheads, rather than global strategists.
One ends up as "ice" which will be crushed for the goals of the "icebreakers".
"Thin ice" which is signed away and sacrificed...
NATO does not "sign up" a state/country in a civil war or other similar state (war/duress).
Our leaders knew that.
They had this advantage over us...
2
-
The Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia, and subsequent shelling of Belgrade, did not necessarily have to lead to "a Russian mobilisation" as is often insinuated in documentaries and history books.
Had Russia really wanted a peaceful solution, they could have declared war on Austria-Hungary, with an ultimatum to cease hostilities within a reasonable time (say 48 hours), threatening mobilization if not followed (see British and French reaction to Nazi Germany 20 years later, as the correct and acceptable course of action, in a similar situation of war).
That would then have given sufficient time for Berlin/Vienna to "backpedal", avoiding the disaster of an escalation.
Most documentaries and history books also don't mention that French and Russian leaders had already colluded in St Petersburg (20th to 29th of July) and they also knew that escalating a diplomatic crisis in the Balkans (July Crisis) into a military one, would cause a knee-jerk reaction by Berlin.
There was no way Berlin would ignore such a mobilization, especially a general mobilization of all Russian forces, and Paris/St Petersburg anticipated this.
Even before the Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war, Russian and French leaders talked about how to win a "great" war, not how to avoid it.
“There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats.”
Condoleezza Rice, October 2002
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actions have consequences...
However, British leaders were fools, and ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostrategy, and lost their Empire...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Re.: Carpet bombing city centers.
"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...
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
Correct.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
2
-
@lakemichigan6598 Not really.
Firstly, it was GB or UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland), not only England.
Then, the entire Empire also stood by GB (Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.), which was a quarter of the globe.
Then, German and Italian forces were drawn off by the campaign in the Balkans (fighting against Yugoslavia and Greece) in March 1941.
The Axis invasion of the SU started on 22. June 1941, almost 6 months before the USA joined the war.
Not exactly "alone"...
2
-
Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Support whatever divides.
Oppose whatever unites.
For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better.
The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait...
And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...)
So much for the New World.
In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were too weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did.
After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees.
Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"...
The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content...
And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
2
-
2
-
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.
Simple.
2
-
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? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with 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.
Boooooo hoooooooo
The most based "reaped as sown" ever...
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
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
2
-
Usually in debates like these it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use." [end quote]
It wasn't as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier who was sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nobody wins a war. Some just lose less.
As always, there is the big picture that goes far beyond ruins in Berlin and Dresden...
A big picture of geostrategy is hardly ever the focus of documentaries.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests and the British Empire, because he couldn't see the big picture and didn't understand the policy of Balance of Power on the continent, as a tool to protect the British Empire.
The big picture was that there were forces in the USA whose goal it was to bring about the end of the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (which was global domination: Google "The American Century" or "PNAC Project for the New American Century", for more info).
On the other side, there was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the entire world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest)....note, including the British Empire. Nuff said...
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a two power system, and that "the other system" would probably not be the British Empire. He came up with Operation Unthinkable...but too late...
The resources of Empire had already been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany" (Google "the financial cost of the British policy of Area Bombing", which took between a third and half of the entire British war effort).
Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, which as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire had protected Empire for 400 years.
That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent everything was basically "Alles Kaputt", or alienated...
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
The Balkans? Fruitless attempts at "carving up interests" (Google Percentages Agreement)
France, alienated and now a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir).
There was nobody to ally with in order to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
Of course, criticism is always easy without having a better plan (armchair general), but even in war all choices are options. Choosing the worst options, have far-reaching effects.
2
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They 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.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
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...
2
-
2
-
"Eager to fight fascism, Zinn joined the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and became an officer. He was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group, bombing targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. As bombardier, Zinn dropped napalm bombs in April 1945 on Royan, a seaside resort in western France.
On the ground, Zinn learned that the aerial bombing attacks in which he participated had killed more than a thousand French civilians as well as some German soldiers hiding near Royan to await the war's end, events that are described "in all accounts" he found as "une tragique erreur" that leveled a small but ancient city and "its population that was, at least officially, friend, not foe." In The Politics of History, Zinn described how the bombing was ordered—three weeks before the war in Europe ended—by military officials who were, in part, motivated more by the desire for their own career advancement than in legitimate military objectives."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
Whether French or "just a c&%nk" in Vietnam, you get Napalmed to the sound of cheers and jeers.
Sad news? Empires don't have friends.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin), and a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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.
Ever since the establishment of "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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
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 otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
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."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races 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."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
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.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line.
What could possibly go wrong?
I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave...
EPISODE V:
"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.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" 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 American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old 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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jameson-d8x Concerning Belgium.
The only objective of the German rhetoric concerning Belgium was simply to find out what the British position was.
I'm certain they expected exactly that response, since the policy of "balancing powers" was in fact a European policy for a long time, and initially the objective was to avoid family members (as you know, all Europe's elites belonged to a few aristocratic families) from squabbling and warring about influence, power, and territories, to the disadvantage of all.
In 1914, the British response made it clear that the British were going to stick to their Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, and would not stay out, irrelevant of whether Germany invaded Belgium or not.
Had the British leaders (unexpectedly) given a positive answer, and given a guarantee that they would stay out of the war if Belgium was not invaded, I'm sure the Germans would have changed their plans.
In fact, the British could even have given a list of conditions (no German Navy in the Channel, no occupation of channel ports, such as in 1871, no territorial demands on any western European country including France, respect of freedom of the seas, etc. etc.)
Of course there was no plan B, and they only had the Schlieffen Plan.
However, the events of 1914 showed exactly how flexible the German plans were. When the initial drive on Paris failed, the Germans famously quickly changed their plans: digging in in the West, while transferring most soldiers to the East.
Since they were fighting on the strategically favorable "inside lines", it was simple as putting the men on a train and sending them in the opposite direction, arriving a day later.
[note, fighting on the "outside lines", like the allies, often meant that a change of plan could take weeks to implement]
Not having a third enemy to deal with, would have been incentive enough to change their plans if that had been the case.
The only reason the question was asked in the first place, was to confirm that the British indeed still stuck to Balance of Power, and would not stay out, irrelevant of German actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@belfastholidaybreaks8414 Correct.
When looking back in judgement of historical events, we have to be careful not to make the mistake of "outcome bias"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias
Wilhelm II was implementing a step-by-step policy of closer relationship with the British Empire (amongst other national and international changes) with a new Chancellor, the "moderniser" Caprivi...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi
At the time, London and St. Petersburg were intense rivals, and there were bloody wars (the "Great Game" in Central Asia) about expanding spheres of interest, the protection of India from the north, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
Wilhelm thought he'd be nice, and take measures to isolate Russia, and thereby strengthening the British stand here by keeping the risk of a flank attack on Russia open.
That was the direct opposite of Bismarck's policy favoring friendlier relations with St. Petersburg, thereby allowing St. Petersburg to send forces to Central Asia...
The Three Kaiser Agreement/Reinsurance Treaty freed Russian forces to oppose the British Empire in Asia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
Same as with Japan in the Far East (which GB later took as an ally to divide St. Petersburg's attention).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglo-Japanese-Alliance
That "kindness" on Wilhelm part, along with other attempts at political approach, like the Helgoland-Zanzibar exchange, did not work out as planned....and London stuck to their Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, effectively making the newly united Germany the "enemy by default" in case of war.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Irrelevant of what Berlin did or didn't do, they were already "the enemy".
It therefore had little to do with what Wilhelm (or any other German leader for that matter) was like as a person.
The decisions were taken in London.
Wilhelm only represented the economic and military "weight" of a rapidly industrializing united Germany, whereas before there were only (still) agricultural single states, whose individual aristocratic rulers could be used as "divide and rule" tools to safeguard the British Empire against whatever threat developed on the continent (forging ever-changing alliances that made the emergence of a single great power/alliance impossible).
As a united power with newly-found industrial might (1880s/1890s), whether a united Germany had a "sinner" or a "saint" as a leader, played little role.
They were "the enemy" as a matter of policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad". That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be dominated, controlled or if not possible, to be "balanced out".
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
A "New Course" had stopped trying to cosy up to expansionist St. Petersburg/Russia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi
London would cordially steer away from all diplomatic feelers...
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was already the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
Nothing Berlin could do, or couldn't do, would change that.
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
Yup. Our dear elected/unelected leaders.
They even come up with "policies", to hide the existence of other policies...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation
2
-
2
-
2
-
It goes far deeper than that.
It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too.
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]
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back.
It cost the Brits their Empire...
[See below]
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life.
Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”
The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night.
Only...
...the speech...
...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914.
"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." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@OleLeik Even without making the mistake of using hindsight, it was a mistake.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
It is an accepted fact that it was the Oil Campaign and the Transport Plan which did have an effect on victory, not "flattening city centres".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Plan
Both of which vehemently opposed by Harris.
He believed these to be "panacea".
Well..."panacea" helped win the war....
That should have been logical, even before the war started, because the continent lacked raw materials for an extended war.
The entire reasoning behind Hitler's "Plan Ost" was to gain raw materials. Obviously, he didn't have any, so the entire theory of "curbing German production" was flawed.
German production was already "curbed" by a lack of raw materials.
If he had any, he wouldn't have attacked the SU (Barbarossa).
2
-
@OleLeik That is what one can refer to as the "canned logic" of "the narrative".
It is incorrect though, for the simple fact that German production was not mainly limited by the bombing, but by 2 main factors: manpower and raw materials.
As long as "manpower" was (say 75%) occupied on the Eastern front, production would not rise.
As long as Germany did not break out of Europe, raw materials would determine the limitations of production.
Nothing else.
In case you disagree, why was German/Austrian-Hungarian production so low when compared to Allied production in WW1?
(note, no strategic bombing at all)
Even the "helping the poor Russians" argument is flawed.
An 88mm gun needed a tractor in order to serve as front line weapon, and Germany couldn't build either sufficient tractors, nor man them, nor have enough fuel for them had they been built...
And with that simple reality, the entire argument of "weapons on the front lines" falls flat.
Have you read my top comment yet? (The one starting with "the big picture")
Do you realize who did benefit from wasting away the resources of the British Empire?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bolivar2153 London set up Europe for disaster, and went to war twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
And so, they "hopped" their way into extinction.
GOOD. RIDDANCE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
2
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
The reason GB joined both WW1 and WW2, was not to protect "poor Belgians" or "poor Poles".
Both Belgium and Poland were simply "tools" to protect the Empire, and massive blunders of competence. Because by around 1900 the official policy of "Balance of Power" (the aristocracy "carving up" people by drawing lines on maps of "taxpayers") had been superseded by new ideas. "Nationalism" and "Liberalism".
People were better educated, and had developed a sense of pride in the own existence, and were no longer willing to be "carved up" by the ruling elites...
London and France was still in the 17th Century though....
That becomes perfectly clear by the actions of November 1918, when the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was repudiated. The reasoning was to avoid German (Berlin and Vienna) hegemony over the area known as the "Heartland".
The first chance for the nations of the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Baltic States to break free from Moscow, and eventually gain true long-term independence for the people living here.
Note, Germany after WW1 was a democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
London and Paris cared nothing for the millions who died here at the hands of commie crooks. As long as Berlin did not control it - that was all that mattered...
The ulterior motive?
The Royal Navy.
Those who had invested billions of pounds over the years to forge a tool of "blockade" would never accept German hegemony of the Heartland, because it would have made the entire RN obsolete overnight, since the Heartland cannot be blockaded to bow down and submit to a blockade.
Yup.
Just imagine.
The Allies were the "good side" of WW1...
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee ...buuuut, ...Germany was not not responsible for the start of WW1.
Germany declared war on Russia and France only, and was therefore responsible for starting a "continental European war" (based on previous, minor events of escalation).
It was the British, Commonwealth and countries like Japan, Italy and the Ottoman Empire which declared war voluntarily, without being threatened, and without being attacked, which "started" WW1 (or The Great War)
The Treaty of London ("Belgium"), was a pretext. It wasn't a defense treaty, which meant that other signatories of this treaty, like the Netherlands did not declare war on Germany, even though they had also vowed to ensure Belgian neutrality by signing the same treaty.
Why does one nation (GB) feel the need to "defend Belgium" because of a treaty, but another nation (the Netherlands) doesn't?
1
-
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee That is also correct, but I fear you are confused about my motivation for posting.
My view is neutral, and not "filtered" by nationality, ideology or other factors.
Allow me to refer you to a link which pretty much sums up my POV about the "start of WW1" , Balkan Crises, etc.
Bear in mind, that I've reached my conclusions before I discovered this site, and that the information contained here reflects the conclusions I had already drawn before reading it. My opinion is based on facts, and not the opinions of others who have interpreted the facts ("objective" vs "subjective" argument)
http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-people/politics/politicians/3827-the-july-crisis-1914-what-went-wrong-19-steps-to-disaster.html
IMHO, western historians consistently make the mistake of linking events which have nothing to do with each other (or events which only became linked at some later stage), in their efforts to determine "guilt" or "innocence".
As far a I'm concerned, there was pretty little "innocence" and a whole lot of "guilt" on ALL sides.
Not only Germany "could have avoided WW1 from happening" (the latest consensus among historians in the controversial matter).
Every nation which later got involved, had the means to "avert WW1", by not getting involved in the Balkan Crises, or the subsequent events, in the first place.
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee When I say that I'm neutral (one could also use the word "impartial"). I mean that I don't take sides.
I don't take sides, based on my nationality (which is actually South African, one of the Allied nations of the day), ideology (which I have none), etc.
True, a militant pro-British activist would come to a different conclusion than I do, but that is exactly my point. What "evidence" or "proof" would he use as a basis for his personal opinion?
A person's personal disposition depends on many factors (incl. religion, nationality, race, ideology, personal history, income, education, etc., etc., etc.)
Time plays a large role in the conclusions reached, as you have pointed out.
For a long time after WW1 was finished, historians had a hard time convincing Germans (for example), that "Germany started WW1". That remained intact until WW2, when many Germans fell to the mistaken logic that "OK, we started WW2, so we probably also started WW1".
The German historian Fisher played a large role here, and many Western historians breathed a sigh of relief. Suddenly, here was a "German" historian who took "our side".
To me, such "reasoning" is ridiculous.
Why should nationality play a role when looking at facts.
Can't we expect our historians to be impartial. and present us with the facts, instead of endless speculations and assumptions?
1
-
1
-
bademoxy That is, unfortunately how it was...and how easy it was to fool the masses into entering the war...ahem...'for Belgium'.
Of course, 'Belgium' was a pretext.
There is always a bigger picture, and the biggest of the big pictures was the policy of the elites to keep the continent divided by a balance of power...
So, if it was in the interests of the elites to unite with France and Russia against Germany, to avoided German hegemony over the continent...then send off the boys....
If it came to avoiding Russian hegemony over the continent, then unite with France and Germany....whatever, who cares...
If it came to avoiding the French from dominating the continent, then unite with Germany, Spain...whatever....send off the boys to fight and die.
No worries, the backroom boys in the propaganda department will come up with a suitable story to incite "Jack the plumber"...
1
-
1
-
Mick C That is what you and Bishop are claiming (in other words, the "everybody wanted revenge"-argument), but that is not what the documentary (Death by Moonlight) states.
Therefore, I AM dealing with the feelings of "the people who were there".
According to Greyling, the Mass Observation unit's surveys clearly stated that the majority of people in Britain who had been bombed, did not want young British and Commonwealth lads to be sent to their deaths, SOLELY for the primitive urge of revenge.
The documentary "Death by Moolight" clearly states that many of the aircrew felt the same way (in the end, a pilot mentions that the moral doubts drove two out of his 7 crew members into post war alcoholism and drug abuse).
"Revenge" is a short lived, primitive urge, and counter productive on the long run.
Therefore, if a majority of the people who lived at the time (in other words, "those who were there") did not want young men to be sent to die a horrible death to take revenge, it is up to us to decide.
Mick, if you had lived back then and had been bombed in London or Coventry, would you have wanted a 20-year old airman to die, taking revenge for your pain?
If you said "yes", what kind of man would you be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elr James People who criticize or even judge Chamberlain, often forget that contemporary witnesses did not generally posses the superhuman ability of clairvoyance :-)
The fact that 'there was a war anyway' in 1939, subconsciously influences their conclusions and opinions.
Other posts on videos like this, often express the opinion that 'if there had been a Churchill in power in 1936, we would never have had a WW2' (obviously, because 'a Churchill' would have wiped Germany off the map before the Nazis became too strong)
The insinuation is that it was 'weeny liberals' like Chamberlain who constantly appeased the fascist dictators, which led to Germany (but also Italy and Japan) gaining exactly that power which was later turned against the West. The conclusion generally reached (using the often frowned upon hindsight) is that 'if we had stepped in, in 1935 or 1936, and invaded Germany, none of this would have happened'.
Having 'a Churchill' in power, mostly plays a large role in these assertions, and certain amount of hero worship plays a role.
These assertions, are however, entirely contrary to the facts and evidence, and is therefore an assumption/conclusion based on the poster's personal mindset.
Here are the facts.
The conservative British politicians generally did not oppose fascism, as long as (and for the duration of time) it did not represent a direct threat to British interests.
Churchill himself, was largely indifferent to the fascist governments in Germany and Italy, until he swung around and recognized the danger they posed.
In order for Churchill to do an about turn, he would have needed to have had a more reserved standpoint before that point in time.
Evidence of Churchill's standpoint towards fascism, and one could even say a certain measure of support, is his reporting on the Spanish Civil War as a writer to conservative British newspapers.
At the early stages of the war, Churchill was completely in line with conservative British political opinion, in that he recognized a danger being posed by the (legal) Republican side (NOT by Franco). Since the Republican government was seen as 'communist' (leftist), the conservative British elite feared for the status quo concerning British interests (economic, trade, etc.) Churchill was therefore in line with conservative opinions at that time, which expressed a general support of Franco, and the forces which supported Franco.
Around the middle of the Spanish Civil War (around late 1937), Churchill began changing his mind, and now expressed a more neutral point of view.
He was still not firmly against the German and Italian intervention.
It wasn't until the the final stages of the war, by which time there had also been general swing in public opinion in GB, that Churchill finally changed his mind, and was firmly against the fascist intervention. Again, this had nothing to do with any concern for the Spanish population, but rather a concern about British interests.
Therefore, a statement like 'we should have invaded Germany in 1935 or 1936', makes absolutely no sense at all. One would have to admit that even Churchill recognized the danger posed by fascism far too late, since by late-1936, Germany and Italy were allies (the Axis Rome-Berlin), and any invasion of Germany would have meant a wider European war, the results of which would have been even more catastrophic than WW1.
So, Churchill only changed his mind about the danger posed by fascism, and Hitler in the course of late-1937/early-1938.
My personal conclusion?
Maybe Churchill should have read Mein Kampf...
Sorry to keep you occupied with my ramblings, but as always I got carried away again :-)
1
-
Elr James Concerning promises made during WW1 -- these promises made in order to gain allies during WW1, certainly came back to haunt the victors when the war finished.
There were so many promises, and 'dirty little secret deals', many of these conflicting, that somebody was bound to come up short.
Italy and Japan are good examples of failed politics.
Many seem to forget that both were WW1 Allies, and could have stayed so after the war if the right policies had been followed.
Thanks for pointing out Hughes. I vaguely remember that episode, and also the role played by the Washington Naval treaty (I'll have to brush up on my reading again).
Needless to say, after already being treated like little schoolboys at Versailles, some Japanese diplomats and politicians were probably beginning to wonder about the advantages of remaining pro-Westerners.
I guess, just like in Germany, the 1930s World Depression gave every remaining liberal movement the coup de grace...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RonJohn63 As for my 'confusing point' — it is only confusing if one still follows the post-1960s revisionist narrative (from a 1960s standpoint) of "Germany started it".
Before that, most historians actually concluded that the war was pretty much everybody's fault, since one should examine the various events according to the criteria "free choice".
So, when Fisher arrived with his theory that the 1912 meeting was actually a "roadmap" for war, historians breathed a sigh of relief.
en.m.wikipedia.org - German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 - Wikipedia
Great, another war that could be blamed squarely on the Germans.
In the meantime, we are back to most historians actually reaching a consensus that WW1, was basically everybody's fault...
Or at least 'No one country deserves all the blame...'
If no country deserves all the blame, they why should placing a pistol on their representatives' chests be considered a noble deed?
I admire the US representatives of the people, who refused to ratify it.
It was correct not to sign it, and conclude a separate peace treaty.
As for the rest..
Correct. A wise analyses.
Just bear in mind that re-arming is always a double-edged sword. Ordering masses of equipment, and having the best and they greatest army one year, would naturally result in massive numbers of equipment also becoming outdated a year or two later....
Ask Stalin.
He found out in 1941 that 'big' and 'effective' were 2 entirely different concepts...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Foo Bar So, what you are saying in end effect is that "Churchill the appeaser" should not have appeased one of history's worst mass-murderers, Josef Stalin, by signing away around a hundred million people in eastern Europe to the yoke of communist oppression in 1944.
"Churchill the appeaser", thought that appeasing Stalin was perfectly OK, so millions of people were "sold" (some of whom, like Poles and Czechs, had fought side by side with the Allies to liberate Europe from oppression).
What you are saying is that we should have taken on Stalin, and avoided the Cold War, millions of deaths from the subsequent wars of proxy, and trillions of defense dollars and pounds?
Hmmm...interesting theory.
As far as Chamberlain is concerned.
Chamberlain "sold" 3 million German speakers (who had had an intense desire to join Germany since 1919, and according to the "democratic logic", should have been a part of Germany since 1919) to Germany, and in the meantime prepared for a war which he hoped would be unnecessary.
All the initial British successes (Battle of Britain, the convoy system, Chain Home radar and air defense, the Spitfire, "Hunt" class escort destroyers, etc., etc.), were the direct result of steps undertaken by the Chamberlain government. You should show some respect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
canicheenrage 'Seizing' an area is perfectly OK, as long as a majority of the people are for it (or at least neutral, in other words couldn't care either way).
If taking people, dividing them up, or annexing lands leads to discontent, it is obviously wrong.
Why would anybody advocate measures of short-term gain (aka 'land-grabbing'), if such measures lead to long-term instability? (widespread hate, civil unrest, and potential for war)
As long as the people who live on the lands don't object, who the f*ck cares what the 'establishment' or the 'elites', think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** That would be the difference between "individual choice" and the decision of an entity like a state.
Many Australian also came from other areas of the world. As far as I know, all Australian soldiers were volunteers, so that makes it a "probably OK" for me.
I say "probably OK", because in certain situations, patriotism can also be misused by propaganda (for example the disinformation of German soldiers bayoneting babies, and other exaggerations).
Unlike Australia and New Zealand (where the decision unified most people), it was different in SA. Here, the decision by the government was not also the individual choice of many citizen's, which led to strife. From the POV of the average SA citizen at the time, it led to violence and division, instead of unity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris Nata As you say, maybe...
Although I agree with your point about terror regimes (in general, not only nazi Germany) having to be stopped, I can't follow the "at all cost"-part.
This isn't because I'm naive about the world we live in (and my ancestors lived in, in the past). It is simply a matter of logic, or reverse-logic, whatever you wish to call it.
Surely, if you add an "at all costs" phrase, your enemies will have the justification to do the same. Therefore, to quote a modern day example, the 9/11 attacks could be "justified" by terrorists using exactly the same argument as you did. That is, that all the innocent civilians working in the towers were working in the US (the country of their enemies), generating tax money, which would be used to fight them (the terrorists). From a terrorist POV, the attacks were justified.
IMHO, there is only right or wrong, and if you claim to fight for the side of the righteous, you have to stick to the rules. Even if your enemy doesn't. Putting yourself at a disadvantage to claim moral superiority is a virtue, especially if there is little chance of losing. Using the same evil tactics as your opponent, if there is NO immediate and urgent necessity, creates a moral dilemma.
