NATO at 75: the astonishing true history of secrets, lies and empires
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2024
- Is NATO really the strongest, longest military alliance in history?
JOIN MY SUBSTACK
Dive more deeply into geopolitics, history & literature at the Burning Archive: jeffrich.subst...
GET MY GUIDE TO GEOPOLITICS AND HISTORY AT JEFFRICH.SUBSTACK.COM
There you will find my guide to geopolitics and history "Imagine you are a Foreign Minister". It provides seven short briefings into the essentials of history and geopolitics, based on my 33-year career as a government official and lifetime studying world history.
DETAILS OF THIS VIDEO
What is NATO's astonishing secret about empires? Join me for the astonishing true history of NATO at 75. It is a story of two big lies, three dark secrets and one astonishing true history.
If NATO does move into the Asia Pacific, they will have to change their name to POTATO!
Pacific Ocean Trans Atlantic Treaty Organization!!
@@Luke1959 Nice!
Mr Potato Head appears to be a bit short on spending money?
Can NATO support the effort to dominate the BRICS Organization?
Does the Fiat Currency buy enough supplies to finance an operation in the Pacific?
The previous colonial conflict in Southeast Asia proved too expensive for the Gold Standard Currency.
So they changed the Currency to enable bigger economic exploration.
Now the Fiat Currency that was created to replace the Physical Currency of Fort Knox,
has exceeded its limitations.
Keeping a Fleet afloat is difficult among Hyper Sonic Missile development.
Just buying fuel for Gunboat Diplomacy is tough today.
But supporting the Foreign Legions Camps in 700+ locations is very expensive.
When the Military Threats no longer produce Tribute Payments,
the Empire slowly fades away.
Rome once commanded the planet, in their own Roman historical records.
Now their Commercial interests seem to face challenges again?
😂
10 points for the acronym!
You might find my podcast on the end of the US dollar empire interesting ruclips.net/video/K3FouNfz4AA/видео.html
Very interesting because Wikipedia does nothing but lie. Thank you for talking because I can follow you when I am walking
thank you - that is great. Yes I listen to lots of YT and other podcasts while walking too so try to avoid the "Mr Beast" style
NATO seems more in a Champaign-drinking competition, than in a Security-competition.
froth and bubbles indeed
Another wonderful piece of bringing historical perspectives into the present.
thanks, Warwick
Fantastic summary of an aspect of US expansionism in collusion with erstwhile European colonial and economic regimes. Thank you - from India.
Thank you. You will know the consequences of that story well. Thanks for the comment.
remember the "cold war"? it never ended, NATO continued it, taking it underground
That is my argument too. I think in time the term will be dropped, like the "Dark Ages". Great comment
Democracy < Demonocracy 👹
Commercial Democracy has a Budget that exceeds $15 billion.
It is a little disingenuous to mention the Holocaust as the main tragedy of the 20th century without mentioning all the other genocide European powers were conducting on mostly Africans and Asian around the world at the same time. These genocides were equally as gut wrenching however they are swept under the carpet- including the current genocide committed in Gaza by European descendants. Almost as if Europeans suffering goes beyond everyone else’s. We need to start checking how we deliver these messages and do so accurately.
Only if we allow the truth, Africans selling other Africans.
It is completely disingenuous for Sullivan to offer the Holocaust as a prompt for the formation of NATO. De Gaul, Churchill and Eisenhower all published their massive memoirs covering WW II extensively, and none of them mentioned the Holocaust. The Holocaust stiories about showers as a means of poisoning inmates was the invention of film director Alfred Hitchcock. It wasn’t until the Hollywoodizatiin of history that the Holocaust became the “touchstone” of WW II with some characters supplying the falsehood that the war was fought due to the horrors of the Holocaust. School children now will have been taught about that without having an inkling about the US dropping nuclear bombs and firebombing on Japan. Adults are often unaware that the US was allied with the USSR during WW II.
