The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Nick Kollerstrom Archive
On the Avoidability of World War One
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Kaiser Wilhelm II enjoyed a reputation as a peace maker. Shown in a photo from 1890. Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R28302 / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On August 1, 1914, as dreadful war was breaking out in Europe, the German ambassador Prince Lichnowsky paid a visit to Britain’s Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey. Dr Rudolf Steiner commented as follows upon this meeting – in a 1916 lecture which he gave in Switzerland:

‘A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place.’

At that meeting, he averred that, with just one sentence, ‘this war could have been averted.’[1]Rudolf Steiner, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. 1 (13 lectures at Dornach, Switzerland, 4-31st December 1916), 1988, p.19. NB it’s available online as a Google-book, with the same pagination as here used. The new 2005 edition (subtitled Secret Societies, the Media, and Preparations for the Great War) has a fine Introduction by Terry Boardman.

To examine that outrageous-sounding claim, we delve into what is a bit of a mystery, that of the first conflict between Germany and Britain for a thousand years: two nations bound by the same royal family, with every statesman in Europe loudly proclaiming that peace is desired, that war must at all costs be avoided; and then the bloodbath takes place, terminating the great hopes for European civilization and extinguishing its bright optimism, as what were set up as defensive alliances mysteriously flipped over and became offensive war-plans.

The ghastly ‘Schlieffen plan’ became activated, as the master-plan of Germany’s self-defense, which as it were contained the need for the dreadful speed with which catastrophe was precipitated. France and Russia had formed a mutual defense agreement (everyone claimed their military alliances were defensive). While Bismarck the wise statesman who founded Germany had lived, this was avoided, such an alliance being his darkest nightmare. But Kaiser Wilhelm did not manage to avoid this, and so Germany’s neighbors to East and West formed a mutual military alliance. The Schlieffen plan was based on the premise that Germany could not fight a war on two fronts but might be able to beat France quickly; so in the event of war looming against Russia in the East, its troops had to move westwards, crashing though Belgium as a route into France. It all had to happen quickly because Germany’s army was smaller than that of Russia.

The timing over those crucial days shows its awful speed: Russia mobilized its army on July 29th, in response to hostilities breaking out between Austro-Hungary and Serbia; two desperate cables were sent by the Kaiser to the Tsar on the 29th and 31st, imploring him not to proceed with full mobilisation of his army because that meant war; the French government ‘irreversibly decided’ to support Russia in the war on the evening of 31st, cabling this decision to the Russian foreign minister at 1 am on August 1st[2]Barnes 1926, pp.284-8.; then, on the afternoon of that same day Germany proceeded to mobilise and declared war on Russia, and two days later went into Belgium. Britain’s House of Commons voted unanimously for war on 5th August, viewing Germany as the belligerent warmonger.

Kaiser Wilhelm’s Nemesis

The Kaiser had enjoyed the reputation of a peacemaker:

Now … he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe. ‘(‘William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,’ New York Times, 8 June, 1913.[3]Balfour, 1964, p.351.)

A former US President, William Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.’ ([4]Ross, 2009, p.9. For a letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Barnes, p.523. For the ex-Kaiser’s view on ‘proof of Germany’s peaceful intentions’ i.e. how Germany had not prepared for war or expected it, see: My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William II, 1992, Ch.10 ‘The Outbreak of War.’,[5]Morel, p.122: Germany had ‘for forty and four years kept the peace when war broke out in August … No other Great Power can boast such a record.’ (Morel’s book may be viewed online)). That is some tribute! In 1960 a BBC centenary tribute to the Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria,’ his grandmother.

A lover of peace …. skilled diplomat … deep attachment to Queen Victoria .. so remind me what the Great War was for, that took nine million lives?

Might the war have been averted if the Kaiser had, perhaps, focussed a bit more on the art of war – how to refrain from marching into Belgium? There was no ‘plan B’! In later days the Kaiser used to say, he had been swept away by the military timetable. Who wantedthe war which locked Europe into such dreadful conflict? Did a mere sequence of interlocking treaties bring it on?

On the night of 30-31st of July, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily:

Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us… In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact… The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’[6]Balfour, 1964, p.354

‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’

Did hundreds of thousands of young men, the flower of England, want to go out to muddy fields, to fight and die? Shells, bayonets, gas, machine guns – what was the point? In no way were they defending their country or its Empire – for no-one was threatening it. No European nation benefitted: it spelt ruin for all of them. Do we need to fear the imbecility of the poet’s words:

If I should die, think only this of me
There is some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England’? (Rupert Brooke)

A leading British pacifist, E.D. Morel, was widely vilified for the views expressed in his book Truth and the War (1916), and had his health wrecked (as Bertrand Russell described) by being put into Pentonville jail. In haunting words of insight, his book described how: ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ had been brought about by ‘futile and wicked Statecraft’ – by ‘an autocratic and secret foreign policy’ carried out by those ‘who by secret plots and counter-plots … hound the peoples to mutual destruction.’ Of the war’s outbreak, Morel wrote: ‘It came therefore to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons, positive acts diametrically opposed to these assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an alliance had been incurred, but incurred by the most dangerous and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them, and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of contractual detachment from the rival Continental groups.’[7]Morel, 1916, pp.6, 8, 13 and 42. A total analogy exists here with Blair taking Britain into the Iraq war, making a deal with Bush while continually denying back home that any such deal existed. Two Cabinet members resigned in August 1914, once the central importance of this concealed contract became evident: Viscount Morley and John Burns.

A more orthodox, deterministic view was given by Winston Churchill: ‘the invasion of Belgium brought the British Empire united to the field. Nothing in human power could break the fatal chain, once it had begun to unroll. A situation had been created where hundreds of officials had only to do their prescribed duty to their respective countries to wreck the world. They did their duty’.[8]Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107. That necessary chain leading to ruin began only after the crucial discussion alluded to by Dr Steiner, we observe.

Considering that Germany went into Belgium on the 3rd of August, whereas Churchill and Mountbatten, the First and Second Sea Lords, had ordered the mobilising of the British fleet over July 26 -30th, so that by days before the 3rd much of the world’s biggest navy was up north of Scotland all ready to pounce on Germany – his words may appear as some kind of extreme limit of hypocrisy. The mobilising of the British fleet was a massive event which greatly pre-empted political discussion, a week before Britain declared war.[9]Churchill, ibid., has the British fleet secretly mobilised over the night of 29-30th July. Hugh Martin, in Battle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937: ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North to prevent the possibility of it being bottled up,’ p.105. A ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy paraded before the King on July 26th, at Spitalhead, after which the Navy was held full battle-readiness (The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten, John Terrence 1968, p11-14); then, ‘On July 29th Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ (To End All Wars, How WW1 Divided Britain, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85).
(Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107.)
,[10]The first indication for the Kaiser of war-imminence, was when he learned that the English fleet ‘had not dispersed after the review at Spitalhead but had remained concentrated.’ (My Memoirs, p.241).

A Secret Alliance

Britain was obliged by no necessity to enter a European war, having no alliance with France that the people of Britain or its parliament knew about, and having a long indeed normal policy of avoiding embroilment in European conflicts. However, ministers especially Grey the Foreign Minister had covertly made a deal with France. To quote from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography: ‘I had noticed during previous years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent the public from knowing the methods by which he was committing us to the support of France in the event of war.’[11]Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. H.G. Wells judged that: ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and I think he wanted it to come when it did … The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did this deliberately. I think that this charge is sound.’ (Experiment in an Autobiography, II, 1934, p.770) Would Britain be dragged into a European war on the coat-tails of France – for centuries, its traditional enemy – given that France had signed a treaty obligation to enter war in consequence of a German-Russian conflict? France was keen to avenge past grievances over the French-German border, aware of the superiority of troops which it and Russia combined had against Germany – and convinced that it could drag Britain into the fray.

On 24 March 1913, the Prime Minister had been asked about the circumstances under which British troops might land on the Continent. He replied, ‘As has been repeatedly stated, this country is not under any obligation not public and known to parliament which compels it to take part in any war’ – a double negative which concealed a hidden but then-existing accord!

Last Hope of Peace

We turn now to the question put, on August 1st by Germany’s ambassador to Britain’s Foreign Secretary, normally omitted from history books on the subject. If war and peace did indeed hinge upon it – as Dr Steiner averred – it may be worth quoting a few judgements about it. Here is Grey’s own letter, written that day:

Grey’s letter to the British ambassador in Berlin: 1 August, concerning his meeting with Prince Lichnowsky:

‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be….I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’[12]Edward Grey letter Aug 1st: Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261. See also Morley 1928, p.38-9.,[13]The noncommittal attitude expressed by Grey on August 1st to the German ambassador had been endorsed by the Cabinet and Prime Minister: Roy Jenkins, Asquith 1964, p.363.

Swiss author George Brandes summarised this meeting:

‘Now Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise of neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No.’[14]Steiner, Karma, p.18: Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich 1916 (Brandes was Danish). Steiner quotes extensively from it, Karma, pp. 14-23.

The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium…,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this: ‘After Grey had refused to promise the German Ambassador that England would remain neutral in the event of Germany’s agreeing not to invade Belgium, the German ambassador asked Grey to formulate the conditions according to which England would remain neutral, but Grey refused point-blank to do so, though he afterwards falsely informed the Commons that he had stated these conditions’.[15]Barnes, 1926, p.497. Barnes commended the editorial of the Manchester Guardian July 30th – opposing the pro-war jingoism of The Times – which declared: ‘not only are we neutral now, but we are and ought to remain neutral throughout the whole course of the war.’

The British judge and lawyer Robert Reid was the Earl of Loreburn as well as the Lord Chancellor of England from 1905 to 1912, so he should know what was going on. His book ‘How the War Came’ described how it was the secret deal with France which wrecked everything:

The final mistake was that when, on the actual crisis arising, a decision one way or the other might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the Continental war altogether … The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or warrant of Parliamentary approval … This country has a right to know its own obligations and prepare to meet them and to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of our whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide. We entered a war to which we had been committed beforehand in the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable, had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament… If the government thought that either our honour or our safety did require us to intervene on behalf of France, then they ought to have said so unequivocally before the angry Powers on the Continent committed themselves to irrevocable steps in the belief that we should remain neutral. Instead of saying either, they kept on saying in the despatches that their hands were perfectly free, and told the Commons the same thing. The documents show conclusively that till after Germany declared war our Ministers had not made up their minds on either of the two questions, whether or not they would fight for France, and whether or not they would fight for Belgium. Of course Belgium was merely a corridor into France, and unless France was attacked Belgium was in no danger.[16]Loreburn, 1919, pp.15-19.

After it was over, US President Woodrow Wilson in March of 1919 summed up its avoidability: ‘We know for a certainty that if Germany had thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.’ (p.18, Lorenburn). That was the sense in which Britain precipitated the dreadful conflict. Clear words of truth could have avoided it – had that been desired.

We remind ourselves of Dr Steiner’s comparison: that the British Empire then covered one-quarter of the Earth’s land-surface; Russia one-seventh; France and her colonies one-thirteenth; and Germany, one thirty-third. (Karma, p.11)

Upon receiving a telegram from Prince Lichnowsky earlier in the day of August 1, the Kaiser ordered a bottle of champagne to celebrate, as if there might be hope of reaching a deal with Britain. Even though he was just that afternoon signing the order for mobilisation of the German army, he could in some degree have recalled it … but, it was a false hope, and a telegram from King Edward later that day explained to him that there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ between Britain’s Foreign Secretary and the German ambassador.[17]Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War 2001 CUP p.219-223: Lichinowsky’s telegram misunderstood (NB I’m not endorsing her thesis of German war-guilt).

Gray’s Duplicity

On the 26th or 27th, Grey told the Cabinet that he would have to resign, if it did not support his initiative to take Britain into war in support of ‘our ally,’ France. He would not be able to go along with British neutrality. Over these days up until the 1st, or 2nd, when the war was just starting, all the Cabinet of Britain’s Liberal Party government except for Churchill and Grey favoured British neutrality. It was those two who dragged Britain into war. Grey did not yet know whether the Belgian government would say ‘no’ to the German request to be allowed to pass through. To get his war, Grey had to swing it on the ‘poor little Belgium’ angle. Once Belgium had said ‘No’ and yet Germany still went in – as its only way to enter France – a cabinet majority would then became assured.

On August 2nd, Grey gave to the French ambassador what amounted to British assurance of war-support. On August 3rd, Grey gave the Commons an impassioned plea in favour of British intervention on behalf of France – making no mention of the German peace-offer. The MP Phillip Morrell spoke afterwards in the sole anti-war speech that day, and pointed out that a guarantee by Germany not to invade France had been offered, on condition of British neutrality, and spurned. As to why Grey did not mention the German offer, the view was later contrived that the German ambassador had merely been speaking in a private capacity![18]Grey told cabinet about talk with Lichinowsky on 3rd, with a claim that the latter’s views were ‘merely personal and unauthorised.’ (Morley, pp.13-14) If so, why was the conversation recorded and published in Britain’s ‘White Book’ of key wartime documents? How could a German Ambassador make a merely personal proposal? Other such ‘White Book’ documents were recorded as personal, but not this one. As Morel pointed out (pp.26-7), the UK’s ‘Blue Book’ published its account of this interview with no hint that the Ambassador was merely acting privately – and Lichinowsky’s telegram to his Government dated 8.30 pm, August 1, indicated that he had been acting on ‘instructions.’ His offer was generally concordant with telegrams then being sent by the Kaiser and German Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Morel, p.26)

The supposed neutrality of Belgium was a sham, as ministers of that country had secretly drawn up detailed anti-German war-plans with Britain and France. No wonder the Kaiser had a sense of being ‘encircled’ by enemies, because ‘“neutral” Belgium had in reality become an active member of the coalition concluded against Germany’[19]Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117. (For comments on Fuehr see Ross 2009, pp.116-7: Fuehr’s account was ‘certainly biased’ but ‘well-documented.’) For the incriminating documents, see Ross p.300, note 55. The Kaiser recalled how piles of British army-coats and maps of Belgium were found concealed around the Belgian border, in anticipation of the war: My Memoirs, p.251-2. – i.e. it had plotted against a friendly nation. Quoting the commendably insightful George Bernard Shaw, ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United states, backed with an array of facsimiles of secret diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion.’[20]Ross, 2009, p.42.

Steiner’s View

Rudolf Steiner’s judgement in his December 1916 lecture (during which Britain was declining a peace offer from Germany) was:

‘Let me merely remark, that certain things happened from which the only sensible conclusion to be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely that behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way was paved for the world war that had always been prophesied. For of course the way can be paved for what it is intended should happen. ..it is impossible to avoid realising how powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood behind the puppets in the foreground. These latter are of course, perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity ….[21]Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5.

Grey and Churchill were the two consistently pro-war cabinet ministers. The Conservative Party was solidly pro-war, and Churchill was ready to offer them a deal if perchance too many of the Liberal-party cabinet were going to resign rather than go to war. Steiner here remarked:

‘Anyone [in England] voicing the real reasons [for war] would have been swept away by public opinion. Something quite different was needed – a reason which the English people could accept, and that was the violation of Belgian neutrality. But this first had to be brought about. It is really true that Sir Edward Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence. History will one day show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it would have been quite easy for him to make, if he had been in a position to follow his own inclination. But since he was unable to follow his own inclination but had to obey an impulse which came from another side, he had to make the declaration which made it necessary for the neutrality of Belgium to be violated. Georg Brandes pointed to this. By this act England was presented with a plausible reason. That had been the whole point of the exercise: to present England with a plausible reason! To the people who mattered, nothing would have been more uncomfortable than the non-violation of Belgian territory!’[22]Ibid, p.86.
(Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5.)

Could powers behind Grey have wanted war, and steered events towards that end? Steiner argued against the widespread view of an inevitable slide into war: ‘You have no idea how excessively irresponsible it is to seek a simple continuity in these events, thus believing that without more ado the Great World War came about, or had to come about, as a result of Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. (p.82)

We are here reminded of Morel’s account, of how secret plotting had paralysed debate:

‘The nemesis of their own secret acts gripped our ministers by the throat. It paralysed their sincere and desperate efforts to maintain peace. It cast dissention amongst them…They could not afford to be honest neither to the British people nor to the world. They could not hold in check the elements making for war in Germany by a timely declaration of solidarity with France and Russia, although morally committed to France.. In vain the Russians and the French implored them to make a pronouncement of British policy while there was still time.’[23]Morel 1916, p.297.

On August 4th, Britain declared war, and that same night cut through the transatlantic undersea telephone cables coming out of Germany,[24]Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27. enabling British atrocity propaganda to work largely unchallenged. Quoting a recent work on the subject, ‘The hallmark of Britain’s successful propaganda efforts were alleged German atrocities of gigantic proportions that strongly influenced naive Americans yearning for a chivalrous war from afar’.[25]Ibid, p.3.
(Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27.)
Such consistent, intentional mendacity was fairly innovative, which was why it worked so well: ‘In that war, hatred propaganda was for the first time given something like organised attention’.[26]Grenfell, 1954, p.125. Thus, a nemesis of what Morel described as ‘futile and wicked statecraft’ here appeared, in that British soldiers were motivated to fight, by a nonstop torrent of lies – from their own government.[27]Likewise from the French government: Barnes, …For a general comment see Georges Thiel, Heresy: ‘One grows dizzy at the listing of all those lies [against Germany] which, afterwards, were demolished one after the other.’ Historical Review Press, 2006, p.31.

In conclusion, can we agree with Dr Steiner? Quoting Barnes, ‘It is thus apparent that the responsibility for the fatal Russian mobilisation which produced the war must be shared jointly, and probably about equally, by France and Russia.’ This was because of the French cabinet’s general encouragement, then its final decision to embark upon war on the 29th July, of which Barnes remarked: ‘The secret conference of Poincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe.’ (pp.328, 242) This had to be the time, it was the only opportunity, because these war-plotters would have known of the mobilisation of the world’s biggest navy, that of Great Britain, over these fateful days, all ready for war. The Russian generals browbeat the Tzar into signing the documents giving his assent – for a war he didn’t want[28]For the Ex-Kaiser’s account of how, as he later learned, his telegrams considerably affected Tzar Nicholas in those crucial days, see: My Memoirs, Ch.10.. On the 31st one more desperate telegram arrived from the Kaiser about how ‘The peace of Europe may still be maintained’ if only Russia would stop its mobilisation, but the Tzar no longer had that ability. Germany placed itself at a military disadvantage by refraining from declaring war or taking steps to mobilise until the afternoon of August 1st, much later than any of the other great powers involved. Had a deal been reached in London on that afternoon, a conflict in Eastern Europe would presumably still have taken place, but it would have been limited and diplomats could have dealt with it: yes, a world war could have been averted.


Essential texts
  • Alexander Fuehr, The Neutrality of Belgium, NY 1915
  • E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916
  • The Earl Lorenburn, How the War Came, 1919
  • Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt, 1926
  • British documents on the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO 1926.
  • Memorandum on Resignation by John Viscount, Morley, 1928, 39pp.
  • Alfred von Wegerer, A Refutation of the Versailles War Guilt Thesis, 1930
  • Winston Churchill, The Great War Vol. 1, 1933
  • Captain Russell Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War Guilt and the Future of Europe(mainly about WW2) NY, 1954
  • M. Balfour, The Kaiser and His Times, 1964
  • Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-18, 2009.

Notes

[1] Rudolf Steiner, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. 1 (13 lectures at Dornach, Switzerland, 4-31st December 1916), 1988, p.19. NB it’s available online as a Google-book, with the same pagination as here used. The new 2005 edition (subtitled Secret Societies, the Media, and Preparations for the Great War) has a fine Introduction by Terry Boardman.

[2] Barnes 1926, pp.284-8.

[3] Balfour, 1964, p.351.

[4] Ross, 2009, p.9. For a letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Barnes, p.523. For the ex-Kaiser’s view on ‘proof of Germany’s peaceful intentions’ i.e. how Germany had not prepared for war or expected it, see: My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William II, 1992, Ch.10 ‘The Outbreak of War.’

[5] Morel, p.122: Germany had ‘for forty and four years kept the peace when war broke out in August … No other Great Power can boast such a record.’ (Morel’s book may be viewed online)

[6] Balfour, 1964, p.354

[7] Morel, 1916, pp.6, 8, 13 and 42.

[8] Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107.

[9] Churchill, ibid., has the British fleet secretly mobilised over the night of 29-30th July. Hugh Martin, in Battle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937: ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North to prevent the possibility of it being bottled up,’ p.105. A ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy paraded before the King on July 26th, at Spitalhead, after which the Navy was held full battle-readiness (The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten, John Terrence 1968, p11-14); then, ‘On July 29th Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ (To End All Wars, How WW1 Divided Britain, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85).

[10] The first indication for the Kaiser of war-imminence, was when he learned that the English fleet ‘had not dispersed after the review at Spitalhead but had remained concentrated.’ (My Memoirs, p.241).

[11] Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. H.G. Wells judged that: ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and I think he wanted it to come when it did … The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did this deliberately. I think that this charge is sound.’ (Experiment in an Autobiography, II, 1934, p.770)

[12] Edward Grey letter Aug 1st: Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261. See also Morley 1928, p.38-9.

[13] The noncommittal attitude expressed by Grey on August 1st to the German ambassador had been endorsed by the Cabinet and Prime Minister: Roy Jenkins, Asquith 1964, p.363.

[14] Steiner, Karma, p.18: Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich 1916 (Brandes was Danish). Steiner quotes extensively from it, Karma, pp. 14-23.

[15] Barnes, 1926, p.497.

[16] Loreburn, 1919, pp.15-19.

[17] Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War 2001 CUP p.219-223: Lichinowsky’s telegram misunderstood (NB I’m not endorsing her thesis of German war-guilt).

[18] Grey told cabinet about talk with Lichinowsky on 3rd, with a claim that the latter’s views were ‘merely personal and unauthorised.’ (Morley, pp.13-14) If so, why was the conversation recorded and published in Britain’s ‘White Book’ of key wartime documents? How could a German Ambassador make a merely personal proposal? Other such ‘White Book’ documents were recorded as personal, but not this one. As Morel pointed out (pp.26-7), the UK’s ‘Blue Book’ published its account of this interview with no hint that the Ambassador was merely acting privately – and Lichinowsky’s telegram to his Government dated 8.30 pm, August 1, indicated that he had been acting on ‘instructions.’ His offer was generally concordant with telegrams then being sent by the Kaiser and German Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Morel, p.26)

[19] Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117. (For comments on Fuehr see Ross 2009, pp.116-7: Fuehr’s account was ‘certainly biased’ but ‘well-documented.’) For the incriminating documents, see Ross p.300, note 55. The Kaiser recalled how piles of British army-coats and maps of Belgium were found concealed around the Belgian border, in anticipation of the war: My Memoirs, p.251-2.

[20] Ross, 2009, p.42.

[21] Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5.

[22] Ibid, p.86.

[23] Morel 1916, p.297.

[24] Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27.

[25] Ibid, p.3.

[26] Grenfell, 1954, p.125.

[27] Likewise from the French government: Barnes, …For a general comment see Georges Thiel, Heresy: ‘One grows dizzy at the listing of all those lies [against Germany] which, afterwards, were demolished one after the other.’ Historical Review Press, 2006, p.31.

[28] For the Ex-Kaiser’s account of how, as he later learned, his telegrams considerably affected Tzar Nicholas in those crucial days, see: My Memoirs, Ch.10.

(Republished from Inconvenient History by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Academia, Germany, World War I 
Hide 276 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. One Tribe says:

    I was fascinated reading “The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914” by Margaret MacMillan, which enlightens my comment here.

    But, in the end, the author, a professor of history at Oxford and the University of Toronto (http://www.margaretmacmillan.com/) never makes any definitive conclusions, instead, she suggests a large number of national/factional stress factors made the relations so locked in to ‘trigger-finger diplomacy‘ that any emotional event could have triggered the confrontation.

    I am amazed at how close to that hyper-intense and hyper-reactive geopolitical environment is being replicated again today!

    It wasn’t until I read Douglas Reed’s “The Controversy of Zion” that the pattern made sense.

    The only territory that changed hands across two world wars was a small patch of land in the Middle East!

    Back to the current May 2019 environment:
    The hysteria!
    The illogical and seemingly irrational agitations by the likes of the U.S. Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor, like ranging sociopaths, contrary to the best interests of 99.5+% of the citizens…
    …who’s benefitting?!

    Someone is benefiting!

    Figure out who is benefitting, and you figure out who/what is actively and aggressively engineering a crisis.

  2. anon19 says:

    Edward Grey was an evil monstrous human being. He bears the vast majority of the responsibility for WW1.

  3. Sean says:

    Serbia doubled in size. France got back its lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine (Poincaré’s birthplace, the return of which was his avowed objective).

    By 1914 Germany was surrounded and targeted by an alliance of three great powers, and there was no way out but to take up arms against a sea of troubles and in opposing end them.

    The Kaiser really should have been shot for not ordering a 1905 attack on France, a country that could not accept that Germany was no longer a gaggle of punch-bag principalities.

    After WW1 Poincaré tried to detach parts of Germany by various means including separatist movements. The decade of French troops in the nearby Rhineland did not exactly hurt the Bavarian fascisti; Hitler went to prison for a month in 1922 for rushing the stage and beating up the leading Bavarian separatist politician at his own meeting.

