Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Knowledgia"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
3
-
3
-
2
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
2
-
2
-
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...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
The following text about the German/Soviet occupation of Poland will hopefully give an indication just how evil some people are.
I hope everybody agrees:
From Wiki: "During the occupation following the 17th September demarkation, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tried to strengthen their influence in their respective occupation zones. They took control over the rail network and contracted half of Poland's publicly- and privately-owned trucks, thus occupying 75 percent of the country's prewar food distribution capacity in the midst of the 1940 harvest. The remaining transportation capacities were quickly rendered unusable because of a restriction of the import of spare parts.[2] That disrupted internal trade and social services and increased the cost of living by more than 700%.[3] After a bad harvest in 1940, famine struck the German-occupied west.[4]
The German government blamed the situation on hoarding, inefficient distribution and an inadequate transport system, but the Polish government in exile suspected that the Germans had deliberately manipulated the food supply to further their own political objectives.[6] Meanwhile, the Soviets banned food shipments from the east, claiming that they needed the resources for their own zone. The Polish government in exile blamed German mismanagement for the famine since there were no similar reports about such conditions existing in the Soviet-held areas. The Polish underground accused the Germans of looting the country and pushing the occupied territory into inflation and starvation.[7]
During the final months of 1941 and in 1942, the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto were full of semi-naked and hungry people with fifteen deaths attributed to hunger and poverty occurring every day. In February 1942, typhus broke out in the city and the hospital was closed down because of widespread infection among doctors and staff.[10] A secret British intelligence report on conditions in the ghetto for the week of March 13-20 1942, contains the following: "The streets have been full of hungry and half-naked beggars of whom about 15 die each day of starvation and typhus cases among the people have been numerous."[11]
The Germans downplayed the effects of their own occupation (quote): "...the death toll, though unknown, was probably modest".
Extremely selfish and brutal, as all can judge for themselves.
Scroll down...
Note here: The above text was copied from Wikipedia, and concerns the Iranian famine of WW2. The text was shortened, without changing the context. The only thing I changed was geographical references, and the nationality of the occupying force. British authorities confiscated trucks, labour, food and railway resources which quickly led to a famine with up to a million deaths or more: nobody even bothered counting. Apparenty the subjects under British protection did not even deserve the honor of being counted for any records. As mostly in British history, the victim numbers were seriously downplayed where their own attrocities were concerned, if mentioned at all. Also, as usual, the "circumstances" were blamed, not own crude lack of humanity: it was "the war", or whatever. Needless to say, there was no famine in 1940 or 1941 before Brits arrived as overlords, and Iranian leaders were in charge of own affairs. Nor was there hunger or extreme need in the Soviet occupation zone in the north, which can serve as a neutral reference, in case anybody feels the need for the usual "apologia"-outrage attack...
Be honest: Did you find yourself agreeing with my introduction, as you started reading?
If yes, did you change your mind about the scope of such inhumanity?
From the same wiki site (unaltered): "Alarmed at the reports of famine in Iran, Lieutenant-General Patrick J. Hurley, a friend and advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt ... called on Assistant Secretary of State, Adolph A. Berle on October 5, 1943, for the purpose of informing him of the substance of his report to the President. ... General Hurley had observed widespread starvation in Iran: "This was not, General Hurley said, hyperbole. He had seen the corpses in the streets and had heard the women and children crying over their dead." Commenting on his conversation with General Patrick Hurley, Berle wrote: "Unfortunately our own reports bear out Pat's statement as to the results of the British-Russian policy in Iran. In the last war, 25 percent of the entire population of that unhappy country starved to death as the result of the German activity there. This time, it looks as though the Allied occupation might produce about the same results."[13]
The devastating impact of World War II on Iran is acknowledged by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In the entry in the Holocaust
1
-
1
-
@Barra NZ Confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies.
In fact it is easy to misdirect and point fingers when it comes to "who started it".
One can simply gather up a bunch of random evidence, and then make theories (see "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy").
Anybody can do that.
Fact?
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy.
No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords.
Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances.