And it wasn’t actually “fear” of Soviet expansion into Europe that spurred the formation of NATO. The leaders knew full well that the USSR was depleted by the war and had sustained more losses than any other country, thus posed no threat. That was the *excuse* used to get the public on board with this huge expenditure in building up the Permanet War Economy, as Seymour Melman called it. It was *GREED* and the quest for *CONTROL* of civilians that propelled the US to collect its newly acquired vassal states into NATO, and then push for right wing governments in Europe who’d follow US dictates by the “Strategy of Tension” using Operation Gladio, or “Stay Behind Armies” made up of NATO and CIA operatives in league with organized crime to commit decades of terrorist acts and assassinations in order to achieve policy objectives. So clever of our “leadership” to terrorize us and get us to pick up the tab for it.
That is a big, sensitive topic and good advice to be careful with those messages. I certainly did not intend to diminish any of the other horrors. Thanks for raising the issue.
I appreciate your effort to bring out the crimes committed by the European colonialists, but this subject is more about Nato which was formed in 1949 and not about European colonialism which began in the 16th century and reaching its climax during the 19th century after the industrial revolution
The creator addressed my concern because I gather, due to the fact that he’s an incredibly smart man, noticed the nuance of my comment. You just resorted to the same old flattening statements, which tell me that you’re either willfully ignorant or your defensive posture knows no bounds. Imperialism is only getting tested now, thus the reason for this video.
Brilliant truth !!!
thank you
Thank you for the brilliant highly well-thought analysis. I remember how at the end of the Soviet Union people were tired of the system's populism and at the same time open for the world. People eagerly gave up being an "empire" being fed up with the burden and hate. We jumped into the new wonderful world like children. And soon realised that everybody wanted a piece of us. The disillusionment with ourselves and our own naivity was stunning. We haven't said a word about NATO's enlargment for a long time. So they simply felt they could grab as much as they wanted. World peace? No, only domination. Total domination and their rules. Obviously. Now NATO are the ones being naive. Oh, well... the process of entropy in their organisation is growing. I don't think they will outlast Turkey-France with their 250 years of alliance.
Very true. I remember those times too though from a distance. Check out my video on Richard Sakwa The Lost Peace that highlights the disappointment with the path that the Western leaders took. ruclips.net/video/WJ9ObpkaHf8/видео.html
15:00 NATO not for democracy 22:25 Founding members of NATO colonial exploitation 40:00 John Darwin book
thanks for the timestamps
Very interesting, thanks for a good video x
Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks for the book recommendations, great to have an entry point on these topics
Glad they are useful to you
As Portuguese, I know the Portuguese entrance in NATO was a trade with Oliveira Salazar, the Portuguese dictator, to regain possession of Timor Lorosai, permitting USA accession to Lajes base.
Any Democratic justification? 😂😂😂😂😂
Brilliant observation. Thanks for sharing. NATO has always been messing in the Indo-Pacific
I enjoyed your programme and make it a point to read the books you recommend
Thank you
Gangster organization to me
Indeed - as discussed here ruclips.net/video/kTM03vREpMM/видео.html
Thank you Jeff.
You are welcome. What did you like about the video?
A brilliant in-depth analysis. Enlightening!
Thank you. You might also like this one ruclips.net/user/livewLabHZ_bN0U?feature=share
This is a very interesting channel! I will follow this further. I discovered you after your conversation with Pascal Lottaz in neutrality studies.
thank you. It was a great chat. He asked me so many surprising questions!
@@theburningarchive It was a very informative talk. And very interesting videos you have here too. Thank you very much for going through the main points of Emmanuel Todd's book. It was very nice because I don't know French and have really wanted to read the book for a long time now. Also, very nice of you to highlight Walter Benjamin! I had his concept of historical surrealism in my master's thesis. As I understand him, WB is very relevant again with this information-war (narrative war) we have today (in terms of history told from above versus from below). I believe we are back to the pre-Enlightenment era, at least when it comes to foreign policy. I can only speak for my own country, Norway, because we are completely US servile without critical thinking. The mass media take a doxic approach to reality, as was done under 17th-century absolutism, instead of an epistemic approach. So again a faith-based and authoritative approach; then it was God, now it is the USA or NATO or something like that (Jens Stoltenberg, one of the worst Norwegians in the world).
I would highly recommend Elsa Morante's wonderful novel: 'History'. It is about much of the same theme that Walter Benjamin writes about. But you probably know it.
Thanks again.
Yes I would like to learn more. Thanx.
