The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 F. Roger Devlin Archive
The War to End All Peace
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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
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

Today, 6 April 2017, marks the one hundredth anniversary of America’s entry into the First World War, probably the decisive factor in the eventual outcome of that war a year and a half later. Most schoolchildren, if they are taught anything at all about this event, hear it attributed to the German sinking of the Lusitania with American passengers aboard. Many do not know that the Lusitania was a British ship, that its sinking occurred nearly two years before our entry into the war, and that it was carrying a substantial amount of munitions, making it fair game under the laws of war. The existence of the munitions was only publicly acknowledged in 1982 after a salvage operation was announced; the British government finally admitted the truth, citing fear that explosives still inside the wreck might claim a few lives even yet.

Anti-German propaganda made much of the fact that the Lusitania was not a warship, but failed to mention that Britain had commonly disguised its warships to look like merchant ships and even to fly the flags of neutral nations. It was in response to such illegal practices that the German navy adopted a policy of treating any and all ships heading for Britain as potential enemy combatants. In the case of the Lusitania, the German Embassy in Washington even issued public warnings to potential travelers that if they sailed on any ships headed for Britain, they did so at their own risk.

A prominent representative of the New York German-American community also tried to take out ads in 50 major American newspapers, warning Americans of the risk of embarking on any transatlantic voyage to England. Only one paper, the New York Tribune, ran the warning—on the very morning the Lusitania sailed, too late for anyone to make new travel plans.

Also absent from the usual accounts of the Lusitania is the information that it was a response to the British blockade of the Central Powers, illegal under the laws of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War . This blockade led to terrible shortages of food and medicine for German soldiers and civilians alike. The people were largely reduced to subsisting on turnips from 1916 onward, and by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a desperate effort to break through the blockade, and the attack upon the Lusitania was consistent with that announced policy.

These were not the only falsehoods that helped nudge America toward involvement in the bloodletting. The outbreak of war was accompanied by copious propaganda about fictitious German atrocities, such as bayoneting Belgian babies, raping nuns, and nailing Entente prisoners on barn doors. The present authors know of a recent case where a US Marine recruit heard the “bayonetting babies” story in boot camp just within the last few years!

Another atrocity story destined for a great future, was the supposed German Corpse Factory. This lurid tale claimed that the Germans used the corpses of their own war dead for industrial purposes such as producing tallow for candles. This entirely discredited story may have inspired the later holocaust chestnut involving soap made from murdered Jews.

The British government went so far as to appoint a commission to “investigate” the allegations; they dutifully reported back that the stories were true. When historians tried to examine the committee’s papers after the war, these were found to have disappeared. Surviving correspondence makes clear that members were in fact skeptical.

Of course, the greatest fabrication of the whole conflict was the claim that Germany was uniquely responsible for starting the war. The historical record shows that it was Great Britain—and in particular King Edward VII and his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray—which invested years of diplomatic effort into the isolation and encirclement of Germany. They accomplished their purpose in 1907 when the Triple Entente was established: an alliance between Britain, France and Russia against Germany.

On the home front, America’s entry into the war was accompanied with an intimidation campaign against German-Americans, and all things German. Sauerkraut was renamed “Liberty Cabbage”; breeds of dog associated with Germany were at times reportedly killed, and it was not uncommon for German Americans to be assaulted. German language newspapers and periodicals were forced to shut down; German schools and social clubs getting forcibly closed; German churches switched to holding their services in English. Many German families in America even began changing their family names (i.e., from Schmidt to Smith, or Müller to Miller). As a result, many of their descendants are unaware of their German heritage to this day.

Ultimately, as we have seen, such lies employed by Britain, played an important role in whipping up popular support for America’s entry into the conflict. Most Americans, then as now, will support wars if they can be framed as a struggle between good and evil. The priggish Woodrow Wilson promised his countrymen they would be fighting variously the “war to end all war” and to “make the world safe for democracy”—making the venture very much the prototype for today’s so-called humanitarian interventions.

German troops trying to rescue a French soldier from sinking in a mud hole, 1916
German troops trying to rescue a French soldier from sinking in a mud hole, 1916

After the guns fell silent, Wilson insisted upon the inclusion of the “War Guilt” clause into the Versailles Treaty, stating that Germany “should, morally, pay for all war costs, but, because it could not possibly afford this, would be asked only to pay for civilian damages.”

