The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Stephen J. Sniegoski Archive
American Entry Into World War One
The Weekly Standard's Fractured History and the Reality
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The Sinking of the Lusitania, 1915 Painting. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Sinking of the Lusitania, 1915 Painting. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It was one hundred years ago this month that America entered World War I, which began July 28, 1914.[1]This was the date that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The major powers—Britain, France, Germany, and Russia—became involved at the beginning of August. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress and requested it to declare war on Germany. The Senate would vote in favor of war on April 4 and the House would follow suit on April 6. This essay critiques a recent article in “The Weekly Standard” by Geoffrey Norman, who has written articles on multiple topics in a number of mainstream journals in addition to neocon ones.[2]Geoffrey Norman, “Woodrow Wilson’s War, One hundred years later, idealism still isn’t enough,” Weekly Standard, April 3, 2017, http://www.weeklystandard.com/woodrow-wilsons-war/a...007341 His article represents the conventional neocon thinking on World War I and since they have been major players in shaping American foreign policy—especially in the Middle East—Norman’s piece is of significance in understanding their foreign policy Weltanschauung. Moreover, this essay will try to bring out what appear to be the causes of American entry into the war.

For Norman, Germany was the villain in World War I, and largely because of its ruthless nature would have been a serious threat to the United States if it had won the war and expanded its power. He writes that during the German invasion and occupation of Belgium “civilian hostages were rounded up and executed by firing squad as a way to keep the populace terrified and docile. Germany was, from the beginning of the war, the aggressor.” Although British propaganda exaggerated German atrocities in Belgium, historians in recent years have concluded that the invading Germans did kill significant numbers of French and Belgian noncombatants. According to Alan Kramer in the International Encyclopedia of the First World War, “from August to October 1914 the German army intentionally executed 5,521 civilians in Belgium and 906 in France”[3]Alan Kramer, “Atrocities,” International Encyclopedia of the First World War, http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/at...cities Kramer goes on to write, however, that “Essentialist claims about unique German ‘barbarism’ would be mistaken. . . . The Russian army committed many acts of violence during the invasion of East Prussia in August/September 1914. Germany denounced the Russians for having devastated thirty-nine towns and 1,900 villages and killed almost 1,500 civilians. Research by Alexander Watson has confirmed these figures, and he concludes that 1,491 German civilians were deliberately killed in executions and individual murders. Given the smaller population of East Prussia (about 1.7 million people in the areas invaded by the Russians) this was directly comparable to the intensity of violence against civilians during the invasion of Belgium in August/September 1914.”[4]Kramer, “Atrocities.”

Killing civilians, however, would have nothing to do with determining the aggressor. Historians, however, have differed on the primary culprit for the war and have spread the responsibility to many of the major combatants.[5]For views by recent historians that reject the exclusive German guilt thesis, see Paul Gottfried, “Sleepwalk to Suicide,” American Conservative, January 21, 2014, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sle...icide/ Furthermore, it should be stressed that the German killing of Belgians would not come close to equaling the hundreds of thousands of German deaths resulting from the British starvation blockade, which will be discussed next.[6]“Blockade of Germany,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany In December 1918, the National Health Office in Berlin determined that 763,000 persons had died as a result of the blockade by that time. A study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.

The United States had historically claimed its right as a neutral to be able to trade in non-contraband goods with belligerents and with other neutrals. The exact definition of these neutral rights, however, was not universally agreed upon. The United States had traditionally taken an expansive view of its rights as a neutral, which had, in the past, caused it to clash with the European powers, especially during the wars taking place during the era of the French Revolution and Napoleon.

In 1909, an effort had been made to define and codify the existing rules of wartime trade. These rights were incorporated in a legal document developed at the International Naval Conferences in London in 1909, which became known as the Declaration of London. The Declaration contained a number of features that were very favorable to neutrals. It was signed by all major countries that would fight in World War I, but it would only be ratified by the United States. Although Britain played a major role in the Conference, and the House of Commons would ratify the Declaration, the House of Lords rejected it on the grounds that it was unfair to major sea powers. Britain’s rejection dissuaded the other signatories from ratifying.

ORDER IT NOW

Nevertheless, shortly after the war began, U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan asked the major belligerents to abide by the Declaration of London. Germany and Austria said that they would conform contingent upon the Entente Powers doing likewise. Britain stated it would observe the requirements of the Declaration, though with certain modifications. Very soon, however, it would reject part and then almost all of restrictions embodied in the Declaration that applied to activities it deemed necessary to prosecute the war. This entailed seizing all goods that were helpful to its enemies, which would ultimately encompass preventing food from reaching the German civilian population. This was an obvious effort to starve the German people into submission–essentially Britain was making war on the civilian population, the prevention of which was a fundamental reason for having rules of warfare. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted that its purpose was to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.’”[7]Quoted in Ralph Raico, “The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany,” review of The Politics of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C. Paul Vincent, Mises Daily Articles, May 7, 2010, https://mises.org/library/blockade-and-attempted-sta...ermany Norman even acknowledges this goal as he writes: “The Royal Navy ruled the seas—the surface of them, anyway. And its blockade threatened to starve Germany.” But while he is aghast at German actions that killed many fewer people, the starvation blockade does not engender any negative response from him whatsoever. In his obliviousness to the immorality of the British blockade, Norman is quite similar to Woodrow Wilson. Political scientist Robert W. Tucker points out that despite the Wilson administration’s concern about German activities that caused civilian deaths, “neither Wilson nor his advisors had expressed any qualms over the moral implication of the blockade.”[8]Robert W. Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War: Reconsidering America’s Neutrality 1914-1917 (Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 2007) , p. 97.

Many aspects of the British blockade diverged significantly from the traditional interpretation of maritime law. For example, the Declaration of Paris of 1856 (still in force in 1914) held that a blockade to be legal had to be an effective close blockade, which would entail the stationing of a group of ships off an enemy port or coast. Declaring areas of the ocean that were entry ways to the enemy’s coast to be off-limits, as Britain did, failed to constitute a legitimate blockade.[9]Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1938), p. 216.

In regard to visiting and searching ships for contraband, which was allowed by international law, the British likewise took a questionable approach. The traditional way was to engage in this activity at sea. The British, instead, took the ships to their ports to search because it required a long time to search large modern ships during which the British warship would be vulnerable to attacks by submarines.[10]Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations, revised edition (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1974), p. 288.

Britain also inhibited neutral trade with Germany (and other neutrals) by applying the doctrine of “continuous voyage,” which meant that it would have the right to interdict goods brought to a neutral port by sea that were intended, in its opinion, to be sent to Germany by land. Heretofore, international law had only applied the concept of “continuous voyage” to a trip that went solely by sea. Furthermore, traditional international law only applied “continuous voyage” rules to absolute contraband—goods whose sole purpose was for warmaking—whereas the British applied these rules to almost every type of good.[11]Edwin Borchard and William Potter Lage, Neutrality for the United States, second edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), pp. 15-16, 68-69.

Another questionable step taken by Britain was the mining of the North Sea, which was the entry way for ships to reach neutral and German ports. To avoid possible destruction, merchant ships had to stop at a British port where they would get an Admiralty pilot to lead them through the mine fields. While there the ships would be searched and stripped of goods.[12]Justus D. Doenecke, Nothing Less than War: A New History of America’s Entry into World War I (Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), p. 47. Although the neutrals, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, protested this practice, the United States refrained from joining them.[13]Tansill, p. 177.

The United States did protest many British violations of America’s neutral rights. Sometimes the British would yield on relatively insignificant points. And the British would compensate Americans for some losses. However, the United States never warned the British that their failure to comply with American demands would have drastic consequences. And ultimately the United States would tacitly acquiesce to the British position, which was often far different from what had traditionally been considered legitimate and what the United States had demanded in the past regarding its neutral rights.

Legal scholars Edwin Borchard and William Potter Lage point out that the U.S. made it known as early as December 1914 that it would give Britain wide latitude in determining its maritime policy. A U.S. note protesting the British violations of international law stated: “that the commerce between countries which are not belligerents should not be interfered with by those at war unless such interference is manifestly an imperative necessity to protect their national safety, and then only to the extent that it is a necessity.” Obviously, Britain could argue that everything it did during the war was absolutely necessary for its safety.[14]Borchard and Lage, p. 34; Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, Supplement, The World War. Document 559, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus19...p/d559

It was the issue of German submarines that ultimately brought the U.S. into the war. Norman does little to explain why Germany would have to rely heavily on the submarine and simply looks upon its use as a justification for the U.S. entering the war. For example, he writes with some astonishment that “neutrality was the Wilson cause, even after a German submarine torpedoed the liner Lusitania on May 7, 1915. The ship sank in 18 minutes, and of the 1,198 passengers who drowned, 128 were Americans.” But it is not self-evident why the United States would consider such an attack as a justification for war. The ocean liner was a British ship; German submarines did not sink American ships. The German embassy had placed a warning in a New York newspaper that the Lusitania would be traveling into a war zone and was liable to be attacked by a German submarine. Unbeknownst to the passengers, the ship was carrying war munitions, a charge made by Germany that the British government did not fully acknowledge until 2014.[15]“Did Britain doom the Lusitania?,” BBC History Magazine, May 2015, http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/did-bri...itania

Wilson considered the taking of lives by submarines as abhorrent, and thus put their use on a totally different level from the maritime violations by the British surface navy. Tucker quotes Wilson’s reference to this issue in his war address in 1917: “’Property can be paid for’, Wilson declared, ’the lives of peaceful innocent people cannot be.’”[16]Tucker, p. 142. Most Americans agreed that killing civilians was inhumane. As mentioned earlier, however, Wilson’s distinction did not actually apply since the British starvation blockade violated traditional international law by starving German non-combatants. Sinkings by submarines, however, understandably received more media attention than the slow deaths from starvation and this was heightened by the pro-British bias in most of the media.[17]Note that the deaths, including alleged deaths, caused today by Assad’s bombings in Syria cause far more concern than the many more deaths caused by Saudi bombings and blockade, supported by the United States, in Yemen.

Making the submarine issue especially explosive was Wilson’s firm defense of the neutral right of American citizens to travel unmolested on Allied merchant ships. Tucker points out that this was the “only issue of diplomatic consequence to arise between Germany and the United States, it led America to the point of war with Germany.”[18]Tucker, p. 142.

It is not self-evident why Wilson, if he truly sought to avoid war, held that American citizens should have the right to travel unmolested on belligerent merchant ships when they could travel in safety on U.S. ships. Germany even offered to extend this safety to neutral and perhaps even a few belligerent liners that flew the American flag.[19]Tucker, p. 143. Certainly this met the needs of American travelers, but Wilson would not accept it because it violated principle—that is, the right of neutrals to travel on belligerent merchant ships, even armed belligerent merchant ships.

Wilson’s inflexibility on this issue is hard to justify since he was willing to alter other traditional maritime strictures to propitiate Britain, and the submarine was a new weapon for which the maritime rules had not been developed. Given the nature of the submarine (which will be discussed shortly), the logic of Wilson’s approach would essentially preclude German submarines from attacking a non-military British ship because there might be Americans aboard. It should be pointed out that American lives would also have been lost, if ships with Americans aboard had attempted to traverse the North Sea mine fields without first stopping at a British port.

Not having a surface navy comparable to that of Britain, Germany had to rely on submarines if it were to have any military impact at sea. Wilson demanded that the German submarines adhere to the traditional rules of cruiser warfare that would require a submarine to surface and fire a warning shot before searching the enemy merchant ship, or attacking it, if it tried to flee. Furthermore, before launching a torpedo, the submarine was expected to provide for the safety of the crew and any passengers. The submarines of the day were quite fragile, and could be destroyed by one shot from a naval gun, or rammed and sunk by a merchant ship. Many British merchant ships were armed and the British Admiralty had ordered them to ram German submarines. In essence, if submarines were to follow the rules made for surface warships, they would be largely ineffective.

Germany offered to follow the traditional rules of cruiser warfare if Britain disarmed its merchant ships. Britain refused to do this and the United States, though considering the matter, did not put pressure on it to do so. However, according to the traditional maritime rules of war, armed merchant ships could be treated as warships.[20]Borchard and Lage, p. 87. Nevertheless, the Wilson administration refused to apply this traditional interpretation on the grounds that the British intended to use those weapons only for defensive purposes. The leading World War I revisionist historian of the interwar period, Charles Callan Tansill, writes that if Wilson “had taken any decisive action against the admission of armed British merchantmen into American harbors, and if he had warned American citizens of the dangers that attended passage on belligerent vessels, America might well have been spared the great sacrifice of 1917-1918.”[21]Tansill, p. 258.

As it was, there were a few significant incidents in which German submarines torpedoed enemy merchant vessels without warning—sinking the British ocean liner Arabic on August 19, 1915 (killing forty-four passengers, among them two Americans) and severely damaging the French cross-Channel passenger ship Sussex on March 24, 1916 (killing or injuring about eighty people, including four injured Americans). The Wilson administration vigorously protested these attacks and got the Germans to make concessions. As a result of Wilson’s threat to break relations over the Sussex issue, Germany in May 1916 promised to stop unrestricted submarine warfare toward merchant ships of all countries.

The unanimous view of Wilson by historians (as far as I know) is that in regard to the war in Europe, he made his own decisions and did not rely on the views of his advisors. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that three of his key advisors on the subject—his closest associate, Colonel Edward House (who had an honorary title but did not hold an official government position); counselor of the State Department and later Secretary of State, Robert Lansing; and Ambassador to Great Britain, Walter Hines Page—wanted the U.S. to pursue an even more favorable policy toward Britain than Wilson, and all supported America’s entrance into the war considerably earlier than Wilson. Although Wilson did not automatically accept the opinions of his advisors, it would seem highly likely that their pro-British views affected his own thinking since in a number of areas they were more knowledgeable than he. Nonetheless, it is not apparent that he even wanted to enter the war, though his bias toward Britain would ineluctably lead in this direction. Moreover, the fact that Wilson won the election of 1916, campaigning on the slogan, “He kept us out of war,” indicated that it might not be politically feasible to go to war. Certainly, a significant part of the Democratic Party was against war.

There was one major figure close to Wilson who dissented from the pro-British viewpoint, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. A leader of the Democratic Party, Bryan had been its candidate for president three times. And as an ardent opponent of war, Bryan believed that the U.S. should balance its firm line toward Germany on submarines with an equally strong stance toward Britain on America’s neutral rights. Moreover, he wanted the government to warn Americans that they would travel on belligerent ships at their own risk and to ban armed merchant ships from American ports. Wilson rejected all these measures on the grounds that they would violate America’s neutrality. Bryan resigned rather than sign a second harsh note regarding the Lusitania sinking in 1915 and Lansing would replace him as Secretary of State, which meant that the U.S. would become even more pro-British.

ORDER IT NOW

What Norman leaves out in his presentation are the economic factors that likely played a significant role in leading the United States to war. Some writers during the interwar period, both popular and professional historians, focused almost solely on America’s economic connection—American trade and loans– with the Allies as the cause of American involvement in the war. Greedy American banking interests—especially the House of Morgan, which served as the agent for the British and French in floating loans—and munitions makers were especially blamed, and this theory was pursued by the Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry (April 12, 1934–February 24, 1936), commonly known as the Nye Committee since it was chaired by staunch non-interventionist Senator Gerald P. Nye.

America was in an economic depression when the war began in August 1914. “It was the rapid growth of the munitions trade which rescued America from this serious economic situation,” writes Tansill.[22]Tansill, p. 55. And soon the Allies, especially Britain, became dependent on many types of goods from America—food, raw materials, and manufactured goods—which directly, or indirectly, aided their war effort. The American economy boomed, and those who benefited were not only a few bankers and “merchants of death” but also average American workers and farmers. But on the negative side, America’s now-booming economy was dependent on the war, not peaceful trade. Germany also sought goods from the United States but such trade was largely prevented by the British blockade.

It stands to reason that if the general American public materially benefited from the war trade—and would conceivably suffer severely from its elimination—it was politically necessary to continue a policy that benefited the Allies. America was essentially serving as a supply base for the Allied war effort, whereas Germany and the other Central Powers had to rely almost exclusively on their own populations and territory for their war needs. Obviously, Germany realized that this situation would be apt to lead to its defeat if the war dragged on too long.

Selling munitions by private companies, as opposed to governments, was traditionally considered legal for neutral states. However, Wilson could have been given the power by Congress to ban the sale of munitions and armaments, which it had done in 1912 regarding Mexico during its civil war, but Wilson did not request this authority and Congress did not grant it. Tansill maintains that because of the strong desire of the American people to stay out of the war it would have been politically feasible for the U.S. to have taken this position early in the war before the U.S. economy began to depend on this trade.[23]Tansill, p. 64.

Also, it became apparent that the warring countries would need loans to cover the cost of the war trade. Bryan, with Wilson’s approval, however, banned loans to the warring powers although neutrals were traditionally allowed to engage in this activity. However, Bryan allowed “credits,” and soon, owing to the realization that the warring parties did not have the funds to directly cover purchases, allowed what were essentially loans under the guise of “credits.”[24]Doenecke, pp. 44.

Credits and loans differed significantly from the fundamental trade of goods in their effect upon the parties involved. Tansill noted that “[a] loan to any of the belligerent nations would make the American investors partisans of the country whose bonds they had bought.” Tansill continues: “It is obvious that Secretary Bryan did not appreciate the strength of the economic ties that would be forged between the United States and the Allied Governments by the extension of large credits by American bankers to these same governments. He seemed unaware of the fact that there is little difference between credits and loans. These credits that had been authorized would bind the most articulate class in America to the Allied Powers.”[25]Tansill, p. 83.

In the end, it was America’s favoritism toward Britain and its Allies that caused Germany to accept war with the United States. America was not only serving as a supply base for the Allied war effort but was prohibiting Germany from making effective use of the submarine, its only way of competing with Britain at sea.

At the beginning of 1917, German naval and military leaders argued that even though unrestricted submarine warfare would almost guarantee an American declaration of war, for a long period of time it would be unlikely that a belligerent United States could do more damage to Germany than it was already doing with its benign neutrality toward the Allies. This was especially due to America’s lack of a large standing army which it would need to develop. Furthermore, German financial experts had calculated that the U.S. supply of munitions to the Allies was already at its peak so that its entrance into the war would likely cause this to decline significantly. Not only would unrestricted submarine warfare reduce the war supplies reaching the Allies but the U.S. as a belligerent would need to divert a significant proportion of its war production to its own expanding military.

While the German naval leaders presented the unrestricted submarine warfare as a virtual panacea to bring the war to a close, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg questioned this claim, maintaining that it would be best to work for a compromise peace. In the end, the submarine warfare option was largely seen as a desperate gamble. Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, the German Army’s chief of staff, stated at the conference where these plans were solidified on January 8, 1917: “We are counting on the possibility of war with the United States, and have made all preparations to meet it. Things cannot be worse than they now are. The war must be brought to an end by the use of all means as soon as possible.”[26]Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny (Washington: Regnery, 1999), p. 206.

Embellishing his own interpretation, Norman appears to get the time sequences confused as he writes: “Then Russia quit the fight. The German troops fighting on that front could be sent to fight the French and the British. It was, the Germans believed, an opportunity to win the war in early 1918. So they decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare.” Germany’s decision on submarine warfare on January 30, 1917 was made long before Russia left the war. While the Tsarist regime was overthrown in mid March 1917 (Western calendar), its replacement, the Provisional Government, continued the war — even though the Russian army was disintegrating as many soldiers refused to fight — until the Bolshevik Revolution in early November (Western calendar). And even after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, which officially removed Bolshevik-ruled Russia from the war, large numbers of German troops remained in the East as an occupying force.[27]According to Timothy C. Downing in his article “Eastern Front” in the International Encyclopedia of the First World War: “The [German] occupation of Ukraine tied down thirty or forty divisions that might have enabled the Spring (Ludendorff) Offensives of 1918 to find success.”

Norman acknowledges that the war did not achieve a good outcome. But he emphasizes that this was “was not a result of America and its allies being too tough. They—and especially Wilson—had been too idealistic, too naïve. Wilson seems to have believed his own high-minded rhetoric and denied the evidence in front of his face.” This allegedly obvious evidence was the evil nature of Germany, as Norman recaps Germany’s alleged war crimes: “Germany had been the aggressor nation in 1914. Had invaded Belgium and murdered that country’s citizens for committing war crimes when they resisted. Had imposed ruthlessly tough terms on Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Was ready to ally itself with Mexico in a war with the United States. Whatever it took to win Germany’s place in the sun—that was what the German rulers were willing to do.”

Having earlier dealt with the “rape of Belgium” and “war guilt” issues, it should now be noted that the territory the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk removed from Russia was inhabited largely by a number of non-Russian ethnic minorities—Ukrainians being the major one–and if this were a crime, it is odd why the United States today, and especially the Weekly Standard, condemn Russia for interfering in this very same region. Furthermore, Germany’s offer to align with Mexico against the United States was contingent upon the United States going to war against Germany. This tactic was hardly irregular since Britain was offering all types of territorial bribes in secret treaties—territory that belonged to other countries—to entice other countries and groups to make war against Germany and/or some of the other Central Powers.

Denying that the peace settlement imposed on Germany was too harsh, Norman contends that “a persuasive case can be made that if Wilson had been more ruthless at any point, the first war might have been won sooner and another one prevented. Only two of America’s wars have been bloodier than Wilson’s. Both the Civil War and World War II ended with total defeat and more or less unconditional surrender. And things were settled pretty much once and for all.”

Norman’s argument here is a standard defense for the failed wars that the neocons have advocated. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not the cause of the disaster that has emerged there but instead was the result of an improper occupation, for which a number of scenarios have been presented. Regarding World War I, however, there are many factors that could have precluded the success of a more ruthless peace—British/French rivalry; the opposition of the American people; the inability to maintain such a situation; the effect this would have in generating more support for Leninist Communism, to name but a few. However, discussing these would require an entire new essay, and the fact of the matter is that the U.S. did not enter the war to destroy Germany.

Notes

[1] This was the date that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The major powers—Britain, France, Germany, and Russia—became involved at the beginning of August.

[2] Geoffrey Norman, “Woodrow Wilson’s War, One hundred years later, idealism still isn’t enough,” Weekly Standard, April 3, 2017, http://www.weeklystandard.com/woodrow-wilsons-war/article/2007341

[3] Alan Kramer, “Atrocities,” International Encyclopedia of the First World War, http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/atrocities

[4] Kramer, “Atrocities.”

[5] For views by recent historians that reject the exclusive German guilt thesis, see Paul Gottfried, “Sleepwalk to Suicide,” American Conservative, January 21, 2014, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sleepwalk-to-suicide/

[6] “Blockade of Germany,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany In December 1918, the National Health Office in Berlin determined that 763,000 persons had died as a result of the blockade by that time. A study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.

[7] Quoted in Ralph Raico, “The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany,” review of The Politics of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C. Paul Vincent, Mises Daily Articles, May 7, 2010, https://mises.org/library/blockade-and-attempted-starvation-germany

[8] Robert W. Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War: Reconsidering America’s Neutrality 1914-1917 (Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 2007) , p. 97.

[9] Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1938), p. 216.

[10] Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations, revised edition (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1974), p. 288.

[11] Edwin Borchard and William Potter Lage, Neutrality for the United States, second edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), pp. 15-16, 68-69.

[12] Justus D. Doenecke, Nothing Less than War: A New History of America’s Entry into World War I (Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), p. 47.

[13] Tansill, p. 177.

[14] Borchard and Lage, p. 34; Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, Supplement, The World War. Document 559, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1914Supp/d559

[15] “Did Britain doom the Lusitania?,” BBC History Magazine, May 2015, http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/did-britain-doom-lusitania

[16] Tucker, p. 142.

[17] Note that the deaths, including alleged deaths, caused today by Assad’s bombings in Syria cause far more concern than the many more deaths caused by Saudi bombings and blockade, supported by the United States, in Yemen.

[18] Tucker, p. 142.

[19] Tucker, p. 143.

[20] Borchard and Lage, p. 87.

[21] Tansill, p. 258.

[22] Tansill, p. 55.

[23] Tansill, p. 64.

[24] Doenecke, pp. 44.

[25] Tansill, p. 83.

[26] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny (Washington: Regnery, 1999), p. 206.

[27] According to Timothy C. Downing in his article “Eastern Front” in the International Encyclopedia of the First World War: “The [German] occupation of Ukraine tied down thirty or forty divisions that might have enabled the Spring (Ludendorff) Offensives of 1918 to find success.”

 
• Category: History • Tags: Woodrow Wilson, World War I 
Hide 330 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anon says: • Disclaimer

    America’s entry into WW1 was the greatest mistake it ever made. It prevented a negotiated peace and led to Stalin, Hitler and WW2.

    It was crazy for Wilson to believe that Americans could travel at will throughout a war zone. Britain was at war with Germany. So of course the waters around the British Isles should rightly have been considered a war zone. The only Americans endangered before April 1917 were those who freely chose, with the full knowledge they were risking their safety, to travel in the waters around the British Isles. The American government should have just issued a travel advisory warning them of the possible dangers and telling them that they proceeded at their own risk. Did American submarines in WW2 worry about killing civilians from neutral countries when they destroyed Japan’s merchant fleet?

    As for the “harsh” peace treaty with Russia, it should be remembered that at the end of 1915, the Central Powers offered Russia peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo. Since they had overrun a huge area of its territory, that was a very generous offer. The Tsar should have accepted.

    Finally right from day one, America maintained at best a sham neutrality, unlike say Switzerland. See the book THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY. Had America maintained a TRUE neutrality, Germany would have been far more inclined to avoid antagonizing the US in any way.

    Nor is it feasible that even had Germany ‘won’ the war, it could have been a threat to America. By April 1917 1,000,000 German soldiers had been killed, all its colonies were captured, Austria-Hungary (its only major ally) had virtually collapsed and German civilians had just suffered the terrible ‘turnip’ winter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    [Avoid too many typos.]

    The loss of 1 million Germans by April 1917 is surely irrelevant to the question of whether Getmany might be a threat to America. There were 2 million Germans born in 1913 wbich is why manpowrr for the armed services was no problem for Hitler.

    Bismarck is said to have remarked that the most important geopolitical fact for the next (20th) century would be that Americans spoke English. America's place in the world would have been gravely affected by German hegeminy in Europe (and very likely acquisition of French, Belgian and perhaps British colonies. Might that not have been a genuine concern for Ametican leaders?
    , @Hrw-500
    Another big mistake done before WWI was the UK doing the "Entente Cordiale" with France. If they never did the "Entente Cordiale", WWI would had been very different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/american-entry-into-world-war-i/#comment-1847307
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can’t see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn’t surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn’t the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers’rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.
     
    Those who had an IQ above, say, 70 could see that Britain was afforded protection by being an island. Meanwhile, Germany was surrounded by enemies and potential enemies and had no natural geographical defenses. Moreover, Britain was very jealous of its naval supremacy which allowed it to prey on peoples anywhere in the world (e.g., the Boers) with impunity. One of the causes of British entry into the Great War was the well-documented fear that Germany might decide to become more than a minor naval power through leveraging its growing industrial and scientific supremacy.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    What high fertility rate? Do you have sources? Contemporary Germans published yards and yards of tracts in the decades prior to WWI declaring that the German woman had become too emancipated and were not doing their duty for the fatherland. Especially in Austria-Hungary it was a commonplace that Germans were being outbred by the Slavic populations and were going to be eclipsed. But even the Kaiserreich had a growing Polish minority. And as you note, Russian fertility was unquestionably higher than German. Justified or not, anxiety about racial replacement was certainly in the minds of the generals and politicians in both the Central European powers.
    , @Joe Wong
    The British imitates the Romans and the Americans were born out of the British; the Romans slaughtered a race and salted the land then called it creating a peace, both of them are 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritans'. The Anglo was the instigator of the WWI.
    , @anon
    Maybe he could have chosen to cut the rations of all the millions of POW's instead of his own troops sport. As for Britain having a small army, it had a huge navy and the protection of the English channel. Germany had Russia for a neighbor. Try dealing in facts, instead of opinion.
    , @Alden
    The army rations were cut. Plus the army confiscated food from the conquered areas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder. In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat. All of which would have affected the good citizens of Atlanta, Des Moines and Yakima, well how, exactly? Hostile German designs on South America seem fanciful. The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S.

    Of course, the U.S. intervention was only one part of the colossal tragedy of World War I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder."

    Had the Germans respected freedom of the seas and not torpedoed our ships, then perhaps the United States wouldn't have had to intervene. But American lives were lost and American commerce was being threatened, two legitimate reasons for the U.S. to enter the war.

    :"In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat."

    Only speculation here. Why not deal with reality.

    "The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S."

    There's no "but" here. We issued a clear position that any action taken by Germany that directly threatened our sovereignty would be dealt with by force. Again, deal with reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. LondonBob says:

    Still the Germans started WWI and they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare.

    A peace should have been negotiated, perhaps in 1916 there was a real possibility of this, as it was clear early on there would be only losers. That the US was likely to intervene, especially after the Balfour declaration had been agreed, meant peace talks had little chance of success.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare".

    Britain engaged in the mass starvation of German civilians. Many, many times more civilians died from the British blockade then German submarines. Just as vastly more German civilians would die in bombing raids in WW2 then in Britain.

    "The Germans started WW1".

    That's funny. I though Britain declared war on Germany.
    , @jilles dykstra
    In 1917 Trotzky published the secret deal of 1913 between GB, France and the tsar, to cut up three empires: the German, the Austrian-Hungarian and the Ottoman.
    He found the treaty's in the tsarist archives.

    WWI began in 1870 with the French attack on Germany, that unified Germany.
    The unified Germany was around 1900 'on top of the world', economically, socially, scientific and technical.

    So Balfour already in 1907 said to the American ambassador 'that perhaps war was the cheapest way to continue the British standard of living'.

    Already in 1921 historians knew that USA ambassador Morgenthau had lied about the German conspiracy to wage war.
    Threatened on two fronts Germany had to lauch a pre emptive attack.

    Thomas Fleming, ‘The Illusion of Victory, America in WW I’, New York 2003
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. conatus says:

    It is rarely mentioned but it seems to me the Germans lived in a bad neighborhood in Mittel Europa and could not afford to act as individualistically as their ‘moral betters’ in England(with their English Channel) and the US(with their Atlantic Ocean). Historically the Germans got slaughtered at Verden in 782 where 5000 Saxons(180,000 in today’s demographics) got baptized in the name of the Prince of Peace and then got their heads chopped off by Charlemagne. Then in the early 1600s in the Thirty Years War, since Germany was a divided nation of many principalities, the Great powers of Sweden France and Spain had a field day fighting each other over the Prod/Catholic divide and along the way slaughtered a third of the male population of Germany.
    The result? If you live in the ghetto of middle Europe where your neighbor, who hates you, only lives across the river, you become Prussia “an army with a country” just to be left alone. They learned to be militarized by the simple necessity of wanting to be left alone. It is like living in Anacostia in DC, you have to be threatening merely to be left alone. It was their historical experience that equanimity and even tempered views result in the tribal massacres of Verden and the Thirty Years War.
    You can’t afford the Pan Am smile of the suburbs if you live in the middle of Europe.

    Paul Gottfried brings up President Wilson’s Anglophilia, ethnic bonding, and his reaching out to the Brits by favoring the Anglos in the US and shunning the Germans in the US. Wilson, the Anglo-Saxon, admired Britain and was not enamored of the young upstart Hun on the continent. The Anglos ruled the day in American public relations in 1917 and the US changed history by coming into WW1 on the side of the Anglos. The Germans were winning the war but we tipped the scales and the result? The Versailles Lie, the Germans were starved into signing the guilt clause(the armistice was six months before the Treaty of Versailles) by the allies, and then….then Hitler came along to lead the pissed off Germans down the road to Ragnarok in WW2.
    I also think one of the unmentioned causes the US population went with the Brits is the Germans were as bad at public relations as the Scotch-Irish in Ulster, those stubborn Prods, who sing songs like,”You don’t like us? We don’t care.” That is not a way to sway US public opinion.There is a German American building on 3rd and Penn on Capitol Hill but you would never know it. It is engraved in stone over the door but that is something we don’t want to talk about.
    So during the pivotal 1916-17 period the Germans naively thought truth would carry the day.
    It didn’t, and here we are living Hitler’s revenge, slowly simmering and soon to stew like a frog in our home-made frying-pan of guilt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    'I also think one of the unmentioned causes the US population went with the Brits is the Germans were as bad at public relations as the Scotch-Irish in Ulster, those stubborn Prods, who sing songs like,”You don’t like us? We don’t care.”'

    That is true, Thomas Fleming discusses this in the book I mentioned before.
    On pg.59, for example, he writes that as Germany was a newcomer to international power politics and barely 40 years old as a unified state in 1914, that it had paid little attention to "this time-honored British custom of slandering their enemies". Then he proceeds with several historical examples.
    I must say nothing has changed and some of the most vile anti-Assad/anti-Syria propaganda has come from the Brit state and presstitutes.
    , @Alden
    The German tribe of Frank's led by their king Grossekarl slaughtered 5,000 warriors of the German tribe of Saxons at Verdun.

    200 years before that massacre, German Saxons invaded Celtic England and slaughtered every Celt east of the Severn&Wye rivers.

    The 30 years war began when German Protestant nobles used their religion as an excuse to rebel against the Catholic German King of German Bohemia.

    Spain only fought to hold on to what is now Belgium which was Spanish territory.
    France funded Protestant leaders but didn't send any troops. Sweden did attempt to conquer north eastern Germany and even Poland. Sweden was the only non German country that did much fighting. Swedish behavior was terrible.

    But Germans began it and fought it and no other country can be blamed. There is also the fact that Germany did not exist at the time. It was dozens of German ethnic countries fighting each other.

    Wasn't the 7 years war (1750s) against France the first war Prussia fought against a non German country?

    No European country is innocent. Maybe if the Germans had not been so busy killing each other they could have fought off the Swedes and saved millions of lives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Read Henry Goldman’s (of Goldman Sachs fame) biography from his granddaughter.

    I believe mid way she mentions the German Jews being loyal to Germany, and the Zionist jews under Weizmann conspiring to blackmail Wilson to get the US into WW1.

    Ferguson makes a case in The House of Rothschild that they tried to broker peace between Britain and Germany pre war outbreak multiple times for part sentimental reasons.

    Many Jews were from Germany in America, not Britain. It would make sense they felt some sentiment to there like Henry Goldman.

    But as always, if you can figure out what the jews were doing, you’ve cracked the mystery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    But which Jews were the ones that mattered? As you mention, Zionist Jews may have favored the British because of the Balfour Declaration but German Jews living in the US preferred the Central Powers.
    , @IvyMike
    Ignorant jerk.
    , @FLgeezer
    >But as always, if you can figure out what the jews are doing, you've cracked the mystery.

    There is no doubt about what this one is doing. And can there be any doubt that they own the COTUS and POTUS?

    'In her remaining 20 months in Congress, Ros-Lehtinen said she will keep pushing for one of her long-running goals: for Germany to offer restitution to Holocaust victims.'

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article147718764.html
    , @FLgeezer
    >But as always, if you can figure out what the jews are doing, you've cracked the mystery.

    There is no doubt about what this one is doing. And can there be any doubt that they own the COTUS and POTUS?

    'In her remaining 20 months in Congress, Ros-Lehtinen said she will keep pushing for one of her long-running goals: for Germany to offer restitution to Holocaust victims.'

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article147718764.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. The USA entered WWI already when it began, without USA arms and munition, also food and other essentials, Great Britain could nog have fought.
    Sales of arms and munition to Germany was impossible, because the USA accepted the blockade by GB of neutral ships to German ports, even to Rotterdam.

    There is no doubt whatsoever on the bias of Wilson, or ‘colonel’ House.
    The sentiment in the USA was heavily influenced, not to say determined, by former German jews like Morgenthau, the man who invented the German conspiracy to wage war.

    Of course the decision to wage war also militarily was influenced by the most important banker, Morgan.
    If the USA had not also entered the war with soldiers etc;, GB had capitulated in november 1917.
    Then the USA loans to GB and France would never be repaid.
    The victory was not a success, Germany hardly paid anything.
    And in 1940 the war had to be repeated, this time with success, Germany still is occupied by the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    Charles Callan Tansill, ‘Amerika geht in den Krieg’, Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I miss the allegation that the Lusitania, by a low speed, may have deliberately invited being torpedoed, that Churchill openly hoped for a catastrophe, and that the ship sank so fast, causing the loss of life, because coal dust exploded in the nearly empty bunkers, ripping open the sides of the ship far below the water line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @jilles dykstra
    The USA entered WWI already when it began, without USA arms and munition, also food and other essentials, Great Britain could nog have fought.
    Sales of arms and munition to Germany was impossible, because the USA accepted the blockade by GB of neutral ships to German ports, even to Rotterdam.

    There is no doubt whatsoever on the bias of Wilson, or 'colonel' House.
    The sentiment in the USA was heavily influenced, not to say determined, by former German jews like Morgenthau, the man who invented the German conspiracy to wage war.

    Of course the decision to wage war also militarily was influenced by the most important banker, Morgan.
    If the USA had not also entered the war with soldiers etc;, GB had capitulated in november 1917.
    Then the USA loans to GB and France would never be repaid.
    The victory was not a success, Germany hardly paid anything.
    And in 1940 the war had to be repeated, this time with success, Germany still is occupied by the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)

    I miss the allegation that the Lusitania, by a low speed, may have deliberately invited being torpedoed, that Churchill openly hoped for a catastrophe, and that the ship sank so fast, causing the loss of life, because coal dust exploded in the nearly empty bunkers, ripping open the sides of the ship far below the water line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    The circumstances surrounding the sinking of R.M.S. LUSITANIA are debatable to this day. The British government still hasn't released documents pertaining to the liner's last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .

    Was LUSITANIA "set up," so to speak? Was her course and speed calculated to take her into a known U-boat patrol area? Was she denied a destroyer escort? The First Lord of the Admiralty, one Winston Churchill, was anxious for an incident that would get America into the war.

    LUSITANIA was carrying munitions--rifle ammo, artillery shell casings, and possibly other stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. […]  • 4,800 WORDS • 8 COMMENTS • REPLY […]

    Read More
  10. fnn says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can't see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn't surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn't the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers'rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    Those who had an IQ above, say, 70 could see that Britain was afforded protection by being an island. Meanwhile, Germany was surrounded by enemies and potential enemies and had no natural geographical defenses. Moreover, Britain was very jealous of its naval supremacy which allowed it to prey on peoples anywhere in the world (e.g., the Boers) with impunity. One of the causes of British entry into the Great War was the well-documented fear that Germany might decide to become more than a minor naval power through leveraging its growing industrial and scientific supremacy.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete, Rurik, L.K
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The main response to Germany's building its modern high seas navy was for Britain to modernise and upgrade its navy. You write of the "well documented feat" but where is the evidence that an island trading nation with a trafitional balance of power policy and a very small army was caused to honour its obligations to France and Belgoum by the purpose of destroying Germany's capacity to compete commercially and/or in projection of global power?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    While it was true that Germany had reason to fear Russia which was industrialising, and where fertility was even greater than in Germany (cp. UK lower and declining, and France alresdy low) its attempt to execute the Schliefen plan by invading Belgium was not just a small detail. I heard a highly educated German aristocrat who had invaded France via Belgium as a cavalry officer in 1914 tell his wife and family that the British would not have violated Belgian neutrality and the terms of the ?1840 treaty guaranteeing Belgium's borders as the Getman Reich did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @anon
    America's entry into WW1 was the greatest mistake it ever made. It prevented a negotiated peace and led to Stalin, Hitler and WW2.