The get back to WW2, ALL bombings, killings and involvement of civilians on both sides, and in any form, was wrong, irrelevant of "who started it"..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks again!
I've discovered from previous posts that, in general, most comments come from extreme "for" or "against" views, often based on outdated facts, conclusions, and personal POV's (based on books).
A POV from an unbiased moderate is rare indeed!
By rivals I meant everybody and anything who could use Hitler's dispicable policy (based on racism) as a basis for propaganda against the German population in general. I'm sure that most Germans did not support Hitler. Many merely "went along", because he was "better" than the weak democracy of the twenties.
Churchill, to me, was basically the right person for GB for the bad results achieved by others, arising from a failure of politics over the past twenty years (1919-1939).
He was neither "good" nor "bad", and democracy took care of hm when the war finished. The people (always the basis of ALL of my POV's) realized that the time for his views had passed.
Look forward to your view!
1
-
Elr James I know what you mean.
I admire politicians who can impliment today, what you are explaining. I distinctly remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction hoax, which was used to coax populations of the "falcon"-nations to line up behind their governments.
II admired French and German leaders who did not follow the lead, and fought against it. I remember how I cringed when I heard the (now proven) hoax, and patted my own back for "seeing through" it.
Then again, how would I have reacted if WMD had been found? Along with plans for the domination of the Middle East?
I tough one.
You might find my channel pretty dormant and boring :-)
I'll subscribe to yours, since (I reluctantly admit) I'm not a big expert on the "software" of history (dates, personalities, politics, etc.), but rather the "hardware" (statistics, weapons, etc.)
1
-
1
-
Matthew McVeagh That entirely not my point.
The mistakes were made in 1919.
In 1938 Chamberlain therefore merely aimed to avoid a war over something which should have been avoided from the outset (in a 1919 plebiscite, for example)..
The area that was once the Austrian part of the Austria-Hungarian Empire was simply carved up after the end of WW1, and the wishes of the people living there were not respected.
Had the wishes of the people (as expressed, and forbidden in 1919) been heeded, there would have been no cause for grief, and no Sudeten Crises.
Your parallel to GB isn't valid, since GB was one of those nations which created the artificial state of Czechoslovakia in the first place. Lines were drawn on maps, and subsequently ticked off by the League of Nations - the people were never asked what they wanted. Czechoslovakia never "created" a GB by randomly forcing together people with different languages and ethnicity into new state, with the objective of alliances against a third power (in 1919 GB and France created Czechoslovakia as an ally against Germany, as a substitute for Russia, which had collapsed during WW1)
Had there been a friendly resolve of the land issues in 1919, Germany and Czechoslovakia would have had friendlier relations, without the need for border defense fortifications, just like today.
1
-
Matthew McVeagh The question in your first paragraph is easily answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans
Scroll down to the chapter "In the wake of the First World War".
Secondly, the Germans were concentrated in the border regions, and were not a patchwork. Therefore, if the political will had been there, could have easily been allowed to join Austria or Germany. The same is true for the 700,000 Hungarians, lobbed off from their motherland. Also around 250,000 Ukranians, cut from the SU (Karpatho-Ukrainians).
Here are the figures.
Czechs 7,5 million
Germans 3,5 million
Slovaks 2,3 million
Ukrainians 0,25 million
There were also Poles, and various other smaller minorities.
When you wrote "It's not about how countries come about, it's about how one country high-handedly treats another by bargaining its territory away without even consulting it, irrespective of how the two have come about."
The exact same comment could also apply to the Sudeten Germans after WW1, when they were simply "high-handedly bargained away" without consulting them.
Honestly, Matthew, if you had been a German living in the Sudetenland, with a deep seated wish to join people with the same culture and language, how would you feel?
1
-
Matthew McVeagh From 1919 on wards, Germany was a democracy. There were no "bellicose leaders".
Bellicose leaders are extremely rare in times of stability, economic prosperity, or without outside cause for duress (wars, crises, etc.).
After WW1, Germany, under it's mainly socialist governments was not warmongering in any way.
I think you statement reflects the typical opinion that Germans always wanted to conquer everything left and right. Also not true. The German declarations of war in 1914 were a response to other countries actions (Russia mobilized) or contingency plans (Belgium). There was no plan to "rule the world" as often stated in cheap docs. Serious historians never state cheap lines like that.
Before WW1, Germany was the only major power which did not invade, declare war, or threaten other sovereign states. Apart from a single war in a colony, it was much more peaceful than any other major power.
Furthermore, why should nations who live in good relations need armies and forts? Nothing protects a border better than mutual respect and borders open to trade. Czechs and Germans had no fundamental differences, and they lived together peacefully while it was united under Austria for 100 years. It was Czech nationalists, living in Paris during WW1, who fanned the flames of hatred. As foreseen in Wilson's 14 points, the people should have been given the choice. If you have true and honest democratic values, you will see the value of letting the people choose, instead of imposing on them.
It was the Germans who were treated with disrespect after WW1 was over. That backfired, and the politicians responsible for the farce of Versailles, poked and humiliated the second most powerful economy in the world, without considering future consequences.
1
-
1
-
Nyctasia I don't think so.
Hastings, for one, likes to conjure images of "the nasty German" who just "had to be stopped" by referring to the Herrero War in Namibia as "evidence" of how "nasty" Germans were, and "...what would have happened to us if we didn't stop them..."..
In other words, these historians wish to claim that Germans are inherently more cruel, and only the "good" British, French and USA could stop them.
IMO, ANY reference to atrocities and crimes against humanity should always be put in context, by admitting that one's own soldiers and warmongers were no better. Sometimes even worse.
There is ample evidence that if the conditions are the same, so are the crimes. German atrocities in Belgium therefore have a DIRECT line to Mai Lei in Vietnam, because in BOTH cases tired, fearful and frustrated soldiers reacted due to a perception of danger, and the result was the same = dead civilians.
Subsequently military or political leaders were either trying to cover it up, lying or pardoning those who committed the crime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 1:18:00 mins
"...disagree that hindsight should be a major guide...put yourself in their shoes...think the way that they did..."
What? Should we also "put ourselves in shoes" of Allied commanders in May 1940? Should I put myself in their shoes, use their perspective, and therefore excuse their actions of digging in, staying on the defensive, locking themselves into their Maginot Line, etc.
Strangely enough, when historians (the book writing and doc making variety) want to underline a conclusion or opinion, they gladly use hindsight (in other words, they DON'T put themselves in the shoes of those who lived at the time).
They overwhelmingly condemn Allied commanders for their decisions.
Historians overwhelming use post May-1940 hindsight to condemn these commanders by saying "How stupid they were. It should have been clear that Blitzkrieg was superior..."
But, when it comes to something which contradicts a popular misconception, it's suddenly "oh, no, no, no,...that is hindsight. The people who lived at the time couldn't have known..."
What now?
Hindsight, or no hindsight?
Clearly, our beloved historians can't have it both ways.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naval experts won't argue the fact that German ships were essentially short-ranged North and Baltic Sea ships.
The German High Seas Fleet was therefore essentially a risk fleet.
A "risk fleet" doesn't have to be bigger than a rival (in this case the HSF vs.the RN).
It also doesn't have to operate world-wide (which is the reason Germany never had naval bases matching the military and industrial capacity of Singapur, Bombay, Malta, Gibraltar, Sydney, Aden, Alexandria, Hong Kong, and dozens of others)
The scope, expanse and capabilities of British overseas bases (for example docks, repair facilities, re-supply, etc.) largely exceeded anything the German Empire had abroad.
The only German bases capable of handling, repairing and replenishing a large number of ships were the German Navy's Naval Yards at Kiel, Wilhelmshafen and Danzig.
My conclusion.
A risk fleet doesn't have to operate world-wide.
The pre-war naval arms race, and the subjective feeling that the German ships were a threat, was (partly) a British propaganda tool, aimed at raising awareness to a potential threat to GB. The aim was to gain the support and funds (as always in democracies) to counter the the German expansion by building MORE ships in every category in which the Germans chose to challenge GB's superiority in numbers.
The "world wide threat" to GB was made up.
How could Germany achieve in a few years, what took GB 300 years to achieve? (in other words, create the world-wide bases needed to successfully operate the large number of ships needed to pose a threat to GB)
1
-
After the Hamburg attack, Allied commanders remained committed to their sharply divergent strategies...and that, in end effect, led to a diversification of the Allied strategic warfare effort.
Instead of focusing and eliminating one key sector of the German war effort at a time, the forces available were wasted on many separate points of attack, blunting their impact.
Speer even sharply criticized this.
He mentioned how the limited forces used in some bombing attacks, led to damage which could be (mostly, not always) relatively quickly repaired. After such repairs, which aided productivity, the plants production was often higher than before the raid. This effectively cancelled out any lost production achieved by the raid.
Furthermore, Speer criticized the long duration between attacking the same targets, meaning that production levels were retained or even increased.
Speer is often quoted for saying things which seem to support the Allied bombing campaign, but he is never quoted when he said something critical.
How come??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For somebody calling himself a 'historian' you should really know the following interesting facts.
"Hitler spread Communism throughout the world."
More correct would be to state that Hitler UNINTENTIONALLY spread communism.
His aim was to destroy it, and gather a little bit of 'Lebensraum' on the side....
"Hitler invited Communism further into Europe with the non aggression pacts and secret protocol."
It takes 2 to tango.
TWO mass-murdering autocrats signed it.
Stain could have refused to make a deal with Hitler, especially so since Hitler had proven in March 1939 that he did not honor negotiated deals.
"Hitler betrayed Communism and Germany lost! "
Hitler di not 'betray Stalin/communism'.
BOTH mass-murdering psychopaths betrayed the people they ruled over, because BOTH wanted war as a way of advancing their respective ideologies...
"Hitler's war of aggression ultimately spread Bolshevik Communism and American Imperialism at the expense of Europe. "
Again, BOTH Hitler and Stalin wanted war.
Hitler wanted to invade Poland, to gain a common border with the SU.
Stalin hoped fro a long-drawn out war between Germany, France and GB, like in WW1, so he could marched over the devastated lands as the laughing 3rd party.
"Historians mention Spain because it shows German aggression in Europe before WW2."
Why don't those historians mention the Spanish Riff War, including the use of Mustard Gas, as an example of Spanish brutality?
"Germany was basically taking the piss out of France and Britain by rearming, intervening and retaking former land lost in the Versailles Treaty. "
Germany was taking the piss out of GB and France because Hitler broke the Munich accord, proving that he could not be trusted to keep his word.
'Uniting German speakers' was a lie, proven in March 1939, when German forces annexed Prague.
"How about Russia attempts to take the former territories they lost when USSR collapsed?"
Unacceptable, since the only valid premise should be 'Self determination'...in other words, what people want for themselves, based on common consensus.
"Would you support Putin invading Eastern Europe and Half of Germany?"
Certainly not...see above...self determination...
"I mean after all those lands were Soviets and "liberated" from Nazi tyranny. "
The communist weren't much better. ask almost any Pole, Czech or Hungarian. They are glad the commies are gone. That makes the term 'liberation' a rather sad one...more like 'exchanging' one ruthless form of oppression for another.
"Would you support Stalin sending Military forces to Spain like Hitler?"
Any form of meddling by any foreign nation is unacceptable.
1
-
Harris was a liar. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians. He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever. After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie I personally researched a few years ago concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed". Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF (the majority was by US precision bombing raids).
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others. He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and thieves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+record Thanks for that personal note.
Your grandfather and his brothers were true heroes. Dragged into a war they did not wish for, yet keeping a just concept of "wrong" and "right" is admirable.
It is very easy for today's couch potatoes to lean back and pass moral judgement on those who suffered through so much. I try to avoid that with my comments, and I try to stick to the facts.
Yes, opinions were certainly varied, even in times of war, and that's OK. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and some people's idea that there has to be a sort of "one TRUTH for all" is ridiculous.
I'm not sure whether he was right about his idea that the victims of Nazi crimes died as a result of his actions.
I wish I could have talked to him, since I would have convinced him (with pure logic), that his misconceptions here were completely unfounded.
I can assure you that NOTHING he did, either directly or indirectly led to the starvation of a single Nazi prisoner, camp inmate, or other unfortunate "subhuman" (sic) like Gypsies or mentally ill.
(of course, there were unfortunate deaths of these people by Allied actions, but these were due to mis-identification or bad intelligence, which is common and unavoidable in times of war)
All of these unfortunate people were "marked" due to the fact that they did not fit the criteria of the Nazi ideology.
They were already dead, the day they were picked up and transported off.
NOTHING your grandfather could have done. could have saved them.
NOTHING he did, led to them suffering.
I wish I could have told him that myself. I find it sad that he died, with these thoughts on his mind.
I assume he has passed away. So all I can say is let him RIP.
Thanks to him, we live in a better world.
Not perfect, but definitely better :-)
Regards.
1
-
***** So, you wouldn't think twice if a higher ranking soldier came to you and told you to throw grenades into the houses which you know are occupied by "enemy" women and children?
In case you protest, he comes out with a piece of paper, stating that it is official government policy to "de-house" these people, and if they died, tough luck, because they "work for the enemy".
Would you kill without thinking?
That is, in principle, what my initial comment is about.
Hats off to those who doubted that what they were doing was the right thing, because hindsight says that it WAS both ineffective and counterproductive to aim for the city centers, at a time when new advances (1943/44) meant that taking out large area factories and industrial estates was possible.
The policy of Area Bombing stayed the same, even though the technology, crew experience and aircraft had improved.
NOT changing the policy, meant that Allied soldiers died, because German production increased, and as a result, more weapons reached the battlefields. NOT taking out the factories (although it was technically possible by 1943/44) lead to Allied soldiers dying.
Why NOT protest if the docs our kids watch don't say this?
Instead, the historians still repeat age-old misconceptions and propaganda slogans about a war which ended 70 years ago.
I bet there were MANY aircrew in 1943/44 who thought "Why are we still aiming for church spires? Why don't we hit those Tiger tank factories? I know we CAN hit these factories..."
It must have been frustrating knowing your buddies are down there fighting Tiger tanks, and you are sitting in a bomber, 5 tons of bombs in your belly, risking your life aiming for a church tower?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hotspur666 So you had a look at some of my other comments.
Firstly, thank you for reading.
Secondly, which of these is 'Nazi'?
Yes, I looked at your comments, including this one:"...GOD BLESS BREIVIK..."
I assume you are referring to the mass murderer of 90 teens in Norway. If not, please clarify your statement. I guess that statement would deter any decent human being from joining forces with you.....
Please, do let us all know why you think I am 'Nazi', and then come back and actually follow a statement up with some evidence. Any arsehole can say something.
I can say 'Your daughter is a slut', or something similar, and that will just be pulled out of my arse, because I don't have any evidence.
It is PROVING what you write (by presenting evidence, or sound deductive reasoning) which separates the straw from the chaff.
So?
Evidence?
Which of my comments is 'Nazi'?
You said it, you prove it...
1
-
Marvin Cooper Well, here's the problem.
If you are constantly going back, looking for an excuse for own actions, then you'll always find it. So, the first German civilians who died from bombing by the RAF, was in May 1940. That was looooong before any British civilian was killed by German bombing.
Also, it was only up to February 1942 when the bomber boys were still trying to hit 'factories and yards. Then, the Area Bombing directive was issued, which Portal amended with these words: '...To make clear, if it is not already understood, the targets will be the built up areas, NOT for example, the factories and yards...'
GB started the policy of carpet bombing, not the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
About Mass Observation
Polls are only neutral if the organisation conducting the poll is neutral.
If not, whoever conducts the poll, can load a question whichever way they wish, to achieve a desired outcome.
http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loaded+question
For example:
During or after the Blitz, a typical 1941/1942 question might have been "Shall our bomber boys bomb the Germans back, in return for what they did in Coventry?" Y/N
In this case, the majority would have most likely said "Yes".
OR (in case you wish to achieve another answer, one could "load" the question in a different way)
"Should our bomber boys take out the German tank factories, in order to assist our boys to fight Rommel?"
What do you think the average citizen would have answered here?
I grew up with historians who cherry picked their Mass Observation statistics for years. Of course, they wished to assert (or insinuate) that every person (or at least overwhelming majorities) in GB "thought the same".
That is, quite simply not the case.
I'm grateful that Greyling has clarified this point.
He states clearly that other opinions existed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheVillaAston So destroying factories which produced weapons systems for the German armed forces, was "no guide to how the RAF should operate over Germany" ?
Face it.
The decision to end the war by killing "enemy" women and kids was a failure. The self declared goal of killing "enemy" women and kids was to end the war.
Well, 1942 passed, and the war did not end.
1943 passed, and the war did not end.
1944 passed and the war did not end.
1945 came, ground forces entered Berlin, and the war was over.
Killing enemy women and kids did not end the war.
Ground forces was what ended the war, and every bomb dropped that did not directly aid Allied ground forces, was a wasted effort. Every bomb aimed at an "enemy" city center, was automatically NOT aimed at a factory producing weapon systems for the German armed forces. The location of these factories producing arms, is irrelevant, since destroying them would have led to a shorter war, with less casualties. Renault in Paris, Alkett in Berlin or Phillips in Eindhoven. Irrelevant. If it was a factory producing weapons, it was a valid target..
The 55,000 RAF airmen who died (the majority) on missions to kill "enemy" civilians, died in vain.
1
-
1
-
+TheVillaAston You wrote "The factory in question was producing lorries, not weapons systems. "
I wrote "So destroying factories which produced weapons systems for the German armed forces, was..."
Renault in Billancourt was also a tank factory. At the time of destruction, the plant was refurbishing captured Char B tanks, for service with the German Army (incl. the preparation for a flame thrower version for service on the Eastern Front).
Even "lowly" trucks, are vital in a war of mobility. I hope we don't have to argue about whether WW2 was a "war of mobility". It was. Around 50 German divisions relied (partially or fully) on French trucks for their mobility.
Logic therefore dictates that every step undertaken to reduce the mobility of one's enemy, is a valid one, and a risk worth taking. Logic also dictates that every step undertaken to attack valid targets which reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's forces, is a valid use of bombers. (considering the substantial investment in resources made in building up Bomber Command)
So, yet again one of your childish and badly researched "comebacks" has failed. You should research more carefully, and stop relying on the History Channel for your information....
1
-
TheVillaAston OK, so French civilians producing trucks and tanks for the German armed forces (and the factories they worked in) should therefore be spared?
It is exactly this kind of "political consideration" which cost the Allies lives. Surely, a factory is a factory, irrelevant of the location. In case that factory is located in an area under Nazi control, the people who work there, should know (or be made aware of) the risk they are taking by collaboration. Correct?
Strangely enough, when it came to the Allied invasion, "political considerations" were suddenly unimportant, and 75,000 French civilians died in Allied bombing raids.
Make sense?
Furthermore, why are you constantly jumping around, trying to change the topic?
You made a statement, which was wrong. Then, your "comeback" consists of changing the topic (Now, it is suddenly irrelevant what the factory was producing)
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheVillaAston I started off this comment section by pointing out how the analysis of the raid on Renault, should have led to a revision of the Area Bombing Policy.
It should have been revised, with more emphasis on the destruction of specific large area plants and industrial zones in Germany.
That would would have had chances of success in 1942, and (had it been followed with determination) would have made a massive impact from late 1943 on wards (my "Tiger tank timeline")
You then stated that you don't consider it valid to bomb targets in France, because that would result in the death of French civilians. That is, by definition, is the "political considerations" which are often mentioned in the reports and thesis (the death of innocent people in occupied territory)
In your last comment, you were making references to "dropping letters on French homes" informing that by building tanks for the Nazis, they would be considered collaborators (?????)
Honestly, every French citizen building tanks for the Nazis, should have been able to conclude that all by him/herself, and would not have needed a "letter from GB".
I want to avoid the debate from going off an a tangent.
So, let's get back to "the basics".
Let's concentrate on "the big picture".
1
-
TheVillaAston OK, so back to "the big picture", which (concerning the Area Bombing Policy) was that Allied leaders (the War Cabinet) thought that the war could be ended, and that an invasion of the European continent made unnecessary, by "driving home the the German people" that they were going to loose.
Military leaders (i.e. Harris) who supported this theory, where put into positions to implement this new POLICY.
So in February 1942, it was decided that the war was going to end (according to these visionaries), by merely going out to kill as many civilians as possible, as effectively and economically as possible, by firebombing city centers with specialized and specially developed weapons.
The objective of Area Bombing was to divert a large proportion of attacks away from targets like "factories and yards" (quoting PortaI :"...suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.”).
Of course, the War Cabinet knew that such a decision was not going to be acceptable´or popular among large portions of society, which resulted in the use of euphemisms, which were clarified by amendments as quoted above.
When targets with a proven value to the enemy were destroyed, severely hampering German activity to wage war, Harris concluded that these to be "panacea" (to quote Harris)
How am I doing so far?
Please confirm whether you consider this conclusion to be accurate, so that there are no further misunderstandings.
Over to you...
1
-
TheVillaAston Actually, you are doing very well, ...at repeating accepted history. I know what "accepted history" tells us, because I've read the same books, and watched the same docs you have.
In South Africa, I grew up with the "World at War"- view of WW2. I thought EXACTLY like you not so long ago.
In the meantime, I've done a lot of other reading in other languages, incl. Dutch and German, and have concluded that the "very British" view of things are not always valid.
To address your specific points.
Firstly, you are talking about 1942. I'm talking about 1943/44. Harris' ridiculous attitude of sticking to to a policy which was not working, meant that the bombs were still aimed at church spires, instead of chimney stacks, LONG after crews had shown that the could do more.
Mainstream historians (whose main motive is to uphold the existing view of the war) wish to proclaim the view that it was an "unfortunate necessity", rather than "free choice" to bomb city centers.
What started out as "unfortunate necessity" in 1942 (when it was still difficult, but not impossible to attack pin point targets at night), turned into "free choice" by 1943/44. By this time, it WAS possible to knock out large area factories or industrial zones, because technology had advanced since 1942, the crews had matured, there were A LOT MORE bombers (economy of scale), navigation and tactics were better, etc. etc.
Here the catch, though.
Harris was too stuck in his ways to change his mind about how to use the forces at his disposal. He preferred to stick to the untried theory that populations of enemy countries would revolt and surrender if bombed hard enough. By this time 1943/44, it should have been clear that that wasn't going to happen.
Instead of an all out, well coordinated attack plan with the Americans, he preferred to send his bombers to targets of choice as often as he could possibly get away with. It would have been better to hit the same targets again and again (day AND night).
That led to a dissipation of the disposable forces.
Instead of "Klotzen nicht klekkern", the Allies were "Klekkern nicht klotzen". That, was Guderian's favorite saying, meaning that all energy should be concentrated, instead of wasted on many separate points of attack.
After the war, Albert Speer (LOL, I'm actually quoting him too) concluded that the Allied "round the clock" strategic warfare could have been much more effective, and led to an earlier end of the fighting, if the same targets had been attacked in shorter spaces of time. Instead, by wasting the effort on dropping bombs on city centers, it gave the Germans time to repair factories and plants, raising production right up to late 1944. Attacks which merely "created rubble" was the least of the Germans' worries.
Only then, and mostly as a result of lacking raw materials caused by the advance of ground forces and the attacks on infrastructure, did German production slack and the war effort fail.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_2/10.htm
Furthermore, to cling to an outdated view of things, is entirely against new findings and thesis. One thing the BBC never mentioned when I grew up, was the cost of the strategic war effort on GB, and how it played a large part in GB's loss of influence and general economic downward spiral.
You can google "BRITAIN 1939 – 1945:
THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC
BOMBING", for a full study of this.
IMO, one shouldn't ignore the big picture when discussing various specific points.
1
-
+TheVillaAston As with all your previous comments, I could now laboriously copy and paste all the points you have raised, and counter them ONE BY ONE (as I have done before).
Then, you will just simply ignore every one of those points I countered, and move on to something else, which I will then (again laborious counter again )
Five comments later, you will then simply repeat something WHICH I HAVE ALREADY COUNTERED (note, without any acknowledgement on your part)
For example:
"We have already established that there was no revenge motive governing RAF bombing policy."