Germany was dismembered and forced to pay crushing reparations, wrecking what was left of its economy and making the rise of a revanchiste German nationalist political movement virtually inevitable. But rather than adopt this natural direction of causation, many still prefer to project Hitler back onto the history of Imperial Germany.

The work of the Versailles Treaty was completed by the occupation which followed the Second World War. It is essential to understand that so-called denazification was not limited to eliminating vestiges of National Socialism in the strict sense, but sought to destroy any sense of German pride, identity, and healthy self-respect. And if this did not entirely succeed among those who actually remembered the war, it succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest dreams with those born later, who were happy to think of themselves as morally superior to their parents’ and grandparents’ generation.

Today’s Germany is a kind of Through the Looking Glass anti-German caricature, and it can come as no surprise to anyone who has lived there that the country is now taking the lead in opening up Europe to foreign invasion. They are doing this on the basis of what they were taught by those who defeated them in the two world wars. Denazification was the original form of political correctness, and German guilt was the prototype of today’s White guilt. There is a grim justice in the way such psychological warfare has turned on its original creators, the western allies, who never imagined they would fall victim to what they self-righteously unleashed on a defeated enemy.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: American Media, Propaganda, World War I 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Trump has fallen to the Zionists. He will now be treated as a “real” and “respected” politician by our degenerate media.
    Bring on the Apocalypse. All hope of a peaceful resolution to global conflicts is GONE.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Rosamond Vincy
  2. I have always had an innate fascination with WW1 and have read enough on it to fill a small library. However gruesome were the land battles and trench living it was still probably the last war where chivalry was in evidence, mostly in the air and on the seas also of fraternization most notably as it happened during Christmas 1914.

    The fact that the punitive conclusion, double crossing and ill thought out dismemberments led directly to WW2 is beyond reasonable dispute. The only arguments that remain in this context are whether it was done on purpose by wise serpents or whether it was good old fashioned myopia/stupidity.

    Either way it destroyed much of the flower of European youth and set Western civilization on a downward spiral from it’s high water mark arguably set at 1914.

    Not commonly known is that Germany sent serious peace feelers out in 1916 while sitting in a superior position militarily on both fronts. If such had been followed up upon by the Entente then there would have been no USSR, no Danzig powder keg, no Eastern European dismemberments (by fiat), and no precedence of American meddling in Europe which the host populace didn’t support in no shape or form.

    Of course finance and politics dominated from behind the curtain and whether it was credits extended to England (Morgan) being in jeopardy or the Balfour Declaration or Royal Navy’s challenge from the High Seas Fleet or Mad Dog Clemenceau’s ego or fear of Imperial Germany’s economic
    ascendency it was clear that a certain outcome was desired by the hidden powers at the time.

    And yes, here we are. No more wars and a world safe for ‘democracy’, a system where the opinion of two idiots trumps (no pun) that of one wise man.


    • Replies: @The Seeker
    , @anon
  3. El Dato says:

    April 06, 2017: “US Attacks Syria: Scores of Missiles Fired: Russia Warns of ‘Negative Consequences’ for US Strikes”

    That was an ultra fast “fait accompli”.

    Just in time WWI remembrance. Someone on Neocon Control has a sense of extreme, evil irony. It’s like shooting down a civilian plane to provide war fodder. Oh wait.

    While we are moving to WWIII, back to WWI:

    “The US entered WWI for the right of american citizens to travel on armed, belligerent merchant ships carrying munitions through designated war zones”

    As to the subject on German Atrocities, there definitely were some hardcore war crimes going on in Belgium (executions of many civilians accused of supporting rumored sniper teams, the burning of the library of Louvain out of pure spite) though nothing of the lurid levels that was being pumped out in newspapers. Check out the book “German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial” for what I remember was a very good overview.


    By war’s end, the Germans would kill some 5,521 civilians in Belgium (and 896 in France). Above all, German actions in Belgium were intended to demonstrate to the Allies that the German empire was a formidable power that should be submitted to, and that those resisting that power—whether soldier or civilian, belligerent or neutral—would be met with a force of total destruction. Ironically, for many in the Allied countries, and in the rest of the world as well, a different conclusion emerged from the flames of Louvain: Germany must be defeated at all costs, without compromise or settlement, because a German victory would mean the defeat of civilization.