    It was crazy for Wilson to believe that Americans could travel at will throughout a war zone. Britain was at war with Germany. So of course the waters around the British Isles should rightly have been considered a war zone. The only Americans endangered before April 1917 were those who freely chose, with the full knowledge they were risking their safety, to travel in the waters around the British Isles. The American government should have just issued a travel advisory warning them of the possible dangers and telling them that they proceeded at their own risk. Did American submarines in WW2 worry about killing civilians from neutral countries when they destroyed Japan's merchant fleet?

    As for the "harsh" peace treaty with Russia, it should be remembered that at the end of 1915, the Central Powers offered Russia peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo. Since they had overrun a huge area of its territory, that was a very generous offer. The Tsar should have accepted.

    Finally right from day one, America maintained at best a sham neutrality, unlike say Switzerland. See the book THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY. Had America maintained a TRUE neutrality, Germany would have been far more inclined to avoid antagonizing the US in any way.

    Nor is it feasible that even had Germany 'won' the war, it could have been a threat to America. By April 1917 1,000,000 German soldiers had been killed, all its colonies were captured, Austria-Hungary (its only major ally) had virtually collapsed and German civilians had just suffered the terrible 'turnip' winter.

    [Avoid too many typos.]

    The loss of 1 million Germans by April 1917 is surely irrelevant to the question of whether Getmany might be a threat to America. There were 2 million Germans born in 1913 wbich is why manpowrr for the armed services was no problem for Hitler.

    Bismarck is said to have remarked that the most important geopolitical fact for the next (20th) century would be that Americans spoke English. America’s place in the world would have been gravely affected by German hegeminy in Europe (and very likely acquisition of French, Belgian and perhaps British colonies. Might that not have been a genuine concern for Ametican leaders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    What you are saying makes no sense at all.

    Germany's birthrate wasn't higher then most other European countries (except for France) and below a number of them. As for troops Hitler began running out of them as early as September 1941 when General Fromm, the head of the German reserve forces (known as the replacement army) told him that losses in the east could no longer be made up with new troops. It was later suggested 15 German divisions be dissolved to fill up the losses in other units. Hitler wouldn't hear of it.

    AS for German hegemony in Europe this is and always has been a canard. Germany had zero strategic sealift capacity. It was NEVER able to seriously threaten the British Isles with invasion, in EITHER war. So how could it threaten the USA with 3,000 miles of ocean between it and Europe when it couldn't even cross 20 miles of the English Channel? Germans would have comprised no more then about 20-25% of any empire in Europe assuming they absorbed ALL of France, the Low Countries, Poland and virtually all of central and southern Europe, plus the Baltics. How could they have possibly hold all of this and kept all these foreign peoples in check? For more on this see the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Germany had great difficulty just organizing the eastern lands of Tsarist Russia that it overran with its "bewildering number of ethnic groups" as the German high command noted. Hindenburg in particular noted the difficulties trying to organize and govern Poland. With no ability to take out the British Isles or Russia proper, Germany could never have established a real hegemony over Europe. Nor would there have been enough Germans to have maintained it. Look how the much larger USSR eventually collapsed and evacuated Eastern Europe.

    I don't see ANY possible way AT ALL Germany could have acquired any French, Belgian or British colonies or overseas territories. Indeed the German empire was quickly picked off and destroyed by France, Britain and Japan. As the Japanese military told the Japanese government in 1914, it didn't even matter if Germany won the war, it had no means to retake any territory in Asia or the Pacific that it seized from her. Germany couldn't defend what colonies, overseas territories it had, let alone acquire new ones from other countries. The reason was the same it couldn't invade Britain. Not a powerful enough navy, and no strategic sealift capacity. Even a victorious Germany would have been much weakened and far less likely to seek a future conflict. You seem to think a million dead is something a nation of only 70 million shrugs off like a cold. Look at how the Vietnam war traumatized America (58,000 dead in a population of 185,000,000). In any case without American belligerency a negotiated peace, or a draw, in plain language, was the almost certain outcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Canute says:

    A) Anything that is published by the Weekly Standard should be treated as a propaganda piece. B) The decisions taken by America’s quintessential pompous intellectual – Woodrow Wilson, destroyed the foundations of American liberty, which have been under attack for the past century. From the Federal Reserve to WW I (two entirely intertwined events) Wilson was hoodwinked on every front. He set the standard for University Presidents which proves that there is a direct correlation between academic credentials and functional stupidity – on view now at an institution near you.
    C) After many readings of WWI histories form several vantage points, it is difficult to conclude anything other than the Russian mobilization was the tipping point of the disaster.
    D) How people have never risen up in Europe and killed off any children, grandchild or any human being that carry the genes of Victoria and Albert, is beyond me. They were all morons in positions of vast authority. You need look no further than Charles the Dim of Great Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @fnn

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.
     
    Those who had an IQ above, say, 70 could see that Britain was afforded protection by being an island. Meanwhile, Germany was surrounded by enemies and potential enemies and had no natural geographical defenses. Moreover, Britain was very jealous of its naval supremacy which allowed it to prey on peoples anywhere in the world (e.g., the Boers) with impunity. One of the causes of British entry into the Great War was the well-documented fear that Germany might decide to become more than a minor naval power through leveraging its growing industrial and scientific supremacy.

    The main response to Germany’s building its modern high seas navy was for Britain to modernise and upgrade its navy. You write of the “well documented feat” but where is the evidence that an island trading nation with a trafitional balance of power policy and a very small army was caused to honour its obligations to France and Belgoum by the purpose of destroying Germany’s capacity to compete commercially and/or in projection of global power?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. A lot of German apologists here. the fact is that alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war or stopped it soon after it began. The reason they didn’t is that they wanted the war, they were convinced that they could win it and had been preparing for it for decades.
    Interesting that there was no fighting at all on the territory of Germany. Belgium, France, Poland and European Russia were decimated, along with a lot of other places, but Germany was unscathed.
    Britain was a sideline player but could not reasonably stand by and let France and Russia be defeated, I think the same occurred to President Wilson who could see that the USA might be the last man standing, not a good place to be if faced with a cynical supremacist entity like the Kaiser’s Germany.
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it’s heinous ambition, and it was.

    Read More
    • Troll: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @HdC
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, will be your view of history if you rely on comic books, Hollywood, or court historians for your information.

    Why not try some real books such as The Pity of War, Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War, Witness to History, The Myth of German Culpability, etc. HdC
    , @anon
    What you say is even more nonsense then THE WIZARD OF OZ poster.

    "Alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war".

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. Tsarist Russia could have simply told Serbia it was on its own. Then Serbia either complies or there is yet another minor war in the Balkans.

    "Had been preparing for the war for decades"...

    Then why not begin it in 1905-06 when Russia has just been defeated by Japan, had its navy sunk and is now embroiled in a chaotic revolution and counter-revolution? Russia would have been easy pickings at the time. The Kaiser did nothing.
    , @fnn
    The US Ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, wrote in his memoirs that Germany was making peace proposals to Britain as early as Oct. 1914. The Brits would have nothing of it and Page was outraged that Germany wanted to end the war,
    , @jilles dykstra
    Hitler never wanted war, Roosevelt did.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. While Sniegoski consistently writes well, it’s hard to understand how an article like this could be written without mention of Harry Elmer Barnes’ and A.J. Nock’s views on the subject, particularly since they would support the views expressed above.

    Why, ‘Ol Woody himself admitted the truth.:

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Speech at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, on the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations (5 September 1919), as published in “The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Authorized Edition) War and Peace: Presidential Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers (1917-1924) Vol. I, p. 637.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @fnn

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.
     
    Those who had an IQ above, say, 70 could see that Britain was afforded protection by being an island. Meanwhile, Germany was surrounded by enemies and potential enemies and had no natural geographical defenses. Moreover, Britain was very jealous of its naval supremacy which allowed it to prey on peoples anywhere in the world (e.g., the Boers) with impunity. One of the causes of British entry into the Great War was the well-documented fear that Germany might decide to become more than a minor naval power through leveraging its growing industrial and scientific supremacy.

    While it was true that Germany had reason to fear Russia which was industrialising, and where fertility was even greater than in Germany (cp. UK lower and declining, and France alresdy low) its attempt to execute the Schliefen plan by invading Belgium was not just a small detail. I heard a highly educated German aristocrat who had invaded France via Belgium as a cavalry officer in 1914 tell his wife and family that the British would not have violated Belgian neutrality and the terms of the ?1840 treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s borders as the Getman Reich did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    From Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    "[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have" writes Niall Ferguson. "this puts the British government's much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting 'for Belgian neutrality' in another light." The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.
     
    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:
    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Amanda says:

    Well, Benjamin Freedman, right hand man to Bernard Baruch (yesterday’s Soros) was there and he knows how/why the US got into WW1

    Transcript of Freedman’s speech is here:

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    “Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

    In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

    Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

    However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

    The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good.

    Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

    Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Some Zionists may have sided with Britain in the hope of getting Palestine as a reward, but most European Jews supported the Central Powers. It was a no-brainer really, as both the Kaiserreich and the Donau Monarchy were far more friendly to Jews than the Russians, or the virulently anti-semitic English. Tsarist troops slaughtered Jews by the thousands on the Eastern Front.
    , @Rurik
    Hello Amanda,

    that speech was my red pill so many, many years ago

    I used to wallow around in ignorance about so many things, and then I read that speech somewhere on the Internet, and began checking into things like the Balfour Declaration and what had happened to Palestine, and then who efffectifly owned all the big media corporation in the US and who owned Hollywood and Madison Ave, and the banks...

    and then my eyes opened, and I came to realize that all I had been told my whole life was basically agenda-driven lies

    and that the villains were the victims and the victims were actually the villains

    and that my government / media education had been a sham and a fraud

    I'm still getting over that cynical moment when you go 'WTF?!!

    and you're angry for a spell. But then you get over it and you just realize all of history is basically a pack of lies told by the ruling classes of the time to keep the citizenry under control and submissive and obedient

    but wow oh wow were those some doozies of lies that they told and continue to tell

    Germany was the victim of the momentous treachery both before and after that war, and the one the followed and the one to come ..
    , @utu
    Did any main stream historian ever discuss Benjamin Freedman's speech?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Fascinating. I had never heard of him. But he does sound a bit erratic. First to Wiki and that entry has clearly been under ADL curation for some time It doesn't mention Baruch I think. So.... suspending judgment, whete can one find reputable stuff on Freedman and the issues he pursued. In particular where are the evidencez that he really knew inside stories?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Agent76 says:

    *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    Feb 16, 2017 Nullify Chapter 18: Taking on the Federal Reserve

    There are four steps states can take to protect themselves from the Federal Reserve, and restore sound money. We’ll cover the first two, next.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Hey Agent76,
    Michael Rivero is largely correct, there are other reasons, but the banksters are a big part of the problem.
    Michaels article for those who wish to read it;
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#axzz4dLBpjyEN
    Personally I'd like to see many of these banksters lined up against a wall and shot...
    Anyway, if you haven't yet, pick up a copy of Ellen H. Brown's excellent 'The Web of Debt', and thanks for the links.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. HdC says:
    @roger in florida
    A lot of German apologists here. the fact is that alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war or stopped it soon after it began. The reason they didn't is that they wanted the war, they were convinced that they could win it and had been preparing for it for decades.
    Interesting that there was no fighting at all on the territory of Germany. Belgium, France, Poland and European Russia were decimated, along with a lot of other places, but Germany was unscathed.
    Britain was a sideline player but could not reasonably stand by and let France and Russia be defeated, I think the same occurred to President Wilson who could see that the USA might be the last man standing, not a good place to be if faced with a cynical supremacist entity like the Kaiser's Germany.
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it's heinous ambition, and it was.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, will be your view of history if you rely on comic books, Hollywood, or court historians for your information.

    Why not try some real books such as The Pity of War, Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War, Witness to History, The Myth of German Culpability, etc. HdC

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    As opposed to your view formed by bigotry and hatred, combined with an inability to read the real historical flow of events.
    , @Anon
    How has Hollywood advanced this view? And comic books: are there any dealing with the Great War?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Wizard of Oz
    A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can't see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn't surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn't the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers'rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    What high fertility rate? Do you have sources? Contemporary Germans published yards and yards of tracts in the decades prior to WWI declaring that the German woman had become too emancipated and were not doing their duty for the fatherland. Especially in Austria-Hungary it was a commonplace that Germans were being outbred by the Slavic populations and were going to be eclipsed. But even the Kaiserreich had a growing Polish minority. And as you note, Russian fertility was unquestionably higher than German. Justified or not, anxiety about racial replacement was certainly in the minds of the generals and politicians in both the Central European powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have just been following up the question of fertility rates as my starting point was just the 2 million (Germany) and 5 million (Russia) that I often quote to the relatively innumerate in different contexts. From my post WW2 experience of Germany where, long after the war, there was still a v. traditional peasantry and the use of horses in agriculture, as well as servants in middle class houses, I have little doubt that Germany in 2013 would have been a good generation behind the UK in declining fertility but I would concede that your point about their concern about Slavic fertility is probably a good one. Still the 2 million figure makes the German losses in WW1 of little relevance to Hitler's ambitions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder. In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat. All of which would have affected the good citizens of Atlanta, Des Moines and Yakima, well how, exactly? Hostile German designs on South America seem fanciful. The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S.

    Of course, the U.S. intervention was only one part of the colossal tragedy of World War I.

    “It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder.”

    Had the Germans respected freedom of the seas and not torpedoed our ships, then perhaps the United States wouldn’t have had to intervene. But American lives were lost and American commerce was being threatened, two legitimate reasons for the U.S. to enter the war.

    :”In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat.”

    Only speculation here. Why not deal with reality.

    “The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S.”

    There’s no “but” here. We issued a clear position that any action taken by Germany that directly threatened our sovereignty would be dealt with by force. Again, deal with reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You want reality, I'll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

    This doesn't count soldiers and civilians who died of influenza, which was spread partially by American soldiers traveling to Europe.

    Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917.
    , @anon
    The US didn't "have to intervene". IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE. As for Germany "not respecting freedom of the seas", what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British "respect freedom of the seas"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. mad1 says:

    Thank you Amanda, Freedman’s explanations of 20th century history are compelling but getting ever harder to find, no one seems more reviled by the Zionists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Amanda
    Well, Benjamin Freedman, right hand man to Bernard Baruch (yesterday's Soros) was there and he knows how/why the US got into WW1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c


    Transcript of Freedman's speech is here:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    "Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

    In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

    Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

    However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

    The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

    Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

    Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

    Some Zionists may have sided with Britain in the hope of getting Palestine as a reward, but most European Jews supported the Central Powers. It was a no-brainer really, as both the Kaiserreich and the Donau Monarchy were far more friendly to Jews than the Russians, or the virulently anti-semitic English. Tsarist troops slaughtered Jews by the thousands on the Eastern Front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Zionist hedged their bets by covering every possible angles.
    They reached out to everybody They promised victory to Russia ,Turkey and to UK and Germany .
    They stopped Turkey reaching no aggression with USA by sabotaging US Dept of States .

    The aim was war had Turkey not agreed . The other aim was to bestow economic and military powers on Turkey if it agreed for the creation of Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @HdC
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, will be your view of history if you rely on comic books, Hollywood, or court historians for your information.

    Why not try some real books such as The Pity of War, Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War, Witness to History, The Myth of German Culpability, etc. HdC

    As opposed to your view formed by bigotry and hatred, combined with an inability to read the real historical flow of events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Yes indeed: HdC recommends several history books for your edification, and you accuse him of having his view formed by bigotry and hatred, revealing your ignorant view of history, which is already on full display here with your original comment:

    Britain was a sideline player
    [...]
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2
     
    Your ignorance, I fear, is possibly quite beyond remedy, but at least try to wade through Amanda's comment above, where she quotes Freedman:

    "It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
    [...]
    Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.
    [...]
    the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”
     
    Along with everyone else, author Stephen Sniegoski should know that the Sussex wasn't sunk, but that non-event was just one of the smears directed against the Germans, who were being demonized--inaccurately-- as "Huns."

    The usage of the term "Hun" to describe Germans resurfaced during World War II. For example, Winston Churchill 1941 said in a broadcast speech: "There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable...
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    It's nothing more, nothing less, than simple name-calling, 'effective as always, although these days, Hun-calling has been superseded by Hitler-calling, and unrestricted submarine warfare, as an accusation, has been preempted by use of weapons of mass destruction, and/or chemical warfare "on his own people."

    And finally, from your presumed ability to "read the real historical flow of events" please tell us: how did those 117 Jews secure a place, and a large voice, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919?
    , @anon
    If anyone deserves to be called out for close-mindedness here, it is YOU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I think two things are beyond serious dispute:

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war. Regardless of provocations by England and others, Germany didn’t have to go to war. It had other options — options that (in hindsight) were actually better, since war turned out to be a disaster for Germany.

    2. The U.S. didn’t enter the war because of the Lusitania or German sub tactics more generally.

    I’m also convinced that the U.S. had no good reason for entering the war, and that without U.S. participation, there’s a very good chance that the Depression and WWII would not have happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    "Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war."

    BS!
    , @jacques sheete

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war.
     
    Look, it's been a century now and you still believe such nonsense?

    Utterly amazing.
    , @Abdul Alhazred
    How King Edward VII Started World War I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Corvinus
    "It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder."

    Had the Germans respected freedom of the seas and not torpedoed our ships, then perhaps the United States wouldn't have had to intervene. But American lives were lost and American commerce was being threatened, two legitimate reasons for the U.S. to enter the war.

    :"In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat."

    Only speculation here. Why not deal with reality.

    "The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S."

    There's no "but" here. We issued a clear position that any action taken by Germany that directly threatened our sovereignty would be dealt with by force. Again, deal with reality.

    You want reality, I’ll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

    This doesn’t count soldiers and civilians who died of influenza, which was spread partially by American soldiers traveling to Europe.

    Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You want reality, I’ll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I."

    Appeal to emotion. Try using feelings with SJW's. Are you able to even muster up any rational counter arguments?

    "Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917."

    They died fighting for their nation to ensure our freedoms. Are you willing to give up your life for what you believe in? Or are you just here for the snacks?

    Consider this statement you had previously made on a different thread--"Given the slave population increase between 1790 (about 650,000) and 1860 (almost four million), a sextupling of the population in 70 years, they seem to have had plenty of energy for activities other than toiling and dying. But your last statement is right on the money! The life of an African slave in North America probably compared favorably to an industrial worker in Europe or North America during the same period. And it was much better than living in a high disease load subsistence agriculture environment in equitorial Africa."

    So, using your logic, assemble the ghosts of former slaves and explain to them and their families how much better Africa was in 1700 than it had been in 1500.
    , @anon
    So true. And only about 500 Americans were killed by submarines before April 1917. The "cure" was vastly worse then the illness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Churchill said, without Wilson’s decision to enter WW I, there would have been no Communist takeover of Russia, no Fascist takeover of Italy, no Nazi takeover of Germany.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/10/woodrow-wilson-legacy-tainted-by-racism-attacks-on/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Tha Philosopher
    Read Henry Goldman's (of Goldman Sachs fame) biography from his granddaughter.

    I believe mid way she mentions the German Jews being loyal to Germany, and the Zionist jews under Weizmann conspiring to blackmail Wilson to get the US into WW1.

    Ferguson makes a case in The House of Rothschild that they tried to broker peace between Britain and Germany pre war outbreak multiple times for part sentimental reasons.

    Many Jews were from Germany in America, not Britain. It would make sense they felt some sentiment to there like Henry Goldman.

    But as always, if you can figure out what the jews were doing, you've cracked the mystery.

    But which Jews were the ones that mattered? As you mention, Zionist Jews may have favored the British because of the Balfour Declaration but German Jews living in the US preferred the Central Powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The Balfour Declaration never implied a Jewish state, just that Britain would ensure Jewish settlement under the rule of the Hashemites. The Ottomans did not object much to Zionism because it brought in investment and created a counter-balance against the Arabs.

    The important aspect was the Jews like Jacob Schiff, who was a rabid Russophobe, and may have been one of the funders of Leon Trotsky. Their first objective was destroying the Tsar, and the Germans stabbed themselves in the back by letting Lenin out of exile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Joe Wong says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can't see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn't surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn't the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers'rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    The British imitates the Romans and the Americans were born out of the British; the Romans slaughtered a race and salted the land then called it creating a peace, both of them are ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘puritans’. The Anglo was the instigator of the WWI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Have you some information to impart or are you content to contribute what might be expected of an uneducated semi-literate person after a few drinks in a bar?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Sparkon says:
    @roger in florida
    As opposed to your view formed by bigotry and hatred, combined with an inability to read the real historical flow of events.

    Yes indeed: HdC recommends several history books for your edification, and you accuse him of having his view formed by bigotry and hatred, revealing your ignorant view of history, which is already on full display here with your original comment:

    Britain was a sideline player
    [...]
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2

    Your ignorance, I fear, is possibly quite beyond remedy, but at least try to wade through Amanda’s comment above, where she quotes Freedman:

    “It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
    [...]
    Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.
    [...]
    the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”

    Along with everyone else, author Stephen Sniegoski should know that the Sussex wasn’t sunk, but that non-event was just one of the smears directed against the Germans, who were being demonized–inaccurately– as “Huns.”

    The usage of the term “Hun” to describe Germans resurfaced during World War II. For example, Winston Churchill 1941 said in a broadcast speech: “There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    It’s nothing more, nothing less, than simple name-calling, ‘effective as always, although these days, Hun-calling has been superseded by Hitler-calling, and unrestricted submarine warfare, as an accusation, has been preempted by use of weapons of mass destruction, and/or chemical warfare “on his own people.”

    And finally, from your presumed ability to “read the real historical flow of events” please tell us: how did those 117 Jews secure a place, and a large voice, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919?

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    Did you count J M Keynes in that 117, he was a Jew, and a queer, but he argued against punitive claims against Germany.
    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists is that you pay far too much attention to what people say, rather than what they do. The simple fact is that Germany had created a huge and extremely effective OFFENSIVE army by 1914, that fact is not arguable. Their primary war aim was to conquer European Russia and enslave the occupants of that territory. This is what they actually achieved in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
    In order to achieve that aim they had to defeat France as well, as France was formally allied with Russia. They decided to do that first, largely because they believed Russia would be much slower to mobilize than France, in that they were mistaken because the Czar had kept a large part of his army mobilized after the near civil war of 1906.
    None of this was anything to do with Britain except that Britain would have been in a very uncomfortable situation if France had been defeated. It is very unlikely however that Germany would have put enough into naval preparations to seriously threaten Britain, they would have had quite enough to do subjugating their conquests.
    In 1917 the war was going very badly for the allies and it was clear that if Germany prevailed then the US would be alone, with the likelihood of the British fleet being in German Hands.
    Jews are the biggest blowhards on the planet, about the only thing more annoying than you Jew haters is the Jews themselves claiming responsibility for every event in history that suits them.
    Still Germany could have prevented the carnage or stopped it once started if they had been prepared to abandon their predatory war aims, but they weren't, because they believed almost to the end that they could achieve military victory.
    , @Stephen Sniegoski
    Thanks for pointing out my error on the Sussex, which was torpedoed but not sunk. It was corrected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. HdC says:

    According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    Germany was already almost fully mobilized. They had been planning their campaign for decades: Knock France out first then invade and defeat Russia, annex European Russia and enslave what was left of the Russian people. Basically rinse and repeat for WW2. Both times they damn near pulled it off.
    , @Incitatus
    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    Really? “Rules of war at the time.” Please forward your source so all can benefit.

    I really am perplexed. So when rotten Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia 28 Jul 1914 they weren’t belligerent? Russia mobilized two days later (30 Jul 1914). Please explain HdC.

    France? Germany declared war on France a day after after invading Luxembourg and besieging Longwy 2 Aug 1914. Golly, do you think Germany was mobilized by the time they invaded? Gee whiz! What do you think HdC?

    France declared war on Germany 3 Aug 1914. Germany invaded neutral Belgium a day later HdC. Were neutral Belgium’s ‘demobilized’ troops ample cause for Germany’s rape of Belgium? Please tell us HdC.

    Did you take lessons in stupidity HdC, or does it come naturally?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    You want reality, I'll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

    This doesn't count soldiers and civilians who died of influenza, which was spread partially by American soldiers traveling to Europe.

    Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917.

    “You want reality, I’ll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I.”

    Appeal to emotion. Try using feelings with SJW’s. Are you able to even muster up any rational counter arguments?

    “Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917.”

    They died fighting for their nation to ensure our freedoms. Are you willing to give up your life for what you believe in? Or are you just here for the snacks?

    Consider this statement you had previously made on a different thread–”Given the slave population increase between 1790 (about 650,000) and 1860 (almost four million), a sextupling of the population in 70 years, they seem to have had plenty of energy for activities other than toiling and dying. But your last statement is right on the money! The life of an African slave in North America probably compared favorably to an industrial worker in Europe or North America during the same period. And it was much better than living in a high disease load subsistence agriculture environment in equitorial Africa.”

    So, using your logic, assemble the ghosts of former slaves and explain to them and their families how much better Africa was in 1700 than it had been in 1500.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "They died fighting for their nation to ensure our freedoms."

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. Germany did not threaten America (free or otherwise) at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. L.K says:
    @Clark Westwood
    I think two things are beyond serious dispute:

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war. Regardless of provocations by England and others, Germany didn't have to go to war. It had other options -- options that (in hindsight) were actually better, since war turned out to be a disaster for Germany.

    2. The U.S. didn't enter the war because of the Lusitania or German sub tactics more generally.

    I'm also convinced that the U.S. had no good reason for entering the war, and that without U.S. participation, there's a very good chance that the Depression and WWII would not have happened.

    “Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war.”

    BS!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Wilhelm II was wrong to end the Three Emperors Alliance with Russia and Austria-Hungary. The colonial adventurism and naval buildup wasted valuable resources that could have been better spent mechanizing the army. The German auto industry was more developed than the UK and France, but this advantage was squandered.

    Bismarck had made it his main goal to prevent France from resuming its traditional alliance with Russia (this is still a factor today, as to why the EU-Merkel are so opposed to Fillon and Le Pen). Wilhelm wasn't the aggressor, but he was foolish.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    [Too many typos.]

    Germany backed Aistria-Kungary against Serbia dod it not, even though Serbia conceded even the most provocatively excessive demands?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. L.K says:

    A good book on Wilson’s administration’s foreign policy is ‘The Illusion of Victory”, published in 2003 by US historian Thomas Fleming.

    In this sweeping historical canvas, Thomas Fleming undertakes nothing less than a drastic revision of our experience in World War I. He reveals how the British and French duped Wilson into thinking the war was as good as won, and there would be no need to send an army overseas. He describes a harried president making speech after speech proclaiming America’s ideals while supporting espionage and sedition acts that sent critics to federal prisons. And he gives a harrowing account of how the Allies did their utmost to turn the American Expeditionary Force into cannon fodder on the Western Front.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. L.K says:

    Members of the British ‘deep state’ were the key masterminds of WWI.
    The overwhelming British responsibility is superbly demonstrated by a new study by Scottish historians Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, in their “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War”.

    https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

    “Hidden History uniquely exposes those responsible for World War I. It reveals how accounts of the war’s origins have been deliberately falsified to conceal the guilt of the secret cabal of very rich and powerful men in London responsible for the most heinous crime perpetrated on humanity. For 10 years, they plotted the destruction of Germany as the first stage of their plan to take control of the world. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was no chance happening. It lit a fuse that had been carefully set through a chain of command stretching from Sarajevo through Belgrade and St. Petersburg to that cabal in London. Our understanding of these events has been firmly trapped in a web of falsehood and duplicity carefully constructed by the victors at Versailles in 1919 and maintained by compliant historians ever since. The official version is fatally flawed, warped by the volume of evidence they destroyed or concealed from public view. Hidden History poses a tantalizing challenge. The authors ask only that you examine the evidence they lay before you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. L.K says:

    Jewish-American scholar, Paul Gottfried, has researched WWI for many years.
    Regarding England’s decisive contribution in bringing about the war, he writes in his article ‘How England Helped Start the Great War’:

    “A vastly underexplored topic is the British government’s role in greasing the skids for World War I.[...]Supposedly the British only got involved after the Germans recklessly violated Belgian neutrality on their way to conquering “democratic“ France.

    But British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey had done everything in his power to isolate the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies, who were justified in their concern about being surrounded by enemies. The Triple Entente, largely constructed by Grey’s government and which drew the French and Russians into a far-reaching alliance, encircled Germany and Austria with warlike foes. In July 1914 German leaders felt forced to back their Austrian allies in a war against the Serbs, who were then a Russian client state. It was clear by then that this conflict would require the Germans to fight both Russia and France.

    The German military fatalistically accepted the possibility of England entering the struggle against them. This might have happened even if the Germans had not violated Belgian soil in order to knock out the French before sending their armies eastward to deal with a massive Russian invasion. The English were anything but neutral. In the summer of 1914 their government was about to sign a military alliance with Russia calling for a joint operation against German Pomerania in case of a general war. The British had also given assurances to French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé that they would back the French and the Russians (who had been allied since 1891) if war broke out with Germany.

    Full article @ http://takimag.com/article/how_england_helped_start_the_great_war_paul_gottfried/print#axzz4dgTHNQ1v

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.
     
    That was my point above, about Germany being the aggressor. Maybe multiple governments wanted war, but only one pulled the trigger (so to speak). If Germany had "restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand," perhaps peace would have been maintained in Europe for another 100 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. L.K says:
    @conatus
    It is rarely mentioned but it seems to me the Germans lived in a bad neighborhood in Mittel Europa and could not afford to act as individualistically as their 'moral betters' in England(with their English Channel) and the US(with their Atlantic Ocean). Historically the Germans got slaughtered at Verden in 782 where 5000 Saxons(180,000 in today's demographics) got baptized in the name of the Prince of Peace and then got their heads chopped off by Charlemagne. Then in the early 1600s in the Thirty Years War, since Germany was a divided nation of many principalities, the Great powers of Sweden France and Spain had a field day fighting each other over the Prod/Catholic divide and along the way slaughtered a third of the male population of Germany.
    The result? If you live in the ghetto of middle Europe where your neighbor, who hates you, only lives across the river, you become Prussia "an army with a country" just to be left alone. They learned to be militarized by the simple necessity of wanting to be left alone. It is like living in Anacostia in DC, you have to be threatening merely to be left alone. It was their historical experience that equanimity and even tempered views result in the tribal massacres of Verden and the Thirty Years War.
    You can't afford the Pan Am smile of the suburbs if you live in the middle of Europe.

    Paul Gottfried brings up President Wilson’s Anglophilia, ethnic bonding, and his reaching out to the Brits by favoring the Anglos in the US and shunning the Germans in the US. Wilson, the Anglo-Saxon, admired Britain and was not enamored of the young upstart Hun on the continent. The Anglos ruled the day in American public relations in 1917 and the US changed history by coming into WW1 on the side of the Anglos. The Germans were winning the war but we tipped the scales and the result? The Versailles Lie, the Germans were starved into signing the guilt clause(the armistice was six months before the Treaty of Versailles) by the allies, and then….then Hitler came along to lead the pissed off Germans down the road to Ragnarok in WW2.
    I also think one of the unmentioned causes the US population went with the Brits is the Germans were as bad at public relations as the Scotch-Irish in Ulster, those stubborn Prods, who sing songs like,”You don’t like us? We don’t care.” That is not a way to sway US public opinion.There is a German American building on 3rd and Penn on Capitol Hill but you would never know it. It is engraved in stone over the door but that is something we don't want to talk about.
    So during the pivotal 1916-17 period the Germans naively thought truth would carry the day.
    It didn’t, and here we are living Hitler’s revenge, slowly simmering and soon to stew like a frog in our home-made frying-pan of guilt.

    ‘I also think one of the unmentioned causes the US population went with the Brits is the Germans were as bad at public relations as the Scotch-Irish in Ulster, those stubborn Prods, who sing songs like,”You don’t like us? We don’t care.”’

    That is true, Thomas Fleming discusses this in the book I mentioned before.
    On pg.59, for example, he writes that as Germany was a newcomer to international power politics and barely 40 years old as a unified state in 1914, that it had paid little attention to “this time-honored British custom of slandering their enemies“. Then he proceeds with several historical examples.
    I must say nothing has changed and some of the most vile anti-Assad/anti-Syria propaganda has come from the Brit state and presstitutes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. L.K says:

    In a paper from 2017, the same scholar I mentioned above, P. Gottfried, speaks about the responsibility for WWI but also, and this is very important, he takes a good look into the breathtaking level of intellectual dishonesty re this issue coming from cheap publicists(propagandists) but also from those court historians who certainly must know better but, in the end, choose propaganda instead.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/paul-gottfried/whos-blame-world-war-one/

    Who’s To Blame for World War One?
    By Paul Gottfried
    March 14, 2017

    Having devoted considerable time over the last forty years to studying the Great War, an interest that I developed in graduate school in the mid-1960s, I am no longer surprised or disappointed by fictional accounts of this conflict. In a forthcoming anthology, I try to explain why the glaringly obvious is so often neglected in most popular histories of the War. This is seen particularly in the attempt to attach overwhelming responsibility to the losing side while making the Allied governments look better than they were.[...]
    I examine this skewed approach not as an exception to current historical studies but as characteristic of the way they are now done: although at no other time has there been so much available historical information, perhaps never before has historiography been so drenched in ideology. Historians and journalists now have at their command more data than was available to great historians of the past. But this opportunity for accurate depictions is squandered when readers are bombed with ideologically shaped stereotypes.

    After discussing some of the cheap, ignorant propagandists, he takes court historian Max Hastings to the woodshed.

    More relevant to my discussion, however, are those who know something about the War but who can’t resist serving us warmed-over platitudes. Someone who fits this category is the distinguished British historian Sir Max Hastings.[...]In his narrative Hastings keeps coming back to the thesis constructed by the anti-national German historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s, that Germany in 1914 “directed policy toward precipitating a general European conflict.”[...]
    For better or worse, Fischer’s evidence that Germany and Austria were alone responsible for the War has been dying the death of a thousand stabs for decades. In Der Fischer, Komplex Gunter Spraul notes the sloppiness with which Fischer cites sources, particularly those attributed to the German Kaiser and to Helmut von Moltke, the chief of the German General Staff in 1914. Spraul could have added considerably to his list of Fischer’s misrepresentations and garbled citations, but doing so would take me too far afield.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @HdC
    According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC

    Germany was already almost fully mobilized. They had been planning their campaign for decades: Knock France out first then invade and defeat Russia, annex European Russia and enslave what was left of the Russian people. Basically rinse and repeat for WW2. Both times they damn near pulled it off.

    Read More
    • Troll: Rurik
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The Germans planned on creating an illiberal European Union, much like Putin's Eurasian Union that this country's hawks hate so much. Being a vassal of the Kaiser's Germany would have been much better for Eastern Europe, rather than being under the Communist boot.

    France started and lost the war in 1870, and was dominated by the desire for revenge. Bismarck's error was not restoring the Bourbons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Maj. Kong says:
    @PV van der Byl
    But which Jews were the ones that mattered? As you mention, Zionist Jews may have favored the British because of the Balfour Declaration but German Jews living in the US preferred the Central Powers.

    The Balfour Declaration never implied a Jewish state, just that Britain would ensure Jewish settlement under the rule of the Hashemites. The Ottomans did not object much to Zionism because it brought in investment and created a counter-balance against the Arabs.

    The important aspect was the Jews like Jacob Schiff, who was a rabid Russophobe, and may have been one of the funders of Leon Trotsky. Their first objective was destroying the Tsar, and the Germans stabbed themselves in the back by letting Lenin out of exile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Not only did the Germans "let him (Lenin) out," that is, arrange for a train to take him from Switzerland through Germany and Sweden to Finland, then a part of the a Russian Empire, they provided him with 26 million gold marks, or about 300,000 troy ounces.

    That amount of gold would go for $380,000,000 at today's prices. That's what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    A BIG LIE about an attack on the SS Sussex in march 1916 also helped rally war loving Americans into following the Judas Goat into the WW I slaughterhouse.

    America was told that some Americans were killed in this dastardly attack on the Sussex, but NO Americans had been killed, but why look for facts when there’s a money-making war to be had?

    When President Wilson asked Congress to declare war against Germany, President Wilson was in effect and in fact conspiring to pay the debt he obligated himself to pay to the Zionists. Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of inter-national law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing’s troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the ”pretext” to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives.

    http://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/benjamin-h-freedman-the-hidden-tyranny.pdf

    85 years later, another False Flag, 9/11, would send the USA off fighting endless wars for Apartheid Israel and those TBTF Wall Street casinos, the only ones making book on this madness.

    Between Wilson siccing the illegal Federal Reserve on Americans and lying about keeping the US out of WW I, he has to be one of the sleaziest traitors to be president.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Maj. Kong says:
    @L.K
    "Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war."

    BS!

    Wilhelm II was wrong to end the Three Emperors Alliance with Russia and Austria-Hungary. The colonial adventurism and naval buildup wasted valuable resources that could have been better spent mechanizing the army. The German auto industry was more developed than the UK and France, but this advantage was squandered.

    Bismarck had made it his main goal to prevent France from resuming its traditional alliance with Russia (this is still a factor today, as to why the EU-Merkel are so opposed to Fillon and Le Pen). Wilhelm wasn’t the aggressor, but he was foolish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I believe the Kaiser later said allowing the Three Emperors Alliance to lapse was the greatest mistake of his life. In the years before the war, Wilhelm attempted a number of conciliations with the Tsar but the Russian political establishment always sabotaged them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Very good analysis in the article and very good commentary. However how can all this font of wisdom have NO MENTION of the Zimmerman telegram?

    This reasonably insignificant piece of history tipped the corn fed congressmen and senators towards voting for declaring war because one
    thing they did understand was that Mexico ( as opposed to Belgium) was kitty corner to the US, in other words to them the war was now a direct threat. Though mostly decent chaps, ignorant then as they are today on what goes on in the larger (financial) world when the telegram was published, it was read as a direct threat and declaring war was a done deal. Retrospectively It also explains the 1915- 1917 gap on eventual American intervention.

    My point is the author did himself a disservice by either neglecting or much worse not knowing about said telegram. The devil is always in the details.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mad Brute
    That's right, the declaration of war was an overreaction. An irrational act. It shouldn't have happened. So why did it?

    To understand it you have to put yourself mentally in the position of people who still had vivid memories of the Civil War (which was much closer to them than WWII is to us.)

    What was the Zimmerman telegram? It was a German threat to break up the U.S. by secession.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Sparkon
    Yes indeed: HdC recommends several history books for your edification, and you accuse him of having his view formed by bigotry and hatred, revealing your ignorant view of history, which is already on full display here with your original comment:

    Britain was a sideline player
    [...]
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2
     
    Your ignorance, I fear, is possibly quite beyond remedy, but at least try to wade through Amanda's comment above, where she quotes Freedman:

    "It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
    [...]
    Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.
    [...]
    the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”
     
    Along with everyone else, author Stephen Sniegoski should know that the Sussex wasn't sunk, but that non-event was just one of the smears directed against the Germans, who were being demonized--inaccurately-- as "Huns."