Listen to Harris himself.
"Sir Arthur Harris Speech - Area Bombing"
(copy and paste into the search bar of YT)
No revenge?
Do you need English lessons?
We have not "established" anything.
You should spend less time reading, and more time THINKING about what you are reading.
Can you THINK, or only REPEAT what you hear?
You have obviously been indoctrinated by historians in the same way as religious people have been indoctrinated by priests. I'm not merely stating this. Your entire misguided logic, and the way you "debate", is the same as a "debate" with any religious person.
Your "history" is about repeating the same old crap again and again until everybody believes it.
If somebody comes up with a good argument, try misdirection ("Your a Nazi", "White South Africans blah, blah, blah...") to CHANGE THE TOPIC.
So, now I'm "anti British" because I'm pointing out that BRITISH SOLDIERS DIED BECAUSE OF A MISTAKEN POLICY.
WTF?
Try hardheadedness, like your hero Harris, who sent thousands of BRITISH young men to their VERY BRITISH graves for almost nothing in return.
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR ANTI BRITISH???
You obviously still believe that the EXCUSES dished up to you ("the weather", "bad visibility", "88mm guns from Russian front", etc., etc.) are the truth?
Well, for your info, they are not very good EXCUSES, and the ease with which these EXCUSES can be countered, proves that are are nothing else but bad EXCUSES.
(Made after the event, to cover up the REASON for Area Bombing)
Mr. Villa Aston, what was the one and only REASON for Area Bombing?
(In case you wish to answer this question, please don't confuse the words "REASON" and "EXCUSE", as explained above VERY CLEARLY)
Mr Villa Aston.
For a debate, or a discussion, one needs an OPEN MIND.
If one doesn't have an open mind, one is INDOCTRINATED.
If one is INDOCTRINATED, one gives LECTURES.
I don't need a lecture.
I prefer discussions with open minded people.
(BTW. Are you a teacher or a religious person by any chance? Just curious...)
I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, as soon as somebody comes up with a halfway plausible way to counter the points I have raised.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 53:20 mins
Patrick Bishop, entirely correctly, describes what beset Allied ground forces entering Germany in 1945.
When a beautiful town is entirely destroyed, there is also no incentive (on the German leaders' side) to withdraw from it, and hand it over in an effort to save cultural values.
In end effect, the "Stalingrad"- effect set in.
Every military historian I know of agrees that it was the fact that Stalingrad was ruined, and that it was exactly these ruins which aided the Russian defenders, and made it more difficult for the attacking Germans.
Correct so far?
After Wurzburg (a cultural heritage of no strategic or military value) was bombed to ruins, the German forces dug into the ruins (same as Stalingrad), and held out for days. Would the defenders have simply handed over such a city, if it had not already been destroyed, in a effort to save it?
This happened in Paris, which was declared an open city in 1940. Since it was not "defended to the last man" in a stupid, already lost cause, the Germans advanced quickly, and France also collapsed quickly. The same would have happened if Würzburg had never been bombed. The German commanders on the spot would probably have retreated, meaning that the Allies could have simply driven through it, without a long battle.
So, when it comes to "learning the lessons", the military mindset is "thick as a brick".....
1
-
1
-
Nyctasia From the POV of the victims, it hardly makes a difference whether one is killed, maimed or starved to death by an invader sent by London, Paris, Berlin, Washington, Vienna, Brussels or Madrid.
The victims are dead, and the least the current generation may hope for is an apology.
Where the victims of German crimes against humanity are concerned, that apology is always forthcoming (almost always from official sources, and by a large majority of the population), and the descendants may at least have the peace of mind that they have been done wrong upon.
This is not the case where other countries are concerned.
First tentative steps have been undertaken (Canada, Australia, etc), but by and large, the descendants of the victims have to face the descendants of the invaders, with their arrogant attitude of "Ah well, that was a long time ago. That doesn't concern me."
All added up, the victims of white expansion to rule the world, go into the millions. As a whole, the victims of German crimes against humanity make up only a fraction of the final total. Why the constant focus on Germany?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mark Kelly The myth of GB and France 'not being ready for war' is just that -- a myth.
GB and France as 'ready' or as 'unready' ad everybody else was.
It is just a myth spread by lobbyist for the military industrial complex, who, in the eternal struggle for funding, need to project an eternal image of fear, and underline these with historical examples.
Here are a few examples of how 'unready' GB and France were in 1914.
GB had by far the largest and most expensive, and most battle ready navy in the world. GB was a naval and colonial power, and it is therefore entirely natural that the army was small, mobile, and adapted for minor colonial wars.
France and Russia?
France and Russia actively engaged in war games once a year to tweak their war plans to invade Germany and A-H.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31191/world-war-i-centennial-russia-promises-attack-germany
Russia also had active ambitions for the Bosporus, and these were also backed by French leaders (France and GB had also heavily invested in the Ottoman Empire), so that Russian hegemony would benefit business.
But, of course, whenever you ask somebody who wanted to rule the world, the most likely answer is always Germany.
Strange that...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May I ask where you live? Switzerland or Bhutan?
In case it happens to be GB or the US, do you feel personally responsible for the mess that is now the Middle East? That being a direct result of the the moronic and ill-fated decision (against international law) to invade in 2003, leading to the chaos of civil war, ISIS, and the massive increase in international terrorism, mass exodus of refugees...
Who is responsible for wars?
Civilians in a democracy, with the full advance notice of a coming war, lied to by its leadership, but with the ability to protest?
Or, civilians who lived in a dictatorship, kept in the dark by censorship, and lied to about the reasons for war? (google Gleiwitz Incident false flag, and the propaganda lies of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sophie Dockx Yes, it seems as if humanity has been 'blessed' with imperfect systems, which are the result of our imperfect human nature.
Everything you describe, is an indirect result of our flaws as species, and the result of evolution and human nature.
This is true on the micro level (kids playing in a sandbox), as well as the macro level (nations and states).
The urge some have to be 'king of the mountain', leading to strife in the sandbox and wars in the real world....
The key to understanding history, is in understanding human nature, which is why historians with a background of philosophy make far more neutral observations that militarist historians.
The militarist might make more precise observations on the micro level (weapons, strategy or battles), but I'm with the philosophers when it comes to the big picture.
Interesting what you wrote about language and misunderstandings.
The same is true for cultural misunderstandings.
You probably heard about the meeting of the US ambassador just before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
globalresearch.ca
Apparently he wanted to 'feel out' the US reaction to the invasion of Kuwait, and she gave such obscure answers (in the Arab culture) that Saddam interpreted it as a 'go ahead'.
Oh bother....
1
-
Oh boy. So you study human stupidity, history and are also objective — no wonder nobody likes you :-)
No, but seriously, I'm a big fan of Dunning-Kruger, and since hardly anybody on YT can follow that 'cognitive bias which low- ability individuals suffer from a feeling of superiority'-stuff, I usually refer them to the John Cleese version which is basically 'stupid people are too stupid to realize they are stupid'...
I'm also a big fan of causality.
It's brilliant.
Cause and effect is indifferent, doesn't bother with niceties such as who is subjectively or objectively 'right' or 'wrong', or even morality superior.
An action leading to a reaction is pure, sometimes cruel, and often unpopular — which is why most historians veer far away from issues which tend to be controversial.
Either that, or they start playing word games, spin doctoring or simply ignoring 'uncomfortable bits' of history, which would ruin the otherwise 'nice story' being told.
From what you write, I guess you'd make a great historian.....BUT you'll probably neither get any funding for a documentary, nor a big contract for a popular history book.
I have this theory that popular history is more about the constant repetition of a well-honed story, and anybody who pops up and wants to ruin this story, will simply get sorted out somewhere along the way.
If there is a formula for this, one could say:
Write what the masses want to hear = higher books sales = higher profit for the publisher and author = incentive to do it all again the next year....
1
-
Sophie Dockx Agreed on all points.
It is easy to forget many of these historical blunders, because many historians focus on the details too much. By concentrating too much on details, it becomes easy to loose sight of the big picture.
You probably know that the initial concept of the Schlieffen Plan was not only to push the best and largest part of the the German Army through Belgium towards Paris, but also at the same time, to draw (or lure) the French Army into Elsass (relatively unopposed).
The idea was to sacrifice land in the south, in order to gain the forces necessary to take Paris quickly. The momentum gained in the drive in the north, achieved by making sacrifices in the south....
It would have meant sacrificing Elsass, and maybe even the Saar and the regions towards Koblenz, but the outcome (taking Paris) would have made up for that.
IMO, it was mainly the meddling by German officers changing the original concept, which led to failure.
Of course, whether the original concept would have worked, is open to debate.
Maybe the French would have realized the trap, and broken off their Plan XVII also...
Nevertheless, the personal characters and quality of the main personalities play a large role....leadership is far more important than almost any other criteria deciding the outcome of battles.
1
-
Sophie Dockx To tell you the truth, most of my reading is waaay back. Most of it at least 10 years.
I vaguely remember reading about von Moltke changing the plan to accommodate the wishes of peers and more junior officers alike.
Apparently he wanted to make everybody happy, and gave in to the various demands.
Thanks for reminding me about the details.
Yes, there is definitely enough "blunder material" to make at least a dozen full-feature Monty Python movies :-)
As for Joffre's dislike of phones....
Imagine a 1970s or 1980s military leader turning down computers, GPS or electronic maps, based on own experiences, or fear of losing battles because the batteries go dead....
"We had a compass and paper maps, and what was good enough for me, is good enough for the boys today..."
A solid understanding of modern technology, and fully grasping the capabilities these offer, can make or break battles.
I would argue against the common held believe that certain technologies "win wars" though, since it is only the entire military, economic and political inferiority or superiority which decide wars.
A slightly better tank, or a slightly better aircraft can win a battle or two, but not decide a war.
I always ROTFL laughing when one of these 'History Channel docs' start of off by praising how the weapon or the technology introduced in the doc "won the war"...
Entertainment for kids :-)
1
-
Sophie Dockx Again, excellent analysis and historical understanding.
I had the 'honor' to be a part of that hierarchical structure called 'the military' for a short time, and quickly realized that it wasn't for me.
I quickly realized that the influence of both rank and class, outweighed 'good ol' common sense', and left as soon as I finished my tour of duty. Even in the lower officer ranks, the amount of ass kissing, back stabbing and intrigues was obvious and ridiculous.
So, I had 'been there, and done that', realized that it wasn't for me, and took my leave.
Yup, I've experienced 'Blackadder' and 'Monty Python' for long enough to realize that it didn't suite my character, and for long enough to realize that there were enough others who were willing to give it a go...rise in the ranks...become a 'success'...
The more authoritarian a system is, the more these mirror the mindset of those in charge, and those who had 'made it'.
Whether one is given such a privilege by birth, or have to fight for it from the bottom up, the outcome is principally what you describe.
Power games, pulling rank or class, dirty little deals, backstabbing, ass kissing...and all of that, to determine who will face off against 'the others' on 'the other side' who had gone through the same game themselves.
That is, the world we live in.
1
-
Despite the lack of accuracy, what makes the true difference between 'inaccurate but effective' or 'spectacular but ineffective', was the choice of target. In other words, the aiming point chosen by leadership (according to doctrine).
In this respect, the Oil Campaign, Transport Plan, and Big Week, were extremely effective, despite a lack of accuracy.
On the other hand, raids like Dresden, Pforzheim, Wurzburg or Kassel, might have been spectacular pyrotechnically, but ineffective. The bombs dropped on the city centers killed many civilians, but did little to end the war.
A massive mistake, which historians hate to point out.
The RAF and the USAAF should have fully coordinated their attacks, and focused on a few key industries at a time, bombing the same targets 'around the clock'....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+pim1234 Look, it's easy, the VC also "started it", so we kicked ass...well, I think we kicked ass...never mind.
It's still easy, Saddam started it, and we really kicked ass...that is, until ISIS turned up and spoiled it all....ah, well....
Um...it's still easy. The Koreans also started it, and we REALLY kicked ass there....which is why we are still there...umm...
Never mind. F*ck all those stupid excuses.
The Nicaraguans started it, the Colombians started it, the Panamanians started it, the Congolese started it, the Somalis started it, ... EVERYBODY always starts it, just not us. And then we kick ass....right?
1
-
1
-
pim1234 Mostly correct, but not always. I would be careful who we in the West call "friends". They are often cronies, crooks, .opportunists or dictators. Saddan Hussein, and Al Quida were also "friends of the West"...well, for a while anyway....
Would you have wanted to die for them?
"Allied countries only start a war after being attacked first"
In 1898, the USA declared war on Spain. That war was based on a lie to the people (The explosion of the Maine).
In 1956, France, GB and Israel provoked and invaded the sovereign state of Egypt, after these nations did not wish to compromise on the income generated by the Suez Canal.
It almost triggered the 3rd WW and nuclear annihilation for the entire human race.
These are just a few examples.
I can give you a lot more.
As a general remark, nations in a superior position (economic, strategic, or financial) don't necessarily need to declare war or invade other countries.
All they need to do is heavily lean on, and apply pressure, and if that provokes a reaction, then it's always "look, they shot first".
As a general truth, these nations are also largely inhabited by apologists for the provocations, meaning that Western nations get away with their actions again and again.
1
-
+pim1234 That conclusion, my dear friend, is practically the definition of warmongering...
You might think that it's the right thing to do, but one day, a son, a daughter, or another loved one will pay the price, as hundreds of thousands already have.
They might not even die, maybe they'll only end up as blabbering nervous wrecks, or drug addicts, due to what they have witnessed.
Of course, in our own minds, we are all invincible...
Let's call it a night :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
War is simply a question of what the elites consider worthwhile to protect their vested interests.
'World wars', are opposition to other nation's elites thinking likewise...
The 'poor people' don't play a role, otherwise GB would never have started so many wars and invasions resulting in endless suffering and death herself.
Belgium was a pretext.
There was no defense treaty, and if the elites had wanted to stay out, or even saw it as more opportune for their vested interests to join Germany, they would have simply changed their propaganda tune....
Then, we would have heard all about what terrible people 'the Belge gorilla' were. How they murdered 10,000,000 innocents in the Congo. How they brutally chopped the hands of kids, simply because they didn't manage to gather enough latex to make rubber...
Yup...those evil 'Belges' certainly 'deserved what they got', and were simply 'reaping the whirlwind of what they had sown'.
Sure...Karma is a bitch and all that...
Beware, of the propaganda tales of our elites...WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, blah, blah, blah......
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From 44:00 mins on wards the naval arms race between GB and Germany.
Naval experts won't argue the fact that German ships were essentially short-ranged North and Baltic Sea ships.
The German High Seas Fleet was therefore essentially a risk fleet.
A "risk fleet" doesn't have to be bigger than a rival (in this case the HSF vs.the RN).
It also doesn't have to operate world-wide (which is the reason Germany never had naval bases matching the military and industrial capacity or recreational value of Singapore, Bombay, Malta, Gibraltar, Sydney, Aden, Alexandria, Hong Kong, and DOZENS of others)
The scope, expanse and capabilities of British overseas bases (for example docks, repair facilities, re-supply, etc.) largely exceeded anything the German Empire had abroad.
The only German bases capable of handling, repairing and replenishing a large number of ships were the German Navy's "Marinewerfen" (Naval Yards) at Kiel, Wilhelmshafen and Danzig.
My conclusion.
A risk fleet doesn't have to operate world-wide.
The rise of the German threat was (partly) a British propaganda tool, aimed at raising awareness to a potential threat to GB. The aim was to gain the support and funds (as always in democracies) to counter the the German expansion by building MORE ships in every category in which the Germans chose to challenge GB's superiority in numbers.
The "world wide threat" to GB was made up.
How could Germany achieve in a few years, what took GB 300 years to achieve? (in other words, create the world-wide bases needed to successfully operate a large number of ships)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lesbian9541 So what percentage of Germans were actually Nazis? Was that ever objectively measured?
ALL humans who view their own selfish interests over human rights of others, are criminals.
Therefore, Mengele was no better and no worse than Cutler, the doctor who knowingly infected thousands of Guatemalans in human experiments. Yet, Mengele is a well-known criminal, yet the crimes of Cutler were covered up for 70 years. What system allows that?
http://gizmodo.com/the-u-s-doctor-who-infected-1-300-guatemalan-patients-1696095744
In my opinion, the citizens of nations should do something about the crimes committed in their names, and see to it that these criminals are brought to justice.
If not, the idea that ' crime pays' will persist, because of the fact that 'my nation is a nation of finger pointers and apologists'...
Should Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others be trailed like the Nazis at Nuremberg?
Should the mass murderers of Mai Lei be trailed and locked away?
Do you think Americans have the moral obligation to do something about the criminals in their own ranks?
1
-
+lesbian9541 We have absolute no differences where it comes to the crimes of Nazis, and their 'useful idiots', meaning those who collaborated for personal profit.
Following the power or the money is a very common trait which is inherent in all animals and many human beings, not only Germans. Sucking up to power is very common in both the animal and human world.
The people who collaborated with the Nazis came from all over the occupied territories, and from all walks of life. At the bottom of this pile of human shit, there was the farmer, who got more land by denouncing his Jewish neighbor, and at the top there were the doctors and businessmen who collaborated because it meant being able to experiment on human beings ( scientists), or higher profit for a company (business people).
This still happens ALL over the world.
It is not a specific 'German trait' as many are lead to believe by documentaries or books.
'Following the money', or 'sucking up to power' is what leads to the kind of crimes you pointed out.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not making excuses for criminals, or even trying to create a moral equivalence.
I'm pointing out the dangers of not drawing the correct conclusions.
IMO, the correct conclusion is to denounce and follow up EVERY war crime or crime against humanity, even those done by our own soldiers and the leaders who ordered, covered up, or condoned theses crimes.
If not, our kids and their kids will still be here in a hundred years, carrying out exactly the same debate we are carrying out now...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ralph Bernhard Following that logic, and addressing the whiny 'What else could we have done?'- rhetoric.
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** From late 1941, the RAF changed their tactics.
Up to that point in time, basically every aircraft was an independent unit, which navigated to the target, and aimed at the target specified in the orders (if the target was found and if it could be seen, which was rare).
Those were bad tactics, since it basically meant that accuracy depended on the skill of the crew. Often, later arrivals simply bombed where they saw fires, assuming that that was the target.
However, if an inexperienced crew had been first on the spot, you can imagine that most aircraft would simply bomb the wrong place, a burning barn, a little village, a decoy, etc.
From late-1941, the RAF changed their tactics. From that point in time, the best and most experienced crews were chosen as 'pathfinders', to mark the target. The rest of the rookies, average blokes, and less experienced wouldn't have to bother with navigation and target selection anymore, and simply had to bomb the chosen target area (marked by special marker bombs). The most bombers simply flew along in a 'bomber stream', and there was less chance of error.
Therefore, I doubt whether individual choice played any role. The crews simply bombed what had been 'marked'. They were later also directed by special 'master bombers', which avoided the target area from 'straying'. They therefore had very little individual choice, and the whole process was very routine.
Bombing accuracy mainly depended on the weather and visibility in the target area. If you've ever been to Northern Europe, you'd know that the weather is pretty crappy most of the time (statistically, around 70-80% of the time it's various degrees of 'crappy')
1
-
1
-
benjo benthepharmer That is correct. History is littered with examples of plunder, murder, genocide and misconduct.
IMO, however, we should refrain from making excuses for historical wrongs, because that leads to creating a precedent for current or future behaviour.
For example, your use of the words 'peril the nation was in'.
That might have been true in 1940/41, but certainly not by 1943/44.
Does a perilous situation by itself, justify a war crime?
Even the often repeated rhetorik of 'they should have simply surrendered' is flawed.
On the one hand we, quite correctly, conclude that the Nazis were (and their remnants still are) the biggest scum of the earth, yet...we then strangely assume that they should have surrendered because so many people were dying?
That's not exactly logical....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anthony Brown Hello Anthony
You are absolutely correct in that many of the RAF night raids were a waste of resources. Bombing Berlin, or Nürmberg, with enormous losses, cannot be justified if one looks at the results achieved.
I have several objections to Beevor's speech, and I'll repeat them here. I'd like to hear your ideas.
Most of Beevor's comments are actually already countered in the final "questions" section of this debate, so maybe we can go into a few points more in depth.
At 38:53 mins "...easy to forget this when applying retrospective judgement from a position of safety, long after the event..."
We are living in the year 2015. When else am I supposed to judge historical events, and reach a conclusion whether they were right or wrong? Many people who lived at the time concluded that "revenge bombing" was entirely beside the point (see the parliamentary debates), but their opinions were circumvented, or they were simply lied to (Portal lied to the British parliament, stating that "there are no specific orders to kill German civilians")
39:09 "...Guernica..." was in Spain, which wasn't even a British Ally. Using that as an excuse to kill German civilians in Dresden, is like saying that Coventry was the 'German revenge' for British terror bombing attacks on tribal villages in Iraq in the early 1920's.
Here is my point. Linking historical events which have absolutely nothing to do with each other is a typical propaganda trick to foster a "they deserve it"- attitude..
39:00 "...Warsaw..." was in Poland. Poles meant absolutely nothing to the British leadership. The same Poles were later signed away to the yoke of communist oppression, on the back of an envelope. Their fate wasn't even worth the few pence a clean sheet of paper would have cost Churchill. Warsaw is is a convenient EXCUSE, not a REASON.
39:20 "...Minsk, Smolensk..." were in Russia. So, according to Beevor, British pilots were sent to their deaths, bombing German civilians, to revenge Russian civilians? The leaders of the SU crying foul did not object when their "hero" leader ( referred to as "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent fuel and ores to Germany from 1939 to 1941 to build bombs and fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry. That's not logical.
More EXCUSES, and not REASONS.
I have highlighted the words "reasons" and "excuses" to point out that there is a difference. Reason is something which existed before an event, while an excuse is something made up afterwards, in a way of justification. I always analyze every comment according to this distinction.
None of the points Beevor makes are "reasons".
The only reason that ever existed, and why it was decided to flatten German city centers was "let's see if this works", and historians should just admit this, and stop making retrospective excuses.
As always, looking forward to your reply.
I know, and appreciate, that there are other ways of looking at things.
1
-
Anthony Brown I agree that these debates are an excellent source of information.
Actually, I don't think Beevor's speech has much to be criticized (apart from the two or three things I mentioned). His POV is a good middle road between two extremes. For example, he made a good point when he said that the German population was (by and large) hostages of Hitler's aggressive politics. "Hostages" means that the majority of Germans were neither guilty nor innocent, but simply stuck in a country which was at war, and unable to do anything about it.
It is very easy today to state something like "well, they should have revolted" or "why didn't they kill Hitler", etc. However this completely ignores the facts.
a) In view of Nazi propaganda, what did the simple "man on the street" know?
b) even if some HAD recognized that they were being lied to, how should they have revolted, or killed Hitler?
The problem I have with books is that historians can be very selective in which facts they choose to focus on, and how to weigh (or completely ignore) other facts.
In a debate like this, a historian has to subject his statements and theories to the scrutiny of other historians, who might not agree with him.
I even have a vague notion (although I can't prove this) that Churchill instinctively felt that it was the wrong thing to do. (expressed by the now famous memo to Harris, and his refusal to grant Bomber Command a Battle Star after the war was over).
Harris interpreted the memo in the way that Churchill was trying to wiggle his way out of post-war criticism they would surely face in a a modern democracy.
You are correct that Churchill should have fired him long before that time. In the build up to D-Day, Bomber Command was achieving excellent results on valid targets, but Harris refused to admit that his Area Bombing had not achieved the effects hoped for in 1942, and should have been revised in mid-1944.
Harris resisted the urging of more advanced views to finally place all effort on taking out the last German factories, power plants, yards. and other targets (which had been impossible to hit in late 1941/early 1942), but certainly within the capabilities of experienced crews to destroy in 1944 and 1945.
As far as hindsight is concerned.