    Bad move, Oberkommando.

    Things on the eastern front must have been way worse, but no-one ever cares about that.

    The people were largely reduced to subsisting on turnips from 1916 onward, and by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths.

    It was even worse after surrender. Germany’s economy had been totally destroyed by the war effort, yet the Allies, in particular the French, refused to lift the blockade and to ship necessary goods and food to Germany. Germans were literally dying in the streets. Future National/Socialists were born those days.

    More in “The Politics of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919”, review here:

    • Replies: @anonymous
  4. Sharing this satire (?)
    Syria Attack: New tech reads Donalds thoughts as he announces missiles: DARK…

    We truly are deceived, we ‘truthers’, we humanhearted souls, we meek.
    Time to stand together?

  5. Ram says:

    Today we attempt to dismember Syria, as it has become evident that the Syrians won’t lay down and die. The North East of the country under the US and proxy Kurds, with Turkey occupying the North West in order to keep the Kurds (and the other Syrians out).

    NeoCons hold sway as we begin to realize that Donald Trump sold us a pup.

  6. Gringo says:

    Edward 8 died in 1910, 4 years before WW1 began.

    His parents and teachers considered him borderline retarded. His main interests were clothes, womanizing, food and a fashionable social life.

    By the time he became King the monarch was nothing but a figurehead anyway

    The English government and business community fomented the war because Germany had recently surpassed England in industrial production, education, commerce and trade.
    There were many other factors such as the Austrian Russian conflict over who would be protector of the Balkans.

    But Edward 8 had nothing to do with WW1.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  7. Excellent piece! To this day more than a few ignorant know-it-alls still argue that Germany was solely to blame for the war, when the opposite is true.

    As the article pointed out, it was largely the Brit war hawks and their cunning “diplomacy” that was responsible although the French and Russian militarists did their part too. Allied propaganda also had a major effect.

    It was another unnecessary war and it’s important to know how we were lied to in order to get us into that one just as we were lied to about all the others.

    There is another good article on this topic here:

    And this is a fine collection of great more great info.

    Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in any of the above.

    • Replies: @Anon
  8. With WWI, the conniving, malicious Woodrow Wilson was the warm up act to set the country up for the main show, the scurrilous FDR and the parade of low-lifes-of-treason who followed him around — e.g. his wife, Harry Hopkins, Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss, etc., etc. Shortly after the 2008 Time’s Magazine’s cover featured a photo shopped jaunty Obama accoutered as FDR in a 1930s Roadster convertible, fedora hat, cigarette holder clench in his teeth — evil reincarnated, soon to finish the work of the American neo-Stalinists.


    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  9. Seraphim says:

    When did he fall? When he married his lovely daughter into the ‘Kosher Nostra’ (aka Undzer Shtik)? When he wanted to step into the shoes of Meyer Lanski in Atlantic City?

  10. psychological warfare

    Hmm… If a psychological reconditioning of a society as large as Germany was indeed possible, and in a span of only two generations, that would’ve been a huge breakthrough. This is similar to what soviet communists tried to do: to create a ‘new soviet man’, complete with a permanent burning desire to engage in socially useful work. But alas. I suspect that unfortunately all this guilt and humility stuff is only skin-deep.

  11. Rubbish
    Germany started the war (august 2 Luxembourg, august 4 Belgium).
    Against all rules.
    And they acted as barbarians, raping and torturing and killing civilians.

    And Germany got the chance to try it again.
    Because the treaty of Versailles wasn’t applied; France stood alone.

    • Troll: jacques sheete
  12. Let’s not forget that the Academic Progressive Woodrow Wilson, with his Colonel House, and his Globalist Jewish advisor, Bernard Baruch, ordered that all the German monarchs and princes abdicate! The Austrian aristocrat Eric von Kuenhelt-Leddhin notes that this vacuum of power led to the rise of Hitler. Of course, Bernard Baruch advised Wilson for the sake of his Jewish bolshevist control of Germany but they were prepared for either course to happen.

    The whole point was the destruction of the Old Order. It was Trotsky that was encouraging the Young Bosnians who eventually murdered the Archduke of Austria.

    WWI was a conspiracy of Masonry and nascent communists to seize power across Europe.

    The Bavarian monarchy lasted 800 years and then came the do-gooder American Masonic Woodrow Wilson.