Before 1871, a divided Central Europe, and the millions of subjects living here, were useful to those on the fringes (esp. to the UK and France), since the rulers in this disunity offered useful "tools" which could be allied with or "hopped onto" to effect a short-term solution in a crises or war (usually diplomatic, but also wars).
The above is also known and acknowledged as the "not accept a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, in other words not speculative or disputed.
London made every single German citizen "the rival/enemy" as a matter of policy, irrelevant of how crises/wars started, or who fired the first diplomatic/military shots, as long as Germany remained the strongest continental power/alliance.
That came first.
All these London policy standpoints (Splendid Isolation" = not "making eternal friends") were of course classical cases of "divide and rule" on the "elites/establishment"-level.
The trick of dividing and ruling is to create just enough content = complacency to settle things down in the short term, but at the same time enough tension to ensure future strife/division. The "divider" creates default "favorites" (favoratism) and default "others", and "winners and losers", which they can then steer against each other if they wish, or unite if it's convenient. Sometimes planned, sometimes the result of unfortunate prior mistakes, but then exploited.
Also note in such "games": there are no "eternal friends" or "eternal enemies".
There are no "eternal rights" or "eternal wrongs".
Only eternal interests.
Or, as A.J.P. Taylor would say: keep the continent in an eternal state of tension.
Once established, they started brainwashing young Brits to hate/dislike Germans and their leaders.
The technical term for this is "priming" and "conditioning".
From wiki:
"Invasion literature (also the invasion novel) is a literary genre that was popular in the period between 1871 and the First World War (1914–1918). The invasion novel first was recognized as a literary genre in the UK, with the novella The Battle of Dorking: Reminiscences of a Volunteer (1871), an account of a German invasion of England...."
Note.
1871
What happened in 1871?
Oh right.
Germany united, became the continent's strongest power, and was immediately considered as "a hostile nation" by "the few" (lords), before anything else even happened.
Any majority opinions by people which might or might not have existed at the time did not matter.
Of course as time progressed and the people gained more and more say in matters (much to the agony of the conservative leaders/money elites), the ways of "divide and rule" also adapted/morphed: to set up the self-reinforcing process of "priming" and "conditioning" of "the masses" which needed to turned against each other, the means of literature was created. As more people became literate, and as print became cheaper and cheaper (reaching larger and larger parts of the population as time passed), and the evolving liberty meant that a ruler could not simply go into a village and say "you, you, you, grab your pitchfork, there is a war going on" as time progressed (say, the 19th century).
On a sidenote, today this process of "priming/conditioning" of the (mostly) young and inexperienced, is well-known when it became public how the Pentagon funds Hollywood movies which depict "certain people" as enemies. Of course, had Rambo and movies existed in the late 19th Century, he would've "fought Injuns", but it just so happens that he "fought commies" (Cold War) together with "our best fwiends the Muslims". Also movies with lotsa "Mexican looking types" (War on Drugs). Eternal cycles of friends one day, enemies the next...
In the late-19th century, with the German economy growing, this was not coincidence of course.
From another thesis: "Politicisation of a cultural stereotype: Germany and Germans in English literature
"[The] description of the romantic character of Germans stood for an interpretation which had already reduced Germany's complex political reality... In the words of Robert Browning, the Germany of the early century was similar to 'a tall, old, quaint irregular town'..."
So Germans were "a quaint village" while they were "temporary/usefull best fwiends".
How cute...
By 1878.
"This was also accompanied by a similar change in political satire: in the Punch of March 1878, Bismarck appeared as a Germanic tribal chief suppressing his inferiors and displaying the `Vae Victis' (`Woe to the losers') as his new political motto. The Fortnightly Review of December 1878 accordingly commented on the Iron Chancellor: 'The German of the primitive time survives in him; or rather, he appears among us like the God Thor of the Scandinavian Olympus, bearing in mind his iron hammer, and unchaining the tempests' (de Laveleye1878: 786)."
Both from JÖRN LEONHARD Construction and Perception of National Images: Germany and Britain, 1870 - 1914 (available for download as PDF file)
Weird.
What a coincidence that the "cultured German" of the Dichter and Denker (Poets and Philosophers) turned into the barbarian "eternal Jermin" just as they united and become the continent's strongest power in 1871, replacing France as the "default hate group."
