@@marcusporciuscato6404 There are few rules in "Totaler Kreig" and when you are invading and bombing everyone else, you have to expect devastation to be brought back to your own door.
"We shall never surrender". ROTFLMFAO Of course Great Britain surrendered. *It just wasn't in 1940.* Their "best fwiends" had a plan... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that work out for GB after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
@@buddy5196 Seriously kid? That doesn't even rhyme... Here I'll show you how it's done. I'm starting a new meme... Arthur *"Hamburg hammered, finances slammered"* Harris Arthur *"under the chin, Rule Britannia in the bin"* Harris Arthur *"sow fire, lose your Empire"* Harris Arthur *"Germany's cities erased, Empire's finances blazed"* Harris Athur *"press expire for Empire"* Harris Arthur *"burn Huns for fun, earn the end of the run"* Harris Arthur *"send the Lancs around, God closes the bank account"* Harris Any other ideas?
@Johnnesbit Minxcat1234 That sounds seriously stupid. That's like saying the Germans didn't lose anything from their crimes, because today Germany is the most powerful country in Europe, the alpha of the EU, and that Germans have a high standard of living... *Uhm...and?* What's your message? That "crime pays"? ROTFL
@@MarkHarrison733 Unlikely, considering they never formally ended the conflict. They maintain that the Kuril islands are still illegally occupied though.
Seeing how he speaks, man, he really is based, I never imagined that someone can be this based He is like Yeah so it seems no one won a war just by bombing... Well, they just didnt try hard enough
@oh_man 15 " it means making people like you cope" Sorry, Mate - but that sentence in _itself_ 'means' nothing ! And since you know nothing about me, I fail to see how you can speak about 'people like' me. Tell you what - just forget it...........................
@@marvinc9994 Oneliners including words like "based" or "cope" are usually used by narrow-minded extremely low-IQ losers who neverless want to "sound cool". They are either unable or incapable of writing more than a few lines in something known as "an essay". These sad individuals are the TH-cam/social media version of what "cannon fodder" is for battlefields: expendable.
@@ralphbernhard1757 "social media version of what "cannon fodder" is for battlefields" Indeed, Ralph ! But, at the risk of sounding (zzzzzz) 'conspiratorial', I find myself wondering at times just WHO is firing that cannon !
@@marvinc9994 I write my essays (all readable in 5-10 minutes) for more intellectually capable members of society. In case you really want to know what happened, scroll up to the comments I wrote under the "Patterson"-commentor (choose "latest comment first" by clicking the three little bars on top of the comments section). My comments are all *based....*
People make out like the final solution was a few officers in camps out of sight of the general population. In reality, the number of Germans actively against the process was relatively small. They started something, then moaned when faced with the consequences.
How can you be against something which takes place behind the smokescreens offered by war? How many death camps were there in 1939? (before the war) Correct answer: None How many concentration camps were there in 1939? Correct answer? 4 How many did the commies have in the SU? Correct answer: 53 Gulags and 423 "labor" camps... Yet, Stalin became the "friend". Odd....right?
Not too odd. Germany was the more immediate threat to Britain in 1939 as it would signify German dominance on the continent. Stalin only became an ally after 1941 when Hitler decided to foolishly seek Lebensraum instead listening to Ribbentrop.
@@MrDarudin The OP is about camps. Meaning the OP thinks Germans "deserved it" *because* of the camps. That is incorrect. (See my comment). "Camps" were not the reason why German cities were bombed. They offered a convenient excuse *after* the war.
What we also should not forget is that hardly anyone involved in the second world war had a choice. They were drafted men and refusal to cooperate usually meant death, loss of liberty and status. So to view Germans as just perpetrators is not correct either. They were also victims. Most just went along to get along.
@@ralphbernhard1757 i think the other guy is making a more limited point: that we like to imagine nazism was some kind of con played on the German populace, and that Germans werent in favour of the moral evil of nazism (the nature of which was clear before the death camps). So, while you can certainly make some kind of argument like Britain should have maintained a moral high ground and made the civilian-military black and white distinction (while having its own civilians bombed. choosing to do nothing isnt a obvious response to that), we arent dealing with the catagory of a bystander population, you have an ideaologically nazi population actively supporting the war effort. that doesnt prove the allied bombing was just in itself, but i think it;s a reasonable disitnction to make when talking about it
Bomber crews were ignored for many years, and only in recent years have they been awarded the recognition these brave guys deserved. It was the only way that Britain was able to strike back, we are all aware of the horrific act’s of the third reich .
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.
Incorrect, as the Royal Navy had illegally blockaded Germany in order to starve its entire civilian population. The Allies committed the same war crimes as the Axis.
Thanks to no small part due to the misguided actions of Harris, GB ended up in the "caboose" of the American Century, just as intended by planners in the USA. Google that in case you're not old enough.... How did London Lords intend to avoid becoming the future "caboose" (tag along for the riff-raff of the world) of someone else's "locomotive" (power)? "In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose." (wiki)
Have to laugh at the expectation that people should feel "sorry" for what happend to German cities. Germans have from the earliest days of flight been fascinated with dropping as much high explosive on other countries as possible, then when they are shown how to do it properly, they come over all, soft and inoffensive... "only monsters would dream of doing that to innocent civilians" they'd whine, while inwardly they're jealous as hell that they weren't better at it themselves. But let bygones be bygones I say.
@@pancytryna9378 , Hitler's mass hypnosis speaches would have put you in a trance about a Greater Europe (ala Holy Roman Empire) too; you're not invulnerable to supreme manipulation and propaganda !!
@@juerbert1 Sorry Jürgen, I'm not one of the simple minded who automatically believe what they see and hear. (especially anything broadcast by the globalist owned MSM nowadays).
So, applying your logic, IRA bombings are 100% justified. China and India and other colonized nations can have their revenge on any random British lad for what British did to them. Well, well!
@Exodus British Pathe is a "gatekeeper", which blocks essays which are comprehensive and longer. If you want to read how and why the British Empire bit the dust, as a result of their own misguided policies, go to the *Kaiser Wilhelm II video of the History Room educational channel,* and read how London got screwed over by their "best friends" in Washington DC, as a result of the setup London had implemented on the continent, as the lords tried to "divide and rule" the world (before 1945). Under this video, if you chose the three little bars at the top of the comments section, and choose "latest comments first", you can read why *"divide and rule"* is still the relavant strategy in world domination, even today.
True Brits love Poland. I work with polish brothers each day and polish men in their 60s who work harder than Brits in their twenties. Massive respect.
I've trained & worked with a lot of Polish people. They are some of the nicest & funniest people, I've ever had the privilege, to come across. God bless you all brother. 🙏
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945. The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945. Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works... Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals. Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke... But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!" [Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program] Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"... Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine". 1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?" That's how leverage works. Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century. Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana. Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
@@ralphbernhard1757 Britain’s empire was at an end, her colonial possessions slowly embracing independence. The British used whatever left of their empire to end an the Nazi empire, it was an noble sacrifice in the end. The British Empire would go peacefully in the end, with politicians dragging it out of its grave.
@@sergentsnugglemuffin1543 LOL A weak argument made by l o s e r s *Reality? Empires can last forever.* They just have to morph over time, and adapt to the world as the world changes. *Not* have leaders who wish to change the world, to adapt to their "empire". Its all a question of leadership. The world changed, London refused to adapt. As simple as that. Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire (standpoint: turn of the century, around 1900). There were 2 fundamental pressures on Empire, as indeed on every empire, at any point in time. 1) Internal pressures (for example, rising worldwide nationalism, etc.) 2) External pressures (competing empires, rivals, etc.) I'm from South Africa, so I can draw parallels: The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the British Empire re. point 1). Of course, in *both cases* (internal and external pressures) the gentlemen in control were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on. For the British Empire. *1) Make timely internal changes:* In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for *all* the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts. *2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:* That pitted GB/Empire against the *strongest* continental power/alliance/country as a default setting. It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime. From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War... All "engineered" by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools" (because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage), that London once used when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century)... How do you spell "l o s e r s"?
@@MarkHarrison733 The Germans showed complete disregard for civilian casualties, reneging on an agreement they signed with UK and France at the war's start. They flattened Warsaw. It was not until after the Rotterdam bombing that the British shifted from restricting explicitly to Military targets such as dockyards.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm Warsaw was a military base on the front line, heavily defended by the Polish army. Most of Warsaw was still standing until the uprising in 1944 that Churchill betrayed. The Dutch army in the military port of Rotterdam had failed to surrender before the deadline.
"When the storm bursts over Germany they will look back to the days of Lübeck and Rostock and Cologne as a man caught in the blast of a hurricane will look back to the gentle zephyrs of last summer."-- Yikes.
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: *to create a disunited Europe.* In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. *Divide and rule, you see.* We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make *a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing:* set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]" From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened) *No "satire" there at all.* Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists... After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: *divide and rule.* Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. *Divide and rule.* Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, *divide and rule.* Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. *Divide and rule...* Seperating brothers from brothers. *Divide and rule.* Seperating companies from their markets. *Divide and rule...* Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords... So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a *pig's breakfast* out of Poland. A *pig's breakfast* out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more *pig's breaksfast...* The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad. The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years. Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a *pig's breakfast* out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west". Didn't anybody notice? The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC. Awww...poor British Empire. They wanted to "sow" their *pig's breakfast* to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words. Lovely.
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.
But saying that Anish there a millions of British people who you have never met who wish you no harm or malice, start from a position of respect, and then let people lose it by their actions, not the other way round. Best wishes to you.
*Woke: Athur "burn British finances" Harris, knocked a nail into the coffin of the British Empire...* Broke: Yeah, let's burn women and kiddies because we love the smell of burning flesh....