    America is the seat of World Revolution. America is evil to the core.

  13. @Stephen Paul Foster

    I started to read the article you linked, but stopped right here.

    “Moreover, while Hitler’s homicidal designs were focused primarily on Jews…”

    I long ago learned to dismiss anyone who continues to propagate hackneyed, thread bare, sappy propaganda.

    This is much better, although I’m not so sure that many have learned much.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.

    That was written half a century ago but many people seem NOT to have thoroughly learned much, if anything.

  14. Amanda says:

    Listen to what Benjamin Freedman has to say about WW1 and the Balfour Declaration–he was there (he was right hand man to Bernard Baruch, the Soros/Rothschild front man of yesterday)

    History starts making sense when you start delving into the hidden history they don’t want us to know about.

    Independent researcher, Dick Eastman, did an excellent audio on Bernard Baruch that ties together much of the significant events in history (WW1, WW2). Audio is posted on line–worth listening to IMO.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  15. The Rape of Belgium was the German mistreatment of civilians during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I. The term initially had a propaganda use but recent historiography confirms its reality.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @anon
  16. It’s so worthwhile to recall past collectively insane bloodbaths now, because the DRECK that passes for leadership in the West is just SO keen to repeat it all.

    Perhaps an invasion by Aliens from planet RETARD might save us… But, no worries, we’ll just Cruise missile the bastards.

  17. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato

    The unfair reparations which Germany was forced to pay as a consequence of Versailles were bad enough, but it was the inflation that was to follow which served as the straw which broke the camel’s back–the “camel” in this case being Franz Ebert’s Weimar Republic. A personal note: in the late 20’s my father and his family were forced to leave Germany as a consequence thereof. I recall being told that during the 20’s there were lotteries in Germany for people wanting to leave. Inflation was rising at an exponential level. When Weimar finally (and inevitably) collapsed…well…we know what followed. And why should anyone have been surprised?

    A newly emerged German Empire, perceived as a rival by England and France (who had their OWN empires to protect) and thus “bellicose”, was a factor in the outbreak of the war, but it was only one of many.There were myriad reasons for the onset of “The Great War”–historians still debate the reasons.

  18. It looks like Trump is just another stooge for the neocon, Zionist cabal that really runs my country. I have two hopes now that if a major conflagration seems inevitable. The first is that one of the great powers will eventually drop a Satan-2 sized nuclear weapon on Israel. The second is that the USA’s remaining citizens will try the Zionists and neocons who are responsible, execute a few hundred thousand, and sentence the remainder to perpetual exile in the slag heap whose agents they were.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  19. @From The Hague

    The Rape of Belgium was the German mistreatment of civilians…

    Now tell us about the Belgian rape of the Congo. German mistreatment of civilians was nothing compared to what the other empires had been engaging in for decades.

    Blaming others for your own crimes is an old trick.

    “Blame others for your own sins.”

    J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907

    23 1 Timaeus, while vehemently attacking Ephorus, is himself guilty of two grave faults, 2 the first being that he thus bitterly accuses others of the sins he himself is guilty of…

    POLYBIUS ,THE HISTORIES, Fragments of Book XII, VI. The Faults of Timaeus, p307*.html

  20. JackOH says:

    Thanks to Messrs. Devlin and Rossi for this. I used to be a big WWI-WWII buff, and have quietly settled in to believing a “multi-factorial” or “poly-nodal” theory of the wars’ origins and consequences. Fancy terms for saying everyone had his hands dirty. I’d probably assign 51% responsibility equally to the major participants if that were possible.

    What surprises me to this day is that I suspect I can’t count on more than maybe 5 in a 100 educated Americans to offer a reasonably factual 300-word account of the 1914-1945 period and its aftermath. I suppose the Brokawesque “good war” notion for the 1939-1945 period, and the White Hat-Black Hat template with which so many Americans view military intervention makes that impossible. Too damned bad.

  21. Agent76 says:

    *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.

  22. @jacques sheete

    Don’t lecture me on the terrible Congo-history.
    I read Mark Twain’s:

    But that doesn’t excuse at all that German-made WW1-hell, starting with the rape of Belgium.

  23. @Amanda


    Here’s a transcript of Freedman’s speech. Well worth studying.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  24. Mark Green says: • Website

    Excellent article. WWI deserves far greater attention that it gets. It’s aftermath paved the way for WWII.

