Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Historigraph"
channel.
-
A bit off topic, but the often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception. 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 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).
It was the British policy for the continent called "Balance of Power" which escalated tensions. By default, the policy practically dictated that the continent's most powerful state/alliance would be "the enemy in war". This was determined by British politicians, in London, and nobody else can be blamed for this attitude, but British policy makers.
German leaders therefore countered that, on the foundation of facts, which meant that "by default" (until the policy of Balance of Power changed) they were "the enemy" in the minds of British leaders
When GB joined Russia and France, creating 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.
(Google the difference between a "Blue Water Navy" and "Coast Defence i.e. "Brown--" or "Green Water Navies")
The threat to the RN and the British Empire was the typical fear mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
3
-
2
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
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 a continental power or dissing it, 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...game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's start at the beginning.
With grand strategy.
A truism of grand strategy and at the beginning of every analysis should be the various intentions of the powers, and how they aimed to achieve their goals.
After WW1, the two remaining European Empires set up the foundation for the protection of their Empires in Europe (Versailles, St Germaine, etc.)
Empires with vast resources and therefore the strategic advantage aim to fight "long wars", slowly drawing in their superior resources, whilst expanding the war to the periphery, away from their own homelands.
GB and France were looking for "soft overbellies" (😊) to deflect the war away from their own homelands.
Those in an inferior strategic position, with limited resources, aim for "short wars" (or a series of "limited wars") building up to the final goal.
For Germany, the final goal was the SU (the resources in the Heartland/ Mackinder "Pivot of History"/Heartland Theory)
Germany had no interest in invading Norway. A neutral Scandinavia gave it everything it needed, and the last thing they wanted was to be forced to disperse resources away from their main objective.
There is your filter.
Against that (grand strategies), all theories must be tested.
1
-
1
-
When reading the ultimatum, the inexperienced "Limbic brain thinker" is mesmerizingly drawn to "choice (a)"...
I wonder why?
" ... His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives; (a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans, (b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to OUR satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. If you refuse these fair offers (edit: LOL, a false premise), I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours ..."
Note here: All alternatives would have resulted in the removal of these French naval vessels, meaning that there would be no defense against seaborne elements of a potential future attack, to protect French citizens in Tunesia and Algeria.
London: "Looky here. I have a scrap of paper that says WE have the same enemy, but YOU are going to do most of the dying, and our common best fwiends in Washington DC are totally fine with that."
SIR Bolivar: "How honorable of us (ingroup conclusion."
How the mind of a deceiver works:
The deception offered by option (a), sticks out like a sore thumb
If chosen, it would mean that France broke the armistice conditions shortly after signing it, meaning that Italy would no longer be bound by these Armistice conditions. Not only Italy of course, but nothing then stopped Germany from occupying ALL of France as a result, leading to more FRENCH bloodshed and destruction of FRENCH property. If the French stuck to the armistice, on the other hand, it would leave roughly 80% of the French navy as deterence in the Med (40% in Oran/40% in Toulon/status quo). If they chose option (a), it would leave only 40% of the French Navy in Toulon, and possibly none, should Germany decide to occupy all of France because it broke the armistice. NO French ships to deter an attack to French North African territory, because they would have nowhere to operate from should Germany occupy all of France, and Italy if struck at Tunesia/Algeria.
Goading Italy into sending her massive Libyan armies westwards to fight France, rather than eastwards to fight GB, towards the Suez Canal, or if both were tried by Italy, then seriously weakening the forces available for attacking Egypt.
Choosing option (a) would have risked that the entire French Navy had no legal basis to operate under (no French based state), becoming fugives, maybe being forced to hope for breakaway French colony as harbor, and if none of the above then to join Great Britain like the Dutch Navy before, because the Empire HAD naval bases, just what London wanted: the French fleet under British CONTROL, to protect the British Empire "for free."
THE "DIVISION" PER "RULING" OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE
Note here that the Dutch government/navy can NOT serve as an example of "honorable solution" for France a few weeks later, since after May 1940, the Netherlands had nothing more to lose in Europe. All its unoccupied territory was far outside of the reach of the Axis powers (Indo-Pacific),an therefore a typical "apples/oranges"-comparrison.