In many cases the word "hindsight" is just an excuse for the "lack of foresight".
In the case of adhering to the Area Bombing policy, long after it had been proven that it was not going to make Hitler and the Nazis surrender, and not going to lead to a revolution, was a mistake. In my opinion, this mistake was due to a lack of foresight.
Again, I'll refer to Churchill's memo after Dresden, in which he clearly stated that he felt it was the wrong policy to come into the possession of an utterly destroyed central Europe, ripe for take over by communism, if the policy of bombing civilians was not changed.
Churchill clearly saw the coming Cold War long before others, but lacked the foresight to change the decisions once undertaken (Febr 1942) under different circumstances.
By late 1944, after the success of D-Day, and Operation Bagration, there just no way that Germany could have still won.
My objections to bombing civilians are both moral and (I believe) objective. With objective, I mean that an objective analysis makes it clear that bombing civilians backfires and achieves the exact opposite as desired.
1
-
Anthony Brown Great conclusion.
I'll keep a look out for Antony Beevor's books, but at the moment I live in Germany, and we are getting ready to move to Spain.
At the moment we are trying to get rid of things, rather than buy more stuff :-)
As I said before, I think Beevor's views are more moderate, and well thought out, in comparison to say Patrick Bishop, who makes some pretty ridiculous, but populist statements and historical connections.
I have listed a few here on this site, going back about 8 months.
I would like to hear your opinions on those, if you can spare the time.
It's always much more fun to have a civil exchange of ideas with a well-informed person, rather than the typical teenage ranting which seems to be so typical here on YT :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 17:05 mins
The lame old "Brest-Litovsk" argument, which is total BS.
Quite simple. Russia's negotiators turned down the initial German terms, leading to the resuming of action, after which the remaining Russian forces were thoroughly thrashed.
Therefore, the Russians (or rather the new leaders, the Soviets) were in no position to argue.
Any chance of the same thing happening in the west?
Any chance that the German armies would thoroughly thrash the combined British, French, US and Belgian armies, in order to dictate their terms?
Whatever some Germans wanted (or rather dreamed about), is completely irrelevant, since there was no way that the Allies on the western front would ever have been so completely thrashed that they would needed to accept terms dictated to them.
Simple as that.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore What you are explaining is cause an effect. NOT the result of some 'liberal agenda'.
People started DEMANDING change to fit into the standards of modern life.
Old people wanted medical insurance, leading to Medicaid. It is not 'socialism', the result of somebody's agenda.
And that industries die out as a result of change ELSEWHERE in the world, is plain and simple economics. Certain production dying out due to the changing times is NORMAL, not the result of some imaginary agenda.
Honestly, do you think the makers of horse wagons COMPLAINED when the car turned up, and started ruining their businesses?
Was Henry Ford a 'liberal demon with an agenda', because he wanted to build the car, putting thousands of buggy makers out of business?
And cheap imports?
LOL, blame the greedy bastards who want more for themselves by exploitation of ALL people. For example the Banana Wars, fought so that Americans could eat cheap bananas.
I don't remember too many Americans protesting your military marching into other countries, oppressing the rights of people here, because of your big business heros' endless greed.
Cause and effect.
That is what you should study.
Your politicians in bed with big business.
THAT is the root cause of everything you whine about.....
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore Yes, of course it was like that. When Christianity appeared, a new generation of dribbling power mongers appeared, recognised the chance to overthrow an old existing order ('knowledge' being power to rule over ignorance, and all that), and to eclipse that with a new order (cough, cough, with THEM on charge of course).
Follow that up with a nice little purge (aka Inquisition), and all's fine.
No more 'little problems'.
Good thing for you that you see how the world works :-)
But I don't see anything similar around today.
Today, there are too many power-mongers scrambling for the top, with too many agendas, trying to be king of the mountain. In doing so, they are battling each other, meaning that the top remains neatly empty.
There are no more 'purges', like in the good ol' days :-)
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore So you mean, God got kinda lazy, ran out of ideas, and simply used one of the designs he had played around with the week before -- and said: 'OK, I'll put a bit more brain on this one, stretch it a bit, take off the hair, but make it reeeeeelly slow so the lions can catch it, and reeeeal bumbly so it can't climb trees, and then go back to the Tele to see if it survives'?
Jeez, looks like the big guy in the sky has some twisted sense of humor :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael Moore Where does Jesus tell you to kill the enemy's children?
You were the one commenting on the debate here, and the debate IS about moral ethics in warfare, especially the terror bombing of 'enemy' civilians.
So, please.
Over to you.
Look in your Bible, and tell me were JESUS, not God, tells you to kill children?
Note here, Jesus CHRIST(IAN, cough, cough) is your philosopher, not mine....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore Nope, we are discussing moral values.
If you really studied history and understand, then you will see that WW2 was ENTIRELY avoidable.
It was the greed, and lack of empathy of the mostly Christian rulers of the world which messed the world up, over and over and over again...
Starting with all those 'Christian' rulers who created the conditions which led to WW1, and then also started WW1 for their own selfish and self-centered wishes.
Then, all those billionaire "Christians" couldn't keep their profit-minded greedy hands out of turning even the most senseless human suffering into a nice little sum on the bank account.....
Then, losing the peace at Versailles.
Yup, that includes your racist and arrogant 'Big Three' screwing over a Japanese ally, and treating them like outcasts....
But yeeeeees.
Of course....those were the days..."people were like that" and " that was what it was like those days", so what can we do about it? Of coooourse, we can't change history....
Uhm...learn a lesson?
Well, apparently nothing was learned, because being stuck in old ways, and teaching fake and one sided history, is STILL the way to go....
So, you wanna hear the rest about how a little strife in SE Asia turned into death for good ol' American boys?
Won't be the first time those Frenchie ambitions for Vietnam caused farmer boys from Kansas to come home in a star-spangled coffin, or somewhat alive....minus an arm....or a leg....or a soul....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willhovell9019 Re. WW1 it wasn't as much "German militarism" as "the alliance system" which lead to the knee-jerk reaction of the implementation of the Schlieffen Plan.
The so-called "Schlieffen Plan" was a contingency plan which was devised, and which cristalized out of several pre-war war games re. potential "what ifs" faced by Germany and her alliance partner Austria-Hungary.
It would be "triggered", in case certain criteria are met. A fact which is not clear if Wilhelm truly understood.
Note, it came about as a result (causal effect) of other nations' leaders decisions.
That is how "causality" works.
At first, devised in 1905, after it became clear that 1) France and Russia could not be convinced to give up on their policy of encirclement (see the failure of the Treaty of Bjorko), nor coerced into abondoning their alliances aimed at Berlin/Germany/Triple Alliance (see the Agadir crises).
The final step towards it becoming the only German war contingency plan, was in 1913, when it became clear that London would also not abandon its position of being the "balancer of powers/decider of wars" on the continent (after The Haldane mission), Attempts by Berlin to achieve this, were basically given up, and faced with the situation of "three enemies in war, right or wrong", all other contingency plans were shelved.
Re. the act of "encircling others", often brushed off as "nonsense", and "snowflake outrage", I suggest referring to our beloved Bible. "Do not do onto others, as one does not wish to be done onto".
Would you like to be encircled? Well...don't do it to others.
The age-old wisdom of "practicing as one preaches", does not apply to our dear leaders, as they set up the world for failure...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History will rhyme. THRICE.
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 to 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. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
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 global 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, no obligations", 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 go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paranoid090 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 tben be directed at tbe 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, pissed off 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. Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your "balancing" games on the continent....
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing you out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thetruth495 In the regards to "single state", the answer is yes.
Because "power" is a concept that goes way beyond sheer numbers of armed forces. It is a concept which embraces a much wider field, to include infrastructure, number of factories, innovation, diverse industrial base, access to raw materials, etc., etc. Something as simple a factor as "education" is an often ignored factor (note, a well-educated population, is a source of better soldiers in modern war, or the "quality vs. quantity"-debate...in WW1, "quality" won on the Eastern Front).
Notice that during WW1, despite the majority of forces initially concentrated west (Schlieffen Plan), and later the 2-front war dividing German strength, Russia first failed in "steamrolling to Berlin", as well as later on showing itself to be incapable of withstanding the better strategy/planning/training, etc. of German military (of course, in conjunction with allies, mainly A-H and Bulgaria).
Even seen as "blocks", the Dual Alliance was still considered more advanced, and having the edge vs. the Franco-Russian Military Alliance (without GB).
London/GB/Empire was nominally on the "side" of France and Russia, but what London really always fought for, was to "balance powers" on the continent.
In 1914, the fear was simply that the Schlieffen Plan could succeed and "win by Christmas", Germany create a "fait accompli", and GB would then be left out of European power politics (on the continent) altogether.
It was already foreseen that if Germany "went through Belgium", that it would most likely be a "short war", and that Germany could then win such a "short war".
That's the entire reasoning for setting up Belgium as a "tool" of grand strategy.
Of course, if Germany had not invaded Belgium, the question would then not be if GB joined the war, but when.
Had the Central Powers winning, GB would have joined Russia/France anyway (based on some or other pretext).
And...if Russia and France were winning, and it looked as if Germany/A-H might collapse? Then London would have taken measures to ensure that wouldn't happen. Yes, even join Germany, based on some or other different pretext. The only thing which would then have changed was "the narrative"...
(Evil "frogs". Remember "Fashoda"? Remember Afghanistan? Remember? Remember...the pockets of the propagandists are deeper than the ocean.)
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 London did not make binding alliances with any continental power.
It "hopped on the scale", this side or that, whichever way the wind blew. And so they hopped their way into extinction.
Germany needed a committed alliance partner, willing to offer a full alliance at eye level. As long as such an offer was not forthcoming, Berlin would wait.
@Bolivar Holstein, 1901 re. British offers.
"Wir können warten, die Zeit läuft für uns. Ein vernünftiges Abkommen mit England, d.h. ein solches, wo der beinahe sicheren Kriegsgefahr, welcher wir uns dabei aussetzen, gebührende Rechnung getragen wird, läßt sich meines Erachtens erst dann erreichen, wenn das Gefühl der Zwangslage in England allgemeiner als heute geworden ist."
Translation:
"We can wait, time is running in our favor. A sensible agreement with England, one in which the almost certain danger of war to which we are thereby exposing [ourselves] is properly taken into account, can, in my opinion, only be achieved when the feeling of the predicament in England has become more general than it is today."
Translation from:
m(dot)bpb(dot)de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/kaiserreich/139653
A wishy-wishy "maybe yes/maybe no"-fwiendship, or a few "pwomises" were not going to save Germany from a 2-front war.
Only an honest, firm, and legally binding alliance would and could guarantee that.
1
-
@bolivar2153 It was not as much the question of what London offered, but rather the suspicion of why now?.
After some 8 years (1890-1898) of trying for a treaty/alliance of sorts, suddenly London came with "an offer". Weird, just as GB was at odds with France (Sudan/Egypt/the eve of the Fashoda Crisis), London was suddenly...cough, cough..."interested in a deal".
Really? What suddenly happened to Splendid Isolation?
Furthermore, tensions with Russia were also not settled yet (Persia, the "warm water port"-narrative).
So Berlin's suspicion was warranted.
As I already stated in the other thread. They were not going to offer Germany as a "lighting rod" to attract Russia and/or French venom, should there have been a war over any of these issues.
Furthermore, certainly no non-binding "let's be best fwiends"-bs, which the "London lords" could rescind whenever it suited them.
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 "In a speech at Lewes on 26 February 1896, Viscount Goschen said "We are said to be isolated, but I say that which I know when I say that we have but to hold out our hands and our isolation will terminate, and we shall receive welcome into several groups of other Powers. . . . In the modern system of European politics we could at any moment, I believe, make such alliances as we chose . . . Our isolation is not an isolation of weakness, or of contempt for ourselves: it is deliberately chosen; the freedom to act as we choose in any circumstances that may arise.""
[From Globalsecurity]
They thought that eternally "hopping on this side of the scale, then the other", to play "balancing games", to their own advantage (imperialism) could last forever and ever.
The "London lords" thought they were in a superior geographical location, and could determine the conditions for "joining whichever alliance they wanted".
Turns out they were wrong.
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Your query in comment 2:
"The German foreign minister and, from 1900, chancellor, Bernhard, Fürst (prince) von Bülow, shared the kaiser’s and Holstein’s ambitions for world power. If, as Germany’s neo-Rankean historians proclaimed, the old European balance of power was giving way to a new world balance, [see below, my final comment] then the future would surely belong to the Anglo-Saxons (British Empire and America) and Slavs (Russian Empire) unless Germany were able to achieve its own place in the sun. Bülow agreed that “our future lies on the water.” German and British interests were simply irreconcilable. What Britain sought was German help in reducing Franco-Russian pressure on the British Empire and defending the balance of power. What Germany sought was British neutrality or cooperation while Germany expanded its own power in the world. Bülow still believed in Holstein’s “free hand” policy of playing the other powers off against each other and accordingly placed a high price on German support and invited Britain to join the Triple Alliance as a full military partner. Understandably, the British declined to underwrite Germany’s continental security."
[Britannica]
Well.
Seeing how things turned out for "Empire", one can only say "too bad they didn't".
Shall we play the "EPISODE I thru EPISODE V"-game again? LOL.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Here.
Just to remind you :-)
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
Note, that EPISODE I came about because London refused binding, mutually agreed upon treaties/alliances, on eye level, with continental powers (incl. Germany).
Your answer to EPISODE V will be (again), that you'll be there to "cheer the British Empire on it's way into ruin" (sic./Bolivar).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, but you are forgetting the background.
GB suddenly realized it had no friends.
The 2 "enemies" London was antagonizing in various parts of the world (Africa, Asia) were Germany's direct neighbors. Germany shared a common border with both Russia and France, and as the article clearly states, yes: both sides were suspicious of the other's motivations. Berlin especially so, since the self-confessed "just isolating ourselves"-lords in London were suddenly prepared to engage in a treaty, just as trouble was on the horizon, whereas for the previous 8 years they weren't.
The British formulation didn't account for Germany's precarious situation, wedged between Russia/France.
In various scenarios, the British formulation would leave Germany high and dry, should Germany become entangled in a war it did not want.
1) in case Russia provoked and attacked Austria-Hungary, after some or other event in the Balkans (in case it escalated, or Germany came to the defense of her alliance partner, London could argue that Berlin "provoked France", if France obliged to fulfill her treaty obligations to Russia)
2) see above: if Russia attacked A-H and France attacked Germany, there would be a "technically" not covered = Germany not attacked by 2 or more powers, but only 1 (in case it escalated, causing a wider war in Central Europe, again London could argue that "Germany started/provoked it").
Finally, most importantly:
3) what does the word "provoke" even mean? We discussed this before, in another thread somewhere. Does it mean a triviality, like the Ems Telegram? Or, "shooting first"? It's not defined by international law, and therefore can only lead to...ahem..."differences of opinion".
Best to leave it out completely. See the treaties "smart Bismarck" made. They didn't include such opinionated emotional clauses re. "guilt".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Uhm, no.
Nobody "had to phone Speer".
Especially not from London, rofl
Simply look at the effects war was having in the West (Nazi Germany/Italy). Simple as that.
So, no.
Don't "phone Speer" LOL
Analyze the battlefields:
Submarines are the problem? Bomb the yards.
Submarines sink thousands of merchant ships? Use the heavies (4 engined bombers) as escorts.
Rommel is being reinforced via the Med? Use heavies to bomb Italian ports.
Americans suggest "let's bomb key industries"? OK, agree to it. Bomb a few key industries, again and again.
Nazis have no oil? Bomb the few refineries they have. Again and again.
Nazi Germany uses riverways as transport? Mine them. Again and again. Always somewhere else. There are loads of navigable rivers. Not even heavy flak to worry about...
German tanks are better? Aim for the heavy industrial plants, irrelevant of whether one misses most of the times.
Germany's main source of Tungsten is Portugal? Good. Offer the Portuguese 50% more than the price Nazis pay, and buy it all up, irrelevant of if you need it or not...
I could literally go on and on.
But here is your problem.
You are simply too fixed on the premise that "everything we ever did, and everything we ever do, is ALWAYS right" (aka "argument from authority") or maybe "well, maybe we made a few LITTLE LITTLE mistakes, but my leaders were smart...blah, blah."
No they weren't.
Dumb as pigsh*t.
Subscribed to their own faulty reasoning.
And that is why they lost their "empire".
Well...Brits at least. The American Century and their commie "best fwiends" were the real winners.
1
-
@bolivar2153 You don't have to "destroy entire cities" to achieve everything you just wrote.
No, I wrote "mine the rivers".
Mine them from as low an altitude as possible, because there wouldn't be flak along thousands of miles of rivers and canals.
That would follow the logic of "searching out weak spots", rather than send men against heavily defended areas like city centers.
Yes, spread out the attacks over a large surface area, since the Axis lacked the resources to effectively defend everything they had "gobbled up" in 1939 to 1942, during the "good times" (sic.) when the Allies were weak.
They had overreached themselves in their own greed for territory, which they could now (1941/1942) not defend effectively from air attack.
When I write "again and again", of course not the same target every day. Read Speer. He criticized that the long duration between attacks gave him more than enough time to repair, carry out improvements, streamline production, etc. When I wrote "again and again" I obviously meant to bomb a target, observe it, and then bomb it again immediately if repairs are being carried out. All with smaller forces (say, 50-60 bombers), meaning that instead of one" "spectacular" attack of a 1,000 bombers, carrying out 30 attacks with 30 - 50 bombers per attack, over an extremely widely dispersed land area from Norway to the Spanish border (forcing the LW to spread their 1 million men Flak units more and more).
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 An Anson was an effective convoy escort.
Did you know that?
When an aircraft showed up, submarines dove away, meaning that in most cases they would lose contact to the convoy, or laboriously have to catch up again, massively blunting their effectivity.
But, hey.
No, not surprising that you didn't know that puny Ansons, and old outdated Swordfish made for excellent convoy escorts, which in 1940 banished the threat of U-Boat attacks where ever they operated (se the Black Gap narrative).
So would Lancs, and Halifaxes, flying (easily) hundreds of operations over the Atlantic, rather than being blown out of the sky over Germany after just a few missions.
1
-
@bolivar2153 I'm not talking about the CBO.
I'm only talking about the folly of "flattening Germany", which lead to the post war decline of GB/British Empire.
I'm fine with strategic bombing, of "valid" targets (chosen as, and defined as such by the aiming point of the attack), irrelevant of "failure" or "success".
How do you know that the decision to "flatten Germany", and therefore the majority of RAF Bomber Command sorties, "shortened the war" by >insert whatever pulled out the a** number of months<?
How can you even prove this?
Right.
You can't...
Nice try ;-)
What would have shortened the war, would have been aiming at factories, like Henshell in Kassel, in October 1943, destroying the plant, and the only Tiger Tank production in Germany.
That, and hundreds of attacks like that, would have shortened the war, decreased the misery of thousands of Allied soldiers, and hey...even Stalin would've been happy ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Your grandfather might have appreciated, or not have appreciated, or probably didn't know, the fact that he was never the intended target (aiming point) of any LW attack during the famous "Blitz".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w884E0qr8uk
Watch 11 minutes into the documentary in the link, re. the original LW bombing maps. The aiming point of these attacks were the docks, and Liverpool's casualties were "collateral", true to the word.
No one was killed (at this point, in 1940), because he/she was the intended target of an attack.
That only "started later, in reprisal, after attacks like Lübeck, Rostock, and Cologne.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because if you don't learn from history, you'll fall for the same trick again and again and again and again....
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2003 anybody? Bush and lapdog Blair?
How'd that turn out?
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
In 200 or 300 years (in case the planet still exists) analysts will view WW1 and WW2 in a completely different light, because they will no longer be emotionally attached to the specific events, and all the minor details will fade away. That means the systemic analyses will gain traction, and in the same way we analyse the 30 Years War from 1618 to 1648 (a series of worldwide conflicts as global conflagration), the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 (series of conflicts as global conflagration) and the series of wars now known as the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815 (as global conflagration), because nobody looks at these events with an emotional attachment anymore. That means the systems and strategies they employed steering these events move into the foreground, where they belong. Most people have absolutely no idea of any specifics of these wars, since they simply don't care. This will happen to WW1 and WW2 over the next few dozens of years, as the specifics fade away into the background.
WW1 was a breakout attempt out of an implemented imperialist encirclement attempt after 1900. Per definition, a "preventive war." How do we as historical analysts know for a fact that it was an encirclement strategy? Because it can be plotted on a map (1891-1894, 1904, 1907), and we therefore do not need any expertise from others. Note that during the first encirclement stage (1891-1894) Berlin was being lured by the potential of an Anglo-German Alliance, with talks. Only to be told in 1895 that London wasn't interested anymore, just after the encirclement by Russia and France was finalized. Three years later (1898), the Lords were back, asking for "alliance talks" again...
Berlin: "Yeah, right...whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Unlike George Bush, I think I got that right...
WW2 was a pre-pre-preventive war, in order to prevent the future encirclement of Germany, and the foreseeable and anticipated breakup of the Axis per wedge-diplomacy, whenever it suited London in some foreseeable future (standpoint of the mid-1930s).
London was dragging along a weakened France (after 1871) which was its "continental army" (quote: Wilhelm II) within the "divide and rule"-setup of Europe.
For a renewed total encirclement of Germany as happened before 1914, and all that was needed for that to proceed by London, was a German growth in economic power after the 1930s, as a repeat of history in the late-19th century.
---------------------------------------------------
For Asians, because Europeans are a lost cause:
To counter an outsider's attempts of creating division, as per "divide and rule"-strategy, it needs leaders with foresight who unite in times of peace, and do not try to impose themselves (systemically) over their neighbours.
"BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of common-sense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.” (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.)
A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism or the creation of enemies, but to create the power to be able to guard own interest and to secure the manifest rights of the own populations against the greed of outsiders..
It is the exact opposite.
Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elrjames7799 ...because as a British PM in those days, you had an Empire to protect.
A PM heading an Empire which refused Stalin's insidious "requests" for "an alliance", for a good reason.
Because the SU was already safe, and in no need of "an alliance." It was protected by a barrier of independent states in the west, and only had Japan to worry about. As long as Stalin did nothing, the status quo would persist...indefinitely.
Because the Limitrophe States which Stalin wanted as a precondition for such "an alliance"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was not only a wall.
Poland was not only a barrier, but also "a gate"
Should Stalin ever try to break out of the World Island he sat on, the gate would open and Nazis would come pouring in...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Should Stalin ever try to attack or eclipse western interests in China, or the Middle East, he'd get a suitable response.
He knew it, and it infuriated him...
The Limitrophe protected the British Empire, and Stalin wanted to erode it away with promises of "an alliance".
Promises of "an alliance" by Stalin? The original "fake news" :-)
Hitler was a lapdog, and he also knew it, and it infuriated him...
When Chamberlain came to Munich and put him in his place, Hitler had to bow down to a little man with an umbrella, which also doubled as "a big stick".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
Because Hitler cowered at Munich and gave in, not Chamberlain and historians have it all wrong...
Here's the thing about the deceiver.
The deceiver will always tell you "what the other side is planning" (sic.), but the deceiver will never tell what he is planning himself...
Stalin.
The great deceiver...
It seems as if in 1938 the actors played their roles, and all seem to have understood exactly where they stood.
1
-
@becoming_a_historian218 Thank you.
"Where the actors" stood of course refers to the global "divide and rule"- setup of the planet, with London as supreme divider/decider (a result of a favorable geographical location).
Hitler and Stalin BOTH set out to destroy the grip London held over continental issues, using France as an extension of their power (Mearsheimer's "buck passers/buck catchers/bloodletting war").
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States", or "barriers", to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speach" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States", or "barriers", to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speach" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 This thread is devoted to the a-holes, (<20%) pscychos, and other imperialists in London and Washington DC, who had their own imperialist policies and priorities, which were independent of anything Berlin did, because these own long-term goals came first.