@@ralphbernhard1757 Ehh, when you attempt an extermination of an entire race/class you deserve what's coming to you. Yes Dresdan was ban, but what was happening in those concentration camps was so much worse and we had to do everything possible to end this genocidal menace, much like we are with Russia today. Nazism is a cancer Harris was the chemo.
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.* In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe. The first truly "global war". Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup. Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population. *There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"* The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent. In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule. Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant. *Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).* The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway. The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War). *And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.* Didn't *anybody* notice? The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
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...
@@MarkHarrison733Exactly! These buffoons are unable to connect the dots on why Japan's leaders don't mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki until Stalin invades Manchuria and declares war on Japan.
@@lucasgrey9794 Never in my live have I ever seen a fascist and a tankie agree on something oh my lord did hell froze over? Is sausage gonna fall from the sky?
@@lucasgrey9794timeline,first nuke nuke radio silence red army again radio silence 2nd nuke 24hrs emperor Hirohito announces surrender watch potential history’s video on it
@@Personontheinternet4598 The Emperor did not have the power to make Japan surrender. The reason the Emperor *lied* to his people (on behalf of Japan's elites) that the nukes were the reason for surrender was because the real reason (Communists will wipe out Japan's elites) would've led to the Japanese people rising up and annihilating their ruling class.
I am trying to find the interview. But he was asked some after the war whether the raids were successful. He replied. "If they weren't we would still be bombing them today"
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin. Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends". So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Nice exchange. The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity. It only cost the Brits their Empire... Seems like a fair deal.
@@pathfinder_strider The story of how the Brits lost their Empire... The big picture... *And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. [Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*
When I was doing an electrical technician qualification in the 1980s we had a lecturer who had been in WWII. He once asked us a question. “Which country knows the most about killing?”. We all looked a bit puzzled. I said “America” another said “Germany” even “China” ( partly on the basis they invented gun powder he said). The lecturer shook his head “Nah” he pointed at the ground and said “this country, Britain”. I thought he was bonkers at the time. Now I know how right he was. The Germans seemed to, strangely, have no idea who they were taking on. Harris was an unusual man in Britain but not unique. The English in particular are essentially genetically from north west Germany but have had nearly 1500 years of cultural evolution which has made them generally slow to anger and weary of theories and ideology. However, when the sanctity of the island is under genuine threat they become hyper Germanic, with all the ruthless efficiency that entails. Us British normally are driven by tradition and or “muddling through” until the existential threat. The classic example is RAF Fighter Command with its superb organisation, followed by the first strategic bomber force designed, by Harris, to wipe out whole cities. Lots of WWII German ideas were actually invented by the British. Such as, the Concentration Camp (Boer War early1900s), Blitzkrieg (Lightning War end of WWI I think) and Lebensraum (Colonisation of sparsely populated foreign lands such as Australia and Canada). The English are descended from the Germans that were not conquered by Rome (the WWII and contemporary Germans) or the Mongols (not the WWII or contemporary Germans); worth thinking about. I am British and I acknowledge my country for all the good things it is and all the not so good. Nowhere is perfect.🙂
This is insightful. Something I had not thought about like that (non-British here) but which seems to fit history. What is for sure is that without the British, I would probably either not have been born at all or I would have been speaking German now. The same goes for the United States, which joined the war a bit later. For that fact alone I will always have a certain amount of respect and gratitude for my British neighbours, no matter what. Blood spilt for the benefit of someone else (alongside yourself, of course) and especially for an outsider, is the most genuine of sacrifices and not ever forgotten
I always found it interesting that the British have a reputation for being polite and civil. Yet there's a much darker side to our nature that only gets fully unleashed in war. Bomber Harris exemplifies this in spades. He's a quiet, softly spoken man, but beneath that calm facade, you know that he has no hesitation in doing whatever it takes to win the war, no matter how repugnant some people find his methods now.
It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late With long arrears to make good, When the English began to hate. They were not easily moved, They were icy-willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the English began to hate. Their voices were even and low, Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show, When the English began to hate. It was not preached to the crowd, It was not taught by the State. No man spoke it aloud, When the English began to hate. It was not suddenly bred, It will not swiftly abate, Through the chill years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the English began to hate. _The Beginnings, Rudyard Kipling_
Complete boss. Knows exactly what is going to happen. His only flaw was thinking Hitler would let the total destruction of cities end the war. He underestimated Hitler.
No he was pursuing a strategy that demonstrably did not work. Had he focused on tactical bombing, as the US did, the war could have ended much earlier and with far fewer casualties for bomber command. His ego and personal vindictiveness cost thousands of lives
Haughty Empire sat on the wall Haughty Empire had a great fall All the king's 4,000 Pounders, and all the king's brrrrrrr-Lancasters couldn't put Empire together again. Yeah, I know that sucks as a lyric, but somebody should make a meme out of it 🙂
@@dante6055 : He's prolific mate. I've come across his dumb-ass before, aswell. EDIT : Hmm, after reading it out loud, that last bit, doesn't sound right. 🥴
Poor little Bwittain. Strutting about in arrogant self-confidence. *In reality, slipped into the role of "MAKE AMERICA THE GREATEST".* Nice little TOOL. Good boy. Mastah will throw you a bone every now and then...
@@ralphbernhard1757: Jealousy, is a cruel mistress, my darling. 😁 America helped us, to help Europe out (Not the other way round) & we've backed them up ever since. It's called friendship + Loyalty. The same 2 things, we showed to Europe, during both World Wars, which has been conveniently forgotten about, by a lot of ignorant Europeans, such as yourself, nowadays. After Dunkerque, we could've (in hindsight, maybe should've) just pulled up the proverbial drawbridge, stuck 2 fingers up & then watch you all, crumble under the Jack boot of Germany, but we didn't. Don't get me wrong, I have never & would never profess to say "Britain won the war, on its own" (No Country did). But if Britain hadn't of shown any "arrogant-self confidence" (as you call it) & capitulated. NOBODY, was coming to save Europe. We held the line & galvanised the Commonwealth, aswell as America, to come & help. Ah well...Now, Germany rules all your arses now anyway. ( If I didn't laugh, I'd fukn cry). 😂
Lots of appeals to emotion in the comments section. Weak arguments for weak minds. With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed. 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. A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL... 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. Sad...
@@ralphbernhard1757 L + ratio + cope + seethe + mald + harrised + bombed + you are german + you have cancer + no industry + no air superiority + no me 262 + sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind + no dresden + you are wehraboo + touch snow
The phrase “we shall see” is hilarious, he describes the allied strategic bombing as if it’s a secondary school science experiment, he certainly knew how to be understated, and possibly the most stoic man in human history.
@@IssAHeYY so any criticism of the allied campaigns makes one a Nazi? Objectively, millions of innocent Germans died due to Harris. Let’s not forget, Churchill started area bombing before Hitler ever did
Unlike so many others at the time he was fully honest that the raids over cities were civilian targets, and that he believed it was for the greater good. Then after the war he admitted it probably didn't have the full desired effect. I kinda have to respect his honesty
Could someone with a solid grasp of the English language humour an old fart, and tell me what this word "based" thats being thrown around, usually in semi literate, ungrammatical comments, is attempting to convey?
@@pevlez Thanks for that Pablo....my son eventually told me what it was, and he said almost exactly the same as you.... I remember as a young lad laughing at clueless old farts..... now I'm one of them !!!
@@justanothernumber5567 Thank you for the confirmation. BTW Do you mean "Posh", as in born and raised on a Liverpool council estate by two working class parents?
Hitler only wanted "liebenstraum", and he reiterated that many times. Moved troops into the Saar, occupied the Rhineland, only wanted the to reunite the Sudentenland Germans with Germany, took over all of Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, conquered all of western Europe, turned on his gaze east to Soviet Russia, came to the aid of his Italian brothers in North Africa, the Balkans, and Greece. I guess this is what Bomber Harris was faced with in 1942. Personally, I cannot believe that he had the gall to think he could win.
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 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 wanted to "rule the world"? Apparrently, the "Big Two" thought there wasn't space for "A Big Three". Prophetic... See below...
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. A complete disaster for Europe...
Washington DC screwed London over because they could. "Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information. In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. *The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys (edit: code word for nuclear technology) for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement”* (Goldschmidt 217). Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act. *The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."* From atomicheritage Of course. Times had changed drastically. Around 1900 the "formula" for success was "no navy/battleships = no leverage = no power". *In 1945 it was "no nukes = no leverage = no power"...*
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...
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.* In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe. The first truly "global war". Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup. Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population. *There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"* The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent. In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule. Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant. *Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).* The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway. The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War). *And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.* Didn't *anybody* notice? The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
While his hand in some of Britain's colonial policies (or atrocities) was appalling, I have to wholeheartedly say that the firebombing was entirely justified. Was it unfortunate and tragic? Sure. But nowhere as abhorrent as some would like to make it out to be
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 from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). *Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?* Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term *"Copenhagenization"* to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right? From wiki: *"Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase."* William Cobbet Excellent indeed... *So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs"...* Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not being bomb(ard)ed oneself. Terror bombing countless villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. In Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think "terror" is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby, right? When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Who gives a... Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and then trying to burn evidence (google Operation Legacy). No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh? *Not so great having own cities and streets turned into verbs, right?* Londonization, Liverpoolization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization. William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to "turn cities into verbs", finally "coming home to roost".. All of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff... Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
@@ltcarlsen2152 As the 1937 constitution did not make clear whether Ireland was a republic the whole island was committed by the King's declaration of war on 3 September 1939.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Ireland was an Independent Republic during the war, They have their own Preisdent, Eamon De Valera. This isn't the first time Germany tried to break a country neutrality, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech. One thing most people don't know about the invasion of the Czechoslovakia is that, One of the agreements in the munich confrence is that, Czechoslovakia is that they have to be neutral, Germany used the excuse to invade Czechoslovakia.