    In her revealing book, ‘Against our Better Judgement’, author Alison Weir unearths the extent to which influential Jews–including Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis–helped steer America into this European quagmire. And this American intervention–like Washington’s recent assault on Syria–had little to do with US security or interests. WWI was a European conflict, just as ISIS-Syria-Israel-Palestine are part of a regional struggle (or would be if not for Zio-American interference). But clever and coordinated pro-Zionist activism has changed all that.

    Unknown to most Americans, Washington’s late and unnecessary entry into WWI involved a deal to save Britain from defeat and lay the foundation for the creation of a Jews Only state in Palestine. This deal was indirectly revealed in the so-called ‘Balfour Declaration’, a private letter sent in 1917 from English Foreign Secretary, James Balfour, to none other than Walter Rothschild, a leading Zionist–who was also in touch with prominent, US-based Zionists such as Brandeis.

    Let’s not call their coordinated machinations a conspiracy. Oh no! But these private deals, pledges, donations, and behind-the-scenes agreements later affected US and British policies profoundly. These shadowy forces are still at work.

    Zionists during and after WWI used Balfour’s letter to Rothschild as justification for the eventual taking of Palestine for global Jewry. From this has come the decades-long expansion and cleansing of Palestine. To solidify these gains, Zio-American power has been used to destroy Iraq, Libya and Syria. Other nearby states such as Egypt and Jordan have been neutralized.

    The Zionist project continues to make very big waves. Syria was just reminded of this fact. And there’s more to come.

    Global Zionists are determined to destroy the alliance between Russia, Syria and Iran. This will necessitate the additional discharge of lethal American power.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  25. @ hague,

    Do you have any reputable sources for the horrible rape of Belgium? Most intelligent people and all people who value facts know by now that Wikipedia is the anti-encyclopedia when issues are political or historical and could relate even indirectly to ahem…. some groups.

    Besides. I detect a pussy hat shrillness in your prose. Maybe take a midol and move on. This is about history.


  26. @Timur The Lame

    You can start with this:
    Go to google and type these words: horror of germans in belgium
    Then do “enter” (here I see then 41.900.000 results)
    Read the first 10.

  27. @Mao Cheng Ji

    well, look at “holocaust” 🙂 when you control information, everything is possible. look at our current media, it is 100% possible.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  28. @From The Hague

    Don’t lecture me on the terrible Congo-history.

    So lecture me on why you want to parrot century old atrocity propaganda. And don’t bother employing propaganda to bolster your case, if any.

    I’ll be back in a few hours.

    PS: Perhaps you’ve read a bit more about Twain’s anti-imperialist stance? What had he to say about that? Here’s a good start.

    To the Person Sitting in Darkness
    By Mark Twain

    • Replies: @From The Hague
    , @Alden
  29. @Timur The Lame

    Spot on… brilliant analysis and we are heading there again as we speak… Trump just raised the stakes bombing Syria…. will be interesting to see how Russia responds

  30. @From The Hague

    Here you go. Refute any of this.:

    World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals* by Murray N. Rothbard Depament of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

    Or this.

    The Myth of a Guilty Nation
    B A.J. Nock

    … “Nock makes the reader aware of the great extent to which the allied politicians continually lied to blame Germany and justify the war, or at least told stories with no regard for the truth. No wonder Hitler found British propaganda so inspiring. In fact the story at the time made it sound like Germany was trying to overrun Europe …

    “What makes this book worth reading is not whether this is the best explanation for WWI. It is worth seeing how small groups of state officials engaged in secret actions that led to a catastrophic war, and continually lied throughout the whole process to provide themselves ideological cover.”

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  31. @jacques sheete

    “century old atrocity propaganda”
    No, it seems you didn’t read this:
    ‘Rape of Belgium’: The term initially had a propaganda use but recent historiography confirms its reality.[1]

    It was described as such in the following books:
    John Horne (2010). A Companion to World War I. John Wiley and Sons. p. 265. ISBN 978-1-4051-2386-0.
    Susan R. Grayzel (2002). Women and the First World War. Longman. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-582-41876-9.
    Nicoletta Gullace (2002). The blood of our sons: men, women, and the renegotiation of British citizenship during the Great War. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-312-29446-5.
    Kimberly Jensen (2008). Mobilizing Minerva: American women in the First World War. University of Illinois Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-252-07496-7.
    Thomas F. Schneider (2007). “Huns” vs. “Corned beef”: representations of the other in American and German literature and film on World War I. V&R unipress GmbH. p. 32. ISBN 978-3-89971-385-5.
    Annette F. Timm; Joshua A. Sanborn (2007). Gender, sex and the shaping of modern Europe: a history from the French Revolution to the present day. Berg. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-84520-357-3.
    Joseph R. Conlin (2008). The American Past. Cengage Learning. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-495-56622-9.

