Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Sky News"
channel.
-
30
-
28
-
10
-
7
-
5
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@svetlanachervonnaya7369 In the realist analysis, it is easy to see how such "political doves" (like Einstein) were opposed and undermined by their own political hawks, and militant Zionists. For 100 years now, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1