@@ltcarlsen2152 Ireland was not a republic until 1949, when it left the Commonwealth. Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. Germany had to go through Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg in order to avoid the Maginot Line.
@@ralphbernhard1757 you weren’t banned by British Pathe and your comments are crap. I’m sure they are willing to let you run your anti semetic mouth you child.
Honestly .. yes the UK is sooo sooo bad. Have you forgotten history, are you trying to rewrite it? the UK was going to be invaded. WWII took 70 million lives, 50 million were civilians? the UK was next on the German to do list. I say German because ....The very first sinking in WWII on day 2 was a civilian liner, SS Athena. a stealthy U boat crewed by very brave Germans "stalked" and sunk a civilian undefended civilian ship killing 120 US citizens going to New York, very brave? The U boat wasn't full of Nazis, it was full of Germans following orders from their democratically elected chancellor, 65% of the popular vote, a popular man? The Germans randomly bombed civilian targets in the great war? They Sunk random civilian ships in WWII, and then started the blitz, 40 to 41, randomly bombing civilian targets, and then again in 45, vengeance weapons specifically designed to target non military targets (children mostly.). Britain was on its knees? When we got power in the sky, of course there was pay back to stop the madness? Britain never wanted war? Germany did.
Hitler never intended to invade the UK. SS Athena was a military target, like RMS Lusitania. Hitler was never elected. The Blitz was in response to the RAF bombing Germany. Churchill wanted war; Hitler did not.
@@MarkHarrison733 Hitler war appointed chancelor because the Nazi party was the biggest political party in the Reichstag. And secondly Austria? Czechoslovakia? Poland?
@@MarkHarrison733 Churchill was the replacement for Neville Chamberlein after he resigned and was asked personally by King George the VI to become the prime minister and form a government. And yes of course the referendum in Austria that came up with a totally not rigged 99.73% in favour of the Anschluss. Poland occupied and annexed a small borderland region called Trans-Olza to ostensibly protect the Polish ethnic communities while Hungary did not invade Czechoslovakia but was given the southern territories of Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenians in First Vienna Awards still the majority of the forces used to invade Czechoslovakia was arguably entirely German.
@@darkknight6432 The King should have sent for Halifax. Austrians had wanted to unite with Germany since World War I ended. We should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig in 1939.
On one of the episodes of world at war number 12 i think ,one of the bomber crew says if you carnt get them in the factory knock them off in the beds and if granny schnitzel Gruber gets it tough luck
Dresden and Hamburg should’ve never been firebombed. They were working class cities, with tightly packed housing full of innocents. British POW Victor Gregg had witnessed these crimes committed in Dresden and the horrors he described say more about this act than some commander who was never on the frontline and never had to see what he was responsible for. I would’ve left Dresden alone and allowed the Germans to use the city as a funnel so that more of their army could fight the Soviet armies to the east, more dead Soviets equals a weaker Soviet army overall and would’ve had a better outcome that what actually happened. A weaker Stalin would’ve been better for everyone.
Maybe the Germans shouldn't have targetted 50 British "working class cities" as well as Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade as well as an unknown number of soviet cities to launch their bombers against. The "takeaway" lesson is.... Don't bomb everyone else and then expect sympathy when its YOUR turn.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 All of those cities were military targets, and the RAF had already bombed cities and towns in Germany for four months before the Blitz began.
*How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.* To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level. *The impact of strategies on history.* These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies). "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." Deng Xiaoping To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up. *On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:* 1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using *favoratism.* 2) wait for ALL the others to fail. Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO There is never a *guarantee* for anything in strategy, but if one has the *geographical advantage* (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out. What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC. It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify. *What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.* Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"? My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time... *Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.* Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events. Anyway. Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA. *To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.* Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a *comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts)* which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about... Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended. Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
Enjoying this meme video? *According to Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a meme, THIS is a meme..."* The biggest meme of all time. *Generalplan Ost.* The REAL "generalplan ost", not the one you can google which is the "99% of history which is ancillary". *The "generalplan ost" as lebenstraum for CORPORATIONS and other 1%-ters, which follow in the wake of military conquest as manifest destiny.* Because, sniff, sniff...."corporations are people too"... *An example of such lebenstraum for corporations and B52 bombers: Diego Garcia, whose population was simply deported to make lebenstraum for B52 Bombers, and nobody gives a sh$€t.* These "lebenstraum"-chanters are always singing the same merry tune... 16th century: "The Spanish want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" 17th century: "The Dutch want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" 18th century: "The French want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" late-19th century: "The Germans want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" Meanwhile, as all that was happening (generally known as "European Imperialism"/peaked 1900-1914). All the Washington DC strategists had to convince Americans of at the same time (until around 1900), is that there was generalplan west (aka "Manifest Destiny"), whilst strategists in Washington DC knew that the key to their own further growth and expansion, was European DISunity. Therefor whilst carrying out the generalplan west as emptying out Native Americans to make room, and grow grow grow grow grow... *After 1898 the "generalplan ost" (across the Atlantic) came into being: both Great Britain and France were turned into extensions of the own US power, or the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer) for the American Century.* Change of management, 1945. 20th century: "The Russians/commies want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" 21th century: "The Chinese want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!" Still singing the same tune even today...and guess who's losing? The problem is if you think YOU (individual) are a "winner" because your corporations and politicians create lebenstraum for themselves, and their likewise reasoning buddies. *In case YOU are reading this, there is an almost 100% chance that YOU (personally) are not in the top 10% of high-value individuals, who gain from almost geopolitical setup.* There is your "generalplan". All smart people have to do, is figure out a way to back the other side into a corner so they shoot first, and then "we" (ingroup) can scream and point fingers... “If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences.” - Jordan Peterson
Sounds like you simply envy America for successfully ending the ambitions of Europe. Even without Churchill and Harris, America and the Soviet Union would still triumph.
All Hitler had to do was step down and relinquish his murderous conquests across Europe... but his regime chose to fight it out to the bitter end. Bad decision.
@@MarkHarrison733 As part of the plan drawn up with the nazis... if the nazis had not instigated it, The Soviets would NOt have challenged the Poles by themselves.... 3 months later after further preparation of their armed forces, the soviets had their arses handed to them on a plate by the TINY Finnish army . The Soviets stood NO chance alone against the Polish.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Stalin had intended to invade fascist Poland ever since the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. The USSR won the Winter War against Finland.
Imagine Shakespeares birthplace's roof being blown off and hot phosphor then dropped into it, burning it down to its ashes. That happened on March 19th, 1945 in Hanau with the birthplace of the Brothers Grimm and with the Haus Lossow, the birth house of the family Hassenpflug, members of which told them most of those fairytales that you, if you were born in the western world, grew up with, including Snow White . The house had been erected in 1597, btw. It had cultural significance far beyond Germany and its destruction bore no strategic value. However the bombing was explicitly directed at the historical city center, not just the railway station to the west. The attack on civilian sturctures, especially its peak in March '45, was ineffective and defied the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (§25 to be specific) that specifically prohibited the bombing not only of civilians but of cultural monuments. Yes, Germany defied them, too. But Britain was the free democracy back then - and did it anyway. The Area Bombing Directive was based on false assumptions, but it's not a 'hindsight is 20/20' or 'reap what they sowed' kinda thing: The bombing raids already drew the dissent of British contemporaries, including Churchill himself. After all, Harris did feel the need to justify them multiple times. And even if you don't care about those Germans burning to death - 'They had it coming' or whatever, forget that those were civilians in a dictatorship and history always shits on the them first, just pray to God you won't get reborn into that situation - burning down historical sites to NO strategic effect just to get back at the Germans is so short sighted. You're not taking it away from Germany alone, you're taking it away from the whole western culture.
More snivelling nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that the nazis FIRST started dropping HE on innocent civilians during WW2, destroying vital military tragets as medieval cathederals as well as hospitals & schools etc, and then when its handed back to them snivelling lefties crawl out of the woodwork to protest. Why are you not decrying nazi bombing of Warsaw, rotterdam & London?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Why are you not decrying the British bombing of Mesopotamia in the 1920? Why are you not decrying the RN bombardement of dozens of cities during the 19th century? Oh, lemme guess: that was a loooong time ago, and it was mostly brown people...ROFL
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.
@Damon Arndell Arthur *"I'll call children Nazis and burn them"* Harris. Winston *"I'll sleep with the Devil for muh Empire"* Churchill. God [speaking softly]: "Hmmmm. I don't like that..." *Guess who had the last word?*
@Damon Arndell The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2. Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire. Empire's "fwiends"? Of course, they had their own agendas. Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud... [Google: The American_Century] If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed... [britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power] The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent. [Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944] There would be no US support to start Unthinkable. The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging... After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"... Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe... [Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin] Stalin: "I'll tear this up this *scrap of paper* now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?" London: oh no....where's my beautiful empire??
@@sergentsnugglemuffin1543 Unnecessary. Timely changes, and wiser alliances would have saved it from the only dangerous and life-threatening rival: the American Century fanboys in Washington DC. Instead, you've subscribed to a "history" of half-truths and misdirection.
Arthur *"I'll call children Nazis and burn them to cinders"* Harris. Winston *"I'll sleep with the Devil for muh beautiful Empire"* Churchill. God [speaking softly]: "Hmmmm. I don't like that..." *Guess who had the last word?*
What about the children of Warsaw? The children of stalingrad? The children sent to gas chambers after being crowded into box cars on trains? Civilian casualties happen in war, and as sir harris put it, they weren't going to be allowed to do it to everybody else and not get it back in return, and they did, 100 fold. They could of stopped it by surrendering way earlier but they went all the way to the end, ensuring countless deaths and destruction. The kids you cite might not of been Nazis, but you miss out on all the other countries the Nazis brutally invaded and conquered and the deaths caused by them.