Was the above purely intent?
Not necessarily.
Authors, journalists, the first movie makers, cartoonists and other contemporary "influencers" at the time who "jumped on the bandwaggon" didn't necessarily have evil intent.
Wishing to simply "pay the bills" is not "evil". An effect of capitalism, not evil intent.
In GB this process of "priming" and "conditioning" in the form of "invasion scare literature" (a term which can be googled for more info) against the Germans started almost the same time as they united (1871), formed an unbreakable unity (1879), and took over the role of "most likely to achieve continental hegemony" from France.
Before that, "the Germans" were "best fwiends" of course...
Was the above "steered" or "a conspiracy theory"?
No, because that is the great thing about "free and liberal societies".
One doesn't have to convince every single person.
It is sufficient to convince just enough to get the ball rolling.
Nothing new of course either, nor is it "conspiracy theory"-nonsense, since the process is self-reinforcing.
If it sells (popularism), it will get copied.
It is not necessarilly "steered" by dark-hooded figures in "back rooms".
Once the ball rolls, the rest will follow in the wake.
1
-
@Barra NZ They actually did have roads and schools. Study some history. Also intact societies.
If left unhindered (no foreign wars or invasions), with decent and fair trade with foreign countries in place, guilded by laws and treaties, what would have stopped Africa and Asia from developing according to own priorities?
No "strawman" there at all.
History isn't set in stone.
Any change somewhere along the timeline of events would have effected all following events.
Simply stating that "nothing we ever did (colonialism) ever had any long-term effect" is a lazy argument, easily countered.
Same goes for the "everything we ever did always had only good intentions" which is also a lazy argument, easily countered. Fact? Apart from a few philantropists, nobody went 3,000 miles away because he wanted a better life for "brown people" in the racist times back then. Own profit, own glory, own benefits stood in the foreground and the "crumbs" that fell down which you point at today, back-patting the own back, were just that: crumbs. The riches were extracted, and little was left behind.
1
-
1
-
Yup. For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ahhh...the "family ties". Yes, unfortunately "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War) and even Victoria and her "600 lords" (😊) were too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
Wilhelm "did what he could with what he had and where he was" (loosely quoting Theodor Roosevelt), "and believed he could and went halfway" (also a Roosevelt quote), but the other half would have to come from elsewhere.
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BRITISHFURY_1664 London (as the alpha) could have avoided all of that around 1900.
States have a means to increase their "power" and leverage in deals by alliances.
London even came up with the correct answer themselves and debated it...
"Another factor in favor an alliance between the two nations [Germany and GB] was the power and protection it would afford both. In 1898, Conservative member of the House of Commons Sir E. AshmeadBartlett argued that William II had saved the British Empire by increasing his influence in Turkey, thereby checking the Russians, who had long been seen as a grave threat to British India.204 He declared “I hold we cannot resecure our proper position, our strong and invincible position, among the nations of the world which we held in 1878, and from 1886 to 1892, until we return to the natural alliance with Germany.”205 Then in 1900, Sir Ashmead-Bartlett remarked that “The Concert of Europe… is impossible. It cannot exist. You cannot have a real Concert between Powers … whose interests are diverse,” and that “If you substitute for that Concert a real alliance or understanding with Germany,… then; you have an alliance with the dominant force not only in the East, but elsewhere, and you can practically impose your policy on China.”206 William II would surely have agreed to an alliance on the basis of the power it would grant both nations, not just militarily but economically, because it would virtually ensure the protection of his colonial empire and its trade. William II also desired an alliance with Britain which would serve as the basis of a “United States of Europe,” which would counter the growing economic might of the United States.207 Britain’s economic empire was also threatened by America’s rise, so they surely would have been open to an alliance with Germany to maintain 47 their economic dominance."
(quoted from "Mad as March Hares:" Kaiser Wilhelm II, Great Britain, and the Road to War Jeffrey Kelly" page 47/48)
Available for download as pdf-file.
A great balanced thesis.
Unfortunately, the powers which wanted to "rule by division" were stronger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent essay.