If France chose the same "honorable government-in-exile" solution as Den Hague, as one can be easily misguided into thinking, France would lose even more: potentially French North Africa, to the "hyena Italy" and the total occupation of all her citizens by Germany. Meanwhile, for all of that, there was no guarantee that London might not simply make a deal with Berlin herself a few weeks later, in order to save its Empire from collapse, because a weak London offered the perfect opportunity for an expanded Axis Berlin-Moscow.
Note here, it was all about the British Empire, while saying "we".
Not a single word is wasted about any contigencies for the protection of French territory or citizens in North Africa, in the event of an attack by (most likely) Italy, being in the most advantageous location to make use of this stage of "French weakness" to invade Tunesia and Algeria (main attack/land warfare), and use the wide-open ports if the French navy bowed down to British demands, as re-supply and landing points for stores and equipment. The entire purpose of a navy is defense against such forms of enemy naval operations in support of land warfare. The ultimatum was a cleverly disguised intention to trade the French Navy in for a "promise" of protecting these with the Royal navy, or a combination of ships under British control.
London: YOU shall be given the choice between deception (a) and dishonor (aka the "false dichtomy").
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall break your armistice agreement, by choosing either deception or dishonor, and continue the Battle of France because it is advantageous to US.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall continue the Battle of France, with NO visible potential for success, because neither WE or the USA is lifting as much as a finger to help (effective support). YOU shall "extend Germany" for as long as possible, to the LAST FRENCH SOLDIER, and goad Italy into attacking Tunesia/Algeria which is YOUR territory, away from Egypt, which is OUR territory.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: Your citizens in France, and your cities and towns, shall goad Germany into continuing their attack, because you broke the armistice with them ...ahem "voluntarily" (he, he,he) so it's ALL YOUR OWN FAULT if the Germans choose to occupy all of France, just like we successfully implemented in Norway in April ("drawing" the bull, off the matador).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bow down to a mere captain, who doesn't even have the slightest POWER OF NEGOTIATION, who will decide the future of your citizens and your navy.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall sacrifice French cities and towns and French blood, to save OURS, because you were stupid enough to make a treaty with us. Guess what? WE are an island, which we shall largely retreat to, and YOU have a border with our enemy (imbalance in power).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bleed MORE so that WE shall bleed less, just like Poland before.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: And the coolest, COOLEST thing all, YOU are not going to complan about all your BLEEDING, because it was avoluntary decision. We had absolutely nothing to do with YOUR choices.
France: Yeah, right...
London: We have the POWER of the superior mind, because it doesn't matter what WE do, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, in blind trust and incapable of grasping how we tick (strategy), will cheer us along because of our words, and they will do so into their own destruction.
Paris: Yeah, I guess I'm fine with that.
London: Let me rephrase those famous words for you... YOU shall fight on (faraway) beaches, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. YOU shall fight in the hills in Tunesia or Algeria, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. WE will ensure that the Battle of Britain will start with "a depleted Luftwaffe", and far less firepower, because most of the planes were bombing somewhere else.
(Sounds of cheering crowds in the background)
Paris: I said, nah thanks...
On the 3rd of July 1940, France finally found out what it had signed up for as mere "entente"-best fwiend in 1904, as "buck catcher" (Prof. John Mearsheimer) for the British Empire. It went out the "buck catching"-way, same as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway before, and the same way the Ukraine is being "extended today", and will most likely go out the same "buck catching"-way.
Obviously, viewed through the lens of systems/strategy (specifically grand strategy), if the "favored nation" os the "buck catcher", it can also be used to goad a rival of the "buck passer" (the greater power in the relationship). The "buck passer/s" can then steer, manage, or moderate the resulting crisis or war.
Even Churchill was not convinced that every London lord would be fine with such a mockery of the term "friendship", and prepared two speeches. One defiant, one conciliatory. But he was wrong, and after the bloodbath there was no need to roll out the "conciliation".
1
-
1
-
Churchill would've loved to "fight to the last Frenchman", whilst withholding fighter planes, and fresh divisions in England.
They would pay the price for Mers later.
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
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 a continental power or dissing it, 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...game over...
1
-
1