@@sleazyfellow That's exactly my point. If you "sow" wrongs, you "reap" wrongs. That counts for everybody. The Nazis would have lost anyway, because their despicable ways and policies united all against them.
@@sleazyfellow The British did not send Bomber Command to "take revenge". Churchill thought that by eclipsing the age-old Policy of Balance of Power and totally destroying Germany would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. *They couldn't have been more wrong.* Both The American Century advocates, as well as Stalin and the communist "friends" (lol) in Moscow, had no intention of accommodating an already crumbling "British Empire". So totally bankrupt GB went from the *unmistakable nr.1* at the turn of the century (1900), down to *on par* with the USA after WW1, down to *3rd fiddle* during the Cold War...
@@sleazyfellow The German civilians who were "being burnt to a cinder" couldn't surrender. They were living under a cruel dictatorship, and "defeatism" would have meant concentration camp, or even death.
@@sleazyfellow Harris, Portal, and Churchill had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home. *So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?* From historynet: "Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. *When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group.* Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..." Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians... *Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.* Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over... Well. Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all... *So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?* Stop trying to defend despicable human beings.
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin. Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends". So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Nice exchange. The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity. It only cost the Brits their Empire... Seems like a fair deal.
@@justinwellington6448 The only reason GB "didn't give up" was because they were an island, and therefore it was *geography* which insured their survival. They also didn't "choose" Stalin because he was better, or "the lesser evil, blah, blah", or because he "was betrayed" by Hitler. *They chose Stalin because he sat on the Heartland.* Ever heard of it? The "London lords" decided on "friends" and "enemies" as default settings. Nothing to do with "right or wrong"... So when Hitler attacked Poland, he attacked the Limitrophe which protected the British Empire... [Google: Border_states_(Eastern_Europe)] ...but when Stalin attacked Poland three weeks later, he automatically gained the privilege of becoming *"the protector of the Heartland".* [Google: The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History] Make any sense?
There are many reasons why empires fail. The end of the British Empire also had many causes. I'd argue that one of the main causes for its final demise from the late-19th/early-20th century on was the rise of liberalism and nationalism. Both only appeared fairly late, after the main parts of the British Empire had already formed, *and the conservative elements in British politics couldn't adapt fast enough to the changing world around them.* I would say that a "British Empire" in some form or another could still exist today, but for that wide ranging concessions would have been needed after, say 1900. "Empires" of the old ways as had existed for most of history cannot exist in the modern world, *and British leaders should have changed it to a "Pound block of equals" of sorts, with independent nations (with shared values and interests) early on.*
@@TheDaverobinson *Empires can last forever.* They just have to morph over time, and adapt to the world as the world changes. Not have leaders who wish to change the world, and try to adapt the World to their "empire". Its all a question of leadership. The world changed, London refused to adapt. Same counts for all the other empires. *They failed to adapt, so they died.* As simple as that. Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire (standpoint: turn of the century, around 1900). There were 2 fundamental pressures on Empire, as indeed on every empire, at any point in time. 1) Internal pressures (for example, rising worldwide nationalism, rising liberalism, etc.) 2) External pressures (competing empires, rivals, etc.) Of course, in *both cases* (internal and external pressures) the gentlemen in control in the British Empire and were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on. Of course Empire could have been saved. *1) Make timely internal changes:* In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for *all* the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts. *2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:* That pitted GB/Empire against the *strongest* continental power/alliance/country as a default setting. It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime. From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War... All aided along by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools". That was possible, because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage that London once had when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century) vs. the continental powers...
*Wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...* The big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the *biggest of all...* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually *protected in Europe* by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... *Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.* Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*
When you start a war, you don’t get to complain about how it ends.
The dictatorship started the war, the civilians were attacked by the Royal Air Force
France and the British Empire started both world wars.
Tell me then, why have rules of war?
France and the British Empire started both world wars.
@@marcusporciuscato6404 There are few rules in "Totaler Kreig" and when you are invading and bombing everyone else, you have to expect devastation to be brought back to your own door.
"God... Damn..."
---William Tecumseh Sherman
"I was wrong when I said war was hell. We just wasn't doing it right."
-Probably William Sherman, learning about the flattening of Hamburg
@@nottherealpaulsmith "This is goddamned beautiful."
😂😂😂
Arthur “aerial cremation for the aryan nation” Harris
"We shall never surrender".
ROTFLMFAO
Of course Great Britain surrendered.
*It just wasn't in 1940.*
Their "best fwiends" had a plan...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out for GB after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Ralph Bernhard you’ve been doing this for like a month man please go touch some grass
Arthur London gets bombed? Dresden is gone Harris
@@buddy5196 Seriously kid?
That doesn't even rhyme...
Here I'll show you how it's done.
I'm starting a new meme...
Arthur *"Hamburg hammered, finances slammered"* Harris
Arthur *"under the chin, Rule Britannia in the bin"* Harris
Arthur *"sow fire, lose your Empire"* Harris
Arthur *"Germany's cities erased, Empire's finances blazed"* Harris
Athur *"press expire for Empire"* Harris
Arthur *"burn Huns for fun, earn the end of the run"* Harris
Arthur *"send the Lancs around, God closes the bank account"* Harris
Any other ideas?
@Johnnesbit Minxcat1234 That sounds seriously stupid.
That's like saying the Germans didn't lose anything from their crimes, because today Germany is the most powerful country in Europe, the alpha of the EU, and that Germans have a high standard of living...
*Uhm...and?*
What's your message?
That "crime pays"? ROTFL
"Japan will provide the confirmation" very prophetic words.
Japan surrendered due to the USSR.
@@MarkHarrison733 Unlikely, considering they never formally ended the conflict. They maintain that the Kuril islands are still illegally occupied though.
@@rustcat Japan surrendered to avoid being invaded by the Soviet Union.
@@MarkHarrison733 No it did not.. it was invaded by the USSR anyway and was going to surrender to the US already... stop talking nonsense..
@@acebars Eisenhower, Leahy, MacArthur and Nimitz all confirmed the failed atomic bombings played no role whatsoever in Japan's surrender.
The basedest man to walk this earth
Arthur "Gamer" Harris.
@@seacatlol831 Arthur “Trolling the Goering” Harris.
Evil War criminal.
@@SSPanzee nah ur mum
@@SSPanzee True, its his job to bomb to kill and burn War criminals.
Seeing how he speaks, man, he really is based, I never imagined that someone can be this based
He is like
Yeah so it seems no one won a war just by bombing...
Well, they just didnt try hard enough
"based"
What do you think 'based' means ? Kindly explain to this ignoramus.
@oh_man 15
" it means making people like you cope"
Sorry, Mate - but that sentence in _itself_ 'means' nothing !
And since you know nothing about me, I fail to see how you can speak about 'people like' me.
Tell you what - just forget it...........................
@@marvinc9994 Oneliners including words like "based" or "cope" are usually used by narrow-minded extremely low-IQ losers who neverless want to "sound cool".
They are either unable or incapable of writing more than a few lines in something known as "an essay".
These sad individuals are the TH-cam/social media version of what "cannon fodder" is for battlefields: expendable.
@@ralphbernhard1757
"social media version of what "cannon fodder" is for battlefields"
Indeed, Ralph ! But, at the risk of sounding (zzzzzz) 'conspiratorial', I find myself wondering at times just WHO is firing that cannon !
@@marvinc9994 I write my essays (all readable in 5-10 minutes) for more intellectually capable members of society.
In case you really want to know what happened, scroll up to the comments I wrote under the "Patterson"-commentor (choose "latest comment first" by clicking the three little bars on top of the comments section).
My comments are all *based....*
People make out like the final solution was a few officers in camps out of sight of the general population. In reality, the number of Germans actively against the process was relatively small. They started something, then moaned when faced with the consequences.
How can you be against something which takes place behind the smokescreens offered by war?
How many death camps were there in 1939? (before the war)
Correct answer: None
How many concentration camps were there in 1939?
Correct answer? 4
How many did the commies have in the SU?
Correct answer: 53 Gulags and 423 "labor" camps...
Yet, Stalin became the "friend".
Odd....right?
Not too odd. Germany was the more immediate threat to Britain in 1939 as it would signify German dominance on the continent. Stalin only became an ally after 1941 when Hitler decided to foolishly seek Lebensraum instead listening to Ribbentrop.
@@MrDarudin The OP is about camps.
Meaning the OP thinks Germans "deserved it" *because* of the camps.
That is incorrect.
(See my comment).
"Camps" were not the reason why German cities were bombed. They offered a convenient excuse *after* the war.
What we also should not forget is that hardly anyone involved in the second world war had a choice. They were drafted men and refusal to cooperate usually meant death, loss of liberty and status. So to view Germans as just perpetrators is not correct either. They were also victims. Most just went along to get along.
@@ralphbernhard1757 i think the other guy is making a more limited point: that we like to imagine nazism was some kind of con played on the German populace, and that Germans werent in favour of the moral evil of nazism (the nature of which was clear before the death camps). So, while you can certainly make some kind of argument like Britain should have maintained a moral high ground and made the civilian-military black and white distinction (while having its own civilians bombed. choosing to do nothing isnt a obvious response to that), we arent dealing with the catagory of a bystander population, you have an ideaologically nazi population actively supporting the war effort. that doesnt prove the allied bombing was just in itself, but i think it;s a reasonable disitnction to make when talking about it
Bomber crews were ignored for many years, and only in recent years have they been awarded the recognition these brave guys deserved.
It was the only way that Britain was able to strike back, we are all aware of the horrific act’s
of the third reich .
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.
Incorrect, as the Royal Navy had illegally blockaded Germany in order to starve its entire civilian population. The Allies committed the same war crimes as the Axis.