Re. the German Navy.
There is a ton of evidence that the "narrative" of popular history is faulty or a misrepresentation of facts in order for the own side to "look better". The way this is usually achieved is the method called "lying by omitting" ("omitting" a few details, or as the average person would say "not telling the entire story").
The false narrative of the German Navy being built to "overpower the Royal Navy" or to "rule the world" (or similar variations) is an example of such false narratives.
The reality is that the German Navy was built in self-defense.
What "started it" was actually a British policy called "Two Power Standard" aimed at Russia/France.
When Germany united and became industrialized it was another British policy called Balance of Power (** see below) which made Germany the "default rival in peace/enemy in war" (taking over from France, the previous default rival/enemy in war for The British Empire).
Or one could say that by defeating France, the newly united Germany "gained" a default enemy in London/Empire.
As you explained, GB refused any kind of mutually protecting/beneficial treaty citing yet another British policy (this time Splendid Isolation).
What is often forgotten? London also refused any kind of neutrallity agreement (the "narrative" re. The Haldane Mission is false: Haldane was not given full negotiating powers by London, which "dragged their feet" re. ratification, raising the fear in Beelin that London was merely toying with Berlin in an effort to torpedo the next German Naval Act from passing).
Why? In their own eyes, London considered themselves the "balancer of powers" for the continent, and they considered continental states as "a scale" which could be "hopped onto" to effect outcomes.
German leaders therefore set out to protect the German Empire and their own citizens by building a Risk Fleet (a clearly defined term).
There never was an intention to outbuild the RN at all.
Up to that time, the Royal Navy had a history of going around the world "bomb(ard)ing and blockading" everybody who stood in the way of their own selfish expansion. So the intention to protect Germany was not "evil" or "looking for trouble" (sic.) as it is mostly represented in history books.
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stansearcheslife6363 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
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."
[From the Britannica website]
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
legolo "Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
It was sold out in 1898 by her European neighbors.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" and they "hopped" their way into extinction.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
While these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had raked in for a few hundred years, the lower classes scrambled for their rifles and Spitfires...
These tax havens spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-class and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire". These fine elites sacrificed pawns, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary, here on YT).
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
The so-called "Schlieffen Plan" was a contingency plan which was devised, and which cristalized out of several pre-war war games re. potential "what ifs" faced by Germany and her alliance partner Austria-Hungary.
It would be "triggered", in case certain criteria are met. A fact which is not clear if Wilhelm truly understood.
Note, it came about as a result (causal effect) of other nations' leaders decisions.
That is how "causality" works.
At first, devised in 1905, after it became clear that 1) France and Russia could not be convinced to give up on their policy of encirclement (see the failure of the Treaty of Bjorko), nor coerced into abondoning their alliances aimed at Berlin/Germany/Triple Alliance (see the Agadir crises).
The final step towards it becoming the only German war contingency plan, was in 1913, when it became clear that London would also not abandon its position of being the "balancer of powers/decider of wars" on the continent (after The Haldane mission), Attempts by Berlin to achieve this, were basically given up, and faced with the situation of "three enemies in war, right or wrong", all other contingency plans were shelved.
Re. the act of "encircling others", often brushed off as "nonsense", and "snowflake outrage", I suggest referring to our beloved Bible. "Do not do onto others, as one does not wish to be done onto".
Would you like to be encircled? Well...don't do it to others.
The age-old wisdom of "practicing as one preaches", does not apply to our dear leaders, as they set up the world for failure...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken 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 money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
@philliprobinson7724 Historical observation has shown that those who wield power and wealth, do not implement measures (incl. the Magna Carta) which impacts their ability to exert power and influence, and thereby rule, chiefly through "divide and rule/conquer" strategies.
That makes the Magna Carta an ancillary (reality) and the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the indicative.
no human rules of coexistence have ever made the divide and rule startegy "illegal", which for the various elites, is all that counts.
Which is older? Which therefore (according to Lindy's Law, most likely to prevail?
Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint. The answer to an observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinately.
Divide and rule as a strategy, which is long-lasting and durable, 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. The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken 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 money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
The Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian.