    After WW1 Poincaré, cousin of the superbrain physicist, was internationally notorious among the domestic Left (and even conservatives in former allied states) as having started the whole thing, and likely to do it again if given the opportunity. The unwisdom of having such a highly intelligent and capable man continuing to bend the national destiny to his will was perhaps not sufficiently appreciated in France.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @sally
    , @utu
  4. Epigon says:

    It wasn’t the Jews, FFS.

    It was a continental hegemony at stake and European imperialism. Why omit December 1912 Imperial War Council meeting?

    The regime change in 1903 in Serbia, Russo-Japanese War, the Annexation crisis in 1908 that toppled 1878 Congress of Berlin and 1912-1913 Balkan Wars in parallel to Moroccan crises are all a prelude to the great showdown.

    For example, without Rothschild bank loans, Austro-Hungarian Navy and Army would be significantly weaker in 1914.

    • Replies: @Sean
  5. There were two circles of power that were wanting and prolonged the first world war. There was the round table groups and the Zionist lobby. The round table groups were created by the Rhodes/Beit group and led by Lord Milner who actually pushed through the Balfour agreement and presented to the Rothschilds. The Zionist lobby was led by the Rothschilds who at the same time was the initial benefactor of the Rhodes/ Beit group.
    The Round table group created the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral commission which are still very active today.

    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/prolonging-the-agony-1/
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  6. Fox says:

    I’ve read Kolerstrom’s booklet a few years ago and have often thought of this one short paragraph describing the conversation between Lichnowsky and Grey. That Grey would not give an affirmative answer to Lichnowsky’s questions and proposals had the repercussion that Germany, instead of knowing that the alliance between France and Russia would not become active, and the arms would be held back, the uncertainty of the precarious position in the middle would be maintained. This meant that there was no time for waiting for the attack from the east or west that would crush the country in the middle by a vast majority, the extent of is described by E.D.Morel in Truth and the War and various writings by Francis Neilson.
    Had Grey given a clear answer as to British neutrality, or even the German offer not to pass through Belgium (a move everyone seems to have known of as a strategic necessity in a war with France), the Serbian Crisis would have been given more time to calm down.
    Of interest is also that Churchill did also his part to increase tensions by keeping on his own authority the British Fleet battle ready, instead of having it dispersed after the maneuver. To think how close the world was not to suffer the calamity of the First War, and measuring this on today’s poor prospects for any meaningful future is quite dizzying.
    Kollerstrom makes very good points and I put down his booklet, appalled at the dangerous play of diplomacy in these days, and Neilson does also have a book “How Diplomats Make War”.

    • Replies: @refl
  7. Catherine says:

    Just imagine, there would have been no 1st world war, no 2nd world war , no communist takeover anywhere, no cold war etc.
    Population of Europeans(especially Slavs) would have been much higher.
    Immigration to the Americas and Australia would have been much higher resulting in a higher population of Whites around the world.
    Approximate populations today
    Russia- 250 million
    Germany- 100- 120 million
    Ukraine- 90 million
    Poland- 60 million
    Baltic states combined- 15 million plus.
    Increased immigration to USA and US white population could have been close to 250 million.
    Most importantly, Whites would still be proud of being White.
    Whites are to be blamed for all this. They slaughtered each other in a manner that was never seen before.

    • Agree: anon19
    • Replies: @anon
  8. Tom Welsh says:
    @One Tribe

    “The only territory that changed hands across two world wars was a small patch of land in the Middle East!”

    Of course that is very far indeed from the truth. It is notorious – and something every school child learns by the age of 10 or 12 – that WW1 resulted in the destruction of three empires (and one would-be empire): Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Russia… and Germany. The Turkish Ottoman Empire, previously one of the largest in the world, was dismembered leaving only the remnant that is modern Turkey. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, heir to the Holy Roman and Habsburg Empire that had existed since medieval times, was torn apart into a small remnant – Austria – and several other nations. The Russian Empire came to an abrupt end, to be succeeded by the USSR. Germany lost substantial territory, including some highly strategic cities such as Danzig (modern Gdansk).

    As a result of WW2 Germany was split in half, and lost much territory to Poland. The USSR temporarily (but for 45 years) occupied or controlled all of Eastern Europe.

    To focus on Israel while ignoring those huge transfers of land is hopelessly obsessive.

  9. Tom Welsh says:

    Many thanks for this very enlightening and well-documented article. It is true that the lead-in to WW1 seems to be closely echoed today. On one hand we have mighty unseen powers that seem determined to bring about one or more wars; on the other hand, we have almost unbelievably stupid, ignorant and naive politicians and civil servants (backed up by utterly venial media) doing their bidding without question.

    What is hard to understand is why anyone could try to precipitate a new world war, when it is obvious that it would lead to the extermination of the human species.

  10. Gefreiter says:

    This essay is little more than PC narrative. There is no mention of Balfour, the Donmeh in Turkey, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, Albert Pike, the Round Table, the Black Hand, the Armenian Genocide, and much, much more.

    England was finally forced to admit that they were shipping armaments on the Lusitania, and the truth is that she was deliberately sent unprotected into U-boat infested waters knowing that she would be sunk. By 1916 Germany was winning the war, and the Kaiser almost got his peace treaty. Churchill’s gambit to take the Dardenelles as just a diversion to placate the Tsar and hide the true Zionist plan. Unfortunately, the Zionists were not yet finished with the war they had started and the war against Germanic Europe continued through the Turnip winter until Versailles in 1919.

    WWI was a set up by freemasons and jews in order to destroy the European monarchies and bring about communist revolutions and the genocide of the “best goyim”. They succeeded in Russia and almost in Germany until the Freikorps put an end to their plans, for a while anyway.

  11. There was no avoiding WW1. The Jews needed it for their Zionist project.

  12. LondonBob says:

    Even this article makes clear Germany declared war on Russia, attacked neutral Belgium and that Austro-Hungary declared war on and invaded Serbia. Mobilisation of forces is an irrelevancy.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @Jacques Sheete
    , @FB
  13. Voltaire says:

    World War I ….gave them Palestine
    World War II….gave them Western Civilization
    World War III…will give them the World (so they think)

    God help us all.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  14. I sometimes remark that the reason for Brexit is that the Brits realised they were not running the EU and decided to cut their losses, but oddly enough, enough of them bought into the Eurofantasy that they can’t now in their compromised state manage to extract themselves from the new German Empire to which they “capitulated” in 1972 with the secret desire of conquering from within. If it is any consolation, the Germans aren’t actually running the show themselves.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II reminds me of Trump: Occasionally lucid and with admirable goals, but totally a captive of his own version of neocon statists.

    • Replies: @Jake
  15. Vinnie O says:

    Complete nonsense. ENGLAND was driving the new war because of the INSANE English foreign policy based on the principle that WHOEVER was the ECONOMICALLY strongest country in Europe was AUTOMATICALLY the ENEMY of England (When Holland was the strongest, they fought Holland. When Spain became the strongest, they fought Spain. When France became the strongest they fought France. And so Kaiser Bill was TOLD by the English that there was NOTHING he could do to prevent England starting a war for the purpose of destroying Germany as an economic and military power. The only question was when a suitable crisis would show up, and the assassination of the Austrian crown prince caused a darn good crisis. And that same insane English desire to destroy ECONOMIC competitors is why the objective of Versailles was to emasculate Germany.

    • Replies: @Alden
  16. Gefreiter says:
    @LondonBob

    Germany declared war on Russia… Mobilisation of forces is an irrelevancy.

    How convenient. Aggressive wars are never wars until Germany, Italy or Japan declares war. Until then it was always merely England or America spreading “democracy”, like England did in the Boer War concentration camps by deliberately starving thousands women and children who must have declared war on England.

    This of course also leaves the US blameless in the last 70 years of wars waged around the planet because Congress “never declared war”. Heck, even the “Korean War” wasn’t a war, it was a “democratic” UN police action. Vietnam? Agent Orange was just a vaccination.

    The Irgun and Haganah also never declared war, that is why the genocide of Palestinians and theft of their land was an act of peace. England of course allowed them to commit their terrorism in the English “mandate of Palestine”, but that was democracy in action.

    Gosh London Bob, I could go on all day with your revelations. How about this: since no official surrender has been signed by Germany, Japan and North Korea, their wars are still ongoing. Therefore every murder in Europe since Germany invaded Poland is the fault of Germans and Germany. England, and especially London, as always are beyond reproach.

    I hope you enjoy England’s nigrification Bob, no other country deserves it more.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  17. Vojkan says:

    The disingenuosity with which ‘revisionist’ historians are trying to whitewash Germany for both world wars beggars belief. As if the anschluss of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1998 never happened, as if the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum that no sovereign country could ever accept was never given to Serbia, as if it was all right that Germany support her Austrian ally, but it wasn’t that Russia support her Serbian, and France her Russian ally, as if it was France thar invaded Germany and not Germany that invaded Belgium and France.
    You see, Germany committed agressions in 1914 and 1939 because she had very bad neighbours that she needed to beat before she was beaten by them. Apart from sounding more Judaic than Christian to me, where else have I heard that? Wait, it sounds a lot like justification of “preemptive” war. Like the war waged by the USA against Iraq in 2003, or the Six Day War waged by Israel in 1967, or just about every war waged by Israel. I wonder why the Nazis hated the Jews so much when they actually think in the exact same way.

    • Agree: Cortes
  18. Very informative. May I suggest as additionnal reading: Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Crown Forum, 2009,

  19. July 1914 was a month of missed opportunities, and the other powers were just as guilty as Britain. Kaiser Wilhelm reacted to Serbia’s response to Austria’s ultimatum by stating “but that eliminates any reason for war”. A meeting with the Austrian ambassador to convey this opinion, and to refuse German support if Austria declared war, could have ended the crisis – but the German Chancellor had other ideas.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the leaders of several countries, including Britain, Germany, France, and Austria, actually wanted a war.

    • Replies: @FB
  20. How dreadful to think that millions of brave men lost their lives due to the secret agendas of a handful of politicians.

    RIP brave souls….shame on the deceitful politicians.

  21. onebornfree says: • Website

    Regards, onebornfree

  22. utu says:

    Rudolf Steiner did not have first hand knowledge of what transpired during the meetings he comments about.

  23. Anonymous[225] • Disclaimer says:

    The author’s just-one-sentence premise is wishful thinking. Europe had been a charnel house for the previous 500 years and, with so many internecine rivalries and unresolved issues—territorial, colonial, self-determination and whatnot—was bound to blow up again at some point—even if that sentence had worked as the author hoped.

    One can come up with umpteen alternative scenarios, but it seems reasonably certain that the carnage was bound to continue.

  24. Gsjackson says:
    @Tom Welsh

    School children learn that? You must not live in the U.S.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  25. Jake says:

    There are 2 primary reasons that a ‘World War’ was going to be fought. One is that the Brit WASP Elites intended to maintain world hegemony in terms of naval power come Hell or high water to any part of the world. And the rise of a navy in Germany was perceived as a major threat. If they could take out the German navy, and perhaps reduce Germany significantly as a land military and an economic power, then they could secure the British as the largest empire in the world. If they could do that and reel in the Americans as their little brother helpers, they might create a world wide Thousand Year Reich.

    The other reason is that the Brit Freemasons and their brothers across Europe and the world were damned determined to destroy all monarchy that was not ‘constitutional.’ That means that their sites were set on toppling the ruling houses of 3 nations: Austria, Germany, Russia. The Brit WASPs knew that in that era, Austria-Hungary would ally with Germany. So Brit secret service set out to ensnare Russia, to prevent Russia from seeing the threat, which would mean Russia would form an alliance of 3 kings: Tsar, Kaiser, Holy Roman Emperor. WASP divide in order to conquer in steps.

    Modern Revolution from the Reformation, and most specifically from the Puritan Revolution, on has been anti-monarchical and anti-clerical. And the very idea of the existence of nations with sovereigns who claimed to wield power in the name of some surviving part of Christendom could not be tolerated any longer than it had to be.

    It was no accident that WW1 meant an end to all 3 monarchies.

    We are still reaping the whirlwind from sowing the wind of revolutions in the names of liberty, freedom, equality, all delivered with large scale violence directed at everything perceived to be related to what once was Christendom.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  26. Jake says:
    @The Alarmist

    True – but that is because Prussia will be Prussia, which is the same as saying that Vikings will be Vikings and WASPs will be WASPs.

    It is a Germanic thing. If it is not tamed by Latin Mass theology and liturgy, it will be permanent hell on earth warring.

  27. Logan says:

    I’m still a little confused about what the sentence was that would have prevented war.

    Britain agreeing to not attack Germany if they didn’t invade Belgium?

    That would have presumably kept UK out of the war, but I fail to see how it would have prevented Germany and France/Russia from going to war.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Aufklærer108
  28. Epigon says:
    @Vojkan

    1. Serbia accepted the ultimatum in all but one clause – proposal that instead of Austro-Hungarian investigation in Serbia, the International court in Hague (a novelty established for cases such as this) would handle the investigation and arbitration.

    The acceptance caught the Austrians by surprise, because the ultimatum had been written with insulting intentions, to be refused.

    2. Serbs dug their own graves by accepting Freemason tyranny in 1903 and bowing down to a “king” elected (!) by coupists and murderers sponsored and funded from abroad.

    They repeated the idiocy once again in 1918 when they submissively bowed down to a Yugoslav state, together with those who spent the previous 4 years murdering them.
    When the British snapped their fingers, the gullible imbeciles in March 1941 obediently responded, pledging allegiance to foreign agents.
    It was apparently all for nothing, since in 1945 after another 4 years of “brotherly” atrocities, they accepted yet another Yugoslavia.
    In 1990s, there weren’t enough Serbs left outside of Serbia to necessitate another Yugoslavia, so they could be removed altogether.

    Do yourself a favour and go to Belgrade downtown – a very prominent pyramid with a golden top is standing in front of the “Serb” academy of science and art, in plain sight, in the middle of the street; not to mention explicit Freemason ornaments all over historic downtown buildings. Ownership markings, I guess.

    3. Stop whining like a little bitch. History suffers no fools, and only a fool blames everyone but himself.
    Imagine being foolish enough to be outmaneuvered and outsmarted in geopolitics and diplomacy by sadistic scum and vermin like Croats, Bosniaks and Prizren League Shqiptars, and to be ruled by a Communist Croat for decades, remaining silent while he systematically chops up ethnic and historic borders and diminishes Serb power.
    Every decision and every move, on both personal and national level, has consequences. We are now living the consequences of abysmal, total, inexcusable failures our post-WW1 ancestors were.
    Down to 1990s inept cowards that constituted 90+% of our ethnos.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  29. Logan says:
    @Sean

    The Kaiser really should have been shot for not ordering a 1905 attack on France, a country that could not accept that Germany was no longer a gaggle of punch-bag principalities.

    I don’t think that was the real problem. After getting the crap kicked out of them in 1870 the French were well aware that Germany was no pushover.

    They just wanted revenge for 1870, understandably enough. Bismarck was smart enough to keep France diplomatically isolated, while the Kaiser was not. Most obviously he totally unnecessarily alienated the British by his idiotic attempt to challenge them on the seas.

    That’s the reason the British were lining up secretly and otherwise with the Entente. Not because they suddenly started loving the French, but because they had always opposed any power that looked like it might put together a fleet big enough to invade Britain.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @anon19
  30. Vojkan says:
    @Epigon

    I am not whining. I am fully conscious of how much Serbs are responsible for their own fate. Even more so since I returned from Paris to Niš. I realise that Serbs haven’t moved one inch forward and I more and more believe that they actually deserve their predicament. Today is celebrated as the day of victory over Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe. If Serbs had had a shred of intelligence, today would be a date like any other in Serbia. The number of bad decisions Serbs have taken in the 20th century is mind-boggling.
    That doesn’t exonerate the Germans, or any other nation for that matter, from their responsibility in the events during that period.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  31. WWI was designed and carried out by the zionist banking cabal in the zio/US and Britain as a game plan of The Protocols of Zion and every war since has been following the Protocols and the zionists drive for a zionist NWO, with their latest being Iran!

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  32. Jake says:
    @Logan

    You seriously think that England would not have gone to war if Germany had not crossed into the Low Countries?

    The English had invented the propaganda (the Hun is spearing Belgian babies) well before Germany acted.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Logan
  33. @Gsjackson

    School children learn that? You must not live in the U.S.

    True. A few generations ago, when I was a kid, all we ever really heard in skool about WW1 was, “dem Jerminz dunnit.”

    Now, I’d be surprised if they ever heard of it; in fact, I know of more than a few people in their ’20s to whom the hideous fiasco we imposed on the barefooted people of Vietnam is an obscurity not even warranting curiosity.

  34. Walter says:

    Grey was ordered to find a reason for war by his King. The diaries supporting this have been public for some time.

    I believe excerpts were printed in The Guardian.

  35. Walter says:

    Use this phrase in search: “King ordered Grey find reason for war”

    and first-up? This:

    ‘Find a reason to go to war with Germany’: Shocking letter documents how King George V urged his foreign secretary to justify conflict two days before outbreak of First World War

    A letter documents a meeting between King George V and Edward Grey
    The King urged his foreign secretary to find a reason for war with Germany
    King George V, revealed what had taken place to Sir Cecil Graves in 1933
    Sir Edward’s great-great-nephew Adrian Graves uncovered the information

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    • Replies: @Nonny
  36. @One Tribe

    It wasn’t until I read Douglas Reed’s “The Controversy of Zion” that the pattern made sense.

    That certainly helped me as well. However, a much quicker study is to read Marx’s Ten Planks of the Commie Manifesto.

    And a bit longer, but still reasonably short, are The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  37. All by design my friends..

    “In 1871 Albert Pike envisioned three World Wars to be followed by an unparalleled economic disaster. Pike’s plans have come to fruition, shockingly ‘on target’. Who is Pike and perhaps more importantly who backed Pike?”
    http://libertyforlife.com/nwo/albert_pike.htm

  38. @Gefreiter

    WWI was a set up by freemasons and jews in order to destroy the European monarchies and bring about communist revolutions and the genocide of the “best goyim”.

    All keys in their long plan of world subjugation and dominance, even of “their own,” through force. Absolutely chilling.

    Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the various beliefs of the goyim. But no one will ever bring under discussion our faith from its true point of view since this will be fully learned by none save ours, who will never dare to betray its secrets.

    Knowing this, even the brotherhood in its turn dare not protest. By such methods we have plucked out of the midst of masonry the very root of protest against our disposition. While preaching liberalism to the goyim we at the same time keep our own people and our agents in a state of unquestioning submission.

    Protocols #14 and 15

    Sick SoBs.

    • Replies: @Nonny
  39. refl says:
    @Fox

    In fact, the worry of the British and French instigators of the war was that the Germans would only slightly pass through the extreme South of Belgium and therefor not give reason for Britain to step in.
    As for Churchill not dispersing the fleet, for me the image is that of president Poincare returning from Saint Petersburg, from what was effectively a war council with the czar, being greated by British navy vessels in the Channel. He would no longer be held back.

    War in 1914 was by no means to be avoided as those who wanted it were hell bent to get it. At the same time a prolonged war could easily have been avoided by placing substantial British troops in the back of the Germans instead of in the French battleline. In fact, the blockade was deliberately kept ineffective for the first two years.
    A shorter war would have ended with a merely defeated but not destroyed Germany, it would not have brought the US into the war and it would not have plunged Russia into a revolution.
    A short war would not have led to general financial ruin and thus would not have brought about the all out victory for the banks.

    That is, as I see it, the most important lesson for today: back then as now in the ME the cackhandling is part of the plan, which never was about winning a war with few casualties but always about securing the maximum disaster possible along the way.

  40. According to what I read, I would say that the initial impulse to war came from France. France wanted to recover their German territories which they had lost in 1870-1. In 1914 they saw their opportunity. The documents concerning Viviani’s and Poincaré’s visit to Russia in July 1914 got “lost” both in Russia and in France. Sean Mcmeekin argues convincingling (July 1914. Countdown to war) that the French persuaded the Tsar to join them in a war against Germany. There were anti-German circles in Russia which probably pressured the Tsar. Actually, Viviani was against the war but he seemed hardly to know in which country he was and what he was doing there. We could say that Poincarè more or less assured him that everything was all right and that he would take care that there is peace.

    At that moment everything depended on the British. If they refused to support France, France would not have decided to make a war against Germany. If they had openly declared their support to France, Germany would have been much more careful. Douglas Newton shows that there was a lot of opposition to a war in England. But Grey, Churchill and Asquith wanted a war and were able to neutralise the opposition against the war, even though some fought in Britain until the end to prevent a war. The book by Douglas Newton, The Dark Days. The truth behind Britain’s rush to war, 1914, is decisive to understand the war and a great book. Christopher Clark said about it: “Compelingly written, tightly argued, deeply researched and bracingly revissionist study of the decisions that led to British intervention, Newton uprrots many hardy myths…”

    • Agree: Haxo Angmark
    • Replies: @refl
  41. @LondonBob

    Mobilisation of forces is an irrelevancy.

    This is UR; not Comedy Hour.

  42. @Voltaire

    God help us all.

    I hope that doesn’t include their G-wd; who, I hope, damns them all like it supposedly did more than once before. I only wish the pathetic SoB wouldn’t have scattered them to the ends of the Earth as “punishment” and WTF is taking the dude so long?

  43. @Gefreiter

    I hope you enjoy England’s nigrification Bob, no other country deserves it more.

    Partly because it succumbed to Talmudification a few centuries ago.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  44. @refl

    Agree, and one of the factors was the zionist creation of the FED and the IRS in 1913 both of which are privately owned by the zionist banking kabal and laid the groundwork for WWI and Wilson was a traitor who said we were not going to war and of course lied and sent America into war for the zionist banking kabal.

    It is the same movie ie groundhogs day, over and over , Wilson, FDR, Bush sr. , Clinton, Bush jr., Obama and now Trump all have put America in war for their zionist masters and now they are going for a total nuclear war with an attack on Iran which will bring in Russia and go nuclear and this is what the zionists and Israel want!

    God help us!

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  45. Ultimately, there was no hope of avoiding world war one. It may have happened at a different time in different circumstances. What brought the players into conflict was the struggle for power. Prussia became the dominant Germanic tribe, defeated the Habsburg Germans, then France. Russia feared German influence in the Bosporus, that vital sea- route for her exports. Great Britain saw German naval rivalry as a threat to her imperial might. France wanted to avenge 1871 and restore her status. Germany feared having to fight a two-front war. Austria triggered the war to prevent a greater Serbia that might cause its multicultural empire to collapse. The factors that drove these nations to war were as a consequence of their expansions at some time in history. Ultimately, everyone gets the war they are seeking to avoid. But leaders delude themselves, convinced they can avoid that fateful war, that it can be limited in scale or even won. History always proves them wrong. The Schlieffen Plan is a good example of that thinking: perhaps most critically it did not allow for complicating events that would trigger conflict. A dispute that drew in large powers would always be a global war. It’s the same today.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  46. @John Taylor

    I agree fully with John Taylor. The Society of the Elect and its circles of influence incited wars back then and the CFR, it modern-day affiliate, are doing it now. Examples are Syria and Venezuela. One only needs to look at the graphic below to understand why all media uniformly promote conflict and use Zionist mouthpieces as their experts.

    Also why is neoliberal Haass, the President of the CFR, on such great terms with “right-wing” Netanyahu? This transcript is very revealing. https://www.cfr.org/event/benjamin-netanyahu

  47. Epigon says:

    You’re embarassing yourselves.
    Giving credit to Jews for the successes of perfidious Albion and Eternal Anglos. Habsburgs/Spaniards, Dutch, Royal France, Napoleon, Russian Empire, German Empire – all defeated by the British.
    No, the Jews are the second tier of power pyramid. The top would be WASP elite.

    Jews wield soft power, media, culture and fictional economic power.
    The core, manufacturing, energetics, armament industry and the control over army and navy lies somewhere else.
    Having a minority to fleece the common plebs and present you with clean money (for a fee) has been the practice since Frankish times.

    If everything you write and claim really is the truth – well I welcome our Jewish overlords because they somehow, as an alien minority, managed to position themselves over the indigenous population, local aristocracy and especially local royals, exploiting stupidity, opportunism, hedonism and egoism so common to European man. Above people who could have rounded them up, confiscated their property and have them summarily executed. Cue the Templars and French.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @MAOWASAYALI
  48. What’s the point of all these “what ifs”? History does not have subjunctive mood. Whatever happened did happen, alternative reality does not exist. As, in contrast to math, history is not an exact science with rules that have predictive power, alternatives are always a matter of opinion. Opinions differ, because they are just that, opinions, in contrast to facts.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  49. @Vojkan

    The disingenuosity with which ‘revisionist’ historians are trying to whitewash Germany for both world wars beggars belief.

    You make nearly 100% great comments, very respectable and full of good info, but I’m one “revisionist” who is more interested in getting to the heart of the matter than in trying to whitewash anyone, and I’ve concluded that the issue goes much deeper than “Jerminy dunnit.” The real perps have had long experience in pitting one group against another while profiting greatly along the way.

    Few claim that the German leadership was faultless, but there is a lot of good evidence that they tried mightily to avoid war, so they probably deserve at least a good deal of “whitewashing.”

    Meanwhile, I think there hasn’t been enough finger pointing at the real troublemakers, aka international usurer backed “revolutionaries” (think Marx et al) who, til this day, are fomenting trouble and profiting from it nearly everywhere. Their behavior at Versailles pretty much reveals their greedy, sociopathic, intentions.

    Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.

    -Dillon, The Inside story of the Peace Conference pg 12

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Vojkan
    , @FB
  50. lysias says:

    MacGregor and Docherty convincingly demonstrate in “Hidden History” that a group of insider conspirators in Britain brought about war to remove the threat of rising Germany to the British Empire. Disturbing parallels to the current situation, with China rising and the U.S. in decline.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  51. @Jake

    You seriously think that England would not have gone to war if Germany had not crossed into the Low Countries?
    The English had invented the propaganda (the Hun is spearing Belgian babies) well before Germany acted.

    You should call yourself Jake the Hammer.

  52. @DESERT FOX

    WWI was designed and carried out by the zionist banking cabal in the zio/US and Britain as a game plan of The Protocols of Zion and every war since has been following the Protocols and the zionists drive for a zionist NWO, with their latest being Iran!

    Naw, “Jerminny dunnit.” Wink, wink. 😉

  53. I think this article focuses on the tactical mistakes of 1914.

    But I think the bigger issue is Britain’s decision to ally with France in the Entente Cordiale. That violated the principle that Britain should not ally with France against Germany, nor yet Germany against France, because such an alliance would make the other guy desperate.

    Back in the day, Bismarck and Lord Salisbury understood this. The dull and foolish men that followed them, not so much.

    • Agree: Tom Welsh
  54. Gefreiter says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    That begs the question, who has been histories biggest butcher for the jews?

    One could argue that because England has been under the yid thumb for so long, that they are the Jews’ biggest victims. And certainly, it was the Royal family who benefited most of all, but there were thousands of English “aristocracy” who benefited as well, and were supporters of the Zionists going back to Cromwell.

    One other thing is certain, England waged colonial wars against all of Africa, India and most of all China. The opium wars and the burning of the Imperial City are examples of total war and scorched earth that makes Hitler and the Kaiser look like a couple of German pikers, and that all happened before England started two world wars for Israel.

    Oh yes, we also have to remember the “Potato Famine”.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Patricus
  55. wayfarer says:

    If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

    ― Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

    Revolutionary Methods for Political Control. (http://newworldwar.org)

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  56. Good article.

    We remind ourselves of Dr Steiner’s comparison: that the British Empire then covered one-quarter of the Earth’s land-surface; Russia one-seventh; France and her colonies one-thirteenth; and Germany, one thirty-third. (Karma, p.11)

    True enough, but I’d like to emphasize that the American Empire effectively claimed the bulk the Western Hemisphere as it’s bailiwick and had been nosing around in the Pacific since practically the beginning, and we should all know by now to whom the US has long been subject and who hold the keys and purse strings of commercial supremacy.

    …a history of a multiplying people, who overrun a continent in half a century; a history divinely logical…

    … Shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?

    – ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, “MARCH OF THE [American] FLAG” (16 September 1898)

  57. Wally says:
    @Vojkan

    said:
    “The disingenuosity with which ‘revisionist’ historians are trying to whitewash Germany for both world wars beggars belief. ”

    Yawn.
    Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
    You really mean the Revisionist research which you have not, cannot refute, such as:

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

    • Replies: @Wally
  58. @AnonFromTN

    Whatever happened did happen, alternative reality does not exist.

    Whatever happened, did happen, of course. However, alternative versions of what happened exist, and most of them are bogus. That’s one huge point.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  59. @refl

    Fine comment, all true with the last sentence well deserving of emphasis.

  60. @wayfarer

    …If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
    ― Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

    That describes us dumb goyim and explains why we’re consistently duped, gulled and used as pawns and patsies. All for “the good of hyoomanity” or some other such BS.

  61. OK time to reference Webster Tarpley has to say on the subject: Blame lies with King Edward II
    of England

  62. Alden says:
    @Vinnie O

    Excellent summary of English foreign police for 800 years. Endlessly fight whichever European country was strongest at the time. Constantly switch between France Spain and Austrian Empire till Netherlands rose.

    How many European wars did England instigate?

    And then when Germany rose Germany became the supreme monstrous enemy.

    Did Kaiser Wilhelm ever meet his beloved grandmother Victoria? I wonder.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  63. Gefreiter says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Whatever happened did happen, alternative reality does not exist.

    After the years have passed and dead corpses in shallow graves have revealed their stories, we know that the official version is packed with lies.

    – We know that Katyn forest, the murder of Polands “best”, by communist jews, was blamed on Germany at Nuremburg despite the entire court knowing it was a lie. Dozens of honorable German officers were murdered by jews as a result.

    – The number of “officially recognized” dead jews at Auschwitz was revised from 4 million to 1.5 million, making 6 million dead during the “holocaust” a crass lie.

    – We know that jewish claims of gas chambers in labor camps in Germany at Nuremburg was later proved to be a lie and now the only claimed gas chambers are in Poland.

    – We know the truth about the Pearl Harbor set up,

    – We know about Hirohito’s desperate attempts for Japanese surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    And on and on.

    Whatever happened is certainly not the narrative planted that Tennesse Jew’s pea brain.

  64. Gefreiter says:
    @Epigon

    “No, the Jews are the second tier of power pyramid. The top would be WASP elite.”

    Why would “WASP’s” simultaneously commit cultural suicide across all white western Countries. Is France “WASP”? Why are they allowing this invasion? Norway is “WASP”? Austria, Switzerland, German, Belgium (whose precious sovereignty lead to WWI), Danemark are all being invaded because of “WASP’S”.

    You are a blathering idiot.

    • Agree: Alden
  65. Sean says:
    @Logan

    Bismarck was smart, but not nearly enough to keep France diplomatically isolated from an obvious ally. Germany maintaining an alliance with its own natural enemy of Russia was impossible. Up until 1905 (when there was a Revolution in Russia in the aftermath of the loss of the war with Japan) Britain had no need of an alliance with France or a substantial army. Russia was knocked out of the balance of power in 1905, greatly alarming France and Britain, but the most unusual opportunity in German history was squandered by the Kaiser. And the UK’s military understanding with France and a massive build up of the British army followed.

    The French (being on the far side of a mutual threat and thus natural allies of Russia) financed a program of railway spending by Russia that had tremendous military importance. Five years before the war the new German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg mused to his son that there was no point in planting new trees on their estate, as the Russians would be there in a few years. Germany was now trapped.

    • Replies: @Logan
  66. Amanda says:

    Benjamin H Freedman speech 1961~ Big History Lesson ~ (Freedman was right hand man to Bernard Baruch)

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

    excerpt:

    “World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

    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.”

    [MORE]

    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.

    Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. “

    • Replies: @JMcG
  67. @Logan

    That would have presumably kept UK out of the war, but I fail to see how it would have prevented Germany and France/Russia from going to war.

    If Britain promises to stay neutral, Russia & France presumably choose not to go to war with Germany over some trouble in the Balkans, because there is the plausible scenario that Germany will first beat France in a rapid campaign to avoid having to fight at two fronts, and then advance to beat Russia, preferably not on home turf.

    Why, however, did Germany feel obligated to honor its pact with Austria?

    • Replies: @JMcG
  68. Sean says:
    @Epigon

    By regime change in 1903 in Serbia, I suppose you mean the extra judicial killing of the King, Queen and prime minister ect, and the installation of the leader of the assassins as head of Serbian military intelligence, in which capacity he deliberately started WW1 by an assassination against the Austro Hungarian royal family. And it worked: Serbia doubled in size.

    Germany was too strong,it was a potential European hegemon. That is why they ended up fighting the whole world twice.

    • Agree: baythoven
  69. @Jacques Sheete

    Sorry, but your take is at least as full of contradictions as the one promoted by the victors. For starters, Russia, where the “revolutionaries” and avowed followers of Marx you mentioned came to power, did not participate in Versailles conference. What’s more, its Marxist (and to a large extent ethnically Jewish) government even before the conference insisted on peace without reparations and contributions. So, your assertions don’t square with reality. As we can hardly question reality, guess what’s at fault.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  70. @Gefreiter

    Yea, right… Whoever disagrees with you is a Jew. Check under your bed: there might be Jews and masons there. Warning: the wily bastards might be invisible, so even if you don’t see them, they are there. As well as under your tinfoil hat. You sound like the US elites: whoever they are afraid of is guilty of interfering in the non-existent “democracy”.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Gefreiter
  71. Cyrano says:
    @Vojkan

    I believe that there is a karmic element in every nation’s history. Eventually you pay for the sins that you’ve committed. The biggest sin that Serbia ever committed was in the Second Balkan war, when they stabbed their brothers – the Bulgarians in the back, all for the benefit of the Greeks.

    Where does such a magnificent love between the Greeks and the Serbs come from? Did you went greek on each other or what?

    Now I know that there is popular belief among the Slavs that we went Angelina Jolie on the Bulgarians – that we adopted them and that they have no Slavic origin. It doesn’t matter. Bulgarians are one of the best Slavs – proud of their heritage and culture – unlike some scumbags that would even deny that they are Slavs – you know who I am talking about.

    The Serbs did the ultimate betrayal of a brotherly Slavic nation in the 2nd Balkan war – for that they deserve to be awarded the title of honorary Ukrainians. I believe that the bad luck that the Serbs endured ever since then – is a result of that betrayal. You could have had the Bulgarians as allies in the 2 WW’s, instead of as enemies – it might not have made any difference but it would have been better than to try to make allies out of the Croats.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  72. Vojkan says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Thank you for the compliment. The esteem is mutual. AnonFromTN has already answered you with regards to the Versailles Treaty. I have commented on another site that WWII was much the consequence of the humiliation of Germany in Versailles, that I regard neither Soviet Communism nor Anglo-Saxon Imperialism as worthier causes to die for than German Nazism and that Serbs’ decision to reject Hitler’s offer maybe wasn’t their beightest moment.
    I am not trying to lay all the blame on Germany. A lot of factors led to WWI, but to present Germany as the least guilty party reluctant to go to war but dragged into it by everybody elses’s scheming is in my opinion as misleading as pretending that the war was only Germany’s fault and not anybody else’s.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  73. @One Tribe

    Margaret MacMillan, hack British-apologist ‘historian’. Worthless.

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  74. Vojkan says:
    @Cyrano

    As I said in response to Epigon, the number of bad decisions the Serbs have made during the 20th century is mind-boggling. In my opinion, antagonising the Bulgarians was a bad move, but antagonising the Greek would have been an equally bad move. The problem with Serbs is that their intelligence is not up to their pretentiousness, otherwise they would have never created a state shared with Croats and Slovenes. As Epigon observed, a lot of what Serbs did then was dictated by free-masonry.

  75. @Vojkan

    I hate to admit, but Lenin’s description of WWI as an attempt to re-divide already divided world is uncannily apt. Britain and France grabbed huge chunks of the world far away, whereas Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires grabbed a lot of neighboring lands. Germany came to the table late, when the pie was already divided, and felt that it is also entitled to some of it. From this perspective, some kind of bitter struggle between successful old predators and the new one was inevitable. In real history it led to WWI and its continuation WWII. None of the predators cared for its own or others’ citizens, so mass casualties were also inevitable. The blame rests squarely on greedy and unscrupulous elites of all: Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, and Ottoman Empire. Painting Germany as an innocent victim makes as much sense as claiming innocence or good intentions of any of the other players. In essence, hyenas fought for the prey, simply because they are all hyenas.

    • Agree: Vojkan
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  76. @anon19

    I agree with the first sentence, The primary responsibility lies elsewhere, I think.
    The Invaluable James Corbett did some excellent work on this

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

    Showing Grey’s ties back to Rhodes, among others.

    The whole piece, and its sequels, prequels and offshoots are well worth the time.
    As always it’s meticulously sourced.

    Grey was of course the master of the “All Options Are On The Table” mantra that the psychopathic filth in Washington use to announce the site of their next bathing in blood.

    • Agree: NoseytheDuke
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  77. Though I intend to read through this piece more in depth at a later time, I did find that the author made a mistake regarding the fact that Britain was not allied with France prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914.

    This is not completely true. There was no “official” alliance between Britain and France but both governments knew that the British and French military were in constant contact with each other over the possibility of a war with Germany. British historian John Keegan outlines this relationship in his one volume history on this war, “The First World War”.

    This is why Grey would not give Germany any assurances as to Britain’s neutrality in the event of hostilities breaking out against Germany. He couldn’t since he was most likely aware of what was going on out of site of the public and the press between the British and French militaries.

    Britain was also quite ready, as a result of the military collaboration with France, to go to war with Germany. As soon as it declared war on Germany, she cut 4 out of the 5 major trans-Atlantic cables to the West disallowing Germany any ability to communicate with the United States, which was part of the pre-war propaganda planning that Britain has been working ion prior to 1914 in the United States.

  78. TG says:

    I have heard references to the effect that pre-WWI Germany was beginning to feel hemmed in, and that it felt it needed to acquire colonies to ensure a supply of raw materials: which would be a direct threat to England. Certainly in WWII, the massive government-mandated explosion of Imperial Japan’s population was clearly the driver for Japan’s need to annex and colonize much of the rest of Asia.

    From John Maynard Keynes, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”:

    In 1870 Germany had a population of about 40,000,000. By 1892 this figure had risen to 50,000,000, [13] and by June 30, 1914, to about 68,000,000. In the years immediately preceding the war the annual increase was about 850,000, of whom an insignificant proportion emigrated.1 This great increase was only rendered possible by a far-reaching transformation of the economic structure of the country. From being agricultural and mainly self-supporting, Germany transformed herself into a vast and complicated industrial machine, dependent for its working on the equipoise of many factors outside Germany as well as within. Only by operating this machine, continuously and at full blast, could she find occupation at home for her increasing population and the means of purchasing their subsistence from abroad. The German machine was like a top which to maintain its equilibrium must spin ever faster and faster.

    In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which grew from about 40,000,000 in 1890 to at least 50,000,000 at the outbreak of war, the same tendency was present in a less degree, the annual excess of births over deaths being about half a million, out of which, however, there was an annual emigration of some quarter of a million persons.

    To understand the present situation, we must apprehend with vividness what an extraordinary [14] center of population the development of the Germanic system had enabled Central Europe to become. Before the war the population of Germany and Austria-Hungary together not only substantially exceeded that of the United States, but was about equal to that of the whole of North America. In these numbers, situated within a compact territory, lay the military strength of the Central Powers. But these same numbers—for even the war has not appreciably diminished them2 —if deprived of the means of life, remain a hardly less danger to European order.

    European Russia increased her population in a degree even greater than Germany—from less than 100,000,000 in 1890 to about 150,000,000 at the outbreak of war;3 and in the year immediately preceding 1914 the excess of births over deaths in Russia as a whole was at the prodigious rate of two millions per annum. This inordinate growth in the population of Russia, which has not been widely noticed in England, has been nevertheless one of the most significant facts of recent years.

    The great events of history are often due to secular changes in the growth of population and [15] other fundamental economic causes, which, escaping by their gradual character the notice of contemporary observers, are attributed to the follies of statesmen or the fanaticism of atheists. Thus the extraordinary occurrences of the past two years in Russia, that vast upheaval of Society, which has overturned what seemed most stable—religion, the basis of property, the ownership of land, as well as forms of government and the hierarchy of classes—may owe more to the deep influences of expanding numbers than to Lenin or to Nicholas; and the disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  79. refl says:
    @UncommonGround

    I would once like to ask Christopher Clarke, why he ommitted in his “Sleepwalkers” that the Serb king stepped down on August 24, 1914 – four days before the murder. He mentions early on in his book that there were rumors of an imminent coup in Belgrade in spring and in the latter part of the book he hardly mentions the king and always refers to the crown prince when he deals with the Serb leadership. He leaves out that exactly the coup that he treats as rumors takes place right before disaster strikes. To any observer at the time this must have been a smoking gun. Noone seriously can have considered the Serb government to be innocent. An Austrian war against Serbia nust have been regarded as absolutely justified.

    My assumption is that with this piece of information Clarke would have revealed that the real instigators were not France (who had wanted war to recover Alsace-Lorraine for decades) neither the Russians (to whom the British had promised the straits of Constantinople – never intending to make good on their promise) but the secret elite in London.
    You see, all these establishment authors owe their jobs to Angloamerican universities. Certain truth must be guarded even after a hundred years.

    By the way, once again I recommend firstworldwarhiddenhistory.com.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Epigon
  80. anon19 says:
    @Logan

    The French wanted “revenge”? For a war that they started? In any case Alsace was part of Germany long before France acquired it and has a German speaking presence to this day. Between 1670 and 1810 France invaded Germany 14 times, an average of once every ten years. Had the French won the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71 they would surely have annexed German lands beyond the Rhine. One of the key reasons for the Germans taking Alsace-Lorraine (it was against Bismark’s better judgement) was the German military’s firm belief there would be another war with France and the Vosges mountains would make a better defense line then the Rhine river.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Logan
  81. @Gefreiter

    And the Holodomor.

    And on and on.

    Whatever happened is certainly not the narrative planted ___________.

    For sure.

  82. @AnonFromTN

    For starters, Russia, where the “revolutionaries” and avowed followers of Marx you mentioned came to power, did not participate in Versailles conference.

    Possibly not, but their financiers are responsible for all, as I took care to state. Therefore your argument is a strawman.

  83. @lysias

    MacGregor and Docherty’s “Hidden History” is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the cause of WW I. Their second book, “Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years”, is even more damning. The intent of the Anglo-American cabal that engineered WW I was to utterly destroy the economic and technological threat – not military threat – that Germany posed for the British Empire. To do this they conspired to keep the war and the slaughter going until the Central Powers were utterly crushed.

    After Germany signed the armistice agreement and demobilized, the British cabal reneged on all promises to Germany and imposed a close blockade on all shipping into Germany, a blockade that resulted in the deaths by starvation and disease of perhaps millions of innocent German men, women, and children. This was all part of a conspiracy to destroy Germany.

    I’m a well-read and informed amateur student of history. I thought I had a good grasp of WW I’s causes, obtained by reading a large part of the conventional history. MacGregor and Docherty provide a compelling, evidence based case that convinced me otherwise.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  84. ricpic says:

    All these specifics don’t matter. What matters is human nature, which WANTS war.

  85. @AnonFromTN

    The blame rests squarely on greedy and unscrupulous elites of all:

    Now you’re making a lot of sense. The elites are to blame and that’s been my argument for a long time. However, the elite of Germany were less to blame than the other major players.

    In essence, hyenas fought for the prey, simply because they are all hyenas.

    Cannot, and will not, argue with that.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  86. @Gefreiter

    The opium wars and the burning of the Imperial City are [just two] examples of total war and scorched earth that makes Hitler and the Kaiser look like a couple of German pikers, and that all happened before England started two world wars for Israel.

    Yep, and the list is very long. The US War of Northern Bankers Against Southern Planters is another example, complete with scorched earth policy and subjugation, confiscation, and humiliation of the “rebs” and their property.

  87. @Johnny Walker Read

    …and perhaps more importantly who backed Pike?”

    No “perhaps” about it, sir!

  88. S says:

    An excellent and informative article.

    Regarding the avoidability of World War I, perhaps it could of been postponed for a time, but avoided indefinitely, probably not.

    As some others have alluded and commented upon, at the start of the 20th century the British Empire seemed dead set upon conquering and gaining control of Germany, and had been telegraphing this intent for decades prior to WW I via its corporate mass media.

    But why target Germany in such a way?

    To sum it up, since the formal fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century, and supplanting the Latins, Celts, Greeks, etc, preceding them, with little interruption, it has been the Germanics which have dominated Europe the past 1500 years. North-central Europe (ie present day Germany) has been the primary population center of the Germanics, and thus the center of power upon continental Europe.

    Therefore, if you wanted a truly all encompassing global empire (ie total world power, and not ‘merely’ a quarter or less of the globe) you would have to dominate Europe, and to dominate Europe you would have to conquer and gain control of Germany proper, the center of power upon the continent.

    Germany is the key for global empire for the Anglosphere countries…ie what are today the former major centers of the British Empire including the United States

    At least that’s what is inferred from a remarkably prescient 1853 geo-political book published in the United States which I’ve linked below, whose opening pages describe itself as ‘a horoscope’ and ‘a map of the future of mankind’, and is entitled The New Rome; or, the United States of the World.

    I’ve included a link to an American of German origins take on the The New Rome book published on the eve of the world war, ie circa 1912. Not surprisingly, he (Goebel) did not much care for the book’s description of a future Germany under the subjugation of the United States and the United Kingdom. Goebel declared the 1853 book’s contents to be ‘a political prophecy’ though (admittedly with some hind-sight) I think the term ‘a political plan’ would have been the more accurate description.

    The writing of the two linked original sources is a bit dry in places but overall worth the time (a few hours) to read.

    There is also a third link of selected excerpts taken from the 1853 New Rome book.

    Ultimately, I doubt anything short of national suicide by the German people would have stopped a world war being forced upon them, something that should not be expected of any people.

    If at the start of 1914, in an attempt to appease, the Germans had by and large decided to become a nation of 60-70 million Ghandi like goat herders whilst still retaining their borders, their physical identity, and much of their culture, though even then retaining the potential of reclaiming this ‘center of power’ status, they would have been warred upon.

    Almost nothing the Germans could have done would have stopped it.

    ‘…the Anglo-Saxon empire shall lay its slow but unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation.’

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 105

    ‘That great uprising of all peoples, that world’s war which is for ever seen to hang, like the sword of Damocles, over the passing joys and troubles of the hour, will fall when the Anglo-Saxon empire shall lay its slow but unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation.’

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/n8

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb/page/n2

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  89. @Jacques Sheete

    However, the elite of Germany were less to blame than the other major players.

    Reminds me of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

  90. @refl

    Exceedingly interesting insights and conclusions there!

    • Replies: @refl
  91. @anon19

    The French wanted “revenge”? For a war that they started?

    Why would that be so inconceivable?

  92. refl says:
    @Vojkan

    This is not about a Whitewash, but rather about understanding at all what this history was all about and what is in store for the future.
    The Gemany that could have been whitewashed no longer exists. And if the majority of Germans today were exposed to unz.com, they would run away screaming, so much are they enamoured with being the biggest criminals in history with the greatest effort in repenting their past wrongdoings in the world ever. Just look at the refugee-madness that is happening now. They are serious!!

    I would rather remember wrongs that really happened and not fictious ones. I have grown up with invocations that enemies have become friends and all that and like most people here have thoroughly believed that the destruction of this country was for the greater good of all. And then one unpleasant truth slips in and yet another…

    Still, we should rather see this as an expose to the next historical chapter that is just opening up. The outlook is quite dark and if you can draw one lesson from history, than it is that disaster will not be prevented.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @L.K
  93. Agent76 says:

    Bankers Hate Peace: *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

    In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/bankers-hate-peace-all-wars-are-bankers-wars/5438849

    *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars* By Michael Rivero

    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.

    The Bank War

    The Bank War was the name given to the campaign begun by President Andrew Jackson in 1833 to destroy the Second Bank of the United States, after his reelection convinced him that his opposition to the bank had won national support. The Second Bank had been established in 1816, as a successor to the First Bank of the United States, whose charter had been permitted to expire in 1811.

    https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-shuts-down-second-bank-of-the-u-s

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  94. Anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    Better go back to [257] and make your waffling ignorant side less prominent. 800 years earlier the French speaking Plantagenets were just getting under way and “European countr[ies]” didn’t exist. As for your wondering about Victoria and Wilhelm in a comment where you are presuming to express opinions as though you deserve to be taken seriously and waste others’ time you are being utterly frivolous. (The answer is, for those who would need to look it up, yes).

  95. Patricus says:
    @Gefreiter

    “…England started two world wars for Israel” ??? Israel didn’t exist til after WW II.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  96. Zumbuddi says:
    @refl

    “Disaster will not be prevented,”

    But This time, there are witnesses.
    Right here at Unz.

  97. onebornfree says: • Website

    Nick Kollerstrom says: “On the Avoidability of World War One”

    I heartily disagree with the premise of the title of this post by Mr . Kollerstrom.

    It is pure statist fantasy to believe that this war, or any other could ultimately be avoided!

    As Randolph Bourne said: “War is the health of the state” . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

    Bourne meant this quite literally. It wasn’t just a catchy slogan. War is literally the health of all states throughout history – they all in fact depend on it for their survival.

    The True Price of All Governments For the Individual:

    Fact: War is part of the true price of all governments.You want governments- then you must have wars, both directly on the citizens within the governments claimed territories, and on the overseas citizens of other governments in other countries.

    [MORE]

    If individual 1 [e.g. Kollerstrom ] , wants governments in the first place, because he/she believes it is necessary for the government to perform certain “necessary” functions, [such as: protect the borders, police the streets, prevent crime, regulate banking, “protect” the environment , support the unemployed, etc etc. etc. ad infinitum] , then the true, never recognized price of having the government performing those “necessary”tasks per the wishes of individual 1, is that because other individuals have markedly different ideas about what their government should/should not do, the government will also take on those tasks, many of which individual 1 will oppose.

    In other words, if individual 1 wants the government to perform certain tasks deemed necessary by that individual, he/she cannot get what they want without the government simultaneously getting to satisfy the individual needs of many other individuals, all of whom will inevitably have very different ideas about what the government should/should not do.