The war was also being fought at sea.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Quite a few lines when all you really meant to say was "maybe hitler was the good guy".
@@JamesRichards-mj9kwBut the sinking of the Bismarck or subs in the Atlantic was not felt in Nazi Germany like the ruins of it's cities.
"Do it again bomber Harris"
Thanks to no small part due to the misguided actions of Harris, GB ended up in the "caboose" of the American Century, just as intended by planners in the USA.
Google that in case you're not old enough....
How did London Lords intend to avoid becoming the future "caboose" (tag along for the riff-raff of the world) of someone else's "locomotive" (power)?
"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose." (wiki)
😂😂😂😂😂
Why?
when he takes the spectacles off (you don't mess with this man)
Have to laugh at the expectation that people should feel "sorry" for what happend to German cities. Germans have from the earliest days of flight been fascinated with dropping as much high explosive on other countries as possible, then when they are shown how to do it properly, they come over all, soft and inoffensive... "only monsters would dream of doing that to innocent civilians" they'd whine, while inwardly they're jealous as hell that they weren't better at it themselves. But let bygones be bygones I say.
People act as if the German population wasnt resposible for the crimes of III Reich
@@pancytryna9378 ,
Hitler's mass hypnosis speaches would have put you in a trance about a Greater Europe (ala Holy Roman Empire) too; you're not invulnerable to supreme manipulation and propaganda !!
@@juerbert1 Sorry Jürgen, I'm not one of the simple minded who automatically believe what they see and hear. (especially anything broadcast by the globalist owned MSM nowadays).
So, applying your logic, IRA bombings are 100% justified. China and India and other colonized nations can have their revenge on any random British lad for what British did to them. Well, well!
Churchill began civilian bombing.
Happy anniversary from Poland!
Thank you Marshal Harris!
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
There is a post office in hell for your "best wishes"-card?
Wow.
That's new to me...
Poland was Nazi Germany's first ally. Churchill made Europe Communist, beginning with Poland.
@Exodus YAAAAAWWN
Killer argument you've got there....
@Exodus British Pathe is a "gatekeeper", which blocks essays which are comprehensive and longer.
If you want to read how and why the British Empire bit the dust, as a result of their own misguided policies, go to the *Kaiser Wilhelm II video of the History Room educational channel,* and read how London got screwed over by their "best friends" in Washington DC, as a result of the setup London had implemented on the continent, as the lords tried to "divide and rule" the world (before 1945).
Under this video, if you chose the three little bars at the top of the comments section, and choose "latest comments first", you can read why *"divide and rule"* is still the relavant strategy in world domination, even today.
Great hero, love from Poland
True Brits love Poland. I work with polish brothers each day and polish men in their 60s who work harder than Brits in their twenties.
Massive respect.
Polaczki placza, robia z siebie ofiary.. A sami sa w Sojuszach ze zbrodniczymi krajami jak US and UK.
@@SSPanzee ja tu widze tylko dojczów co płaczą że byli bombardowani.
Remember Warsaw!
I've trained & worked with a lot of Polish people. They are some of the nicest & funniest people, I've ever had the privilege, to come across. God bless you all brother. 🙏
A great guy.
In spite of everything, he will always be in the hearts of the anti-fascists.
Glory to Sir Arthur Harris! Hurrah!
Imagine cheering the m0r0ns who lost the Bwitish Impure, or commemorating them with statues.
ROTFL
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
@@ralphbernhard1757 touch grass.
Eternal War Criminals deserve no glory.
Harris rot
@@SSPanzee "Bomber" Harris... whatta guy !!!
Image him dealing with ruzzia and hamas
DO IT AGAIN
Questions like "was a war crime", or simplistic justifications like "revenge for >insert German war crime
@@ralphbernhard1757 well written sir
@@ralphbernhard1757 Britain’s empire was at an end, her colonial possessions slowly embracing independence. The British used whatever left of their empire to end an the Nazi empire, it was an noble sacrifice in the end. The British Empire would go peacefully in the end, with politicians dragging it out of its grave.
@@sergentsnugglemuffin1543 LOL
A weak argument made by l o s e r s
*Reality? Empires can last forever.*
They just have to morph over time, and adapt to the world as the world changes.
*Not* have leaders who wish to change the world, to adapt to their "empire".
Its all a question of leadership.
The world changed, London refused to adapt.
As simple as that.
Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire (standpoint: turn of the century, around 1900).
There were 2 fundamental pressures on Empire, as indeed on every empire, at any point in time.
1) Internal pressures (for example, rising worldwide nationalism, etc.)
2) External pressures (competing empires, rivals, etc.)
I'm from South Africa, so I can draw parallels: The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the British Empire re. point 1).
Of course, in *both cases* (internal and external pressures) the gentlemen in control were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on.
For the British Empire.
*1) Make timely internal changes:*
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for *all* the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
*2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:*
That pitted GB/Empire against the *strongest* continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All "engineered" by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools" (because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage), that London once used when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century)...
How do you spell "l o s e r s"?
@@ralphbernhard1757 The British Empire turned into the Commonwealth after the war, an association that South Africa is a part of.
The Bosche sowed the wind
Actually we bombed Germany first in both world wars.
@@MarkHarrison733 Look at the German track record of strategic bombing prior to Rotterdam
@@BigFujiLittleFilm Germany had only bombed military targets like Warsaw.
@@MarkHarrison733 The Germans showed complete disregard for civilian casualties, reneging on an agreement they signed with UK and France at the war's start. They flattened Warsaw. It was not until after the Rotterdam bombing that the British shifted from restricting explicitly to Military targets such as dockyards.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm Warsaw was a military base on the front line, heavily defended by the Polish army. Most of Warsaw was still standing until the uprising in 1944 that Churchill betrayed. The Dutch army in the military port of Rotterdam had failed to surrender before the deadline.
"When the storm bursts over Germany they will look back to the days of Lübeck and Rostock and Cologne as a man caught in the blast of a hurricane will look back to the gentle zephyrs of last summer."-- Yikes.
Based and alliedpilled
A British hero, through & through: SIR Arthur Harris.
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: *to create a disunited Europe.* In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. *Divide and rule, you see.* We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make *a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing:* set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
*No "satire" there at all.*
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: *divide and rule.*
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. *Divide and rule.* Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, *divide and rule.*
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. *Divide and rule...*
Seperating brothers from brothers. *Divide and rule.*
Seperating companies from their markets. *Divide and rule...*
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a *pig's breakfast* out of Poland. A *pig's breakfast* out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more *pig's breaksfast...*
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a *pig's breakfast* out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their *pig's breakfast* to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
British war criminals will pay for it
@@SSPanzee They already have.
They lost their "Empire", screwed over by their "best fwiends".
He helped to make Europe Communist and Islamic.
@@ralphbernhard1757Give it a rest already and just go outside for once.
Boy Oh boy Japan certainly provided the conformation "Get you some of that!
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.
@@ralphbernhard1757 touch grass.
Absolute legend
He was a racist war criminal.
@wickendiana8310 you're braindead..
Bomber Command? Based Command
Tools and fools.
All of them, deceived...
Imagine support terror bombing and racism
As an Indian, he is one of the only few British people I truly love and respect. 👍🏽
But saying that Anish there a millions of British people who you have never met who wish you no harm or malice, start from a position of respect, and then let people lose it by their actions, not the other way round. Best wishes to you.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 he meant among people from WW2 leaders I guess.
Do you love me aswell? 😉
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 : That name. 👍😆
He was an extreme racist.
Broke: Arthur Harris is a criminal
Woke: Do It Again Bomber Harris!
*Woke: Athur "burn British finances" Harris, knocked a nail into the coffin of the British Empire...*
Broke: Yeah, let's burn women and kiddies because we love the smell of burning flesh....
@@ralphbernhard1757 Ehh, when you attempt an extermination of an entire race/class you deserve what's coming to you. Yes Dresdan was ban, but what was happening in those concentration camps was so much worse and we had to do everything possible to end this genocidal menace, much like we are with Russia today. Nazism is a cancer Harris was the chemo.
@@ralphbernhard1757you are just pained by the legitimate response from bomber harris. If possible cry more!
@@Napolean46 Who is "crying"?
@@ralphbernhard1757 you for sure.
This is what we lack these days- ruthless determination
Vengeance was delivered.
Hello?, Based department?
Hero.
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.*
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
*There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"*
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
*Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).*
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
*And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.*
Didn't *anybody* notice?
The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
@@ralphbernhard1757 wow crazy balls.
@@theoddster830 Yup.
That's really crazy how in history "best fwiends" got scammed by "best fwiends".
Almost like real life.
Darn...
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...
WAR CRIMINAL
02:36 Japan will provide the confirmation.
He' was *definitely* teasing us for the series finale. Of WW2😮
Japan surrendered due to the USSR.
@@MarkHarrison733Exactly! These buffoons are unable to connect the dots on why Japan's leaders don't mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki until Stalin invades Manchuria and declares war on Japan.
@@lucasgrey9794 Never in my live have I ever seen a fascist and a tankie agree on something oh my lord did hell froze over? Is sausage gonna fall from the sky?
@@lucasgrey9794timeline,first nuke nuke radio silence red army again radio silence 2nd nuke 24hrs emperor Hirohito announces surrender watch potential history’s video on it
@@Personontheinternet4598 The Emperor did not have the power to make Japan surrender. The reason the Emperor *lied* to his people (on behalf of Japan's elites) that the nukes were the reason for surrender was because the real reason (Communists will wipe out Japan's elites) would've led to the Japanese people rising up and annihilating their ruling class.
That last moment of him on camera. That is an expression of a man aware he will likely be vilified for generations to come.