If you wish to voice any criticism at the a-holes, (<20%) pscychos, and other imperialists in Berlin, write your own OP.
Here, just address the points raised in the OP, and if not, don't expect an answer if you can't stay on topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to 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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Belgium was a pretext.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
@axel usul Let's take one misconception at a time.
Firstly, history is causal.
Things seldom happen without a cause.
It is easy to confuse "cause" and "effect", or even "cause" with "correlation". Wars are a prime example.
The often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a myth.
Historians pin their flag on the date "1906", saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an attempted blockade of northern German ports by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade.
It "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
When GB joined the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of 3 navies . British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions. Not a cause but an effect of previous events. The Germans reacted to a potential threat.
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline.
"History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
German leaders responded to a threat.
Are you saying that nations are not allowed to respond to threats made against them?
Then, study the design of the German ships.
They were close range, coast defence vessels.
Now, look at worldwide naval bases. There were none.
The threat to the RN and the British Empire is the typical fear- and hate mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
1
-
1
-
Those opposing the motion lean heavily on the emotional argument that WW1 was fought "because of Belgium".
No, not "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"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 kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neither was Churchill or the other lords still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
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.
Ever since the establishment of "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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
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 otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
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."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races 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."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
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.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" 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 American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are the often-voiced "Top 4" of "Alternative History to Avoid WW1/WW2" from a British/Empire perspective:
1) we shoud have stopped Bismarck from uniting Germany, but "weany liberals" were afraid.
2) we should have steamrolled own armies to Berlin in 1918/19 and occupied Germany, but the own "weany liberals" chickened out and "stabbed our brave military (which were the inventors of Blitzkrieg btw) in the back"
3) we shoud have carved up Germany into single states again after World War 1 because they deserved it
4) we should have enforced Versailles by invading Germany while it was weak (after Hitler came to power and openly denounced Versailles, created the Luftwaffe, "in 1936", or the "unnecessary war" according to Churchill, or whatever)
What all these alternative histories have in common is the admiration of violence, thinly veiled by making suitable "appeals to emotions" to justify the own violent solutions. Each and every one of these alternatives would have been accompanied by more war, more death and tortured souls, more debt for entire nations, and the destruction of even more young lives, and even earlier "Pyrrhic Victory"...and that on the own side.
Of course, if this is then correctly pointed out, it will be suitably excused by the "it would have saved lives"-hindsight.
Strange how the side which proposes the most violent and gory "alternatives", and those whose "alternative histories" would gladly send their own historical neighbors and family members into alternative historical trenches, to face death in the worst case, and ending up shell-shocked in a less violent ending, or wasting years of their lives in muddy trenches in the best case scenario...also reserve the right to call themselves "patriots" and "the bestest Empire fans ever".
Very telling indeed...
Sad reality for the "fanboys"?
None of these four alternative histories, or any other, would have ever happened.
All of these seemingly viable alternatives are connected by a line drawn across history, based on London policies intended to create unbiased standpoints for the London lords and their habit of "playing balancing games" with the continental powers.
In a nutshell, it wasn't going to happen, never mind how plausible the alternative history sounds at first.
Whatever any alternative history fan and their favorite "historians" or politicians dream up, it wasn't going to implemented because London policies were not going to allow for it.
Note that if one suggests an alternative history, it should at least be politically viable at the time (reality of the times).
London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent, in an effort to expand and protect their Empire, and achieved exactly the opposite.
The London lords were the only European leaders steered by unwritten policies which had the intention to avoid bias, and these policies were timeless: it didn't matter which unelected "gatekeeper lords" ruled in the House of Lords/Foreign Office at any point in time.
- No permanent friends/enemies, but rather "friend" or "enemy" determined by short-term interests
- No binding treaties/alliances with any power in times of peace
- Balance out the continental powers by strengthening the weaker side in any issue (incl. war)
- Make temporary friends and align them against the strongest power/state/alliance (also in peace)
"Right" or "wrong"? The London didn't care, or they made excuses as cover up stories.
Other countries' security issues? It didn't bother London.
London had the geographical advantage in Europe for the time being, and the lords intended to use it to the fullest potential.
For London, it was all about "playing balancing games" without bothering to ask anybody, nor decide anything in a "Concert of Europe" as in the past.
1
-
In more detail concerning the "why" the alternatives listed above (or similar) had no prospect of passing the vetoes of the few lords and their "corridors of power"-logic:
1) Bismarck's unification (from the mid-19th Century) process suited the London just fine at the time, and it had nothing to do with any "liberal weakness". After France was "crashed and demoralized" by Napoleon I (Waterloo, creation of Belgium, etc.) during the Napoleonic Wars, France started rising again from this weakened state, and had to be balanced out by a suitable power. Same with Russia, which had been "taught a lesson in the Crimean War", but was an easily recognized "rising power" with vast resources, and great potential. Unfortunately with "Great Game"-ambitions directed at GB/Empire, which a powerfull Royal Navy could do little to influence in outcome (concept of "land power" vs. "sea power"). Regarding land warfare, 1812 had shown how difficult, self-destructive, and costly it was. Even to a "military genius" like Napoleon I. A preventive war against Russia, to curb Russian power or "nip it in the bud", simply wasn't possible. A united Germany, could suitably balance these two out, potentially offering London a chance to "hop onto" a "friendly Berlin" for own interests if a large continental army was needed by London for own interests. Seeing how any preventive war on Russia would have ended the same way for London/Empire, as it did for Napoleon and his "alliance of the willing", Germany was simply left to unite unopposed. Such decisions based on "balance of power"-logic were taken in "old boys" clubs.
So much for that alternative history.
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
2) This was definately not going to happen in any "alternative reality": the reality at the time was that both GB and the "associates" in the USA were isolationist. A long-term occupation of any European country, would never have been passed by either government. So that point is moot, or "wishful thinking". The USA entered the war to tip the scales in favor of the Allies, to a great extent because they wanted the many many millions back they had lent to GB and France, and once the Central Powers accepted defeat or caved in, that objective ("securing" the repayment of debt) was achieved. For Washington DC the armistice in November 1918 was "Mission Accomplished". A long-term occupation would have been unpopular with the civilian population as well, and democracies rely on public opinion. With London and Washington DC out, that leaves...France. France would have loved to occupy Germany, but London followed a policy called "Balance of Power", meaning that London would never have supported any single hegemony on the continent. Not even "temporary best fwiends" Paris. Bottom line? London was not exactly pleased about the prospect of "a future French Napoleon" threatening their Empire, whilst engaged in an active naval arms race against another rising power (the "associated" USA) equally intent on access to desirable markets. Furthermore, GB and France were already fully occupied by colonial issues and wars, and all sides were engaged in a war with the new Communist regime in Moscow, after the Russian Revolution, further binding resources.
Chances of this happening: zero.
"1918/1919 Blitzkrieg to Berlin"-fantasy status: cancelled.
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
3) In a similar way to the above reasoning, after WW1 France posed the danger of achieving a single hegemony. Note how WW1 destroyed Russia (revolution), Austria-Hungary (dissolved into single states), and Germany as "powers", and if Germany was carved up into weak single states again, then the fear was simply that some future "Napoleon" (say a "Napoleon IV", lol) would exploit this.
Sorry...another "London lord"-veto for the "fans".
After WW1 it was the own "best friend" France which had to be "balanced out", just so they don't get too strong...
Chances for this alternative history ever passing the approval of the London lords: zero
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
4) When Hitler started "making Germany great again", there was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced either, because after the communists in Moscow started growing the SU's power (started with the first 5-year plan in 1928), Germany was needed to "balance it out". London was not going to "enforce Versailles". Paris with their "Maginot mindset"-caps firmly in place would not have acted without the support of London. That makes any and every "we should done"-logic wishful thinking yet again. It was neither politically desirable (balance of power), nor would it have received support from populations which had just lost millions in a World War. A "just uniting Germans"-Hitler re-arming and unilaterally cancelling Versailles suited these "corridors of power"-London lords just fine. Those in the positions of government in London, who would have to decide "preventive war" or not, would have vetoed it.
Reality for Churchill's "most easily avoidable war, by enforcing Versailles"? Torpedoed by a few London "gatekeeper"-lords just balancing powers...
Critical question: What were the odds that Churchill already knew all of this even before he came up with his "most easily preventable war ever"-story?
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 The decision to flatten Germany, thereby destroying the Empire, was taken in London.
They just totally hot their "list of rivals/enemies" all mixed up.
After WW1, Empire had three rivals:
1) American corporatism (aka The American Century, which had their greedy eyes on British markets)
2) Communism (Who intended, as a matter of policy, to overpower all "evil capitalists", and had their eyes on the impoverished masses in the failing empires, incl. The British Empire)
3) the Fascists states aka Axis Powers
Pretty much in that order.
British leaders had the bull by the balls 😂😃
You're trying to sell a total failure as some kind of victory of sorts.
You can fool a lot of gullible minds, but not me. Like I said before: if I wanted to read fairy tales, I'll read the Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This debate is 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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
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 American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the first.
See what happens when ones leaders try to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more pig's breaksfast...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative history, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....a rather unfortunate combination of "reality" concentrated in one area vital to the British Empire.
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 22:05 mins
'...the smallest target the RAF could actually hit in 1942, was a town or a city...'
WRONG
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
http://ww2today.com/3rd-march-1942-the-rafs-largest-raid-so-far-on-paris
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers and 'enemy civilians' as the main target.
Allied soldiers died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head an think.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 What for?
Like the "London lords"-crowd you are incapable of complex 3d thinking.
I've already given you all the facts you need to come to a conclusion that it was a mistake to "target entire cities".
The "accuracy"-debate is pointless.
It didn't matter where the bombers went, it didn't substantially impact German production (see that comment).
Just like Blitzkrieg aimed at the weaker links, so should Bomber Command (see comment re. "mining rivers", or "less well-defended target like VW or Mauser").
The decision to "flatten Germany" came back back to your "lords" after the war (see my new comment under the video).
After the war, weakened and indebted GB couldn't stand up to her WW2 "best fwiends", who subsequently dislocated/arm wrestled the Empire down.
From nr. 1 to 3rd fiddle. All in your grandpa's lifetime. I bet he was born into the greatest Empire ever, the "quarter of the globe"-narrative..."sun never sets, blah, blah."
I bet when he died it looked waaaay smaller, lol.
Ever heard of "debt trap diplomacy"?
No?
This entire issue goes waaaaay over your head, because you cannot think in 3d.
Enjoy your "2d checkers"-narrative.
Reap what you sow counts for all.
Also for GB.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn The term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth (inhabitants of a state), level of education (including number of scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, political influence on neighboring states, level of industrialisation, resources within the sphere of influence, level of urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, trade outreach, and yes...soldiers, guns, weapons...
If you study how this "power" shifted in Europe throughout the century or so after the Napoleonic Wars, you'd also understand why Germany became "the rival in peace" after unification (1871) and industrialization in the 30-40 years after that.
It took over this "role" from France, who was the strongest continental power before that, and therefore London's "default rival/enemy in war" up to that point in time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn A "big war scenario" was not unavoidable.
What was fundamentally flawed was London's policy of making the strongest continental power the "rival in peacetime/enemy in war".
I'm going to write 3 comments in total, 2 of which I'm going to copy and paste from other videos, so gimme a few minutes.
Please give the logic and reasoning behind these 3 comments some thought, before answering. Thank you.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
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, or "nasty Wilhelm" 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"? (make an 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 "enemy"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn Yes, it is easy for ruler types to play "divide and rule"-games if people are different.
However, the example of the USA, composed of independent states in a union, shows that one is better prepared to address outside threats if one unites.
I would hope that the image of Europe would be "common decency" and a Constitution, and not a desire to rule others, or dominate.
On one side of the Atlantic, hundreds of thousands of men and women were sacrificed for the sake/outcome of unity...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
That left a single, dominant power in the New World, which would always unite if faced by an outside threat.
On this side of the Atlantic, millions of men and women were sacrificed in eternal wars, for the sake of division.
That eternal division left lots of "wannabe"-ruler types, and was ripe for games of divide and rule...
1
-
1
-
@GeoffV-k1h "The RAF bombed at night..."
Nothing wrong with that, to keep the enemy "busy". It is the scale which was both unnecessary and self-destructive.
The UK strength was derived from being in a lucky historically superior geographical position, which allowed London to "manage" European affairs in ways above their actual power. With "Area Bombing", London leaders chose to destroy the "balance of power", which was the source of its own global geopolitical/grand strategy strength.
In layman's terms, GB could historically "punch above their weight", due to the geographical advantage as an island, and her own strength was derived from keeping the continent divided, and her neighbors opposed to each other.
What the UK did not do after around 1900, was to balance out the rise of her rival USA, by changing her own policy towards neighbors, from that of doing her best to create disunity (an actual London historical policy standpoint), to doing her best to create unity in Europe.
That led to the own downfall.
"Area Bombing" a "power" which could have been potentially allied with post-war to boost own strength, was self-destructive, and merely a small fraction of the the entire "big picture".
Every "victory" the UK had after around 1900, was in fact simply nails in the own coffin. "Area Bombing" was one such a "nail".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh no no no... it was certainly "justifiable".
Asking whether something was "justifiable" while there was a war going on, sets the wrong precedent...
But, was it *wise*?
All the while the Allies were wasting their time and money bombing Germany, in the single most expensive undertaking of the war, Stalin was laughing his arse off.
While Churchill was elaborating how cities were flattened, and "soft underbellies" were invaded, Stalin was using ground forces to actually create a new status quo in Europe.
Too bad.
The war was over.
GB was bankrupt, still munching on war rations long into the 1950s, lost their precious Empire, defaulted on their debts, and by 1948 couldn't even handle a little snowstorm.
400 years of empire building wasted in one lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr. 1 in "ruling the world" (1900), to "3rd fiddle" and US debt slave in 1945.
Ah well. Reap what you sow...
Stalin knew that every outrageously expensive Lanc was "4 tanks" (4 Merlin engines), and ONLY ground forces created facts.
Wonder why he was smiling all the time...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 Loop back to my first comment.
The main benefactor of GB and Empire financially ruining itself, was Stalin and communism. Followed by the USA.
GB should have declared war in 1939, then stood on the sidelines while Nazis and commies slug it out, aiding whoever seemed to be losing just enough not to collapse.
That way, the Eastern Front would have stablized somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea in 1943/44, and the western Allies could have captured all of western and central Europe, and the Balkans.
Imagine those commie crooks post-war without German scientist, rocket technology, advanced radar, nerve gas and all the other technology they captured in their drive into central Europe...
In 1941, we owned Stalin and his criminal regime NOTHING.
Not a single Pound and not a single drop of blood.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a dumb slogan, beause once the common enemy is defeated, you're still stuck with an enemy, aren't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 "Britain dropped 48% of the bombs dropped on the german oil industry..."
Good, you are finally getting my point...
"...and created the 2nd Tactical Air Force for close air support ."
That is the "close support" I've already mentioned.
Like I said, the ONLY worthwhile forms of use of bombing was key industry (an obvious choice for WW2 being oil), interdiction, and close air support.
..
Every bomb intentionally aimed at a city center was a wasted effort, and the Bomber Command men who died doing so sacrificed in vain, since it did NOTHING to hasten the end of the war.
It did a lot to hasten the end of Empire (financial ruin), but nothing to end WW2.
Stalin, YOUR hero herding "women and kids" into Gulags, said "thank you very much", and after WW2 kept on fighting your Empire.
Well, who would have guessed that a bank robber and mass murderer would go back on his deals...
1
-
1
-
China Russia Everyone is guilty....
Today, in the USA, there are two well-meaning policies which have been turned into tools of racism.
One is the War on Drugs, and the "tough approach".
The other is the Plea Bargaining system.
Both have been utterly corrupted into tools of racism.
The first even to the point of claims that Nixon intentionally "started it" in order to fight his political opponents, blacks and "hippies" (aka hippies as "progressives"). He and his advisers knew that these predominantly smoked pot, and if "rounded up" could not vote against him...."clever" as fans of fascism would say...
The other being the wide scale use of plea bargains to intimidate innocent people (hint, hint...mostly young blacks profiled as a result of the War on Drugs, see above) into accepting a lower sentence, by counselling them that fighting for justice might result in losing, and a higher sentence...
Again..as fascist would say...veeeery smart.
Two butterflies with one swat.
In 'Murica, you can have your cake and eat it: be a fascist, a rascist...and easily and plausibly blame victims.
What that has to do with Germany of the 1930s?
It was the same thing. In the early-1930s commie hordes stormed through the streets of Germany...let's call them...ahem...."Antifa"...lol
Those who opposed them were the "good guys", let's call them Proud Boys or whatever...lol
By 1939, all the Germans saw was safe streets, and "commies" who just happened to be Jews, in Guantanamo.
Same as today, as Americans see all those criminal blacks ...cough, cough...."getting what they deserve.
ROTFL
Why are you criticising the Germans?
Even the Bible says "take the plank from your own eyes first".
Where do you live, my dear schoolboy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie (by omitting) about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 It's not about accuracy.
It's about choosing the right targets.
Here, the USAAF emphasis on a few key industries was spot on.
Oil.
Infrastructure.
Hit again and again, that did have an impact and contributed greatly.
Not even a "hindsight"-argument, but given Europe's lack of raw materials (making mass production illusionary), also a no-brainer.
Why do you think the Germans didn't try to build a million trucks or "25,000 Panzer IV's rather that 2,000 Tigers"? (a typical rhetoric used by uninformed historians, and parrotted by uniformed kids)
Correct answer.
Because if they had built a million trucks they would only have had tires for 200,000 (no rubber)...and if they had built 25,000 Panzer IV's they would have needed to pull them around on the battlefield with horses (no oil).
Logical conclusion?
Don't bother building 1,000,000 trucks, and if you have little fuel and fewer soldiers would you rather see them in a Tiger or a Panzer IV?
Yeah.
Kinda "no brainers".
But hey.
I bet you thought the Germans were too stupid to figure out how mass-construction worked...
No, they weren't.
The autarky measures of the 1930's forbade the use of imported material in all armaments, meaning that quality was going to be given priority over quantity as a production philosophy.
All a result of a lack of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 You are not reading what I write.
I've written the following several times.
GB (London lords) got two chances to save their Empire (and as an added benefit, save European dominance in world affairs.
First chance to change the own "attitude problem" of trying to (strategy) "divide the opposition", was "around 1900", and the second chance after WW1 proved the futility of their own strategy of trying to "balance out" the continental powers.
All London should have done was follow the logic of the old master Sun Tzu, by creating an overpowering mutually beneficial hegemony in Europe, which could then have stood up to the American Century (economy).
With Versailles Washington DC had already got their "foot into the door" of European affairs. Like in the movies of that "persistent saleman" who puts his foot in the door to stop you from closing it :-)
Who let the "salesman" in?
By the time Hitler came along, it was too late for that. Breaking Munich prooved that he was not only a despicable man, but also a liar who couldn't be trusted. Same with all the other opportunists and despots Europe had created, by trying to lock others out of potential success (not only Versailles, but Saint Germaine, Triannon, etc.)
When the time came to oppose Hitler, nobody was willing to unite against Germany, because Hitler had been giving "leverage", and was always going to be in a position to make better "offers" to the losers of the post-WW1 reshuffling...
And Stalin?
No.
His "offers" for alliances were fake. Stalin had no intention of honoring whatever "deal" he could have (potwntially) signed with GB/France for so-called "peace", and the Churchillian version of history is plain wrong. That was simply political populism on the part of Churchill for political (own carreer) gain, since he was an outsider trying get back in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why bother?
You don't admit the reality at the time, meaning that like London in drew the wrong conclusion in 1941/42, you are still drawing the wrong conclusion today.
If one doesn't accept reality, one won't accept that a mistake was made.
There were not "2 sides" but rather several conflicting agendas.
Even in war, as well as during peace, "a side" doesn't exist, irrelevant of what the "history books" tell us.
Reality? There were "3 sides" on the "side" of the so-called "Allies" alone.
That makes a large part of all your comments comment re. "sides" a "false premise" (please google false premise" in case you're not familiar with the concept).
Sad reality?
In WW2 there were three "sides" on the "side" of the "winners" alone, and who would really win would be decided after the war, by boring men in boring back rooms making "deals".
No leverage = your "side" would lose.
"Area bombing" Germany out of existence would have 2 "winners" only.
The American Century.
Communism.
The British Empire in the form of "London", which advocated it, would not be one of the "winners" of it's own strategy of "flattening entire cities", when the war was over, despite what all the emotional argumentation wishes to claim.
Before the USA joined the war (not clear before 1941) London's aim should have been to at least keep the "on par" position it still had in the 1930's with the USA.
After the USA joined WW2 it was not about remaining "on par", but at least becoming the number 2 on the world stage.
By foolishly and unneccessarily "allying with the devil" (chest thump, chest thump...look at me....how "cool") London made sure it would be "third fiddle" and a Washington junior partner when the war was over.
London foolishly defied Biblical logic (and more down to earth strategy), and lost their Empire.
Don't for a minute try to claim that that was intentional, or "part of the (London) scheme".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Seeabove re. "strategy".
Here follows the point "implementation":
Firstly, I'd like to stress that "suggesting an alternative timeline" for the war isn't possible. Few things are as unpredictable as war. Therefore, I prefer to suggest an alternative grand strategy, based on the obvious reality that something went wrong in early-1942. Not morally, but a predictably entirely false premise.
Secondly I suggest not resorting to simplistic hindsight arguments like "we should have nuked Moscow in 1945". Obviously, in 1942 nobody could make such predictions, so I will stick to information available to the decision makers at the time they took these decisions.
So in this "alternative history", most major events up to early-1942 remain about the same. Up to the point the decisions were made (Area Bombing Directives) to devote most of the RAF Bomber Command effort towards the outrageously expensive and resources consuming Area Bombing of entire cities.
Irrelevant of the many "advantages" pointed out by Bomber Command fans, of which many are easily countered fallacies or misdirection, Area Bombing was folly from the outset (see all my other comments relating to this).
So why was that choice wrong?
In a nutshell.
The choice to "flatten Germany" was a geopolitical mistake, because in the past GB/Empire had actually been "set up" to be protected in Europe, by "balancing powers". Therefore, destroying a power, or several powers, or permanently dissing them, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be exploited to overpower London/GB/Empire.
It was the fact that powers were balanced, which gave London more leverage than the weight of its economy or population numbers justified. In the same way that nukes today give a country political leverage today, London used the "balanced powers" on the continent to make up for its lack of overall population, GDP, etc. on a global sscale.
Re. the reality of the big picture re. the world justvas a reminder:
GB had three rivals, not one (see initial comment).
1) US Corporatism which was after Empire's juicy markets
2) Communism (intent on overpowering all empires, and capitalist societies
3) Fascism (various national agendas as determined by the authoritarian leaders of the seperate countries).
Keeping this in mind, and of course not knowing that the USA would join the war in 1941, we therefore have first start off in June 1941, on the assumption that the USA would not join the war (no hindsight).
Answer: For 1941 remain benevolently neutral, favoring the SU, but without making any political compromises. Concentrate on protecting own possessions (North Africa/Battle of the Atlantic/etc.).
As this alternative war progressed (note the assumed "USA not joining") stay out and let the two "slug it out".
Strategy = do not needlessly expand the war binding more own resources/forces, and make sure by all means that no side wins. An example of not wasting own energy/resources on sidelines, would be not invading Persia for example.
Further example of how this looked like in practice: deliver defensive arms to the SU, no excessive bombing of German industry (except construction yards, a few pinprick attacks to gain experience, and military bases).
In early-1942 that changed of course.
Keep the above the same, and follow the US suggestion to focus on a few key industries (esp. oil). Note the added advantage: this would preserve crucial British/British Empire resources (mainly financial) to be able to stand up to the American Century after the war was over....yes. Let's be as positive as Churchill, who realized that with the USA's entry, there was no way the Axis powers were going to win, despite the many to be expected setbacks.