    The usage of the term "Hun" to describe Germans resurfaced during World War II. For example, Winston Churchill 1941 said in a broadcast speech: "There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable...
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    It's nothing more, nothing less, than simple name-calling, 'effective as always, although these days, Hun-calling has been superseded by Hitler-calling, and unrestricted submarine warfare, as an accusation, has been preempted by use of weapons of mass destruction, and/or chemical warfare "on his own people."

    And finally, from your presumed ability to "read the real historical flow of events" please tell us: how did those 117 Jews secure a place, and a large voice, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919?

    Did you count J M Keynes in that 117, he was a Jew, and a queer, but he argued against punitive claims against Germany.
    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists is that you pay far too much attention to what people say, rather than what they do. The simple fact is that Germany had created a huge and extremely effective OFFENSIVE army by 1914, that fact is not arguable. Their primary war aim was to conquer European Russia and enslave the occupants of that territory. This is what they actually achieved in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
    In order to achieve that aim they had to defeat France as well, as France was formally allied with Russia. They decided to do that first, largely because they believed Russia would be much slower to mobilize than France, in that they were mistaken because the Czar had kept a large part of his army mobilized after the near civil war of 1906.
    None of this was anything to do with Britain except that Britain would have been in a very uncomfortable situation if France had been defeated. It is very unlikely however that Germany would have put enough into naval preparations to seriously threaten Britain, they would have had quite enough to do subjugating their conquests.
    In 1917 the war was going very badly for the allies and it was clear that if Germany prevailed then the US would be alone, with the likelihood of the British fleet being in German Hands.
    Jews are the biggest blowhards on the planet, about the only thing more annoying than you Jew haters is the Jews themselves claiming responsibility for every event in history that suits them.
    Still Germany could have prevented the carnage or stopped it once started if they had been prepared to abandon their predatory war aims, but they weren’t, because they believed almost to the end that they could achieve military victory.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists ...bla bla bla...
     
    The problem with you name callers is that you are so weak on facts and reasoning ability that you have to resort to silly labels.

    Keep trying!

    ROFL.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Again I scratch my head. A UR contributor with worthwhile things to say who includes the totally bizarre! J.M.Keynes a Jew? No. Indeed he was capable of typical English upper class tropes about Jews which would now be regarded as unacceptably anti'semitic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Maj. Kong says:
    @roger in florida
    Germany was already almost fully mobilized. They had been planning their campaign for decades: Knock France out first then invade and defeat Russia, annex European Russia and enslave what was left of the Russian people. Basically rinse and repeat for WW2. Both times they damn near pulled it off.

    The Germans planned on creating an illiberal European Union, much like Putin’s Eurasian Union that this country’s hawks hate so much. Being a vassal of the Kaiser’s Germany would have been much better for Eastern Europe, rather than being under the Communist boot.

    France started and lost the war in 1870, and was dominated by the desire for revenge. Bismarck’s error was not restoring the Bourbons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Bismarck couldn't have done anything of the kind, and wouldn't have cared, as he had to deal with the Government of National Defense and didn't mind doing it, considering his position. The French came within a hair's-breadth of restoring the Bourbons themselves; if the Orleanists hadn't kicked up such a fuss about the tricolor, or if the Comte de Chambord had been more of a cynical politician, the restoration would have been a done deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    [Avoid too many typos.]

    The loss of 1 million Germans by April 1917 is surely irrelevant to the question of whether Getmany might be a threat to America. There were 2 million Germans born in 1913 wbich is why manpowrr for the armed services was no problem for Hitler.

    Bismarck is said to have remarked that the most important geopolitical fact for the next (20th) century would be that Americans spoke English. America's place in the world would have been gravely affected by German hegeminy in Europe (and very likely acquisition of French, Belgian and perhaps British colonies. Might that not have been a genuine concern for Ametican leaders?

    What you are saying makes no sense at all.

    Germany’s birthrate wasn’t higher then most other European countries (except for France) and below a number of them. As for troops Hitler began running out of them as early as September 1941 when General Fromm, the head of the German reserve forces (known as the replacement army) told him that losses in the east could no longer be made up with new troops. It was later suggested 15 German divisions be dissolved to fill up the losses in other units. Hitler wouldn’t hear of it.

    AS for German hegemony in Europe this is and always has been a canard. Germany had zero strategic sealift capacity. It was NEVER able to seriously threaten the British Isles with invasion, in EITHER war. So how could it threaten the USA with 3,000 miles of ocean between it and Europe when it couldn’t even cross 20 miles of the English Channel? Germans would have comprised no more then about 20-25% of any empire in Europe assuming they absorbed ALL of France, the Low Countries, Poland and virtually all of central and southern Europe, plus the Baltics. How could they have possibly hold all of this and kept all these foreign peoples in check? For more on this see the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Germany had great difficulty just organizing the eastern lands of Tsarist Russia that it overran with its “bewildering number of ethnic groups” as the German high command noted. Hindenburg in particular noted the difficulties trying to organize and govern Poland. With no ability to take out the British Isles or Russia proper, Germany could never have established a real hegemony over Europe. Nor would there have been enough Germans to have maintained it. Look how the much larger USSR eventually collapsed and evacuated Eastern Europe.

    I don’t see ANY possible way AT ALL Germany could have acquired any French, Belgian or British colonies or overseas territories. Indeed the German empire was quickly picked off and destroyed by France, Britain and Japan. As the Japanese military told the Japanese government in 1914, it didn’t even matter if Germany won the war, it had no means to retake any territory in Asia or the Pacific that it seized from her. Germany couldn’t defend what colonies, overseas territories it had, let alone acquire new ones from other countries. The reason was the same it couldn’t invade Britain. Not a powerful enough navy, and no strategic sealift capacity. Even a victorious Germany would have been much weakened and far less likely to seek a future conflict. You seem to think a million dead is something a nation of only 70 million shrugs off like a cold. Look at how the Vietnam war traumatized America (58,000 dead in a population of 185,000,000). In any case without American belligerency a negotiated peace, or a draw, in plain language, was the almost certain outcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    While the German fleet building was a mistake, a major naval victory (and they had several chances in the war), might have enabled the Germans to blockade the UK and mount a real uprising in Ireland.

    A victorious Germany may have acquired additional colonies at the negotiating table, if France had surrendered and was under occupation. I don't know if the British of WW1 would seize the French colonies for themselves.

    The Ottomans also attacked the Suez Canal during the war, if France had been defeated, Germany could have relocated troops to the Middle East. But this presumes the US never enters the war.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Irrelevance to others' points as too often. My point about the 1913 births and the WW1 losses was merely to make the point that Hitler had, in the 30s a population of males of military age that was again large enough to allow him to use military force.

    You seem at a glance to be denying any relevance to the idea of feared German hegemony. History provided plenty of precedents justifying fear of what ambitious rulers of expanding populations might do in Europe. German hegemony? What about Charlemagne? What about the possible aspiration in the name "Holy Roman Empire"? The threat of Spain to Elizabethan England had been real and a came close to success. Why did the (until 19th century small though rich) balance-of-power country insist on the preservation of the Low Countries as a buffer? If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union and the US hadn't entered the war what chance is there that Germany couldn't have defeated the UK or at least made it give up colonies and limit its navy?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can't see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn't surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn't the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers'rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    Maybe he could have chosen to cut the rations of all the millions of POW’s instead of his own troops sport. As for Britain having a small army, it had a huge navy and the protection of the English channel. Germany had Russia for a neighbor. Try dealing in facts, instead of opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your valid observations which you treat as cintradicting me I have already made or mentioned; vide #13 and #16
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. It is unconceivable that the US at that point would have possibly been neutral towards ancien regime monarchs and Kaizers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @LondonBob
    Still the Germans started WWI and they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare.

    A peace should have been negotiated, perhaps in 1916 there was a real possibility of this, as it was clear early on there would be only losers. That the US was likely to intervene, especially after the Balfour declaration had been agreed, meant peace talks had little chance of success.

    “they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare”.

    Britain engaged in the mass starvation of German civilians. Many, many times more civilians died from the British blockade then German submarines. Just as vastly more German civilians would die in bombing raids in WW2 then in Britain.

    “The Germans started WW1″.

    That’s funny. I though Britain declared war on Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You specialise in irrelevance and non-response to what you are purporting to reply to. Do I really have to point out why the UK's formal declaration of war wasn't the beginning of the war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @L.K
    Jewish-American scholar, Paul Gottfried, has researched WWI for many years.
    Regarding England's decisive contribution in bringing about the war, he writes in his article 'How England Helped Start the Great War':

    "A vastly underexplored topic is the British government’s role in greasing the skids for World War I.[...]Supposedly the British only got involved after the Germans recklessly violated Belgian neutrality on their way to conquering “democratic“ France.

    But British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey had done everything in his power to isolate the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies, who were justified in their concern about being surrounded by enemies. The Triple Entente, largely constructed by Grey’s government and which drew the French and Russians into a far-reaching alliance, encircled Germany and Austria with warlike foes. In July 1914 German leaders felt forced to back their Austrian allies in a war against the Serbs, who were then a Russian client state. It was clear by then that this conflict would require the Germans to fight both Russia and France.

    The German military fatalistically accepted the possibility of England entering the struggle against them. This might have happened even if the Germans had not violated Belgian soil in order to knock out the French before sending their armies eastward to deal with a massive Russian invasion. The English were anything but neutral. In the summer of 1914 their government was about to sign a military alliance with Russia calling for a joint operation against German Pomerania in case of a general war. The British had also given assurances to French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé that they would back the French and the Russians (who had been allied since 1891) if war broke out with Germany.
     
    Full article @ http://takimag.com/article/how_england_helped_start_the_great_war_paul_gottfried/print#axzz4dgTHNQ1v

    In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.

    That was my point above, about Germany being the aggressor. Maybe multiple governments wanted war, but only one pulled the trigger (so to speak). If Germany had “restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand,” perhaps peace would have been maintained in Europe for another 100 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "Germany being the aggressor". Aggressor is a loaded word. Was Lincoln the aggressor in the civil war?

    Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany itself in 1916. Romania declared war on the Central Powers in 1916. The USA declared war on them in 1917.

    Strange.......

    All of these countries could have chosen to remain neutral. Including the U.K. according to historian Niall Ferguson.
    , @L.K
    Good grief, man!! That's what you took from the article???
    Nice cherry picking, lad.
    Clearly, you are not too bright... or perhaps you are just disingenuous.

    Paul Gottfried writes in one of the articles I linked to:

    The charge that Germany was the unprovoked aggressor should have rung hollow by 1914, given the intrigues that had gone before. Of course, no one is denying that Germany’s catastrophic blunder furnished the casus belli. But as the historian Thucydides noted thousands of years ago, a true historical study examines the genesis of events. Such an account is not limited to the immediate causes of a war nor to the pretext or excuse “(prophasis)” that is given for one when it breaks out.
     
    According to folks like you, if the Zio-American Empire encirclement of the Russian Federation continues and eventually reaches a point where Russia's national security and sovereignty become totally compromised and Russia decides to hit first, Russia will be the sole or main responsible party for a WW3, while ZUSA's Empire would be the poor victims...
    , @Sam Shama
    Quite. All nations were engaged in interlocking agreements which sovereign nations are free to enter into in pursuit of their self-interests. Arguments which turn a blind eye to this very basic right of nations to ally themselves freely are thus fatally flawed.

    Germany was the aggressor and should've known better than inviting the participation of far superior powers, a (ger)manic folly one might say, which led to the death of far too many.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @roger in florida
    A lot of German apologists here. the fact is that alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war or stopped it soon after it began. The reason they didn't is that they wanted the war, they were convinced that they could win it and had been preparing for it for decades.
    Interesting that there was no fighting at all on the territory of Germany. Belgium, France, Poland and European Russia were decimated, along with a lot of other places, but Germany was unscathed.
    Britain was a sideline player but could not reasonably stand by and let France and Russia be defeated, I think the same occurred to President Wilson who could see that the USA might be the last man standing, not a good place to be if faced with a cynical supremacist entity like the Kaiser's Germany.
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it's heinous ambition, and it was.

    What you say is even more nonsense then THE WIZARD OF OZ poster.

    “Alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war”.

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. Tsarist Russia could have simply told Serbia it was on its own. Then Serbia either complies or there is yet another minor war in the Balkans.

    “Had been preparing for the war for decades”…

    Then why not begin it in 1905-06 when Russia has just been defeated by Japan, had its navy sunk and is now embroiled in a chaotic revolution and counter-revolution? Russia would have been easy pickings at the time. The Kaiser did nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    They tried to provoke war in the First Tangier Crisis of 1906, then again in 1911 in the Second Tangier Crisis. They were thwarted in these efforts by the unity shown by powerful nations against them and by having to get involved in talks. They were determined in 1914 that they were not going to get involved in any negotiations so used multiple tricks to avoid a diplomatic solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "It is increasingly clear in retrospect that U.S. entry into World War I was a major blunder."

    Had the Germans respected freedom of the seas and not torpedoed our ships, then perhaps the United States wouldn't have had to intervene. But American lives were lost and American commerce was being threatened, two legitimate reasons for the U.S. to enter the war.

    :"In the absence of U.S. intervention, Germany would probably have forced a disadvantageous peace on France along the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russians. Belgium would likely have become a quasi-German state and the status of the Netherlands might have been altered somewhat."

    Only speculation here. Why not deal with reality.

    "The Zimmerman telegram was a major German diplomatic blunder but German aid to Mexico would have been minimal to non-existent and Mexico was in no position to threaten anything in the U.S."

    There's no "but" here. We issued a clear position that any action taken by Germany that directly threatened our sovereignty would be dealt with by force. Again, deal with reality.

    The US didn’t “have to intervene”. IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE. As for Germany “not respecting freedom of the seas”, what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British “respect freedom of the seas”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The US didn’t “have to intervene”. IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE."

    Of course the U.S. made a choice--it had to intervene to protect American lives and commerce.

    "As for Germany “not respecting freedom of the seas”,..."

    Exactly, because the United States was conducting trade with whomever it preferred, and Germany bombed our ships due to our decision. Germany had a choice not sink our vessels.

    "what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British “respect freedom of the seas”?"

    What about it? Great Britain and Germany were at war. "Respect" went out the window. Germany had a choice to surrender.
    , @roger in florida
    The British absolutely guaranteed freedom of navigation for all lawful purposes. Once war was on that obviously no longer applied.
    , @Maj. Kong
    The US was not about to declare war on the UK, and that's what it would have taken to get the British to halt the blockade.

    Germany 20 capital ships
    UK 40 capital ships
    US 16 capital ships

    And that's before we add up the costs of invading Canada, and fighting in the Pacific against Japan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @roger in florida
    As opposed to your view formed by bigotry and hatred, combined with an inability to read the real historical flow of events.

    If anyone deserves to be called out for close-mindedness here, it is YOU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Diversity Heretic
    You want reality, I'll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

    This doesn't count soldiers and civilians who died of influenza, which was spread partially by American soldiers traveling to Europe.

    Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917.

    So true. And only about 500 Americans were killed by submarines before April 1917. The “cure” was vastly worse then the illness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "You want reality, I’ll give you reality. The United States suffered approximately 116,000 dead and 204,000 wounded in World War I."

    Appeal to emotion. Try using feelings with SJW's. Are you able to even muster up any rational counter arguments?

    "Assemble their ghosts and explain to them how much better the United States was in 1919 than it had been in 1917."

    They died fighting for their nation to ensure our freedoms. Are you willing to give up your life for what you believe in? Or are you just here for the snacks?

    Consider this statement you had previously made on a different thread--"Given the slave population increase between 1790 (about 650,000) and 1860 (almost four million), a sextupling of the population in 70 years, they seem to have had plenty of energy for activities other than toiling and dying. But your last statement is right on the money! The life of an African slave in North America probably compared favorably to an industrial worker in Europe or North America during the same period. And it was much better than living in a high disease load subsistence agriculture environment in equitorial Africa."

    So, using your logic, assemble the ghosts of former slaves and explain to them and their families how much better Africa was in 1700 than it had been in 1500.

    “They died fighting for their nation to ensure our freedoms.”

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. Germany did not threaten America (free or otherwise) at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Maj. Kong
    Wilhelm II was wrong to end the Three Emperors Alliance with Russia and Austria-Hungary. The colonial adventurism and naval buildup wasted valuable resources that could have been better spent mechanizing the army. The German auto industry was more developed than the UK and France, but this advantage was squandered.

    Bismarck had made it his main goal to prevent France from resuming its traditional alliance with Russia (this is still a factor today, as to why the EU-Merkel are so opposed to Fillon and Le Pen). Wilhelm wasn't the aggressor, but he was foolish.

    I believe the Kaiser later said allowing the Three Emperors Alliance to lapse was the greatest mistake of his life. In the years before the war, Wilhelm attempted a number of conciliations with the Tsar but the Russian political establishment always sabotaged them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. J1234 says:

    My grandfather was in WW1, and as a result of his experience, he was bitterly opposed to the US becoming involved in WW2. He was particularly upset when my dad joined the navy in 1940. This is a familial history that illustrates how many ordinary non-political Americans of the 1930′s despised the military industrial complex even before it was a coined phrase.

    My dad is 96, and he hadn’t told me about my grandfather’s (private) opposition to WW2 until a few years ago. My dad wasn’t gung ho, either, but (like many young men of the time) looked forward to the adventure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Clark Westwood
    In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.
     
    That was my point above, about Germany being the aggressor. Maybe multiple governments wanted war, but only one pulled the trigger (so to speak). If Germany had "restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand," perhaps peace would have been maintained in Europe for another 100 years.

    “Germany being the aggressor”. Aggressor is a loaded word. Was Lincoln the aggressor in the civil war?

    Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany itself in 1916. Romania declared war on the Central Powers in 1916. The USA declared war on them in 1917.

    Strange…….

    All of these countries could have chosen to remain neutral. Including the U.K. according to historian Niall Ferguson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    “Germany being the aggressor”. Aggressor is a loaded word. Was Lincoln the aggressor in the civil war?

    Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany itself in 1916. Romania declared war on the Central Powers in 1916. The USA declared war on them in 1917.
     
    I see your point. However, Lincoln was the aggressor in the ACW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    The US didn't "have to intervene". IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE. As for Germany "not respecting freedom of the seas", what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British "respect freedom of the seas"?

    “The US didn’t “have to intervene”. IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE.”

    Of course the U.S. made a choice–it had to intervene to protect American lives and commerce.

    “As for Germany “not respecting freedom of the seas”,…”

    Exactly, because the United States was conducting trade with whomever it preferred, and Germany bombed our ships due to our decision. Germany had a choice not sink our vessels.

    “what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British “respect freedom of the seas”?”

    What about it? Great Britain and Germany were at war. “Respect” went out the window. Germany had a choice to surrender.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @anon
    What you say is even more nonsense then THE WIZARD OF OZ poster.

    "Alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war".

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. Tsarist Russia could have simply told Serbia it was on its own. Then Serbia either complies or there is yet another minor war in the Balkans.

    "Had been preparing for the war for decades"...

    Then why not begin it in 1905-06 when Russia has just been defeated by Japan, had its navy sunk and is now embroiled in a chaotic revolution and counter-revolution? Russia would have been easy pickings at the time. The Kaiser did nothing.

    They tried to provoke war in the First Tangier Crisis of 1906, then again in 1911 in the Second Tangier Crisis. They were thwarted in these efforts by the unity shown by powerful nations against them and by having to get involved in talks. They were determined in 1914 that they were not going to get involved in any negotiations so used multiple tricks to avoid a diplomatic solution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @anon
    The US didn't "have to intervene". IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE. As for Germany "not respecting freedom of the seas", what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British "respect freedom of the seas"?

    The British absolutely guaranteed freedom of navigation for all lawful purposes. Once war was on that obviously no longer applied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    " In 1918 the British War Cabinet, led by David Lloyd George and Alfred Balfour, was in the midst of negotiating what would become known as the Balfour Declaration with the World Zionist Organization (WZO). The British sought the support of world Jewry (which they mistakenly believed the WZO represented) for the Entente war effort in exchange for a British promise to support a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine if in fact the British were victorious.

    Specifically, (a) the British believed the WZO could facilitate entrance of the United States into the war through its influence with President Woodrow Wilson. And indeed, American Zionists such as Louis Brandeis did have access to the president. However, Wilson was determined to bring the U.S. into the war quite independently of Zionist wishes. Then, (b) the British were convinced that the WZO could prevent the Russian government (by that time under Soviet control) from leaving the war. This was based on the fact that Leon Trotsky was a Jew. But the British intelligence post at their Petrograd embassy informed the leaders in London that Trotsky was hostile to Zionism, seeing it as a divisive nationalist movement. It is here that intelligence information was ignored by Lloyd George and Balfour in favor of political wishful thinking – their firm, if fallacious, belief in Jewish world power." Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester, PA.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/26/the-dilemma-for-intelligence-agencies/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Rurik says:
    @Amanda
    Well, Benjamin Freedman, right hand man to Bernard Baruch (yesterday's Soros) was there and he knows how/why the US got into WW1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c


    Transcript of Freedman's speech is here:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    "Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

    In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

    Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

    However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

    The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

    Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

    Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

    Hello Amanda,

    that speech was my red pill so many, many years ago

    I used to wallow around in ignorance about so many things, and then I read that speech somewhere on the Internet, and began checking into things like the Balfour Declaration and what had happened to Palestine, and then who efffectifly owned all the big media corporation in the US and who owned Hollywood and Madison Ave, and the banks…

    and then my eyes opened, and I came to realize that all I had been told my whole life was basically agenda-driven lies

    and that the villains were the victims and the victims were actually the villains

    and that my government / media education had been a sham and a fraud

    I’m still getting over that cynical moment when you go ‘WTF?!!

    and you’re angry for a spell. But then you get over it and you just realize all of history is basically a pack of lies told by the ruling classes of the time to keep the citizenry under control and submissive and obedient

    but wow oh wow were those some doozies of lies that they told and continue to tell

    Germany was the victim of the momentous treachery both before and after that war, and the one the followed and the one to come ..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Sparkon says:

    Who was planning for World War I?

    “‘Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people, offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion and never will be Zion, to quote Herzl’s own words. But Herzl knows full well that nothing is so valuable to the cause of Zionism as amicable political relations with such a power as England is, and so much more valuable as England’s main interest is concentrated in the Orient.

    Nowhere else is precedent as powerful as in England, and so it is most important to accept a colony out of the hands of England and create thus a precedent in our favor. Sooner or later the Oriental question will have to be solved, and the Oriental question means, naturally, also the question of Palestine. England, who had addressed a formal, political note to the Zionist Congress—the Zionist Congress which is pledged to the Basle program,

    England will have the deciding voice in the final solution of the Oriental question, and Herzl has considered it his duty to maintain valuable relations with this great and progressive power. Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-congress will have to be called, and England, the great, free and powerful England, will then continue the work it has begun with its generous offer to the Sixth Congress.

    And if you ask me now what has Israel to do in Uganda, then let me tell you … the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.’’

    –Max Nordau, Paris, 1903

    THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 21 August 1920

    (my bold, and paragraph breaks)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Hrw-500 says:
    @anon
    America's entry into WW1 was the greatest mistake it ever made. It prevented a negotiated peace and led to Stalin, Hitler and WW2.

    It was crazy for Wilson to believe that Americans could travel at will throughout a war zone. Britain was at war with Germany. So of course the waters around the British Isles should rightly have been considered a war zone. The only Americans endangered before April 1917 were those who freely chose, with the full knowledge they were risking their safety, to travel in the waters around the British Isles. The American government should have just issued a travel advisory warning them of the possible dangers and telling them that they proceeded at their own risk. Did American submarines in WW2 worry about killing civilians from neutral countries when they destroyed Japan's merchant fleet?

    As for the "harsh" peace treaty with Russia, it should be remembered that at the end of 1915, the Central Powers offered Russia peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo. Since they had overrun a huge area of its territory, that was a very generous offer. The Tsar should have accepted.

    Finally right from day one, America maintained at best a sham neutrality, unlike say Switzerland. See the book THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY. Had America maintained a TRUE neutrality, Germany would have been far more inclined to avoid antagonizing the US in any way.

    Nor is it feasible that even had Germany 'won' the war, it could have been a threat to America. By April 1917 1,000,000 German soldiers had been killed, all its colonies were captured, Austria-Hungary (its only major ally) had virtually collapsed and German civilians had just suffered the terrible 'turnip' winter.

    Another big mistake done before WWI was the UK doing the “Entente Cordiale” with France. If they never did the “Entente Cordiale”, WWI would had been very different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Good point. It was a bad decision for everyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Maj. Kong says:
    @anon
    What you are saying makes no sense at all.

    Germany's birthrate wasn't higher then most other European countries (except for France) and below a number of them. As for troops Hitler began running out of them as early as September 1941 when General Fromm, the head of the German reserve forces (known as the replacement army) told him that losses in the east could no longer be made up with new troops. It was later suggested 15 German divisions be dissolved to fill up the losses in other units. Hitler wouldn't hear of it.

    AS for German hegemony in Europe this is and always has been a canard. Germany had zero strategic sealift capacity. It was NEVER able to seriously threaten the British Isles with invasion, in EITHER war. So how could it threaten the USA with 3,000 miles of ocean between it and Europe when it couldn't even cross 20 miles of the English Channel? Germans would have comprised no more then about 20-25% of any empire in Europe assuming they absorbed ALL of France, the Low Countries, Poland and virtually all of central and southern Europe, plus the Baltics. How could they have possibly hold all of this and kept all these foreign peoples in check? For more on this see the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Germany had great difficulty just organizing the eastern lands of Tsarist Russia that it overran with its "bewildering number of ethnic groups" as the German high command noted. Hindenburg in particular noted the difficulties trying to organize and govern Poland. With no ability to take out the British Isles or Russia proper, Germany could never have established a real hegemony over Europe. Nor would there have been enough Germans to have maintained it. Look how the much larger USSR eventually collapsed and evacuated Eastern Europe.

    I don't see ANY possible way AT ALL Germany could have acquired any French, Belgian or British colonies or overseas territories. Indeed the German empire was quickly picked off and destroyed by France, Britain and Japan. As the Japanese military told the Japanese government in 1914, it didn't even matter if Germany won the war, it had no means to retake any territory in Asia or the Pacific that it seized from her. Germany couldn't defend what colonies, overseas territories it had, let alone acquire new ones from other countries. The reason was the same it couldn't invade Britain. Not a powerful enough navy, and no strategic sealift capacity. Even a victorious Germany would have been much weakened and far less likely to seek a future conflict. You seem to think a million dead is something a nation of only 70 million shrugs off like a cold. Look at how the Vietnam war traumatized America (58,000 dead in a population of 185,000,000). In any case without American belligerency a negotiated peace, or a draw, in plain language, was the almost certain outcome.

    While the German fleet building was a mistake, a major naval victory (and they had several chances in the war), might have enabled the Germans to blockade the UK and mount a real uprising in Ireland.

    A victorious Germany may have acquired additional colonies at the negotiating table, if France had surrendered and was under occupation. I don’t know if the British of WW1 would seize the French colonies for themselves.

    The Ottomans also attacked the Suez Canal during the war, if France had been defeated, Germany could have relocated troops to the Middle East. But this presumes the US never enters the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    France surrendered no overseas territories to Germany in WW2 so I doubt it very much. Nor do I see how the far smaller and weaker Germany navy could have bested the British fleet. And would rebellion in Ireland have made all that much of a difference? Ireland was actually neutral in WW2 which didn't really harm the British war effort.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Maj. Kong says:
    @anon
    The US didn't "have to intervene". IT CHOSE TO INTERVENE. As for Germany "not respecting freedom of the seas", what about the British starvation naval blockade? How did the British "respect freedom of the seas"?

    The US was not about to declare war on the UK, and that’s what it would have taken to get the British to halt the blockade.

    Germany 20 capital ships
    UK 40 capital ships
    US 16 capital ships

    And that’s before we add up the costs of invading Canada, and fighting in the Pacific against Japan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Some Zionists may have sided with Britain in the hope of getting Palestine as a reward, but most European Jews supported the Central Powers. It was a no-brainer really, as both the Kaiserreich and the Donau Monarchy were far more friendly to Jews than the Russians, or the virulently anti-semitic English. Tsarist troops slaughtered Jews by the thousands on the Eastern Front.

    Zionist hedged their bets by covering every possible angles.
    They reached out to everybody They promised victory to Russia ,Turkey and to UK and Germany .
    They stopped Turkey reaching no aggression with USA by sabotaging US Dept of States .

    The aim was war had Turkey not agreed . The other aim was to bestow economic and military powers on Turkey if it agreed for the creation of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Dr. Sniegoski is responding to the Norman article; I guess that's why there's no mention of the war against the Ottoman empire and battles in Sinai, Egypt, Gaza, Palestine, etc.


    It's intriguing to note that the British attack on Gaza -- a beachhead that HAD to be conquered, from the British point of view -- failed, on March 26, 1917. Less than a week later, Wilson found a reason to involve USA in the war.

    Scott Anderson's "Lawrence in Arabia" traces the interplay among British, Germans, Turks, Arabs and Rockefeller oil interests in the WWI era by following the activities of T E Lawrence (British); William Yale (Standard Oil); Curt Prufer (German); and Aaron Aaronsohn (Jewish zionist).

    Most on this forum know that Chaim Weizmann, a zionist from Belorussia, got himself to London and worked on the British to secure the Balfour declaration.

    Scott Anderson reveals that a German diplomat in Palestine, Curt Prufer, used Russian Jewish to spy on the British, in an effort to aid the German-Turkish alliance to drive the British out of the Suez Canal region. He was inspired to do so by his lover, Fannie Weizmann, the sister of Chaim Weizmann, who was his first spy.

    Meanwhile, Aaron Aaronsohn, a Romanian Jew and ardent zionist as well as dedicated agronomist in the employ of - and ostensibly working for- the Ottoman empire, instead spied on the Ottoman for the British, an activity facilitated by his travels throughout the region (Palestine, Egypt, Constantinople). Aaronsohn, rather, THE Aaronsons, collaborated closely with Chaim Weizmann to secure Palestine for zionists. His sister, Sarah Aaronsohn, was "the heroine" of NILI, the Jewish zionist spy ring that spied on Ottoman empire FOR the British: ---


    "Sarah Aaronsohn, her sister Rivka Aaronsohn, and her brothers Aaron Aaronsohn and Alexander Aaronsohn, with their friend (and fiance of Rivka) Avshalom Feinberg formed and led the Nili spy organization. Aaronsohn oversaw operations in Palestine of the spy-ring and passed information to British agents offshore. Sometimes she travelled widely through Ottoman territory collecting information useful to the British, and brought it directly to them in Egypt. In 1917, her brother Alex urged her to remain in British-controlled Egypt, expecting hostilities from Ottoman authorities; but Aaronsohn returned to Zichron Yaakov to continue Nili activities. Nili developed into the largest pro-British espionage network in the Middle East, with a network of about 40 spies." -wikipedia
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Incitatus says:
    @HdC
    According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC

    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    Really? “Rules of war at the time.” Please forward your source so all can benefit.

    I really am perplexed. So when rotten Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia 28 Jul 1914 they weren’t belligerent? Russia mobilized two days later (30 Jul 1914). Please explain HdC.

    France? Germany declared war on France a day after after invading Luxembourg and besieging Longwy 2 Aug 1914. Golly, do you think Germany was mobilized by the time they invaded? Gee whiz! What do you think HdC?

    France declared war on Germany 3 Aug 1914. Germany invaded neutral Belgium a day later HdC. Were neutral Belgium’s ‘demobilized’ troops ample cause for Germany’s rape of Belgium? Please tell us HdC.

    Did you take lessons in stupidity HdC, or does it come naturally?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Well, my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above.

    Now then, it is indeed possible since English is my second language, that I seriously misread or misunderstood what I was reading. Highly unlikely, but possible.

    Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. Your choice. HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Svigor says:

    D) How people have never risen up in Europe and killed off any children, grandchild or any human being that carry the genes of Victoria and Albert, is beyond me.

    You’re talking about a species that never invaded Mongolia and exterminated her people, after the Middle Ages. Humans have little sense of history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Svigor says:

    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it’s heinous ambition, and it was.

    1. Of course the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with WW2. Yakking about Hitler ignores the fact that he had to mobilize a country to fight for him.

    2. The Allies pursued unconditional surrender because they could, and because sparing more loss of life wasn’t anywhere near the top of their list of priorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. utu says:
    @Amanda
    Well, Benjamin Freedman, right hand man to Bernard Baruch (yesterday's Soros) was there and he knows how/why the US got into WW1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c


    Transcript of Freedman's speech is here:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    "Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

    In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

    Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

    However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

    The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

    Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

    Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

    Did any main stream historian ever discuss Benjamin Freedman’s speech?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @anon
    "Germany being the aggressor". Aggressor is a loaded word. Was Lincoln the aggressor in the civil war?

    Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany itself in 1916. Romania declared war on the Central Powers in 1916. The USA declared war on them in 1917.

    Strange.......

    All of these countries could have chosen to remain neutral. Including the U.K. according to historian Niall Ferguson.

    “Germany being the aggressor”. Aggressor is a loaded word. Was Lincoln the aggressor in the civil war?

    Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany itself in 1916. Romania declared war on the Central Powers in 1916. The USA declared war on them in 1917.

    I see your point. However, Lincoln was the aggressor in the ACW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Most historians agree that the war was a hopeless stalemate by 1916, but kept going because the Brits were sure they could sucker the Americans to join in the slaughter. You don’t know about great American battles of that war because there were none. The USA drafted most of its troops and gave them minimal training, poor equipment, and lined them up to charge across killing fields to be slaughtered.

    If the King of England had come to terms with his first cousin the Kaiser, who knew each other well, the war would have ended. There would have been no Hitler, probably no World War II, no holocaust, and no Cold war.

    An interesting fact is the Royal House of Windsor changed its name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1917 because Brits were confused by anti-German propaganda when their royal family was German. Few Americans know that the English are mostly German immigrants.

    If the American concern was truly one of freedom of the seas, it could have just employed its Navy, rather than rounding up farm boys to send to their deaths with rifles. In summary, WW I was an idiotic war pushed by bankers and royals that made the world worse off and allowed the USA to establish a police state that still exists. (read about the Espionage Act for example, or Wilson’s censorship policies)

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    I have to laugh -- or shake my head in wonder -- when I read, "If X, then no Hitler . . ."

    What if WWI played out exactly as it did, and Versailles played out exactly as it did, with the exception that the bullet that ripped through Hitler's sleeve actually ripped through his head and killed him.
    Would Germany have rolled over and played dead but for the existence of that one, sole, low-level Austrian war veteran?
    I'm convinced Ernst "Putzi" Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other "Hitler" character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did -- or who didn't give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?




    It's just such sloppy thinking; so stuck-in-the-brainwashed rut, so simplistic.

    How about, What would the world be like today "If there had been no Churchill?"

    But then, was Churchill, too, of such singular power and force that the presence or absence of one single man would have made a world-changing difference, or was Churchill actually the personified expression of an entire British zeitgeist , perhaps even more representative of a profoundly evil psychodynamic than anything Hitler represented.

    **nb. Failed to mention, in #77 re Scott Anderson's book on Lawrence in Arabia, that Aaron Aaronsohn, collaborator of Weizmann, employee of Ottomans who spied on Ottomans for the British, also met in person with Teddy Roosevelt. Connect the dots.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    A pity to spoil interesting points with total rubbish. The UK's constitutional monarchy made it quite impossible for George V to do deals with cousin Wilhelm even if both had wished to and the Kaiser could have done more than he did in July 2014 to curb his Prussian generals.

    "Few Americans know that most English are German immigrants". What have you been smoking? Even if you mean that most are descended from Germanic immigrants/settlers/invaders of 1500 years ago that is impossible to reconcile with Brian Sykes's "DNA Map of the British Isles" which long ago made me wonder how it came about that we speak English.
    , @anon
    Good points. Even if we take America's war declaration as legitimate it need only have involved a limited maritime war with Germany to end the submarine blockade. This was what many in Congress actually believed when they voted yes. They were quite shocked when they realized America would have to send a large land army to continental Europe itself. See the book THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Clark Westwood
    I think two things are beyond serious dispute:

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war. Regardless of provocations by England and others, Germany didn't have to go to war. It had other options -- options that (in hindsight) were actually better, since war turned out to be a disaster for Germany.

    2. The U.S. didn't enter the war because of the Lusitania or German sub tactics more generally.

    I'm also convinced that the U.S. had no good reason for entering the war, and that without U.S. participation, there's a very good chance that the Depression and WWII would not have happened.

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war.

    Look, it’s been a century now and you still believe such nonsense?

    Utterly amazing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @L.K
    "Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war."

    BS!

    [Too many typos.]

    Germany backed Aistria-Kungary against Serbia dod it not, even though Serbia conceded even the most provocatively excessive demands?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @roger in florida
    Did you count J M Keynes in that 117, he was a Jew, and a queer, but he argued against punitive claims against Germany.
    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists is that you pay far too much attention to what people say, rather than what they do. The simple fact is that Germany had created a huge and extremely effective OFFENSIVE army by 1914, that fact is not arguable. Their primary war aim was to conquer European Russia and enslave the occupants of that territory. This is what they actually achieved in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
    In order to achieve that aim they had to defeat France as well, as France was formally allied with Russia. They decided to do that first, largely because they believed Russia would be much slower to mobilize than France, in that they were mistaken because the Czar had kept a large part of his army mobilized after the near civil war of 1906.
    None of this was anything to do with Britain except that Britain would have been in a very uncomfortable situation if France had been defeated. It is very unlikely however that Germany would have put enough into naval preparations to seriously threaten Britain, they would have had quite enough to do subjugating their conquests.
    In 1917 the war was going very badly for the allies and it was clear that if Germany prevailed then the US would be alone, with the likelihood of the British fleet being in German Hands.
    Jews are the biggest blowhards on the planet, about the only thing more annoying than you Jew haters is the Jews themselves claiming responsibility for every event in history that suits them.
    Still Germany could have prevented the carnage or stopped it once started if they had been prepared to abandon their predatory war aims, but they weren't, because they believed almost to the end that they could achieve military victory.

    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists …bla bla bla…

    The problem with you name callers is that you are so weak on facts and reasoning ability that you have to resort to silly labels.

    Keep trying!

    ROFL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. IvyMike says:
    @Tha Philosopher
    Read Henry Goldman's (of Goldman Sachs fame) biography from his granddaughter.

    I believe mid way she mentions the German Jews being loyal to Germany, and the Zionist jews under Weizmann conspiring to blackmail Wilson to get the US into WW1.

    Ferguson makes a case in The House of Rothschild that they tried to broker peace between Britain and Germany pre war outbreak multiple times for part sentimental reasons.

    Many Jews were from Germany in America, not Britain. It would make sense they felt some sentiment to there like Henry Goldman.