Definitely. He’s like “heap your shame on me, I’ll do what needs to be done”
@@ac30004he got dirty so the world could stay clean.
@@ac30004 He made Europe Communist and Islamic.
Even England had bastards too during the war, this one might be the biggest of them all 👎💩
We need him today to deal with the russians
The only place you can find him is in hell,getting viciously tortured every day because of his war crimes.
@@Bruno_bm151 Pest control (killing g*rms) aren't "war crimes" lol
Harris helped to make Europe Communist.
@@Bruno_bm151cope
@@vercot7000civilians are germs?
I am trying to find the interview.
But he was asked some after the war whether the raids were successful. He replied.
"If they weren't we would still be bombing them today"
Harris extended the war by a year.
Arthur "Braten die Ratten" Harris
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
@@ralphbernhard1757 I'm know you're very enthusiastic about the topic, but I'm not reading it. Have a good night, Sir.
@@pathfinder_strider Thanks for reading ;-)
@@pathfinder_strider The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
*And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...*
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
*And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*
@@seacatlol831 It saves me a lot of work 😁😀
Furthermore, "Area Bombing" the comments sections is great fun 😆😅
When I was doing an electrical technician qualification in the 1980s we had a lecturer who had been in WWII. He once asked us a question. “Which country knows the most about killing?”. We all looked a bit puzzled. I said “America” another said “Germany” even “China” ( partly on the basis they invented gun powder he said). The lecturer shook his head “Nah” he pointed at the ground and said “this country, Britain”. I thought he was bonkers at the time. Now I know how right he was. The Germans seemed to, strangely, have no idea who they were taking on. Harris was an unusual man in Britain but not unique. The English in particular are essentially genetically from north west Germany but have had nearly 1500 years of cultural evolution which has made them generally slow to anger and weary of theories and ideology. However, when the sanctity of the island is under genuine threat they become hyper Germanic, with all the ruthless efficiency that entails. Us British normally are driven by tradition and or “muddling through” until the existential threat. The classic example is RAF Fighter Command with its superb organisation, followed by the first strategic bomber force designed, by Harris, to wipe out whole cities. Lots of WWII German ideas were actually invented by the British. Such as, the Concentration Camp (Boer War early1900s), Blitzkrieg (Lightning War end of WWI I think) and Lebensraum (Colonisation of sparsely populated foreign lands such as Australia and Canada). The English are descended from the Germans that were not conquered by Rome (the WWII and contemporary Germans) or the Mongols (not the WWII or contemporary Germans); worth thinking about. I am British and I acknowledge my country for all the good things it is and all the not so good. Nowhere is perfect.🙂
This is insightful. Something I had not thought about like that (non-British here) but which seems to fit history. What is for sure is that without the British, I would probably either not have been born at all or I would have been speaking German now. The same goes for the United States, which joined the war a bit later. For that fact alone I will always have a certain amount of respect and gratitude for my British neighbours, no matter what. Blood spilt for the benefit of someone else (alongside yourself, of course) and especially for an outsider, is the most genuine of sacrifices and not ever forgotten
they don't play around when things get real
Ireland is lucky that brits only see them as troublesome
@@BinaryBlueBullThe british gets the job done when called upon. They waste no time which germans are good at.
I always found it interesting that the British have a reputation for being polite and civil.
Yet there's a much darker side to our nature that only gets fully unleashed in war.
Bomber Harris exemplifies this in spades. He's a quiet, softly spoken man, but beneath that calm facade, you know that he has no hesitation in doing whatever it takes to win the war, no matter how repugnant some people find his methods now.
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.
_The Beginnings, Rudyard Kipling_
What an absolute badass
He extended World War II by a year.
@@MarkHarrison733 How exactly??????
@@peg2legs90 Harris refused to bomb military targets.
@@MarkHarrison733 Germans are a military target
Complete boss. Knows exactly what is going to happen.
His only flaw was thinking Hitler would let the total destruction of cities end the war. He underestimated Hitler.
No he was pursuing a strategy that demonstrably did not work. Had he focused on tactical bombing, as the US did, the war could have ended much earlier and with far fewer casualties for bomber command. His ego and personal vindictiveness cost thousands of lives
I slightly disagree. Sure Hitler didn’t care about the German people. BUT, the destruction of the German war machine was on full display.
Love the Bomber, LOVE the Bomber Harris...!!!
Haughty Empire sat on the wall
Haughty Empire had a great fall
All the king's 4,000 Pounders, and all the king's brrrrrrr-Lancasters
couldn't put Empire together again.
Yeah, I know that sucks as a lyric, but somebody should make a meme out of it 🙂
@@dante6055 Nice to see you complaining about me being on every other dresden video, on every other dresden video 🙂
@@dante6055 : He's prolific mate. I've come across his dumb-ass before, aswell.
EDIT : Hmm, after reading it out loud, that last bit, doesn't sound right. 🥴
Poor little Bwittain.
Strutting about in arrogant self-confidence.
*In reality, slipped into the role of "MAKE AMERICA THE GREATEST".*
Nice little TOOL.
Good boy.
Mastah will throw you a bone every now and then...
@@ralphbernhard1757: Jealousy, is a cruel mistress, my darling. 😁
America helped us, to help Europe out (Not the other way round) & we've backed them up ever since. It's called friendship + Loyalty. The same 2 things, we showed to Europe, during both World Wars, which has been conveniently forgotten about, by a lot of ignorant Europeans, such as yourself, nowadays. After Dunkerque, we could've (in hindsight, maybe should've) just pulled up the proverbial drawbridge, stuck 2 fingers up & then watch you all, crumble under the Jack boot of Germany, but we didn't. Don't get me wrong, I have never & would never profess to say "Britain won the war, on its own" (No Country did). But if Britain hadn't of shown any "arrogant-self confidence" (as you call it) & capitulated. NOBODY, was coming to save Europe. We held the line & galvanised the Commonwealth, aswell as America, to come & help.
Ah well...Now, Germany rules all your arses now anyway. ( If I didn't laugh, I'd fukn cry). 😂
In the description it says 'their hun fury into operation' isn't it 'they put that rather naïve theory into operation'?
This is who I think of when someone calls someone an “Antifa”
Lots of appeals to emotion in the comments section.
Weak arguments for weak minds.
With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed.
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.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL...
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.
Sad...
@@ralphbernhard1757 MEDS! NOW!!!!!
@@orpheus3357 Sure go ahead...
First suitable "med"?
SWITCH OFF THE CAPS LOCK 😅😁😀😂
@@ralphbernhard1757 You don’t want to be War Crimed? Win
@@ralphbernhard1757 L + ratio + cope + seethe + mald + harrised + bombed + you are german + you have cancer + no industry + no air superiority + no me 262 + sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind + no dresden + you are wehraboo + touch snow
The phrase “we shall see” is hilarious, he describes the allied strategic bombing as if it’s a secondary school science experiment, he certainly knew how to be understated, and possibly the most stoic man in human history.
He had ASD.
War criminal
No the video is about the revered RAF senior officer and not some nazi thug.
Don’t want to reap the whirlwind? Then don’t sowe the wind
@@IssAHeYYcringe
@@jordantroy8000 coming from the Nazi ?lol , lmao even.
@@IssAHeYY so any criticism of the allied campaigns makes one a Nazi? Objectively, millions of innocent Germans died due to Harris. Let’s not forget, Churchill started area bombing before Hitler ever did
Unlike so many others at the time he was fully honest that the raids over cities were civilian targets, and that he believed it was for the greater good.
Then after the war he admitted it probably didn't have the full desired effect. I kinda have to respect his honesty
Technically perhaps the raids were on civilian targets but if these targets served the war effort, what does it make them?
60,000 RAF air crew died, a similar number of Americans, Churchill ordered the raids yet seemed to dodge all responsibility
Could someone with a solid grasp of the English language humour an old fart, and tell me what this word "based" thats being thrown around, usually in semi literate, ungrammatical comments, is attempting to convey?
Based means something like "badass" someone who has the stomach to do what is necessary no matter what
@@pevlez Thanks for that Pablo....my son eventually told me what it was, and he said almost exactly the same as you.... I remember as a young lad laughing at clueless old farts..... now I'm one of them !!!
It literally just means good mate, if something is 'based', it can mean 'good' or 'I agree' or 'I support this'. Also you sound posh
@@justanothernumber5567 Thank you for the confirmation. BTW Do you mean "Posh", as in born and raised on a Liverpool council estate by two working class parents?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Well that shut him up.
General Sherman would be proud!
You think Sherman would have supported Communism?
@@MarkHarrison733 How is Harris a communist?
@@peg2legs90 Harris helped to make Europe and China Communist.
Do we know what year/month the Harris speech is?
This is who was needed at the time
He made World War II last for much longer.
These exact words (with the names of cities replaced) can be said about Russia's war in Ukraine.
W
H
I
R
L
W I N D
I
N
D
A monster from the deepest circle of hell.
Hitler only wanted "liebenstraum", and he reiterated that many times. Moved troops into the Saar, occupied the Rhineland, only wanted the to reunite the Sudentenland Germans with Germany, took over all of Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, conquered all of western Europe, turned on his gaze east to Soviet Russia, came to the aid of his Italian brothers in North Africa, the Balkans, and Greece. I guess this is what Bomber Harris was faced with in 1942. Personally, I cannot believe that he had the gall to think he could win.
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 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 wanted to "rule the world"?
Apparrently, the "Big Two" thought there wasn't space for "A Big Three".
Prophetic...
See below...
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.
A complete disaster for Europe...
I bet London thought there'd be a *Big Three* to rule the world after WW2.
The new alpha Washington DC: "Big Three? Whoever said Big Three? 😀😆😅😂😃"
Washington DC screwed London over because they could.
"Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information.
