Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
21
-
19
-
15
-
10
-
9
-
@thulyblu5486 Agreed, and good response.
The formulation for the declaration of war was simply semantics, to shift the onus back to Berlin. It was a cleverly constructed "if sentence" (conditional) meaning that if Germany retreated from Poland, there would be no war. But if Germany continued, there would be war.
Doesn't change anything about the reality though, that it was GB and France which needed this war in order to protect their empires, NOT "poor Poland" which was just the "trigger" or justification to hide the fact that for London and Paris it would have been unacceptable to have Germany and the SU in an alliance, without an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" Poland in the middle, which could serve as a proxy in case of war on the continent.
That was geopolitics as revealed by Mackinder back in 1904 already. It was always about avoiding the potential "single hegemony" taking shape, and to avoid it, and if all else failed, then by declaring war.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Lot's of arguing in the comments section, I'm sure strategists like Henry Kissinger (were he still alive) would be having a good laugh looking at his (quote) "dumb stupid animals" incapable of figuring out the big picture...
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
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...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Generally, an excellent narrative, but after 28:00 minutes, the "old Churchillian Chamberlain bashing" starts...
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."
[See "Britannica, Balance of Power]
It was geography (English Channel) which allowed London to act or react (political/military omissions, as well as commissions) whichever way it pleased...friends one day, enemies the next...
If one wishes, one can criticise this disastrous policy, but not the leaders who implemented it.
Chamberlain, and the "London lords" were simply doing what London always did in modern times: playing the "balancing powers"-game.
You can't have it both ways.
It's either right, or wrong.
Because in parallel to Nazi Germany, there was another power rising...
3
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
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...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "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.
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened...
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors. Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.
3
-
3
-
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 lose) is closer to what happened.
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for influence and markets.
That is essentially what TIK History is explaining here.
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 the theory 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" lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the erritories 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...lol.
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 footnote 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.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states mentioned here in this video.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
2
-
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.
[See new comment below, on how that was implemented]
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 early-1938, Germany was not considered a danger by most British 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 intent was voiced to destroy the west)
- the Comintern (a union of international communists)
- Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933 (note, long before Hitler).
- soviet Deep Battle/Operations (the SU version of "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.
By the mid-30s, the SU was the world's most powerful military.
Stalin had around a million soldiers, and around 20,000 tanks and 15,000 frontline aircraft. More than the rest of Europe combined.
Today, we know what GB's leaders could only have assessed and worried about back throughout the 1930s...
[See:foreignaffairs(dot)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.
2
-
During the 1930s both started increasing their "power".
London of course "just playing balancing games" couldn't stop the SU, and wouldn't stop Berlin.
It used Poland as a pivot.
Imagine a seesaw. If one little kiddie on the one side starts eating "popcorn and chips" all day (SU), he's gonna grow biiiiig and faaaat and powerrrrful. So, to "balance" that out, London had to turn a blind eye to the other kiddie, on the other side "secretly" gobbling up some popcorn and chips too.
Because if London didn't allow Germany to equally grow "big and fat", London might one day be faced with a "big and powerrrrrfulll" Moscow bullying its way into Persia (like it did in Mongolia), or invade Afghanistan (as it did to China in 1934), and apart from the "totally demoralized" scrawny kid France, would have nobody to ally with protect them.
Embolden Japan? Worked so well to "take care of Russia" in 1904/05. Nah. The "new best fwiend" Washington DC wouldn't like that...
So few choices...
Poor "Empire".
I guess they would just have to allow German re-armament, and turn a blind eye to gobbling up Austria and the Sudetenland.
In the public eye, put up the "indignity" at Nazi expansion, and re-armament.
In the background, behind closed doors. Just playing "balancing games", as per norm for the past 100 years or so...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"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 ze 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 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. 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).
P.S.: The natural knee-jerk reaction to the above-style essays will always be along the lines of "but, but...that is a false equavallence, because...". No, it is not a "false equivalency", but an explanation about how all "systems of gain" work.
(A multitude of examples in the below comments section)
** 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...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
*****Canned logic.
It's like debating a broken record player, rofl...
Open ze can, take out the pre-cooked "logic", warm it up a little, and then serve it to the dissenter who dares attack the favorite own system...
canned
Related to canned: Canned laughter, Canned hunting, canned music
canned (kănd)
adj.
1. Preserved and sealed in a can or jar.
2. Informal Recorded or taped for repeated use, as on television or radio: canned laughter.
3. Informal
a. Used repeatedly with little or no change: a canned speech.
b. Totally unoriginal; devoid of individuality: ...
(source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company)
2
-
2
-
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 friendly states, who see things the same way, but refuse to budge. Send around a few good individuals, who will try their best, keep on gnoring 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.