    And in case, many people, because they are foaming at the mouth “make the world a better place via government” statists, have no problem with the government making war on certain groups/individuals within its jurisdiction who have certain religious beliefs, or who have certain dietary preferences, certain political philosophies, or who prefer to use certain substances deemed harmful by others; nor do those same individuals often have any problem with the government making war on foreigners outside the home country for whatever reason, via trade sanctions, bombing, ground invasions etc.

    Bottom line: War is the “business” of all governments, everywhere, so if you want to have governments in the first place [ because you deem them “necessary”, for whatever reasons] , sooner or later, war[s] both internal and external, are inevitable.

    A Possible Exception?

    A possible barrier against all this was the original US constitution [if it had actually been alive and kicking in 1913] or, even more so, the Articles of Confederation which preceded the constitution [until the Articles were trashed via a coup orchestrated via the 1st and 2nd constitutional conventions].

    However , by 1913, the illegally enforced US constitution itself had already gone into the dustbin of history, via , amongst other things, the War against the States, and so by 1913 the US was essentially no different in political structure from the European nations that the American Revolutionaries had been so desperate to escape from.

    And then of course [i.e. 1913] , and as another person has pointed out here, the entirely unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act was made law via corrupt politicians being paid by the Rothschilds, the federal income tax was made law via the 16th amendment [despite the fact that is was never ratified by enough states to even become the law of the land] , and the rest is history…………….

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @anonymous
  98. @One Tribe

    The only territory that changed hands across two world wars was a small patch of land in the Middle East!

    Although Douglas Reed’s book is well worth reading (it’s available on the web at The Controversy of Zion), that quoted statement is wrong.

    Alsace-Lorraine is the most obvious example: it was annexed to the German Empire in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War, and back to France in 1918. (Germany never formally re-annexed it after the fall of France in 1940).

    German territories in Africa (modern Cameroon, Namibia, Tanzania and Togo) are another. They were split among the Allied belligerents in 1919.

    So… plenty of territory (and millions of people) “changed hands” between 1914 and 1945.

    Reed’s central thesis is almost certainly correct, but his tendency to over-egg the pudding makes it vulnerable to “broad brush” refutation – people can point to statements like the one you’ve cited and say “If he got that very obvious thing absolutely wrong, what can be said about everything else he wrote?

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Jacques Sheete
  99. S says:

    Both Morel and Steiner made remarkable statements about WW I. Steiner in 1916 in particular with his ‘the world war that had always been prophecied’ and in England there being behind the ‘puppets’ ‘a powerful and influential group of people’ pushing for the war.

    It almost makes one think they both might have been familiar with the Anglosphere ‘New Rome’ ideology, ie that in the future the United States and United Kingdom will have conquered and gained control of the entire world…ie that future empire being the New Rome.

    It seems someone from more modern times might have a passing knowledge of the ‘New Rome’, ie Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in remarks he made in Jerusalem March 21, 2019, to US Secretary of State Pompeo in regards to President Trump’s decision to grant US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

    ‘Rome and Jerusalem clashed over values. We had a great tragedy for the Jewish people. But the new Rome, the United States, views itself as a new Jerusalem.’

    [MORE]

    ‘And let me add another word about that. We had a moving visit today to the wall. I can’t resist repeating this, but I’m going to.’

    ‘I said to the Secretary that the last time Pompeo visited Jerusalem didn’t end that well, but this is a different time. Rome and Jerusalem clashed over values. We had a great tragedy for the Jewish people. But the new Rome, the United States, views itself as a new Jerusalem.’

    ‘We visited the original city on the hill. We visited the hill.’

    ‘There is no greater friendship than the one between Israel and the United States, and no one represents it better than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.’

    ‘You and Ambassador Friedman and your delegation are exceptional champions of our lives. I’ve called you so many times on so many things that this evening I just want to say one word – two actually: Thank you. Thank you, Mike Pompeo. Thank you, President Trump. And thank you, America.’

    The below from a now defunct website is an excerpt from an article which delves into the ‘New Rome’ ideology. The article was entitled ‘Freemasonry and the Roman Spirit’

    Study of the ideas of the leaders of these forces within Freemasonry reveals that their dream, intention and plan was to create out of Britain and America a New Rome, a new World Empire, a new uniformity of thought and lifestyle that would embrace the whole world. To this end, a new state, the United States of America, was established, the first “world state”…

    ‘Both in Britain and in the USA in the 18th and 19th centuries, aristocratic, oligarchical and anti-democratic forces working within the hierarchical structure of Freemasonry ensconced themselves within the political establishments of those countries – to what end?

    Study of the ideas of the leaders of these forces within Freemasonry reveals that their dream, intention and plan was to create out of Britain and America a New Rome, a new World Empire, a new uniformity of thought and lifestyle that would embrace the whole world.

    To this end, a new state, the United States of America, was established, the first “world state”, made up of immigrants from all over the world rather than just from one ethnic community – a New Atlantis as intended by the British Elizabethan occultist John Dee, adviser to the Virgin Queen, and by Francis Bacon, James I’s Chancellor, and ruled by a scientific priestly elite.

    This is how the Freemasons of the Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary generations saw themselves…’

    He goes on…

    The Temple and the Roman Imperial Spirit

    ‘The Jerusalem Temple and Imperial Rome: these are what have linked Freemasonry with the New Rome of the New World Order since the days of the Templars, who based their esotericism on the symbology of the Temple of Solomon which they had learned in the Crusades.

    Their very name was associated with the Temple, and many of Freemasonry’s rites too are based on the Temple of Solomon. The god-given esotericism of ancient Israel was thus conjoined with what was essentially an imperial Roman will to power.

    Today we see again an alliance between those forces that lead the Jewish people and those that lead the New Rome; indeed the State of Israel today, just as in Herod’s day, is a client state of an Imperial Rome, the only difference being that, unlike Herod’s kingdom, without the aid of the New Rome, the modern State of Israel would very likely not have survived.’

    https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/03/290554.htm

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

  100. JMcG says:
    @Amanda

    My God, I’ve never heard this before. Thank you.

  101. JMcG says:
    @Aufklærer108

    Russia decided to mobilize on Serbia’s behalf, out of fellowship for her brother Slavs, despite no formal alliance. France, probably having strongly encouraged this, then mobilized on Germany’s eastern border.

  102. L.K says:
    @refl

    This is not about a Whitewash, but rather about understanding at all what this history was all about and what is in store for the future.

    Exactly.

    The Gemany that could have been whitewashed no longer exists. And if the majority of Germans today were exposed to unz.com, they would run away screaming

    So true.

  103. @Carolyn Yeager

    incidentally,

    Margaret MacMillan

    is the grand-daughter

    of Lloyd George

    one of the 3 principal architects – with Clemenceau and Wilson –

    of the rapacious Versailles Diktat

    that spawned Round II.

  104. Sparkon says:

    This is a fine article by Nick Kollerstrom, where he quotes Rudolf Steiner with the power ball:

    “… behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way was paved for the world war that had always been prophesied.”

    Puppets sure, but prophesied by whom? In the past, I’ve commented about an excerpt from Henry Ford’s The International Jew where he quotes Litman Rosenthal:

    Dr. Nordau was scheduled to speak about the Sixth [Zionist] Congress…The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau’s beautiful, truly poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the hearers with an almost sensual pleasure.

    ‘…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

    (no bold emphasis needed)

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_14

    ✓ Herzl
    ✓ Zionist Congress
    ✓ Uganda Proposition
    ✓ World War
    ✓ Peace Conference
    ✓ Jewish Palestine

    I’d say ol’ Maxie pretty much ran the table. Mazel Tov Max!

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  105. anon[949] • Disclaimer says:
    @Catherine

    Whites are to be blamed for all this.

    don’t be so sure

    i hear “all wars are banker wars” and from the wife of rothschild “if my sons didn’t want war there would be no wars”

    just look at what’s going on today – the U.S. wars are being planned and driven by (((neocons))) – the goal was to destroy 7 MENA countries in 5 years and for what reason? to make israel feel safer?

  106. sally says:
    @Sean

    France made its pact with Russian just after the first Zionist Congress.. 13 years before the war.. the very next year England, France, and the USA entered into a secret pack wherein the USA would finance the war to get Germany.. because Germany was ahead of them, Germany had the Baghdad Railway, Germany had good relations with the Ottomans and the most prosperous economy on the planet was in the Germany sphere.

    It was the First Zionist congress where the bankers and traders developed their plan to take the oil from the Ottoman.. the initial effort of that failed in 1909 (CUP).. That’s when the entire effort to weaponize immigration and move the Jewish populations into the Ottoman lands began in earnest. In preparation from the take over ..(Balfour Agreement, WWI WWII Palin Commission, Israel with state powers and so on.) In the treaty after WWI, French bankers got Syria, and British bankers and oil men most of the rest.. but still German industry was an unbeatable competitor no matter the defeat.

    You left out of your references the two most important books on the subject..
    1. Pan Germanism by Roland Greene User, 1913, 1914, an important professor in America (wherein he explains how the triple alliance was setting up to defeat the Germans.
    2. My Memoirs, `1878 to 1918 by Ex Kaiser William II (HIMSELF).

    The war against Germany was contrived planned, set up, encouraged by bankers and oil men and executed with precision by officials of the governments that had economic interest at stake in defeating Germany and taking over the oil in the Ottoman empire.

    The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium…,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this: ‘After Grey had refused to promise the German Ambassador that England would remain neutral in the event of Germany’s agreeing not to invade Belgium, the German ambassador asked Grey to formulate the conditions according to which England would remain neutral, but Grey refused point-blank to do so,

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Anon
  107. anon[949] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gefreiter

    WWI was a set up by freemasons and jews in order to destroy the European monarchies and bring about communist revolutions and the genocide of the “best goyim”.

    sounds about right

  108. Fox says:
    @Kratoklastes

    In addition, the cut-up of German lands, with parts going in Europe to Poland, Czech-Slovakia, Italy, Belgium Denmark, Lithuania; that was after the First War, and does not include the territorial changes of the Russian Empire in 1917.
    After 1945 there was another round of the same, almost exclusively with German territory.

  109. FB says: • Website
    @LondonBob

    Agree absolutely…

    Here we have an article of high standards in terms of style…but unfortunately zero substance…

    The result is absurdity…one man started WW1, the Foreign Minister of Britain…

    Irrelevance is the perfect word…

  110. @S

    If at the start of 1914, in an attempt to appease, the Germans had by and large decided to become a nation of 60-70 million Ghandi like goat herders whilst still retaining their borders, their physical identity, and much of their culture, though even then retaining the potential of reclaiming this ‘center of power’ status, they would have been warred upon.

    Almost nothing the Germans could have done would have stopped it.

    Well said. There is not a shred of doubt about that.

  111. @sally

    Dynamite comment. Please comment more often!

  112. FB says: • Website
    @Jacques Sheete

    Jacques, for someone that is endlessly pointing to obscure, and presumably revisionist literature, you just made one very big goofy fumble that says much about the credibility of your revisionism…or rather lack thereof…

    Marx and the Bolsheviks were as much a part of the Versailles Conference as was Groucho, Harpo and Gummo…SMFH

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Jacques Sheete
  113. @Patricus

    “…England started two world wars for Israel” ??? Israel didn’t exist til after WW II.

    But political Zionism did. And what’s political Zionism for, anyway?

    Nice try, but ultimate fail. Any more like that and you’ll confirm your troll status.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Patricus
  114. Fox says:
    @refl

    The war could have ended in late 1916 with Germany’s suggestion to restore the situation of before the war, but this was refused by the allied governments. Since the allied powers had, each one of them, definite war aims, while Germany and Austria did not, this can be taken as evidence of Triple-Entente long-term war planning. I think that France, England and Russia were all appalled at the losses they endured, contrary to their expectation of an easy victory with their enormous total superiority. Both E.D. Morel (Truth and the War) and Francis Neilson (I think in Makers of War or in How Diplomats Make War) make comparisons of relative troop strengths and armaments between the Entente and the Triple Alliance (soon to be without Italy), and the Central Powers are very strongly outnumbered and outgunned in the light of these numbers. In my opinion, the war was the continuation of the medieval (I mean reaching back to the Middle Ages) policies of England and France (Balance of Power for England, or a weak, serviceable Germany for France), while Russia was following the rather ungraspable doctrine of endless expansion. Why did Russia need yet more territory in addition to what it already possessed?

    It is amazing what damage a few stupid people can wreak on the world, and, even in accounting of their apparent intelligence, people like Gray, Poincare, Clemenceau, the untiring war pusher Churchill, or even Lloyd George, must ultimately be considered as “stupid”, because they could not go beyond a narrow-minded obsession, they could only think of a gain, either in territory, power, or social stature, all else was not part of their thinking. They could not fathom that a war would cost millions of lives, that it would perhaps cause turmoil on a continent-wide level, that bringing their colonial subjects from Africa or Asia onto European battle fields might undermine their power to rule over them, and they could not fathom the psychological effect of loosening a campaign of hatred, or even the idea that a civilization hinges on certain basic assumptions of a common understanding. Hence, we can read such amazing statements that without the German competition British wealth would increase, not thinking of the wealth-creating force of trade.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  115. @Kratoklastes

    The only territory that changed hands across two world wars was a small patch of land in the Middle East!

    Although Douglas Reed’s book is well worth reading (it’s available on the web at The Controversy of Zion), that quoted statement is wrong.

    As near as I can tell, the quote is worse than wrong; it appears to be bogus.

    I did a word search on two different sites and the word, “patch” never appeared alone in C of Z; it occurs 14 times in the text, but always as part of the words, “dispatch” or “despatch” or some other tense of those words.

    I don’t think Reed over-egged anything, but as usual, I could be wrong. Especially since my tastes are often “unique!”

  116. FB says: • Website
    @James N. Kennett

    I believe you’re in the wrong place, man…you seem to have somehow turned off at Nutterville Station, instead of continuing on to your obvious destination of Normaltown…

    Good luck to you sir…you’ll find the natives here at UNZ quite harmless, as idiots go, and endearingly entertaining…

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  117. @One Tribe

    The only territory that changed hands across two world wars was a small patch of land in the Middle East!

    Where, exactly did you obtain that quote?

    It sounds bogus to me and I could not find it in 2 different pdfs of the book, although I’ll readily admit that I’m perfectly capable of missing what’s directly in front of me.

    Also speaking of Oxford, wasn’t/isn’t that a hotbed of Fabianism, a branch of phony liberalism?

  118. WW1 and WW2 (instigated by the ruling class of Britain) were in reality one war with a pause in between. The end goal was to:

    • break a Germano-Russian alliance in essentially destroying both

    • prevent Jews from assimilating with non-Jews (and thus forming alliances with the ruling classes of Germany and Russia)

    • create the anti-Jewish environment with Nazism so they’re migrate to Palestine and the USA

    No reference is complete on the subject of WW1 without Doherty and Macgregor’s Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

    The authors also have a most excellent blog with referenced historical entries that cover the period of pre-WW1 to post-WW2 and more:

    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/

  119. John says:

    I think a compelling case can be made that the horrors (wars, genocides, famines, etc.) of the 20th century were indeed some of the events described in the Book of Revelation over a thousand years earlier. No other century in recorded human history has seen such horrors, both in quantity and quality of evil. The apocalyptic locusts described in the Book of Revelation were descriptions of aircraft during WWI and WWII. The world’s first military airplanes were being developed in and around the same time as the Tunguska event of 1908, which is the single most famous event of a “star” fallen to earth in recorded history. These apocalyptic locusts and fallen star coincide with the opening of the Abyss which takes place at the end of the Millennium, and the “short time” of Satan. The Four Horsemen are released at an exact time which had been prepared for them, which can be calculated from the text of the Hebrew Bible. We are told that the four angels that are released in order to kill a third of the people are bound at the River Euphrates. It is interesting to note that the River Euphrates had been dammed in the years just preceding the First World War, during the construction of the Hindiya Barrage between 1911-1913. The drying up of the Euphrates is mentioned in the same context as the appearance of the apocalyptic locusts, which occurs at the opening of the Abyss by the angel given the key to Hades. The Prophet Ezekiel was shown a vision of the Four Living creatures who restrain the fallen angelic beings at the Chebar Canal, which has been idenfied with the Khabur River in modern Syria – one of the largest tributaries to the River Euphrates. The exact spot where the Khabur River flows into the Euphrates lies at the site of Deir ez-Zor, which was the major concentration camp used by the Turkish government during the Armenian Genocide, which began in 1915. Between 1915-1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated by the Turkish government, providing a future template which their close allies the Germans would use to implement the Jewish Holocaust. The Armenian Genocide had prophetic significance: the fact that Armenia was the world’s first Christian kingdom. The key architects of the infrastructure used to exterminate the Jews during the Second World War had witnessed the Armenian Genocide first hand, and directly lifted the systematic slaughter devised by the Turks to annihilate a third of the world’s total Jewish population:

    “Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, ‘Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.’ So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill a third of the people.” (Rev 9:13-15)

    With that said, a troubling thought comes to mind: our present generation is many times more evil and criminal than the regimes of the 20th century. How much longer will we be afforded mercy?

  120. @AnonFromTN

    Yeah, hard to resist before giving up on them isn’t it? And it’s not as though you and I always agree 🙂

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  121. @Fox

    Would you care to give the sources you rely on for the “suggestion” you say was made in late 1916, including its terms and who made it to whom. You would be aware of course that Churchill was not then in the War Cabinet (or whatever the central decisionmaking group around the PM then was).

    BTW, as you seem to have given some thought to such matters, what do you make of the importance of Germany’s determined push to build a navy to rival that of the British from 1898 (search e.g. for the Five Naval Laws)? Could that not be seen as absolutely critical to lining up the UK in the Triple Entente? If so, is not the influence of Alfred von Tirpitz and the Kaiser’s support for him properly regarded as turning point stuff? I was sorry when I first learned of Tirpitz’s possibly fatal part in the war that ruined the West because I spent a Christmas with his very pleasant grandson who had been a POW of the Brits in WW2 and was an Anglophile.

  122. Ron Unz says:
    @FB

    Marx and the Bolsheviks were as much a part of the Versailles Conference as was Groucho, Harpo and Gummo…SMFH

    Well, you’re certainly correct about the Bolsheviks not being invited to participate in Versailles, but it’s actually a bit more complicated than that…

    Henry Wickham Steed was one of the foremost journalists of his era and the former editor of the Times of London, the world’s leading newspaper, so I think he can be regarded as a reasonably authoritative source. The second volume of his personal memoirs, published in 1924, contains a couple of very intriguing passages about the relationship between the Bolsheviks and Jacob Schiff, who was a major figure at Versailles, and fortunately everything is easily available online:

    https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.79764/2015.79764.Through-Thirty-Years-1892-1922-Vol-Ii_djvu.txt

    Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference — a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists

    the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.

    Numerous other contemporaneous sources confirm that Schiff, one of America’s top Wall Street bankers, had been a crucial financial backer of the Bolsheviks and other Russian revolutionaries over the previous couple of decades, so it’s hardly surprising that he was negotiating on behalf of his clients at Versailles.

    I only discovered these intriguing facts last year, and was quite surprised since they’d been totally omitted from the hundred-odd books on Russian/Soviet history I’d read during the 1970s and 1980s, none of which even mentioned Schiff’s name. Indeed, one might even reasonably call Schiff “the invisible man”…

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  123. @Jake

    Well, I’m glad you showed up for this.

    Anti-monarchy (i.e. anti-sovereignty), anti-clerical (i.e. anti-Christian), reformist, secularist, modernist, materialist, etc., etc. ideology is what we’re dealing with. There’s probably another name or two for it, though only one country that’s consistently pushed for it.

    Sure, you’re welcome for the simplification.

  124. @TG

    Thanks for some excellent references for ideas that I have long entertained.

  125. @Ron Unz

    This thread has led to some very good links and references but I can’t help have reservations about Nick Kollerstrom himself which may be indicated by reference to

    https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2008/may/04/highereducation

    On the plus side I would be pleased to see a follow up on the stuff in #66 which was not entirely unfamiliar to me but very important to understanding the state of the world to the extent that it tells the truth.

    #78 also deals with fundamentally important demographic facts which our barely numerate species glides past. (I have been wont to point out to people that, in 1913 there were 2 million babies born in Germany and 5 million in Russia, quite enough for Hitler and Stalin to be able to shrug off WW1 losses in the 30s and gear up for war again.

  126. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It is my understanding that Germany never had the intention to build a rival navy to that of Britain; this would have been quite unnecessary since Germany had but few possessions in the Pacific, a few posts in China and the Colonies (“Schutzgebiete”) in Africa. The navy had as a primary purpose to keep the German merchant fleet unmolested. Germany never came close to the number of vessels, the tonnage or kind of ships England had. There was no plan to build any Dreadnoughts, the super weapons of the day.
    However, to imply that Germany wanted to out-do England was a convenient propaganda tool against Germany.
    I can’t tell you on the spot the source of the German peace initiative of late 1916, but I will find it. It will be a few days because I will not be in a position to access a computer for a while (travel). I seem to remember that it is also part of the Freedman speech (comment 66, Amanda); I read it years ago, but have not seen the clip given in 66.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @dfordoom
    , @Logan
  127. Epigon says:
    @refl

    I would once like to ask Christopher Clarke, why he ommitted in his “Sleepwalkers” that the Serb king stepped down on August 24, 1914 – four days before the murder.

    Because such a thing never happened? You are pulling things out of your ass?

    The Sarajevo assassination occured on June 28th 1914 – the date was not a coincidence, too.

    He mentions early on in his book that there were rumors of an imminent coup in Belgrade in spring and in the latter part of the book he hardly mentions the king and always refers to the crown prince when he deals with the Serb leadership.

    This only serves to demonstrate the shoddy scholarship and ignorance of the author – who cashed in on his atrocious book big time in Germany.

    To any observer at the time this must have been a smoking gun. Noone seriously can have considered the Serb government to be innocent.

    Except it was, with Serbia in political turmoil, exhausted after Balkan wars, and not even a budget voted for 1914. The armaments and ammunition ordered to replenish the stocks hadn’t even arrived, so Serbia wasn’t even able to dress and arm its army once WW1 started.
    Furthermore, the man behind the Sarajevo assassination was also behind the 1903 coup/regime change that toppled and murdered the entire pro-Austrian Serb dinasty and political party.
    The army was purged afterwards, too.
    He would meet his end in 1917, convicted of high treason and shot along his closest Black Hand accomplices. Do the math.

    To those of us who actually investigated the affair, Kingdom of Montenegro and Kingdom of Italy (through Montenegrin queen) had more direct involvement with the assassination than Government of Serbia.

    An Austrian war against Serbia nust have been regarded as absolutely justified.

    But it wasn’t – further substantiated by Serbia accepting the ultimatum in all but one clause; proposing international investigation and arbitration at Hague.
    Austro-Hungary had been pushing for a punitive war against Serbia since 1905 and Customs War that year, let alone post-1908 annexation of Bosnia&Herzegovina that nearly brought Russia into war.
    Likewise, Imperial Germany had been pushed into a tight spot, with their strategic outlook ever worsening with the relative rise of Russian Empire, reforms instituted after defeat in Russo-Japanese war – cue Imperial War Council of December 1912 held in Germany – which is always conveniently left out by revisionists.

    but the secret elite in London.

    You have to dig a lot deeper, all the way to 1903 coup,one Georg Weifert who funded the assassins and coupists, and the CV of the Karađorđević king Peter who was ELECTED by conspirators and assassins – the king was a Freemason, veteran of Franco-Prussian War and an avid fan of “On liberty” by John Stuart Mill, which he translated and published prior to becoming a king. He also unsuccessfuly conspired against Obilić dynasty in tandem with Petrović dynasty of Montenegro – who do you think funded the dynasty-in-exile in Europe, sentenced to death in Serbia, and all their properties confiscated?

    The loot the coupists took from dead monarchs and their family in 1903 was auctioned off in London, btw.

    Finally, has it occured to you that there is something wrong with the behaviour of Austro-Hungarians who agitate the Serbs on their national holiday, uncover evidence of assassination plan, have their heir survive through bombing attempts on that day and conveniently get lost and deliver the target right in front of the gunman? The Young Bosnia crew was multiethnic and multiconfessional and decidedly not Serbian nationalists, as is often incorrectly claimed.

    • Replies: @refl
  128. Epigon says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    2nd Reich would have been hopeless without the acquisition of colonies and construction of a significant navy.

    Rapid population growth and huge industry buildup translate into significant import of food, raw resources and the need to establish many trade links across the world for the import-export business.

    In case of any disturbance, these trade routes need protection, and colonial holdings were important worldwide outposts and naval bases in addition to raw resource producers. So a blue water navy is an absolute must, and this navy has to include both cruisers for trade protection/raiding and battleships to challenge blockades of Germany.

    Britain could have blockaded hypothetical colony- and navy-free Germany into oblivion, once they started threatening British global hegemony in industry, trade and power.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @dfordoom
  129. Epigon says:
    @Fox

    Germany never came close to the number of vessels, the tonnage or kind of ships England had. There was no plan to build any Dreadnoughts, the super weapons of the day.

    You do realise that immediately after (in a matter of weeks) Britain launched HMS Dreadnought, Germany authorised funding for two Nassau-class ships?
    Once Britain embarked on an ambitious dreadnought battleship build-up plan, Germany escalated with 12-inch Helgoland class? So already in 1908, Germany planned for at least 8 “super-weapons”, and improved designs for future Kaisers and Konigs (5 + 4) were already on the drawing table?