In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. *The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys (edit: code word for nuclear technology) for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement”* (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
*The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."*
From atomicheritage
Of course.
Times had changed drastically.
Around 1900 the "formula" for success was "no navy/battleships = no leverage = no power".
*In 1945 it was "no nukes = no leverage = no power"...*
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...
1.30 "the United States of America"
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.*
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
*There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"*
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
*Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).*
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
*And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.*
Didn't *anybody* notice?
The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
@@ralphbernhard1757 wrong
Check out the Seven Year's War (1756-1753) for a better candidate for unofficial first world war.
Based?
Believe it. 👍😉
Nope
Megabased
Racism?
Terror bombing?
Legend
A war criminal prepared to sacrifice 10s of thousands of his personnel to pursue a strategy that demonstrably wasn’t working, all because of his ego.
It clearly worked, German infrastructure and production was in ruins because of allied bombing
@@willgirvan2491There is actually some debate on how effective the allied bombings were
Its often difficult to accurately gauge the damage
@@willgirvan2491 German production increased year after year until mid-1944.
Arthur ‘Lancaster mk. II, RAF Boogaloo’ Harris. What A Chap.
IDF are tame AF
Nothing is forgiven. If you thought it would be because "it was war", then you were horribly mistaken.
He is quoting Holy Scripture !!
Hypocrites love the Bible.
They are too dumb to realize half of it was written with them in mind...
@@ralphbernhard1757 And yet you just love to regularly quote from it yourself.
That's called being "hoist on your own petard" Ralph.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I'm not a hypocrite.
America’s hype man in the UK.
What a chad
*war criminal
@@leahcim0079War hero*
@@bebedor_de_cafe3272 He was a racist war criminal who enabled genocide.
While his hand in some of Britain's colonial policies (or atrocities) was appalling, I have to wholeheartedly say that the firebombing was entirely justified. Was it unfortunate and tragic? Sure. But nowhere as abhorrent as some would like to make it out to be
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 from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
*Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?*
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have own leaders coining the term *"Copenhagenization"* to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right?
From wiki: *"Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase."* William Cobbet
Excellent indeed...
*So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs"...*
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not being bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. In Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think "terror" is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby, right?
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and then trying to burn evidence (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
*Not so great having own cities and streets turned into verbs, right?*
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to "turn cities into verbs", finally "coming home to roost"..
All of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
How can firebombing ever be justified?
@MarkHarrison733 : Simple, if you kill & maim our innocent, we'll return the favour, "ten-fold."
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM Churchill began civilian bombing in World War II.
The Blitz was in response to the RAF bombing cities and towns in Germany.
@@MarkHarrison733was fire bombing justified in the UK by the stupid nazis?
bring the good old lancaster boys
war criminal
Legend himself
Thought that was Trump.
Trump was a draft dodger who funded IRA terrorism.
0:32 100%
Remember Dublin 1941, When the Luftwaffe attacked Ireland.
Ireland was at war with Germany.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Ireland was literally Neutral, you absolute Buffoon.
@@ltcarlsen2152 As the 1937 constitution did not make clear whether Ireland was a republic the whole island was committed by the King's declaration of war on 3 September 1939.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Ireland was an Independent Republic during the war, They have their own Preisdent, Eamon De Valera.
This isn't the first time Germany tried to break a country neutrality, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech.
One thing most people don't know about the invasion of the Czechoslovakia is that, One of the agreements in the munich confrence is that, Czechoslovakia is that they have to be neutral, Germany used the excuse to invade Czechoslovakia.
@@ltcarlsen2152 Ireland was not a republic until 1949, when it left the Commonwealth.
Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39.
Germany had to go through Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg in order to avoid the Maginot Line.
British Pathe is a gatekeeper, which just like every "divide and rule" system, bans comments...
Then why are you still here you terminally online EU funded Nazi?
@@Hwje1111 Telling the kids how divide and rule works.
Anything wrong with that?
@@ralphbernhard1757 you weren’t banned by British Pathe and your comments are crap. I’m sure they are willing to let you run your anti semetic mouth you child.
@@Hwje1111 The EU was Churchill's idea.
Can this Ralph neo nazi go away already?
Honestly .. yes the UK is sooo sooo bad. Have you forgotten history, are you trying to rewrite it? the UK was going to be invaded. WWII took 70 million lives, 50 million were civilians? the UK was next on the German to do list. I say German because ....The very first sinking in WWII on day 2 was a civilian liner, SS Athena. a stealthy U boat crewed by very brave Germans "stalked" and sunk a civilian undefended civilian ship killing 120 US citizens going to New York, very brave? The U boat wasn't full of Nazis, it was full of Germans following orders from their democratically elected chancellor, 65% of the popular vote, a popular man? The Germans randomly bombed civilian targets in the great war? They Sunk random civilian ships in WWII, and then started the blitz, 40 to 41, randomly bombing civilian targets, and then again in 45, vengeance weapons specifically designed to target non military targets (children mostly.). Britain was on its knees? When we got power in the sky, of course there was pay back to stop the madness? Britain never wanted war? Germany did.
Hitler never intended to invade the UK.
SS Athena was a military target, like RMS Lusitania.
Hitler was never elected.
The Blitz was in response to the RAF bombing Germany.
Churchill wanted war; Hitler did not.
@@MarkHarrison733 Hitler war appointed chancelor because the Nazi party was the biggest political party in the Reichstag.
And secondly Austria? Czechoslovakia? Poland?
@@darkknight6432 Hitler was elected, unlike Churchill.
Austria voted to ally with Germany. Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39.
@@MarkHarrison733 Churchill was the replacement for Neville Chamberlein after he resigned and was asked personally by King George the VI to become the prime minister and form a government.
And yes of course the referendum in Austria that came up with a totally not rigged 99.73% in favour of the Anschluss.
Poland occupied and annexed a small borderland region called Trans-Olza to ostensibly protect the Polish ethnic communities while Hungary did not invade Czechoslovakia but was given the southern territories of Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenians in First Vienna Awards still the majority of the forces used to invade Czechoslovakia was arguably entirely German.
@@darkknight6432 The King should have sent for Halifax.
Austrians had wanted to unite with Germany since World War I ended.
We should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig in 1939.
Im the 2000th view
My dtreetpictures so hste is the reson to do that
We fought the wrong enemy, as Patton admitted.
That was 1 of the reasons why "IKE" sacked him & rightly so.
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM Ike was a war criminal.
@@MarkHarrison733 yes, and?
@@sneedfeedandseed2410 We should have allied with Germany against the only threat, Soviet Communism.
@@MarkHarrison733 soviet communism and fascism are equally bad though
Absolutetly Based
Right!
On one of the episodes of world at war number 12 i think ,one of the bomber crew says if you carnt get them in the factory knock them off in the beds and if granny schnitzel Gruber gets it tough luck
Harris extended World War II by refusing to bomb military targets.
@@MarkHarrison733He bombed military targets, such as Dresden
@@bebedor_de_cafe3272 Churchill confirmed the Dresden war crime was only done in order to terrorise its civilian population.
@@bebedor_de_cafe3272 Even Churchill said Dresden wasn't a military target.
@@lucasgrey9794 it was a military target
This is good 😍😍
Dresden and Hamburg should’ve never been firebombed. They were working class cities, with tightly packed housing full of innocents. British POW Victor Gregg had witnessed these crimes committed in Dresden and the horrors he described say more about this act than some commander who was never on the frontline and never had to see what he was responsible for.
I would’ve left Dresden alone and allowed the Germans to use the city as a funnel so that more of their army could fight the Soviet armies to the east, more dead Soviets equals a weaker Soviet army overall and would’ve had a better outcome that what actually happened. A weaker Stalin would’ve been better for everyone.
But they were still allies with the soviets, and Dresden was the last big railway hub to the east, they did a big favor to the reds
Maybe the Germans shouldn't have targetted 50 British "working class cities" as well as Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade as well as an unknown number of soviet cities to launch their bombers against.
The "takeaway" lesson is.... Don't bomb everyone else and then expect sympathy when its YOUR turn.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 All of those cities were military targets, and the RAF had already bombed cities and towns in Germany for four months before the Blitz began.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw and Belgrade were all clearly legitimate military targets.
@@MarkHarrison733 Oh shut up you fool.
*How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.*
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
*The impact of strategies on history.*
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"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." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
*On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:*
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using *favoratism.*
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a *guarantee* for anything in strategy, but if one has the *geographical advantage* (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
*What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.*
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
*Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.*
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Anyway.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
*To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.*
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a *comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts)* which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
Wtf are you doing?
@@fds7476 Explaining how "Divide and Rule" works..
Do you have mental problems or something?
Stop spamming this comment section.
@@fds7476 I don't react kindly to orders.
It's a free world.
Cope
Enjoying this meme video?
*According to Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a meme, THIS is a meme..."*
The biggest meme of all time.
*Generalplan Ost.*
The REAL "generalplan ost", not the one you can google which is the "99% of history which is ancillary".
*The "generalplan ost" as lebenstraum for CORPORATIONS and other 1%-ters, which follow in the wake of military conquest as manifest destiny.*
Because, sniff, sniff...."corporations are people too"...
*An example of such lebenstraum for corporations and B52 bombers: Diego Garcia, whose population was simply deported to make lebenstraum for B52 Bombers, and nobody gives a sh$€t.*
These "lebenstraum"-chanters are always singing the same merry tune...
16th century: "The Spanish want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
17th century: "The Dutch want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
18th century: "The French want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
late-19th century: "The Germans want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
Meanwhile, as all that was happening (generally known as "European Imperialism"/peaked 1900-1914).
All the Washington DC strategists had to convince Americans of at the same time (until around 1900), is that there was generalplan west (aka "Manifest Destiny"), whilst strategists in Washington DC knew that the key to their own further growth and expansion, was European DISunity. Therefor whilst carrying out the generalplan west as emptying out Native Americans to make room, and grow grow grow grow grow...