    But as always, if you can figure out what the jews were doing, you've cracked the mystery.

    Ignorant jerk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @anon
    Zionist hedged their bets by covering every possible angles.
    They reached out to everybody They promised victory to Russia ,Turkey and to UK and Germany .
    They stopped Turkey reaching no aggression with USA by sabotaging US Dept of States .

    The aim was war had Turkey not agreed . The other aim was to bestow economic and military powers on Turkey if it agreed for the creation of Israel.

    Dr. Sniegoski is responding to the Norman article; I guess that’s why there’s no mention of the war against the Ottoman empire and battles in Sinai, Egypt, Gaza, Palestine, etc.

    It’s intriguing to note that the British attack on Gaza — a beachhead that HAD to be conquered, from the British point of view — failed, on March 26, 1917. Less than a week later, Wilson found a reason to involve USA in the war.

    Scott Anderson’s “Lawrence in Arabia” traces the interplay among British, Germans, Turks, Arabs and Rockefeller oil interests in the WWI era by following the activities of T E Lawrence (British); William Yale (Standard Oil); Curt Prufer (German); and Aaron Aaronsohn (Jewish zionist).

    Most on this forum know that Chaim Weizmann, a zionist from Belorussia, got himself to London and worked on the British to secure the Balfour declaration.

    Scott Anderson reveals that a German diplomat in Palestine, Curt Prufer, used Russian Jewish to spy on the British, in an effort to aid the German-Turkish alliance to drive the British out of the Suez Canal region. He was inspired to do so by his lover, Fannie Weizmann, the sister of Chaim Weizmann, who was his first spy.

    Meanwhile, Aaron Aaronsohn, a Romanian Jew and ardent zionist as well as dedicated agronomist in the employ of – and ostensibly working for- the Ottoman empire, instead spied on the Ottoman for the British, an activity facilitated by his travels throughout the region (Palestine, Egypt, Constantinople). Aaronsohn, rather, THE Aaronsons, collaborated closely with Chaim Weizmann to secure Palestine for zionists. His sister, Sarah Aaronsohn, was “the heroine” of NILI, the Jewish zionist spy ring that spied on Ottoman empire FOR the British: —

    “Sarah Aaronsohn, her sister Rivka Aaronsohn, and her brothers Aaron Aaronsohn and Alexander Aaronsohn, with their friend (and fiance of Rivka) Avshalom Feinberg formed and led the Nili spy organization. Aaronsohn oversaw operations in Palestine of the spy-ring and passed information to British agents offshore. Sometimes she travelled widely through Ottoman territory collecting information useful to the British, and brought it directly to them in Egypt. In 1917, her brother Alex urged her to remain in British-controlled Egypt, expecting hostilities from Ottoman authorities; but Aaronsohn returned to Zichron Yaakov to continue Nili activities. Nili developed into the largest pro-British espionage network in the Middle East, with a network of about 40 spies.” -wikipedia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Joe Wong
    The British imitates the Romans and the Americans were born out of the British; the Romans slaughtered a race and salted the land then called it creating a peace, both of them are 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritans'. The Anglo was the instigator of the WWI.

    Have you some information to impart or are you content to contribute what might be expected of an uneducated semi-literate person after a few drinks in a bar?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I've been trying to decide if he's a Chinese nationalist or just a rambling moron. I'm leaning heavily on the latter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @anon
    "they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare".

    Britain engaged in the mass starvation of German civilians. Many, many times more civilians died from the British blockade then German submarines. Just as vastly more German civilians would die in bombing raids in WW2 then in Britain.

    "The Germans started WW1".

    That's funny. I though Britain declared war on Germany.

    You specialise in irrelevance and non-response to what you are purporting to reply to. Do I really have to point out why the UK’s formal declaration of war wasn’t the beginning of the war?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Peter Akuleyev
    What high fertility rate? Do you have sources? Contemporary Germans published yards and yards of tracts in the decades prior to WWI declaring that the German woman had become too emancipated and were not doing their duty for the fatherland. Especially in Austria-Hungary it was a commonplace that Germans were being outbred by the Slavic populations and were going to be eclipsed. But even the Kaiserreich had a growing Polish minority. And as you note, Russian fertility was unquestionably higher than German. Justified or not, anxiety about racial replacement was certainly in the minds of the generals and politicians in both the Central European powers.

    I have just been following up the question of fertility rates as my starting point was just the 2 million (Germany) and 5 million (Russia) that I often quote to the relatively innumerate in different contexts. From my post WW2 experience of Germany where, long after the war, there was still a v. traditional peasantry and the use of horses in agriculture, as well as servants in middle class houses, I have little doubt that Germany in 2013 would have been a good generation behind the UK in declining fertility but I would concede that your point about their concern about Slavic fertility is probably a good one. Still the 2 million figure makes the German losses in WW1 of little relevance to Hitler’s ambitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Carlton Meyer
    Most historians agree that the war was a hopeless stalemate by 1916, but kept going because the Brits were sure they could sucker the Americans to join in the slaughter. You don't know about great American battles of that war because there were none. The USA drafted most of its troops and gave them minimal training, poor equipment, and lined them up to charge across killing fields to be slaughtered.

    If the King of England had come to terms with his first cousin the Kaiser, who knew each other well, the war would have ended. There would have been no Hitler, probably no World War II, no holocaust, and no Cold war.

    An interesting fact is the Royal House of Windsor changed its name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1917 because Brits were confused by anti-German propaganda when their royal family was German. Few Americans know that the English are mostly German immigrants.

    If the American concern was truly one of freedom of the seas, it could have just employed its Navy, rather than rounding up farm boys to send to their deaths with rifles. In summary, WW I was an idiotic war pushed by bankers and royals that made the world worse off and allowed the USA to establish a police state that still exists. (read about the Espionage Act for example, or Wilson's censorship policies)

    I have to laugh — or shake my head in wonder — when I read, “If X, then no Hitler . . .”

    What if WWI played out exactly as it did, and Versailles played out exactly as it did, with the exception that the bullet that ripped through Hitler’s sleeve actually ripped through his head and killed him.
    Would Germany have rolled over and played dead but for the existence of that one, sole, low-level Austrian war veteran?
    I’m convinced Ernst “Putzi” Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other “Hitler” character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did — or who didn’t give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?

    It’s just such sloppy thinking; so stuck-in-the-brainwashed rut, so simplistic.

    How about, What would the world be like today “If there had been no Churchill?”

    But then, was Churchill, too, of such singular power and force that the presence or absence of one single man would have made a world-changing difference, or was Churchill actually the personified expression of an entire British zeitgeist , perhaps even more representative of a profoundly evil psychodynamic than anything Hitler represented.

    **nb. Failed to mention, in #77 re Scott Anderson’s book on Lawrence in Arabia, that Aaron Aaronsohn, collaborator of Weizmann, employee of Ottomans who spied on Ottomans for the British, also met in person with Teddy Roosevelt. Connect the dots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    I think you grossly underestimate the role of great leaders in shaping history.

    Hitler was a unique individual.
    So was Napoleon.
    And Julius Caesar.
    And Alexander the Great.
    And Genghis Khan.
    And......
    , @Sam Shama
    You make an interesting argument. Hitler merely a fuse which lit the pile of fireworks already high from years of Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.

    I see an evolution in thought here [I've seen these before :-) ]: from Adolf, the greatest builder of the German 'millennia' now reduced to the plodding corporal, a minor tool in the hands of greater powers.

    As I said before, these mental travels require wormholes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. We took the wrong side in WW1. Well actually, the correct move would have been to stay out altogether while selling munitions/food to both. But once we got in, the sensible move would have been to help Germany eliminate the British Empire once and for all. Close the fascist gulag in India, introduce democracy there and shutter the British colonial posts in the Middle East. Millions of lives would have been saved in India and there would have been no WW2, not to mention no Iraq wars or State of Israel. Britain is the #1 mischief maker of the last 100 years and they continue to cause tremendous harm everywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.

    The Kaiser tried, but ultimately could not restrain the Austrians, but he did manage to get the Czar to briefly rescind his mobilization order, who then quickly went ahead with it in the end, and if Gottfried had studied the war for 4 decades, then there’s something amiss for him to make that claim.

    The Germans worked like dogs to avoid war. There is a lot of evidence for that claim from Nock’s The Myth of a Guilty Nation to Barnes’ The Genesis of the World War, to E. Work’s Ethiopia, A Pawn of European Diplomacy ( That’s no typo.), to Raico’s Rethinking Churchill.

    The Brits had long been masters of devious diplomacy and were no doubt as much to blame as the Russians, the French and the Austrians. Grand Duke Sazanov was a belligerent militarist and war monger and probably was the most personally responsible for the onset of overt hostilities, even more so than Poincare. The Brits were both directly and indirectly responsible for the Russian mobilization since the mobilization of the British fleet undoubtedly gave Sazanov the idea that the Brits had his back.

    Here’s just one example of the treachery of the Brits. Also, no one should forget the goof,Churchill, and his lust for war.

    Neutrality Violations

    MOST NE W MASSES readers won’t remember it, but on March 1, 1915, Prime Minister Asquith told the British Parliament : We are not going to allow our efforts to be strangled in a network of juridical niceties . . . under existing conditions, there is no form of economic pressure to which we do not consider ourselves entitled to resort.

    Editorial Comment, The New Masses, January 16, 1940, pp. 19

    http://unz.org/Pub/NewMasses-1940jan16-00019

    The Brits had several centuries of cunning war mongering experience under their belt by 1914, and it’s largely Brit propaganda that people still believe after 100 years!!! The Kaiser was a babe in the woods by comparison.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Maj. Kong
    The Germans planned on creating an illiberal European Union, much like Putin's Eurasian Union that this country's hawks hate so much. Being a vassal of the Kaiser's Germany would have been much better for Eastern Europe, rather than being under the Communist boot.

    France started and lost the war in 1870, and was dominated by the desire for revenge. Bismarck's error was not restoring the Bourbons.

    Bismarck couldn’t have done anything of the kind, and wouldn’t have cared, as he had to deal with the Government of National Defense and didn’t mind doing it, considering his position. The French came within a hair’s-breadth of restoring the Bourbons themselves; if the Orleanists hadn’t kicked up such a fuss about the tricolor, or if the Comte de Chambord had been more of a cynical politician, the restoration would have been a done deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. L.K says:
    @Clark Westwood
    In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.
     
    That was my point above, about Germany being the aggressor. Maybe multiple governments wanted war, but only one pulled the trigger (so to speak). If Germany had "restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand," perhaps peace would have been maintained in Europe for another 100 years.

    Good grief, man!! That’s what you took from the article???
    Nice cherry picking, lad.
    Clearly, you are not too bright… or perhaps you are just disingenuous.

    Paul Gottfried writes in one of the articles I linked to:

    The charge that Germany was the unprovoked aggressor should have rung hollow by 1914, given the intrigues that had gone before. Of course, no one is denying that Germany’s catastrophic blunder furnished the casus belli. But as the historian Thucydides noted thousands of years ago, a true historical study examines the genesis of events. Such an account is not limited to the immediate causes of a war nor to the pretext or excuse “(prophasis)” that is given for one when it breaks out.

    According to folks like you, if the Zio-American Empire encirclement of the Russian Federation continues and eventually reaches a point where Russia’s national security and sovereignty become totally compromised and Russia decides to hit first, Russia will be the sole or main responsible party for a WW3, while ZUSA’s Empire would be the poor victims…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @anon
    What you are saying makes no sense at all.

    Germany's birthrate wasn't higher then most other European countries (except for France) and below a number of them. As for troops Hitler began running out of them as early as September 1941 when General Fromm, the head of the German reserve forces (known as the replacement army) told him that losses in the east could no longer be made up with new troops. It was later suggested 15 German divisions be dissolved to fill up the losses in other units. Hitler wouldn't hear of it.

    AS for German hegemony in Europe this is and always has been a canard. Germany had zero strategic sealift capacity. It was NEVER able to seriously threaten the British Isles with invasion, in EITHER war. So how could it threaten the USA with 3,000 miles of ocean between it and Europe when it couldn't even cross 20 miles of the English Channel? Germans would have comprised no more then about 20-25% of any empire in Europe assuming they absorbed ALL of France, the Low Countries, Poland and virtually all of central and southern Europe, plus the Baltics. How could they have possibly hold all of this and kept all these foreign peoples in check? For more on this see the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Germany had great difficulty just organizing the eastern lands of Tsarist Russia that it overran with its "bewildering number of ethnic groups" as the German high command noted. Hindenburg in particular noted the difficulties trying to organize and govern Poland. With no ability to take out the British Isles or Russia proper, Germany could never have established a real hegemony over Europe. Nor would there have been enough Germans to have maintained it. Look how the much larger USSR eventually collapsed and evacuated Eastern Europe.

    I don't see ANY possible way AT ALL Germany could have acquired any French, Belgian or British colonies or overseas territories. Indeed the German empire was quickly picked off and destroyed by France, Britain and Japan. As the Japanese military told the Japanese government in 1914, it didn't even matter if Germany won the war, it had no means to retake any territory in Asia or the Pacific that it seized from her. Germany couldn't defend what colonies, overseas territories it had, let alone acquire new ones from other countries. The reason was the same it couldn't invade Britain. Not a powerful enough navy, and no strategic sealift capacity. Even a victorious Germany would have been much weakened and far less likely to seek a future conflict. You seem to think a million dead is something a nation of only 70 million shrugs off like a cold. Look at how the Vietnam war traumatized America (58,000 dead in a population of 185,000,000). In any case without American belligerency a negotiated peace, or a draw, in plain language, was the almost certain outcome.

    Irrelevance to others’ points as too often. My point about the 1913 births and the WW1 losses was merely to make the point that Hitler had, in the 30s a population of males of military age that was again large enough to allow him to use military force.

    You seem at a glance to be denying any relevance to the idea of feared German hegemony. History provided plenty of precedents justifying fear of what ambitious rulers of expanding populations might do in Europe. German hegemony? What about Charlemagne? What about the possible aspiration in the name “Holy Roman Empire”? The threat of Spain to Elizabethan England had been real and a came close to success. Why did the (until 19th century small though rich) balance-of-power country insist on the preservation of the Low Countries as a buffer? If Germany hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union and the US hadn’t entered the war what chance is there that Germany couldn’t have defeated the UK or at least made it give up colonies and limit its navy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Actually no chance at all as Germany had no navy to speak of and zero sealift capacity. For Germany a near land-locked country, to have colonies was of no account as she couldn't keep them as WW1 made clear when her overseas empire was quickly devoured. Nor was there ever any possibility of German hegemony over Europe. Nor do any of your absurd examples suggest anything that would have justified US intervention.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    OK, suppose Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union in 1941 and Japan not complicated matters, or Hitler had simply consolidated control of what was alreaďy conquered and made a longer term deal with Stalin, how long would it have taken him to defeat the Brits in North Africa and, with submarine warfare and a renewed Blitz forced the Brits into effective submission well before he built or otherwise acquired a dominant navy? No doubt he would have made propitiatory concessions just as Britain didn't insist on keeping all its conquests of the Seven Years War but that would have been all. Obviously the pre WW1 situation differed but it differed, apart from the Kaiser not being quite as barbaric as Hitler, mostly in the fact that Germany was well on the way to building a navy big enough to allow the invasion of Britain from a German controlled Continent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Maj. Kong
    The Balfour Declaration never implied a Jewish state, just that Britain would ensure Jewish settlement under the rule of the Hashemites. The Ottomans did not object much to Zionism because it brought in investment and created a counter-balance against the Arabs.

    The important aspect was the Jews like Jacob Schiff, who was a rabid Russophobe, and may have been one of the funders of Leon Trotsky. Their first objective was destroying the Tsar, and the Germans stabbed themselves in the back by letting Lenin out of exile.

    Not only did the Germans “let him (Lenin) out,” that is, arrange for a train to take him from Switzerland through Germany and Sweden to Finland, then a part of the a Russian Empire, they provided him with 26 million gold marks, or about 300,000 troy ounces.

    That amount of gold would go for $380,000,000 at today’s prices. That’s what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    That’s what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.
     
    Incentivize workers to strike by paying them for not working.
    , @solontoCroesus
    Germany used Lenin as a weapon

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDdYv3knOFI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Avery says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    I have to laugh -- or shake my head in wonder -- when I read, "If X, then no Hitler . . ."

    What if WWI played out exactly as it did, and Versailles played out exactly as it did, with the exception that the bullet that ripped through Hitler's sleeve actually ripped through his head and killed him.
    Would Germany have rolled over and played dead but for the existence of that one, sole, low-level Austrian war veteran?
    I'm convinced Ernst "Putzi" Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other "Hitler" character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did -- or who didn't give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?




    It's just such sloppy thinking; so stuck-in-the-brainwashed rut, so simplistic.

    How about, What would the world be like today "If there had been no Churchill?"

    But then, was Churchill, too, of such singular power and force that the presence or absence of one single man would have made a world-changing difference, or was Churchill actually the personified expression of an entire British zeitgeist , perhaps even more representative of a profoundly evil psychodynamic than anything Hitler represented.

    **nb. Failed to mention, in #77 re Scott Anderson's book on Lawrence in Arabia, that Aaron Aaronsohn, collaborator of Weizmann, employee of Ottomans who spied on Ottomans for the British, also met in person with Teddy Roosevelt. Connect the dots.

    I think you grossly underestimate the role of great leaders in shaping history.

    Hitler was a unique individual.
    So was Napoleon.
    And Julius Caesar.
    And Alexander the Great.
    And Genghis Khan.
    And……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Carlton Meyer
    Most historians agree that the war was a hopeless stalemate by 1916, but kept going because the Brits were sure they could sucker the Americans to join in the slaughter. You don't know about great American battles of that war because there were none. The USA drafted most of its troops and gave them minimal training, poor equipment, and lined them up to charge across killing fields to be slaughtered.

    If the King of England had come to terms with his first cousin the Kaiser, who knew each other well, the war would have ended. There would have been no Hitler, probably no World War II, no holocaust, and no Cold war.

    An interesting fact is the Royal House of Windsor changed its name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1917 because Brits were confused by anti-German propaganda when their royal family was German. Few Americans know that the English are mostly German immigrants.

    If the American concern was truly one of freedom of the seas, it could have just employed its Navy, rather than rounding up farm boys to send to their deaths with rifles. In summary, WW I was an idiotic war pushed by bankers and royals that made the world worse off and allowed the USA to establish a police state that still exists. (read about the Espionage Act for example, or Wilson's censorship policies)

    A pity to spoil interesting points with total rubbish. The UK’s constitutional monarchy made it quite impossible for George V to do deals with cousin Wilhelm even if both had wished to and the Kaiser could have done more than he did in July 2014 to curb his Prussian generals.

    “Few Americans know that most English are German immigrants”. What have you been smoking? Even if you mean that most are descended from Germanic immigrants/settlers/invaders of 1500 years ago that is impossible to reconcile with Brian Sykes’s “DNA Map of the British Isles” which long ago made me wonder how it came about that we speak English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    If you bother to read your own source, you'll discover that he refers to Britons aka Celts, Britain's indigenous people. The English are Germans who migrated in tribes like the Angles and Saxons. It is uncertain if the immigrants were violent invaders, or wealthy migrants who filled the orderly gap left by the Romans, probably both.

    In past blogs, commenters failed to understand that English people are not the same as those of the United Kingdom, which includes locals such as the Welsh, Scots, Irish and other odd folks like Druids, Cornish, and Arabs.

    So once again, the English royal family was German and had lots of influence, and there is a lot of German in the English language. English is a Germanic Language!
    , @Alden
    Maybe he meant the royal family are German. Or maybe he's one of those Anglo Saxon romantics. There are a lot of them around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. fnn says:
    @roger in florida
    A lot of German apologists here. the fact is that alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war or stopped it soon after it began. The reason they didn't is that they wanted the war, they were convinced that they could win it and had been preparing for it for decades.
    Interesting that there was no fighting at all on the territory of Germany. Belgium, France, Poland and European Russia were decimated, along with a lot of other places, but Germany was unscathed.
    Britain was a sideline player but could not reasonably stand by and let France and Russia be defeated, I think the same occurred to President Wilson who could see that the USA might be the last man standing, not a good place to be if faced with a cynical supremacist entity like the Kaiser's Germany.
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it's heinous ambition, and it was.

    The US Ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, wrote in his memoirs that Germany was making peace proposals to Britain as early as Oct. 1914. The Brits would have nothing of it and Page was outraged that Germany wanted to end the war,

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    I thought I was the only WW1 nerd who read Page's memoirs! They are fascinating, especially when we get to the summer and fall of 1916. Americans are outwardly despised in the UK, and Page's invitations to the countryside for a game of golf completely dry up. His social life crumbling, Page fails to deliver any hostile British note to Wilson. Page's goal was to get America in the war on Britain's side asap so those invites would resume.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Maj. Kong
    While the German fleet building was a mistake, a major naval victory (and they had several chances in the war), might have enabled the Germans to blockade the UK and mount a real uprising in Ireland.

    A victorious Germany may have acquired additional colonies at the negotiating table, if France had surrendered and was under occupation. I don't know if the British of WW1 would seize the French colonies for themselves.

    The Ottomans also attacked the Suez Canal during the war, if France had been defeated, Germany could have relocated troops to the Middle East. But this presumes the US never enters the war.

    France surrendered no overseas territories to Germany in WW2 so I doubt it very much. Nor do I see how the far smaller and weaker Germany navy could have bested the British fleet. And would rebellion in Ireland have made all that much of a difference? Ireland was actually neutral in WW2 which didn’t really harm the British war effort.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @anon
    Maybe he could have chosen to cut the rations of all the millions of POW's instead of his own troops sport. As for Britain having a small army, it had a huge navy and the protection of the English channel. Germany had Russia for a neighbor. Try dealing in facts, instead of opinion.

    Your valid observations which you treat as cintradicting me I have already made or mentioned; vide #13 and #16

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    Most historians agree that the war was a hopeless stalemate by 1916, but kept going because the Brits were sure they could sucker the Americans to join in the slaughter. You don't know about great American battles of that war because there were none. The USA drafted most of its troops and gave them minimal training, poor equipment, and lined them up to charge across killing fields to be slaughtered.

    If the King of England had come to terms with his first cousin the Kaiser, who knew each other well, the war would have ended. There would have been no Hitler, probably no World War II, no holocaust, and no Cold war.

    An interesting fact is the Royal House of Windsor changed its name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1917 because Brits were confused by anti-German propaganda when their royal family was German. Few Americans know that the English are mostly German immigrants.

    If the American concern was truly one of freedom of the seas, it could have just employed its Navy, rather than rounding up farm boys to send to their deaths with rifles. In summary, WW I was an idiotic war pushed by bankers and royals that made the world worse off and allowed the USA to establish a police state that still exists. (read about the Espionage Act for example, or Wilson's censorship policies)

    Good points. Even if we take America’s war declaration as legitimate it need only have involved a limited maritime war with Germany to end the submarine blockade. This was what many in Congress actually believed when they voted yes. They were quite shocked when they realized America would have to send a large land army to continental Europe itself. See the book THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hrw-500
    Another big mistake done before WWI was the UK doing the "Entente Cordiale" with France. If they never did the "Entente Cordiale", WWI would had been very different.

    Good point. It was a bad decision for everyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The British did achieve the Red Line, allowing the railway to be built from Cape to Cairo. They never finished it, to the detriment of humanity. Of course, they could have negotiated with Germany to get through German East Africa, and Cecil Rhodes included the Germans in his scholarships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @roger in florida
    Did you count J M Keynes in that 117, he was a Jew, and a queer, but he argued against punitive claims against Germany.
    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists is that you pay far too much attention to what people say, rather than what they do. The simple fact is that Germany had created a huge and extremely effective OFFENSIVE army by 1914, that fact is not arguable. Their primary war aim was to conquer European Russia and enslave the occupants of that territory. This is what they actually achieved in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
    In order to achieve that aim they had to defeat France as well, as France was formally allied with Russia. They decided to do that first, largely because they believed Russia would be much slower to mobilize than France, in that they were mistaken because the Czar had kept a large part of his army mobilized after the near civil war of 1906.
    None of this was anything to do with Britain except that Britain would have been in a very uncomfortable situation if France had been defeated. It is very unlikely however that Germany would have put enough into naval preparations to seriously threaten Britain, they would have had quite enough to do subjugating their conquests.
    In 1917 the war was going very badly for the allies and it was clear that if Germany prevailed then the US would be alone, with the likelihood of the British fleet being in German Hands.
    Jews are the biggest blowhards on the planet, about the only thing more annoying than you Jew haters is the Jews themselves claiming responsibility for every event in history that suits them.
    Still Germany could have prevented the carnage or stopped it once started if they had been prepared to abandon their predatory war aims, but they weren't, because they believed almost to the end that they could achieve military victory.

    Again I scratch my head. A UR contributor with worthwhile things to say who includes the totally bizarre! J.M.Keynes a Jew? No. Indeed he was capable of typical English upper class tropes about Jews which would now be regarded as unacceptably anti’semitic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Amanda
    Well, Benjamin Freedman, right hand man to Bernard Baruch (yesterday's Soros) was there and he knows how/why the US got into WW1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c


    Transcript of Freedman's speech is here:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    "Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

    In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

    Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

    However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

    The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

    Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

    Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

    Fascinating. I had never heard of him. But he does sound a bit erratic. First to Wiki and that entry has clearly been under ADL curation for some time It doesn’t mention Baruch I think. So…. suspending judgment, whete can one find reputable stuff on Freedman and the issues he pursued. In particular where are the evidencez that he really knew inside stories?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. fnn says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    While it was true that Germany had reason to fear Russia which was industrialising, and where fertility was even greater than in Germany (cp. UK lower and declining, and France alresdy low) its attempt to execute the Schliefen plan by invading Belgium was not just a small detail. I heard a highly educated German aristocrat who had invaded France via Belgium as a cavalry officer in 1914 tell his wife and family that the British would not have violated Belgian neutrality and the terms of the ?1840 treaty guaranteeing Belgium's borders as the Getman Reich did.

    From Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    “[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have” writes Niall Ferguson. “this puts the British government’s much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting ‘for Belgian neutrality’ in another light.” The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.

    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:

    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Churchill was clearly a lunatic.
     
    And a particularly obnoxious one at that!
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for the reference. I don't see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic. Let me offer a couple of thoughts relevant to Churchill's place in the picture.

    One is that he was a young minister rather than the PM or one of the senior decision makers who would have the ultimate say in what would emerge as Cabinet decisions. In those circumstances it would be to be expected that someone with a very lively a d original mind would feel free to take his bright ideas as far sd possible before others shot them down if they didn't prck them up and, with find tuning, run with them. I have experienced that sort of scenario often. Sometimes the same lively mind in contrsrian mode is deployed to find every possible objection to ideas that are ultimately adopted.

    Another thing to bear in mind was that Churchill, deeply read in history, but not carried away by outdated romantic ideas about the land of Beethoven and Goethe, read the danger of post Bismarck Wilhelmine Germany to the relatively peaceful world since 1815, just as he did the character of Germany under the Nazis.

    BTW even if, which you do not say (and your linked passage doesn't even say of Churchill), the British government had resolved in the hypothetical circumstances of war with Germany, before Germany invaded Belgium on 2nd August and began killing civilians as a means of intimidation, to prevent ships entering the port of Antwerp in order to deliver cargoes for Germany, only the kind of pseudo legal literalism of the article's author could fail to see a moral difference.

    , @David In TN
    I once read that Britain would have declared war on Germany even without a German invasion of Belgium. The difference would have been Britain wouldn't have been united about going to war.
    , @jilles dykstra
    His lunacy was best demonstrated when he ordered the British fleet to destroy the Ottoman forts on the Dardanelles.
    Thereafter Australian and New Zealand troops shed blood in the useless effort of Gallipoli.

    Not until the Casablanca conference Churchill realised the trap Roosevelt had laid for him
    Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet’, Paris, 2004
    De Gaulle never yielded to Roosevelt.

    Nevertheless Churchill refused the peace offer of Hess:
    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Wizard of Oz
    A pity to spoil interesting points with total rubbish. The UK's constitutional monarchy made it quite impossible for George V to do deals with cousin Wilhelm even if both had wished to and the Kaiser could have done more than he did in July 2014 to curb his Prussian generals.

    "Few Americans know that most English are German immigrants". What have you been smoking? Even if you mean that most are descended from Germanic immigrants/settlers/invaders of 1500 years ago that is impossible to reconcile with Brian Sykes's "DNA Map of the British Isles" which long ago made me wonder how it came about that we speak English.

    If you bother to read your own source, you’ll discover that he refers to Britons aka Celts, Britain’s indigenous people. The English are Germans who migrated in tribes like the Angles and Saxons. It is uncertain if the immigrants were violent invaders, or wealthy migrants who filled the orderly gap left by the Romans, probably both.

    In past blogs, commenters failed to understand that English people are not the same as those of the United Kingdom, which includes locals such as the Welsh, Scots, Irish and other odd folks like Druids, Cornish, and Arabs.

    So once again, the English royal family was German and had lots of influence, and there is a lot of German in the English language. English is a Germanic Language!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    o once again, the English royal family was German and had lots of influence
     
    Yes, but not pro-German.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    If you bother to read your own source, you'll discover that he refers to Britons aka Celts, Britain's indigenous people. The English are Germans who migrated in tribes like the Angles and Saxons. It is uncertain if the immigrants were violent invaders, or wealthy migrants who filled the orderly gap left by the Romans, probably both.

    In past blogs, commenters failed to understand that English people are not the same as those of the United Kingdom, which includes locals such as the Welsh, Scots, Irish and other odd folks like Druids, Cornish, and Arabs.

    So once again, the English royal family was German and had lots of influence, and there is a lot of German in the English language. English is a Germanic Language!

    o once again, the English royal family was German and had lots of influence

    Yes, but not pro-German.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. utu says:
    @PV van der Byl
    Not only did the Germans "let him (Lenin) out," that is, arrange for a train to take him from Switzerland through Germany and Sweden to Finland, then a part of the a Russian Empire, they provided him with 26 million gold marks, or about 300,000 troy ounces.

    That amount of gold would go for $380,000,000 at today's prices. That's what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.

    That’s what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.

    Incentivize workers to strike by paying them for not working.

    Read More
    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @fnn
    From Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    "[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have" writes Niall Ferguson. "this puts the British government's much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting 'for Belgian neutrality' in another light." The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.
     
    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:
    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

    Churchill was clearly a lunatic.

    And a particularly obnoxious one at that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @fnn
    The US Ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, wrote in his memoirs that Germany was making peace proposals to Britain as early as Oct. 1914. The Brits would have nothing of it and Page was outraged that Germany wanted to end the war,

    I thought I was the only WW1 nerd who read Page’s memoirs! They are fascinating, especially when we get to the summer and fall of 1916. Americans are outwardly despised in the UK, and Page’s invitations to the countryside for a game of golf completely dry up. His social life crumbling, Page fails to deliver any hostile British note to Wilson. Page’s goal was to get America in the war on Britain’s side asap so those invites would resume.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I thought I was the only WW1 nerd who read Page’s memoirs!
     
    You may well be, but you may soon be joined by me! Sounds interesting, especially considering that Barnes would probably agree with your comment. He reported that some writers suspected the pro-Brit and anti-German bias of Wilson, Houston, Page and House was based in part on the German sympathy for the Union cause during Lincoln's War, and that they were in part avenging Appomatox.

    He himself didn't claim that, nor do I have any thoughts on that either way. It just seems to indicate that there could have been a lot going on that few will ever get a grip on.

    In any case, Page was a rat.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @fnn
    From Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    "[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have" writes Niall Ferguson. "this puts the British government's much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting 'for Belgian neutrality' in another light." The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.
     
    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:
    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

    Thanks for the reference. I don’t see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic. Let me offer a couple of thoughts relevant to Churchill’s place in the picture.

    One is that he was a young minister rather than the PM or one of the senior decision makers who would have the ultimate say in what would emerge as Cabinet decisions. In those circumstances it would be to be expected that someone with a very lively a d original mind would feel free to take his bright ideas as far sd possible before others shot them down if they didn’t prck them up and, with find tuning, run with them. I have experienced that sort of scenario often. Sometimes the same lively mind in contrsrian mode is deployed to find every possible objection to ideas that are ultimately adopted.

    Another thing to bear in mind was that Churchill, deeply read in history, but not carried away by outdated romantic ideas about the land of Beethoven and Goethe, read the danger of post Bismarck Wilhelmine Germany to the relatively peaceful world since 1815, just as he did the character of Germany under the Nazis.

    BTW even if, which you do not say (and your linked passage doesn’t even say of Churchill), the British government had resolved in the hypothetical circumstances of war with Germany, before Germany invaded Belgium on 2nd August and began killing civilians as a means of intimidation, to prevent ships entering the port of Antwerp in order to deliver cargoes for Germany, only the kind of pseudo legal literalism of the article’s author could fail to see a moral difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    Thanks for the reference. I don’t see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic.
     
    Churchill was invoking an improbable worst case scenario. Even in far nastier WWII the Germans did much to cultivate friendship with the French (Jews of course excepted). The French suffered during the occupation, but mainly due to the food and fuel shortages that plagued the entire Nazi empire from beginning to end. An effective resistance came along late in the game and that of course created a more hostile environment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @PV van der Byl
    Not only did the Germans "let him (Lenin) out," that is, arrange for a train to take him from Switzerland through Germany and Sweden to Finland, then a part of the a Russian Empire, they provided him with 26 million gold marks, or about 300,000 troy ounces.

    That amount of gold would go for $380,000,000 at today's prices. That's what gave the Bolsheviks the ability to publish newspapers and other propaganda items and to arm themselves.

    Germany used Lenin as a weapon

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Nice video.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Maj. Kong says:
    @anon
    Good point. It was a bad decision for everyone.

    The British did achieve the Red Line, allowing the railway to be built from Cape to Cairo. They never finished it, to the detriment of humanity. Of course, they could have negotiated with Germany to get through German East Africa, and Cecil Rhodes included the Germans in his scholarships.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. For those readers who are interested in a an unvarnished view about WWI, I strongly recommend to google Benjamin Freidman especially ‘ Benjamin Freedman’s 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)’.
    Benjamin Freedman is someone who can tell you the hidden story of WWI that you are unlikely to learn at school or college. The man will guide through the essentials without sidetracking you into unnecessary details. He devoted his life and spent his fortune in the defence of the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. that is when the world domination plot began? UN, IMF, world bank and all that. all extensions and continuations of that plan. any country that doesn’t follow gets treated the same way. small = invasion, military or economic. big = containment :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Excellent post to which I would add that Germany’s great guilt was its industrial and commercial success that was the envy of the decadent British Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Exactly. Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, authors of the book 'Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War', which I mentioned above, wrote in an article:

    Our research proves that the true origins of the war are to be found not in Germany, but in England. In the late nineteenth century a secret society of immensely rich and powerful men was established in London with the stated aim of expanding the British Empire across the entire world. They deliberately caused the South African War of 1899–1902 in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold from the Boers. Their responsibility for that war, and the horror of British concentration camps in which 20,000 children died,3 have been airbrushed from official histories. The second stage of their global plan was the destruction of the rapidly developing industrial and economic competitor, Germany.
     
    The authors refer to these men as the 'Secret Elite', and they functioned much like ZUSA's 'Deep State' does today. They go on to say:

    'But in the early years of the twentieth century there was a serious challenger[to British world hegemony]. If the Secret Elite were to achieve their dream of world domination, the first step had to be the removal of the upstart German competitor and destruction of her industrial and economic prowess. This presented considerable strategic difficulty. Friendless in her isolation, Britain could never destroy Germany on her own. As an island nation her strength lay in her all-powerful navy. Friendship and alliances were required. “It would have been impossible for Britain to have defeated Germany by itself. Therefore, it needed the large French army and the even larger Russian army to do most of the fighting on the continent.”11[...] Put simply, the Secret Elite required others to undertake much of their bloody business, for war against Germany would certainly be bloody.
     
    One can easily notice the parallels between how the Secret Elite operated and how the Zionist cabal operates nowadays.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @fnn
    From Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    "[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have" writes Niall Ferguson. "this puts the British government's much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting 'for Belgian neutrality' in another light." The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.
     
    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:
    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

    I once read that Britain would have declared war on Germany even without a German invasion of Belgium. The difference would have been Britain wouldn’t have been united about going to war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish. No doubt the product of govt and mass media manipulation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Mad Brute says:
    @Timur The Lame
    Very good analysis in the article and very good commentary. However how can all this font of wisdom have NO MENTION of the Zimmerman telegram?

    This reasonably insignificant piece of history tipped the corn fed congressmen and senators towards voting for declaring war because one
    thing they did understand was that Mexico ( as opposed to Belgium) was kitty corner to the US, in other words to them the war was now a direct threat. Though mostly decent chaps, ignorant then as they are today on what goes on in the larger (financial) world when the telegram was published, it was read as a direct threat and declaring war was a done deal. Retrospectively It also explains the 1915- 1917 gap on eventual American intervention.

    My point is the author did himself a disservice by either neglecting or much worse not knowing about said telegram. The devil is always in the details.

    Cheers-

    That’s right, the declaration of war was an overreaction. An irrational act. It shouldn’t have happened. So why did it?

    To understand it you have to put yourself mentally in the position of people who still had vivid memories of the Civil War (which was much closer to them than WWII is to us.)

    What was the Zimmerman telegram? It was a German threat to break up the U.S. by secession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    What was the Zimmerman telegram?
     
    I highly suspect and wouldn't be surprised to find that it was a forgery, courtesy of Brit propagandists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Wizard of Oz
    Have you some information to impart or are you content to contribute what might be expected of an uneducated semi-literate person after a few drinks in a bar?

    I’ve been trying to decide if he’s a Chinese nationalist or just a rambling moron. I’m leaning heavily on the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. fnn says:

    I wouldn’t post this if Brits and Anglophiles weren’t so commonly guilty of over -the- top self-righteousness:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain’s Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu’s Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as “Labour and freedom” and “He who helps himself will also be helped”. Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Concentration camps were a British invention of the Boer War.
    Many women and children died of hunger and disease, their farms burnt down.
    The men were deported to islands like Ceylon.
    Many never returned.
    Who is interested in 19th century British horror:

    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud
    , @Alden
    I'm skeptical. Why beat thousands when it's so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It's hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.

    And the mess!!!!! The executioners would have to wear protective clothing, goggles and masks. Or just underpants and shower right afterwards and apply disinfectant. Think of the mess. Blood, brains, organs and bladder and intestinal contents all over the place. I suppose the 10 year old children of the victims were the clean up crew.

    Special instruments for testicles maybe but for nipple torture? Plus the researcher is a woman and therefore a hard left anti White propagandist.

    , @Alden
    "Sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick"

    Whoever made up this tale forgot the dilator and funnel.
    , @Alden
    I just noticed anal rape with snakes. LOL
    How's that supposed to work?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. fnn says:
    @David In TN
    I once read that Britain would have declared war on Germany even without a German invasion of Belgium. The difference would have been Britain wouldn't have been united about going to war.

    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish. No doubt the product of govt and mass media manipulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish.
     