Great! Thanks. Check in at my substack jeffrich.substack.com and I will post some news soon after getting more feedback
I think an alliance between Britain/England and Portugal is still extant, dating from the 14th century, and was a factor in Wellington's battles against Napoleon's marshalls in Portugal, which continued on to Waterloo and Napoleon's complete defeat.
Thanks for discussing Nato. It should be closed.
True - a long standing alliance. That old English of port wine comes from the trade relationship with Portugal after all. Thanks for the comment
Nice work
Subbed
thanks
Interesting analysis. One area you only briefly touched on was the role of NATO in controlling European democracies. Operation Gladio was a NATO program used to thwart leftist tendencies in Europe. Ola Tunander's work is illuminating and disturbing..
Very good point. This comes out also in the history of NATO I did in this video ruclips.net/user/livewLabHZ_bN0U?feature=share
Perhaps your best video to date👍
Thank you! What did you like about it?
It’s concise, well structured and there are less hesitations. This probably sounds picky but too many um and ah can distract from the points you make which are very good. The logic you present is a breath of fresh air after the flatulence on mainstream media. It’s people like you that help us stay sane👍
Super insightful about NATO-in-the-"Indo-Pacific" from its inception
thank you
Dr. Rich, Did you ever try to reverse it and imagine that in 1972 the US collapsed financially and dissolved NATO. As the USSR and Warsaw Pact were still standing, they declared themselves the winners of the Cold War, that “history had ended”, and the world had chosen communism as the final form of government. They then went around the world forcing other countries to adopt communism or face invasion or sanctions. Meanwhile they kept expanding the Warsaw Pact up to the English Channel and ignited a civil war between England & Scotland to bring the UK into the Warsaw Pact. I imagine that might sound absurd to your Western readers, but that is how many in Russia and the Global South feel. Just a suggestion. PS: I just heard you on Neutrality Studies and am happy I found you!
It is not absurd at all! I feel that is the truth, but so many here in the West do not. I am going to do something on Adam Tooze and his history of the financial system of the West over the last 100 years in a month or so. Be sure to check that out.
@@theburningarchive I addition to Adam Tooze another less known historian you might want to reach out to is Vladislav Zubok (also on RUclips) who wrote a “A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev” (2007) It is the story of the Cold War from the Soviet side, which is somewhat a mirror image of the West today. The USSR had the same factions and problems: Globalists (Communist Internationalists), Trans-Atlanticists (Warsaw Pact Continentalists) & Nationalists (Russia First) and there were huge outflows of money to the periphery, and military-industrial complex, random and unpredictable problems with Israel, the Islamic World and China. Internationally acclaimed dissidents, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn / Assange, Snowden, etc. Elites lost faith in original founding ideologies, communism, classical liberalism and became corrupt. The USSR simply could not compete with the manufacturing base of the West, as the West is now discovering itself with China. Sometimes I feel like I am living through the same experience twice, Brezhnev & Biden, , once in the USSR and now the West. :(
*Ooops, sorry, I am new to your channel, I see you have Dr, Zubok in another video !!!
I actually bought the book "After Tamerlane" recently along with many others and would not mind at all if I started it. It is one of those sweeping big history books whereas some of the others I bought are more focused. - Sounds good, especially for me in my reading plan to start from there and then delve into more focused historical renderings like into the Ottoman empire, the Crimean Wars, I got one book about the fourth Crusade, etc.
I would reccomend you to check out the Holy Qur'an sometime, maybe the iteration, translation by Mawlana Mohammed Ali done back in the early 1900's. It has pretty good chapter introductions and a little bit of commentary that helps to understand the events taking place in their context more so.
Crusades are interesting events.
The clash of culture that Moslem religious beliefs present to the Contemporary application of Roman Colonial expression, does indicate some motivation for countless War since Richard the British King stood before Saladin's Gates and contemplated an attack, with an Army that was deteriorated by disease and conflict, after miles of travel.
Are we still fighting Crusades?
Is the defense of Usury worth the suffering?
The Death of Money, is another title that has been suggested.
When Money Dies, by Jim Rickards fills in some of the explanation.
Are we facing a Conflict to defend USURY?
OK Will do. I have book-marked the Holy Qur'an translation you mentioned archive.org/details/EnglishTranslationOfTheHolyQuran
Good to hear you have an interest in After Tamerlane. Check out my substack (jeffrich.substack.com) for more news on that front soon.