    Even better, once Britain unveiled their tin-clad battlecruisers, Germany responded with their own battlecruisers designed specifically to counter British ones, and almost matching British dreadnought battleships in armoured protection (compare Von der Tann and Moltke with Invincibles and Bellerophons)?

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @NoseytheDuke
  130. @Wizard of Oz

    I read for the first time about this peace initiative in Ray Monk’s biography of Bertrand Russell years ago, but I don’t have the book and never looked for this passage again. Understandably, the war was not the main theme of Monk’s book.

    There is also a book about that by the German professor Hans Fenske (university of Freiburg), written only after he retired: “Der Anfang vom Ende des alten Europa: Die alliierte Verweigerung von Friedensgesprächen 1914–1919” (published in 2013). I haven’t read it, but the title already makes it clear: Verweigerung=Refusal, Rejection. Friedensgespräche=Peace negotiations.

    There are above many interesting bibliographical suggestions and indications of web sites with material. By the way, I mentioned in my post the wrong book by Sean Mcmeekin, I read both of them. The book about Russia isn’t very well written and the title, “Russian Origins of the First World War”, is maybe misleading, even though, the book is useful. His other book (the one I mentioned in my post) is much better written. I don’t understand why the book by Douglas Newton isn’t read or known more widely.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  131. Gefreiter says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Go chew on some goy-blood matza balls, Heimi.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  132. Gefreiter says:
    @Epigon

    In case of any disturbance, these trade routes need protection

    Which is precisely the technique your beloved “WASPS” are using against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Now your “WASPS” have even hijacked a Korean coal ship. Those mean old WASPS! For no reason they keep starting wars for Greater Israel, its almost like anti-semitism. It just exists from nothing. This makes sense because everyone knows WASPS love Jews more than their fellow Christians. It must be because the jew-owned media gave them a cool name like “WASP”. Thats almost as cool as “The Green Hornet”.

    Thats one mean WASP. No wonder all the jew bankers, mafia and media tycoons do what he says.

  133. Gefreiter says:
    @Epigon

    The Rothschilds had already gotten control of the Vickers navy yards and were the ones building those dreadnoughts and creating the naval armaments race. Ka-Ching went the jewish cash register. Your beloved “WASPS” were already missing out. These are the same Rothschilds that had already bought up much of Jerusalem and were working with Herzl to get Turkey split apart and Palestine invaded.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  134. refl says:
    @Epigon

    Sorry, my typo. The king stepped down on JUNE 24th, not August.
    And it has hapoened as I managed to trace the information back to a war chronology published in November that year.
    Serbia, exausted or not was emboldened by just about doubling its territory. And the secret society in Belgrade was most likely pushed along by their Russian handlers. In the war they had to evacuate their government to Greece. This cannot have been in their best interest.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  135. Nonny says:
    @Walter

    To require a reason to be found to justify going to war could equally be an attempt to prevent it. He might be saying, don’t go to war without a reason to, what is your best reason?

    Did the monarch want to destroy a monarchy? One where a member of his own family was the monarch?

  136. refl says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    I just answered to Epigon. The king stepped und down on June 24th.

    There cannot have been one informed person in Europe back then not to have seen the Serbs as guilty. An Austrian war against Setbia back then essentially would have meant crossing the river and occupying Belgrade in a swift move. In fact, the Russian mobilisation made no sense at all, if it was about helping Serbia
    The Austrians cannot have foreseen that an ancient christian monarchy just like their own would step in for a parvenu regicide opera regime. Well, the czar paid dearly for it.

  137. Ron Unz says:
    @UncommonGround

    I read for the first time about this peace initiative in Ray Monk’s biography of Bertrand Russell years ago, but I don’t have the book and never looked for this passage again. Understandably, the war was not the main theme of Monk’s book.

    Sure, I remember noticing a great deal of coverage of the great 1916 German “peace offensive” in all the major American periodicals when I was digitizing them during the 2000s. The Allied leaders regarded the proposal as a huge threat and ferociously opposed it. I seem to recall that the editor of The Economist gingerly suggested it should be given some consideration, and was immediately fired as a consequence.

    I’d really assume that the story is covered in all the standard WWI histories, though probably given only a fraction of the treatment it merits.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  138. @Fox

    This has always fascinated and appalled me as well,

    It is amazing what damage a few stupid people can wreak on the world, and, even in accounting of their apparent intelligence, people like Gray, Poincare, Clemenceau, the untiring war pusher Churchill, or even Lloyd George, must ultimately be considered as “stupid”, because they could not go beyond a narrow-minded obsession, they could only think of a gain, either in territory, power, or social stature, all else was not part of their thinking.

  139. Epigon says:
    @Gefreiter

    Rothschilds issued loans that funded the entire Tegethoff-class dreadnought programme.

    Your Ottoman story doesn’t add up, since Great Britain went to great lengths to save the Ottomans each and every time Russians and Balkan Orthodox Christians came close to destroying it.

    Whether it is stopping separatist uprisings, directly attacking Russia in Crimean War, sabotaging liberation movements in 1878 Berlin Congress or 1912-1913 London conference, it was always the same story.
    Furthermore, France and Britain didn’t even uphold their own post-WW1 treaty, leaving the Greeks and Armenians to be murdered and cleansed by Turks.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Gefreiter
  140. @FB

    you just made one very big goofy fumble that says much about the credibility of your revisionism…or rather lack thereof…

    I’m perfectly capable of such gaffes, but not this time. Go back and read the comment you think you’re referring to and if you posess even half a brain, you’ll see that you, like so many others, have tried to employ a strawman argument. Only fools do that.

    Have a nice day.

  141. @Ron Unz

    Thank you, sir! That is exactly what I was referring to, but in more detail. I agree that Schiff was a key prime mover in the conflicts.

    I’m not 100% sure of where my critics are coming from, but in their futile efforts to intimidate me, they slowly reveal themselves.

  142. Templar says:
    @Gefreiter

    ‘By 1916 Germany was winning the war…’

    By November 1916 Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, commander of the German Sixth Army in the West was writing in his diary that Germany’s defeat was inevitable.
    The British didn’t even introduce conscription until the spring of 1916.
    Germany never had a chance once the blockade started to choke both their industrial and agricultural production.
    To get in the harvest required millions of men and horses which the Army had drafted.
    Nearly two million men worked in Germany’s coal industry..the Army had conscripted most of them as well.
    The turnip winter (or hunger winter ) of 1917/18 was catastrophic.
    The idea that the ‘Jooz’ (or the US Army for that matter )were required to crush Germany is nonsense .
    Just as the Red Army chewed up the Wehrmacht in WW2 so the French Army ground down the Heer in the Great War.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  143. @FB

    You just made a couple of very big goofy fumbles that says much about your imagined credibility as well as the low level of your entertainment value.

  144. Epigon says:
    @refl

    Sorry, my typo. The king stepped down on JUNE 24th, not August.

    He didn’t step down, he was a 70-year old man, a veteran of several wars, so he initiated a transfer of power to his son and heir.

    After war broke out, nothing came of this transfer.

    In the period prior to assassination and WW1, the Black Hand opposed both the King and the Government, undermining and destabilising Serbia.
    I will just say that remnants and survivors of the Black Hand network were utilised in 1940-1941 period by the British, and especially in executing the March 1941 coup.

    Serbia, exausted or not was emboldened by just about doubling its territory.

    Emboldened? The very reason the Balkan wars started, the Adriatic port for Serbia and removal of Ottomans from the Balkans was not achieved – the main Russian regional effort – the Balkan Alliance was in tatters, and the Ottoman Pasha-ruled Albania, a creation of Great Powers at London on one, and vengeful Bulgaria on the other flank threatened Serbia.

    Serbia was in no position to wage war.

    And the secret society in Belgrade was most likely pushed along by their Russian handlers.

    LOL, no. WW1 caught Russia at worst possible moment. The grand army reform and reorganisation had only begun in 1913, scheduled to be complete by 1917.

    An Austrian war against Setbia back then essentially would have meant crossing the river and occupying Belgrade in a swift move.

    Well, what happened in 1914 and 1915, then? It wasn’t until an Imperial German Army arrived to the theater, along with Bulgarians striking from the rear (1915), that Serbia was defeated.
    The initial Austro-Hungarian invasion was thoroughly defeated, despite having ridiculous artillery, ammunition and manpower advantage.

    In fact, the Russian mobilisation made no sense at all, if it was about helping Serbia

    Except that two Austro-Hungarian armies and gradually arriving third one were shredded by Russians in the opening phases of the war, which means they couldn’t be on the Balkan frontline.

    The Austrians cannot have foreseen that an ancient christian monarchy just like their own would step in for a parvenu regicide opera regime.

    You mean the same monarchy which backstabbed Russians after they literally saved their ass in 1848-1849, already in 1853.?

    The same Habsburgs that worked directly against Russians in the Balkans, opposing them at Congress of Berlin in 1878 and at London conference of 1912-1913?
    An Italian murdered the Empress, it didn’t prevent the Habsburgs from forming an (ill-fated) alliance with Italians.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Seraphim
  145. @Gefreiter

    He’s a Holodomor denier too.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  146. @Epigon

    All so true and it helps to add some context with the fact that the Norman invasion of 1066 is a huge event in English history and that the Royal Navy had already prevented two further invasions with the defeat of the Spanish Armada and at again Trafalgar. British policy was that no navy would be allowed to threaten them ever again.

  147. @Epigon

    Your Ottoman story doesn’t add up, since Great Britain went to great lengths to save the Ottomans each and every time Russians and Balkan Orthodox Christians came close to destroying it.

    What Ottoman story are you referring to? All the mentions of the Ottoman empire made here seem pretty valid.

    Anyway, the bigshots, as well as their dupes, responsible for all the turmoil referred to here are more than capable of flip flopping on a moment’s notice so your examples do not necessarily bear extrapolation.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  148. Patricus says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    So the clever Zionist Jews engineered WW I & WW II? They must indeed be powerful considering their tiny European population.

  149. Nonny says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    They have always done that. The rabbis rule, the others must be totally and unconditionally submissive.

    Talmudic Judaism is neither a religion nor a race. It is a murderous gang with rituals, and the top gangsters rule.

    The Jews have always been victims. Victims of their rabbis.

  150. Epigon says:

    Are the Jews to be blamed for the quick demise of Alexander’s Empire and Diadochi states?

    More importantly, are Jews to be blamed for the downfall of Roman Empire – which was de facto invincible in 1st century AD, and ended up being conquered by comparative savages similar to ones it genocided effortlessly in the past?

    If “da Joos” are so powerful and all-controlling, why are you all here, writing what you write? How did you even get the information?
    As I have previously stated, a nation that succumbs to decadence, egoism, hedonism doesn’t need any “Jews” to decay. Did the Jews break French demography in 19th century? Organize the disastrous 30-year war? 9- and 7-year wars? Effect American and French Revolutions? Push European wars, successions crises and civil wars of Medieval and Early Modern Europe?

    As I have previously stated, only a fool blames everyone but himself. Since you have an idealistic view of your Volk, whenever you encounter the imbeciles, degenerates among them, you immediately assume it is the wrongdoing of someone else.

  151. Seraphim says:

    I find it hard to comprehend the recurrent attempts to re-write history and whitewash Germany of her responsibility for making the first WW1 unavoidable. Fritz Fisher’s ‘Germany’s Aims in the First World War’ remains unassailable despite the concerted campaigns to discredit it.
    The hardly deniable fact is that Germany was the only country which wanted the war. Germany (as Miranda Carter, the author of the highly readable “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I” put it) “was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war”. Add to that already toxic mix the intoxication of German nationalism with the myths of the ‘Aryanism’ promoted, ironically, by the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain, writing in the same tune as a Cecil Rhodes.
    Germany was dreaming to become a ‘Weltmacht’. Hitler’s well known quote ‘Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all’ was the driving force of the ‘Weltpolitik’ of Wilhelmine’s Germany also, which got rid of the Bismarckian ‘Realpolitik’. The building of the ‘Kriegsmarine’ to rival the British Navy could not but raise the suspicions and annoyance of England. The creation of a huge army, obviously directed at Russia, could not please the Russians who were engaged in a policy of reduction of armaments leading to disarmament and creation of an international court of arbitration (which Germany starkly opposed). The Anglo-Russian Convention was the result. Some sane British politicians (the debauched ‘Uncle of Europe’ Bertie/Eduard VII among them) realized that they were stretching too thin for the good of the Empire, and that the policy of ‘containing Russia’ in the ‘Great Game’ by pitting Japan against Russia did not yield the expected results (Russia did not lose the war and the 1905 ‘revolution’ petered out and Japan immediately engaged in subverting the British dominion of India) came to their senses and realized that England’s ‘splendid isolation’ ceased to pay to much, made a deal with Russia, which despite frequent attempts to derail it, held on, and buried the multi-secular hatch with France. England was reverting to the policy of the ‘Concert of Europe’ of the Vienna Congress, that she sabotaged through most of the 19th century.
    In the years leading to WW1 German policy made every effort to secure Great Britain’s neutrality in the case of the ‘inevitable’ conflict with France and Russia, wishfully thinking that GB would accept a German hegemony in Europe (based on the supposed Aryan/German/Anglo-Saxon/Nordic invented ‘commonality, if not ‘community’).
    But in order to realizing this goal Germany had to make Russia or France appear as the aggressors. But Sir Edward Grey was always clear that although ‘being concerned to maintain some balance between the groups of Powers’, [Britain] could under no circumstances tolerate France being crushed’, Rudolf Steiner’s occult communications notwithstanding. German policy makers slid into the delusional frame of mind that Britain’s opposition to German demands was due to ‘hatred and envy’. In the Kaiser’s mind: “The imminent struggle for existence which the Germanic peoples of Europe (Austria, Germany) will have to fight out against the Slavs (Russians) and their Latin (Gallic) supporters finds the Anglo-Saxons on the side of the Slavs. Reason : petty envy, fear of our growing big”.
    The ‘racial’ motivation was in force long before Nazism. The Kaiser, an admirer of Chamberlain whose ‘Foundation, ordered the psychological preparation of the nation by instructing the Foreign Ministry that “recognition of the coming life and death struggle of the Teutons against Gauls and Slavs must be made ‘the basis of our policy’, and allies for it must be recruited wherever they could be found”.
    What’s more, and that the Jew-biting ‘Whiteys’ are not ready to contemplate, is that the German-Jewish bankers (not a few and not the lesser, emigrated to… England and America) went full steam with the ‘Aryan-Ur-Germanisch’ tall stories. A ‘piquant’ detail is that Theodore Herzl, before ‘rediscovering’ his Jewish roots, idolized Wagner and was enamored with German culture and its nationalistic myths!

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @FB
    , @Parsnipitous
    , @bruno
    , @L.K
  152. Epigon says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    What Ottoman story are you referring to? All the mentions of the Ottoman empire made here seem pretty valid.

    If the plan had been to establish a Jewish state in Holy Land, then dismemberment of Ottoman Empire would have been the goal of Britain, not preservation.

    Likewise, during the Oriental Crisis (Ottomans vs. Egypt) the supposedly “Jewish-controlled” European states could have easily carved out a protectorate there. Polar opposite happened.
    Likewise, they went to war in 1853 to prevent the Ottoman Empire from being destroyed by Russians, who would have pushed the Balkan Orthodox subjects of Ottomans along with Armenians to an uprising.

  153. anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @onebornfree

    this was the one debate you won in jr high school??

  154. @Ron Unz

    Although the probability that established Jewish bankers in America in 1914 were pro German as Benjamin H. Freedman said in the speech referred to in #66 makes sense although it was not something I had been accustomed to adding to Eastern European (including American) Jews distaste for the Czar’s regime. Bit Freedman’s authority is undermined IMO, not only by the fact that he was a Christian convert (to me prima facie less rational than an atheist Jew) but by his saying Germany had effectively won the war by late 1916. That has to be nonsense while Russia was still in the war tieing up a large part of the German army. Also making peace overtures is hard to reconcile with having effectually “won” the war.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  155. @Wizard of Oz

    Germany effectively won the war in the winter of 1917, not in 1916. This has been documented by a number of historians on the subject…

    • LOL: Epigon
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  156. Sparkon says:
    @Sparkon

    Prophesying WWI(I), 1834

    [MORE]

    “Christianity – and that is its greatest merit – has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals.
    […]
    “Do not smile at my advice – the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world’s history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last. At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.”

    Heinrich Heine, “The History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany”, 1834

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/616583-christianity—and-that-is-its-greatest-merit—has

  157. lysias says:
    @Fox

    And we see similar stupidity today, in the opposition to the rise of China. The ruling class in Washington cannot conceive of life where they are not undisputedly top dog. They are willing to contemplate the deaths and misery of billions so that their egos can be gratified.

  158. lysias says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    MacGregor and Docherty demonstrate that the German navy was never a serious threat to the British one

  159. Gefreiter says:
    @Epigon

    Rothschilds issued loans that funded the entire Tegethoff-class dreadnought programme.”

    Rothschilds. Hmmm. Never heard of them. They must be one of the WASP families you claim are running the world.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  160. FB says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Hmm…so Jacob Schiff who hated the Bolsheviks and demanded that they repay the loans he had made to the previous Kerensky regime, was now a ‘prime mover’ at Versailles…lobbying on behalf of those same Bolsheviks…?

    And this at the very moment in time when the US, Britain and France were prosecuting a ‘civil’ war in Russia against the Bolsheviks…even Australia had troops in Russia…

    And this fantastic account from the ‘authoritative’ Henry Wickham Steed, whose hobby was writing anti Semitic pamphlets…?

    I’m making an educated guess here that Steed has trained his sights on Schiff because Schiff was widely despised in anti Semitic circles for his great sin of financing the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war…which resulted for the first defeat of a European power by an Asian race…

    All of these are well documented facts…but Schiff’s role in Versailles is mentioned where exactly…and as a prime mover no less…maybe in the ‘Protocols’…?

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
    , @Ron Unz
  161. Logan says:
    @Sean

    a massive build up of the British army followed.

    The British Army in 1914 was about 400,000 half of whom garrisoned the Empire.

    After mobilizing, the French had 3.5M, a good many of whom were of course overseas.

    The Germans had 3.8M. The Russians 7.5M, in theory.

    On this comparison, I think the British Army doesn’t qualify as massive at all.

    • Replies: @Sean
  162. Wally says:
    @Wally

    Paul Craig Roberts speaks up about “history” and in particular about WWI here

    The Lies That Form Our Consciousness and False Historical Awareness:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/paul-craig-roberts/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

    excerpts:

    “The genesis of the war was the desire on the part of two of the Russian Tsar’s ministers for Constantinople and the French president for territory, Alsace-Lorraine, lost to Germany in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. These schemers used Austria’s response to the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Serbia, which they likely orchestrated, to declare war as Germany was the protector of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

    American president Woodrow Wilson secured an armistice to the World War, which had senselessly destroyed millions of lives, by promising Germany that if she agreed to an armistice, there would be no territorial losses for Germany and no reparations. When Germany agreed to the armistice, it was Germany that occupied territories of the opposing camp. There were no foreign troops on German territory.
    The Sleepwalkers: How … Christopher Clark Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $9.89 (as of 10:45 EDT – Details)

    As soon as Germany disengaged, the British put into effect a food blockade that forced starving Germans to submit to the exploitative Versailles Treaty that violated every promise that President Wilson had made.

    Stay tuned, the lies about World War II are even more grand.

  163. Logan says:
    @anon19

    Yup, the French wanted revenge, even though “they started the war.” It is entirely reasonable to note that Bismarck very carefully and intentionally goaded them into starting the war. Which he later freely admitted.

    Bismarck showed, by his treatment of Austria, that not taking maximum revenge on a fallen enemy could be very good long term strategy.

    But the primary reason Germany wound up fighting Britain had nothing at all to do with any of this. It was almost entirely due to the incredibly idiotic German insistence on threatening the British nation with a great fleet.

    Now, what are the chances that Germany would actually be able to create a fleet that would be able to defeat the Royal Navy? Very slim indeed, especially when you add in the French and quite likely American navies.

    So what conceivable purpose did a huge fleet serve, other than to consume resources and feed Kaiser Bill’s ego?

    It has been well noted that the most expensive thing in the world is a military force that is good, but not good enough to win. Had the Germans taken the money spent on their fleet, which was very nearly entirely worthless during the war, and spent it on their army instead, they would have crushed France in short order. Probably without invading Belgium and bringing in the British.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  164. @Templar

    By the November 11, 1918 Armistice, not one shot had been fired by the allies on German soil. The armistice was due to the communists creating havoc in Germany, including (((Red Rosa))) and (((Eisner))).
    What is missing in Kollerstrom’s commentary is that George V had met with Grey and encouraged him to find a reason for war.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html
    The Kaiser was Grandma’s favourite and George hated him not only for that, but that Germany was pushing Britain out of foreign markets with better quality, lower cost goods. That was bad for the King’s (((friends))).
    Also missing is that the Royal Navy wouldn’t just sail out without the logistics of a supply line being in place, any more than the Russian, French, or German armies and navies would. The (((people))) planning the war were not going to let anything stop it.
    While the Kalergi Plan may not have been published until 1925, the plan for Europe’s destruction had been in place long before that. The only way the Plan could put the US at the forefront was the creation of the Federal Reserve.

  165. FB says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    This is a complete and excellent rebuttal of this very weak article…

    Well done…thanks for taking the time and effort…

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  166. @Seraphim

    You should live in Germany and/or write for Wikipedia. Better yet, apply for a gatekeeper position there. You’d fit right in. You read and quote one book on it, apparently – the same cartoon history served to idiots everywhere to keep the surface shiny: Germany/Prussia BAD, Anglo/Zio Empire GOOD. Who’s whitewashing? England’s “annoyance” at Germany’s rise is very important to you – why? And you found another moron in “FB” to buttress your “rebuttal”. You did no such thing and brought nothing new to the table.

    • Agree: Ron Unz, Gefreiter, L.K
    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  167. @FB

    “Maybe in the ‘Protocols’…?” You just tried to marginalize Ron Unz. Regarding, “Schiff’s role… as a prime mover.” Jacob Schiff’s influence is quite obvious as noted by Alison Weir.

    “AJC was founded in 1906 by wealthy banker Jacob H. Schiff, who invited “fifty-seven prominent Jews across the country” to explore the creation of a body to protect Jews both at home and abroad. “On the appointed day,” Sanua writes, “rabbis, businessmen, scientists, judges, ambassadors, scholars, writers, and philanthropists gathered in New York from Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Richmond, and as far away as San Francisco.”
    https://ifamericaknew.org/us_ints/history.html

    • Replies: @FB
  168. @Wizard of Oz

    Every nation and every political movement has its share of mad people. This is one of them. Psychiatric disorders are incurable, so we can only commiserate with him/her/it.

  169. @lysias

    Not the point. When your whole existing empire and associated economy depends on centuries long command of the seas what is your rational fear about a country with very rapidly expanding economy and population – and with huge army – deciding to build up rapidly a naval force which could greatly diminish your security from the aforesaid traditional command of the seas. No doubt there were plenty of wild German voices being picked up too. When there has been a long history of Anglo-German comity and intermarried royal families, what is one to make of this? “Oh, it will turn out OK. After all they are really our cousins”??? Clue, perhaps: demography is the key to far more than our still innumerate politicians and populace understand.

  170. @Steve Naidamast

    Even if so, given America’s entry into the war in May 1917 that misses the point of the previous discussion which was about Freedman’s apparently saying Germany had won the war in 1916.

  171. @lysias

    Maybe, but not the point as amply argued elsewhere by me and others.

  172. @Parsnipitous

    So great you have LOL privileges, FB. I’ve been on this for a while and your comments always fall squarely within the Anglo/Zio agenda.

  173. Seraphim says:
    @FB

    Thank you, I am always pleased that my efforts were not in vain.
    As you could see there are still people around who believe that Germany actually won the war! I can’t be surprised, they play to much computer games or read ‘alternative histories’.
    I’ve heard that a poll organized in America about the extinction of species a question asked was: “Is it worth to save ‘homo sapiens’ and how much you care about?”.
    The answers varied between:
    ‘Not that I don’t like homo sapiens are, we always lived without them so, I don’t know’
    I don’t know what homo sapiens are, if they are on the way to extinction it’s sad, but after all I don’t care”.
    ‘Yes I’ve seen once a homo sapiens at the zoo. He was big and furry’.
    ‘We can used tax money for other things than saving homo sapiens.
    ‘Homo sapiens’? – Let them die, save the humans’.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Parsnipitous
  174. @Jacques Sheete

    Well, if you want to tattle, you might as well be comprehensive. Holodomor is not the only myth I don’t believe in. I don’t believe in the whole system of Greek and Roman myths, in Jewish myths regarding the creation of the world and the rest all the way to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Jewish myths about Jesus and his disciples, Islamic myths about Muhammad and the rest, the whole systems of Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Navajo myths, and many others. See how many myths I am guilty of not believing?

  175. @Seraphim

    That sounds like “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me”. Very American.

  176. @Seraphim

    I don’t believe Germany won the war, I believe you’re a partisan shithead.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  177. @Parsnipitous

    I may be wrong, but people here are trying to get away from pc orthodoxy. Just go to Politico, The Guardian, the world is your oyster. Take the Wizard of Oz with you.