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 Goodreads quotes: "Of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor bloke on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ― Hermann Goering
Fear is the most powerful of all emotions. Of course Goering knew how Berlin had fabricated consent for the invasion of Poland, because he was on the inside. He knew the slogan chanters would point fingers and chant on command: "Poland attacked first", and "We are just going to save poor oppressed people" as (quote the average response) "shown on newsreels", or "Great Britain and France prodded Poland on to attack us, but we were quicker" (sic.). It didn't even matter what slogans were implanted in the brains of the chanters. Constant repitition and the same messaging as suitable priming and conditioning: the leadership might as well have said "Poland had WMDs and wants to rule the world.", and a suitable small but audible minority will obey. Of course he was not expressing an opinion, but making an observation: he knew how gullible many people are, and the best way to make people even more gullible was to convince them they were better than others. And the squibbling, hectoring, are the easiest to fool of all.
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideoligically 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.
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, and steal all your best markets. What are you going to do about it?"
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." Thomas Jefferson
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?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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...
2
-
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?
2
-
2
-
@simonbagel 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?
2
-
The long shadow of the Treaty of Versailles:
Versailles was the "divide and rule" of and over continental Europeans, by outsiders of course. Everything following in its wake, was the EFFECT. Like it or not, reality does not care what any individual thinks. At Versailles, the people of Europe were "divided" with a "ruling." Such a "divide and rule"-strategy on the "dark side," lay the foundation of problems which have a clear causal chain of political problems leading right through to WW2, and even right through to today. The Treaty of Versailles was done for own gain after WW1 (obviously, weakening Central Europe by "carving it up," indirectly resulted in gaining more own strength/ more POWER for the dividers, by subtracting power from those systems being divided). The dividing powers were obviously wrong, because to an overwhelming extent, nobody bothered asking the people so divided what political future they wanted for themselves by means of referenda/plebiscites (overwhelmingly NOT carried out in those regions where it really mattered). Obviously also a BIG wrong, because by that time the leaders already knew what "dark divide and rule" might/could lead to in some possible future...
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Imperialist arguing about the price tag for such services rendered. During the 1930s, the imperialists in Berlin, and the imperialists in London haggled about what should be considered a fair price in order for Germany to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union after the successful implementation of Moscow's 5-Year Plans, leading to a rapid steep rise of Soviet industrial- and military power during the 1930s, which threatened British rule over South Asia (see the history of the Second Tournament of Shadows (the rekindled "Great Game" of the 19th Century). Notice that such "haggling" can take place without a single direct meeting. Or, it can be explained by looking at actual events.
It is in fact revealed by reality, created by the events.
Place the EVENTS first.
So...first on the price tag list: a nice big navy...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
A little piece of Germany back...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland
A tiny sliver of Czechoslovakia...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
A nice little increase of political and military WEIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel
(Based on a famous song from "To be or not to be" by Mel Brooks, 1984)
If German taxpayers were going to pay the taxes, and work to "man the parapets" of the limitrophe, to balance out Russia on the other side of the WALL, there was going to be "price tag." Like it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
Europe wanted it that way and implemented this geopolitically with the Treaty of Versailles.
In the 1930s, Europe then GOT what it wanted, and what had been set up.
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
"In 1980, I heard Ralph Raico give a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on World War I. At the time, I thought how great it would be to have those lectures published. I am extremely happy that this second edition provides the student of liberty with Ralph's ideas and the research evidenced by his extensive footnotes. His article on World War I is the best, most concise statement regarding the real causes and effects — the costs—of World War I that I have seen. The title of his article, "World War I: The Turning Point" indicates that World War I, which culminated in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, constituted the turning point for all of Western civilization. It set the stage for wars throughout the remainder of the 20th century, and virtually assured that another war would occur in Europe ..." From "The Costs of War" : America's Pyrrhic Victories / edited with an introduction by John V. Denson. — 2nd expanded ed.
Set the stage.
Lay the foundation.
Fail.
If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens...
As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering.
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
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...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
1
-
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?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the 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 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".
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
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
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vpowerization London did not start world wars unless the European balance of power was threatened, or the so-called "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-principle, which London strictly adherred to.
Before 1939 and the invasion of Poland, the continental balance of power was not threatened, and Hitler actually kindly used German taxpayer money to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union.
There would not be a "world war" unless Hitler actually attacked Poland.
Other countries were not important, as long as the SU grew in power.
If you wish to write an alternative history, it would have to be logical.
You have two options:
1) invent a time machine and go back to the 19th century, and kill every single "baby Lord" in a position of power in London, who clinged to the logic of "balance of power" and "avoid the single hegemony".
2) go back to the 1890, and "kill baby Hitler"
Since neither of these are a viable option, there was no way to avoid the course of history, regardless of who the British PM in the late-1930s was, because it was not a dictatorship, and therefore Churchill as PM would have been forced to stick to the same collective decision.
1
-
1
-
All "empires" come in four toxic flavors.
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
The supreme bully strategy is that of divide and rule: Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
1