*After 1898 the "generalplan ost" (across the Atlantic) came into being: both Great Britain and France were turned into extensions of the own US power, or the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer) for the American Century.*
Change of management, 1945.
20th century: "The Russians/commies want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
21th century: "The Chinese want to rule the world. *We* must save all those poor people!"
Still singing the same tune even today...and guess who's losing?
The problem is if you think YOU (individual) are a "winner" because your corporations and politicians create lebenstraum for themselves, and their likewise reasoning buddies.
*In case YOU are reading this, there is an almost 100% chance that YOU (personally) are not in the top 10% of high-value individuals, who gain from almost geopolitical setup.*
There is your "generalplan".
All smart people have to do, is figure out a way to back the other side into a corner so they shoot first, and then "we" (ingroup) can scream and point fingers...
“If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences.” - Jordan Peterson
Sounds like you simply envy America for successfully ending the ambitions of Europe. Even without Churchill and Harris, America and the Soviet Union would still triumph.
Dresden never happened but it should have happened twice.
Are you serious?
@@leahcim0079 Dead Serious
Not only he looked like Hitler, he also acted like Hitler
All Hitler had to do was step down and relinquish his murderous conquests across Europe... but his regime chose to fight it out to the bitter end. Bad decision.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939.
@@MarkHarrison733 As part of the plan drawn up with the nazis... if the nazis had not instigated it, The Soviets would NOt have challenged the Poles by themselves.... 3 months later after further preparation of their armed forces, the soviets had their arses handed to them on a plate by the TINY Finnish army . The Soviets stood NO chance alone against the Polish.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Stalin had intended to invade fascist Poland ever since the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. The USSR won the Winter War against Finland.
@@MarkHarrison733😂😂😂😂
Despicable war criminal
Despicable clueless lefty.
The Germans shouldn’t have bombed Poland, France, Britain, and Holland.
Cope
@@doger944 seethe
Well...1 person's "War Criminal" is another person's Hero. Remember that "My Pedigree Chum"
Imagine Shakespeares birthplace's roof being blown off and hot phosphor then dropped into it, burning it down to its ashes.
That happened on March 19th, 1945 in Hanau with the birthplace of the Brothers Grimm and with the Haus Lossow, the birth house of the family Hassenpflug, members of which told them most of those fairytales that you, if you were born in the western world, grew up with, including Snow White . The house had been erected in 1597, btw. It had cultural significance far beyond Germany and its destruction bore no strategic value. However the bombing was explicitly directed at the historical city center, not just the railway station to the west.
The attack on civilian sturctures, especially its peak in March '45, was ineffective and defied the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (§25 to be specific) that specifically prohibited the bombing not only of civilians but of cultural monuments. Yes, Germany defied them, too. But Britain was the free democracy back then - and did it anyway.
The Area Bombing Directive was based on false assumptions, but it's not a 'hindsight is 20/20' or 'reap what they sowed' kinda thing: The bombing raids already drew the dissent of British contemporaries, including Churchill himself. After all, Harris did feel the need to justify them multiple times. And even if you don't care about those Germans burning to death - 'They had it coming' or whatever, forget that those were civilians in a dictatorship and history always shits on the them first, just pray to God you won't get reborn into that situation - burning down historical sites to NO strategic effect just to get back at the Germans is so short sighted. You're not taking it away from Germany alone, you're taking it away from the whole western culture.
Excellent insight.
But you're wasting it on a bunch of "gamerboys" who are incapable of own thought.
More snivelling nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that the nazis FIRST started dropping HE on innocent civilians during WW2, destroying vital military tragets as medieval cathederals as well as hospitals & schools etc, and then when its handed back to them snivelling lefties crawl out of the woodwork to protest. Why are you not decrying nazi bombing of Warsaw, rotterdam & London?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Why are you not decrying the British bombing of Mesopotamia in the 1920?
Why are you not decrying the RN bombardement of dozens of cities during the 19th century?
Oh, lemme guess: that was a loooong time ago, and it was mostly brown people...ROFL
@@ralphbernhard1757 Leave him bro. He has lost his senses.
@@DeutschesAdler British Pathe bans comments, just like the lords did 200 years ago...
A god damn mass murder, and you call him heroe. Shame on you England
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.
The lesson being if you don't want to be bombed to oblivion, don't do it to others first.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Good point.
Let's nuke GB and the USA...
Cope
@@doger944 Empire gone. Too bad.
Cope...
Wiping out women and children. Well done you brute. What happened to the Germans was beyond terrible.
@Damon Arndell Arthur *"I'll call children Nazis and burn them"* Harris.
Winston *"I'll sleep with the Devil for muh Empire"* Churchill.
God [speaking softly]: "Hmmmm. I don't like that..."
*Guess who had the last word?*
@Damon Arndell The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this *scrap of paper* now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
London: oh no....where's my beautiful empire??
@Damon Arndell Yes. Poor Empire.
Apparently everyone "reaps" what they "sow"...
@@ralphbernhard1757 yes, the end of the British Empire was Nobel in the end.
@@sergentsnugglemuffin1543 Unnecessary.
Timely changes, and wiser alliances would have saved it from the only dangerous and life-threatening rival: the American Century fanboys in Washington DC.
Instead, you've subscribed to a "history" of half-truths and misdirection.
Arthur *"I'll call children Nazis and burn them to cinders"* Harris.
Winston *"I'll sleep with the Devil for muh beautiful Empire"* Churchill.
God [speaking softly]: "Hmmmm. I don't like that..."
*Guess who had the last word?*
What about the children of Warsaw? The children of stalingrad? The children sent to gas chambers after being crowded into box cars on trains? Civilian casualties happen in war, and as sir harris put it, they weren't going to be allowed to do it to everybody else and not get it back in return, and they did, 100 fold. They could of stopped it by surrendering way earlier but they went all the way to the end, ensuring countless deaths and destruction. The kids you cite might not of been Nazis, but you miss out on all the other countries the Nazis brutally invaded and conquered and the deaths caused by them.
@@sleazyfellow That's exactly my point.
If you "sow" wrongs, you "reap" wrongs.
That counts for everybody.
The Nazis would have lost anyway, because their despicable ways and policies united all against them.
@@sleazyfellow The British did not send Bomber Command to "take revenge".
Churchill thought that by eclipsing the age-old Policy of Balance of Power and totally destroying Germany would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world.
*They couldn't have been more wrong.*
Both The American Century advocates, as well as Stalin and the communist "friends" (lol) in Moscow, had no intention of accommodating an already crumbling "British Empire".
So totally bankrupt GB went from the *unmistakable nr.1* at the turn of the century (1900), down to *on par* with the USA after WW1, down to *3rd fiddle* during the Cold War...
@@sleazyfellow The German civilians who were "being burnt to a cinder" couldn't surrender.
They were living under a cruel dictatorship, and "defeatism" would have meant concentration camp, or even death.
@@sleazyfellow Harris, Portal, and Churchill had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
*So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?*
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. *When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group.* Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
*Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.*
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
*So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?*
Stop trying to defend despicable human beings.
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
You're free to write that because the British didn't give up. Yes they stuffed up but they didn't concede to the worst leader in humanity's history.
@@justinwellington6448 The only reason GB "didn't give up" was because they were an island, and therefore it was *geography* which insured their survival.
They also didn't "choose" Stalin because he was better, or "the lesser evil, blah, blah", or because he "was betrayed" by Hitler.
*They chose Stalin because he sat on the Heartland.*
Ever heard of it?
The "London lords" decided on "friends" and "enemies" as default settings.
Nothing to do with "right or wrong"...
So when Hitler attacked Poland, he attacked the Limitrophe which protected the British Empire...
[Google: Border_states_(Eastern_Europe)]
...but when Stalin attacked Poland three weeks later, he automatically gained the privilege of becoming *"the protector of the Heartland".*
[Google: The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History]
Make any sense?
There are many reasons why empires fail. The end of the British Empire also had many causes.
I'd argue that one of the main causes for its final demise from the late-19th/early-20th century on was the rise of liberalism and nationalism. Both only appeared fairly late, after the main parts of the British Empire had already formed, *and the conservative elements in British politics couldn't adapt fast enough to the changing world around them.*
I would say that a "British Empire" in some form or another could still exist today, but for that wide ranging concessions would have been needed after, say 1900.
"Empires" of the old ways as had existed for most of history cannot exist in the modern world, *and British leaders should have changed it to a "Pound block of equals" of sorts, with independent nations (with shared values and interests) early on.*
Ralph Bernhard mate you’re a whelp. Empires end - but this is in living memory. These guys died doing what they had to do.
@@TheDaverobinson *Empires can last forever.*
They just have to morph over time, and adapt to the world as the world changes.
Not have leaders who wish to change the world, and try to adapt the World to their "empire".
Its all a question of leadership.
The world changed, London refused to adapt.
Same counts for all the other empires.
*They failed to adapt, so they died.*
As simple as that.
Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire (standpoint: turn of the century, around 1900).
There were 2 fundamental pressures on Empire, as indeed on every empire, at any point in time.
1) Internal pressures (for example, rising worldwide nationalism, rising liberalism, etc.)
2) External pressures (competing empires, rivals, etc.)
Of course, in *both cases* (internal and external pressures) the gentlemen in control in the British Empire and were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on.
Of course Empire could have been saved.
*1) Make timely internal changes:*
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for *all* the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
*2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:*
That pitted GB/Empire against the *strongest* continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All aided along by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools".
That was possible, because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage that London once had when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century) vs. the continental powers...
*Wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the *biggest of all...*
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually *protected in Europe* by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
*Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.*
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
*And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*