As far as propaganda re. "all Germans are Nazis", was concerned: Focus on emphasizing that it is known that not all Germans would be considered Nazis, and not all Axis countries as collectively evil. Spread the word that "freedom, liberty, democracy" is the main goal, and all defectors would be welcomed.
Then either 1944 or 1945, D-Day.
Focus on getting to Berlin asap, "shoot Hitler like a snake", as well as every Nazi in sight, gather in as many volunteers from the liberated nations (incl. Germans minus their leadership), and get as far east as possible asap. Liberating Warsaw, Prague, Budapest...
At around this point (after a successful D-Day and entry into Germany), make Stalin a demarcation line offer, while his forces were still being battered to bits (by the "88mm guns not removed from the Eastern Front" 😉) somewhere between the Baltic and the Black Sea.
Without the substantial Lend-Lease focussed on logistics, every Soviet advance would have been followed by long lulls as supplies had to be carted forward mainly by foot or horse.
In the face of mounting losses and little gain, Stalin would not have had many alternatives. Even the "Stalin would have joined the Nazis if we hadn't made him an ally-argument is fallacious. Yes, he would have, but that didn't depend on Stalin, but on the Axis Powers. Stalin was a sellout and crooked turncoat, and would have changed sides anyway irrelevant of whether he was a full ally (with a pocket full of US/British promises) or just a co-belligerent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"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." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
1
-
1
-
@willleahy6958 The Westphalian Principles regarding state sovereignty, in a nutshell deals with the internal affairs of a state.
State sovereighnty is defined as: "Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations."
In a nutshell, a "right to choose".
A state is completely in charge of own external and internal affairs, and nobody has a right to interfere.
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
The "alpha" (USA) graciously "allows" the "betas" like the Ukraine to determine world affairs with "own choice".
The alpha has absolutely no say in matters, once a "little beta" country decides they should be signed up.
The tail wags the dog.
Everybody knows the world works that way.
The caretaker forces the CEO what to do even it leads to the end of the company. Parents dance to the tune of their kids so they can eat chocolates all day. The dog tells his master to obey, and so on.
The Ukriane can simply order the USA to "sign them up", and Washington DC can do absolutely nothing about it, because that's what Kiev wants.
That is all simply normal...
Today one often sees the "...but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice..."-rhetoric being repeated over and over and over again.
It is tomorrow's "history", already written in advance.
Maybe on clay tablets, but who cares?
Everybody says so, so it must be true, and there are absolutely no alternatives.
When it comes to the advanced planning on "where to point fingers", there is never a choice.
The answer to the rhetoric?
True.
Whoever said the Ukraine didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
1
-
1
-
History repeating
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
India is the West's "favorite son", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
You can expect the "promisers" like Blinken to arrive one after the other, with their fake smiles, and tell you how much they "value" you...and other eternal vague and meaningless "promises".
What THEY want, is to set up neighbors against each other, so they can step in to gain post event.
1
-
WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
The "three frontlines" mentioned in grand strategy, to encroach and encircle a rival power, is history rhyming after 1900 and after 2000.
Around the year 1900, the "three frontlines" in times of peace were:
- eastern frontline (Russia, with France 1891-1894)
- western frontline (France, with Russia or the "2-front war danger" for the multi-lingual/multi-ethnic "encircled", 1891 - 1894)
- the North Sea and global oceans (1907, as the British Empire aligned with the encirclers)
USA: on the "fence", just "eating popcorn"...
1
-
A very emotional argument, which is why nations need leaders who unemotionally judge reality, and base decisions on logic and reason...
"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.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
[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.
Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "job".
It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"...
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...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Totally beside the point....
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
1
-
The bomber stream tactic was a great success in ironing out the flaws inherent in warfare.
What to do about the large number of rookies, and the large number of 'average blokes', who tried their best, but were just no up to the standard?
The answer was to use the best and most experienced crews as pathfinders, and to direct the vast majority of the average blokes and rookies to bomb whatever had been marked by the pathfinders.
Actually, that is a bit a a no-brainer, since that was exactly what the Luftwaffe was already doing during the Coventry raid (X- and Y-Bomb aiming guidance)
Now, all that would be needed was wise leadership to give the order to 'mark' the correct target.
A target which would aid the ground soldiers fighting on the front lines, without having to go the detour of "removing 88-mm guns from the front lines...'
WTF? Instead of merely removing the 88-mm guns from the front lines, why not simply destroy the factories where they are being built, using said tactics.
In steps the British leadership, with a new idea....
Let's bomb city centers, and kill women and kiddies....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Look at some statistics.
Almanacs with information on mining indexes were not a secret pre-war, but indeed publicly available. That these figures wouldn't drastically rise during war, another nobrainer.
No, central Europe didn't have nearly as much oil as the rest of the world (Romania, Galicia, and little bits scattered here and there).
That wasn't a secret.
That Europe didn't have raw materials (other than coal and iron ore) was no secret either.
But. You can't make a tank or and aircraft from "iron ore".
For high-grade steels and alloys one needs chromium, nickel, manganese, tungsten, etc.
Also very little available in Europe.
Oil was just one aspect.
Even if one can make oil from coal, the amount would always be limited, and allied leaders knew this too.
It wasn't the bombing which limited German production.
It was a lack of raw materials.
That was also known at the time.
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 What happens if you are an a-hole?
Correct answer: At some point a bigger a-hole will come along and screw you over.
Brits thought they were sooooo clever...
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister.
[laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
That is how they "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
Right though to today, the lords are laughing at your apologia for their failure...
They wanted to play divide and rule with the continental powers, and in the end became a tool of Washington DC, and lost the Empire.
Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was a scrap of paper.
Awww.
No nukes for "best fwiends" 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC made a pig's breakfast out of British markets.
But...lemme guess: That was London's plan all along, right? 😆😅
To lose Empire was all part of the "great divide and rule scheme", right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubiruski8067 The Fnglish were simply replaced by the F'muricans at the end of WW2.
Now they are playing the same games with lives on the continent.
Their "means" are lots of "appeal to emotion", like in the comments section.
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
GB is no longer part of the "Three Musketeers" of Europe, so now it is up to France and Germany to get together and chuck the USA out, and create an own strong United States of Europe. My suggestion: Seperate economic issues completely (EU as a "pure" unemotional economic union), and then to start bundling political issues under a new umbrella called "The United States of Europe" to take the emotional flak off the EU.
The "EU" should only deal with economic issues, not political ones. All social and local issues should only be an internal concern of the nations and states, not outside meddlers. Political issues are a perfect target for outside "dividers", with their "divide and rule"-agendas.
Mr Spinoza again, speaking from the grave: "Reason cannot defeat emotion; an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion."
Will this ever happen?
Probably at some point. But not soon.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
@bubiruski8067 From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to NOTHING.*
Errrr...shouldn't our leaders have considered what they were going to do (considering the danger of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction), before the guns started firing?
What is the pattern here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
rotflmao
[britannica(com)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."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 My comments are not about what each government did.
I know (and the leaders past and present also know this) that most people look at what happens, but not at what does not happen.
It's an old psychological trick.
Something happens, and the "bystanders" shout "I didn't do anything".
That is exactly my point.
It isn't only about what the various governments did, but also about what they didn't do, even if they should/could have without negative effects.
Despite everything the British government ministers did, no doubt the overwhelming majority were well-meaning in their efforts, here's what they didn't do: they didn't declare neutrality in the war between A-H and Serbia, along the guidelines set by The Hague for exactly these circumstances.
(note, I'm not saying they legally had to, but that they should have to spare the own population).
Note also that such a neutrality could have incl.any condition London wished to place on the warring parties (no tied hands as long as conditions are met).
Similarly when Berlin declared war on France/Russia, GB did not feel obliged to "stand by her alliance partners".
Why not?
Obviously, because GB did not have to:
There was nothing in the ententes agreements that was binding.
So London didn't declare war on Germany.
Since Russia mobilized, that was a serious oversight. GB "owed" Russia and France nothing, which was also the obvious and clear intention which London signalled.
The continental war soon to start had nothing to do with the alliance system (Ententes).
So far so good.
Re. the "soon to break out" war between Germany. France, and Russia.
London should then have declared their neutrality, stating the unbiased conditions for such a declaration. That could also have incl. clauses (amongst others) to "honor the neutrality of non-waring parties" (or similar formulations).
Note here: bringing up the "Blank Cheque" isn't a valid point, since the only thing revealed is that Berlin stated it would support Vienna in it's pursuit of justice for the assassination. Berlin's unlimited support for Vienna was not known at the time.
That is therefore "hindsight".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apparently the London lords were too dumb to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to 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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
ROTFL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCTMBXR0KhdGj5MHdzwaQ3fQ No.
Disagreed with your final paragraph.
I said the lords in London "played balancing games" with the continental powers. That was the "attitude problem", and what I also wrote elsewhere before (History Room Channel, Kaiser Wilhelm video, in great detail).
It should also have been dumped around 1900.
There was never a "Pax Britannica" back then, same as there wasn't a "Pax Americana" after WW2, not today.
In both cases, just men with an "empire attitude problem" pretending to be honest brokers, while in reality heavily biased, mainly "in it" for themselves, or for own gain (sometimes personal gain ie vested interests being "sold" to the gullible as "national interests").
A United Europe plus Japan could have stood up to the USA/American Century.
On the same topic: why do you think the failing American Century is trying to carve up the EU, "devide and rule"-style?
Irrelevant of the changing times, or whether it's "lords" of yesterday or today's "boardroom dweller"-types: they play the same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 You'd have to find evidence for such a theory.
Germany building a navy was the causal effect of the alliance systems (see also my comments under the Wilhelm video).
In a nutshell: At first the construction of German ships started after Russia and France United.
Later, as Britain claimed that her disintest in continental affairs was "Splendid Isolation" and not directed at anybody in particular (but in view of London historically "hopping around" in temporary alliances), meant that as long as London refused any kind of deal with Berlin (say, the 1890's), Berlin would have to count her in as a potential enemy in any continental war, irrelevant of "who started it".
As long as London refused any treaty, or even neutrality in continental wars, and with the habit of (by own admittance ) "always allying against the stronger power, indifferent as to whom".
That was the "London attitude problem" that Berlin was faced with after it became the continent's strongest single state, and also in the strongest continental alliance (still 1890's).
Berlin could not simply "dump" Austria-Hungary (thereby weakening its power, and thereby becoming "attractive/submissive" to/for London) simply to appease the London lords. Berlin had no other "natural" alliance partner.
As long as London stuck to her "habit" of "hopping around" making "temporary friends" (temporaty mutual gain) creating "temporary short-term alliances", Germany had to build a navy to protect her shores (cause and effect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 I don't approve of militarism.
I'll redirect the discussion to the big picture.
Unfortunately, the London lords did not understand how balancing powers works.
FROM BRITTANICA
"Balance of power, in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances."
At the end of the 19th (let's say "around 1900") there was one chance left to save the Empire.
Unfortunately, the London lords underestimated the gravity of the situation, and made the wrong friends.
They thought that they could "snuggle up" to a predatory lender which had shown up to that point in time what it thought about the "rights" of the "little nations" of North America, and London would subsequently be manoeuvres into a position of "indentured servitute", losing its "house" to "foreclosure".
Whoever told you that what counts in the micro level, doesn't also count on the macro level?
American Century: "Sowwie....I didden know that markets and trade were the cornerstone of your proud global Empire... sowwiiieee....weally ...." 😆😅
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why a British and French war on Germany, or even a "little deal" with Stalin in 1938 wasn't possible, lies in the events at the end of WW1.
Both Poland (google the Polish Russian War of 1920) and Romania (Moldavia) occupied or had annexed territory which once belonged to Moscow's sphere of influence.
In 1938, this was simply the reality "on the ground", so to speak.
If GB or France had signed a deal with Stalin (in an effort try scare Hitler off from attacking Czechoslovakia), it would have played directly into the fascists' hands...
Since all of Central Europe was guaranteed by London and Paris ("Little Entente"),and the leaders here had even gotten the faintest notion that they were going to be "sold off", they would have allied with the new alpha-males on the block....Berlin-Rome (in order to secure their interests).
In other words, a deal with Stalin was only possible at the expense of losing Poland and the (already brittle) Little Entente nations.
Furthermore, if GB and France had made a deal with Moscow, Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia or bullied it into submission anyway, and in case of a British/French declaration of war, Hitler would also have attacked Gibraltar with the Legion Condor...
As the events of 1939 had shown, all of this would have been accomplished before the French had even put their pants on :-)
Stalin off course, would have done nothing, because his real aim was to cause a destabilization of the European order...
Both Hitler AND Stalin were playing the sick game of 'divide and rule/conquer', and the reason this was even possible lies in the events directly following WW1: Versailles, Trianon, Polish and Czech arrogance of power, little beta-males, stomping around Central Europe....
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary), has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
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.
Footnotes:
***only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair, or such systems lacking "power" of any global reach...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bomber "they sowed the wind" Harris
...was up against...
Reality "they ruined the British Empire" Bites...
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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather let them fight over there", after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "gweat idea" to fund others "fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them over here", and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "annecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world (see below, Wesphalian Principles), and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or in absence of evidence, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue. He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
@DrStrangelove-w9w Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: '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. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
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 (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed 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?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
@adrianvalentin69 There is no need to feel sorry for anybody.
As Tolkien said, "they were all of them deceived...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Your "dear lords" misused "little nations" for far too long, and got away with it for far too long.
Because of being an island nation (geography), you got away with it far too long.
But here's what your "dear lords" didn't notice: The geograpical advantage they enjoyed for 200 years passed over to the USA around 1900.
But they didn't adapt their strategies, so they died.
They played the same old "game" as they did for 200 years, and in 1945 The American Century said: GAME OVER
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative istory, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Yup.
Bombsa away, then "Good riddance".
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, chemical engineers, nuclear scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dozens of factories dismantled and taken east, machine tools, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Our dear leaders gave the commies 100 million minions in Europe, and another 500 million in Asia...
Stalin said "thank you so very much for all this innovation and technology", and would use it to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight his "commie dream world" in the other half...
Winston Churchill to Stalin: "Let's sign a PERCENTAGES AGREEMENT, and share Europe...."
Cute Uncle Joe Stalin: "Here's Greece, I'll take the rest 100%, including your fwiends Poland. Got nukes? No? Got powerful allies? No?
Got a powerful continental power to hop onto as you've done throughout history to save your Empire? No? Well $%# off then".
Commies chuckling in unison: "Whadda ya gonna do about it? Want a tissue?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Read the thesis again.
For example the part of how the British government "underpaid" the true cost of the bombers themselves by subsidizing parts and equipment.
That then results in "hidden costs" which are financially booked elsewhere, but ended up in debt anyway.
The entire "resources wasted" part of the debate cannot be put down in a simple "Pound figure", which is why I wrote "third to half of the British war effort" (note, not Empire's war effort).
Even it it were "only" 10% it will still be a waste, because it contributed almost nothing to winning.
Why?
Because not a single "benefit" of flattening an entire city and maybe sometimes damaging/destroying/delaying a German factory as "collateral damage" that could not also have been achieved with 50 or 60 Mosquitoes at a fraction of the cost/manpower/crew losses/war effort (fuel, bombs, air bases, etc., etc., etc.).
Too bad you're not willing to understand, and make excuses for these pathetic "Lord types" because you've been convinced by "patriots" that everybody who tells you this "hates GB" or is a "wehraboo", or whatever...
Nope.
None of that.
GB was lead by a bunch of dumb "Lord types" who ruined what 400 years of Empire-building had achieved.
Read the thesis again, and try to gain an insight into the concept of "wasteful".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the resources (note, the term "resources" is not restricted to "finances" alone), of the British Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort (a different concept yet again), was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German and other Axis industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks on the ground created facts. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, nuclear scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dozens of factories dismantled and taken east, machine tools, innovation, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
Winston Churchill: "Let's sign a PERCENTAGES AGREEMENT to share the Balkans, and introduce "democwacy" to share eastern Europe...."
Cute Uncle Joe Stalin: "Here's Greece, I'll take the rest 100%, including your fwiends Poland. Got nukes? [**see footnote] No? Got powerful allies? No? Well bugger off then."
Commies in Moscow: "Lose our gains with democracy? LOL. It's ours. Whadda ya gonna do about it? Want a tissue?"
1
-
Aww well
Deals are a "scrap of paper" if one doesn't have the leverage to ensure that signatures are also honored...
"Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information.
In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [a codeword for nuclear technology] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[From atomicheritage]
Truman: "If you want to build a bomb, develop it yourself. Thanks for your assistance btw. I'll tear up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?" (smirks smugly)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
1
-
It far worse than this.
This is just a minute pixel within the entire messed-up big picture...
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
Think it through, and my appeal to you: do not become their "dumb, stupid, animal" they can order around, so they can get filthy rich themselves.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"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]
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 most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends".
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".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
Wrong question.
British historians should rather answer the question why London "set up" Belgium as a "tool" to incite outrage in a new age when volunteers would have to come forward to defend the Empire.
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@becoming_a_historian218 Hitler had gained command of Germany by using the age-old technique of "divide and rule/conquer" on the primitive and weak system of German democracy which replaced the strong and centered system of monarchy per decree (Versailles) in 1918. Obviously, had a monarch still been in charge, any "Hitler"-type would have been kicked back into their rural backwaters, since power was focussed and on the lookout for such "rebels".
After having gained power by using "divide and rule", the Nazi were of course on the lookout for it being repeated after Versialles (Versailles, was of course simply a "divide and rule" policy, disguised as a "peace conference").
One of the signature moves of the "divide and rule"-system, is to set up mutiple opposing systems, often with overlapping competancies (can be easily "excused" as "furthering positive competitiveness").
When Chamberlain arrived in Munich, with the voiced intention to seek mutually agreeable solution for the "Czechoslovakian issue" (steered by the Nazi as "uprising"), Hitler instinctively recognized the London "divide and rule" setup in progress.
At Versailles, multiple "sytems" had been created, with random borders aimed to "give peace a chance", but with enough historical grievances built in to create a "fracture zone" of potential strife between Western Europe and the SU (search fot the concept of the "barrier state" or Limitrophe States).
In 1938, when Chamberlain arrived, with efforts to "manage/moderate/steer" the course of history, Hitler recognized the implementation of "divide and rule".
1
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
Stalin on the 19th August 1939, reported by meeting participants: "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
So our leaders sacrificed untold scores of own soldiers, own resources, own empires, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME, and hundreds of proxy wars from Central America to Africa. Thousands of more body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help innocent and cute Uncle Joe Stalin", if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any.
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal, must have jizzed his pants in fond recollection.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course 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 mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
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
-
1
-
1
-
Chamberlain did the right thing.
Postpone the almost inevitable war for as long as possible.
Unfortunately, although declared wisely, it was implemented unwisely...
Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "friends"?
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thethirdman225 Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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.
Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" 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 American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
@thethirdman225 Too late if "conservatism rules", delaying timely changes for too long.
That is why I always write that the London lords had 2 chances to save the Empire and GB's position in the world.
First chance was the turn of the century (around 1900), second after WW1.
After that, it was too late.
Too bad.
Own bad choices.
Yes, I know "the narrative".
It sounds pretty much the same as "the narrative" promoted by the new alpha today, and why The American Century is going down and will fail.
All too predictable because it's history repeating itself, and Washington will go down the same way that London once did.
That's what happens when conservatism rules, because conservatism is a bias. If one doesn't adapt to changing times one will die. Being powerfull might delay death, but only pulling the helm around ("timely changes") will stop it from happening.
My prediction? They won't because they "won" the last Cold War, so they will instigate the next one, hoping for a similar outcome (conservatism = doing things as we've always done them).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bw6524 You do wrong, you "reap" wrongs.
Biblical logic.
It counts for all, not only "bad guys".
London went to war twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
And so, they "hopped" their way into extinction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Not at all.
Simply the logic that some mistakes are not relevant to the point being made, therefore not "countering" anything.
I pointed out that the OP was (provably) wrong.
B W stating that I got a fact wrong, does not affect the conclusion, which is that the OP is still wrong.
The RAF could hit small targets, if they aimed at them, with satisfactory precision (for the time/state of technology).
All that was needed was a policy directing the attacks on valid targets, which would have made a true impact on the war effort, whilst at the same saving some energy for the vital post-war peace negotiating position.
Instead, British resources were wasted away on creating rubble, weakening Central Europe/Germany, which was later not available to "hop onto" to save the British Empire.
Now that was just too bad.
But I guess that's what happens in "amateur hour"...
Sort of like smashing the aircon, then wondering why the heat gets unbearable :-D
"The heat" was after the guns stopped shooting, and London no longer had the power/leverage to impose decisions which could have saved Empire.
Political influence, spheres of influence, markets, and all that boring stuff you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Ahh...the old truism that those shouting "educate yourself" means that its usually projection, and that they need the "education" themselves.
"A limited war is one in which the belligerents do not expend all of the resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise in a specific conflict. This may be to preserve those resources for other purposes, or because it might be more difficult for the participants to use all of an area's resources rather than part of them. Limited war is the opposite concept to total war."
Of course, Stalin knew of the London lords' affinity for "total war", and he also intended to "make the war last as long as possible".
Didn't you know that?
Didn't you know that he intended to "make the war last as long as possible, with a benevolent neutrality (while the "at war"-powers slugged each other to a point of total exhaustion) by circumventing the Royal Navy's blockade by supplying the Nazi with key resources, and food?
Didn't you know any of this?
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative istory, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Destroying "city centers" does not significantly impact a war effort.
As a general truth for any country, in war or in peace, "production" as a factor is mainly limited by 3 factors:
1) availability of raw materials
2) availability of labour
3) finance (including the finance of the production sites, like factories and yards)
During times of war, number 3 can be largely ignored, because the situation of a war means that governments can introduce extraordinary measures. Or, to put it another way: the fact that no country at war has ever lost a war because they went bankrupt.
That leaves 1) and 2).
Re. Germany (and their Axis partners) the sphere of interest they had gobbled up in the rapid victories in 1939-41 (basically the continent of Europe) lacked vital key resources, meaning that "production" was automatically limited by a lack of raw materials, especially oil.
Conclusion: The strategic bombing effort as means to inhibit Germany's production was justified, as long as a few key industries/sectors were hit, and these "factories and yards" were taken out.
Trying to "Area Bomb" Germany into submission was folly from the outset, and a waste of British resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrysmith9362 To set up the self-reinforcing process of "priming" and "conditioning" of "the masses" which needed to turned against each other, the means of literature was created. As more people became literate, and as print became cheaper and cheaper (reaching larger and larger parts of the population as time passed), and the evolving liberty meant that a ruler could not simply go into a village and say "you, you, you, grab your pitchfork, there is a war going on" as time progressed (say, the 19th century),
Today this process of "priming/conditioning" of the (mostly) young and inexperienced, is well-known when it became public how the Pentagon funds Hollywood movies which depict "certain people" as enemies.
Of course, had Rambo and movies existed in the late 19th Century, he would've "fought Injuns", but it just so happens that he "fought commies" (Cold War) together with "our best fwiends the Muslims". Also movies with lotsa "Mexican looking types" (War on Drugs)...
No coincidence, of course.
Nothing new of course either, nor is it "conspiracy theory"-nonsense, since the process is self-reinforcing. If it sells (popularism), it will get copied. It is not necessarilly "steered" by dark-hooded figures in "back rooms"...
In GB this process of "priming" and "conditioning" in the form of "Invasion scare literature" (a term which can be googled for more info) against the Germans started almost the same time as they united (1871) and took over the role of "most likely to achieve continental hegemony" from France. Before that, "the Germans" were "best fwiends" of course.
Context?
See below....
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, they chose "more than the measure."
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 their power.)
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 does not care about the "why".
The conflagration unfolding after 1900 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 as imperialist war/conflagration of interests 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 defined term, and 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. 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: "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. 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, as they (quote Ricky Gervais) "kicked their friends in the (economic) bollocks" but the friends couldn't kick back...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kaiserbill99 I stick to definitions.