    And even less for the Ethiopians and Sudanese, not to mention the victims of King Leopold's "Belgian" Congo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. the Declaration of London. . .was signed by all major countries that would fight in World War I, but it would only be ratified by the United States. Although Britain played a major role in the Conference, and the House of Commons would ratify the Declaration, the House of Lords rejected it on the grounds that it was unfair to major sea powers. . . . .

    Very soon, [Britain engaged in] seizing all goods that were helpful to its enemies, which would ultimately encompass preventing food from reaching the German civilian population. This was an obvious effort to starve the German people into submission–essentially Britain was making war on the civilian population, the prevention of which was a fundamental reason for having rules of warfare. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted that its purpose was to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.’”[

    Churchill had over a century of precedent behind him: the British had caused or provoked famines that decimated civilian populations under their control beginning at least in 1770, with the Bengal famine that killed as many as 10 million Indian subjects of the British empire.

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 is to highlight the generations-long after-effects of the experience of witnessing starvation or of suffering critical malnourishment. Vincent’s slim volume makes it possible to understand why the German people and NSDAP leadership were intent of securing agricultural lands protected from the possibility of a repeat of the British blockade; and why German policies emphasized family creation and incentivized reproduction and parenthood through social programs that included improved new housing (for which Herbert Hoover congratulated Hitler) and other family-friendly government policies and expenditures.
    (See Ralph Raico’s review of “Politics of Hunger” here: https://mises.org/files/rae3120pdf/download? token=MH8R8KxH

    An even more invisible World War I-era British-caused famine caused the deaths of as many as 10 million Iranians between 1917 and 1919. http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2197/8-10-million-Iranians-died-over-Great-Famine-caused-by-the-British
    Iran was a neutral in that war, but the British used Iran as their source for food supplies for their troops, and as transit of troops and materiel to battles against Ottoman empire as well as European theatre campaigns. Mohammad Gholi Majd authored the essential book on that event — The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 , which made of Iran the nation that suffered the greatest losses of any other state in The Great War.

    Churchill kept true to his (un)natural proclivities for starving to death people whom he considered life unworthy of life by participating in blocking Herbert Hoover’s efforts to relieve the German famine; and some two decades later by presiding over the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 —

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill

    a note to OldGeezer: awhile ago you commended several Catholic colleges, and also Hillsdale College, for incorporating Christian and Constitutional values training in their educational tradition. Hillsdale has many fine programs to its credit, but its president, Larry Arnn, is so besotted with Churchill that it undermines all the other structures on the Hillsdale foundation. Arnn’s early years as an “ambitious” and bright academic saw him working in depth in the Churchill archives in Britain. Perhaps he was over-exposed and excessively rewarded for his work to the point that he failed to realize he was rummaging about in the tracings of a moral monster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    More than a handful of great leaders have been smitten by qualities considered contrasting, mildly put, that is.

    Still, Churchill, perhaps antediluvian even by the standards of his time, is rather easy to condemn if one is too narrowly focused on solitary episodes.

    His quote concerning Indians is to be taken in the same spirit, that is, as the exasperation of a senior mandarin faced with an unyielding issue; he'd remarked to Asquith:

    'I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.'

    He was a volatile fellow.

    , @Alden
    Don't forget 300 years of off and on famine in Ireland. Here are a few of the laws. Irish Catholics forbidden to fish in rivers and lakes. Forbidden to own more than 2 cows or 5 pigs. Deported to the far west which was infertile sand at the time. The Irish had to make earth with decades of mixing seaweed with the sand.

    But the people who really suffered were the English working classes including the farm workers. By the time of the boer war the army had to reduce the height minimum down to 5ft 3, astonishingly short for grown men
    In fact during WWs 1&2 the Americans French Italians Germans and Russians were surprised at how tiny the English enlisted men were.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Sam Shama says:
    @Clark Westwood
    In the article you cite, Gottfried writes:

    Canis does not defend Germany’s ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.
     
    That was my point above, about Germany being the aggressor. Maybe multiple governments wanted war, but only one pulled the trigger (so to speak). If Germany had "restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand," perhaps peace would have been maintained in Europe for another 100 years.

    Quite. All nations were engaged in interlocking agreements which sovereign nations are free to enter into in pursuit of their self-interests. Arguments which turn a blind eye to this very basic right of nations to ally themselves freely are thus fatally flawed.

    Germany was the aggressor and should’ve known better than inviting the participation of far superior powers, a (ger)manic folly one might say, which led to the death of far too many.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Germany was the aggressor...
     
    You state that as if it were a fact. In fact the concept is glib, fatuous, and wrong and exposes both ignorance and bias.

    If you want your comments to carry any weight here, you'll need to do some homework.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. fnn says:

    Britain blatantly violated Danish neutrality in 1807:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Svigor says:

    The problem with you conspiracy theorists and German apologists is that you pay far too much attention to what people say, rather than what they do.

    Funny, that’s what I’m always telling the philo-Semites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    the Declaration of London. . .was signed by all major countries that would fight in World War I, but it would only be ratified by the United States. Although Britain played a major role in the Conference, and the House of Commons would ratify the Declaration, the House of Lords rejected it on the grounds that it was unfair to major sea powers. . . . .

    Very soon, [Britain engaged in] seizing all goods that were helpful to its enemies, which would ultimately encompass preventing food from reaching the German civilian population. This was an obvious effort to starve the German people into submission–essentially Britain was making war on the civilian population, the prevention of which was a fundamental reason for having rules of warfare. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted that its purpose was to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.’”[
     

    Churchill had over a century of precedent behind him: the British had caused or provoked famines that decimated civilian populations under their control beginning at least in 1770, with the Bengal famine that killed as many as 10 million Indian subjects of the British empire.
    https://www.versobooks.com/books/2311-late-victorian-holocausts

    The Germans suffered fiercely -- but invisibly, if the volumes of histories of that era are consulted. Of the few that do treat the German famine, the great service rendered by C Paul Vincent's The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 is to highlight the generations-long after-effects of the experience of witnessing starvation or of suffering critical malnourishment. Vincent's slim volume makes it possible to understand why the German people and NSDAP leadership were intent of securing agricultural lands protected from the possibility of a repeat of the British blockade; and why German policies emphasized family creation and incentivized reproduction and parenthood through social programs that included improved new housing (for which Herbert Hoover congratulated Hitler) and other family-friendly government policies and expenditures.
    (See Ralph Raico's review of "Politics of Hunger" here: https://mises.org/files/rae3120pdf/download? token=MH8R8KxH


    An even more invisible World War I-era British-caused famine caused the deaths of as many as 10 million Iranians between 1917 and 1919. http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2197/8-10-million-Iranians-died-over-Great-Famine-caused-by-the-British
    Iran was a neutral in that war, but the British used Iran as their source for food supplies for their troops, and as transit of troops and materiel to battles against Ottoman empire as well as European theatre campaigns. Mohammad Gholi Majd authored the essential book on that event -- The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 , which made of Iran the nation that suffered the greatest losses of any other state in The Great War.

    Churchill kept true to his (un)natural proclivities for starving to death people whom he considered life unworthy of life by participating in blocking Herbert Hoover's efforts to relieve the German famine; and some two decades later by presiding over the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 --

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill

    ---

    a note to OldGeezer: awhile ago you commended several Catholic colleges, and also Hillsdale College, for incorporating Christian and Constitutional values training in their educational tradition. Hillsdale has many fine programs to its credit, but its president, Larry Arnn, is so besotted with Churchill that it undermines all the other structures on the Hillsdale foundation. Arnn's early years as an "ambitious" and bright academic saw him working in depth in the Churchill archives in Britain. Perhaps he was over-exposed and excessively rewarded for his work to the point that he failed to realize he was rummaging about in the tracings of a moral monster.

    More than a handful of great leaders have been smitten by qualities considered contrasting, mildly put, that is.

    Still, Churchill, perhaps antediluvian even by the standards of his time, is rather easy to condemn if one is too narrowly focused on solitary episodes.

    His quote concerning Indians is to be taken in the same spirit, that is, as the exasperation of a senior mandarin faced with an unyielding issue; he’d remarked to Asquith:

    ‘I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.’

    He was a volatile fellow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. fnn says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for the reference. I don't see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic. Let me offer a couple of thoughts relevant to Churchill's place in the picture.

    One is that he was a young minister rather than the PM or one of the senior decision makers who would have the ultimate say in what would emerge as Cabinet decisions. In those circumstances it would be to be expected that someone with a very lively a d original mind would feel free to take his bright ideas as far sd possible before others shot them down if they didn't prck them up and, with find tuning, run with them. I have experienced that sort of scenario often. Sometimes the same lively mind in contrsrian mode is deployed to find every possible objection to ideas that are ultimately adopted.

    Another thing to bear in mind was that Churchill, deeply read in history, but not carried away by outdated romantic ideas about the land of Beethoven and Goethe, read the danger of post Bismarck Wilhelmine Germany to the relatively peaceful world since 1815, just as he did the character of Germany under the Nazis.

    BTW even if, which you do not say (and your linked passage doesn't even say of Churchill), the British government had resolved in the hypothetical circumstances of war with Germany, before Germany invaded Belgium on 2nd August and began killing civilians as a means of intimidation, to prevent ships entering the port of Antwerp in order to deliver cargoes for Germany, only the kind of pseudo legal literalism of the article's author could fail to see a moral difference.

    Thanks for the reference. I don’t see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic.

    Churchill was invoking an improbable worst case scenario. Even in far nastier WWII the Germans did much to cultivate friendship with the French (Jews of course excepted). The French suffered during the occupation, but mainly due to the food and fuel shortages that plagued the entire Nazi empire from beginning to end. An effective resistance came along late in the game and that of course created a more hostile environment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    John Charmley, ‘Churchill, The end of glory, A political biography’, London 1993
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Svigor says:

    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    More like Blacks have a flexible/indifferent relationship with the truth. Yes, a lot like Jews.

    I didn’t see a death toll in there anywhere. The death tolls from Northern European atrocities are always so disappointing.

    Churchill wasn’t a lunatic. That would be a good excuse. He was more of a John McCain type, IMO.

    You specialise in irrelevance and non-response to what you are purporting to reply to. Do I really have to point out why the UK’s formal declaration of war wasn’t the beginning of the war?

    Funny, that’s what I’m always telling the Yankee-Judeans about WWII and Germany’s declaration of war against the US.

    According to folks like you, if the Zio-American Empire encirclement of the Russian Federation continues and eventually reaches a point where Russia’s national security and sovereignty become totally compromised and Russia decides to hit first, Russia will be the sole or main responsible party for a WW3, while ZUSA’s Empire would be the poor victims…

    Yes, sort of like how the left’s endless provocations and un(der)-reported violence will inevitably have nothing to do with any right-wing reaction.

    I think you grossly underestimate the role of great leaders in shaping history.

    Maybe, but he has a point. There’s a lot more to history than great leaders. It’s a story of nations, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Churchill destroyed the British empire.
    Freedom of expression is demonstrated by that the original english version of the book was never published:

    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005

    Translated: The destruction of the British empire, Roosevelt - Churchill and the USA's road to world power
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The reasons the author presents as the rationale for US entry into world War One reminded me of the reason that the US got into the Iraq War in 2003 as proposed by people like Noam Chomsky: oil.

    This rationale for the Iraq War was generally accepted until John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt presented an entirely different rationale in their article printed in the London Review of Books in March of 2006. It was in this article that they clearly proved that the reason we entered into the Iraq conflict in 2003 was pressure from Israel and its lobby in America.

    One of the most curious things about US entry into World War One was something that happened in late 1916, months before its entry and showed who might have been behind it. The very blackmail-able Woodrow Wilson suddenly decided then that, despite his campaign promise to “keep us out of war” that he needed to establish an office of war preparedness. Who did he pick to head this office: Bernard Baruch. This was a curious and rather bizarre choice considering that Baruch was merely a rather unsavory stock speculator without any known organizational ability whatsoever. It appears that Wilson was simply told to appoint Baruch by someone else, most likely Louis Brandeis. Nothing else explains this totally irrational choice of leader. (The organization Baruch originally formed was later became the War Industries Board (WIB).

    Baruch then apparently decided to inform friends about the increasing chance of US entry into World War One. This resulted in the formation of the so called “copper cartel” headed by Solomon Guggenheim. This cartel became notorious for not only fleecing the US taxpayer on the over priced sale of this vital metal to the US during during the war but then again after the war ended when it used its cartel power to buy back the now surplus copper from the government at far at far below its actual value.

    Once Organized Jewry decided that it was in its interest for the war to begin in order to trigger the Balfour Agreement war was became as inevitable as day follows night (just as it did decades later in Iraq because of similar pressure). The media blitz then began (just as it did prior to the Iraq War). The claims of Huns bayoneting babies made before US entry in the World War One saw a reprise with the “throwing babies out of incubators” claim made during the run up to the Iraq war.

    Murray Rothbard on Baruch:

    “Administrative problems beset the WIB, however, and a satisfactory “autocrat” was sought to rule the entire economy as chairman of the new organization. The willing autocrat was finally discovered in the person of Bernard Baruch in early March 1918. With the selection of Baruch, urged strongly on President Wilson by Secretary McAdoo, war collectivism had achieved its final form.12 Baruch’s credentials for the task were unimpeachable; an early supporter of the drive toward war, Baruch had presented a scheme for industrial war mobilization to President Wilson as early as 1915…
    The wartime collectivism also held forth a model to the nation’s liberal intellectuals; for here was seemingly a system that replaced laissez-faire not by the rigors and class hatreds of proletarian Marxism, but by a new strong State, planning and organizing the economy in harmony with all leading economic groups. It was, not coincidentally, to be a neomercantilism, a “mixed economy,” heavily staffed by these selfsame liberal intellectuals. And finally, both big business and the liberals saw in the wartime model a way to organize and integrate the often unruly labor force as a junior partner in the corporatist system — a force to be disciplined by their own “responsible” leadership of the labor unions.”

    https://mises.org/library/war-collectivism-world-war-i

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    I have to laugh -- or shake my head in wonder -- when I read, "If X, then no Hitler . . ."

    What if WWI played out exactly as it did, and Versailles played out exactly as it did, with the exception that the bullet that ripped through Hitler's sleeve actually ripped through his head and killed him.
    Would Germany have rolled over and played dead but for the existence of that one, sole, low-level Austrian war veteran?
    I'm convinced Ernst "Putzi" Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other "Hitler" character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did -- or who didn't give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?




    It's just such sloppy thinking; so stuck-in-the-brainwashed rut, so simplistic.

    How about, What would the world be like today "If there had been no Churchill?"

    But then, was Churchill, too, of such singular power and force that the presence or absence of one single man would have made a world-changing difference, or was Churchill actually the personified expression of an entire British zeitgeist , perhaps even more representative of a profoundly evil psychodynamic than anything Hitler represented.

    **nb. Failed to mention, in #77 re Scott Anderson's book on Lawrence in Arabia, that Aaron Aaronsohn, collaborator of Weizmann, employee of Ottomans who spied on Ottomans for the British, also met in person with Teddy Roosevelt. Connect the dots.

    You make an interesting argument. Hitler merely a fuse which lit the pile of fireworks already high from years of Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.

    I see an evolution in thought here [I've seen these before :-) ]: from Adolf, the greatest builder of the German ‘millennia’ now reduced to the plodding corporal, a minor tool in the hands of greater powers.

    As I said before, these mental travels require wormholes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.
     
    can't resist the bullshit can you Sam.

    The fuse was lit by 50 years of Jews exploiting the German financial system (see The Jews in Germany, Eclectic Magazine, 1881, capped by war years of starvation.


    "But the most riveting account of Germany's conditions in early 1919 was offered by Keynes as the testimony of a member of one of Hoover's American missions. The account inspires images of the pictures Kathe Kollwitz sketched of undernourished children begging for food.

    "You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces with large dull eyes, overshadowed by huge, puffed rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints, the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema . . . 'You see this child here,' the physician in charge explained; 'it consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the pangs.' "
     

    -The Politics of Hunger, C Paul Vincent.

    It's not certain that that child had mastered Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche before he hid bread under his straw mattress.
    ---

    That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation that marked an entire nation, moreover, a nation that had afforded Jews security and prosperity for over a millennium:


    "The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of prolonged war. The Allied blockade cut off Germany's harbors and most of her land trade routes . . .War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germans off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance, by what became known as the "stab in the back." "

    ch. 3, "The Weapon Hitler Feared" [boycott], in The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black
     
    It's worth noting that Walter Rathenau was in charge of the German economy and domestic supply in the war years.

    He held senior posts in the Raw Materials Department of the War Ministry and became chairman of AEG upon his father's death in 1915. Rathenau played a key role in convincing the War Ministry to set up the War Raw Materials Department (KRA), of which he was put in charge from August 1914 to March 1915 and established the fundamental policies and procedures. His senior staff were on loan from industry. KRA focused on raw materials threatened by the British blockade, as well as supplies from occupied Belgium and France. It set prices and regulated the distribution to vital war industries. It began the development of Ersatzkaisertum raw materials, developing supply chains to bring peace and for regime change within Germany. KRA suffered many inefficiencies caused by the complexity and selfishness encountered from commerce, industry, and the government itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Rathenau
     
    Rathenau's assassination was, of course, marked down to rampant antisemitism; the failures of the organization he designed and ran were most certainly, most definitely not his fault.

    On the other hand, as Black explain in the continuation of ch. 3,


    "When Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracies. The Jews were not just a handy scapegoat. The paranoid Nazis believed in the legendary, almost supernatural economic power of the Jews."
     
    Those foolish, paranoid Nazis; wherever did they get the idea that international Jews wielded outsized economic power?

    Judea Declares War on Germany

    --
    Shove it down your wormhole, Sam. Jewish activities against Germany for decades inspires only disgust.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @LondonBob
    Still the Germans started WWI and they did engage in unrestricted submarine warfare.

    A peace should have been negotiated, perhaps in 1916 there was a real possibility of this, as it was clear early on there would be only losers. That the US was likely to intervene, especially after the Balfour declaration had been agreed, meant peace talks had little chance of success.

    In 1917 Trotzky published the secret deal of 1913 between GB, France and the tsar, to cut up three empires: the German, the Austrian-Hungarian and the Ottoman.
    He found the treaty’s in the tsarist archives.

    WWI began in 1870 with the French attack on Germany, that unified Germany.
    The unified Germany was around 1900 ‘on top of the world’, economically, socially, scientific and technical.

    So Balfour already in 1907 said to the American ambassador ‘that perhaps war was the cheapest way to continue the British standard of living’.

    Already in 1921 historians knew that USA ambassador Morgenthau had lied about the German conspiracy to wage war.
    Threatened on two fronts Germany had to lauch a pre emptive attack.

    Thomas Fleming, ‘The Illusion of Victory, America in WW I’, New York 2003

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @fnn
    I wouldn't post this if Brits and Anglophiles weren't so commonly guilty of over -the- top self-righteousness:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
     
    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    Concentration camps were a British invention of the Boer War.
    Many women and children died of hunger and disease, their farms burnt down.
    The men were deported to islands like Ceylon.
    Many never returned.
    Who is interested in 19th century British horror:

    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Concentration camps, like what was done in Malaysia to succesfully combat the (Chinese) Communist insurgency in the 40s and 50s, don't intrinsically deserve the connotation that WW2 conferred on them.

    That said, I suggest that the best that can be said for the British and British Empire was that it led the way amongst large and powerful nations (leave aside Switzerland and the Scandinavians as too small) to the possibility of some of the good side of human nature portrayed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs coming to the fore just because of the growth in prosperity (especially for the increasingly influential middle classes) and Britain's additional blessing of being protected by the sea and its navy. You will see that I have omitted any reference to Christianity. Should I not have? (Missionaries in the Empire: good or bad or just ppart of the mix?). My inclination is to regard religion as following as much as leading in general. True Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery was a Christian evangelical movement in the richest most dynamic country in Europe. But I suspect the Jesuits might have been as effective if their home countries had not lagged Britain in modernity/prosperity. And why exactly can one be so sure that Muslim countries were not due to abolish slavery any time in the forseeable future? Chicken and egg? No, I shall content myself with a Marxistic preference for regarding religion as following the means of production and its related sequelae....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @fnn

    Thanks for the reference. I don’t see why you say, in connection with that quote or otherwise, that Churchill was a lunatic.
     
    Churchill was invoking an improbable worst case scenario. Even in far nastier WWII the Germans did much to cultivate friendship with the French (Jews of course excepted). The French suffered during the occupation, but mainly due to the food and fuel shortages that plagued the entire Nazi empire from beginning to end. An effective resistance came along late in the game and that of course created a more hostile environment.

    John Charmley, ‘Churchill, The end of glory, A political biography’, London 1993

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @roger in florida
    A lot of German apologists here. the fact is that alone of all the combatants Germany could have prevented the war or stopped it soon after it began. The reason they didn't is that they wanted the war, they were convinced that they could win it and had been preparing for it for decades.
    Interesting that there was no fighting at all on the territory of Germany. Belgium, France, Poland and European Russia were decimated, along with a lot of other places, but Germany was unscathed.
    Britain was a sideline player but could not reasonably stand by and let France and Russia be defeated, I think the same occurred to President Wilson who could see that the USA might be the last man standing, not a good place to be if faced with a cynical supremacist entity like the Kaiser's Germany.
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2. Hitler pursued war because he believed Germany had been robbed of victory in WW1, and he could pursue the same dream of a huge German land empire in European Russia, just like the Kaiser. That was why unconditional surrender was pursued, Germany had to be crushed and stripped of it's heinous ambition, and it was.

    Hitler never wanted war, Roosevelt did.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Svigor

    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)
     
    More like Blacks have a flexible/indifferent relationship with the truth. Yes, a lot like Jews.

    I didn't see a death toll in there anywhere. The death tolls from Northern European atrocities are always so disappointing.

    Churchill wasn't a lunatic. That would be a good excuse. He was more of a John McCain type, IMO.

    You specialise in irrelevance and non-response to what you are purporting to reply to. Do I really have to point out why the UK’s formal declaration of war wasn’t the beginning of the war?
     
    Funny, that's what I'm always telling the Yankee-Judeans about WWII and Germany's declaration of war against the US.

    According to folks like you, if the Zio-American Empire encirclement of the Russian Federation continues and eventually reaches a point where Russia’s national security and sovereignty become totally compromised and Russia decides to hit first, Russia will be the sole or main responsible party for a WW3, while ZUSA’s Empire would be the poor victims…
     
    Yes, sort of like how the left's endless provocations and un(der)-reported violence will inevitably have nothing to do with any right-wing reaction.

    I think you grossly underestimate the role of great leaders in shaping history.
     
    Maybe, but he has a point. There's a lot more to history than great leaders. It's a story of nations, too.

    Churchill destroyed the British empire.
    Freedom of expression is demonstrated by that the original english version of the book was never published:

    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005

    Translated: The destruction of the British empire, Roosevelt – Churchill and the USA’s road to world power

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I don't see Churchill as destroying the British Empire, though his efforts against the Germans in two phases, against Roosevelt and against the Indians were failures. But they were mere pimples on the course of accelerating history. After all the British Empire was most unusual if not altogether unprecedented in important respects. On top of bringing modernity to much of the world in the post-Malthusian age of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment it was almost done by confidence trick given the very small numbers of Brits compared to natives involved. It was only a matter of time. Rewriting history wouldn't one set India on a carefully planned path to independence about 1900 to1940 and Africa about 1940 to 2000?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @fnn
    From Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War, p.39:

    Churchill was determined to violate Belgian neutrality himself by ordering the Royal Navy to blockade Antwerp to prevent its becoming a port of entry for goods destined to Germany.

    "[I]f Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have" writes Niall Ferguson. "this puts the British government's much-vaunted moral superiority in fighting 'for Belgian neutrality' in another light." The German invasion of Belgium enabled the British war party to put a high moral gloss on a war they had already decided to fight for reasons of realpolitik. As early as 1911, during the Moroccan crisis, Churchill confided to Lloyd George his real reason for committing himself morally and secretly to bringing Britain into any Franco-German war.

    It is not for Morocco, nor indeed for Belgium, that i would take part in this terrible business. One cause alone should justify our participation-to prevent France from being trampled down and looted by the Prussian Junkers-a disaster ruinous to the world and swiftly fatal to our country.
     
    Churchill was clearly a lunatic. For details:
    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill

    His lunacy was best demonstrated when he ordered the British fleet to destroy the Ottoman forts on the Dardanelles.
    Thereafter Australian and New Zealand troops shed blood in the useless effort of Gallipoli.

    Not until the Casablanca conference Churchill realised the trap Roosevelt had laid for him
    Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet’, Paris, 2004
    De Gaulle never yielded to Roosevelt.

    Nevertheless Churchill refused the peace offer of Hess:
    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Poor Germans and Germany. So easily out-conspired by the evil Anglo-Americans and manipulated to do exactly what was expected by their enemies. There should be some special protections extended over Germans just like we protect children against the abuse and manipulations by adults. Perhaps something could be done in UN so it never happens again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. HdC says:
    @Incitatus
    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    Really? “Rules of war at the time.” Please forward your source so all can benefit.

    I really am perplexed. So when rotten Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia 28 Jul 1914 they weren’t belligerent? Russia mobilized two days later (30 Jul 1914). Please explain HdC.

    France? Germany declared war on France a day after after invading Luxembourg and besieging Longwy 2 Aug 1914. Golly, do you think Germany was mobilized by the time they invaded? Gee whiz! What do you think HdC?

    France declared war on Germany 3 Aug 1914. Germany invaded neutral Belgium a day later HdC. Were neutral Belgium’s ‘demobilized’ troops ample cause for Germany’s rape of Belgium? Please tell us HdC.

    Did you take lessons in stupidity HdC, or does it come naturally?

    Well, my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above.

    Now then, it is indeed possible since English is my second language, that I seriously misread or misunderstood what I was reading. Highly unlikely, but possible.

    Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. Your choice. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    and

    "Well, my insight into the situation under debate ..."


    are somewhat different in meaning. The first statement clearly speaks of "rules of war", which is a concrete idea; deeply flawed, but concrete, nevertheless; whereas the second refers to your "insights."

    So, to reiterate Incitatus' point, can you please pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly "rule" you've unearthed?

    , @Incitatus
    Let me say straight away HdC I regret the intemperate conclusion to my previous post. A regrettable impulse. I apologize.

    “my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above” What am I missing? What books? I applaud your English btw, kudos. It’s just the content (of lack) I regret. What books?

    “Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. “

    I have many kin that did “live during those times under discussion” in Belgium and France, as well as American soldiers who fought in both conflict(s) HdC. You make many assumptions. Defensive? My education has nothing to do with it. You failed to provide your fabled “rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor.” Still waiting. Not holding my breath.

    You also failed to address WW1 chronology. The first declarations of war were issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions were launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium and spend four years destroying northern France.

    What do you think HdC? Is it you who have surrounded yourself with merde de cheval/ Pherdeschieße?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Mad Brute
    That's right, the declaration of war was an overreaction. An irrational act. It shouldn't have happened. So why did it?

    To understand it you have to put yourself mentally in the position of people who still had vivid memories of the Civil War (which was much closer to them than WWII is to us.)

    What was the Zimmerman telegram? It was a German threat to break up the U.S. by secession.

    What was the Zimmerman telegram?

    I highly suspect and wouldn’t be surprised to find that it was a forgery, courtesy of Brit propagandists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Even if true, it was only operative if US first declared war on Germany. Kind of a desperate move since Mexico was very weak and in no position to help Germany.
    , @Alden
    As I recall, my high school history book stated clearly that it could have been a hoax to get us into the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @fnn
    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish. No doubt the product of govt and mass media manipulation.

    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish.

    And even less for the Ethiopians and Sudanese, not to mention the victims of King Leopold’s “Belgian” Congo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's Hobson's choice, but better Leopold II than Tippu Tip.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Agent76 says:

    Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913

    From the Tom Woods show Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder’s vision (limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. fnn says:
    @jacques sheete

    What was the Zimmerman telegram?
     
    I highly suspect and wouldn't be surprised to find that it was a forgery, courtesy of Brit propagandists.

    Even if true, it was only operative if US first declared war on Germany. Kind of a desperate move since Mexico was very weak and in no position to help Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Even if true, it was only operative if US first declared war on Germany.
     
    Yup, and the Brits sprung it on the Americans in a timely fashion in order to get wavering American's inflamed against Germany. In any case, the anti-Germans make way too much of it while ignoring the blatant perfidy of the Brits.

    Charles Callan Tansill: "The main objective of American foreign policy since 1900 has been the preservation of the British Empire" (Back Door to War [Chicago University Press, 1952], p. 3).
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Bragadocious
    I thought I was the only WW1 nerd who read Page's memoirs! They are fascinating, especially when we get to the summer and fall of 1916. Americans are outwardly despised in the UK, and Page's invitations to the countryside for a game of golf completely dry up. His social life crumbling, Page fails to deliver any hostile British note to Wilson. Page's goal was to get America in the war on Britain's side asap so those invites would resume.

    I thought I was the only WW1 nerd who read Page’s memoirs!

    You may well be, but you may soon be joined by me! Sounds interesting, especially considering that Barnes would probably agree with your comment. He reported that some writers suspected the pro-Brit and anti-German bias of Wilson, Houston, Page and House was based in part on the German sympathy for the Union cause during Lincoln’s War, and that they were in part avenging Appomatox.

    He himself didn’t claim that, nor do I have any thoughts on that either way. It just seems to indicate that there could have been a lot going on that few will ever get a grip on.

    In any case, Page was a rat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Sam Shama
    Quite. All nations were engaged in interlocking agreements which sovereign nations are free to enter into in pursuit of their self-interests. Arguments which turn a blind eye to this very basic right of nations to ally themselves freely are thus fatally flawed.

    Germany was the aggressor and should've known better than inviting the participation of far superior powers, a (ger)manic folly one might say, which led to the death of far too many.

    Germany was the aggressor…

    You state that as if it were a fact. In fact the concept is glib, fatuous, and wrong and exposes both ignorance and bias.

    If you want your comments to carry any weight here, you’ll need to do some homework.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Troll: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Immersing yourself in an emulsion of obscure revisionism and then assuming a preachy tone is the glibber of our respective positions.

    There were numerous reasons for WW I, and the immediate causes have to include two key ones: (1) Arms race had begun in earnest in the 20th cen. and Germany was at the very forefront with the heaviest preparedness/mobilisation for war [ see e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Tegetthoff_(1912) ]

    (2) 5 Interlocking agreements

    You know, when children obtain a pile of fireworks......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @fnn
    Even if true, it was only operative if US first declared war on Germany. Kind of a desperate move since Mexico was very weak and in no position to help Germany.

    Even if true, it was only operative if US first declared war on Germany.

    Yup, and the Brits sprung it on the Americans in a timely fashion in order to get wavering American’s inflamed against Germany. In any case, the anti-Germans make way too much of it while ignoring the blatant perfidy of the Brits.

    Charles Callan Tansill: “The main objective of American foreign policy since 1900 has been the preservation of the British Empire” (Back Door to War [Chicago University Press, 1952], p. 3).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Sam Shama says:
    @HdC
    Well, my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above.

    Now then, it is indeed possible since English is my second language, that I seriously misread or misunderstood what I was reading. Highly unlikely, but possible.

    Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. Your choice. HdC

    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    and

    “Well, my insight into the situation under debate …”

    are somewhat different in meaning. The first statement clearly speaks of “rules of war”, which is a concrete idea; deeply flawed, but concrete, nevertheless; whereas the second refers to your “insights.”

    So, to reiterate Incitatus’ point, can you please pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly “rule” you’ve unearthed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly “rule” you’ve unearthed?

    If we ever get into those safe deposit boxes, all will be revealed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Sam Shama
    You make an interesting argument. Hitler merely a fuse which lit the pile of fireworks already high from years of Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.

    I see an evolution in thought here [I've seen these before :-) ]: from Adolf, the greatest builder of the German 'millennia' now reduced to the plodding corporal, a minor tool in the hands of greater powers.

    As I said before, these mental travels require wormholes.

    Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.

    can’t resist the bullshit can you Sam.

    The fuse was lit by 50 years of Jews exploiting the German financial system (see The Jews in Germany, Eclectic Magazine, 1881, capped by war years of starvation.

    “But the most riveting account of Germany’s conditions in early 1919 was offered by Keynes as the testimony of a member of one of Hoover’s American missions. The account inspires images of the pictures Kathe Kollwitz sketched of undernourished children begging for food.

    “You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces with large dull eyes, overshadowed by huge, puffed rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints, the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema . . . ‘You see this child here,’ the physician in charge explained; ‘it consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the pangs.’

    -The Politics of Hunger, C Paul Vincent.

    It’s not certain that that child had mastered Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche before he hid bread under his straw mattress.

    That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation that marked an entire nation, moreover, a nation that had afforded Jews security and prosperity for over a millennium:

    “The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of prolonged war. The Allied blockade cut off Germany’s harbors and most of her land trade routes . . .War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germans off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance, by what became known as the “stab in the back.” ”

    ch. 3, “The Weapon Hitler Feared” [boycott], in The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black

    It’s worth noting that Walter Rathenau was in charge of the German economy and domestic supply in the war years.

    He held senior posts in the Raw Materials Department of the War Ministry and became chairman of AEG upon his father’s death in 1915. Rathenau played a key role in convincing the War Ministry to set up the War Raw Materials Department (KRA), of which he was put in charge from August 1914 to March 1915 and established the fundamental policies and procedures. His senior staff were on loan from industry. KRA focused on raw materials threatened by the British blockade, as well as supplies from occupied Belgium and France. It set prices and regulated the distribution to vital war industries. It began the development of Ersatzkaisertum raw materials, developing supply chains to bring peace and for regime change within Germany. KRA suffered many inefficiencies caused by the complexity and selfishness encountered from commerce, industry, and the government itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Rathenau

    Rathenau’s assassination was, of course, marked down to rampant antisemitism; the failures of the organization he designed and ran were most certainly, most definitely not his fault.

    On the other hand, as Black explain in the continuation of ch. 3,

    “When Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracies. The Jews were not just a handy scapegoat. The paranoid Nazis believed in the legendary, almost supernatural economic power of the Jews.”

    Those foolish, paranoid Nazis; wherever did they get the idea that international Jews wielded outsized economic power?

    Judea Declares War on Germany


    Shove it down your wormhole, Sam. Jewish activities against Germany for decades inspires only disgust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Since you send me to Mr Keynes to garner support for your arguments, you ought at least read carefully what the man wrote regarding the economic conditions prevailing in Europe; of the critical increases in population across the Atlantic on both shores; of the precarious position of the continent vis-a-vis her ability feed her population and the approaching limits of the U.S to support her needs:

    When first the virgin soils of America came into bearing, the proportions of the population of those continents themselves, and consequently of their own local requirements, to those of Europe were very small. As lately as 1890 Europe had a population three times that of North and South America added together. But by 1914 the domestic requirements of the United states for wheat were approaching their production, and the date was evidently near when there would be an exportable surplus only in years of exceptionally favourable harvest. Indeed, the present domestic requirements of the United States are estimated at more than ninety percent of the average yield of the five years 1909–13. 4 At that time, however, the tendency towards stringency was showing itself, not so much in a lack of abundance as in a steady increase of real cost. That is to say, taking the world as a whole, there was no deficiency of wheat, but in order to call forth an adequate supply, it was necessary to offer a higher real price. The most favourable factor in the situation was to be found in the extent to which Central and Western Europe was being fed from the exportable surplus of Russia and Roumania.

    Even since 1914 the population of the United States has increased by seven or eight million. As their annual consumption of wheat per head is not less than six bushels, the pre-war scale of production in the United States would only show a substantial surplus over present domestic requirements in about one year out of five. We have been saved for the moment by the great harvests of 1918 and 1919, which have been called forth by Mr Hoover’s guaranteed price. But the United States can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely to raise by a substantial figure the cost of living in its own country, in order to provide wheat for a Europe which cannot pay for it.

    In short, Europe’s claim on the resources of the New World was becoming precarious; the law of
    diminishing returns was, at last, reasserting itself, and was making it necessary year by year for Europe to offer a greater quantity of other commodities to obtain the same amount of bread; and Europe, therefore, could by no means afford the disorganisation of any of her principal sources of supply.

    Much else might be said in an attempt to portray the economic peculiarities of the Europe of 1914. I have selected for emphasis the three or four greatest factors of instability - the instability of an excessive population dependent for its livelihood on a complicated and artificial organisation, the psychological instability of the labouring and capitalist classes, and the instability of Europe’s claim, coupled with the completeness of her dependence, on the food supplies of the New World.
     
    So, invoking Keynes indirectly through the words and images of a different scribe (Kollowitz), is mainly depicting the all too common landscape of Europe, waging yet another war induced by bellicosity never short in supply amongst the continent's resplendent leadership. More to the point, Keynes' economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany's many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should've brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would've done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation...

    Once again, I note with little surprise the great leaps of contention you are very well known to make when presenting material unfavourable to you beloved Germania.

    Black's writing did no such thing as you so cavalierly claimed; it is, on the other hand, an objective recounting of the insecure circumstances which Germany created and found herself in. In this respect, Black's position is in perfect concordance with the diaries of Speer.

    Berthold Albert Speer had passionately championed the need for women to join the industrial endeavour (oh the very thought! Take the woman away from the hallowed task of birthing Wotan?!); protested the draft of skilled industrial workers into the armed forces; recommended a call for a truce, even surrender in January 1944 when Silesia was lost and thus 60 percent of German coal production. All of it filed away and ignored by Adolf, remarking [Guderian's notes]:

    “. . . I refuse to see anyone alone anymore . . . He [Speer] always has something unpleasant to say to me. I can’t bear that.”

    Rathenau:

    What point do you strive to make summoning Rathenau's record, a deeply distinguished one, one might add?

    Walther Rathenau was a loyal German citizen who built one of the most successful German companies, AEG, and helped Germany during the blockade to manage her dwindling resources. He was beseeched by the republic to be its Foreign Minister. He did accept that responsibility and shepherded Germany through the Treaty of Rapallo with the nascent Soviet Union and Versailles, only to be assassinated by the extreme Right. The Right in Germany [including the military leadership corps] conveniently and absurdly blamed the Jews for their own failure to win the Spring Offensive, and precipitated Rathenau’s assassination. Many years later Rathenau’s assassin [one of them I think] saw the mistake of his actions [especially after he received a letter from Rathenau's mother forgiving him] and condemned the Nazis, stating something along the lines of ‘It is your philosophy that brought ruin to Germany in the past!’

    So, I recommend you traverse back to Earth via the wormhole which previously landed you in planet Germania.

    Lastly,

    I’m convinced Ernst “Putzi” Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other “Hitler” character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did — or who didn’t give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?
     
    So what precisely did you mean to call Hitler there, if not a tool in the hands of greater powers?


    Best
    , @Incitatus
    “That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.”

    Really s2c? What about the 85,700 Belgian civilians (1.16% of population - about the same percentage as those poor German waifs) killed in WW1. The difference? Belgium didn’t invade Germany, burn their historic libraries, burn civilian housing, expose dispelled civilians to death by exposure, and enact a program of retribution killing.

    Golly, s2c. Look at the Serbs - they (a much smaller nation) lost more civilians than Germany. Any tears for them? 27.78% of the Serb population died (Germany lost 4.32% total - civilian and military).