From wiki: "The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe. Herero ... were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swaths of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east."
Guess who started it?
"The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness... Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been..." (wiki)
Of course, the poor inhabitants who were there first, and were brutalized and enslaved by militarist foreign invaders, needed protection.
Therefore, to keep the peace "In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.[29][31] German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894.[32]"
The German peacemakers tried and tried and tried their pure-hearted best, but unfortunately, the nasty Herero didn't want peace.
A little later...
"In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region..." (wiki)
Always just wanting peace, and roads and schools, the Germans only had the best intentions for the impoverished poor people.
Let's skip a few embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style by dumping it into the ocean, and continue...
"For many years, the Herero population had fallen in the habit of borrowing money from colonist moneylenders at extreme interest rates (see usury). For a long time, much of this debt went uncollected and accumulated, as most Herero had no means to pay... In the absence of hard cash, traders often seized cattle, or whatever objects of value they could get their hands on, as collateral." (wiki)
Well, that's not a nasty practice. That's capitalism, and it was obviously greedy locals who were at fault, not the pure-hearted money lenders (finger pointing vigerously).
Let's burn some embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style, and continue...
*"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..."
WELL WELL
Guess who started it again?
How long must peace-loving settlers put up with these warlike savage people, who considered slavery of their weaker neighbors as fair?
They obviously thought they could terrorize and kill everybody else, and nobody could kill them.
A typical way these Herero fought as cherry-picked criteria: "A Herero warrior interviewed by German authorities in 1895 had described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspected cattle rustlers, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians, "We came across a few Khoisan whom of course we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them. First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never hear Herero cattle ... ' Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again shall you smell ... And finally we cut his throat." (wiki)
Judge, jury, executioner...
They obviously deserved everything they got.
Obviously, the only language such people understoond is to receive MORE THAN THE MEASURE...
Even worse, the brave Germans who were outnumbered 10 to 1 suffered defeats as they fought for peace and stability, and Leutwein/German leader ... "sent desperate messages to the Herero chief Samuel Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war...The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that, "the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open," and rejected Leutwein's offers of peace.[53]" (wiki)
But Germans fought hard, and prevailed: "By late spring of 1904, German troops were pouring into the colony. In August 1904, the main Herero forces were surrounded and crushed at the Battle of Waterberg..." (wiki)
Wow.
Such bravery.
Finaly after years of humiliating defeats while defending themselves and the settlers, and other local tribes, there was finaly peace...
Skip a few more inconvenient details, OPERATION LEGACY-style...
Unfortunately, the Herero's deluded leaders who refused to give up when they could, mislead their own people: leading them into the desert where some died.
Still today, the propaganda claims more Heroro died (100,000) than actually lived in SWA in 1904 (80,000).
Obviously the anti-German propaganda inflated the death toll.
Hummdeee dum...HINT, HINT....burn a few more files OPERATION LEGACY-style
The Herero troublemakers had "sown" for a hundred years, and terrorized their poor neighbors.
They were a militarist warlike people, who stole the land they lived on: they sowed the wind, and in 1904/05 they reaped the whirlwind...
Today the Herero are nice people, but back then, they just had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
And thus ends the story of the Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian...
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
GB had a "geographical advantage" because the term is far ore than simply "a map".
A "geographical advantage" means an advantage in term of raw materials, technological edge, education of "masses" (turning them into usefull tools to advance "greater causes"), popolation numbers, systemof government, etc.
In the 19th Century, GB had an advantage, an could "play out" continental rivals against each other.
France did the same, because with Spain as an ally, they only had to face weaker easily divided "dynistical" states and kingdoms to their east.
The minute these "dynisties" united (1871), France lost its "geographical advantage", and Germany dominated Cental Europe.
Islands like Madagascar lacked the population, technology, or system of government which would have allowed them to equally rise in power. Complacency within their small isolated "world" meant they didn't have to face the struggles Europe had gone though for a 1000 years, and were completely unprepared when the first Arabs and Europeans arrived on their shores with "greater" intentions.
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
1
-
Simon Foxwell @Sam Ferguson London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
A fool and his empire are easily parted.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1