Not "snowflake feelings" and fairy tales about "empires pwotecting poor people" sniff sniff....
“Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” ― Otto von Bismarck
Bismarck never intended to wage a "preventive war".
Obviously, it points at the failure of own politics, leading up to that point in time when that "fear" sets in, which then needed to be "prevented with suicide"...
World War 1 and World War 2 were preventive wars of course (according to the definition), declared by London in efforts to protect their own "Empire", and just like Bismarck predicted, ended in its own "suicide".
Or, in other words, if it gets to the point where one has to contemplate a "preventive war", it's obviously already too late to avoid a calamity, on a wider scale, which would drag all into ruin, even the "winners". Both "world" wars were started by London, by declaration, as attempts to protect from a potential threat (not necessarily a real threat, just "potential") to the British Empire.
Historians have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time they were declared, not in hindsight.
Easy for WW2.
But WW1 is controversial, and if something is controversial, there is a justified reason why it is.
WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1.
Unlike WW1, which was entirely and easily avoidable because nobody really wanted it, WW2 was sadly unavoidable, therefore unpreventable by anybody, because both Hitler and Stalin wanted it. Note. Both.
Bismarck, realized it would be futile to try and achieve a really deep and lasting mutually beneficial agreement/treaty/accord with London, whilst the "attitude problem" persisted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other word, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
Yes, correct.
On the Western front Germany followed "rules" more than in the east, which Nazis considered a "struggle of the races".
Not in the west though.
A few atrocities aside, it was "pretty civilized" as far as wars went.
That is also why the LW didn't send out a 1,000 bombers, every night, to "area bomb" British cities.
Note, at a time (late summer 1940) that there would have been very little the RAF could've done to stop it: few night fighters, or effective AI radar, or radar protecting GB (note: Chain Home pointed outwards, not inwards).
1
-
1
-
@OleLeik No, bombing airfields, yards, and factories was policy and LW doctrine in 1940.
See also "X- and Y- bombing aiming devices".
In 1940, if there had been a policy of "flattening British cities", the LW could have done it.
That was because of geography.
A German medium bomber could take off and bomb London or any SE English city twice in a night, meaning that geography gave the LW this advantage after France fell.
Increasing the production of cheap incendiary devices was also not the issue, and could also have been done, had it been the policy.
During the initial stages (July thru to September) of the BoB the LW did not chose targets "because they burned well".
They chose airfields, factories, the London docks, etc.
Even during the night attacks, these were the intended targets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OleLeik Yes, and with that February 1942 decision, they bombed themselves into extinction.
London did, by own choice.
They should have taken up the American proposition to focus on a few key industries.
Because why?
Because at the core, German production was not limited by the bombing, but by a lack of raw materials in the Nazi sphere of influence (continental Europe, which lacked key resources, especially oil for mobile warfare).
Strategic bombing with four engined heavies is 5 times more wasteful on own resources than waging war with twin engined aircraft.
A Mosquito could extract the same amount of real and effective damage to the Axis war industry, than a Lanc, but 5 times "cheaper" (if you wish to use that term).
[Hint, I've already placed a few dozen comments about the cost of the RAF decision to "flatten Germany", in this comment section. The "cost" was called "Empire", and the Brits paid the price after WW2. Please read it there.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys becoming "best fwiends", forever and ever.
Cross my heart and hope to die...sniff, sniff...so cute.
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
"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]
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"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they 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 almost all their markets.
Yup. A very "special"...ahem..."relationship".
American Century: "Sowwie. I didden know that MARKETS and TRADE were the cornerstone of your Empire...je, je, je..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe you did not watch the debate.
The polls carried out during the war revealed that the people in big UK cities which had been bombed, overwhelmingly did not want revenge.
Strangely enough, it was the people in towns which had not been bombed, which were the most vicious advocates of bombing Germany (even though they had not been bombed themselves).
Today, this truth is still alive.
The most vicious advocates of war, destruction, pillage and plunder are those "armchair general" and "kids in mom's basement" types. Never sufferers violence or need, but the first to scream kill, kill, kill, war, war, war.....
[yup, as long as others suffer]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
Chamberlain inherited a problem he did not cause, because the root of WW2 lies in the arrogance of power at the end of WW1...
1938
Hitler "the pistol".
Stalin "the ammo".
The reason why a British and French "deal" with Stalin in 1938 wasn't possible, lies in the events at the end of WW1.
Both Poland (google the Polish Russian War of 1920) and Romania (Moldavia) occupied or had annexed territory which once belonged to Moscow's sphere of influence.
In 1938, this was simply the reality "on the ground", so to speak.
If GB or France had signed a deal with Stalin (in an effort try scare Hitler off from attacking Czechoslovakia), it would have played directly into the fascists' hands...
Since all of Central Europe was guaranteed by London and Paris ("Little Entente"),and the leaders here had even gotten the faintest notion that they were going to be "sold off", they would have allied with the new alpha-males on the block....Berlin-Rome (in order to secure their interests).
In other words, a deal with Stalin was only possible at the expense of losing Poland and the (already brittle) Little Entente nations.
Furthermore, if GB and France had made a deal with Moscow, Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia or bullied it into submission anyway, and in case of a British/French declaration of war, Hitler would also have attacked Gibraltar with the Legion Condor...
As the events of 1939 had shown, all of this would have been accomplished before the French had even put their pants on :-)
Stalin off course, would have done nothing, because his real aim was to cause a destabilization of the European order...
Both Hitler AND Stalin were playing the sick game of 'divide and rule/conquer', and the reason this was even possible lies in the events directly following WW1: Versailles, Trianon, Polish and Czech arrogance of power, little beta-males, stomping around Central Europe with London and Paris looking on with a smile on their faces....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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? Of course, so the "narrative" goes, people who lived a long time ago, didn't suffer pain, simply because they lived a long time ago...
British sense of logic.
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? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with 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.
Boooooo hoooooooo
The most based "reaped as sown" ever...
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.
1
-
Then we can agree on many things.
The point of a debate should always be to find the most objectively correct theory, based on verifiable evidence available.
I personally have no problem changing my point of view, if new evidence becomes available. If not, we'd be too dogmatic, don't you think?
Yes, I entirely agree that calling out a "home front" in the USA was the correct thing to do at the time.
Only a fool would argue that WW2 was not a justified cause for war. We might differ on details, but that core issue is not up to debate as far as I'm concerned :-)
As far as "lying to the people", it is a mixed bag and like a pendulum could easily swing too far into the other extreme...
Unfortunately, most people lack the cognitive ability to judge the real world, so lying to the masses makes sense sometimes. Overdo it, and we are faced with the tale of "the boy who cried wolf". Cry wolf too often, and the opposite effect takes place from the one intended.
Yes, mass psychology (such as the propaganda of the "US home front in WW2" which you painted, when in reality there wasn't too much of a danger) is certainly a fascinating debating topic.
1
-
Of course 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 mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
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
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@winstonchurchill5516 You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin) and a system called "Communism", which had sworn to bring down the western way of life...
The other "ally" was a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over British corporate business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The Communist Manifest" and "The Great American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
1
-
Of course we all know that the Luftwaffe had a policy called Area Bombing, directly aimed at "dehousing" civilians. Of course, the German thinker Lindemann, directed his hate at civilians, and had the leader's ear...promising him "quick victory" if cities were burned to the ground, and civilians directly aimed at...
That is why, right from the very first day of the Battle of Britain, the LW sent 1,000 bombers a night, and flattened London from one end to the other. They did it because they could. At this early stage the RAF had no AI radar, and no effective night fighters...
Therefore it was a sport, with few casualties amongst LW planes.
The night time attacks were devastating, because all effort was concentrated on attacking city centers, rather than docks, warehouses, airfields, aircraft factories...
Of course we all know that the LW didn't use X- and Y- Beam guiding systems to try and hit factories and yards at night, but aimed at the spirals of cathedrals, because it was easy.
With nothing to stand in their way, the Luftwaffe massacred hundreds of thousand of British civilians, in night time attacks.
Of course, we also know that Rotterdam and Warsaw weren't really frontline cities, defended by Dutch and Polish ground forces, and therefore we also know that it was illegal according to international law to attack these defended cities. We also know that there were no German soldiers, and no frontlines, in these cities...
We also know that the first time Nazis actually did specifically instruct a LW commander Loehr to "make an example of a city" (Belgrade), that Loehr carried out his orders to the letter, not resisting such an illegal order to directly aim the LW bombs at civilians...
Yes, we know all that...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youwonder472 No. Not really :-)
Vienna was actually quite kind to Czechs.
Where do Skoda or Tatra come from?
Which money from which banks financed Pilsen, or Brno?
Why did the Czech people become such a motor of the economy?
Who built the roads, infrastructure, and education?
Then, who saw all this in 1919, and thought...."Hmmmm....how can I USE the situation to DIVIDE AND RULE?"
Do you know how divide and rule works?
So who allowed themselves to be USED as a TOOL of divide and rule?
Yes, because under the Austrian-Hungarian Empire there were actually common interests, which boosted your local economies (cities and towns which were Czech), and developed Czech lands as never before in history (late-19th century), and in 1919 political opportunist forgot all about the past recent history, and made the wrong friends.
They should have negotiated with neighbors for independence, rather than with greedy Empires 500 miles away....
You made the wrong friends in 1919.
Lesson for today?
Stick with those people you share interests with.
The EU for example, would be a good start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. 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: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Our oh so clever leaders: Who needs wisdom, if you've got emotional argumentation?
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
Do you know who enebled WW2, because he wanted your parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys becoming "best fwiends", forever and ever.
Cross my heart and hope to die...sniff, sniff...so cute.
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
"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]
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"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they 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 almost all their markets.
*Yup. A very "special"...ahem..."relationship".
American Century: "Sowwie. I didden know that MARKETS and TRADE were the cornerstone of your Empire...je, je, je..."
1
-
1
-
**Footnote
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
Hop onto scale a little here, hop on the scale a little bit there.
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Stalin: What makes you think I want to be "hopped onto" to save the British Empire?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: '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. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
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 (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed 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?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
Margaret and Max know that Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: '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. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
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 (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed 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?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
Yes, because WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB, and could have stated their conditions for British neutrality (for example, but not limited to: no German navy actions in the Channel, no occupation of French Channel ports, respect of neutrality declarations, no expansion of the war to the colonies, respect of freedom of the seas, etc.)
In fact, German leaders would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, and gave a typical diplomatic "none answer", making it clear that GB would have joined the war at some future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
@neddevine7692 1
Russia and Serbia didn't have a defense pact.
Wilhelm's antics can be filed under "The Big Stick", and not "wanting war".
https://www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy
Had Russia backed down, Belgrad would have caved in, there would have been an Austrian led investigation to the assissination, which would have concluded that Belgrad was involved (see the Black Hand as we know today), which would then have resulted in a regime change as had been the European way for centuries.
2.
France refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, like Italy did, France stated that it would attack Germany (Plan XVII)
3.
GB refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, GB stated that it would join at some later point, irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not. With only 2 enemies, German leaders would have opted for their shelved "Aufmarschplan II" and there would have been no invasion of Belgium.
London declared war in order to "Balance the Power".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note: neither France nor GB were faced by a real and imminent danger, and could simply have avoided war, by declaring their neutrality.
Neither Italy, France or GB were in a position of danger or threat, and could have chosen/opted out of the war if they had wanted, by declaration of neutrality.
Only Italy chose this option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
A form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course 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 mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
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
-
If one creates "alternative history" in an effort to "kill more kiddies", it should at least be viable.
Reality? It was not for London (or you for that matter) to decide what to do with the mutually developed nukes in 1945.
Making "best fwiends" with Washington DC was stupid. A "partnership" which Washington DC would exploit to the fullest, and arm-wrestle the British Empire into the ground.
From atomicheritage(dot)org
"In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [code word for "nukes"] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[End of quote]
Not just a minor detail, but part of a pattern of measures Washington DC/The American Century would take to overpower London.
That what happens when ones own empire is lead by "idealists", who go off in search of faraway empires in order to avoid having to make compromises with neighbors.
Brits should have made an alliance with Wilhelmine Germany (around 1900), and that would have saved their "empire".
Idealism" was thinking that "speaking English" was enough common ground to save the Empire...
Sorry. Really...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Henderson It would have meant compromising the safety of the British Empire.
Hitler had already received generous conditions concerning the Sudetenland, and then went ahead and slapped Chamberlain in the face in March 1939, by breaking the Munich accord.
First question therefore: Why trust Hitler's signature 6 months after he signed and broke the Munich Accord?
The safety of Empire lay in Poland.
As a British PM in those days, you had an Empire to protect.
Because the Limitrophe States...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was the wall that blocked Hitler from gaining access to the Heartland (geostrategy).
Poland was not only a barrier, but also a gateway to the World Island...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
If Hitler broke (again) whatever accord Chamberlain agreed to concerning the Corridor or Danzig, it would mean a common border with the SU. If Hitler then also attacked the SU, he could then carry on eclipsing western interests in the ME, Turkey, Persia, Suez Canal, or whatever he pleased...
If Hitler had beat the SU, he would have had London by the "imperialistic balls", so to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubiruski8067 Oh yes, it goes a lot deeper than that, and it "started" long before WW2.
It "started" before WW1.
The American Century/Washington DC had a plan.
In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
Meanwhile, some were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
Big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, and policy only, the USA made the strongest power/alliance (most likely to win) the "temporary friend" during WW1, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after a long decline as a result of the combined effects of WW1 and WW2.
1
-
@bubiruski8067 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
With a London policy.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the rival/enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)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."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Whether east or west, the mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom. Our leaders signed away half the world to the commies, in efforts to appease them.. And ended up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years...lol.
Now who was the one who critisized appeasement as a big "no-no" again?
So here is the point we should refer to our beloved Bibles to see what happens to the hypocrite. As a matter of fact, we can simply google it: "What does the Bible say about the hypocrite?"
And that is exactly what happened...
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Creating rubble in German cities contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, machines, scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dismantled and carted off hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The strategies of the people who lead us remain the same.
The people who lead us in democracies change.
What they do in regards to foreign policy once in power remains fairly constant, irrelevant of who leads at any particular time.
The old sayings of "exchanging our leaders every few years" might avoid encrusted domestic politics and structures to a degree, but it has almost no effect on foreign policy. The way we vote has almost no influence on foreign affairs, which are mostly the effects of the long term policies of a few "corridors of power"-players.
Unfortunately not any of the highly visible televised leaders we vote for...
Remember that thought for a while. The essay will address it again at the very end.
Of course we should never allow the leaders' good or bad achievements concerning domestic affairs to interfere with analysing the equally important foreign policy. These are entirely different topics which does not interest people equally. It should.
Clinton: "It's the economy stupid".
Machiavelli: "Keep the masses well-fed and...oh never mind..."
Most people in a country won't react to foreign policy blunders, unless the effects of such blunders start affecting their own lives.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Whether we are discussing Trump, or Clinton or Biden, or Wilhelm II or the "proud rich hektoring squibbing London lords" (quoting Jefferson) of the past is irrelevant: they and their second and third tiers read the same books. We "commoners" mainly judge based on our bellies and bank accounts. We should start paying attention, because the reason why very small factions within governments (democracies or more authoritarian governments) succeed in their eternal ways, is because a majority of people don't react until their emotions are "triggered" by a major event...
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common. No matter how many truly good people we point at or give noble Nobel Prizes to, they cannot affect the actions of "the few" who have made it their perennial aim to divide.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Re. the topic "age old strategies", which remain fairly similar across the ages.
Just now, at a fundraiser in New Orleans Donald Trump made an insider joke re. an age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
An "insider joke" at an "insider event", just like John "Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" McCain once made one waaaaay back. The same John McCain who just so happens to have gone to Kiew in 2014 to "support best fwiends". Supporting the "proud and rich and hektoring and squibbing" new friends who always need "help and support" of course (another "insider joke"). Regarding their own internal/foreign policy matters, it is different of course. The standpoint is to never to allow an outside power to affect/effect an internal problem, or to allow anybody else to get involved when an own foreign policy strategy is implemented, unless as "a best fwiend" of course.
When it comes to others and their problems? Answer: "Meddling" for "own interests" is perfectly OK.
Of course in regards to solving own political differences, never expect an outside power to come to "help out": there will be a "price tag".
My advice when somebody shows up to help: Have a close look at the background of exactly who is coming, and what "strategic studies"-centers they subscribe to. Be nice, but be-ware...lol
Of course Trump's "joke" (send US aircraft to the Ukraine in Chinese markings, to get Russians and Chinese fighting) belies an age-old strategy.
A scheme as old as the mountains, and has a limitless variety of nuance. In 1939, Stalin of course, was fully aware of how to "get others to fight", and then sit on the fence smoking a cigar..." enjoying the "racket". Just sell raw materials to Nazi Germany and being "nice" to all while waiting to see who "wins". Of course, for the "finger pointing" Moscow in 1939: they could point at the "inferior greedy capitalists" who "just can't get it right" and always end up at war. Stalin in August/September 1939: "Ima gonna wash my hands in innocence." A trick as old as the Bible itself.
Once the desired region of the world is at war, one can do business and keep the racket going (I'm sure Stalin was amused by reading "War is a Racket"/Smedley Butler or something similar). Or even worse: once entire regions of the world have been turned into "sh*tholes" (another Trump quote in a different context) the "good guys" can gain from the misery of others.
Whilst "in the own shoes", everybody is the "good guy".
In the eyes of the commies they were the good guys of course.
From an own perspective, everybody is the "good guy", and only strategies matter.
Solution: Figure out the strategies, which is boring and tedious.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
The intended or desired outcome of "the scheming few" and their "insider jokes"? Get others to fight (in the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the formulation is "to foment trouble") and then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn" (Trump).
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
How to put a stop to all this? An endless struggle. No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
The first step is to acknowledge and admit the issue, and to stop doing the bidding of these fine gentlemen in suits, or be fooled, or to deny their existence, or become a tool of these "few" and scream and denounce those warning us.
In regards to our own governments these "splinters in the own eye" are indeed tiny but powerfully irritating, until removed.
1) During the early-1990's (Gorbachov as President of the UdSSR and Yelsin as President of Russia), the option of "an agreement of sorts" (a suggested "morphed NATO" suitably changed to adapt to the changed times) existed to replace the Cold War setup (old global balance of power during the Cold War).
2) At around the turn of the century (around the year 2000, and the first Putin term) local wars started to cloud the optimism of the 1990s, but it was still realistic.
3) Then after 2010 our leaders should have at least aimed for "neutrality of some kind" between the players.
First a new hope, offered by a new situation, followed by a "diss"...
The only thing which changed between "around 1900" and "around 2000" was the alpha.
Finally.
Today one often sees the "...but, but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice...".
The answer to the rhetoric?
True. Whoever said they didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
But that is what happens if one ends up with highly televised ex-comedians and ex-boxers as leaders and figureheads, rather than global strategists.
One ends up as "ice" which will be crushed for the goals of the "icebreakers".
"Thin ice" which is signed away and sacrificed...
NATO does not "sign up" a state/country in a civil war or other similar state (war/duress).
Our leaders knew that.
They had this advantage over us...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SirAntoniousBlock So true.
The key to control of the planet is strategy.
What are strategies, like "divide and rule/conquer.
There are no "mystically ubiquitous powers" like in the fictional universe of the Star Wars galaxy, as created by George Lucas.
But "force" does exist: they are strategies, mostly instinctively grasped by most human beings.
Strategies means the power to influence millions of people, in good/light and bad/dark ways.
This "force" is what gives a leader his power.
It's thought patterns created by all living things.
It surrounds us and penetrates us.
It binds all human beings on the planet together.
You must learn the ways of this "force" if you're to understand the plot.
Some "heroes" have (quote) "... flown from one side of this planet to the other (and) ... seen a lot of strange stuff, but (have) never seen anything to make them believe there's one all-powerful 'force' controlling everything. (Nothing) mystical that controls destiny ...all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense."
People who don't understand strategy, tend to believe.
They believe in all-powerful weapons.
They end up "believing" in a lot of weird things...
They end up very proud of all the technological terror people have constructed.
They believe technology is the key to control, and domination.
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of this "force"...
This "force" is strategy.
It can control weak and insecure minds.
No, it cannot "lift heavy things" and make you "fly around in the air", lol. That is fantasy.
But, don't underestimate this force 🙂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lesdodoclips3915 Poor you....
A five minute attention span internet troll. ROTFL
Unfortunately the London lords did not understand how "balance of power" works.
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Awwww.
Poor Empire...
1
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
500 000 post-WW2 Allies less, to help out...
1
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
[britannica(com)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."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This debate is 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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
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 American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 At 25:30 mins "..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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Read the relevant books on the topic.
In a nutshell, the conclusion in these is that the Allied sphere of influence had 2 to 3 times more resources (manpower and raw materials) than the Axis sphere of influence.
Are you trying to contest this conclusion?
Furthermore the fact that most Axis gains suffered from "scorched earth" and destruction by battles (esp. Ukraine, and other Axis territorial gains) after 1941.
By 1943 most if these gains were already (again) contested or were being re-conquered.
By contrast, the overwhelming Allied sphere of interest were never a battlefield, and faaaaaaar outside of tbe reach of any Axis means to inhibit mining, processing, or production, meaning that output could increase multiple fold.
Are you contesting any of these facts?
But hey.
Who am I debating...
"Mr. Two Dimensional Thinking", who simply cannot grasp rather simple statistics, nor draw logical conclusions like the factors which contribute to "production", and the obvious logic is that if even one of these factors is missing/lacking/in short supply, then the entire production process will suffer.
Again.
German production would not have been significantly higher, even if not a single bomb had been aimed at a German city center. Aiming at city centers achieved almost nothing.
The main effect = post war German weakness, and total destruction, aided communism, and US corporatism, thereby leading in the end of "Empire".
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
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.
Ever since the establishment of "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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
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 otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
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."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races 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."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
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.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" 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 American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 There is no way to find out.
The Gestapo carried out "spying operations" (on the streets, subways, etc.) incognito ever since the Nazis settled their power.
Hitler always feared an overthrow in the form of a revolution, and therefore had to spy on his own people.
Obviously, if the Gestapo carried out questionnaires or sat on a train listening to citizens, what do you think these people would say? (true in any oppressive dictatorship)
No objective analysis has ever been done with this information.
Like I said. As long as there was no sign of a revolution, the Nazis were just going to listen in.
One speaker (Grey) even mentions how the bombing led to closer ties/trust between Germans and their government, because the bombing gave them no choice.
See "counter productive".
The intention was to drive a wedge, and the opposite was achieved. Of course the government agencies poured all kinds of generocity on those bombed (food/clothing/housing), so that the "morale bombing" totally backfired.
A predictable outcome.
What happened in London/Coventry/Liverpool/etc.?
Did the citizens rise against their leadership?
Of course not.
The exact opposite happened.
Unlike "hunger" (WW1), the attempte to drive a wedge failed misirably, and the Nazis jumped at the opportunity of gaining some brownie points.
German voting records (or traditional voting patterns per city/region) can be googled.
There is a ton of information re. this on the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
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, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), 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 up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, 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 division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to 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 strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are 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 "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (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.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
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 a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's 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 of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), 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 like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), 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. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) 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, 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.
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 a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't 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 muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
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. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. 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".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
This debate is 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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
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 American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
True.
Also the fact that "empires" look for "tools" (aka "the proxy") to do their fighting for them.
The biggest gains go to the "big money"-players.
People's History of the United States Howard Zinn:
"My history ... describes the inspiring struggle of those who have fought slavery and racism (Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bob Moses), of the labor organizers who have led strikes for the rights of working people (Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, César Chávez), of the socialists and others who have protested war and militarism (Eugene V. Debs, Helen Keller, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, Cindy Sheehan). My hero is not Theodore Roosevelt, who loved war and congratulated a general after a massacre of Filipino villagers at the turn of the century, but Mark Twain, who denounced the massacre and satirized imperialism.[11][12] I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality—and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that.[13]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions to man the parapets of the wall. Ratchet principle, since 1776...