    You complain about the “starving child.” To be more exact, you mean the German “starving child.”

    Aren’t you trying to excuse the supreme incompetence of Wilhelm II and von Moltke, and Franz-Ferdinand I and Conrad von Hötzendorf ? After all, they declared war and invaded their neighbors. They forgot to secure their own food supplies. Tragic. Who’s fault was it? Those who declared war and invaded their neighbors? Or their victims?

    Actually, I enjoyed your post about French protected by Nazis from Allied air raids more. Was that the same s2c? Try to be creative. How about ‘German families’ or ‘patriotic working men’? How about Serbian working families saved by Wilhelm II? I’m sure you’ll come up with something good.

    I’ll close by wishing you the best on your recent holiday (20 April). How many candles did you light? Best wishes also for the upcoming finale - 30 April (my favorite). Say hello to Dolf for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jacques sheete

    So much pity for the Belgians and so little for the Irish.
     
    And even less for the Ethiopians and Sudanese, not to mention the victims of King Leopold's "Belgian" Congo.

    It’s Hobson’s choice, but better Leopold II than Tippu Tip.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Sam Shama says:
    @jacques sheete

    Germany was the aggressor...
     
    You state that as if it were a fact. In fact the concept is glib, fatuous, and wrong and exposes both ignorance and bias.

    If you want your comments to carry any weight here, you'll need to do some homework.

    Immersing yourself in an emulsion of obscure revisionism and then assuming a preachy tone is the glibber of our respective positions.

    There were numerous reasons for WW I, and the immediate causes have to include two key ones: (1) Arms race had begun in earnest in the 20th cen. and Germany was at the very forefront with the heaviest preparedness/mobilisation for war [ see e.g., jacques sheete

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • utu says:
    @jilles dykstra
    His lunacy was best demonstrated when he ordered the British fleet to destroy the Ottoman forts on the Dardanelles.
    Thereafter Australian and New Zealand troops shed blood in the useless effort of Gallipoli.

    Not until the Casablanca conference Churchill realised the trap Roosevelt had laid for him
    Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet’, Paris, 2004
    De Gaulle never yielded to Roosevelt.

    Nevertheless Churchill refused the peace offer of Hess:
    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002

    Poor Germans and Germany. So easily out-conspired by the evil Anglo-Americans and manipulated to do exactly what was expected by their enemies. There should be some special protections extended over Germans just like we protect children against the abuse and manipulations by adults. Perhaps something could be done in UN so it never happens again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Immersing yourself in an emulsion of obscure revisionism and then assuming a preachy tone is the glibber of our respective positions.

    Bla bla bla…

    What does the so called “obscurity” have to do with anything? Preachy tone? Are you the only one allowed the privilege? Why?

    Your breezy dismissal of revisionism is glibber jabber, and I suspect you know it. It, along with your attempted scolding and hypocrisy ( yeah, I know yer “special,” etc…) can be pretty funny at times tho…

    Thanks for the laughs, but now you can just go away since you obviously have nothing of substance to offer!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @solontoCroesus
    Germany used Lenin as a weapon

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDdYv3knOFI

    Nice video.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @HdC
    Well, my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above.

    Now then, it is indeed possible since English is my second language, that I seriously misread or misunderstood what I was reading. Highly unlikely, but possible.

    Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. Your choice. HdC

    Let me say straight away HdC I regret the intemperate conclusion to my previous post. A regrettable impulse. I apologize.

    “my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above” What am I missing? What books? I applaud your English btw, kudos. It’s just the content (of lack) I regret. What books?

    “Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. “

    I have many kin that did “live during those times under discussion” in Belgium and France, as well as American soldiers who fought in both conflict(s) HdC. You make many assumptions. Defensive? My education has nothing to do with it. You failed to provide your fabled “rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor.” Still waiting. Not holding my breath.

    You also failed to address WW1 chronology. The first declarations of war were issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions were launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium and spend four years destroying northern France.

    What do you think HdC? Is it you who have surrounded yourself with merde de cheval/ Pherdeschieße?

    Read More
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @HdC
    Since you ask politely I'll re-list the books I mentioned. I added two I just thought of.

    1) The Pity of War
    2) Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    3) The Myth of German Villainy
    4) Witness to History
    5) Other Losses
    6) Icebreaker

    It's in one of these books I learned about the rues of war...

    You will note that not one book is by a German author. HdC

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Irrelevance to others' points as too often. My point about the 1913 births and the WW1 losses was merely to make the point that Hitler had, in the 30s a population of males of military age that was again large enough to allow him to use military force.

    You seem at a glance to be denying any relevance to the idea of feared German hegemony. History provided plenty of precedents justifying fear of what ambitious rulers of expanding populations might do in Europe. German hegemony? What about Charlemagne? What about the possible aspiration in the name "Holy Roman Empire"? The threat of Spain to Elizabethan England had been real and a came close to success. Why did the (until 19th century small though rich) balance-of-power country insist on the preservation of the Low Countries as a buffer? If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union and the US hadn't entered the war what chance is there that Germany couldn't have defeated the UK or at least made it give up colonies and limit its navy?

    Actually no chance at all as Germany had no navy to speak of and zero sealift capacity. For Germany a near land-locked country, to have colonies was of no account as she couldn’t keep them as WW1 made clear when her overseas empire was quickly devoured. Nor was there ever any possibility of German hegemony over Europe. Nor do any of your absurd examples suggest anything that would have justified US intervention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    See #168 - intended ss reply to your #147
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    A lot of interesting detail but, surely, two blind spots.

    One is the too common moralistic treating of International Law as if it were closely comparable to domestic law when itis very unlike it, as a slight acquaintamce with both should remind you. Cf. Someone with standing (who?) seeking an injunction by a court (which?) agsinst the German authorities in Belgium executing Nurse Efith Cavell and handing the court order to a sheriff to serve and enforce.

    More simply, who can't see the fifference between building up pressure which forces people to make tough decisions on the one hand, and, on the other, grabbing a few people at random to shoot so that everyone else will be frightened into immediate obedience or surrender? Consider: if proud and dangerous Hillbilly Henry was on the run and holed up with his weapons in his farmhouse with wife and ten children do you just cut off sll supplies and patiently let the pressure build up over a week or do you grab two of the children who were found in a barn and kill one of them in front of the homestead and threaten to kill the other if Henry doesn't surrender immediately? Yes, I can quibble too, but I would like to think you would get the point.

    BTW didn't the Kaiser have the choice of cutting soldiers'rations to prevent death by starvation at home?

    Those Americans at the time who saw a difference between a country whose desire to impose its will on fellow Europeans could be measured by the small size of its totally volunteer army in comparison to the militarised Kaiserreich with its vast conscript army backed by a fertility rate only matched in Russia surely got it right.

    The army rations were cut. Plus the army confiscated food from the conquered areas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    the Declaration of London. . .was signed by all major countries that would fight in World War I, but it would only be ratified by the United States. Although Britain played a major role in the Conference, and the House of Commons would ratify the Declaration, the House of Lords rejected it on the grounds that it was unfair to major sea powers. . . . .

    Very soon, [Britain engaged in] seizing all goods that were helpful to its enemies, which would ultimately encompass preventing food from reaching the German civilian population. This was an obvious effort to starve the German people into submission–essentially Britain was making war on the civilian population, the prevention of which was a fundamental reason for having rules of warfare. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted that its purpose was to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.’”[
     

    Churchill had over a century of precedent behind him: the British had caused or provoked famines that decimated civilian populations under their control beginning at least in 1770, with the Bengal famine that killed as many as 10 million Indian subjects of the British empire.
    https://www.versobooks.com/books/2311-late-victorian-holocausts

    The Germans suffered fiercely -- but invisibly, if the volumes of histories of that era are consulted. Of the few that do treat the German famine, the great service rendered by C Paul Vincent's The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 is to highlight the generations-long after-effects of the experience of witnessing starvation or of suffering critical malnourishment. Vincent's slim volume makes it possible to understand why the German people and NSDAP leadership were intent of securing agricultural lands protected from the possibility of a repeat of the British blockade; and why German policies emphasized family creation and incentivized reproduction and parenthood through social programs that included improved new housing (for which Herbert Hoover congratulated Hitler) and other family-friendly government policies and expenditures.
    (See Ralph Raico's review of "Politics of Hunger" here: https://mises.org/files/rae3120pdf/download? token=MH8R8KxH


    An even more invisible World War I-era British-caused famine caused the deaths of as many as 10 million Iranians between 1917 and 1919. http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2197/8-10-million-Iranians-died-over-Great-Famine-caused-by-the-British
    Iran was a neutral in that war, but the British used Iran as their source for food supplies for their troops, and as transit of troops and materiel to battles against Ottoman empire as well as European theatre campaigns. Mohammad Gholi Majd authored the essential book on that event -- The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 , which made of Iran the nation that suffered the greatest losses of any other state in The Great War.

    Churchill kept true to his (un)natural proclivities for starving to death people whom he considered life unworthy of life by participating in blocking Herbert Hoover's efforts to relieve the German famine; and some two decades later by presiding over the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 --

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill

    ---

    a note to OldGeezer: awhile ago you commended several Catholic colleges, and also Hillsdale College, for incorporating Christian and Constitutional values training in their educational tradition. Hillsdale has many fine programs to its credit, but its president, Larry Arnn, is so besotted with Churchill that it undermines all the other structures on the Hillsdale foundation. Arnn's early years as an "ambitious" and bright academic saw him working in depth in the Churchill archives in Britain. Perhaps he was over-exposed and excessively rewarded for his work to the point that he failed to realize he was rummaging about in the tracings of a moral monster.

    Don’t forget 300 years of off and on famine in Ireland. Here are a few of the laws. Irish Catholics forbidden to fish in rivers and lakes. Forbidden to own more than 2 cows or 5 pigs. Deported to the far west which was infertile sand at the time. The Irish had to make earth with decades of mixing seaweed with the sand.

    But the people who really suffered were the English working classes including the farm workers. By the time of the boer war the army had to reduce the height minimum down to 5ft 3, astonishingly short for grown men
    In fact during WWs 1&2 the Americans French Italians Germans and Russians were surprised at how tiny the English enlisted men were.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Despite my first Australian ancestor having been an Irish Catholic (rebel?) convict I hadn't heard of the repeated famines or the prohibitions you mention. Famines (plural) seems hard to reconcile with the extraordinary fertility and population growth of Ireland before the 1840s potato blight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @jacques sheete

    What was the Zimmerman telegram?
     
    I highly suspect and wouldn't be surprised to find that it was a forgery, courtesy of Brit propagandists.

    As I recall, my high school history book stated clearly that it could have been a hoax to get us into the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • fnn says:

    Austria had a pretty big casus belli and Germany felt obliged to stand by its ally:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/a-conspiracy-theory/?highlight=%22black+hand%22

    Preventing a confrontation in the Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia required that the government of Prime Minister Pašić curb Dimitrijević’s terrorism. Given Dimitrijević’s resources and ruthlessness, Pašić had very little room for political maneuver. He faced a grave risk if he tried to prevent Dimitrijević’s campaign of terrorism in Bosnia. Dimitrijević was quite capable of carrying out a coup against Pašić’s government. Intimidated by Dimitrijević, Pašić became what amounted to a tacit co-conspirator in the terrorism directed against Austria-Hungary.

    Austria presented him the July Ultimatum, written together with the envoys of the German ambassadors in such a vein which pro-Serbians claim that no country could accept it. After extensive consultations in country itself and formidable pressure from outside to accept it, Pašić told the Austrian ambassador Giesl (who had already packed his bags) that Serbia accepts all the ultimatum demands except that Austrian police can independently travel throughout Serbia and conduct its own investigation. This refusal confirmed to Austria that the Serbian government, at least indirectly via the “Black Hand”, lay behind the assassination which was thus seen as a declaration of war against Austria in all except words. Austria-Hungary aswered by formally declaring war on Serbia on 28 July 1914, playing right into the hands of Serbia who could now count on support from Russia in the quest for Bosnia-Herzegovina. World War One had started.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for the reference/reminder. Perhaps it is hard to condemn the Austrians, Kaiser and German generals more than George "Mission Accomplished" Bush for malevolent foolishness except that the disaster for America didn't involve starving citizens within 4 years and the problems of debt and declining power will not really hit for 25 years from stupid mistake No.1.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @jilles dykstra
    Churchill destroyed the British empire.
    Freedom of expression is demonstrated by that the original english version of the book was never published:

    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005

    Translated: The destruction of the British empire, Roosevelt - Churchill and the USA's road to world power

    I don’t see Churchill as destroying the British Empire, though his efforts against the Germans in two phases, against Roosevelt and against the Indians were failures. But they were mere pimples on the course of accelerating history. After all the British Empire was most unusual if not altogether unprecedented in important respects. On top of bringing modernity to much of the world in the post-Malthusian age of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment it was almost done by confidence trick given the very small numbers of Brits compared to natives involved. It was only a matter of time. Rewriting history wouldn’t one set India on a carefully planned path to independence about 1900 to1940 and Africa about 1940 to 2000?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    Don't forget 300 years of off and on famine in Ireland. Here are a few of the laws. Irish Catholics forbidden to fish in rivers and lakes. Forbidden to own more than 2 cows or 5 pigs. Deported to the far west which was infertile sand at the time. The Irish had to make earth with decades of mixing seaweed with the sand.

    But the people who really suffered were the English working classes including the farm workers. By the time of the boer war the army had to reduce the height minimum down to 5ft 3, astonishingly short for grown men
    In fact during WWs 1&2 the Americans French Italians Germans and Russians were surprised at how tiny the English enlisted men were.

    Despite my first Australian ancestor having been an Irish Catholic (rebel?) convict I hadn’t heard of the repeated famines or the prohibitions you mention. Famines (plural) seems hard to reconcile with the extraordinary fertility and population growth of Ireland before the 1840s potato blight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Get a guest card at the nearest university library, ask the reference librarian for a history of Ireland 1550 to 1900 list of books and start reading. Maybe begin with the occupations forbidden to the Catholics; basically everything but landless tenant farmer. Then read about the restrictions on animal breeding.

    There is a lot of information around that's not on Wikepedia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @fnn
    I wouldn't post this if Brits and Anglophiles weren't so commonly guilty of over -the- top self-righteousness:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
     
    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    I’m skeptical. Why beat thousands when it’s so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It’s hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.

    And the mess!!!!! The executioners would have to wear protective clothing, goggles and masks. Or just underpants and shower right afterwards and apply disinfectant. Think of the mess. Blood, brains, organs and bladder and intestinal contents all over the place. I suppose the 10 year old children of the victims were the clean up crew.

    Special instruments for testicles maybe but for nipple torture? Plus the researcher is a woman and therefore a hard left anti White propagandist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Is that you, Professor Faurisson?
    , @fnn

    I’m skeptical. Why beat thousands when it’s so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It’s hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.
     
    Assuming it's true, they were probably trying to get information and also get them to denounce/recant the Mau-Mau oaths. I don't think the Kikuyu had a concept akin to Taqiyya
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Despite my first Australian ancestor having been an Irish Catholic (rebel?) convict I hadn't heard of the repeated famines or the prohibitions you mention. Famines (plural) seems hard to reconcile with the extraordinary fertility and population growth of Ireland before the 1840s potato blight.

    Get a guest card at the nearest university library, ask the reference librarian for a history of Ireland 1550 to 1900 list of books and start reading. Maybe begin with the occupations forbidden to the Catholics; basically everything but landless tenant farmer. Then read about the restrictions on animal breeding.

    There is a lot of information around that’s not on Wikepedia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I shall aspire. In the meantime would you care to clear up my puzzle about the famines and population growth. How did they compare with "famines" elsewhere BTW? I remember a speaker on AGW with a mathematical background saying tbat immemirial India had massive famines every 60 years or so - but that's in a monsoonal country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • HdC says:
    @Incitatus
    Let me say straight away HdC I regret the intemperate conclusion to my previous post. A regrettable impulse. I apologize.

    “my insight into the situation under debate comes from reading the books, and others, that I mentioned earlier, above” What am I missing? What books? I applaud your English btw, kudos. It’s just the content (of lack) I regret. What books?

    “Since you did not live during those times under discussion, you obtained your education, or rather the lack thereof, by absorbing the claptrap that you surround yourself with. “

    I have many kin that did “live during those times under discussion” in Belgium and France, as well as American soldiers who fought in both conflict(s) HdC. You make many assumptions. Defensive? My education has nothing to do with it. You failed to provide your fabled “rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor.” Still waiting. Not holding my breath.

    You also failed to address WW1 chronology. The first declarations of war were issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions were launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium and spend four years destroying northern France.

    What do you think HdC? Is it you who have surrounded yourself with merde de cheval/ Pherdeschieße?

    Since you ask politely I’ll re-list the books I mentioned. I added two I just thought of.

    1) The Pity of War
    2) Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    3) The Myth of German Villainy
    4) Witness to History
    5) Other Losses
    6) Icebreaker

    It’s in one of these books I learned about the rues of war…

    You will note that not one book is by a German author. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Thanks HdC. Haven’t read celebrity Ferguson, Bradberry, or Walsh but note them. I don’t recall Buchanan mentioning mobilization trumping a declaration of war. This is what you said in #31:

    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    These are the events:
    • 28 Jun 1914 - Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinates Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 - Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the iron gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;

    Russia mobilized two days after Austria-Hungary declared war. Was Russia supposed to ignore the declaration of war? By your logic Austria-Hungary and Germany, first to declare war and invade, weren’t aggressors? Germany invaded Luxembourg - was Germany mobilized? They declared war on France a day later. Germany, having invaded a country and declared war, wasn’t an aggressor?

    Back up to 1909, when Germany and Austria-Hungary hold their first general staff conference since 1896. German Chief of Staff Generaloberst Helmuth von Moltke tells his Austrian counterpart General Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf he wishes they had gone to war in 1908 “when conditions for Austria and Germany would have been better than they would be in a few years time.” A few years later (May 1914) on Moltke meets Conrad von Hötzendorf at Karlsbad and tells him “All postponement [of war] means a lessening of our chances” as Russia and France continue to rearm; Germany and Austria-Hungary renew their joint commitment to the Schlieffen Plan for Germany to defeat Belgium and France in six weeks, then join Austria-Hungary in taking on Russia. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo a month later (28 Jun 1914). Golly.

    Let’s step further into the record of what happened after the 28 June assassination:

    • 01 Jul 1914 - German envy Viktor Naumann tells Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos (Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold’s chief of staff) Austria-Hungary should ask for unstinting German support “to annihilate Serbia” and “The sooner Austria-Hungary goes to war, the better; yesterday was better than today and today is better than tomorrow”; Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold tells German Foreign Secretary Gottlieb von Jagow Berlin and Vienna need to “rip apart the cords that our enemies are weaving into a net around us”;
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos arrives in Berlin as Berchtold’s special envoy and tells German Foreign Office Undersecretary Arthur Zimmermann Vienna’s goals: the assassination will be used “to fabricate a pretext for settling accounts with Serbia”, which will be partitioned by Austria and it’s Balkan neighbors and essentially “wiped off the map”; A-H Ambassador Count László Szögyén-Marich meets Wilhelm II at Potsdam and promises “to eliminate Serbia as a power-political factor in the Balkans”; he secures Wilhelm II’s support for military action against Serbia (the ‘blank check’); Wilhelm II tells Szögyén-Marich he “would be saddened if advantage was not taken of such a favorable juncture as the present one” for war, then departs for his annual North Sea cruise;
    • 06 Jul 1914 - Germany again assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support in the event it attacks Serbia and urges it to respond ‘quickly and with determination’; German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg urges attack even if “action against Serbia will lead to a world war”;

    What do you think HdC? Did Helmuth and Franz pine for war? Each was paid to make war (just as our staff is). Evident in the record, each was also a sublime blockhead in a rotten empire, and both were sponsored by two major nitwits: Wilhelm II and Franz-Joseph I. Both of them wanted war (it would unite their dissolving empires - nothing better than war to garner patriotic support). Who takes credit for killing more of their own subjects HdC? As well as millions of others?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @jilles dykstra
    Concentration camps were a British invention of the Boer War.
    Many women and children died of hunger and disease, their farms burnt down.
    The men were deported to islands like Ceylon.
    Many never returned.
    Who is interested in 19th century British horror:

    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud

    Concentration camps, like what was done in Malaysia to succesfully combat the (Chinese) Communist insurgency in the 40s and 50s, don’t intrinsically deserve the connotation that WW2 conferred on them.

    That said, I suggest that the best that can be said for the British and British Empire was that it led the way amongst large and powerful nations (leave aside Switzerland and the Scandinavians as too small) to the possibility of some of the good side of human nature portrayed in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs coming to the fore just because of the growth in prosperity (especially for the increasingly influential middle classes) and Britain’s additional blessing of being protected by the sea and its navy. You will see that I have omitted any reference to Christianity. Should I not have? (Missionaries in the Empire: good or bad or just ppart of the mix?). My inclination is to regard religion as following as much as leading in general. True Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery was a Christian evangelical movement in the richest most dynamic country in Europe. But I suspect the Jesuits might have been as effective if their home countries had not lagged Britain in modernity/prosperity. And why exactly can one be so sure that Muslim countries were not due to abolish slavery any time in the forseeable future? Chicken and egg? No, I shall content myself with a Marxistic preference for regarding religion as following the means of production and its related sequelae….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    Get a guest card at the nearest university library, ask the reference librarian for a history of Ireland 1550 to 1900 list of books and start reading. Maybe begin with the occupations forbidden to the Catholics; basically everything but landless tenant farmer. Then read about the restrictions on animal breeding.

    There is a lot of information around that's not on Wikepedia.

    Thanks. I shall aspire. In the meantime would you care to clear up my puzzle about the famines and population growth. How did they compare with “famines” elsewhere BTW? I remember a speaker on AGW with a mathematical background saying tbat immemirial India had massive famines every 60 years or so – but that’s in a monsoonal country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    As I understand it, potatoes combined with the protein in milk and butter are extremely nutritious.
    They are also incredibly easy to grow.
    Actually after about 1650 when all Europeans began eating potatoes the population all over Europe soared.

    The no more than 2 cows per family was a starvation tactic. Cows don't give milk continuously. and they get too old to give milk. 2 cows can't supply enough protein for a family.
    If you're interested there are plenty of books on the subject.

    , @KA
    There was no reported famine in India before the arrival of the British in India.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • fnn says:
    @Alden
    I'm skeptical. Why beat thousands when it's so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It's hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.

    And the mess!!!!! The executioners would have to wear protective clothing, goggles and masks. Or just underpants and shower right afterwards and apply disinfectant. Think of the mess. Blood, brains, organs and bladder and intestinal contents all over the place. I suppose the 10 year old children of the victims were the clean up crew.

    Special instruments for testicles maybe but for nipple torture? Plus the researcher is a woman and therefore a hard left anti White propagandist.

    Is that you, Professor Faurisson?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    If he was, so what ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @conatus
    It is rarely mentioned but it seems to me the Germans lived in a bad neighborhood in Mittel Europa and could not afford to act as individualistically as their 'moral betters' in England(with their English Channel) and the US(with their Atlantic Ocean). Historically the Germans got slaughtered at Verden in 782 where 5000 Saxons(180,000 in today's demographics) got baptized in the name of the Prince of Peace and then got their heads chopped off by Charlemagne. Then in the early 1600s in the Thirty Years War, since Germany was a divided nation of many principalities, the Great powers of Sweden France and Spain had a field day fighting each other over the Prod/Catholic divide and along the way slaughtered a third of the male population of Germany.
    The result? If you live in the ghetto of middle Europe where your neighbor, who hates you, only lives across the river, you become Prussia "an army with a country" just to be left alone. They learned to be militarized by the simple necessity of wanting to be left alone. It is like living in Anacostia in DC, you have to be threatening merely to be left alone. It was their historical experience that equanimity and even tempered views result in the tribal massacres of Verden and the Thirty Years War.
    You can't afford the Pan Am smile of the suburbs if you live in the middle of Europe.

    Paul Gottfried brings up President Wilson’s Anglophilia, ethnic bonding, and his reaching out to the Brits by favoring the Anglos in the US and shunning the Germans in the US. Wilson, the Anglo-Saxon, admired Britain and was not enamored of the young upstart Hun on the continent. The Anglos ruled the day in American public relations in 1917 and the US changed history by coming into WW1 on the side of the Anglos. The Germans were winning the war but we tipped the scales and the result? The Versailles Lie, the Germans were starved into signing the guilt clause(the armistice was six months before the Treaty of Versailles) by the allies, and then….then Hitler came along to lead the pissed off Germans down the road to Ragnarok in WW2.
    I also think one of the unmentioned causes the US population went with the Brits is the Germans were as bad at public relations as the Scotch-Irish in Ulster, those stubborn Prods, who sing songs like,”You don’t like us? We don’t care.” That is not a way to sway US public opinion.There is a German American building on 3rd and Penn on Capitol Hill but you would never know it. It is engraved in stone over the door but that is something we don't want to talk about.
    So during the pivotal 1916-17 period the Germans naively thought truth would carry the day.
    It didn’t, and here we are living Hitler’s revenge, slowly simmering and soon to stew like a frog in our home-made frying-pan of guilt.

    The German tribe of Frank’s led by their king Grossekarl slaughtered 5,000 warriors of the German tribe of Saxons at Verdun.

    200 years before that massacre, German Saxons invaded Celtic England and slaughtered every Celt east of the Severn&Wye rivers.

    The 30 years war began when German Protestant nobles used their religion as an excuse to rebel against the Catholic German King of German Bohemia.

    Spain only fought to hold on to what is now Belgium which was Spanish territory.
    France funded Protestant leaders but didn’t send any troops. Sweden did attempt to conquer north eastern Germany and even Poland. Sweden was the only non German country that did much fighting. Swedish behavior was terrible.

    But Germans began it and fought it and no other country can be blamed. There is also the fact that Germany did not exist at the time. It was dozens of German ethnic countries fighting each other.

    Wasn’t the 7 years war (1750s) against France the first war Prussia fought against a non German country?

    No European country is innocent. Maybe if the Germans had not been so busy killing each other they could have fought off the Swedes and saved millions of lives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • fnn says:
    @Alden
    I'm skeptical. Why beat thousands when it's so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It's hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.

    And the mess!!!!! The executioners would have to wear protective clothing, goggles and masks. Or just underpants and shower right afterwards and apply disinfectant. Think of the mess. Blood, brains, organs and bladder and intestinal contents all over the place. I suppose the 10 year old children of the victims were the clean up crew.

    Special instruments for testicles maybe but for nipple torture? Plus the researcher is a woman and therefore a hard left anti White propagandist.

    I’m skeptical. Why beat thousands when it’s so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It’s hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.

    Assuming it’s true, they were probably trying to get information and also get them to denounce/recant the Mau-Mau oaths. I don’t think the Kikuyu had a concept akin to Taqiyya

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Kikuyu came out on top after the British left. I was being sarcastic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @fnn
    I wouldn't post this if Brits and Anglophiles weren't so commonly guilty of over -the- top self-righteousness:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
     
    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    “Sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick”

    Whoever made up this tale forgot the dilator and funnel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes ot does sound like someone too febrile and excited to write down hos sick fantasy in full. Of course, as during most of the Raj in India, killings and cruelty would have been carried out by other natives
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Yes that does sound like someone too febrile and excited to write down his sick fantasy in full. Of course, as during most of the Raj in India, killings and cruelty would have been carried out by other natives though the British working class soldier was not a natural humanitarian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @HdC
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, will be your view of history if you rely on comic books, Hollywood, or court historians for your information.

    Why not try some real books such as The Pity of War, Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War, Witness to History, The Myth of German Culpability, etc. HdC

    How has Hollywood advanced this view? And comic books: are there any dealing with the Great War?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @fnn

    I’m skeptical. Why beat thousands when it’s so much easier and cleaner to walk them to an already dug mass grave and shoot them.

    It’s hard to beat people to death. It takes a long time and the executioners have to keep checking and beating all over again.
     
    Assuming it's true, they were probably trying to get information and also get them to denounce/recant the Mau-Mau oaths. I don't think the Kikuyu had a concept akin to Taqiyya

    The Kikuyu came out on top after the British left. I was being sarcastic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I shall aspire. In the meantime would you care to clear up my puzzle about the famines and population growth. How did they compare with "famines" elsewhere BTW? I remember a speaker on AGW with a mathematical background saying tbat immemirial India had massive famines every 60 years or so - but that's in a monsoonal country.

    As I understand it, potatoes combined with the protein in milk and butter are extremely nutritious.
    They are also incredibly easy to grow.
    Actually after about 1650 when all Europeans began eating potatoes the population all over Europe soared.

    The no more than 2 cows per family was a starvation tactic. Cows don’t give milk continuously. and they get too old to give milk. 2 cows can’t supply enough protein for a family.
    If you’re interested there are plenty of books on the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It is easy to forget how much attitudes can change in a short period, and quite often policies and practices too. And ìt isn't even a short period between Cromwell's day and the impeachment of Warren Hastings so I would be interested to know when the AngloBrits stopped the sort of oppression you cite. I note that there was an Irish Parliament till 1800 so the story is obviously a bit complicated. (I have vague memories of the Navigation acts).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Clark Westwood
    I think two things are beyond serious dispute:

    1. Germany was the initial aggressor and actively sought war. Regardless of provocations by England and others, Germany didn't have to go to war. It had other options -- options that (in hindsight) were actually better, since war turned out to be a disaster for Germany.

    2. The U.S. didn't enter the war because of the Lusitania or German sub tactics more generally.

    I'm also convinced that the U.S. had no good reason for entering the war, and that without U.S. participation, there's a very good chance that the Depression and WWII would not have happened.

    How King Edward VII Started World War I

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    He died in 1910 4 years before WW1 began. His parents and teachers considered him retarded. His only interests in life were adultery, clothes and fashion, food and social life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @jilles dykstra
    I miss the allegation that the Lusitania, by a low speed, may have deliberately invited being torpedoed, that Churchill openly hoped for a catastrophe, and that the ship sank so fast, causing the loss of life, because coal dust exploded in the nearly empty bunkers, ripping open the sides of the ship far below the water line.

    The circumstances surrounding the sinking of R.M.S. LUSITANIA are debatable to this day. The British government still hasn’t released documents pertaining to the liner’s last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .

    Was LUSITANIA “set up,” so to speak? Was her course and speed calculated to take her into a known U-boat patrol area? Was she denied a destroyer escort? The First Lord of the Admiralty, one Winston Churchill, was anxious for an incident that would get America into the war.

    LUSITANIA was carrying munitions–rifle ammo, artillery shell casings, and possibly other stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    O. Larson: 'The British government still hasn’t released documents pertaining to the liner’s last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .'

    Not so odd when one considers the sheer amount of documents the Brits disappeared with or simply destroyed.
    Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor write about this;

    Over the last 100 years facts have been twisted and falsified by court historians. Members of the Secret Elite took exceptional care to remove traces of their conspiracy, and letters, telegrams, official reports and cabinet minutes which would have revealed the truth have disappeared. Letters to and from Alfred Milner were removed, burned or otherwise destroyed. Incriminating letters sent by King Edward were subject to an order that, on his death, they must be destroyed immediately.19 Lord Nathan Rothschild, a founder member of the Secret Elite, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but “wonder how much of the Rothschild’s political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity.”20
    [...]
    There was a systematic conspiracy by the British government to cover all traces of its own devious machinations. Official memoirs covering the origins of the war were carefully scrutinised and censored before being released. Cabinet records for July 1914 relate almost exclusively to Ireland, with no mention of the impending global crisis. No effort has been made to explain why crucial records are missing. In the early 1970s, the Canadian historian Nicholas D’Ombrain noted that War Office records had been “weeded.” During his research he realised that as much as five-sixths of “sensitive” files were removed as he went about his business.22 Why? Where did they go? Who authorised their removal? Were they sent to Hanslope Park, the government repository behind whose barbed-wire fences over 1.2 million secret files, many relating to the First World War, remain concealed today?23 Incredibly, this was not the worst episode of theft and deception.
    Herbert Hoover, the man who fronted the Belgian Relief Commission and was later the 31st President of America, was closely linked to the Secret Elite. They gave him the important task of removing incriminating evidence from Europe, while dressing it in a cloak of academic respectability.[...]
    What has been hidden or destroyed will never be known, and it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents: documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. Why?
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Wizard of Oz
    Irrelevance to others' points as too often. My point about the 1913 births and the WW1 losses was merely to make the point that Hitler had, in the 30s a population of males of military age that was again large enough to allow him to use military force.

    You seem at a glance to be denying any relevance to the idea of feared German hegemony. History provided plenty of precedents justifying fear of what ambitious rulers of expanding populations might do in Europe. German hegemony? What about Charlemagne? What about the possible aspiration in the name "Holy Roman Empire"? The threat of Spain to Elizabethan England had been real and a came close to success. Why did the (until 19th century small though rich) balance-of-power country insist on the preservation of the Low Countries as a buffer? If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union and the US hadn't entered the war what chance is there that Germany couldn't have defeated the UK or at least made it give up colonies and limit its navy?

    OK, suppose Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union in 1941 and Japan not complicated matters, or Hitler had simply consolidated control of what was alreaďy conquered and made a longer term deal with Stalin, how long would it have taken him to defeat the Brits in North Africa and, with submarine warfare and a renewed Blitz forced the Brits into effective submission well before he built or otherwise acquired a dominant navy? No doubt he would have made propitiatory concessions just as Britain didn’t insist on keeping all its conquests of the Seven Years War but that would have been all. Obviously the pre WW1 situation differed but it differed, apart from the Kaiser not being quite as barbaric as Hitler, mostly in the fact that Germany was well on the way to building a navy big enough to allow the invasion of Britain from a German controlled Continent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • L.K says:
    @Joe Levantine
    Excellent post to which I would add that Germany's great guilt was its industrial and commercial success that was the envy of the decadent British Empire.

    Exactly. Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, authors of the book ‘Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War’, which I mentioned above, wrote in an article:

    Our research proves that the true origins of the war are to be found not in Germany, but in England. In the late nineteenth century a secret society of immensely rich and powerful men was established in London with the stated aim of expanding the British Empire across the entire world. They deliberately caused the South African War of 1899–1902 in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold from the Boers. Their responsibility for that war, and the horror of British concentration camps in which 20,000 children died,3 have been airbrushed from official histories. The second stage of their global plan was the destruction of the rapidly developing industrial and economic competitor, Germany.

    The authors refer to these men as the ‘Secret Elite’, and they functioned much like ZUSA’s ‘Deep State’ does today. They go on to say:

    ‘But in the early years of the twentieth century there was a serious challenger[to British world hegemony]. If the Secret Elite were to achieve their dream of world domination, the first step had to be the removal of the upstart German competitor and destruction of her industrial and economic prowess. This presented considerable strategic difficulty. Friendless in her isolation, Britain could never destroy Germany on her own. As an island nation her strength lay in her all-powerful navy. Friendship and alliances were required. “It would have been impossible for Britain to have defeated Germany by itself. Therefore, it needed the large French army and the even larger Russian army to do most of the fighting on the continent.”11[...] Put simply, the Secret Elite required others to undertake much of their bloody business, for war against Germany would certainly be bloody.

    One can easily notice the parallels between how the Secret Elite operated and how the Zionist cabal operates nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I think the term "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" just about covers it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    As I understand it, potatoes combined with the protein in milk and butter are extremely nutritious.
    They are also incredibly easy to grow.
    Actually after about 1650 when all Europeans began eating potatoes the population all over Europe soared.

    The no more than 2 cows per family was a starvation tactic. Cows don't give milk continuously. and they get too old to give milk. 2 cows can't supply enough protein for a family.
    If you're interested there are plenty of books on the subject.

    It is easy to forget how much attitudes can change in a short period, and quite often policies and practices too. And ìt isn’t even a short period between Cromwell’s day and the impeachment of Warren Hastings so I would be interested to know when the AngloBrits stopped the sort of oppression you cite. I note that there was an Irish Parliament till 1800 so the story is obviously a bit complicated. (I have vague memories of the Navigation acts).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Irish parliament consisted of what were called Anglo Irish Protestants or the Protestant ascendancy or invading English colonizers who became known as the Anglo Irish It existed to oppress the native Irish Irish Catholics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • L.K says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    The circumstances surrounding the sinking of R.M.S. LUSITANIA are debatable to this day. The British government still hasn't released documents pertaining to the liner's last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .

    Was LUSITANIA "set up," so to speak? Was her course and speed calculated to take her into a known U-boat patrol area? Was she denied a destroyer escort? The First Lord of the Admiralty, one Winston Churchill, was anxious for an incident that would get America into the war.

    LUSITANIA was carrying munitions--rifle ammo, artillery shell casings, and possibly other stuff.

    O. Larson: ‘The British government still hasn’t released documents pertaining to the liner’s last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .’

    Not so odd when one considers the sheer amount of documents the Brits disappeared with or simply destroyed.
    Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor write about this;

    Over the last 100 years facts have been twisted and falsified by court historians. Members of the Secret Elite took exceptional care to remove traces of their conspiracy, and letters, telegrams, official reports and cabinet minutes which would have revealed the truth have disappeared. Letters to and from Alfred Milner were removed, burned or otherwise destroyed. Incriminating letters sent by King Edward were subject to an order that, on his death, they must be destroyed immediately.19 Lord Nathan Rothschild, a founder member of the Secret Elite, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but “wonder how much of the Rothschild’s political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity.”20
    [...]
    There was a systematic conspiracy by the British government to cover all traces of its own devious machinations. Official memoirs covering the origins of the war were carefully scrutinised and censored before being released. Cabinet records for July 1914 relate almost exclusively to Ireland, with no mention of the impending global crisis. No effort has been made to explain why crucial records are missing. In the early 1970s, the Canadian historian Nicholas D’Ombrain noted that War Office records had been “weeded.” During his research he realised that as much as five-sixths of “sensitive” files were removed as he went about his business.22 Why? Where did they go? Who authorised their removal? Were they sent to Hanslope Park, the government repository behind whose barbed-wire fences over 1.2 million secret files, many relating to the First World War, remain concealed today?23 Incredibly, this was not the worst episode of theft and deception.
    Herbert Hoover, the man who fronted the Belgian Relief Commission and was later the 31st President of America, was closely linked to the Secret Elite. They gave him the important task of removing incriminating evidence from Europe, while dressing it in a cloak of academic respectability.[...]
    What has been hidden or destroyed will never be known, and it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents: documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    To this day the peace proposals with which Hess flew in Mai 1941 to Scotland, the count he met in 1937 in Berlin at the Olympic games, have not been published.
    Historians speculate that they no longer exist.

    The flying boat accident in Scotland, with a body too many, in 1943 has never been explained.
    What the destination was, why a brother of the British king was on board, what the flying boat was doing over land, where it should never have flown.
    The speculation was that it was on its way to neutral Sweden, Hess on board, where peace between GB and Germany would be announced, both Hitler and Churchill stepping down.

    The USA Spandau doctor published a book that the Hess there was not the real Hess.
    Gorbatchow did not know he condemned the Spandau man to death when he wanted the release of the Spandau man.
    Was he the real Hess or not, had he talked, WWII history would have been rewritten.