Each of those topics you mentioned sould like good topics for videos here - Crusades, Crimean War, Ottomans.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Read along sounds good, can't find After Tamerlane in audio format.
OK stay tuned and make sure to subscribe to my substack where I might do it jeffrich.substack.com
Unfortunately, it's in french, but George Martin in this youtube interview describes very well the current situation with NATO. 《L'OTAN s'est comporté à l'égard de la RUSSIE comme un BOA" (guerre en UKRAINE). 》Georges Martin, former ambassador, and secretary general worked for thirty-seven years for the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
Neutrality does have certain Benefits.
The costs of finance need to endure certain changes.
When Saudi Billions began to migrate to a Bank in China,
the Swiss noticed they had lost some of their "Middle of the Road" status?
@danielhutchinson6604 New sectors of Switzerland include mechanical and electrical engineering, pharmaceuticals, insurance, shipping and logistics, as well as tourism. Neutralities values have been transformed (traded?) into pseudo democratic values imposed ad hoc by Boa constrictor countries when it suit themselves (EU members, UK and US). Citizens of Switzerland are pragmatic. As long salaries are up to the standard, nobody complaining... . Former #3 at the Department of Foreign Affairs, describing very well those changes in the video I have highlighted above.
ruclips.net/video/XBWWzZcQIUY/видео.htmlsi=jgwtlIcAZfbDaL6k
@@user-cs5bn6tu1f Swiss involvement in the SDR system since 1944 now appears to face some disruption.
I do understand the effects that the Crowd who gather at Davos in Winter,
seem to face.
@@user-cs5bn6tu1f Western Colonial Empires now stand as a Man before a Mark.....
The Colonies no longer support the desires of the Empires?
The lifestyles of the wealthy investors are slowly fading away.
We need to keep some perspective as we witness the changes.
Humanity appears to have more importance than Oligarchy?
Excellent review and very interesting book suggestion.
So should the the BRICS be regarded as anti colonial alliance? Or old colonies collaborating to push back against the West?
Interesting question. Many leaders are now using the rhetoric of opposing "neo-colonialism". But compared to the the 50s-70s decolonisation this time they have history and a new distribution of power on their side. I want to do a video on the state of play of BRICS a bit later in the year... maybe after the October summit in Kazan. I will return to this question them
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
_Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours._
*Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.*
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
*In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."* [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
*War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.*
« NATO has largely fulfilled the mission its first secretary general, Hastings Ismay, set out for it : “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”» (source : The Guardian). Draw your own conclusions based on this statement.
Stating that some entities must be "kept down" (in power) and other entities "out" of the own power systems, is always the implementation of the divide-and-rule strategy of the hegemon.
A London lord might have said this ("USA in, Germany down, Russia out") but it was US power which implemented it. The new hegemon was the USA.
This was the British view of what they were doing, but I think the view of other NATO members was different. It is addressed in the books I discussed in the video. and my follow-up on NATO's 75 year history ruclips.net/user/livewLabHZ_bN0U?feature=share
More like TENACLES, I Think
Remarkable video!!!!
many thanks
W Europeans have invaded Russia since Middle Ages-- German Teutonic started? Or Vikings?
started the tradition--started imperial ball rolling
true, and from other directions too
Seven times was Russia inveded and never was occupid ,all wars against Russia were defeated,Britain ,France ,Germany twice,Japan ,Autria/Hungaria ,about 8 times ,and was never conquered ,the last one being NATZI Germany .❤❤❤❤❤
Is difficult to understand Empire and Super-imperialism (incl. Dollar diplomacy) and dedollarization. Economist Michael Hudson help in this youtube video interviews to clarify some aspects. 《 NY Times is wrong on dedollarization: Economist Michael Hudson debunks Paul Krugman's dollar defense》
Thanks to the pointer to Michael Hudson. I am going to do a video in a few weeks on Adam Tooze's account of the financial empire and the US problem of hegemony. I think he gives the ebst account. Be sure to check it out.
@theburningarchive might I suggest this ? One year old but very interesting indeed.《 Is America Ready for a Multipolar World?