  178. refl says:
    @Epigon

    I appreciate your knowledge. I do not know if the power transfer in Serbia is relevant. I only find it strange that it is not on the record. It was noted at the time and it must have informed the reaction of the other powers.

    As for the war hitting Serbia or Russia at the wrong time: those behind the scene sid not have in mind the best interest of their people. The people of Russia did not need this war ever, the Serbs probably were hotheaded but they were nothing but the pretext to light the fuse. Russian mobilisation meant general war, and everyone knew that.
    You may say that the Kaiser also did not have in mind the best interest of his people. Only that when he told his people that this was a fight for the survival of the nation, history has proven him right. That nation died in two world wars (not that I miss it too much – neither me nor my son are likely to die in a trench, as things have turned out).
    I have learned at school and even used to pass it on myself in those brainwashed days gone by now that Germany of old had been a thread to world peace. So today I have a claim to live in that better world the powers of good promised. I have some sympathy for the Slavs in general because they always knew the story was BS. I have no sympathy for those arrogant charakters in the West who cannot even today let go of their brainwashed propaganda.

  179. Sally says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron
    Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia… yes but Schiff had a community in Argentina.. where he sent European Jews. immigration.. upon the failure in 1908 of the CUP to over throw the Ottoman, he moved most of the people out of there.. I believe i posted an article about that a few weeks ago.. something else is what was going on in America … The Sixteenth Amendment to the USA constitution was proposed on July 12, 1909.. and it was ratified on February 3, 1913.. <==this amendment followed the supreme court overthrowing in 1912, (for corporations) one of the most important clauses in the USA constitution, Art I, sec 9. (4) No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before to be taken..

    This amendment was crucial to the Zionist plan because now the USA could tax Americans and pay it to the Zionist war lending cartel known as the Federal Reserve ( the act putting the federal reserve into play followed the income tax by a few days. so the income tax collateralised the war lending that made possible the defeat of Germany..

  180. Alfred says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    I strongly agree with JS. A certain clique in the UK was determined to have this war for strategic reasons. If they failed to ignite the war through the Balkans, they had a plan “B” to incite an uprising in Ireland and to blame it on the Germans. It is all in MacGregor and Docherty’s “Hidden History”.

    The ultimate proof that the whole thing was staged and the Germans were not guilty is the fact that the archives of the German Foreign ministry were moved to California and have not been seen since. They would have amply proven that the Germans did everything they could to avoid this conflict.

    The “Moroccan Crisis” is so similar to the “MH17 Crisis” and the “Skripals Crisis” in its intent – to find some justification for war.

    Here is the Wikipedia version – not quite the same as what the book above shows.

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

  181. FB says: • Website
    @Jon Baptist

    The issue under contention with Mr Unz is Jacob Schiff’s alleged role at Versailles…where Mr Schiff, from what I can gather, was not even in Paris…as there is apparently mention in the literature of Schiff sending, from New York, a lengthy cable to Wilson…

    Mr Unz claims there is lots of documentation about Mr Schiff’s support for the Bolsheviks, but he is apparently unable to produce such…in fact the literature suggests just the opposite…

    As for the ‘Protocols’ it was Mr Unz’s source, the London Times editor Mr Steed, who promoted this piece of ‘work’…at least up to about 1920…when his own Istanbul correspondent established this document to be a forgery, and a debunked Steed had to issue a retraction…a pretty remarkable lapse of judgement for a prominent journalist to say the least…

    So the fact that Mr Unz quotes a snippet from this clown as some sort of proof that Schiff was working for the Bolshevists in Versailles is certainly unconvincing…given the abundance of contrary facts I have mentioned…

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  182. Ron Unz says:
    @FB

    And this fantastic account from the ‘authoritative’ Henry Wickham Steed, whose hobby was writing anti Semitic pamphlets…?

    I’m making an educated guess here that Steed has trained his sights on Schiff because Schiff was widely despised in anti Semitic circles for his great sin of financing the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war…which resulted for the first defeat of a European power by an Asian race…

    Hmm…so the editor of the Times of London was delusionally “anti-Semitic”… Okay.

    As it happens, the contemporaneous files of American Military Intelligence said exactly the same thing about Schiff’s heavy financial backing of the Bolsheviks. It’s all covered in a 500pp book published in 2000 by Prof. Bendarsky, who argues it proves that the American military was “anti-Semitic.”

    Reports from British Intelligence also said the same thing as the same time. More “anti-Semitism.”

    It’s fully acknowledged that Schiff funded the 1905 revolution, in which Trotsky played a central role. Schiff boasted about it, his local agent the elder George Kennan mentioned it in his memoirs, and it’s even mentioned in Schiff’s standard autobiographies. Here’s a link to a page in Google Books, one of many you can easily find.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=DOtgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=schiff+and+kennan+and+1905&source=bl&ots=6Rh83haZeh&sig=ACfU3U2PDlfn4yBsSLM4FW9F3Omx2-DgcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv3aeLrZHiAhVxJzQIHbldCccQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=schiff%20and%20kennan%20and%201905&f=false

    The latter reference also briefly alludes to the major celebration held in NYC after the 1917 Revolution overthrew the Czar, for which Schiff publicly took considerable credit. So I guess Schiff must have been pretty “anti-Semitic” himself.

    In 1949, Schiff’s grandson told a leading NYC newspaper columnist that Schiff had spent $20 million to achieve the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia, a figure that would probably correspond to something like $2B today. So I guess Schiff’s grandson must have inherited Schiff’s own “anti-Semitism.”

    Obviously, some of these details might be somewhat garbled. But if so many seemingly-credible contemporaneous observers all agree that Schiff was a leading financial backer of the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries who overthrew the Czar…well, maybe it’s actually true!

    The fact that Schiff’s name and involvement were excluded from almost 100% of all the mainstream American books discussing the Russian Revolution that were published in the last 60-70 years should really raise all sorts of suspicions…

    Or take Olaf Aschberg, another Jewish international banker who played an absolutely crucial role in arranging funding for the early Bolshevik regime and even founded the first Soviet international bank. His name was also almost totally excluded from all American books discussing Soviet Russia.

    Historiography provides interesting patterns once you begin to notice them.

    I covered a great deal of this in a long article last year, which you might want to examine:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

    • Replies: @FB
    , @FB
  183. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Fox

    It is my understanding that Germany never had the intention to build a rival navy to that of Britain

    It was inevitably going to be seen by the British as a threat. And the Germans were not building a large navy to counter a naval threat from the French or the Russians or anyone else. The new German navy could only ever have one potential enemy, the British navy. I don’t believe the Germans ever had any serious intention of gaining naval supremacy over Britain. That would not have been possible.

    But it was a stupid reckless move by Germany.

    An Anglo-German alliance would have been to the advantage of both nations.

    • Replies: @Logan
  184. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Epigon

    2nd Reich would have been hopeless without the acquisition of colonies and construction of a significant navy.

    Overseas colonies were essentially worthless. They were prestige items.

    Germany did not need a large navy. What they needed was an alliance with Britain. The real threat to both nations was the United States.

  185. Seraphim says:
    @Epigon

    A largely forgotten episode of the pre-war years would shed some light in the deliberate obscurity of secret operations. The case of Colonel Alfred Redl, the head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff, who, as it turned out by a most incredible chance, was a Russian spy from 1901 to 1913. As such he informed the Russians, since 1901, of all military plans of the Austro-Hungarians. He provided the Russians with information of Plan III, the entire Austrian invasion plan for Serbia. “It is thought” (which most likely means certitude) that he sold to Russia one of Austria’s principal attack plans, along with its order of battle, its mobilization plans (at a time when mobilization was viewed as one the critical keys to victory) and detailed plans of Austrian fortifications soon to be overrun by Russia. Russian mobilization would no more appear as a reckless action. They were perfectly aware of the Austro-German intentions. In 1913 Austria was desperate to stop the Russians to ‘get Constantinople’ and prevent Romania, which after the Peace of Bucharest (1913) had become a magnet for the Romanian population of Transylvania and Bukovina, to fall under the Russian spell. Bulgarians were warning Austria that the Black Sea threatened to become a ‘Romanian-Russian lake’ and the promotion by the Russians of Romania as a ‘great power’ in the Balkans was a direct threat to the integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and of Bulgaria).
    It is not unlikely that Austria would have provoked a war against the winners of the Second Balkan War (Romania and Serbia, backed by Russia). The exposure of Colonel Redl in May 1913 might have imposed a delay. But where there’s a will, there’s a way. Sarajevo offered the opportunity.

  186. joe2.5 says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “To focus on Israel while ignoring those huge transfers of land is hopelessly obsessive”

    That was my first reaction, too, but look at it again. All the territories mentioned continued to be inhabited by the same people (never mind the governments.) If one sees the genocide of Armenians, the dislodgement of Turkey’s Greeks and Slavic country Germans, etc., then the only territory that was conquered and settled by aliens, with the owner population largely expelled and imprisoned in reserves is the new state calling itself “Israel”!

    One Tribe seems to be absolutely right.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @Grace Poole
  187. FatR says:

    The idea that a war could have been “avoided” by allowing the power who already initiated war, and guaranteed that it will spread to the entirety of continental Europe, unless its enemies do anything short of completely throwing a military ally under the bus, a free reign, even though that power is openly making designs on your own sphere of influence and has refused several offers of compromise settlement in this area over the last 20 years, is so utterly and completely retarded that the fact anyone seriously enternains even for a second can only be explained by Anglo arrogance and deep-seated disbelief that any other nation may have any sort of agency.

  188. FatR says:

    Also:

    “Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us…”

    Stop lying, Willie! Not only you’ve given the Austrians the infamous “blank cheque” on July 6-7 knowing well that this means war, your diplomats constantly badgered Vienna to escalate to a shooting war ASAP, between July 8 and 23, so you don’t have an excuse of being forced to support Austro-Hungary lest you lose the last remaining ally of significance!

    • Replies: @FB
  189. Logan says:
    @joe2.5

    then the only territory that was conquered and settled by aliens, with the owner population largely expelled and imprisoned in reserves is the new state calling itself “Israel”!

    The Sudetenland and other areas of Central and Eastern Europe from which Germans who’d lived there for a thousand years were expelled?

    • Replies: @joe2.5
  190. Logan says:
    @Fox

    The navy had as a primary purpose to keep the German merchant fleet unmolested.

    Unmolested by whom? Pirates? If so, then a few cruisers would have been entirely adequate.

    If they wanted to keep their merchant fleet unmolested in time of war against UK, then they’d have to defeat the Royal Navy, which would of course leave the island compltetely open to invasion.

    Look, it’s perfectly well known that Kaiser Bill fell in love with the theories of Mahan about command of the seas. The problem is that gaining and retaining that command requires a fleet large enough not only to defeat but to overwhelm the enemy.

    So German threw away its quite friendly relations with UK to build a massive (but not nearly big enough) fleet that could not ever, even in theory, justify its existence.

    It has well been noted that the most expensive thing in the world is a military force that is good, but not good enough to win.

  191. Logan says:
    @dfordoom

    I don’t believe the Germans ever had any serious intention of gaining naval supremacy over Britain. That would not have been possible.

    I agree. So what was the point? Irritate the hell out of a friendly power, turning them into an enemy, while spending incredible sums to produce a fleet that in the final analysis had no conceivable useful function? Is it possible to imagine a more lose, lose, lose policy?

    Think of it this way. Imagine Canada taken over by militarists intent on “defending” Canada against conquest by USA. Let’s forget that such defense isn’t possible even in theory, but instead we’ll pour vast sums, by Canadian standards, into increasing the military. Then harass Americans along the border and do everything else we can to irritate USA.

    Isn’t this supposed move to defend Canada the best possible way to get Canada conquered?

    I don’t even see the purpose of a Canadian military at all. The USA will not, for obvious reasons, allow anybody else to invade Canada, and if the USA decides to invade no conceivable Canadian army could do any real good.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  192. joe2.5 says:
    @Logan

    That’s why I had started with “If one sees [as secondary] the genocide of Armenians, the dislodgement of Turkey’s Greeks and Slavic country Germans, etc.,” only I seem to have swallowed the phrase in square brackets –for which I apologize. Now, eating up a whole country, bones and all, should not in my opinion be seen as equivalent to expelling pockets of minorities, that’s why I said that.

    • Replies: @Logan
  193. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    After clicking on the link:

    Forbidden
    You don’t have permission to access / on this server.
    Server unable to read htaccess file, denying access to be safe

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

  194. @joe2.5

    According to the Dillon book that Jacques Sheete referenced @ #49, the major role that Jews played in Versailles decisions regarding Poland rankled the Polish people, particularly with respect to the guarantee of minority rights.
    That concept was developed by American Jews in order to convince German American Jews (the American Jewish Committee) who were opposed to zionism, to go along with the newly-formed American Jewish Congress, which represented mostly Eastern European Jews and was decidedly pro-zionist. Edwin Black recounts the circumstances of this Jew – vs. – Jew conflict, and its resolution —

    “After the war, the question of who would represent Jewish interests at the Peace Conference was bitterly contested. A delegation cutting across Committee and Congress lines finally did assemble at Versailles. But the Committee split off from other American Jewish groups negotiating Jewish rights when–in the Committee view– the proposed rights went “too far.” Specifically, . . . popular Jewish sentiment demanded to be counted among the minority groups targeted for self-determination. That meant a Jewish homeland in Palestine — Zionism.

    Committee leaders were repulsed by Zionism. In their view, a refuge in Palestine would promote Jewish expulsion from countries where Jews lived and enjoyed roots. Anti-Semitic regimes could point to Palestine and claim, “You belong there in your own nation.” However, majority Jewish sentiment won out at Versailles, assuring a Jewish homeland in Palestine, with stipulations preserving Jewish rights in other countries. [emphasis added]

    American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland, as well as secure international guarantees for minorities in Europe. [emphasis added]”

    [Ironically, maltreatment of German nationals in Poland, that is, violation of rights of a group that had become a minority, and the Danzig question, were the precipitating events of WWII.]

    Polish Jews (and zionists) were opposed to the expansion of Polish statehood —

    ” And as the Hebrew population of Poland, disbelieving in the resurrection of that nation . . .” (Dillon)

    which makes sense, from the zionist point of view, inasmuch as they were so totally committed to zionist settlement in Palestine.

    Roman Dmowski was an ardent Polish nationalist and head of the Polish delegation who, despite his passion and rhetorical skills, was unable to prevail against the assembled Jewish zionist headwinds.

    In the United States, where the Jewish community is numerous and influential, M. Dmowski found spokes in his wheel at every stage of his journey, and in Paris, too, he had to full-front a tremendous opposition, open and covert. . . .

    “The frequency with which the leading spirits of Bolshevism turn out to be Jews-to the dismay and disgust of the bulk of their own community–and the ingenuity they displayed in spreading their corrosive tenets in Poland may not have been without effect upon the energy of M. Dmowski’s attitude toward the demand of the Polish Jews to be placed in the privileged position of wards of the League of Nations. “But the principle of the protection of minority -Jewish or Gentile–is assailable on grounds which have nothing to do with race or religion” [Dmowski argued]. (Dillon)

    Paderewski was also in the Polish delegation and also eager for support for Polish national identity, but

    “As soon as it was borne in upon him that their decisions were as irrevocable as decrees of Fate, he bowed to them and treated the authors as Olympians who had no choice but to utter the stern fiat. Even when called upon to accept the obnoxious clause protecting religious and ethnic minorities against which his colleague had vainly fought, M . Paderewski sunk political passion in reason and attuned himself to the helpful role of harmonizer. . . .he resigned himself gracefully to the inevitable and thanked Fate’s executioners for their personal sympathy. ”


    With this background, and when observing the pattern wealthy Jews forming groups to influence international events for the benefit of the Jewish people —

    ~ Jacob Schiff established the American Jewish Committee in 1906 to vanquish the Russian monarchy and advocate for (primarily) Russian Jews;

    ~ The American Jewish Congress was formed in 1918 as a negotiating bloc at Versailles, with the vision of enforcing the Balfour Declaration, creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine

    The American Jewish Congress was founded in 1918 as leaders within the American Jewish community, consisting of Jewish, Zionist, and immigrant community organizations, convened the first American Jewish Congress (AJCongress) in Philadelphia’s historic Independence Hall. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, and others joined to lay the groundwork for a national democratic organization of Jewish leaders from all over the country that would broaden Jewish leadership and present a unified American Jewish position at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
    https://www.ajcongress.org/about

    Israel having been established, to the detriment of Palestinians (and at the cost of Wilson reneging on the promise of self-determination to the Arab states of the dismembered Ottoman Empire), Elan Carr appears to be taking the third step: his statements reflect an intent to use American power to enforce the rights of Jews, not as ‘minority’ rights where Jews live, but as the dominating influence throughout the world.
    Carr is a committed zionist and also seems to be a Kabbalist —

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=elan+carr+video&pc=MOZI&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3delan%2bcarr%2bvideo%26pc%3dMOZI%26form%3dMOZLBR&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=32BE9A9226EE161B1CBD32BE9A9226EE161B1CBD&FORM=WRVORC

  195. @FB

    You state that “Schiff was working for the Bolshevists.” No. Schiff supplied the funds so the revolutionaries were working for him.

    The legal threshold to commit a conspiracy has been fulfilled by Schiff with regards to funding Bolshevism. There is the “agreement” requirement and the element of “intent.” Unz and many others have provided this historical evidence.

    Schiff was absolute evil and generated mass murder through his proxies with his “funding.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Cyrano
  196. @Logan

    I don’t believe the Germans ever had any serious intention of gaining naval supremacy over Britain. That would not have been possible.

    I agree. So what was the point? Irritate the hell out of a friendly power, turning them into an enemy,

    A friendly power? Are you kidding?

    According to your theory about the USA-Canada relationship, you should also believe that Poland should never have “irritated” Germany, nor should have bothered to create a strong military force against Germany, because Germany was the “friendly power” in that neighborhood.
    Is that your position?

    And Britain was wrong to interfere and take Poland’s side against Germany, right?

    • Replies: @Logan
  197. anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    wow.
    Extremely important analysis.

    There is no statute of limitation on murder, not even mass murder.
    Jews are still hauling into court 94 year olds who handled baggage somewhere in Germany – Poland.

    Schiff still has heirs in USA — Al Gore’s daughter was married to his great-grandson. Both are wealthy in their own right, so it’s not likely that divorce pauperized him.

    In a just world, the foundations Schiff created would be forced to disgorge the wealth created by a mass murderer.

    Where is the law school that will take on the challenge of suing the individual persons — Jew and not-Jew — charging them with crimes against humanity, charging them also of conspiracy to commit such crimes, ergo RICO violations — triple damages.

  198. Cyrano says:
    @Jon Baptist

    That “logic” – the proof that the Jews are evil is in the fact that they funded and were over-represented in the early Communist leadership – is so flawed is not even funny. Yes, they really wanted to do harm to Russia, that’s why they made them a superpower.

    The October revolution was a net positive for Russia. If you want to look for “proof” that the Jews are “evil”, provide some evidence of Jewish over-representation in the Capitalist structures of power, not of their role in the Russian revolution.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Jon Baptist
  199. Ron Unz says:
    @Cyrano

    That “logic” – the proof that the Jews are evil is in the fact that they funded and were over-represented in the early Communist leadership – is so flawed is not even funny. Yes, they really wanted to do harm to Russia, that’s why they made them a superpower.

    Sure, that’s a much more reasonable position to take.

    Consider Stalin. Personally, I think he was a very bad man, but I know that others here disagree and have a strongly positive opinion of him. Okay, people can differ and debate the issue.

    But anyone who claims that Stalin wasn’t really a Georgian (or at least an Ossetian) is just making himself look ridiculous…

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  200. Cyrano says:
    @Ron Unz

    You are a smart man, Mr. Unz. You figured it out that my comment was actually directed at you.

    But anyone who claims that Stalin wasn’t really a Georgian (or at least an Ossetian) is just making himself look ridiculous…

    Well, I guess we can say that the Russians were the original multiculturalists.

  201. Sean says:
    @Logan

    The build up of the Prussian army between 1860 and 1867 was massive in the sense it started with a smaller army than France and Austria but ended with a bigger one. Britain and Russia were happy for Bismarck to turn Prussia into Germany because it worked as a powerful counterweight to France. By supporting Prussia, Britain did not need to spend on a big army.

    In the War of 1870 the Prussian army was firstest with the mostest; Britain’s ancestral fear of France meant it was happy for to let Prussia beat France and become Germany. And Bismarck’s Germany was not so big as to be an alarming potential hegemon when he left on 189, but grew so rapidly by the 1900s it was beginning to be. Between 1903 and 1904 Britain and France formally ceased to view each other as a threat, but at this stage Britain was passing the buck and counting on France and Russia to contain the threat of Germany, but in 1905 Russia was knocked out of the balance of power and Germany started trying to bully France. Britain responded by signing a convention with Russia, and creating a Expeditionary force to go and fight on the Continent with France when. The creation of the Expeditionary force was a massive build up because it was something from nothing diplomatically, militarily, and geopolitically.

  202. FB says: • Website

    Thanks for the heads up to your article about the Bolshevik revolution…I may have perused that at some point, but will review it again, definitely…

    Now here is the thing about Jacob Schiff and your claim that he supported the Bolsheviks, and even supported their cause at Versailles…that is simply not rooted in any historiographical evidence, and I’m sure you realize that…which is why you say that the historical record has been ‘wiped’…

    Your link to that passage in the book talks about the Russo-Japanese war period, 15 years prior to Versailles…and makes no mention about Schiff supporting the Bolsheviks…he did support revolutionaries in Russia and sought to topple the Tsarist regime in support of the plight of the Jews…

    And when the March 1917 revolution succeeded and the Kerensky regime came in, and declared Jews equal citizens, he did float loans to this short-lived regime…but as soon as Lenin and Trotsky took over in November of the same year [the October Revolution]…

    …Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, and started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he’d loaned Kerensky…

    —Ackerman, Trotsky in New York

    So there was no support of the Bolsheviks…in fact the opposite, as I said…

    As for the London Times editor Wickham Steed, on which bogus assertion about Schiff and Versailles and the Bolsheviks rests…it is a matter of record that he supported the ‘Protocols’ as I’ve noted already…if that doesn’t make him an anti Semite, then surely it makes him a nutter…a man who promotes lies is probably not averse to inventing some himself…as in those memoirs you cited where he makes up out of whole cloth this nonsense about Schiff supporting the Bolsheviks…

    Clearly as a supporter of a worldwide Jewish Conspiracy, this little piece of fantasia would fit right into his wheelhouse…

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  203. @Cyrano

    The October revolution was a net positive for Russia.

    It was a “net positive” for you because you weren’t the one getting killed for being either an Orthodox peasant farmer or a Catholic priest and having the rest of your family shipped off to Siberia.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Cyrano
  204. FB says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Sorry my above comment 202 was a response to your 182…

  205. FB says: • Website
    @FatR

    I agree fully with both of your comments…

  206. FB says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Just one more note…

    You mentioned the Bendersky book as somehow supporting your thesis about the Schiff-Bolshevik link…which is quite disingenuous since Bendersky treats those ‘leaked’ military intelligence reports about Jewish New York bankers supporting the Bolsheviks as bunk…

    Ackerman in his 2016 book does likewise…

    You seem to find it hard to believe that 100 years ago anti Semitism was a real thing…in the London Times…the US Military Intelligence Division and in many more places…surely a man as well read as yourself cannot hold such a naive position…?

    Incidentally, the Bendersky book sounds like a very worthwhile read…although I won’t hold my breath to see it reviewed on this website…LOL

  207. gdpbull says:

    When 30 some odd German speaking countries were united in 1870, there was suddenly a country in Europe more powerful than any one other country in Europe. This was a revolting development for France, Russia, and Britain. Bismarck understood this and worked to pit Russia and Britain against France. And most importantly, he knew the precarious existence the new nation of Germany faced. He famously said “starting a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death.” Too bad Wilhelm II didn’t have his wisdom. WWI, and as a result, WWII would have likely never happened.

  208. Ron Unz says:
    @FB

    And when the March 1917 revolution succeeded and the Kerensky regime came in, and declared Jews equal citizens, he did float loans to this short-lived regime…but as soon as Lenin and Trotsky took over in November of the same year [the October Revolution]…

    Frankly, you strike me as an *exceptionally* gullible fellow, at least when it comes to historical analysis…

    As perhaps you know, in recent decades “Bolshevik Communism” has not been particularly popular in American society. So you have one recent Jewish academic writing a 2016 book clearing Schiff of having supported the Bolsheviks, with the key footnote being to a hagiographic 1999 biography of Schiff by another Jewish writer, published by a Jewish university press, which also declares Schiff totally innocent.

    Meanwhile, the actual text of these same authors provides a very substantial list of the prominent contemporary observers who all stated that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers *had* been large financial backers of the Bolsheviks, but the authors explain it away by saying that they were all simply delusional “anti-Semitism conspiracy-theorists”…

    Exactly the same is true of the book by Bendersky, who specializes in Holocaust and Nazi studies. He apparently spent years reviewing the archive files of American Military Intelligence, and describes a large number of contemporaneous intelligence reports noting the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of Bolshevism and claiming that Schiff and other Jewish bankers were providing financial support for the Bolsheviks. He also mentions that British Intelligence said pretty much the same thing at the time. His inescapable conclusion was that both American Intelligence and British Intelligence were filled with horrifying numbers of delusional “anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorists.”