    Senator Nye in 1938, his investigation into why the USA in 1917 entered the war militarily, discovered the diplomatic correspondence between the USA and GB on the 1917 Balfour declaration.
    After WWII GB and the USA agreed that the British Official Secrets act would be also applicable to USA correspondence.
    The Nye discovery of the Balfour declaration, the suspicion has always been that GB was blackmailed into this declaration, one can find in the published diaries of Harold L Ickes.

    After Pearl Harbour Nye left politics.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Even the published Neurenberg records are not complete, De Zaya's discovered.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    "Sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick"

    Whoever made up this tale forgot the dilator and funnel.

    Yes ot does sound like someone too febrile and excited to write down hos sick fantasy in full. Of course, as during most of the Raj in India, killings and cruelty would have been carried out by other natives

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    "Sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick"

    Whoever made up this tale forgot the dilator and funnel.

    Yes that does sound like someone too febrile and excited to write down his sick fantasy in full. Of course, as during most of the Raj in India, killings and cruelty would have been carried out by other natives though the British working class soldier was not a natural humanitarian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @anon
    Actually no chance at all as Germany had no navy to speak of and zero sealift capacity. For Germany a near land-locked country, to have colonies was of no account as she couldn't keep them as WW1 made clear when her overseas empire was quickly devoured. Nor was there ever any possibility of German hegemony over Europe. Nor do any of your absurd examples suggest anything that would have justified US intervention.

    See #168 – intended ss reply to your #147

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @fnn
    Austria had a pretty big casus belli and Germany felt obliged to stand by its ally:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/a-conspiracy-theory/?highlight=%22black+hand%22

    Preventing a confrontation in the Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia required that the government of Prime Minister Pašić curb Dimitrijević’s terrorism. Given Dimitrijević’s resources and ruthlessness, Pašić had very little room for political maneuver. He faced a grave risk if he tried to prevent Dimitrijević’s campaign of terrorism in Bosnia. Dimitrijević was quite capable of carrying out a coup against Pašić’s government. Intimidated by Dimitrijević, Pašić became what amounted to a tacit co-conspirator in the terrorism directed against Austria-Hungary.
     

    Austria presented him the July Ultimatum, written together with the envoys of the German ambassadors in such a vein which pro-Serbians claim that no country could accept it. After extensive consultations in country itself and formidable pressure from outside to accept it, Pašić told the Austrian ambassador Giesl (who had already packed his bags) that Serbia accepts all the ultimatum demands except that Austrian police can independently travel throughout Serbia and conduct its own investigation. This refusal confirmed to Austria that the Serbian government, at least indirectly via the “Black Hand”, lay behind the assassination which was thus seen as a declaration of war against Austria in all except words. Austria-Hungary aswered by formally declaring war on Serbia on 28 July 1914, playing right into the hands of Serbia who could now count on support from Russia in the quest for Bosnia-Herzegovina. World War One had started.
     

    Thanks for the reference/reminder. Perhaps it is hard to condemn the Austrians, Kaiser and German generals more than George “Mission Accomplished” Bush for malevolent foolishness except that the disaster for America didn’t involve starving citizens within 4 years and the problems of debt and declining power will not really hit for 25 years from stupid mistake No.1.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sparkon
    Yes indeed: HdC recommends several history books for your edification, and you accuse him of having his view formed by bigotry and hatred, revealing your ignorant view of history, which is already on full display here with your original comment:

    Britain was a sideline player
    [...]
    The Versailles Treaty had very little to do with WW2
     
    Your ignorance, I fear, is possibly quite beyond remedy, but at least try to wade through Amanda's comment above, where she quotes Freedman:

    "It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
    [...]
    Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.
    [...]
    the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”
     
    Along with everyone else, author Stephen Sniegoski should know that the Sussex wasn't sunk, but that non-event was just one of the smears directed against the Germans, who were being demonized--inaccurately-- as "Huns."

    The usage of the term "Hun" to describe Germans resurfaced during World War II. For example, Winston Churchill 1941 said in a broadcast speech: "There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable...
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    It's nothing more, nothing less, than simple name-calling, 'effective as always, although these days, Hun-calling has been superseded by Hitler-calling, and unrestricted submarine warfare, as an accusation, has been preempted by use of weapons of mass destruction, and/or chemical warfare "on his own people."

    And finally, from your presumed ability to "read the real historical flow of events" please tell us: how did those 117 Jews secure a place, and a large voice, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919?

    Thanks for pointing out my error on the Sussex, which was torpedoed but not sunk. It was corrected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Yes, you're welcome. 'Good job getting it right. Now it's my turn.

    Elsewhere at UR, I had previously erroneously repeated what I'd read that Wilson had cited the Sussex in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress Requesting a Declaration of War Against Germany, on April 2, 1917, but in checking that speech, I find no mention of the Sussex in it. Wilson did say:


    The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.
     
    Wilson did talk about the Sussex in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on German Violations of International Law, about a year earlier on April 19, 1916:

    One of the latest and most shocking instances of this method of warfare was that of the destruction of the French cross-Channel steamer Sussex . It must stand forth, as the sinking of the steamer Lusitania did, as so singularly tragical and unjustifiable as to constitute a truly terrible example of the inhumanity of submarine warfare as the commanders of German vessels have for the past twelvemonth been conducting it.
     
    It's noteworthy that the U.S. Dept. of State Archive on American Entry into World War I, 1917, contains this passage:

    Germany's resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson's decision to lead the United States into World War I. Following the sinking of an unarmed French boat, the Sussex, in the English Channel in March 1916, Wilson had threatened to sever diplomatic relations with Germany, unless the German Government refrained from attacking all passenger ships, and allowed the crews of enemy merchant vessels to escape from their ships prior to any attack. On May 4, 1916, the German Government had accepted these terms and conditions in what came to be known as the "Sussex pledge."
     
    Finally, this link (below) has three images that are quite remarkable: one shows the Sussex with its bow blown away in port somewhere, and we also see the front page of the New York Tribune from March 27, 1916, with the headlines:

    Sussex Torpedoed, Says Embassy Report;
    Six Americans Injured, One Still Missing

    SAW WAKE OF TORPEDO SOME SURVIVORS SWEAR
    Channel Steamer Carried Neither Guns Nor Munitions--Day Clear, Sea Calm
    BELGIAN FREIGHTER SAID TO HAVE SCREENED U-BOAT
    One American Passenger Asserts That the Bow of the Ship Struck a Mine
    --No Periscope Seen

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/77731/wwi-centennial-sussex-torpedoed-rasputins-influence-grows

    Well, that was some pretty trick torpedo shooting to blow away the bow like that...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    It is easy to forget how much attitudes can change in a short period, and quite often policies and practices too. And ìt isn't even a short period between Cromwell's day and the impeachment of Warren Hastings so I would be interested to know when the AngloBrits stopped the sort of oppression you cite. I note that there was an Irish Parliament till 1800 so the story is obviously a bit complicated. (I have vague memories of the Navigation acts).

    The Irish parliament consisted of what were called Anglo Irish Protestants or the Protestant ascendancy or invading English colonizers who became known as the Anglo Irish It existed to oppress the native Irish Irish Catholics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "it existed to oppress..." A bit of an over simplification is it not given that it's existence began in the 13th century or so Wiki tells me?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @L.K
    O. Larson: 'The British government still hasn’t released documents pertaining to the liner’s last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .'

    Not so odd when one considers the sheer amount of documents the Brits disappeared with or simply destroyed.
    Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor write about this;

    Over the last 100 years facts have been twisted and falsified by court historians. Members of the Secret Elite took exceptional care to remove traces of their conspiracy, and letters, telegrams, official reports and cabinet minutes which would have revealed the truth have disappeared. Letters to and from Alfred Milner were removed, burned or otherwise destroyed. Incriminating letters sent by King Edward were subject to an order that, on his death, they must be destroyed immediately.19 Lord Nathan Rothschild, a founder member of the Secret Elite, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but “wonder how much of the Rothschild’s political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity.”20
    [...]
    There was a systematic conspiracy by the British government to cover all traces of its own devious machinations. Official memoirs covering the origins of the war were carefully scrutinised and censored before being released. Cabinet records for July 1914 relate almost exclusively to Ireland, with no mention of the impending global crisis. No effort has been made to explain why crucial records are missing. In the early 1970s, the Canadian historian Nicholas D’Ombrain noted that War Office records had been “weeded.” During his research he realised that as much as five-sixths of “sensitive” files were removed as he went about his business.22 Why? Where did they go? Who authorised their removal? Were they sent to Hanslope Park, the government repository behind whose barbed-wire fences over 1.2 million secret files, many relating to the First World War, remain concealed today?23 Incredibly, this was not the worst episode of theft and deception.
    Herbert Hoover, the man who fronted the Belgian Relief Commission and was later the 31st President of America, was closely linked to the Secret Elite. They gave him the important task of removing incriminating evidence from Europe, while dressing it in a cloak of academic respectability.[...]
    What has been hidden or destroyed will never be known, and it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents: documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. Why?
     

    To this day the peace proposals with which Hess flew in Mai 1941 to Scotland, the count he met in 1937 in Berlin at the Olympic games, have not been published.
    Historians speculate that they no longer exist.

    The flying boat accident in Scotland, with a body too many, in 1943 has never been explained.
    What the destination was, why a brother of the British king was on board, what the flying boat was doing over land, where it should never have flown.
    The speculation was that it was on its way to neutral Sweden, Hess on board, where peace between GB and Germany would be announced, both Hitler and Churchill stepping down.

    The USA Spandau doctor published a book that the Hess there was not the real Hess.
    Gorbatchow did not know he condemned the Spandau man to death when he wanted the release of the Spandau man.
    Was he the real Hess or not, had he talked, WWII history would have been rewritten.

    Senator Nye in 1938, his investigation into why the USA in 1917 entered the war militarily, discovered the diplomatic correspondence between the USA and GB on the 1917 Balfour declaration.
    After WWII GB and the USA agreed that the British Official Secrets act would be also applicable to USA correspondence.
    The Nye discovery of the Balfour declaration, the suspicion has always been that GB was blackmailed into this declaration, one can find in the published diaries of Harold L Ickes.

    After Pearl Harbour Nye left politics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @L.K
    O. Larson: 'The British government still hasn’t released documents pertaining to the liner’s last voyage, including certain signals from the Admiralty. Odd, that, 102 years after the event. . . .'

    Not so odd when one considers the sheer amount of documents the Brits disappeared with or simply destroyed.
    Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor write about this;

    Over the last 100 years facts have been twisted and falsified by court historians. Members of the Secret Elite took exceptional care to remove traces of their conspiracy, and letters, telegrams, official reports and cabinet minutes which would have revealed the truth have disappeared. Letters to and from Alfred Milner were removed, burned or otherwise destroyed. Incriminating letters sent by King Edward were subject to an order that, on his death, they must be destroyed immediately.19 Lord Nathan Rothschild, a founder member of the Secret Elite, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but “wonder how much of the Rothschild’s political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity.”20
    [...]
    There was a systematic conspiracy by the British government to cover all traces of its own devious machinations. Official memoirs covering the origins of the war were carefully scrutinised and censored before being released. Cabinet records for July 1914 relate almost exclusively to Ireland, with no mention of the impending global crisis. No effort has been made to explain why crucial records are missing. In the early 1970s, the Canadian historian Nicholas D’Ombrain noted that War Office records had been “weeded.” During his research he realised that as much as five-sixths of “sensitive” files were removed as he went about his business.22 Why? Where did they go? Who authorised their removal? Were they sent to Hanslope Park, the government repository behind whose barbed-wire fences over 1.2 million secret files, many relating to the First World War, remain concealed today?23 Incredibly, this was not the worst episode of theft and deception.
    Herbert Hoover, the man who fronted the Belgian Relief Commission and was later the 31st President of America, was closely linked to the Secret Elite. They gave him the important task of removing incriminating evidence from Europe, while dressing it in a cloak of academic respectability.[...]
    What has been hidden or destroyed will never be known, and it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents: documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. Why?
     

    Even the published Neurenberg records are not complete, De Zaya’s discovered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Not to mention the forgeries.
    Military historian Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0
    The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This led to a different discoloring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost, gone...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @fnn
    Is that you, Professor Faurisson?

    If he was, so what ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Joke
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Abdul Alhazred
    How King Edward VII Started World War I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0

    He died in 1910 4 years before WW1 began. His parents and teachers considered him retarded. His only interests in life were adultery, clothes and fashion, food and social life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Rassinier is for me the French gas chamber denier, he still lives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @fnn
    I wouldn't post this if Brits and Anglophiles weren't so commonly guilty of over -the- top self-righteousness:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
     
    The usual response is that Africans like to tell elaborate and grisly tall tales. You mean like Jews who claim to be Holocaust victims? :) :)

    I just noticed anal rape with snakes. LOL
    How’s that supposed to work?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Agent76 says:

    Apr 23, 2017 G. Edward Griffin: Exposing The Creature From Jekyll Island

    G. Edward Griffin, the author of the seminal book on the formation of the Federal Reserve, The Creature of Jekyll Island, joins the podcast this week to add his perspective to our ongoing critical examination of the Fed and the impact its actions are having on society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • fnn says:
    @jilles dykstra
    If he was, so what ?

    Joke

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    The Irish parliament consisted of what were called Anglo Irish Protestants or the Protestant ascendancy or invading English colonizers who became known as the Anglo Irish It existed to oppress the native Irish Irish Catholics.

    “it existed to oppress…” A bit of an over simplification is it not given that it’s existence began in the 13th century or so Wiki tells me?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Irish parliament of which Wikepedia wrote consisted of indegenous Irish. In the late 1500s the indegenous Irish Catholics were forbidden from holding office in parliament or any where else.

    So from then on the Irish parliament consisted of English and Scots Protestant immigrants.

    Wikepedia is for 6th graders. If you want to learn about Irish history you need to read college level history books. You seem totally unaware of the colonization of the indegenous Catholic Irish by English Protestants starting in the 1550s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    and

    "Well, my insight into the situation under debate ..."


    are somewhat different in meaning. The first statement clearly speaks of "rules of war", which is a concrete idea; deeply flawed, but concrete, nevertheless; whereas the second refers to your "insights."

    So, to reiterate Incitatus' point, can you please pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly "rule" you've unearthed?

    pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly “rule” you’ve unearthed?

    If we ever get into those safe deposit boxes, all will be revealed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Oh, certainly all will be revealed indeed!

    These revisionist works are at best built upon shaky circumstantial arguments, not evidence (Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, Quigley) and at worst nothing more than sensationalist penny dreadfuls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    He died in 1910 4 years before WW1 began. His parents and teachers considered him retarded. His only interests in life were adultery, clothes and fashion, food and social life.

    Rassinier is for me the French gas chamber denier, he still lives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I meant the King of England, Victoria's son Edward 6 who died in 1910. Never heard of Rassinier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • L.K says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Even the published Neurenberg records are not complete, De Zaya's discovered.

    Not to mention the forgeries.
    Military historian Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.

    The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This led to a different discoloring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost, gone…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • L.K says:
    @Agent76
    *All Wars Are Bankers' Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    https://youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4

    Feb 16, 2017 Nullify Chapter 18: Taking on the Federal Reserve

    There are four steps states can take to protect themselves from the Federal Reserve, and restore sound money. We’ll cover the first two, next.

    https://youtu.be/oVLIvNpmyis

    Hey Agent76,
    Michael Rivero is largely correct, there are other reasons, but the banksters are a big part of the problem.
    Michaels article for those who wish to read it;

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#axzz4dLBpjyEN

    Personally I’d like to see many of these banksters lined up against a wall and shot…
    Anyway, if you haven’t yet, pick up a copy of Ellen H. Brown’s excellent ‘The Web of Debt’, and thanks for the links.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    This is my favorite share on this topic of Banking. A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

    Which Corporations Control the World?

    http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/

    Nov 19, 2011 SF Fed admits a private corporation, pay dividends!

    David Haynie: "I had a really quick question, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco specifically, is that formed as a private corporation itself?" David Lang: "Ah yes it is actually. yes our state chartered banks, banks under a charter share that and we pay a dividend on those shares."

    https://youtu.be/UOEOa9iraeI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • L.K says:

    Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor cover the British Deep State’s strategy to control the state from behind the curtains and manipulate it for wars of Empire, including their desired war to destroy Germany. What is remarkable I think, are the similarities, in fact, the continuity of tactics used by said British Secret Elite and the current Zio-US Deep State’s strategies. A carbon copy. They write:

    Victorian England sat confidently at the pinnacle of international power, but could it stay there forever? That was the question exercising serious debate in the great country houses and smoke-filled parlours of influence. The elites harboured a deep rooted fear that unless they acted decisively, British power and influence across the world would be eroded and replaced by foreigners, foreign business, foreign customs and laws. The choice was stark. Either take drastic steps to protect and further expand the British Empire, or accept that the new, burgeoning Germany might reduce it to a minor player on the world’s stage. In the years immediately after the Boer War, the decision was reached. The ‘Teutonic menace’ had to be destroyed. Not defeated, destroyed.
    The plan began with a multi-pronged attack on the democratic process. They would: (a) Wield power in administration and politics through carefully selected and compliant politicians in each of the major political parties; (b) Control British foreign policy from behind the scenes, irrespective of any change of government; (c) Draw into their ranks the increasingly influential press-barons to exercise influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and (d) Control the funding of university chairs, and completely monopolise the writing and the teaching of the history of their own time.6

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.
     
    can't resist the bullshit can you Sam.

    The fuse was lit by 50 years of Jews exploiting the German financial system (see The Jews in Germany, Eclectic Magazine, 1881, capped by war years of starvation.


    "But the most riveting account of Germany's conditions in early 1919 was offered by Keynes as the testimony of a member of one of Hoover's American missions. The account inspires images of the pictures Kathe Kollwitz sketched of undernourished children begging for food.

    "You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces with large dull eyes, overshadowed by huge, puffed rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints, the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema . . . 'You see this child here,' the physician in charge explained; 'it consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the pangs.' "
     

    -The Politics of Hunger, C Paul Vincent.

    It's not certain that that child had mastered Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche before he hid bread under his straw mattress.
    ---

    That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation that marked an entire nation, moreover, a nation that had afforded Jews security and prosperity for over a millennium:


    "The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of prolonged war. The Allied blockade cut off Germany's harbors and most of her land trade routes . . .War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germans off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance, by what became known as the "stab in the back." "

    ch. 3, "The Weapon Hitler Feared" [boycott], in The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black
     
    It's worth noting that Walter Rathenau was in charge of the German economy and domestic supply in the war years.

    He held senior posts in the Raw Materials Department of the War Ministry and became chairman of AEG upon his father's death in 1915. Rathenau played a key role in convincing the War Ministry to set up the War Raw Materials Department (KRA), of which he was put in charge from August 1914 to March 1915 and established the fundamental policies and procedures. His senior staff were on loan from industry. KRA focused on raw materials threatened by the British blockade, as well as supplies from occupied Belgium and France. It set prices and regulated the distribution to vital war industries. It began the development of Ersatzkaisertum raw materials, developing supply chains to bring peace and for regime change within Germany. KRA suffered many inefficiencies caused by the complexity and selfishness encountered from commerce, industry, and the government itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Rathenau
     
    Rathenau's assassination was, of course, marked down to rampant antisemitism; the failures of the organization he designed and ran were most certainly, most definitely not his fault.

    On the other hand, as Black explain in the continuation of ch. 3,


    "When Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracies. The Jews were not just a handy scapegoat. The paranoid Nazis believed in the legendary, almost supernatural economic power of the Jews."
     
    Those foolish, paranoid Nazis; wherever did they get the idea that international Jews wielded outsized economic power?

    Judea Declares War on Germany

    --
    Shove it down your wormhole, Sam. Jewish activities against Germany for decades inspires only disgust.

    Since you send me to Mr Keynes to garner support for your arguments, you ought at least read carefully what the man wrote regarding the economic conditions prevailing in Europe; of the critical increases in population across the Atlantic on both shores; of the precarious position of the continent vis-a-vis her ability feed her population and the approaching limits of the U.S to support her needs:

    When first the virgin soils of America came into bearing, the proportions of the population of those continents themselves, and consequently of their own local requirements, to those of Europe were very small. As lately as 1890 Europe had a population three times that of North and South America added together. But by 1914 the domestic requirements of the United states for wheat were approaching their production, and the date was evidently near when there would be an exportable surplus only in years of exceptionally favourable harvest. Indeed, the present domestic requirements of the United States are estimated at more than ninety percent of the average yield of the five years 1909–13. 4 At that time, however, the tendency towards stringency was showing itself, not so much in a lack of abundance as in a steady increase of real cost. That is to say, taking the world as a whole, there was no deficiency of wheat, but in order to call forth an adequate supply, it was necessary to offer a higher real price. The most favourable factor in the situation was to be found in the extent to which Central and Western Europe was being fed from the exportable surplus of Russia and Roumania.

    Even since 1914 the population of the United States has increased by seven or eight million. As their annual consumption of wheat per head is not less than six bushels, the pre-war scale of production in the United States would only show a substantial surplus over present domestic requirements in about one year out of five. We have been saved for the moment by the great harvests of 1918 and 1919, which have been called forth by Mr Hoover’s guaranteed price. But the United States can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely to raise by a substantial figure the cost of living in its own country, in order to provide wheat for a Europe which cannot pay for it.

    In short, Europe’s claim on the resources of the New World was becoming precarious; the law of
    diminishing returns was, at last, reasserting itself, and was making it necessary year by year for Europe to offer a greater quantity of other commodities to obtain the same amount of bread; and Europe, therefore, could by no means afford the disorganisation of any of her principal sources of supply.

    Much else might be said in an attempt to portray the economic peculiarities of the Europe of 1914. I have selected for emphasis the three or four greatest factors of instability – the instability of an excessive population dependent for its livelihood on a complicated and artificial organisation, the psychological instability of the labouring and capitalist classes, and the instability of Europe’s claim, coupled with the completeness of her dependence, on the food supplies of the New World.

    So, invoking Keynes indirectly through the words and images of a different scribe (Kollowitz), is mainly depicting the all too common landscape of Europe, waging yet another war induced by bellicosity never short in supply amongst the continent’s resplendent leadership. More to the point, Keynes’ economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany’s many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should’ve brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation…

    Once again, I note with little surprise the great leaps of contention you are very well known to make when presenting material unfavourable to you beloved Germania.

    Black’s writing did no such thing as you so cavalierly claimed; it is, on the other hand, an objective recounting of the insecure circumstances which Germany created and found herself in. In this respect, Black’s position is in perfect concordance with the diaries of Speer.

    Berthold Albert Speer had passionately championed the need for women to join the industrial endeavour (oh the very thought! Take the woman away from the hallowed task of birthing Wotan?!); protested the draft of skilled industrial workers into the armed forces; recommended a call for a truce, even surrender in January 1944 when Silesia was lost and thus 60 percent of German coal production. All of it filed away and ignored by Adolf, remarking [Guderian's notes]:

    “. . . I refuse to see anyone alone anymore . . . He [Speer] always has something unpleasant to say to me. I can’t bear that.”

    Rathenau:

    What point do you strive to make summoning Rathenau’s record, a deeply distinguished one, one might add?

    Walther Rathenau was a loyal German citizen who built one of the most successful German companies, AEG, and helped Germany during the blockade to manage her dwindling resources. He was beseeched by the republic to be its Foreign Minister. He did accept that responsibility and shepherded Germany through the Treaty of Rapallo with the nascent Soviet Union and Versailles, only to be assassinated by the extreme Right. The Right in Germany [including the military leadership corps] conveniently and absurdly blamed the Jews for their own failure to win the Spring Offensive, and precipitated Rathenau’s assassination. Many years later Rathenau’s assassin [one of them I think] saw the mistake of his actions [especially after he received a letter from Rathenau's mother forgiving him] and condemned the Nazis, stating something along the lines of ‘It is your philosophy that brought ruin to Germany in the past!’

    So, I recommend you traverse back to Earth via the wormhole which previously landed you in planet Germania.

    Lastly,

    I’m convinced Ernst “Putzi” Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other “Hitler” character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did — or who didn’t give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?

    So what precisely did you mean to call Hitler there, if not a tool in the hands of greater powers?

    Best

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I wonder at the lack of concern among the pro-German apologists for the starving Parisians of 1870.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    This is an astounding argument, Sam, and I'm looking forward to engaging with you on its merits or lack of same.
    Right now, though, I must tend to my duties -- one can't neglect clipping dividend coupons forever, doncha know.

    Later.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Many years later Rathenau’s assassin [one of them I think] saw the mistake of his actions [especially after he received a letter from Rathenau's mother forgiving him] and condemned the Nazis, stating something along the lines of ‘It is your philosophy that brought ruin to Germany in the past!’
     
    This heart warming redemption story may have been a journalistic fib.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.
     
    By the same logic, Germany did nothing more than what any powerful state would've done under the circumstance, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    The agenda of the Allies in firebombing German civilians was to destroy the working class essential to maintain German war production, and also as deliberate terror bombing of civilians in an attempt to destroy their morale. We know this from documents of the US Department of the Interior. From those same documents we know that Jewish architects and Jewish-run Hollywood studios collaborated fully and critically in the planning and implementation of that terror bombing campaign, to the point of targeting "infants in their cribs."

    Germany could not retaliate by bombing US workers and locations of manufacture of war materiel so they imprest Polish and Jewish workers in concentration camps to produce those goods.

    British signals intelligence was able to monitor almost all of the communication among German officers. Thousands of the messages British intelligence intercepted consisted of the news that "your wife and family were killed in firebombing," and "your parents died in last week's bombing raid."
    rs.

    Britain and her allies Germany did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Under the circumstances, the German military showed marked restraint and discipline: the Allies killed German civilians, while Germany only forced encamped persons to perform forced labor.

    There's an even larger irony: We've all heard Netanyahu bray, "Why didn't the Allies bomb Auschwitz?"
    In a meeting in Tel Aviv June 11, 1944, David Ben Gurion headed a committee that decided NOT to ask Allies to bomb Auschwitz, because they thought Auschwitz was a labor camp, where Jews were kept as forced laborers, and Ben Gurion and his committee "did not wish to be responsible for the death of a single Jew."
    Had those Jews remained in Germany rather than in Auschwitz, they may well have shared the fate of so many German civilians who were incinerated by Allied firebombers.
    Being sent to Auschwitz saved their lives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @roger in florida
    The British absolutely guaranteed freedom of navigation for all lawful purposes. Once war was on that obviously no longer applied.

    ” In 1918 the British War Cabinet, led by David Lloyd George and Alfred Balfour, was in the midst of negotiating what would become known as the Balfour Declaration with the World Zionist Organization (WZO). The British sought the support of world Jewry (which they mistakenly believed the WZO represented) for the Entente war effort in exchange for a British promise to support a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine if in fact the British were victorious.

    Specifically, (a) the British believed the WZO could facilitate entrance of the United States into the war through its influence with President Woodrow Wilson. And indeed, American Zionists such as Louis Brandeis did have access to the president. However, Wilson was determined to bring the U.S. into the war quite independently of Zionist wishes. Then, (b) the British were convinced that the WZO could prevent the Russian government (by that time under Soviet control) from leaving the war. This was based on the fact that Leon Trotsky was a Jew. But the British intelligence post at their Petrograd embassy informed the leaders in London that Trotsky was hostile to Zionism, seeing it as a divisive nationalist movement. It is here that intelligence information was ignored by Lloyd George and Balfour in favor of political wishful thinking – their firm, if fallacious, belief in Jewish world power.” Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester, PA.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/26/the-dilemma-for-intelligence-agencies/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Shama
    Since you send me to Mr Keynes to garner support for your arguments, you ought at least read carefully what the man wrote regarding the economic conditions prevailing in Europe; of the critical increases in population across the Atlantic on both shores; of the precarious position of the continent vis-a-vis her ability feed her population and the approaching limits of the U.S to support her needs:

    When first the virgin soils of America came into bearing, the proportions of the population of those continents themselves, and consequently of their own local requirements, to those of Europe were very small. As lately as 1890 Europe had a population three times that of North and South America added together. But by 1914 the domestic requirements of the United states for wheat were approaching their production, and the date was evidently near when there would be an exportable surplus only in years of exceptionally favourable harvest. Indeed, the present domestic requirements of the United States are estimated at more than ninety percent of the average yield of the five years 1909–13. 4 At that time, however, the tendency towards stringency was showing itself, not so much in a lack of abundance as in a steady increase of real cost. That is to say, taking the world as a whole, there was no deficiency of wheat, but in order to call forth an adequate supply, it was necessary to offer a higher real price. The most favourable factor in the situation was to be found in the extent to which Central and Western Europe was being fed from the exportable surplus of Russia and Roumania.

    Even since 1914 the population of the United States has increased by seven or eight million. As their annual consumption of wheat per head is not less than six bushels, the pre-war scale of production in the United States would only show a substantial surplus over present domestic requirements in about one year out of five. We have been saved for the moment by the great harvests of 1918 and 1919, which have been called forth by Mr Hoover’s guaranteed price. But the United States can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely to raise by a substantial figure the cost of living in its own country, in order to provide wheat for a Europe which cannot pay for it.

    In short, Europe’s claim on the resources of the New World was becoming precarious; the law of
    diminishing returns was, at last, reasserting itself, and was making it necessary year by year for Europe to offer a greater quantity of other commodities to obtain the same amount of bread; and Europe, therefore, could by no means afford the disorganisation of any of her principal sources of supply.

    Much else might be said in an attempt to portray the economic peculiarities of the Europe of 1914. I have selected for emphasis the three or four greatest factors of instability - the instability of an excessive population dependent for its livelihood on a complicated and artificial organisation, the psychological instability of the labouring and capitalist classes, and the instability of Europe’s claim, coupled with the completeness of her dependence, on the food supplies of the New World.
     
    So, invoking Keynes indirectly through the words and images of a different scribe (Kollowitz), is mainly depicting the all too common landscape of Europe, waging yet another war induced by bellicosity never short in supply amongst the continent's resplendent leadership. More to the point, Keynes' economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany's many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should've brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would've done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation...

    Once again, I note with little surprise the great leaps of contention you are very well known to make when presenting material unfavourable to you beloved Germania.

    Black's writing did no such thing as you so cavalierly claimed; it is, on the other hand, an objective recounting of the insecure circumstances which Germany created and found herself in. In this respect, Black's position is in perfect concordance with the diaries of Speer.

    Berthold Albert Speer had passionately championed the need for women to join the industrial endeavour (oh the very thought! Take the woman away from the hallowed task of birthing Wotan?!); protested the draft of skilled industrial workers into the armed forces; recommended a call for a truce, even surrender in January 1944 when Silesia was lost and thus 60 percent of German coal production. All of it filed away and ignored by Adolf, remarking [Guderian's notes]:

    “. . . I refuse to see anyone alone anymore . . . He [Speer] always has something unpleasant to say to me. I can’t bear that.”

    Rathenau:

    What point do you strive to make summoning Rathenau's record, a deeply distinguished one, one might add?

    Walther Rathenau was a loyal German citizen who built one of the most successful German companies, AEG, and helped Germany during the blockade to manage her dwindling resources. He was beseeched by the republic to be its Foreign Minister. He did accept that responsibility and shepherded Germany through the Treaty of Rapallo with the nascent Soviet Union and Versailles, only to be assassinated by the extreme Right. The Right in Germany [including the military leadership corps] conveniently and absurdly blamed the Jews for their own failure to win the Spring Offensive, and precipitated Rathenau’s assassination. Many years later Rathenau’s assassin [one of them I think] saw the mistake of his actions [especially after he received a letter from Rathenau's mother forgiving him] and condemned the Nazis, stating something along the lines of ‘It is your philosophy that brought ruin to Germany in the past!’

    So, I recommend you traverse back to Earth via the wormhole which previously landed you in planet Germania.

    Lastly,

    I’m convinced Ernst “Putzi” Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other “Hitler” character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did — or who didn’t give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?
     
    So what precisely did you mean to call Hitler there, if not a tool in the hands of greater powers?


    Best

    I wonder at the lack of concern among the pro-German apologists for the starving Parisians of 1870.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    NapoleonIII should have thought about that possibility before he started a war.
    , @Sam Shama
    Quite so. Poor, poor Germany, always wronged, always forced into attacking first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    pass along the document which delineates this rather novel but silly “rule” you’ve unearthed?

    If we ever get into those safe deposit boxes, all will be revealed.

    Oh, certainly all will be revealed indeed!

    These revisionist works are at best built upon shaky circumstantial arguments, not evidence (Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, Quigley) and at worst nothing more than sensationalist penny dreadfuls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    I wonder at the lack of concern among the pro-German apologists for the starving Parisians of 1870.

    NapoleonIII should have thought about that possibility before he started a war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Absolutely true (though he had a little help from Bismarck)!

    And Wilhelm II and Franz-Joseph I should have thought about it in 1914. And Adolf should have thought about it in 1939.

    Go figure!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @HdC
    Since you ask politely I'll re-list the books I mentioned. I added two I just thought of.

    1) The Pity of War
    2) Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    3) The Myth of German Villainy
    4) Witness to History
    5) Other Losses
    6) Icebreaker

    It's in one of these books I learned about the rues of war...

    You will note that not one book is by a German author. HdC

    Thanks HdC. Haven’t read celebrity Ferguson, Bradberry, or Walsh but note them. I don’t recall Buchanan mentioning mobilization trumping a declaration of war. This is what you said in #31:

    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    These are the events:
    • 28 Jun 1914 – Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinates Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 23 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 – Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 – Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the iron gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 – Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;

    Russia mobilized two days after Austria-Hungary declared war. Was Russia supposed to ignore the declaration of war? By your logic Austria-Hungary and Germany, first to declare war and invade, weren’t aggressors? Germany invaded Luxembourg – was Germany mobilized? They declared war on France a day later. Germany, having invaded a country and declared war, wasn’t an aggressor?

    Back up to 1909, when Germany and Austria-Hungary hold their first general staff conference since 1896. German Chief of Staff Generaloberst Helmuth von Moltke tells his Austrian counterpart General Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf he wishes they had gone to war in 1908 “when conditions for Austria and Germany would have been better than they would be in a few years time.” A few years later (May 1914) on Moltke meets Conrad von Hötzendorf at Karlsbad and tells him “All postponement [of war] means a lessening of our chances” as Russia and France continue to rearm; Germany and Austria-Hungary renew their joint commitment to the Schlieffen Plan for Germany to defeat Belgium and France in six weeks, then join Austria-Hungary in taking on Russia. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo a month later (28 Jun 1914). Golly.

    Let’s step further into the record of what happened after the 28 June assassination:

    • 01 Jul 1914 – German envy Viktor Naumann tells Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos (Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold’s chief of staff) Austria-Hungary should ask for unstinting German support “to annihilate Serbia” and “The sooner Austria-Hungary goes to war, the better; yesterday was better than today and today is better than tomorrow”; Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold tells German Foreign Secretary Gottlieb von Jagow Berlin and Vienna need to “rip apart the cords that our enemies are weaving into a net around us”;
    • 05 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos arrives in Berlin as Berchtold’s special envoy and tells German Foreign Office Undersecretary Arthur Zimmermann Vienna’s goals: the assassination will be used “to fabricate a pretext for settling accounts with Serbia”, which will be partitioned by Austria and it’s Balkan neighbors and essentially “wiped off the map”; A-H Ambassador Count László Szögyén-Marich meets Wilhelm II at Potsdam and promises “to eliminate Serbia as a power-political factor in the Balkans”; he secures Wilhelm II’s support for military action against Serbia (the ‘blank check’); Wilhelm II tells Szögyén-Marich he “would be saddened if advantage was not taken of such a favorable juncture as the present one” for war, then departs for his annual North Sea cruise;
    • 06 Jul 1914 – Germany again assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support in the event it attacks Serbia and urges it to respond ‘quickly and with determination’; German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg urges attack even if “action against Serbia will lead to a world war”;

    What do you think HdC? Did Helmuth and Franz pine for war? Each was paid to make war (just as our staff is). Evident in the record, each was also a sublime blockhead in a rotten empire, and both were sponsored by two major nitwits: Wilhelm II and Franz-Joseph I. Both of them wanted war (it would unite their dissolving empires – nothing better than war to garner patriotic support). Who takes credit for killing more of their own subjects HdC? As well as millions of others?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    addendum:

    24 April 1915 Hundreds of Armenian civic leaders arrested in Constantinople

    25 April 1915 Beginning of Churchill's utterly foolish assault on Gallipoli. It would cost a million casualties in all. Among the key reasons the Gallipoli assault was planned and approved was the belief that the opposition was of grossly inferior ability and competence compared to superior British forces

    24 May 1915 foreign ministers of the Triple Entente issue a proclamation vowing that Young Turk leadership would be held responsible for "these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization"

    27 May 1915 In defiance, Turkish cabinet approves "Provisional Law of Relocation" which "authorized and compelled the army to crush in the most severe way" any sign of resistance or aggression among the population, with "power to transfer and relocate population . . ."

    June 2015: the first survivors of the Armenian death march reach Aleppo, "a way station toward their destination, the "relocation zone" of Deir al-Zour."

    Turkish leader Gemal Pasha orders that Armenian survivors be fed and sheltered in Aleppo

    Fast forward:

    09 Jan 2017 U.S. Commandos Kill Midlevel ISIS Leader in Syria [at Deir al-Zour] "Deir al-Zour, an oil-rich province that borders Iraq, is largely under Islamic State control and has been the focus of American-led airstrikes and other military action.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/politics/us-syria-isis.html?_r=0

    14 Jan 2017: Dozens dead in IS attack on Deir al-Zour
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38622553

    17 Jan 2017 IS assault halts Deir al-Zour aid drops
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38649214

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Agent76 says:
    @L.K
    Hey Agent76,
    Michael Rivero is largely correct, there are other reasons, but the banksters are a big part of the problem.
    Michaels article for those who wish to read it;
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#axzz4dLBpjyEN
    Personally I'd like to see many of these banksters lined up against a wall and shot...
    Anyway, if you haven't yet, pick up a copy of Ellen H. Brown's excellent 'The Web of Debt', and thanks for the links.

    This is my favorite share on this topic of Banking. A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

    Which Corporations Control the World?

    http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/

    Nov 19, 2011 SF Fed admits a private corporation, pay dividends!

    David Haynie: “I had a really quick question, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco specifically, is that formed as a private corporation itself?” David Lang: “Ah yes it is actually. yes our state chartered banks, banks under a charter share that and we pay a dividend on those shares.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @anonymous
    NapoleonIII should have thought about that possibility before he started a war.

    Absolutely true (though he had a little help from Bismarck)!

    And Wilhelm II and Franz-Joseph I should have thought about it in 1914. And Adolf should have thought about it in 1939.

    Go figure!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sam Shama says:
    @Anon
    I wonder at the lack of concern among the pro-German apologists for the starving Parisians of 1870.

    Quite so. Poor, poor Germany, always wronged, always forced into attacking first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Aryan themed culture (hubris?) of Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, an outlandish Frenchman, Gobineau, and an odd Englishman, H.S. Chamberlain.
     
    can't resist the bullshit can you Sam.

    The fuse was lit by 50 years of Jews exploiting the German financial system (see The Jews in Germany, Eclectic Magazine, 1881, capped by war years of starvation.