》Quincy Institute
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
*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. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
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. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). 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 taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
*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."*
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) 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."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
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.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
*Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.*
_After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided"._
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
_London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century._
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
*All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries*
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
Scott Ritter Collapse,
to say the truth NATO was born to avoid germany could be a danger for west europe.
later with the event of the varsaw pact, NATO changed his principal scope becoming an alliance to contrast URSS. not for nothing after years of his institution, in the middle of 1950 years, west Germany entered in the NATO.
Interesting. I will explore further. Odd Arne Westad's book on the Cold War is a good place to explore that issue
Nato must really think that the world is standing still. The days of Colinization are well gone. Countries have upgraded their military skills from the bows and arrows to dromes and sophisticated technology and many countries remember the Humiliation from the British Empire and cutting up Africa like a wedding cake where the European nations just took a slice of the cake and still benefit from the ownership of resources in Africa and that's changing around the world countries want their sovereignty and resources back. To many indigenous people have died ,so the world is changing to a multipolar world for future generations. The wars have never ended since the establishment of nato. Peace to the world no more war's we don't just have to Rest in Peace we should Live in Peace.
Very true. Let's share this one world we all live on, in peace as much as we can.
The world has moved on while NATO sleepwalks with USA. The former colonies have alternative powers to turn to like Russia, China and BRICS. The key reason NATO considers China a threat. The terms Democracy and Demockery are dual use weapons of deception. 36:03
Salazar wanted NATO to intervene in the dispute over Goa
I didn't know that. Great point thanks
If NATO was a war monger then explain why its membership was reducing its budget & industrial capacity for decades? 🥴🥴🥴
Ssssshhh.... don't spoil his onesided picture of Nato
But did they not boast at their recent summit that more states have increased their budget than ever before?
After WW ll, US united WW ll & WW Allie’s &’Axis as common fellow Western capitalists.
Yep. I think I will do a video on the post-1945 world soon
It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them (see below comments section).
Dividing the opposing systems, is the *first* and easiest step towards power (see below comments section). Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, *like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one...*
*Around 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more by means of favoritism (see below comments section),* as the monarchic principle waned at the end if the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815).
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbors, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden.
But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them (see below comments section).
*Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed.*
Europe is a lost cause...
I'm looking at Asia, to see if they've learnt the "lesson" of the classroom, with a new bunch of US/collectivist West _"finger-waging moralistic preaching"_ by "teachers" who have none...
If they didn’t stab Russia in the back they wouldn’t have had to form a cliche..
Yes many wanted a more open world back in the 80s and 90s see ruclips.net/video/WJ9ObpkaHf8/видео.html
(A) nuclear bomb? Talk about revisionist history 😢
Los Alamos was creating an economic effect.
It appears that they did become "Sons of Bitches" ?
Operation Paperclip was the start, then Gladio. The organization was positioned in an *offensive* deployment from 1950 onward. It hired hardcore WWII Nazis to staff leadership positions for decades, then switched to dimwitted pr compromised puppets.
They are NATOnazis: See app.thestorygraph.com/books/cb95fa15-48f0-4486-a8e1-ea28895ce451
And also:
www.routledge.com/NATOs-Secret-Armies-Operation-GLADIO-and-Terrorism-in-Western-Europe/Ganser/p/book/9780714685007
Yep. Truly reprehensible. Thanks for adding those details
Really love the history
Thank you. I think it really helps make sense of our crazy world
HELLO!! HOLY RUSSIA US IRTHODOX CHRISTIAN ( AGAIN!!!)
true
Russia is also a colonial power, as is China. More land based than littoral. It’s the default power-projection of any successful state. Unfortunately and tragically. Judging Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in this light is pertinent to the discussion of NATO’s actions and Ukraine’s resilience and unity against Russian aggression. US world hegemony is certainly no worse than a Russian or Chinese global domination would be, and if history is anything to go by, it will not last. Reading a wide array of historical literature is so important. On this, I am in fervent agreement! As I am in being highly critical of all centres of power and their motivations, but with NO exceptions.
Fair enough. I believe Russia or China or India are not pursuing world domination, and that marks a difference to USA/Europe and its belief in hegemony. I think the story line of Ukraine being in a "war of independence" from the Russian empire (as put by Serhii Ploiky and others) misunderstands the history. It is a tragic misunderstanding too I think. I will expand more on that in a video soon.