    None of that explains why Schiff’s own grandson said exactly the same thing in 1949, and even provided an estimated dollar total for Schiff’s Bolshevik donations, so they just leave that item out completely.

    Look, maybe the Martians funded the Bolsheviks, and used their mental-rays to trick everyone at the time to thinking it was Schiff. Who knows? But in history, if a considerable number of highly-credible individuals all say something, you tend to accept that until proven otherwise. And if a few people writing 100 years later say “Nope!”, their personal opinions don’t really count for anything.

    My impression is that you’re mostly focused on airplanes and that sort of thing. So here’s a reasonable analogy.

    Lots of experts I’ve seen quoted in my newspapers say that the MCAS system on the 737MAX sometimes gets a little confused and flies the plane into the ground, which has recently caused a few problems. Maybe that’s the case and maybe it isn’t.

    But suppose Boeing hired a bunch of PR people, and one of them wrote an article saying that the 737MAX actually works perfectly well and all the many experts saying otherwise are just delusional “anti-Boeing conspiracy-theorists.” I’m not really sure I would simply take his word for it…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @L.K
    , @FB
  209. @Epigon

    WASPs aren’t into numerology, but ZIONISTs live and die by it. WWI was totally planned from start to finish based on Jewish Kabbalistic gematria/numerology aka ‘Freemason lucky numbers.’

    • Replies: @S
    , @anon
  210. @Gefreiter

    Ezra Pound says:

    Is there a RACE left in England? Has it ANY will left to survive? You can carry slaughter to Ireland. Will that save you? I doubt it. Nothing can save you, save a purge. Nothing can save you, save an affirmation that you are English. Whore Belisha is NOT. Isaccs is not.

    No Sassoon is an Englishman, racially. No Rothschild is English, no Strakosch is English, no Roosevelt is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Khan, Baruch, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet born Anglo-Saxon.

    And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  211. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    https://ia802607.us.archive.org/32/items/germanybeforewar00beyeuoft/germanybeforewar00beyeuoft.pdf

    GERMANY BEFORE THE WAR BY BARON BEYENS LATE BELGIAN MINISTER AT THE COURT OF BERLIN

    p. 46 William II. directed the foreign policy of Germany in person. From the first, he liked to chat with ambassadors and Foreign Secretaries, and to utter his thoughts freely upon the most delicate questions, knowing well that none of his words would be wasted.

    [MORE]

    p. 52 It has been asserted that this ” demigod” was merely an exalted type of the ill-balanced or decadent man. What a mistake ! He was in full possession of all his faculties when he ordered that hasty mobili- zation which made the cataclysm inevitable. Some have maintained that he was, beyond all question, the tool of a caste and a party for whom war was the sole means of consolidating their power. He did indeed listen to their advice, but only because their views were in harmony with his own. Without any hesitation, the verdict of history will make him answerable for the disasters that have overwhelmed Europe. If we carefully read and compare the docu- ments relating to the brief negotiations carried on during the Austro-Serbian crisis, we find ample proof that it was within William II. ‘s power, up to the last moment, to say the word that would have prevented war. So far from doing this, he sent his ultimatum to Russia, and thus let loose the deluge at the moment which he had chosen. One would like to believe that he hesitated a long time before venturing upon a path beset with so many terrors. One would fain imagine that his con- science revolted at the thought of the streams of blood and the heartrending misery which the coming struggle would involve, but that he was swept along, in spite of himself, by an irresistible fate. Idle speculations ! The blow had been planned several months in advance, the scheme had been prepared down to its minutest details, and the Emperor de- liberately hastened on the signal for attack, cutting short in his impatience the discussions which the Entente Powers were desperately anxious to continue.

    • Replies: @Anon
  212. @Ron Unz

    It may be this very thread which sparked my interest in the likelihood that American bankers of German Jewish ancestry, even those quite uninterested in how Eastern European Jews were treated under the Czars, were likely to be pro German in 1914 with lots if possible implications – including truth in Benjamin H. Freedman’s famous 1961 speech. But I have been trying to nail down that statement by John Schiff in 1950 that you rightly regard as important evidence, if true. The Wikipedia article refers to John Schiff and his father being big in the Boy Scouts but doesn’t mention Bolsheviks or even controversy. How sure are you of the authenticity of the John Schiff quote, and why?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Sparkon
  213. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    But I have been trying to nail down that statement by John Schiff in 1950 that you rightly regard as important evidence, if true. The Wikipedia article refers to John Schiff and his father being big in the Boy Scouts but doesn’t mention Bolsheviks or even controversy. How sure are you of the authenticity of the John Schiff quote, and why?

    I’d say I’m almost absolutely certain that the quote is correct. It supposedly appeared in Knickerbocker column of the February 3, 1949 edition of the New York Journal-American, which was then one of the city’s leading newspapers, and read: “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

    The New York Journal-American folded in 1966, but I’m sure its archives are available at least in microfiche at various major research libraries, and the quote has been floating around for decades.

    Large numbers of extremely energetic Jewish-activists have been working to refute the Schiff-Bolshevik stories for generations, and if the quote weren’t genuine, they would have made that “fraud” the absolute centerpiece of all their efforts. Similarly, if John Schiff had denied making the statement at the time, they would have located his denial and widely publicized it.

    This merely further confirms that Wikipedia is totally worthless as a source of useful information on any controversial topic.

  214. Sparkon says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    But I have been trying to nail down that statement by John Schiff in 1950 that you rightly regard as important evidence,

    I found John Schiff’s statement cited in this article “Who financed Lenin and Trotsky” which seems to be comprised of two excerpts from G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island :

    In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia.

    Cholly Knickerbocker was not a columnist but rather the pseudonym for a series of journalists who wrote the column under that byline. According to Wikipedia, between c1945 and 1963, the Cholly Knickerbocker columns were written by a rather colorful chap by the name of Igor Cassini, born Count Igor Cassini Loiewski in Sevastolpol, Russia.

    According to the excerpts, Jacob Schiff was not the only wealthy financier who gave large sums of money to the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the Tsar.
    Caption: This cartoon by Robert Minor appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1911. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by enthusiastic Wall Street financiers: Morgan partner George Perkins, J.P. Morgan, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Immediately behind Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

    Other Bolshevik finaciers mentioned by Griffin include Lord Alfred Milner, and Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time of the 1917 revolution.

    Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a “large loan” to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan. “In private interviews”, he said, “I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution… The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations.” Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time.

    Getting back to Igor Cassini, my description of him as “colorful” probably doesn’t go nearly far enough. His brother Oleg was fashion designer for Jacqueline Kennedy, and on Oct. 8, 1963, Igor pleaded “nolo contendere” to charges he’d been a paid agent of Rafael Trujillo. There are also connections between Igor Cassini and Fulgencio Batista, and also George DeMohrenschildt mentioned in this long discussion.

    January 19,1963 page 31

    …Cassini himself dates his extreme interest in the Dominican Republic from early in 1961. When I asked him about it he told me that he had learned from such experts as Dominican playboy Porfirio Rubirosa that the Communists planned a move to overthrow Trujillo. Cassini says that he brought up the matter during a visit to his father-inlaw, Charles Wrightsman, in Palm Beach in February, 1961. He spoke of it not only to neighbor Joseph P. Kennedy but to Allen Dulles, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who was aguest at the Wrighlsman home.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4555-george-demohrenschildt/page/3/

    I’ve just skimmed the beginning, but one of the comments includes the question “Was Igor Cassini a cut-out?”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  215. @MAOWASAYALI

    I’m an Englishman.

    (6:42)

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  216. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    Within Germany, a new generation of leaders wanted their country to take a larger role in world affairs. The champion of Germany’s development as a sea power was Kaiser Wilhelm II, a disciple of Mahan. “I am just now not reading but devouring Captain Mahan’s book, and am trying to learn it by heart,” Wilhelm proclaimed. “It is a first-class work and classical in all points.” An American journalist in Berlin observed: “I have heard several times of the Emperor’s references to Captain Mahan’s doctrines. The Emperor is familiar with all that Mahan has written.”
    https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/08/influence-thinkers-ideas-history-case-alfred-thayer-mahan/

    During the days when Great Britain was deciding
    whether to accept or reject Germany’s surrender
    terms, Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the
    World Zionist Organization, proposed to the British
    War Cabinet that in consideration of the promise
    of Palestine to “the Jews of the world” by Great
    Britain, they would bring the USA into the war as
    Great Britain’s ally. The British War Cabinet
    accepted the arrangement. The Balfour declaration,
    stating that Britain supported a Jewish claim to Palestine,
    was the result.
    https://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/benjamin-freedman-defector-from-jewish-supremacism-11-27-04.pdf

  217. Large numbers of extremely energetic Jewish-activists have been working to refute the Schiff-Bolshevik stories for generations,

    It’s been a number of years since Ron & Allis Radosh celebrated their consummated flirtation with Communism, then divorced the ideology once they had collected sufficient equity in the relationship to keep them in the comfort to which they’d become accustomed. https://www.c-span.org/video/?186678-1/after-words-ronald-radosh He subsequently went on to become an establishment – leftist.
    It’s been over 15 years since Radosh came out of the closet, for Purim-creds and profit.

    The virtue of Anti-Communism needs a booster shot; welcome David Maraniss — is he Jewish or did he just grow up in a Jewish neighborhood? Anyway, he’s outing his Red parents — not only for Purim-creds and profit but also to clear the way for the normalization of the next Jewish ideology to which Americans, indeed the entire world will be required to submit (call it the Islamization of zionism): the word from Israel’s ministry of propaganda (one speculates) is that “anti-zionism is anti-semitism,” (it’s not clear yet whether the hyphen and capitalization will be required or optional) and Elan Carr will fight it with the last drop of American blood and the last dime of American treasure.

    Carr told a (pathetically small) preparing-for-Medicare crowd at Park Ave. Synagogue how delighted he was that Trump had declared his intent to “seek to destroy anyone who seeks to destroy Israel.”
    “After all,” Carr exhorted ,

    “Even the decree that was signed and sealed and delivered, the imperial decree that could not be undone; the wheels of genocide that were already turning — even THAT could be undone if we stand together. That is the message of Purim.”

    In short: Communism is out, and Jews were never a part of it.
    Zionism is in, and don’t you forget it.

    [sidebar: Has anyone ever actually seen that decree? Is there evidence of its existence other than from Mordecai? Was any Jewish person actually harmed? And finally, do Jewish people teach their children, as they munch on Hamentaschen that 75,000 innocent Persians were slaughtered — the same Persians who had extended hospitality to Jews, and contributed their treasure to enable Jews to return to their “beloved Zion?” Do the revelers ever ask, Why didn’t Esther & Mordecai return to Jerusalem? Why were they still in Persia anyway?]

    • Replies: @Logan
  218. @NoseytheDuke

    Powerful.
    I’m not an Englishman, but it brought me close to tears.

    • Replies: @S
    , @NoseytheDuke
  219. WW1 (and WW2) was a tragic pointless White on White fratricide that the United States had no business being in. Americans were duped into both of them. But they were at a time when trust in government was high. Will Americans be duped into WW3 as well?

    • Agree: anon19
  220. Logan says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Very odd POV.

    Let’s look at it this way. After 1870 there were four great powers (or potential great powers) in Europe: France, Germany, Russia, Britain. There were several more 2nd-rank powers, but in the final analysis they didn’t really matter.

    For any analyst of strategy, Germany’s obvious goal was to not unite the other three great powers against her. Since they had no common frontier, and no builtin conflicts of interest, the easiest one to remain on good terms with was obviously the British.

    So what did the Germans do? They launched a massive attempt to create a High Seas Fleet competitive with any. By “any” was obviously meant the RN.

    What else could it mean? It’s not like this fleet would be much, if any, help during a war with Russia and/or France, with which they had land frontiers and military dominance. Its only conceivable purpose was to challenge the British, with the implied goal of conquest.

    So for no logical strategic reason at all, Germany destroyed their previously friendly relationship with UK in pursuit of a goal they had no chance of achieving anyway, and indeed one that never gave them the slightest benefit militarily.

    I’ve read history for quite a few decades, but I can’t think of a single example of greater counter-productivity.

    Your points about Poland are pretty silly. There was never the least chance in 1890 or 1910 of Britain invading and conquering Germany, which did not need a fleet to defend itself against UK. The UK did need a fleet to defend itself against Germany, and challenging the predominance of that fleet was the most provocative gesture possible. If the Germans didn’t know that, they certainly should have.

  221. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @sally

    The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium…,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this

    Germany is the one and only culprit.
    And a disgusting one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

    • Troll: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @ANONymous
  222. @anon19

    Everyone, and I mean everyone who mattered from Gladstone to Grey to Churchill, take it as a given that the Great Powers who signed the Treaty of London 1839 had agreed to defend Belgian territorial integrity. This is demonstrably false. The treaty, which is paralleled by a second treaty signed the same day with Holland, was to end a civil war between the Netherlands and its rebellious southern provinces. It required both the Netherlands and Belgium to be neutral, to not invade each other, to establish a border commission, to exchange prisoners, to divide the national debt and to maintain waterways. Is there some suggestion that Britain should maintain Belgian and Dutch waterways? Of course not. It requires these actions of the two participants to the war. The other signatories are WITNESSES to the treaty. Since copies of the treaty are available in English and French, all this is easily confirmed by any lay reader.

    What this means is that if Belgium was invaded by either Germany, France or Britain, as long as the Belgian Government mainained it was neutral, it was in full compliance with the treaty. WWI was a put up job. Grey is the culprit. Britain should carry the blame for creating a cause out of whole cloth.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @anon19
    , @Lurker
  223. @Logan

    You have completely avoided what I wrote to you and simply repeated what you said the first time. First I questioned/rejected that Britain was a friendly power toward Germany, but you ignored that and continued basing your theory on that incorrect assumption without giving any evidence to back it up. As is well known and accepted, Britain was intent on holding the position of superior power over Europe, leaving Germany to accept being a secondary power even though it was capable of more. Is that realistic? Germany wanted a naval fleet strong enough to protect its merchant ships from being blockaded/stopped from carrying German-produced goods throughout the world, though not strong enough to attack/defeat Britain. It was German trade that Britain feared and hated, not an invasion.

    You also failed to defend your USA-Canada comparison, and to my question on your position on Poland-Germany (in 1937-39), your only reply is that my points are “silly”, and moving the time in question back to 1890-1910, saying that Germany did not need to defend itself against Britain but Britain did need to defend itself against Germany. Again, no reasons. Just because “you’ve read history for quite a few decades.” In 1914, Britain used its superior fleet to blockade the North Sea, which was Germany’s access to the world, and prevented food and other essential resources from being delivered to Germany. (There were no airlifts possible in those days as we know; it was by sea or not at all.)

    You say my POV is “very odd.” Why is it ‘odd’? Again, just because it differs from yours and is not pro-British. I call FAIL.

    • Replies: @Logan
  224. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz to FB

    Frankly, you strike me as an *exceptionally* gullible fellow, at least when it comes to historical analysis…

    Exceptionally gullible? Try *exceptionally* DISHONEST, and you’d get warmer.

    Agree with the rest of your post.

    Regards

  225. S says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    I used to write stuff like this off entirely as interesting but ultimately a ‘mere coincidence’, and to be sure about these things one ought to always retain caution and a healthy skepticism, and not get too ‘worked up.’

    Having said that, I once came across an article that commented upon how the year 1776 saw the creation of not only the United States (you know, the country which sees itself as ‘a new Rome’ and during that same year had the multinational corporation British East India Company/’Grand Union’ flag flying over it to symbolize its revolution), but also saw the publication of Adam Smith’s Capitalist bible The Wealth of Nations, as well as Gibbon’s monumental work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire .

    The article indicated that within Freemasonry, an organization which almost needless to say has been quite involved with the United States from its founding, that there is quite a thing with them about numbers and ritual. The writer of the article concluded that a person in no way should see it as coincidental that all those events described took place within the same year, 1776.

    Then there are the numeous quite well documented bizarre parallels between the Lincoln and Kennedy assasinations, ie Kennedy’s secretary named Lincoln, a President Johnson following each in office, Lincoln shot in Ford’s theatre, Kennedy being shot in a Ford Lincoln, etc, etc. Some have thought Kennedy’s assassination might well have been a highly ritualized Freemasonic ‘copycat’ killing modeled upon the Lincoln assassination.

    Who can say?

    The Wikipedia article linked below on the subject has a list of the parallels that have been drawn. Whilst the article attempts to discredit the entire thing, it simultaneously and somewhat incongruously readily acknowledges that ‘Most..are true.’

    Heck, doing just some of my own reading regarding the US Civil War and WWII I’ve happened to come across numerous close paralells between the Southern Confederacy’s struggle with the Capitalist United States (1861-65) and Germany’s struggle with the Communist Soviet Union (1941-45).

    Both wars respectively are presented historically as ‘do or die’ struggles for the United States and the Soviet Union.

    Both the Southern Confederacy and Germany within two years of hostilities commencing, whilst invading their respective foe and marking thir high tide, experienced dual nearly simultaneous catastrophic disasters at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and at Stalingrad and El Alemein.

    Both of their ultimate surrenders came within days of each other in the Spring of ’65 and ’45 respectively, each having forlorn hopes toward the end of a respective Trans-Mississippi and Alpine ‘redoubt’ to carry on the struggle into the summer, and each having their political and military leadership being accused of ‘crimes against humanity’ at the end regarding ‘camps’, etc, etc.

    Hmm, all these ‘coincidences’.

    Whilst still retaining caution and a healthy skepticism, there are a bit too many of these historic ‘coincidences’ for my taste.

    By the way, for any with doubts about the licence plate story, the Smithsonian Museum’s magazine published an entire article (linked below) a few years back on the Archduke Ferdinand’s assasination car and towards the end of the article verifies the essential truth that the particular letters and numbers on the licence plate do indeed line up with the Armistice date, but concludes that it was just (you got it!) ‘a quite incredible coincidence’.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Kennedy_coincidences_urban_legend

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/curses-archduke-franz-ferdinand-and-his-astounding-death-car-27381052/

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  226. @One Tribe

    Yes, Douglas Reed’s “The Controversy Of Zion” was an eye-opener for me as well. It makes so much sense of the nonsense.

  227. FB says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    So your ‘argument’ rests on an alleged comment by Schiff’s grandson…decades later…?

    And does this grandson even know the difference between the Bolsheviks and Kerensky…?…does that ‘Knickerbocker’ columnist who attributed the alleged remark without a direct quote…?

    Come on man, I’ve been going easy on you because your position is so obviously weak, plus you’re a courteous debater…but the fact is that you absolutely cannot substantiate your claim with any documentation…and you appeal to the ‘logic’ that the historiography is wrong because…well, because the global Jewish Conspiracy has twisted the record…

    You’re right that history is not my area of expertise, and that you have read much more than I…although it seems your reading has been heavily tilted towards the revisionist side, including almost certainly a lot of fantastic nonsense…

    In your article about the Jewish religion, you even endorse old wives tales about Jewish rituals and Christian blood…even the blood of children…so it seems to me that you are the one that’s gullible…

    My closing thought on this is that I agree with you that historiography is not an exact science…and is filled with clashing versions and endless debate…it does seem that very few history books can be relied upon authoritatively…but I think some of them can, and have stood the test of time, and assaults from clashing viewpoints…so eventually a consensus among reasonable men emerges…

    Arguing this obvious no brainer with you does indeed make me want to stick to the beautiful exactness of hard science…

    I thank you for the debate, but I’m sure we can both agree you have not made one step of progress in proving the fantastic notion that Schiff was a crypto-Bolshevist at Versailles…

    • Troll: Ron Unz
  228. Cyrano says:
    @Jon Baptist

    I bet you cry yourself to sleep every night over the fate of the Russians under communism. You probably shed torrents of tears for the Jewish victims of the holocaust too. You phony.

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  229. S says:
    @Grace Poole

    Yes, it was a quite powerful video as were the words from Ezra Pound’s 1942 broadcast regarding England.

    Hopefully England and the English people can find a way to preserve themselves.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
  230. ANONymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    the link — what a disappointment

    NO babies on bayonets
    NO nuns impaled on barn doors

    I was counting on some good snuff-porn — I’ve used up my month’s subscription & SSI doesn’t come ’til the 5th of the month.

    got some better porn? maybe that kid that Israelis poured gas in his mouth & lit him up, or two-heads no-arms newborns from Iraq where the land was polluted with DPU for the next millennia?

  231. Logan says:
    @Grace Poole

    75,000 innocent Persians were slaughtered — the same Persians who had extended hospitality to Jews, and contributed their treasure to enable Jews to return to their “beloved Zion?”

    Actually, that’s not the story. The 75,000 who died were those who gathered together and attacked the Jews on the day set forth by the King to do so. There is absolutely nothing in the story to indicate the Jews attacked random Persians.

    This is, of course, probably just a story, but it’s one of self-defense, not aggression against those they hated.

  232. @S

    Coincidence or Cohencidence?

    What are the odds of the license plate being the same date numbers as the Armistice 4 years later?

    Greater or lesser than 1 in 6,000,000!?! There’s that lucky six million figure again.

    Nudge, wink, smirk.

  233. Logan says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Of course Germany was not friendly to UK in 1914. I don’t think anybody argues that they were.

    My point was entirely about why they were unfriendly in 1914. It was almost entirely due to German naval expansion starting in 1897 or thereabouts.

    Britain had been quite friendly to Prussia/Germany before this, as their traditional enemy was of course France. Quite obviously Britain was a friendly neutral during the Franco-Prussian War which unified Germany.

    IMO the notion that Germany only wanted a huge High Seas Fleet to “protect its colonies” is, as I said, silly. In the event of war with Britain, the only way to accomplish that would be to defeat the RN. My analogy about Canada was based on a, IMO, quite reasonable comparison. If you can’t conceivably build a force sufficient to defeat a given enemy, then making an ineffective attempt to do so that only alienates that power is about the dumbest thing you can do.

    The German High Seas Fleet was simply not going to be reasonably capable of fighting and defeating the RN. And for peacetime patrol work or fighting another naval power it was ridiculously oversize.

    Bismarck, and many other German strategists, recognized that Germany was by definition a land power. As such, its best way to protect its colonies, if they had to have colonies (which they did for Kaiser Bill’s ego). was to remain on friendly terms with the world’s dominant naval power.

    Which they did up to the mid/late 1890s. When they quite knowingly and intentionally pissed off the British government and people in the most egregious manner possible. The High Seas Fleet was not, and never was going to be, big enough to win the war on the ocean. But it was plenty big enough to alienate the previously not unfriendly British, besides wasting an enormous amount of money that could have been much more efficientloy spent on the army.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  234. Logan says:
    @Jake

    How could they produce propaganda that Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies before the invasion of Belgium?

  235. @Cyrano

    The Bolshevik Revolution was a “net positive” but lets have “tears for the Jewish victims.” You are projecting. You are the phony.

    I have stated here before that tyranny is tyranny regardless of what flag is waving in the air. Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, British Imperialism, American “GloboHomo”, and Jewish Supremacism are all murderous ideologies. If you support any of these, you are the problem.

    The only way out of this societal downward spiral is honest dialogue and a quest for truth that the Unz Review provides.

    I do anguish for every single innocent victim killed for no reason. I also pray for the perpetrators of the death culture. I hope their hearts will change. I also pray for individuals like you even though, I must admit, it is very very tough.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  236. @Logan

    What a dishonorable b–tard you are. You are purposefully putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my comment. It was never about the colonies, it was about trade. Too bad there are no penalties here for outright lying.

    • Replies: @Logan
  237. @Bill Jones

    Never rely totally on someone like James Corbett. You need to look at more than a filmmaker with an ideology.

  238. Cyrano says:
    @Jon Baptist

    The difference between Communism and Nazism is tough love vs. tough hate. Tough love is better. It still comes from someone who cares about you. Tough hate is not meant to be survivable. That’s all the Jews got from Germany – tough hate. I’d say Communism was better. Their tough love prepared them to deal with the tough hate when they had to face it. I don’t care for your prayers, find someone else to bestow on them your kindness.

  239. @Sparkon

    Thanks. Hard to know whether an interim conclusion prompted by that is that it leaves John Schiff’s alleged statement as a bit sus or that it puts it in context.

  240. Communism… is tough love.

    So mass murder is “tough love.”

    Before you kill someone off in your future Communist utopia, will they have to pronounce publicly that they are dying for the noble ideology of “tough love?” If not, will someone just put a bullet in their head?

    Who gets killed off first? Who decides? Are you qualified to make the decisions on who lives and who dies? What traits make someone either worthy or unworthy of breathing? You have just revealed yourself for the supremacist you are. Thank you. Everyone can now see you for what you really are.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  241. bruno says:
    @Seraphim

    Looks like you’ve been reading the labour, dissertations and thick books of Prof. Richard Evans. Obviously you’ve got some decent points. It’s been a while since I’ve heard about Chamberlain, but it’s true what you elicit; mainly, masses adored the ideas of Chamberlain (including AH).

    • Replies: @L.K
  242. L.K says:
    @bruno

    Looks like you’ve been reading the labour, dissertations and thick books of Prof. Richard Evans.

    LOL.

    Prof. Richard Evans == Anti-German Brit Court “historian”, i.e., anti-German Brit propagandist.