    "But the most riveting account of Germany's conditions in early 1919 was offered by Keynes as the testimony of a member of one of Hoover's American missions. The account inspires images of the pictures Kathe Kollwitz sketched of undernourished children begging for food.

    "You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces with large dull eyes, overshadowed by huge, puffed rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints, the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema . . . 'You see this child here,' the physician in charge explained; 'it consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the pangs.' "
     

    -The Politics of Hunger, C Paul Vincent.

    It's not certain that that child had mastered Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche before he hid bread under his straw mattress.
    ---

    That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation that marked an entire nation, moreover, a nation that had afforded Jews security and prosperity for over a millennium:


    "The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of prolonged war. The Allied blockade cut off Germany's harbors and most of her land trade routes . . .War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germans off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance, by what became known as the "stab in the back." "

    ch. 3, "The Weapon Hitler Feared" [boycott], in The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black
     
    It's worth noting that Walter Rathenau was in charge of the German economy and domestic supply in the war years.

    He held senior posts in the Raw Materials Department of the War Ministry and became chairman of AEG upon his father's death in 1915. Rathenau played a key role in convincing the War Ministry to set up the War Raw Materials Department (KRA), of which he was put in charge from August 1914 to March 1915 and established the fundamental policies and procedures. His senior staff were on loan from industry. KRA focused on raw materials threatened by the British blockade, as well as supplies from occupied Belgium and France. It set prices and regulated the distribution to vital war industries. It began the development of Ersatzkaisertum raw materials, developing supply chains to bring peace and for regime change within Germany. KRA suffered many inefficiencies caused by the complexity and selfishness encountered from commerce, industry, and the government itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Rathenau
     
    Rathenau's assassination was, of course, marked down to rampant antisemitism; the failures of the organization he designed and ran were most certainly, most definitely not his fault.

    On the other hand, as Black explain in the continuation of ch. 3,


    "When Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracies. The Jews were not just a handy scapegoat. The paranoid Nazis believed in the legendary, almost supernatural economic power of the Jews."
     
    Those foolish, paranoid Nazis; wherever did they get the idea that international Jews wielded outsized economic power?

    Judea Declares War on Germany

    --
    Shove it down your wormhole, Sam. Jewish activities against Germany for decades inspires only disgust.

    “That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.”

    Really s2c? What about the 85,700 Belgian civilians (1.16% of population – about the same percentage as those poor German waifs) killed in WW1. The difference? Belgium didn’t invade Germany, burn their historic libraries, burn civilian housing, expose dispelled civilians to death by exposure, and enact a program of retribution killing.

    Golly, s2c. Look at the Serbs – they (a much smaller nation) lost more civilians than Germany. Any tears for them? 27.78% of the Serb population died (Germany lost 4.32% total – civilian and military).

    You complain about the “starving child.” To be more exact, you mean the German “starving child.”

    Aren’t you trying to excuse the supreme incompetence of Wilhelm II and von Moltke, and Franz-Ferdinand I and Conrad von Hötzendorf ? After all, they declared war and invaded their neighbors. They forgot to secure their own food supplies. Tragic. Who’s fault was it? Those who declared war and invaded their neighbors? Or their victims?

    Actually, I enjoyed your post about French protected by Nazis from Allied air raids more. Was that the same s2c? Try to be creative. How about ‘German families’ or ‘patriotic working men’? How about Serbian working families saved by Wilhelm II? I’m sure you’ll come up with something good.

    I’ll close by wishing you the best on your recent holiday (20 April). How many candles did you light? Best wishes also for the upcoming finale – 30 April (my favorite). Say hello to Dolf for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Didn't the Germans burn the ancient library at Leige? What was the rational for that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Incitatus
    Thanks HdC. Haven’t read celebrity Ferguson, Bradberry, or Walsh but note them. I don’t recall Buchanan mentioning mobilization trumping a declaration of war. This is what you said in #31:

    “According to the rules of war at that time, whoever mobilizes first is the aggressor who started the war. And that would have been Russia and France. HdC”

    These are the events:
    • 28 Jun 1914 - Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinates Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 - Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the iron gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;

    Russia mobilized two days after Austria-Hungary declared war. Was Russia supposed to ignore the declaration of war? By your logic Austria-Hungary and Germany, first to declare war and invade, weren’t aggressors? Germany invaded Luxembourg - was Germany mobilized? They declared war on France a day later. Germany, having invaded a country and declared war, wasn’t an aggressor?

    Back up to 1909, when Germany and Austria-Hungary hold their first general staff conference since 1896. German Chief of Staff Generaloberst Helmuth von Moltke tells his Austrian counterpart General Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf he wishes they had gone to war in 1908 “when conditions for Austria and Germany would have been better than they would be in a few years time.” A few years later (May 1914) on Moltke meets Conrad von Hötzendorf at Karlsbad and tells him “All postponement [of war] means a lessening of our chances” as Russia and France continue to rearm; Germany and Austria-Hungary renew their joint commitment to the Schlieffen Plan for Germany to defeat Belgium and France in six weeks, then join Austria-Hungary in taking on Russia. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo a month later (28 Jun 1914). Golly.

    Let’s step further into the record of what happened after the 28 June assassination:

    • 01 Jul 1914 - German envy Viktor Naumann tells Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos (Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold’s chief of staff) Austria-Hungary should ask for unstinting German support “to annihilate Serbia” and “The sooner Austria-Hungary goes to war, the better; yesterday was better than today and today is better than tomorrow”; Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold tells German Foreign Secretary Gottlieb von Jagow Berlin and Vienna need to “rip apart the cords that our enemies are weaving into a net around us”;
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary Count Alexander Hoyos arrives in Berlin as Berchtold’s special envoy and tells German Foreign Office Undersecretary Arthur Zimmermann Vienna’s goals: the assassination will be used “to fabricate a pretext for settling accounts with Serbia”, which will be partitioned by Austria and it’s Balkan neighbors and essentially “wiped off the map”; A-H Ambassador Count László Szögyén-Marich meets Wilhelm II at Potsdam and promises “to eliminate Serbia as a power-political factor in the Balkans”; he secures Wilhelm II’s support for military action against Serbia (the ‘blank check’); Wilhelm II tells Szögyén-Marich he “would be saddened if advantage was not taken of such a favorable juncture as the present one” for war, then departs for his annual North Sea cruise;
    • 06 Jul 1914 - Germany again assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support in the event it attacks Serbia and urges it to respond ‘quickly and with determination’; German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg urges attack even if “action against Serbia will lead to a world war”;

    What do you think HdC? Did Helmuth and Franz pine for war? Each was paid to make war (just as our staff is). Evident in the record, each was also a sublime blockhead in a rotten empire, and both were sponsored by two major nitwits: Wilhelm II and Franz-Joseph I. Both of them wanted war (it would unite their dissolving empires - nothing better than war to garner patriotic support). Who takes credit for killing more of their own subjects HdC? As well as millions of others?

    addendum:

    24 April 1915 Hundreds of Armenian civic leaders arrested in Constantinople

    25 April 1915 Beginning of Churchill’s utterly foolish assault on Gallipoli. It would cost a million casualties in all. Among the key reasons the Gallipoli assault was planned and approved was the belief that the opposition was of grossly inferior ability and competence compared to superior British forces

    24 May 1915 foreign ministers of the Triple Entente issue a proclamation vowing that Young Turk leadership would be held responsible for “these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization”

    27 May 1915 In defiance, Turkish cabinet approves “Provisional Law of Relocation” which “authorized and compelled the army to crush in the most severe way” any sign of resistance or aggression among the population, with “power to transfer and relocate population . . .”

    June 2015: the first survivors of the Armenian death march reach Aleppo, “a way station toward their destination, the “relocation zone” of Deir al-Zour.”

    Turkish leader Gemal Pasha orders that Armenian survivors be fed and sheltered in Aleppo

    Fast forward:

    09 Jan 2017 U.S. Commandos Kill Midlevel ISIS Leader in Syria [at Deir al-Zour] “Deir al-Zour, an oil-rich province that borders Iraq, is largely under Islamic State control and has been the focus of American-led airstrikes and other military action.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/politics/us-syria-isis.html?_r=0

    14 Jan 2017: Dozens dead in IS attack on Deir al-Zour

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38622553

    17 Jan 2017 IS assault halts Deir al-Zour aid drops

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38649214

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    A pity to spoil interesting points with total rubbish. The UK's constitutional monarchy made it quite impossible for George V to do deals with cousin Wilhelm even if both had wished to and the Kaiser could have done more than he did in July 2014 to curb his Prussian generals.

    "Few Americans know that most English are German immigrants". What have you been smoking? Even if you mean that most are descended from Germanic immigrants/settlers/invaders of 1500 years ago that is impossible to reconcile with Brian Sykes's "DNA Map of the British Isles" which long ago made me wonder how it came about that we speak English.

    Maybe he meant the royal family are German. Or maybe he’s one of those Anglo Saxon romantics. There are a lot of them around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Incitatus
    “That starving child and the thousands like him was the motivating factor for Jews who declared an economic war on Germany in March 1933.”

    Really s2c? What about the 85,700 Belgian civilians (1.16% of population - about the same percentage as those poor German waifs) killed in WW1. The difference? Belgium didn’t invade Germany, burn their historic libraries, burn civilian housing, expose dispelled civilians to death by exposure, and enact a program of retribution killing.

    Golly, s2c. Look at the Serbs - they (a much smaller nation) lost more civilians than Germany. Any tears for them? 27.78% of the Serb population died (Germany lost 4.32% total - civilian and military).

    You complain about the “starving child.” To be more exact, you mean the German “starving child.”

    Aren’t you trying to excuse the supreme incompetence of Wilhelm II and von Moltke, and Franz-Ferdinand I and Conrad von Hötzendorf ? After all, they declared war and invaded their neighbors. They forgot to secure their own food supplies. Tragic. Who’s fault was it? Those who declared war and invaded their neighbors? Or their victims?

    Actually, I enjoyed your post about French protected by Nazis from Allied air raids more. Was that the same s2c? Try to be creative. How about ‘German families’ or ‘patriotic working men’? How about Serbian working families saved by Wilhelm II? I’m sure you’ll come up with something good.

    I’ll close by wishing you the best on your recent holiday (20 April). How many candles did you light? Best wishes also for the upcoming finale - 30 April (my favorite). Say hello to Dolf for me.

    Didn’t the Germans burn the ancient library at Leige? What was the rational for that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Germany sacked Leuven, an ancient university town, 25 Aug 1914. They burned the famous medieval library, killed about 300 civilians, destroyed 2,000 civilian dwellings, and expelled it’s entire population (10,000).

    They fired the library with petrol and incendiary pellets, destroying 230,000 volumes - including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, 750 medieval works, and more than 1000 printed prior to the 16C. The reason? Prussians having fun? Only the Germans know.

    The Germans shelled the same library, housed in a new building, 16 May 1940, setting it on fire and destroying nearly a million books. Practice makes perfect?

    5,500-6,500 Belgian civilians were shot in groups, mostly as retribution for suspected sabotage or lack of cooperation between August and November 1914. 23,700 civilians had been executed and another 62,000 died from famine, exposure (Germans excelled at burning houses), or disease by late 1918. Total Belgian civilian deaths would probably been far higher had not 300,000 refuges escaped to France, and another 200,000 to the UK.

    Germans, ever considerate, also conscripted Belgians as forced labor. 120,000 had been deported to work in Germany by 1918. Slavery anyone?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Rassinier is for me the French gas chamber denier, he still lives.

    I meant the King of England, Victoria’s son Edward 6 who died in 1910. Never heard of Rassinier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    "it existed to oppress..." A bit of an over simplification is it not given that it's existence began in the 13th century or so Wiki tells me?

    The Irish parliament of which Wikepedia wrote consisted of indegenous Irish. In the late 1500s the indegenous Irish Catholics were forbidden from holding office in parliament or any where else.

    So from then on the Irish parliament consisted of English and Scots Protestant immigrants.

    Wikepedia is for 6th graders. If you want to learn about Irish history you need to read college level history books. You seem totally unaware of the colonization of the indegenous Catholic Irish by English Protestants starting in the 1550s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not unaware but not at all informed in detail. Didn't the one English (i.e. Norman ) Pope in 1154 award Ireland to the English (i.e. Norman) kings? I don't know what the early post 1066 English incursions on Ireland were about except providing estates for the Normans (cf. Crusades, Sicily etc) but that no doubt gave the English an early start in assuming that they had to control Ireland. And in Elizabethan times the threat from Catholic Europe would no doubt have led to settlements of Scottish Protestants - mostly - as a measure of security. Cp. Serbian peasants planted to protect the Hapsburg empire from the Turks; and the West Bank settlements......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • KA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I shall aspire. In the meantime would you care to clear up my puzzle about the famines and population growth. How did they compare with "famines" elsewhere BTW? I remember a speaker on AGW with a mathematical background saying tbat immemirial India had massive famines every 60 years or so - but that's in a monsoonal country.

    There was no reported famine in India before the arrival of the British in India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not reported in the Pall Mall Gazette? Pull the other one. You must be relying on Wikipedia for which there are a million underemployed half educated none-too-bright young Indians to rewrite it as rubbish. My first search came up with "Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for India" doing nothing about a famine in 1770 (sic) which exhibits ignorance almost equal to yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sparkon says:
    @Stephen Sniegoski
    Thanks for pointing out my error on the Sussex, which was torpedoed but not sunk. It was corrected.

    Yes, you’re welcome. ‘Good job getting it right. Now it’s my turn.

    Elsewhere at UR, I had previously erroneously repeated what I’d read that Wilson had cited the Sussex in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress Requesting a Declaration of War Against Germany, on April 2, 1917, but in checking that speech, I find no mention of the Sussex in it. Wilson did say:

    The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.

    Wilson did talk about the Sussex in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on German Violations of International Law, about a year earlier on April 19, 1916:

    One of the latest and most shocking instances of this method of warfare was that of the destruction of the French cross-Channel steamer Sussex . It must stand forth, as the sinking of the steamer Lusitania did, as so singularly tragical and unjustifiable as to constitute a truly terrible example of the inhumanity of submarine warfare as the commanders of German vessels have for the past twelvemonth been conducting it.

    It’s noteworthy that the U.S. Dept. of State Archive on American Entry into World War I, 1917, contains this passage:

    Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I. Following the sinking of an unarmed French boat, the Sussex, in the English Channel in March 1916, Wilson had threatened to sever diplomatic relations with Germany, unless the German Government refrained from attacking all passenger ships, and allowed the crews of enemy merchant vessels to escape from their ships prior to any attack. On May 4, 1916, the German Government had accepted these terms and conditions in what came to be known as the “Sussex pledge.”

    Finally, this link (below) has three images that are quite remarkable: one shows the Sussex with its bow blown away in port somewhere, and we also see the front page of the New York Tribune from March 27, 1916, with the headlines:

    Sussex Torpedoed, Says Embassy Report;
    Six Americans Injured, One Still Missing

    SAW WAKE OF TORPEDO SOME SURVIVORS SWEAR
    Channel Steamer Carried Neither Guns Nor Munitions–Day Clear, Sea Calm
    BELGIAN FREIGHTER SAID TO HAVE SCREENED U-BOAT
    One American Passenger Asserts That the Bow of the Ship Struck a Mine
    –No Periscope Seen

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/77731/wwi-centennial-sussex-torpedoed-rasputins-influence-grows

    Well, that was some pretty trick torpedo shooting to blow away the bow like that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Alden
    The Irish parliament of which Wikepedia wrote consisted of indegenous Irish. In the late 1500s the indegenous Irish Catholics were forbidden from holding office in parliament or any where else.

    So from then on the Irish parliament consisted of English and Scots Protestant immigrants.

    Wikepedia is for 6th graders. If you want to learn about Irish history you need to read college level history books. You seem totally unaware of the colonization of the indegenous Catholic Irish by English Protestants starting in the 1550s.

    Not unaware but not at all informed in detail. Didn’t the one English (i.e. Norman ) Pope in 1154 award Ireland to the English (i.e. Norman) kings? I don’t know what the early post 1066 English incursions on Ireland were about except providing estates for the Normans (cf. Crusades, Sicily etc) but that no doubt gave the English an early start in assuming that they had to control Ireland. And in Elizabethan times the threat from Catholic Europe would no doubt have led to settlements of Scottish Protestants – mostly – as a measure of security. Cp. Serbian peasants planted to protect the Hapsburg empire from the Turks; and the West Bank settlements……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @KA
    There was no reported famine in India before the arrival of the British in India.

    Not reported in the Pall Mall Gazette? Pull the other one. You must be relying on Wikipedia for which there are a million underemployed half educated none-too-bright young Indians to rewrite it as rubbish. My first search came up with “Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for India” doing nothing about a famine in 1770 (sic) which exhibits ignorance almost equal to yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Salisbury is not the source we are going to rely on ,more so when he was writing in 1770 and also was being a spokesman for English depravities from 1749 to 1770
    , @KA
    No big mouth You have to do a better job in lying . Try to get a better source . You are worse than any of the half educated Indian .At least they edit for fun But you are paid to lie .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @L.K
    Exactly. Historians Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, authors of the book 'Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War', which I mentioned above, wrote in an article:

    Our research proves that the true origins of the war are to be found not in Germany, but in England. In the late nineteenth century a secret society of immensely rich and powerful men was established in London with the stated aim of expanding the British Empire across the entire world. They deliberately caused the South African War of 1899–1902 in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold from the Boers. Their responsibility for that war, and the horror of British concentration camps in which 20,000 children died,3 have been airbrushed from official histories. The second stage of their global plan was the destruction of the rapidly developing industrial and economic competitor, Germany.
     
    The authors refer to these men as the 'Secret Elite', and they functioned much like ZUSA's 'Deep State' does today. They go on to say:

    'But in the early years of the twentieth century there was a serious challenger[to British world hegemony]. If the Secret Elite were to achieve their dream of world domination, the first step had to be the removal of the upstart German competitor and destruction of her industrial and economic prowess. This presented considerable strategic difficulty. Friendless in her isolation, Britain could never destroy Germany on her own. As an island nation her strength lay in her all-powerful navy. Friendship and alliances were required. “It would have been impossible for Britain to have defeated Germany by itself. Therefore, it needed the large French army and the even larger Russian army to do most of the fighting on the continent.”11[...] Put simply, the Secret Elite required others to undertake much of their bloody business, for war against Germany would certainly be bloody.
     
    One can easily notice the parallels between how the Secret Elite operated and how the Zionist cabal operates nowadays.

    I think the term “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” just about covers it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    That's correct! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @Alden
    Didn't the Germans burn the ancient library at Leige? What was the rational for that?

    Germany sacked Leuven, an ancient university town, 25 Aug 1914. They burned the famous medieval library, killed about 300 civilians, destroyed 2,000 civilian dwellings, and expelled it’s entire population (10,000).

    They fired the library with petrol and incendiary pellets, destroying 230,000 volumes – including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, 750 medieval works, and more than 1000 printed prior to the 16C. The reason? Prussians having fun? Only the Germans know.

    The Germans shelled the same library, housed in a new building, 16 May 1940, setting it on fire and destroying nearly a million books. Practice makes perfect?

    5,500-6,500 Belgian civilians were shot in groups, mostly as retribution for suspected sabotage or lack of cooperation between August and November 1914. 23,700 civilians had been executed and another 62,000 died from famine, exposure (Germans excelled at burning houses), or disease by late 1918. Total Belgian civilian deaths would probably been far higher had not 300,000 refuges escaped to France, and another 200,000 to the UK.

    Germans, ever considerate, also conscripted Belgians as forced labor. 120,000 had been deported to work in Germany by 1918. Slavery anyone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Nothing that Germans did in Belgium was a war crime. In some circumstances it was legal according to all conventions (until past WWII) to execute civilians as a retribution. If it was not British propaganda would not have had to invent stories of Belgian babies being bayonetted by German soldiers.
    , @anon
    None of this meant that it was either wise or necessary for America to declare war.
    , @HdC
    In response let me relate my own experience of 2015.

    That summer my wife and I treated ourselves to the Rhine River cruise that began in Rotterdam and ended 2 weeks later in Budapest.

    In the Rotterdam harbour on a retaining wall was the inscription commemorating the 32,000 civilians that were "murdered" by the Nazis during their assault on Rotterdam.

    I was royally pissed at this inscription because I remembered reading in one of the books I cited above that, due to the resistance encountered during the invasion of Rotterdam the Luftwaffe bombed those areas necessary in support of the German ground assault. The death toll of this was reported at about 800 casualties.

    Everything, but everything that has to do with Germany and the two world wars, as reported by FORMER enemies and court historians, is either a blatant lie or exaggerated to the nth degree.
    HdC
    , @L.K
    Say, old fart, for a second there, as you bored us with your BS about huns killing civilians, exploiting folks, even 'slavery', I thought you were going to say something about the monstrous crimes in the Belgium Congo... nah, just some more of your usual shilling.
    If you weren't the miserable hypocrite, phoney, anti-German propagandist that you really are, you might even have something to say about how the Brit blockade was largely responsible for causing famine in Belgium. Unlike the situation in Belgium, the blockade constituted a direct war against civilians and was kept in place for another 8 months after the Armistice was signed at Compiègne!
    Also, someone who cared at least a little for the truth, not you of course, might consider the exact context of why poor little Belgium was invaded in the first place? Let's take a look, shall we, and I ain't writing any of this for you, to be clear.
    Historian Thomas Fleming, in 'the Illusion of Victory', writes:

    "In fact, Belgium was about as neutral as Scotland. The Belgian government had secret understandings with France and England.
    The Belgian border with Germany bristled with forts. On the French border, there were none.
    The country's official language was French, although half the population, the citizens of Flanders, spoke Flemish and had no great enthusiasm for France or French culture.
    When hostilities began, the Germans had asked Brussels for safe passage for their army and had guaranteed to pay for any damage to property as well as food or drink obtained en route.
    Neighboring Luxembourg had accepted these terms without a word of reproach."
     
    , @NoseytheDuke
    No doubt there was truly awful suffering by millions of innocents and millions of duped young people on all sides. We should never forget that 55,000,000 lives were lost at least in WWII, not 6,000,000. It beats me why the number we hear incessantly is 6 million and hardly ever 55 million.

    The article refers to WWI and I confess, I don't know offhand how many died in that conflict. We do know from records that both wars were planned, schemed is more like it, along with a third WW to complete an agenda of world domination. That is the pachyderm in the parlour without question.

    I am not an apologist for any kind of evil but would like to draw your attention to the fact that what happened did so due to propaganda, lots of it. The situation is becoming clear that the same methodology is again being used to foment wars.

    Instead of championing, however eloquently, the rehashed and embellished propaganda from the last century it would be refreshing to hear you identifying, exposing and undermining the current propaganda so that we could all live and disagree peacefully.
    , @fnn
    How to explain the completely pointless British invasion of Tibet by Younghusband and the slaughter of helpless Tibetans:
    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenanderson/adventure/page10.html

    In the autumn of 1903, the Tibetans arrested two, very minor spies from the town of Lachung, just across the Indian border in Sikkim. The incident was just what Curzon needed to persuade London that the intransigent Tibetans needed teaching a lesson.
     

    Some kind of engagement at Guru was inevitable. Two thousand Tibetan troops were waiting there, blocking the caravan trail, which the British had to follow if they were to get to Gyantse.

    The Tibetan general galloped up and told them to withdraw. Younghusband replied giving them 15 minutes to clear the way. A quarter of an hour passed, and nothing happened. Then, slowly the troops advanced until they were covering the Tibetans at point-blank range. Officers were taking photographs and the Daily Mail correspondent was already scribbling a dispatch describing a bloodless victory when Younghusband ordered the Sikhs to disarm the Tibetans. As the two forces wrestled with each other, the situation began to turn ugly. Then the Tibetan general fired a shot. Fighting broke out instantly. Volley after volley of British bullets crashed into the solid mass of Tibetans.

    The Maxims chattered vindictively. A young officer wrote home that night “I got so sick of the slaughter that I ceased to fire”.
    Worse still, the Tibetans did not flee. They walked slowly away, heads bowed, ignoring the bullets that continued to mow them down until nearly 900 were lying dead and wounded on the field. The British had six minor casualties.
     

    The Tibetans were armed only with matchlocks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sam Shama
    Since you send me to Mr Keynes to garner support for your arguments, you ought at least read carefully what the man wrote regarding the economic conditions prevailing in Europe; of the critical increases in population across the Atlantic on both shores; of the precarious position of the continent vis-a-vis her ability feed her population and the approaching limits of the U.S to support her needs:

    When first the virgin soils of America came into bearing, the proportions of the population of those continents themselves, and consequently of their own local requirements, to those of Europe were very small. As lately as 1890 Europe had a population three times that of North and South America added together. But by 1914 the domestic requirements of the United states for wheat were approaching their production, and the date was evidently near when there would be an exportable surplus only in years of exceptionally favourable harvest. Indeed, the present domestic requirements of the United States are estimated at more than ninety percent of the average yield of the five years 1909–13. 4 At that time, however, the tendency towards stringency was showing itself, not so much in a lack of abundance as in a steady increase of real cost. That is to say, taking the world as a whole, there was no deficiency of wheat, but in order to call forth an adequate supply, it was necessary to offer a higher real price. The most favourable factor in the situation was to be found in the extent to which Central and Western Europe was being fed from the exportable surplus of Russia and Roumania.

    Even since 1914 the population of the United States has increased by seven or eight million. As their annual consumption of wheat per head is not less than six bushels, the pre-war scale of production in the United States would only show a substantial surplus over present domestic requirements in about one year out of five. We have been saved for the moment by the great harvests of 1918 and 1919, which have been called forth by Mr Hoover’s guaranteed price. But the United States can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely to raise by a substantial figure the cost of living in its own country, in order to provide wheat for a Europe which cannot pay for it.

    In short, Europe’s claim on the resources of the New World was becoming precarious; the law of
    diminishing returns was, at last, reasserting itself, and was making it necessary year by year for Europe to offer a greater quantity of other commodities to obtain the same amount of bread; and Europe, therefore, could by no means afford the disorganisation of any of her principal sources of supply.

    Much else might be said in an attempt to portray the economic peculiarities of the Europe of 1914. I have selected for emphasis the three or four greatest factors of instability - the instability of an excessive population dependent for its livelihood on a complicated and artificial organisation, the psychological instability of the labouring and capitalist classes, and the instability of Europe’s claim, coupled with the completeness of her dependence, on the food supplies of the New World.
     
    So, invoking Keynes indirectly through the words and images of a different scribe (Kollowitz), is mainly depicting the all too common landscape of Europe, waging yet another war induced by bellicosity never short in supply amongst the continent's resplendent leadership. More to the point, Keynes' economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany's many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should've brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would've done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Edwin Black makes that connection, somehow unabashed to reveal, even boast, of the barbarity of Jews who are eager to play on the fear of starvation...

    Once again, I note with little surprise the great leaps of contention you are very well known to make when presenting material unfavourable to you beloved Germania.

    Black's writing did no such thing as you so cavalierly claimed; it is, on the other hand, an objective recounting of the insecure circumstances which Germany created and found herself in. In this respect, Black's position is in perfect concordance with the diaries of Speer.

    Berthold Albert Speer had passionately championed the need for women to join the industrial endeavour (oh the very thought! Take the woman away from the hallowed task of birthing Wotan?!); protested the draft of skilled industrial workers into the armed forces; recommended a call for a truce, even surrender in January 1944 when Silesia was lost and thus 60 percent of German coal production. All of it filed away and ignored by Adolf, remarking [Guderian's notes]:

    “. . . I refuse to see anyone alone anymore . . . He [Speer] always has something unpleasant to say to me. I can’t bear that.”

    Rathenau:

    What point do you strive to make summoning Rathenau's record, a deeply distinguished one, one might add?

    Walther Rathenau was a loyal German citizen who built one of the most successful German companies, AEG, and helped Germany during the blockade to manage her dwindling resources. He was beseeched by the republic to be its Foreign Minister. He did accept that responsibility and shepherded Germany through the Treaty of Rapallo with the nascent Soviet Union and Versailles, only to be assassinated by the extreme Right. The Right in Germany [including the military leadership corps] conveniently and absurdly blamed the Jews for their own failure to win the Spring Offensive, and precipitated Rathenau’s assassination. Many years later Rathenau’s assassin [one of them I think] saw the mistake of his actions [especially after he received a letter from Rathenau's mother forgiving him] and condemned the Nazis, stating something along the lines of ‘It is your philosophy that brought ruin to Germany in the past!’

    So, I recommend you traverse back to Earth via the wormhole which previously landed you in planet Germania.

    Lastly,

    I’m convinced Ernst “Putzi” Hansftaengel was to Hitler what Chalabi was to Saddam Hussein. Had Hitler not survived WWI, Putzi, or some other Putzi-like character, collaborator that he was to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt,** would have identified and groomed some other “Hitler” character.

    Furthermore, Did Hitler move 70 million Germans by the sheer force of his sole, singular, individual will with no other assistance, no backing, no financial support, not another German or group of Germans who believed as he did — or who didn’t give a fig what he believed but saw in Hitler a useful tool to carry out a much larger agenda than dupe (and doped-up) Hitler could conceive ?
     
    So what precisely did you mean to call Hitler there, if not a tool in the hands of greater powers?


    Best

    This is an astounding argument, Sam, and I’m looking forward to engaging with you on its merits or lack of same.
    Right now, though, I must tend to my duties — one can’t neglect clipping dividend coupons forever, doncha know.

    Later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Not reported in the Pall Mall Gazette? Pull the other one. You must be relying on Wikipedia for which there are a million underemployed half educated none-too-bright young Indians to rewrite it as rubbish. My first search came up with "Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for India" doing nothing about a famine in 1770 (sic) which exhibits ignorance almost equal to yours.

    Salisbury is not the source we are going to rely on ,more so when he was writing in 1770 and also was being a spokesman for English depravities from 1749 to 1770

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Saiisbury a "source"? "We"?

    I detect the young Indian totally unofficial hasbara. No good job offera in London or even back in Bengaluru or Ahmedabad but too pdoud to work in a caĺl center and polish precise communication.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • utu says:
    @Incitatus
    Germany sacked Leuven, an ancient university town, 25 Aug 1914. They burned the famous medieval library, killed about 300 civilians, destroyed 2,000 civilian dwellings, and expelled it’s entire population (10,000).

    They fired the library with petrol and incendiary pellets, destroying 230,000 volumes - including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, 750 medieval works, and more than 1000 printed prior to the 16C. The reason? Prussians having fun? Only the Germans know.

    The Germans shelled the same library, housed in a new building, 16 May 1940, setting it on fire and destroying nearly a million books. Practice makes perfect?

    5,500-6,500 Belgian civilians were shot in groups, mostly as retribution for suspected sabotage or lack of cooperation between August and November 1914. 23,700 civilians had been executed and another 62,000 died from famine, exposure (Germans excelled at burning houses), or disease by late 1918. Total Belgian civilian deaths would probably been far higher had not 300,000 refuges escaped to France, and another 200,000 to the UK.

    Germans, ever considerate, also conscripted Belgians as forced labor. 120,000 had been deported to work in Germany by 1918. Slavery anyone?

    Nothing that Germans did in Belgium was a war crime. In some circumstances it was legal according to all conventions (until past WWII) to execute civilians as a retribution. If it was not British propaganda would not have had to invent stories of Belgian babies being bayonetted by German soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “Nothing that Germans did in Belgium was a war crime. In some circumstances it was legal according to all conventions (until past WWII) to execute civilians as a retribution. “

    Really? Please enlighten us utu. What international law allowed illegal occupiers to round up innocents and shoot them for crimes they didn’t commit? We’d really like to know.

    Belgian WW1 figures stand for themselves. 85,700 civilians died - 23,700 of whom were executed by Huns. Why utu? What law permitted it? Please be specific.

    Was the same law in force when Allies bombed Dresden February ‘45? As I recall, you had real problems with the Nazi body count but couldn't find a source that would multiply the figures. Any luck?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @anon
    Salisbury is not the source we are going to rely on ,more so when he was writing in 1770 and also was being a spokesman for English depravities from 1749 to 1770

    Saiisbury a “source”? “We”?

    I detect the young Indian totally unofficial hasbara. No good job offera in London or even back in Bengaluru or Ahmedabad but too pdoud to work in a caĺl center and polish precise communication.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Incitatus says:
    @utu
    Nothing that Germans did in Belgium was a war crime. In some circumstances it was legal according to all conventions (until past WWII) to execute civilians as a retribution. If it was not British propaganda would not have had to invent stories of Belgian babies being bayonetted by German soldiers.

    “Nothing that Germans did in Belgium was a war crime. In some circumstances it was legal according to all conventions (until past WWII) to execute civilians as a retribution. “

    Really? Please enlighten us utu. What international law allowed illegal occupiers to round up innocents and shoot them for crimes they didn’t commit? We’d really like to know.

    Belgian WW1 figures stand for themselves. 85,700 civilians died – 23,700 of whom were executed by Huns. Why utu? What law permitted it? Please be specific.

    Was the same law in force when Allies bombed Dresden February ‘45? As I recall, you had real problems with the Nazi body count but couldn’t find a source that would multiply the figures. Any luck?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by Resistance movements (such as destroying entire towns and villages which were believed to have harboured or aided such resistance movements).

    The Lieber Code of 1863

    Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution. Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the interne- cine war of savages.

     


    Oxford Manual (Manual), adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1880

    if the injured party deem the misdeed so serious in character as to make it necessary to recall the enemy to a respect for law, no other recourse than a resort to reprisals remains.

    Reprisals are an exception to the general rule of equity, that an innocent person ought not to suffer for the guilty. They are also at variance with the rule that each belligerent should conform to the rules of war, without reciprocity on the part of the enemy.
     

    1949 Geneva Conventions

    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World War I and World War II. In the First World War, the Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity during the Rape of Belgium. In World War II, both the Germans and the Japanese carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that occurred at those places. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.
     
    No German officers were prosecuted or even sought to be prosecuted for crimes committed during the so called Rape of Belgium.

    After WWII in general (but there were exceptions) Wehrmacht officers who ordered executions as part of collective reprisals were not prosecuted, e.g. Kurt Waldheim because until 1949 Geneva convention they were not prohibited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Incitatus
    Germany sacked Leuven, an ancient university town, 25 Aug 1914. They burned the famous medieval library, killed about 300 civilians, destroyed 2,000 civilian dwellings, and expelled it’s entire population (10,000).

    They fired the library with petrol and incendiary pellets, destroying 230,000 volumes - including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, 750 medieval works, and more than 1000 printed prior to the 16C. The reason? Prussians having fun? Only the Germans know.

    The Germans shelled the same library, housed in a new building, 16 May 1940, setting it on fire and destroying nearly a million books. Practice makes perfect?

    5,500-6,500 Belgian civilians were shot in groups, mostly as retribution for suspected sabotage or lack of cooperation between August and November 1914. 23,700 civilians had been executed and another 62,000 died from famine, exposure (Germans excelled at burning houses), or disease by late 1918. Total Belgian civilian deaths would probably been far higher had not 300,000 refuges escaped to France, and another 200,000 to the UK.

    Germans, ever considerate, also conscripted Belgians as forced labor. 120,000 had been deported to work in Germany by 1918. Slavery anyone?

    None of this meant that it was either wise or necessary for America to declare war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • HdC says:
    @Incitatus
    Germany sacked Leuven, an ancient university town, 25 Aug 1914. They burned the famous medieval library, killed about 300 civilians, destroyed 2,000 civilian dwellings, and expelled it’s entire population (10,000).

    They fired the library with petrol and incendiary pellets, destroying 230,000 volumes - including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, 750 medieval works, and more than 1000 printed prior to the 16C. The reason? Prussians having fun? Only the Germans know.

    The Germans shelled the same library, housed in a new building, 16 May 1940, setting it on fire and destroying nearly a million books. Practice makes perfect?

    5,500-6,500 Belgian civilians were shot in groups, mostly as retribution for suspected sabotage or lack of cooperation between August and November 1914. 23,700 civilians had been executed and another 62,000 died from famine, exposure (Germans excelled at burning houses), or disease by late 1918. Total Belgian civilian deaths would probably been far higher had not 300,000 refuges escaped to France, and another 200,000 to the UK.

    Germans, ever considerate, also conscripted Belgians as forced labor. 120,000 had been deported to work in Germany by 1918. Slavery anyone?

    In response let me relate my own experience of 2015.

    That summer my wife and I treated ourselves to the Rhine River cruise that began in Rotterdam and ended 2 weeks later in Budapest.

    In the Rotterdam harbour on a retaining wall was the inscription commemorating the 32,000 civilians that were “murdered” by the Nazis during their assault on Rotterdam.

    I was royally pissed at this inscription because I remembered reading in one of the books I cited above that, due to the resistance encountered during the invasion of Rotterdam the Luftwaffe bombed those areas necessary in support of the German ground assault. The death toll of this was reported at about 800 casualties.

    Everything, but everything that has to do with Germany and the two world wars, as reported by FORMER enemies and court historians, is either a blatant lie or exaggerated to the nth degree.
    HdC

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    You’re crazy if you expect to find fair history on plaques. When was the inscription written? 1945?

    You responded to the sack of Leuven (#211) with your account of Rotterdam plaque. Is one to infer that the destruction of a priceless library 1914 and 1940 was justified because of a plaque in Rotterdam you saw in 2015? Help me out HdC. Why did the Germans burn the Leuven collection (and much of the city)? What were Germans doing in Belgium in 1914 and 1940? Did someone force them to invade? I really need help here. Don’t fail me.

    Original quotes from the lips of those who made decisions, with dates, are as good as it gets. I note you haven’t responded to #196. I tried to include most players from Germany and Austria-Hungary. The record is pretty damning. Comments?

    HdC, I appreciate your plaque story. Here’s my episode. In 1972 I toured what little of the Verdun battlefield was safe. Clearing operations and recovery of remains were still going on in a deforested moonscape. Cemeteries? Thousands of graves. Alistair Horne’s ‘Price of Glory’ profiles the battle. He condemns both sides and aptly describes the colossal waste (Germans lost 300,000 men - the French the same). Is he a “court historian?”

    “Everything, but everything that has to do with Germany and the two world wars, as reported by FORMER enemies and court historians, is either a blatant lie or exaggerated to the nth degree."

    There are bogus and slanted sources on all sides. What leads you to believe ‘revisionists’ are more accurate? These days controversy sells books - the more outrageous the claim, the more books. Doesn’t it fall to each of us to test for truth, whatever the source?

    Was von Moltke junger lying when he wrote his wife “Things have not gone well. The fighting east of Paris has not gone in our favor, and we shall have to pay for the damage we have done” 9 Sep 1914? Why would he say that?

    Was Hitler lying in Mein Kampf?

    Was Speer lying in ‘Inside the Third Reich?’

    Was Dietrich von Choltitz lying when he said:
    “We all share the guilt. We went along with everything, and we half-took the Nazis seriously instead of saying "to hell with you and your stupid nonsense". I misled my soldiers into believing this rubbish. I feel utterly ashamed of myself. Perhaps we bear even more guilt than these uneducated animals?”

    Was Colonel Hoßbach lying in recording the Führer diktat 5 November 1937? http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    You tell me.
    Reply