This is divide-and-rule/conquer.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the leadup to WW1 and WW2, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership..."
While European countries were squabbling and infighting, US leaders were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
[Search for "the American Century" agenda of the Washington DC elites]
With the leverage geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of the world there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
@Jameson-d8x British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
1
-
1
-
@Jameson-d8x Well now that's kinda a long answer for the admittance that "yes, the British Policy of Balance of Power come first" ...oooops.
Now I guess you also thought that was GB involuntarily forced into WW2 to protect poor Belgians....lmao
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
If A, then B.
If not A, then not B, is an actual premise in logic which one can even Google for more info, if so inclined...
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/175713?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Foreign minister Grey refused, stammering and dragging his feet.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
Watch this post-WW2 newsreel.
"Wrecked railroads, power plants, factories and coal mines at Ruhr Valley in Germany...HD Stock Footage"
(Copy and paste into YT search bar)
Notice, how at 2.00 minutes into this video, the narrator mentions that "...75% of the Ruhr Area's industry survived the war..."
The often repeated narrative of "running out of targets" is a lie.
Google the fates of dozens of factories which survived the war in various states of functionality: Mauser in Oberndorf, Volkswagen in Wolfsburg, the BMW works in Munich (dismantled in Oct 1945, and sent to the SU), the Ford plant in Niehl, etc., etc., etc.
Did you know that the rather easy to hit, MASSIVE coal fired electric plants (generating around two thirds of Germany's electric power) was simply forgotten, even though it was listed in the MEW (British Ministry of Economic Warfare) Target Books as a high priority in 1939/40?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
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.
Ever since the establishment of "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.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. 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 American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
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 otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
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."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races 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."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
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.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"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.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" 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 American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar 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 (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
@rosesandsongs21 The London lords did as they always did: just following orders.
The lords thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of their European neighbors, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world ("East" vs "West"), to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
And down went the British Empire.
Dustpile of history...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Where have I ever denied Nazi attrocities?
My point is that London did not implement Area Bombing because of Nazi attrocities.
They implemented terror bombing against civilians in Germany for the same reason they implemented terror bombing against Iraq in the 1920's (aka Air Policing) and for the same reason they stuck women, old men and kids into concentration camps during the Boer War.
London: If the going gets tough, the tough get going...to fight the women and kids.
😀😁😂
Nothing to admire there either.
During WW1 and WW2 British civilans simply "reaped" as they had sown for years and years.
(Note: British historian "logic", not mine).
My logic?
Again, for like the 50th time.
My sympathy goes to ALL victims, irrelevant of race, religion, language, ethnicity, etc.who through no fault of their own become embroiled in situations they had no influence on.
No, I don't believe in collective punishment.
"Guilt" or "innocence" are individual criteria.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Germany not "allowed to build ships" point of view of many historians is flawed.
People, any people, independent of where they live, are affected by the events of the recent and relevant past (note, not the future, which they don't know about of course).
So why did the German taxpayer support the construction of a large German Navy?
Easy answer: past events.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence.
That is what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the illegal (not sanctioned by international law) long distance blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite...
In fact, criticizing the construction of the Imperial German Navy from the comfortable position of hindsight today, makes as little sense as criticizing the construction of Chain Home or the ordering of large numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in the late 1930s...
For both , there was a justified "cause".
If one doesn't like the effect, then don't supply the cause.
1
-
To add to the above, which is "the big picture":
The often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception.
Historians pin their flag on the date like 1904 or 1906 for example, saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an unsuccessful attempted blockade of northern German ports during the Franco-Prussian War by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade. Blockading an enemy, was one of the favorite means of economic warfare at the time. It therefore "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
When GB joined the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of THREE navies. British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions (causality). Not a "cause" but an "effect" of previous events. The German leaders reacted to a potential threat (blockade).
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline. "History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
Also, study the design parameters of the German ships built up to WW1. Note that they were close range, coast defence vessels without any global reach (naval bases, or international logistics in the form of alliances).
The threat to the RN and the British Empire was the typical fear mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
Cause and effect.
No cause, no effect.
The root cause of German Naval armament was the alliance system, and the widespread use of navies as tools of blockade and for coastal bombardment (Google "Copenhagenizing", a fear as present in the minds of the people who lived at the time, as mass-bombardment was in the 1930s, and as the fear of nukes in the Cold War).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
As a general rule, would you say that if a threat to a population develops (any population), that leaders are not allowed to respond to it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dans.5745 Stating "France just wanted peace" is at best a misconception, at worst a straight out lie...
"In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"
Yup, sounds like a...ahem..."blank cheque" to me...
[Continued]
"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"
Me: So much for "we just want peace" France...
[Continued]
"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"
Yup. What a hero: blame the loser...
[From wiki, with sources at the bottom of the page]
1
-
@dans.5745 The "Germany shouldn't have built ships" point of view of many historians is flawed.
People, any people, independent of where they live, are affected by the events of the recent and relevant past (note, not the future, which they don't know about of course).
According to Churchill, all nations deserved living within secure borders.
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-104/disarmament-fables/
(see Churchill's quote, concerning the rights all nations should have, to feel secure inside own borders)
So why did the German taxpayer support the construction of a large German Navy?
Easy answer: past events.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence. That is simply what navies did back then. They bombarded. They blockaded.
That is also what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite...
Of course, it's such fun "copenhagenizing" everybody else...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Copenhagenization_(naval)
...but it's not so much fun getting "copenhagenized" yourself...
In fact, criticizing the construction of the Imperial German Navy from the comfortable position of hindsight today, makes as little sense as criticizing the construction of Chain Home or the ordering of large numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in the late 1930s...
For both , there was a justified "cause".
If one doesn't like the effect, then don't supply the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dans.5745 Bolivar is correct concerning Iceland.
There were no "German invasion plans" to pre-empt/prevent, making the own invasion a pretext.
It was an excuse, using a false premise.
We must distinguish between "reasons" and "excuses.
Even if there had been, such an attempt could have been easily thwarted, because the German Navy had no experience, no aircraft carriers, no specialized transports, no marines with special weapons/equipment, etc.
Also: look at a map. Even if an extremely costly German invasion had succeeded, how would it have been re-supplied, in the face of overwhelming RN superiority?
Conclusion: Germany would never have risked it.
In reality, Iceland was needed by GB as a naval base for both aircraft and short ranged escorts, because in the upcoming naval war on the N.Atlantic convoy routes, it would be an invaluable "aircraft carrier" (for VLR patrol/ASW planes), as well as a refueling stop for escorts.
There is your reason.
The Allies occupied Iceland not to protect it, but because they needed it.
There is a difference between a (valid) reason, and a pretext/excuse.
Not saying GB shouldn't have done it.
Of course they should.
As a British leader in charge, I would've done the same, whilst at the same time ensuring that the lives of the inhabitants are as little affected as possible (no qualms in that respect).
But, as Bolivar said: The fact that one can do something, against no opposition, doesn't make the decision "right". It was still wrong.
IMO, it goes in the same drawer as the "should the USA have put their Japanese Americans into camps after PH"-debate. The answer remains same: It was wrong, but I would have done the same, considering the circumstances.
Rgds
1
-
1
-
@scaleyback217 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
With a London policy.
British leaders made the strongest continental power/alliance/country "the rival/enemy" as a default setting as a matter of policy, and policy only...
[britannica(com)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."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..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.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
Let's KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = 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.)
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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct 100% and WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Teemo6544 There are dozens of reasons why Japan surrendered, and these were a result of the final year of the War going very badly for Japan.
Here are just a few.
In case you denied that these reasons played a role, then please state why.
1) virtual destruction of the entire IJN
2) virtual destruction of the merchant marine
3) US Marines capturing territory in the Pacific
4) US led alliance (army) capturing territory in the SW Pacific
5) failure of last ditch weapons (Kamikaze) to make an impact
6) losing Axis partners in Europe (meaning no further division of war effort for the Allies) in other words "totally alone/ no allies"
7) failure of campaigns in China and Burma
8) facing starvation due to submarine blockade
9) conventional fire raids as deadly as nukes burning down entire cities in one night
10) absolutely zero chance of successfully repulsing an allied landing (despite propaganda to the opposite)
11) danger of having a homeland carved up like Germany, into "zones of occupation (including a Russian occupation of their island, rather than a mainly US occupation), should the unwinnable war continue
12) failure to design successful successors to the 1937-era weapons of 1941/42
13) complete lack of raw materials, or access to territory with raw materials
14) no oil, or fuel in remaining territory
15) lack of weapons for the "home army" (Bamboo sticks? Seriously?)
16) yes, agreed....the Soviet Union cancelling a non-aggression treaty from April 1941, and invading Manchuria (with Korea expected to follow after that)
These are just the top long-term reasons for the decisions to surrender.
The nukes were just the excuse Japanese leadership needed to cover up their own failures, even blaming the US as fighting an unfair war against civilians (read Hirohito's surrender statement to the Japanese people). It can be filed under "final nail in the coffin".
1
-
1
-
Of course 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 mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
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
-
The Anglosphere...
Your nations have never fought anybody the own overlords had not previously created first with the own policies.
Your own dear leaders and and their capitalist/corporatism means and ways, employing little minions, and their attempts to CONTROL everything to their own advantage, is a root cause of all evil. And they did it all by themselves. Nobody put a gun on their chests, and the intention to "sit on the fence" (strategy) from a position of impunity, while paying others to do their work, for the gains of these overlords...
Your people (as a collective) never protected anyone else on the planet unless it was useful to the own expansion or own interests. Your nation (collective) never defended anybody unless it served the own beneficial purpose. Your overlords never created states by drawing lines on the map, or introduced humanitarian improvements anywhere on the planet, unless it was also FIRST useful for the own gain. It does not matter what YOU have been led to believe is your "history," how you choose to distort narratives by skewing the timeline, or simply ....oops "forgetting" to add vital data.
You (today/personally), your family, your ancestors never fought anybody your own historical leaders did not greatly aid in setting up FIRST. Never fought any war these overlords did not lay the foundation for FIRST. And that incl. socialism/communism which originated in the 19th Century as a bottom up movement DUE TO the observed globally operating systems of gain, power, and inhumane exploitation generally and collective falling under the terms imperialism/colonialism in conjunction with capitalism (incl. but not limited to, your very own American Century/British Empire which also practiced it). Even the slowly emerging forces of socialism/communism was an effect of previous wrongful OWN deeds, too numerous to mention, and therefore socialism/communism was NOT a "cause," but an effect of own actions. All the terrorists your system historically fought, ever, did not suddenly appear out of the blue. Nobody wakes up one morning, with sudden aspirations of becoming a career terrorist. Name me ONE terrorist organization, that was not created out of OWN previous meddling or imperialist actions? Name just ONE thing the people around you are not constantly whining about (refugees, migrant crises, invasive government, divisive politicians) that was not caused by your own leaders? Just ONE.
Fascism, and all the other "-isms" everybody is always whining about, came about as an effect of WW1 and immediate post-WW1 political tensions operating in the vacuum of the receding pre-WW1 order.
Cause.
Effect.
It does not matter if you personally understand causality, or not.
1
-
History will rhyme. THRICE.
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 to 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. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
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 global 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, no obligations", 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 go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored 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, pissed off 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 "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 25;30 mins "..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.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Early re-armament is just as bad as a "too late" start of re-armament.
In case of war, it would leave a state 1) bankrupt, and 2) stuck with tons of outdated weapons (in other words, a disadvantage vs. a state which started later, with a newer generation of weapons).
Ask Stalin.
He found out the hard way what happens to 20,000 outdated tanks, and 15,000 outdated aircraft, if attacked by more modern types (a later generation of weapons).
Only "general distance", "marshal winter", and "private mud" saved the SU in 1941.
1
-
@mikereger1186 Nazi Germany was the aggressor, meaning that they could plan the start of the war. If you are the one "starting" the war, you obviously also know when it starts, and can plan towards it.
The Nazis intended to fight "war on the cheap", always using the arms/resources taken from one victim, towards destroying the next. That way, own resources and manpower could be kept in reserve.
First victim was Czechoslovakia (half in 1938 by treaty aka Munich, half in March 1939 by invasion). Note, this was before WW2 started, and these captured resources were then used in Poland.
Captured Polish/Czech weapons plus plundered economy then used in wrestle down France.
Then, captured Polish/Czech/French/Belgian/British/Dutch arms and economies used in the Balkans and Russia (88 German infantry divs and 4 motorized divs, plus 1 tank division mostly with French equipment).
Throughout all this, German resources were also used of course, but not in such excess as after 1942/43 onwards.
Germany declared it's "Total War" in 1943 only.
GB started theirs in 1939, as soon as the war started.
1
-
1
-
@mikereger1186 Concerning "predicting the future".
Would you have been able to guess (in 1938/39) where a potential future would start?
Why not China?
Why not the commies in Moscow?
Today we should be careful in criticizing past political decisions though, based on hindsight. Today, we can turn to page 434 of our history books, and go "well, we shoulda done that", or "we shouldn't have done that".
Past leaders didn't have that option of course :-)
Bear in mind that London used the rivalries of the continental powers, because its means were limited by reality (financial, industrial limitations). Since GB was an island, with a global empire to protect, obviously the Royal Navy was going to get the lion's share of resources.
The protection of "Empire" (British land forces = army came second) was achieved indirectly, by "balancing out" the continental powers against each other.
Furthermore, the focus on Hitler/Fascism is what IMO is a crude misuse of hindsight. The British Empire had other worries, and only today's hindsight makes it possible to focus on Germany/Fascist powers, and a certain "we shoulda done that"-assertion.
At the time, and correctly so, communism was seen as just as big a threat to the colonial powers, and colonialism in general.
But at the time, say until 1938, Germany was not considered a danger by most leaders. In fact it was simply considered a "tool" to out-balance other continental powers, and an equally rapidly industrialising/re-arming SU.
Communism was aimed at the the colonial power's impoverished masses, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
- the Communist Manifest
- the Comintern
- Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933
- soviet Deep Battle/Operations (aka "Blitzkrieg")
- strategic bombers/paratroopers (both offensive weapons systems, not defensive)
- Communist takeover of Mongolia
- The Soviet invasion of China 1934 (Xinjiang)
- The Great Leap/Mao (communist subversive warfare in action, with the display of the "modus operandi" of a possible future for western empires)
- Stalin's "Big Fleet Program", starting 1935 for a Blue Water Navy according to Mahan
Today, we know what GB's leaders could only have assessed back in the 1930s...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1950-10-01/china-stalins-grand-strategy
Stalin intended for his particular brand of communism (Stalinism) to rise, and take over one slow step at a time. His expansion, could only come at the expense of western influence.
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally in case Stalin tried something funny, might be forthcoming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Making "best fwiends" with Washington DC was politically stupid. A "partnership" which Washington DC would exploit to the fullest, and arm-wrestle the British Empire into the ground.
From atomicheritage(dot)org
"In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [code word for "nukes"] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[End of quote]
Not just a minor detail, but part of a pattern of measures Washington DC/The American Century would take to overpower London.
That what happens when ones own empire is lead by "idealists", who go off in search of faraway empires in order to avoid having to make compromises with neighbors.
Brits should have made an alliance with Wilhelmine Germany (around 1900), and that would have saved their "empire".
Idealism" was thinking that "speaking English" was enough common ground to save the Empire...
1
-
1
-
@rocky5755 I forgot to add how it all started, and "Episode 1"....
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
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.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is 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 Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
Scroll up...
1
-
1
-
Correct.
Chamberlain went to Munich, and with the formulation "to resolve that our nations never to go to war again" he made Hitler a historical offer.
Of course that was a diplomatic feeler and a suggestion for a foundation for further negotiations of "favored status".
To take over the role of main continental "balancing power" from France.
When Hitler invaded Rest-Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, that British offer was off the table. Understandable. Because there is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
After trying to fool the world with the "just uniting Germans"-lie, Hitler revealed his true plans. Czechs were not Germans.
With Munich, a "wrong" of Versailles had been righted, and Hitler ignored that.
He was heading for the Heartland.
For he "who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
From there, the economic overpowering, and/or military invasion, and/or political dislocation the British Empire step by step, was possible.
1
-
@bolivar2153 And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
Apparently, European disunity suited the lords just fine...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Every now and then, historians discover little hints about "secret discussions" that no amount of "Operation Legacy"-style burning and burrying of files can get rid of...
Note all 1905:
"Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey thought entente with Russia a good idea. On 20 October 1905, during the election, he said:[10]
...if Russia accepts, cordially and whole-heartedly, our intention to preserve the peaceable possession of our Asiatic possessions, then I am quite sure that in this country no government will make it its business to thwart or obstruct Russia's policy in Europe. On the contrary, it is urgently desirable that Russia's position and influence be re-established in the councils of Europe.
and later, writing to his ambassador to Russia Sir Arthur Nicolson:[9]
It is not for us to propose changes with regard to the treaty conditions of the Dardanelles. I think some change in the direction desired by Russia would be admissible and we should be prepared to discuss the question if Russia introduces it.
In early 1907, Alexander Izvolsky, the Russian ambassador at Paris, raised the question. and talks were carried on in London with Russian Ambassador Count Alexander Benckendorff. Little is known but the "suggestion appears to have been made that Russia should have free egress from the Black Sea through the Straits, while other powers should have the right to send their vessels of war into the Straits without going into the Black Sea" together with some talk of "Russia's occupying the Bosphorus and England the Dardanelles, after which the Straits might be opened to other warships as well." In the event nothing came of the discussions at the time.[9]"
[Wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
1
-
1
-
How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia."
After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
Five powers.
Potentially uniting.
Potentially potentially forming full military alliance over time, as time progressed.
Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia...
The "instinct" is to divide potential unity.
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
One down, 4 to go.
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying as Wilson sowing dissent between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's (GB/France) secret deals counted more that the secret deals GB/France had made with Italy.
Two down, 3 to go...
After GB was persuaded to "drop Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance (1902) with a non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
Three down, 2 left..."
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.
Watch "THIS is how to do it when things look hopeless! 💪🏻" on YouTube (Dave Wattle's win over 800m at the Olympics in 1972).
This is actual strategy explained on a small scale (sport event) which can be applied to all situatons of hierarchy and potential gain, incl. the "states/empires"-level of events.
The "no obligations, just friends"-side "hangs back" and strikes at an opportune moment when everybody else least expects it, are distracted, or simply tired (incl. "overburdened by debt" in the big picture of states/empires).
1
-
The original "drafted to be turned down" ultimatum to Serbia..
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)
....sounds kind of "firm but fair" to me.
Or maybe a variation of "talking softly (Wilhelm II), but carrying a big stick (warmongers)".
Always perfectly ok when doing it oneself, but always a case for objection if somebody else does it.
Fact remains, that the most favorable outcome of the July Crisis would have been if Serbia had simply accepted it in full.
Vienna did not "owe" the state which had supported the plot (Belgrade) a face-saving way out. The "harsh ultimatum" was therefore justified, considering the scope of the allegations at the time.
So which side wanted to avoid a diplomatic solution to the crisis?
That side was Serbia, supported by Russia, and egged on by France...
[of course, we are lead to believe that "an International investigation" or "neutral investigation" would have equally been able to fathom the depths of the Serbian leadership's potential involvement or the extent of their complicity: yes, a Dutch or Swiss guy with a pencil (note, not backed up by a "big stick"), would turn up in Belgrade, and ask nicely that the Serbian government should be kind enough and turn over all the evidence of own crimes, which sounds more like a plot for a Hollywood parody...]
Obviously the most favorable outcome of the crisis would have been "no war", and for that, Serbia would have needed to comply to the ultimatum in full, without exceptions. For that, Moscow would have needed to be equally firm, stating that it would not stand by Belgrade in view of the wrongful conduct.
That would have meant "no war" (in case one disagrees, one then also must state how Germany could have had their "planned all along" war which their warmongers wanted).
A subsequent Austrian lead investigation (note, including the "big stick") would have revealed the shocking depth of Belgrade's complicity.
That would then certainly have resulted in a regime change (as was indeed the "European" way for centuries).
Obviously, Moscow and Paris knew this outcome was the most likely in case that there was no war.
A peacefull regime change, however, would have meant that Russia could have buried their plans for influence in the Balkans, and control of the Dardanelles...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars.
Basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed. The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
The issue was not "a learning curve", but a fundamental misunderstanding of geography/resources/balance of power.
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
The key point: German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on production).
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no hindsight/learning curve).
At the same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlondieSuperdog Usually in debates like these it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use." [end quote]
It wasn't as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Without fuel, and trauned crew (needed fuel) every modern weapon is pointless.
Even as it was (real events) a large number of the aircraft that made it to the airfields had to be parked on the sides, because there was no fuel or trained pilots.
Here they made for perfect target practice.
Correct logic: Had more been delivered, there would simply have been more targets on the edges of the runway for target practice.
The Germans wouldn't have ended up with more aircraft in the sky by producing more aircraft. You needed fuel to fly, and fuel to train pilots.
Oil was the only really valid target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
1
-
1
-
@BlondieSuperdog Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
Stalin on the 19th August 1939, reported by meeting participants: "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
So our leaders sacrificed untold scores of own soldiers, own resources, own empires, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME, and hundreds of proxy wars from Central America to Africa. Thousands of more body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help innocent and cute Uncle Joe Stalin", if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any.
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal, must have jizzed his pants in fond recollection.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"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]
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.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative history, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support).
Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....a rather unfortunate combination of "reality" concentrated in one area vital to the British Empire.
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
To add to the above, IMO, the 'Czech fortress' is a myth.
Firstly, most historians which proclaim this, assume that if there had been a German invasion in 1938 (after French and British guarantees), that the German Army would have simply dashed headlong into the Czech border defenses. However, later events proved that the Germans stuck strictly to the Blitzkrieg doctrine, which was to strike at the weakest point, not the strongest.
Most likely, Hitler would have first instigated a political preparation, as he did in 1940/41 in the Balkans. He would have used the squabbles and greed of the local heads of states, to divide, and then invade. He would have offered independence to Slovak nationalists (like happened with Tiso in 1939), offered tidbits of Czechoslovakia to Poland and Hungary (the large populations would have been the pretexts) -- and he would certainly NOT have invaded from Germany, but from the newly annexed Austria, pushing the pincers through (now) independent Slovakia.
In the meantime, the LW would have attacked almost unopposed since the Czechs had ignored building a strong air force, same as almost everywhere else in Europe.
I can make my alternative history scenario with a certain measure of certainty, since exactly the same happened in 1941 in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was another 'failed state' created on the 'drawing board' at Versailles, and likewise an artificial entity which did not represent the wishes of a large portion of the population.
Strangely enough, it was ideal for defense -- a tough resilient population and mountainous landscape, yet it effectively collapsed in 11 days. Part of the reason being that large numbers of Croats, Slovenians, and others, did not feel like 'fighting for Belgrad'.
The same would most likely have happened if the Germans had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.
What would have been the chances that the soldiers representing the 3,5 million Germans, 700,000 Hungarians, 2,3 Million Slovaks and around 200,000 Ukrainians, would have fought 'for Prague'?
IMO, it would have been over in days, and the world would have been worse off.
The reason historians overestimate the strength of Czechoslovakia is to distract from the real mistakes, which happened at the end of WW1. Versailles, Trianon, and St. Germaine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jthrtm6030 Why was was Washington DC okay with Stalin taking over hegemony over Eastern Europe? (including a divided Germany)
Because Washington DC sent US soldiers to fight for The American Century, not the British Century.
Simple.
After WW2, the American Century "best friends" refused to give London nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim Empire's Balance of Power on the continent.
(aka "The Percentages Agreement)
Can you bridge the gap between
1) a European "Balance of Power" dictated by London at Versailles, which protected the British Empire and favored British interests, and
2) a post-1945 Global "Balance of Power" determined by Washington, and which favored Washington's interests?
Washington DC silently followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With a simple 'no' to Unthinkable, Washington DC had taken over the role of nr.1 in the the world.
1