  243. L.K says:
    @Seraphim

    Pathetic “blame-Germany for everything” shill ‘Seraphim’ has the nerve to tell the following bald-faced LIE, followed by many other equally outrageous stupidities:

    I find it hard to comprehend the recurrent attempts to re-write history and whitewash Germany of her responsibility for making the first WW1 unavoidable. Fritz Fisher’s ‘Germany’s Aims in the First World War’ remains unassailable despite the concerted campaigns to discredit it.

    In truth, Fritz Fisher has long been totally destroyed by many different historians.

    In his article about WWI, ‘Who’s To Blame for World War One?’, American Jewish historian Paul Gottfried writes:

    …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.

    Opening his piece, Gottfried begins describing the sorry state of WWI “historiography” in general:

    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. These accounts also typically feature Imperial Germany as a forerunner of the Third Reich, that is, an aggressive power that unleashed immeasurable suffering while trying to achieve world dominance.

    In my book Revisions and Dissents, 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.

  244. Cyrano says:
    @Jon Baptist

    But then again – only in “democracy”: The love you fake (multiculturalism) is equal to the love you take (elections). Sorry, Paul McCartney.

  245. The major, intrinsic flaw in this article is the supposition that the Brutish Empire had the slightest intention of not provoking a massive war against somebody. The logic of capitalist imperialism demanded it. Until the mid 19th century the Brutish and French, Dutch and Portuguese, Spanish and Italians, had roamed the world stealing and robbing and massacring to set up colonies to exploit for resources and to use as captive markets for their products. But by the early 1900s there were no further colonies to economically conquer – just about all the planet had already been expropriated – and the captive markets were approaching saturation. The logic of capitalism, though, required an ever expanding consumer base to keep generating profits. Ergo, the Brutish, as the most rapacious capitalist imperialist criminal entity around, needed to acquire markets elsewhere. At the same time the German union had created a powerful economic competitor. The military “threat” from Germany was a fiction; the Kaiser’s army was, as it turned out, as little prepared as any of its opponents for war, and came extremely close to losing the war in the first month itself, and would have but for the incompetence of the Russian General Staff. The primary threat was always economic, and the logic of the capitalist system needed the Brutish to knock out the competition. Whether Belgian neutrality was violated or not was immaterial. The Brutish were determined for war and would have found an excuse no matter what.

    It’s worth noting that at the Treaty of Versailles, France and the Brutish Empire grabbed all the German colonies, claiming that the Germans had been so evil as colonial masters that they had proved themselves unfit to rule. Shouldn’t the solution then have been those give to colonies independence? Instead the Brutish, who were even then massacring hundreds of unarmed Indian protestors at Jalianwala Bagh, and the equally vile French, took those colonies for themselves. More resources and captive markets to exploit for the capitalist imperialist machine.

    Secondly, the Brutish needed war to seize the Ottoman oilfields. At that time the Brutish depended on sea power to enforce their criminal mafia empire, and their so called Royal Navy was in the process of upgrading from coal to oil. Most known oil reserves in the world at the time were in the Ottoman Empire, or the headchopper state of Saudi Barbaria. Without a major war it was impossible for the Brutish to own or access these oil reserves. The Brutish, from the very start of the war, worked extremely hard to push the Ottoman Empire into the enemy camp, just as they did to bring the Amerikastani Empire into their own side. The war against Germany was at least in part an excuse to seize Ottoman oil.

    Then, Germany had absolutely no moral requirement to join Austria-Hungary in its war on Serbia. The Italians, treaty allies of Germany and Austria-Hungary, refused to join the war on their side for the simple reason that it was an offensive war while the treaty was one of defence. Had Germany refused to join with Austria-Hungary, the decrepit empire would never have actually gone to war against Serbia. If Wilhelm actually had wanted to avoid war, it needs an explanation of why he did not repudiate the alliance right there and then.

    Also, the claim that the Germans needed to pass through Belgium to attack France is ridiculous. The passage through Belgium was only part of the Schlieffen Plan, which envisaged the French being encouraged to advance into southern Germany while the German army, advancing through Belgium, took Paris from the rear. But the Germans themselves immediately distorted the Schlieffen Plan beyond recognition, passing east of Paris instead of attacking it from the west, and ignoring the Channel ports altogether (the opposite of Schlieffen’s intention). It’s worth mentioning that in WWII the German army first took the Channel ports, and Paris fell with hardly a shot. That it was not essential to go through Belgium to attack France was demonstrated by General Falkenhayn in 1916 when he attacked the French forts at Verdun, guessing correctly that the French would bleed themselves to death rather than permit such a symbolically vital but strategically useless fortification to be captured. If the German High Command had allowed Falkenhayn to continue the offensive for one month more, the French army would have been destroyed right there.

    Lastly is the idea that WWI was somehow a bad thing. Oh, sure, for the rapacious criminal imperialist regimes of Europe it was a disaster, for it destroyed some of them and wrecked all the rest beyond recovery. But for the rest of the world it was a very good thing indeed. Without the weakening of the Brutish and French colonial regimes in WWI and, as a direct consequence, their final bankruptcy in WWII, it’s hard to see how the decolonisation of the world from the late 1940s-60s could have taken place. I realise that for unz dot com European white “civilisation” was the pinnacle of humanity, but we in the rest of the world have no reason to mourn the self destruction of a continent of genocidal piratical monsters. At all.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  246. utu says:
    @Sean

    After WW1 Poincaré, cousin of the superbrain physicist, was internationally notorious among the domestic Left (and even conservatives in former allied states) as having started the whole thing, and likely to do it again if given the opportunity.

    Did you get it form Ouija board? Jules Henri Poincaré died on 17 July 1912, i.e., two years before WWI began.

    • Replies: @Sean
  247. utu says:

    Hitler economic miracle

    From 1933 to 1936 the number of Germans working in the construction industry tripled to 2 million.

    Employers were discouraged from taking on women while the NSDAP delivered propaganda for women to stay home and be good wives and mothers, alongside giving them increased family benefits for doing so. This took women off the unemployment list and pretty much paid them to breed more children.

    Imports were forbidden unless vital to survival and then heavily discouraged, with research established to reproduce these goods from inside Germany as soon as possible. No more bread was imported from Poland, so that meant more German bread was needed, creating new jobs for farmers and bakers who were needed to produce enough to supply the German nation.

    By July 1935 almost seventeen million Germans were in brand new jobs, though they were not well paid by anyone’s standards. But nevertheless, these jobs provided a living wage, compared with just eleven million Germans who were in employment just two years before.

    With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of NSV by 1939, the agency “projected a powerful image of caring and support”.[4] The Nazis provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, which promoted the collectivity of a people’s community where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated 8,000 day-nurseries by 1939 and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families and was involved with a wide variety of other facilities.

    The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics”

    Kraft durch Freude (German for Strength through Joy, abbreviated KdF) was supposed to bridge the class divide by making middle-class leisure activities available to the masses. This was underscored by having cruises with passengers of mixed classes and having them, regardless of social status, draw lots for allocation of cabins.

    Starting in 1933, KdF provided affordable leisure activities such as concerts, plays, libraries, day trips and holidays.[1] Large ships, such as Wilhelm Gustloff, were built specifically for KdF cruises. They rewarded workers with taking them and their families to the movies, to parks, keep-fit clubs, hiking, sporting activities, film shows and concerts. Borrowing from the Italian fascist organization Dopolavoro “After Work”, but extending its influence into the workplace as well, KdF rapidly developed a wide range of activities, and quickly grew into one of Nazi Germany’s largest organizations. The official statistics showed that in 1934, 2.3 million people took KdF holidays. By 1938, this figure rose to 10.3 million.

    Two weeks after the Anschluss, when SS-Gruppenführer Josef Bürckel became Reichskommissar für die Wiedervereinigung as well as Gauleiter, the first five trains with some 2,000 Austrian workers left for Passau, where they were ceremonially welcomed. While Bürckel announced that he did not expect all KdF travelers to return as National Socialists, he did expect them to look him in the eyes and say, “I tried hard to understand you.”[5]

    At the outbreak of war, holiday travel was stopped. Until then KdF had sold more than 45 million package tours and excursions.[6] By 1939, it had over 7,000 paid employees and 135,000 voluntary workers, organized into divisions covering such areas as sport, education, and tourism, with wardens in every factory and workshop employing more than 20 people.

    Incarceration rate (including KL) in Germany in 1939

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-people-who-were-burned-to-ashes-on-ash-wednesday/#comment-2208510

    Prior to WWII (September 1, 1939) Germany (+Austria) had relatively low incarceration rate that included also the concentration camps.

    Prior to Kristallnacht (November 1938) no Jew was imprisoned because of him being Jewish. There were Jews in prisons and concentration camps like Dachau because of their politics (usually communism) or as criminals.

    The incarceration rate in Germany prior to WWII was 3.5 time lower than incarceration in the US in 2017.

    These are my estimates based on sources I could find.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-nazi-myths/#comment-1975420
    Germany 1939: 100, 000 Prisons, 25,000 KL

    USA 2017: 1,330,000 State Prisons, 630,000 Local Jails, 197,000 Fed Prisons, 34,000 Youth Facilities

    Population of Germany 1939: 66 millions
    Population USA 2017: 325 milions

    Since as always Americans use Blacks as an excuse for the high incarceration rate I did take Black incarceration into the account.

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find that Germany’s incarceration rate in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    There were few Blacks in Germany who were in jails for crimes and petty crimes as well as anti–social behavior (vagrancy) and it was reported that one of them died in Dachau or some other KL. It seems that the Left in Germany has not been too successful so far of spinning the stories of how the Nazis persecuted Blacks.

  248. j2 says:

    That Grey told that the UK has a free had and refuses to negotiate of conditions that could have led to German promise not to attack Belgium or France could mean only two things to Germans:
    1. That the UK allows Germany to attack France through Belgium and is not going to interfere (which is highly improbable in the case of the UK’s effort to prevent any Continental power to become dominant, but it may happen in some situations.)
    OR, and more likely:
    2. That the UK is planning on joining the war on the Allied side in any case whether Germany attacks France through Belgium or not. That is, when France would attack Germany, the UK would open a new front in Belgium.

    This logic is inevitable, since if the participation to the war from the UK side was connected with guarantees to Belgium or support of France, then UK would have been willing to negotiate the German offer.

    In both cases an attack to France through Belgium was better for Germans. Had Germany not defeated Belgium, the UK could have opened a new front against Germany in the Belgium border. Defeating this new front by an attack through Belgium would explain celebrating it with champagne.

    Thus, Grey’s answer would have been interpreted that Germany could not avoid a war against the Allies (including the UK) and for Germany, if there had to be a war, it was better to start it sooner rather than later. Germany’s best strategy was a modified Schlieffen plan.

    The picture of a future war in Europe before the WWI was that the war would be an annihilation war and it could not last long because of immense losses to the participants in a war like this.
    An annihilation war is heavy for both sides and it hardly can have been a war that the UK and other Allied planned in order to destroy Germany. While destroying Germany they would suffer too much damage themselves. That is how it was predicted to be before the war.

    The real goal of this war must therefore have been a goal of some powerful group of people, not the official UK or some other European power, with the following aims:

    1. To have a long war, not the short annihilation war as was expected. The central powers had top be funded by banks to be able to have a long war.
    2. The result of this war would not be changing of the borders in Western Europe in an important way. In this way it would fill the aimless purpose of a war to finish all wars.
    3. The war should destroy the remaining monarchies in Europe.
    4. The war should advance the Zionist and Communistic aspirations.
    5. The war should raise the USA to a world power.

    These would have been the logical goals of a long annihilation war, funded by banks. They quite well identify the group of people wanting the war.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  249. Logan says:
    @joe2.5

    But the country that is now Israel didn’t “eat up a whole country.”

    It doesn’t even cover the whole area of the British Palestine mandate, much less the larger amount awarded to the British in the treaties or the territory covered in the prewar Ottoman provinces.

    The territory of Israel is “a whole country” only by hindsight. It’s also remarkably small. Leaving aside the pretty unproductive Negev, it’s really small in area.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @joe2.5
  250. anon19 says:
    @Frank Hilliard

    There was nothing in the treaty (which was 75 years old by 1914) that said Great Britain had to send troops to the continent or make war on any country that violated Belgian frontiers.

    • Replies: @Frank Hilliard
  251. Sean says:
    @utu

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9

    In the German-Soviet propaganda of the 1920s, the July Crisis of 1914 was portrayed as Poincaré-la-guerre (Poincaré’s war), in which Poincaré put into action the plans he had allegedly negotiated with Emperor Nicholas II in 1912 for the dismemberment of Germany.[32] The French Communist newspaper L’Humanité ran a front-page cover-story accusing Poincaré and Nicholas II of being the two men who plunged the world into war in 1914.[33] The Poincaré-la-guerre propaganda proved to be very effective in the 1920s, and to a certain extent Poincaré’s reputation has still not recovered.[32]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Pal%C3%A9ologue

    Paléologue was born in Paris as the son of Alexandru Paleologu, a Wallachian Romanian revolutionary who had fled to France after attempting to assassinate Prince Gheorghe Bibescu during the 1848 Wallachian revolution, He played a major role in the French entry into the First World War, when he was the French ambassador to Russia and supported the Russian mobilization against Germany that led to world war 1.

    • Replies: @utu
  252. @anon19

    Exactly. Nor was there any enforcement provision on any of the other great powers. So, in short, British involvement in WWI was entirely optional.

    • Replies: @anon19
  253. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    The major, intrinsic flaw in this article is the supposition that the Brutish Empire had the slightest intention of not provoking a massive war against somebody. The logic of capitalist imperialism demanded it.

    Yes, you’ve made an almost too obvious but excellent point. 

    Perhaps the epitome of the brutish nature of British Imperialism is/were the Opium Wars it raged against China in the 19th Century; which, I would argue, is still a very lucrative ongoing business, but it’s corporatized and worldwide now, and instead of just Brits, we have U.S. Yankee troops and Blackwater mercenaries from all over the world guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

    Old-fashioned monopoly imperialism disguised as free-market capitalism with the same Tribe Members and Families at the top of the Freemason Pyramid!

    [MORE]

     

    Apparently Commissioner Lin sent a letter to the young  Queen Victoria exhorting her to acknowledge the laws of China that prohibited the importation and sale of opium, and warning that Chinese officials would order the seizure and immolation of any ships found engaged in the trade. Arthur Waley quotes this letter in translation:

    I am told that in your own country opium smoking is forbidden under severe penalties. This means that you are aware of how harmful it is. . . . . So long as you do not take it yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, you will be showing yourselves careful of your own lives, but careless of the lives of other people, indifferent in your greed for gain to the harm you do to others; such conduct is repugnant to human feeling and at variance with the Way of Heaven. . . . .

    On receiving this, Your Majesty will be so good as to report to me immediately on the steps that have been taken at each of your ports.

    That this is a noble letter no one will deny. Had the inexperienced young Queen received it she might well at first have doubted whether we ought to persist in what Gladstone called ‘this most infamous and atrocious trade’. But [Viscount Lord] Palmerston would soon have damped her qualms by the accepted sophistry that it rested with the Chinese to stop the opium traffic by suppressing the consumption of opium; he would have explained that only by importing opium could the balance of trade be maintained; and that the cessation of this traffic would be disastrous to the finances of India. (pp. 30-31)

    The trade with China, “balanced” by the importation of opium was also vital to the economy of Great Britain itself. Peter Ward Fay estimates that the duties collected by the government on leaf tea annually amounted to some three million pounds, about half the cost of running the Royal Navy!

    References

    Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War 1840-1842. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

    Waley, Arthur. The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1958.

    Source: The Victorian Web

  254. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    p.86 ” Belgian neutrality, a scrap of paper ! ” These unlucky words will stick for ever to the memory of Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg. This man of wide culture, with a more exalted sense of justice than many of his countrymen, has shown us that respect for treaties no longer existed for him, so long as strategic considerations demanded that they should be broken. The inviolabihty of small States, their independence and their right to live, had no more value in his eyes than the international agreements that sanction these principles. On the same day, in the Reichstag, the Chancellor admitted, without any subterfuges—a frankness which he regrets to-day—that the Imperial Government, by the invasion of Belgium, had transgressed the law of nations. But, he pointed out, necessity knows no law, and he tried to excuse himself by attributing, without any probability or material proof, a similar design to the French. Belgium should quietly have let herself be invaded ; she would have been indemnified later on !

    • Replies: @Frank Hilliard
  255. Logan says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    If I misunderstood you, I apologize. While you may have never said it, the idea that Germany needed its fleet to protect its routes to its colonies is a very common one.

    It all comes back to my original question, which was, “Protect its trade against whom?”

    They certainly did not need a battle fleet to protect trade against pirates and second or third grade powers. The only conceivable purpose of a massive battle fleet was to challenge the RN for command of the seas.

    Since there was simply no way they would ever be able to achieve that goal, working in that direction was remarkably stupid. IMO.

    Again, my apologies for mischaracterizing your position. I assure you it was unintentional. I don’t do such things on purpose.

    Here’s an article that covers my POV pretty well.

    https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/naval_race_between_germany_and_great_britain_1898-1912

    As far as colonialism being intimately involved with the naval buildup:

    “Many Germans in the late nineteenth century viewed colonial acquisitions as a true indication of having achieved nationhood, and the demand for prestigious colonies went hand-in-hand with dreams of a High Seas Fleet, which would become reality and be perceived as a threat by the United Kingdom. ”

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/German_colonial_empire

    You may certainly disagree with that, but it’s not like the idea is something I just made up yesterday.

  256. utu says:
    @Sean

    What made you to confabulate about Henry Poincare?

    • Replies: @Sean
  257. What I said to you in comment #223 is this:

    You have completely avoided what I wrote to you and simply repeated what you said the first time. First I questioned/rejected that Britain was a friendly power toward Germany, but you ignored that and continued basing your theory on that incorrect assumption without giving any evidence to back it up. As is well known and accepted, Britain was intent on holding the position of superior power over Europe, leaving Germany to accept being a secondary power even though it was capable of more. Is that realistic? Germany wanted a naval fleet strong enough to protect its merchant ships from being blockaded/stopped from carrying German-produced goods throughout the world, though not strong enough to attack/defeat Britain. It was German trade that Britain feared and hated, not an invasion.

    That’s quite clear but you answered: “Of course Germany was not friendly to UK in 1914. I don’t think anybody argues that they were.” as though I had said something about that. That is disingenuous.
    Then you proceeded to repeat several times that Germany wanted a high-seas fleet to protect its colonies (all two of them?) which was an obsession with “Kaiser Bill.”

    You say what you want, you do not listen to anyone else. I’m not going to waste my time again.

  258. anon[833] • Disclaimer says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    i’ve heard Joe Atwill talk about this quite a bit like its incriminating evidence but seems more like just random noise

    there a lots of coincidences if you’re looking at everything under a microscope

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  259. anon[833] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan

    they haven’t killed all that many Palestinians either

    and besides, the Palestinians may not have really existed anyway

  260. Sean says:
    @utu

    I am simply pointing out that as cousin of the superbrain physicist, Raymond shared lot of genes with a card carrying genius, and Raymond is the man who was largely responsible for encouraging Russia into a very early mobilisation while keeping Britain on side. Raymond continued after WW1 to pursue a policy of the break up of Germany. There was an occupation of Rhenish Bavaria. We know what started in Bavaria. Raymond Poincaré was a member of the Académie française (as was the Romanian fathered French Ambassador Paléologue). Raymond Poincaré was born in Lorraine, a province lost to France in a war with Germany and he openly said all efforts of French policy should be for the recovery of those territories. There were complicated background rivalries.

    The Ottoman Empire had been thrashed by Italy due to Ottoman naval backwardness, but that caused them to order massive dreadnought class battleships from Britain, which greatly alarmed Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%C5%9Fadiye-class_battleship

    Russian leaders wanted a general war so long as the British were going to come in. Brian Bond in his The Victorian Army and the Staff College) that Commandant Henry Wilson’s “School of Thought” was espousal of conscription and the military commitment to send a British Expeditionary Force to France in the event of war. Wilson was therefore the éminence grise behind Britain’s military understanding with France that enabled France to give a blank check to the Russian decision to begin in effect mobilising several days before anyone else did.

    After the predatory Serbians jumped in to piggyback on the Italian victories, doubled their country in size as a result of the First and Second Balkan wars, they precipitated the First World War and doubled it again. The Russian ambassador in Paris was Alexander Izvolsky a former Russian foreign minister who had chamioned a military understanding with Russia, but in the the 1908 Annexation crisis had been disgraced due to assuming that London would support opening of the Turkish Straits to Russian warships. Izvolsky’s papers are missing for four weeks in the run up to WW1. Very successful diplomacy by France they kept from Britain that Russia was mobilising as a result of the French encouragement. Poincaire wanted war and he was a clever man.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  261. anon19 says:
    @Frank Hilliard

    For Great Britain it was 100% a war of choice as with Italy, (entered 1915) Romania, (entered 1916) the USA, (entered 1917). All of these countries declared war on the Central powers.

    In my opinion it was a disastrous choice for the U.K. To give just one example, the war increased her national debt fourteen times.

    • Replies: @anon
  262. @anon

    there a lots of coincidences if you’re looking at everything under a microscope

    Is that a Jewish proverb or did Einstein say it? LOL

  263. anon[833] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon19

    In my opinion it was a disastrous choice for the U.K. To give just one example, the war increased her national debt fourteen times.

    sounds like it was good for the bankers

  264. joe2.5 says:
    @Logan

    Fiddlesticks. The entire mandate Palestine and more is fully under Zionist entity occupation and control, not to mention the occasional additional conquests. One wonders about the planet you live on.

    Let’s add that the German enclaves in Slavic and Baltic lands were settler-colonialism relics alien to the territory, having started much like the Zionist entity, being constantly resented by their environment.

    • Replies: @Logan
  265. @Grace Poole

    It is sad indeed. I grew up there and it was lovely, as were the people, for the most part. I was chatting with a nice young lady from Surrey the other day but the young have all been bitten by the diversity bug and know nothing else.

    It is happening here in Australia too and at quite an alarming rate. On the ABC “news” this last week there was a young mixed-race “Englishman” on who has written a book about all of the positive changes that migrants have brought to Britain. I doubt that it will end up on my bookshelves but I rather think that the part about the growing high rate of knife-crimes won’t be in it.

  266. @Logan

    A very sound comment. The joke in Germany at the time was that if the British army ever invaded Germany they would send the police to arrest them.

    • Replies: @Logan
  267. @Anon

    “respect for treaties no longer existed for him”

    Germany, like Britain, had no treaty obligations to Belgium. As I said earlier, the obligations in the Treaty of London 1839 were exclusively on Belgium and the Netherlands.

  268. IP Freely says:

    WWI was NOT avoidable because there was so much money to be made at the hands of the greedy and ambitious. Same as it ever was.

  269. Logan says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    German Army 4M. BEF, 250,000.

    Yup, the British Army was a definite existential threat to Germany.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @Logan
  270. @Logan

    Meanwhile, Germany kept adding additional ships with guns of ever increasing size, just the thing to challenge the British dreadnoughts. Each time they did Britain would have to build more dreadnoughts to maintain superiority because, for Britain, no naval challenger was permissible due to having a history if invasions by sea. Building additional dreadnoughts was costly, politically unpopular and totally unnecessary minus German naval expansion.

    Carolyn’s tireless point that those ships were built in order to solely protect German merchant ships just doesn’t hold water but I still think that nefarious elements in Britain were the main cause of triggering the conflict.

  271. Seraphim says:
    @Sean

    Russians did not want war. The idea that Serbians were “preadatory” in what was their country is preposterous. As the idea that Russia MUST have been “stopped” at any cost.

  272. Sean says:

    Brilliant series of modern history lectures by Sean McMeekin.
    The Russians were expecting Turkey to take delivery of dreadnaughts to give them naval supremacy in June or July 1914

    In 1911. ‘Jackie’ Fisher the (ethnically oriental) head of the British navy predicted that war with Germany would break out in October 1914, following the anticipated completion date of work on the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of dreadnaughts. The Kiel Canal was completed in July, and war commenced in August 1914

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPIKF8DNGQpx6zpOc2AtVkO4gLojwezru

  273. Logan says:
    @Logan

    I have no particular problem with that. It seems entirely possible that some Brits wanted to keep Germany down for political and economic reasons, as some seem to think it is obvious we should do with China.

    That is quite different from wanting to maintain the efficacy of their moat around the island, which was entirely justified. The Germans, in what to my mind was astonishingly ill-advised, spent 20 years poking the British lion. To build a fleet that never had a chance of doing what it was supposedly intended to do.

    How stupid/arrogant does one have to be to do that?

  274. Lurker says:
    @Frank Hilliard

    Saw/heard the idea recently that Belgian neutrality was created as a tripwire for British intervention should Germany or France attack it. Or rather attempt to invade each other via Belgium.

  275. Logan says:
    @joe2.5

    The original Palestine mandate was essentially what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It was assigned to the British in April, 1920.

    What is now Jordan was added to the Palestinian Mandate in March of 1921 after the French crushed the Arab Kingdom in Damascus. It remained essentially part of the Mandate until 1928, after which it became increasingly autonomous, achieving full independence in 1926.

    I had thought, until looking into it, that what is now Jordan was part of the original mandate. This was inaccurate. My apologies.

  276. @j2

    Great comment, as usual. OT, but thanks for posting your 9-11 thoughts on your blog.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Nick Kollerstrom Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?