  32. @Astuteobservor II

    Nah. It’s easy to demonize someone else, and make the subject of your experiment proud, aggressive, self-righteous. That comes quick and natural, like in the Milgram experiment. But making them humble (without physical pressure), that’s a whole different story. imo.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  33. @Timur The Lame

    One problem with researching the German invasion and occupation of Belgium in WWI is that Belgian records for the time period were later destroyed by the German occupiers in WWII. It does seem to be well established that the German forces, based on the army’s experience with francs-tireurs during the Frano-Prussian War, took harsh measures against real or perceived guerilla resistance among Belgian civilians, including the kind of collective punishment that would become familiar in WWII.

    At the same time, there’s no question that the British wildly exaggerated and fabricated “atrocity” stories in order to maintain support at home and also bring the U.S. into the war.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  34. @jacques sheete

    Are you serious?
    If so, give me sources of non-US writers, who deal with the start of the war.

  35. joe webb says:

    Fw: In Battle for Trump’s Heart and Mind, It’s Bannon vs. Kushner ( jew in the Goldman-Sacks 5th column ) l
    joe webb Today at 8:47 AM
    Message body

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:45 AM
    Subject: Fw: In Battle for Trump’s Heart and Mind, It’s Bannon vs. Kushner ( jew in the Goldman-Sacks 5th column ) l

    “On foreign policy, Mr. Kushner is more inclined toward intervention in the Middle East while Mr. Bannon would prefer that the United States remain as uncommitted as possible.”

    Then, there is: “Finally, Mr. Bannon identified why they could not compromise, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation. “Here’s the reason there’s no middle ground,” Mr. Bannon growled. “You’re a Jew.” Every photo of Kushner that I have seen is that of an unsmiling, unsocial young punk.

    You know I always tell you when I make something up. The J word did not happen; Bannon called him a”Democrat”….big difference….

    The Goldman-Sacks cabal.

    Trump snatches his baseball cap off his head and puts on a kipa. Trump the jewboy, Amazing. No more money for you Donald.

    Neo-neocon 5th column subverts the president. So what else is new?
    Joe Webb

    Sent by [email protected]:

    In Battle for Trump’s Heart and Mind, It’s Bannon vs. Kushner

    The escalating feud between the chief White House strategist and the president’s son-in-law reflects a larger struggle to guide the direction of the Trump presidency.

  36. Mark Twain:
    “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

    “The point is that we need not dwell on such extreme suggestions to see much in the German occupation of Belgium worth acknowledging. Let us consider some numbers:”

  37. @ From The Hague,

    I did enter your suggested terms and found nothing overwhelming to support your overly shrill stance. I did find some examples where the body of fairly recent books quoted ‘accounts’ and published materials within the 1914-1925 period. Poor historiography that.

    I did enter other terms such as ” allies admit atrocity hoax in Belgium ” and came up with different results. I honoured your request so I suggest that you reciprocate.

    Besides accounts of streets littered with nun’s breasts and dead babies ( wait, didn’t we just get that a couple of days ago?) there seems to have been certain instances of civilian executions and towns put to the torch for real or alleged sniping. Sorry Boyo, but those are the rules of war whether written or unwritten. That is the basis of the distinction of being or not being in uniform.

    In any event even the highest estimate of civilian losses from a sober historian makes this a non issue. You make it out to be on the same level of a major genocidal atrocity. Unless you are a 120 year old Belgian woman who happened to bend over to pick up flowers “sans culottes” as Napoleon might say just as some strapping Fritzes were marching by I am genuinely curious as to your motivations.


    • Replies: @Matra
    , @Clark Westwood
  38. @Mao Cheng Ji

    could be a combination. guilt over “holocaust”, tired of wars(losing 2 world wars), cold war pressure(doesn’t have to be physical pressure)? and finally the desire to get on with their lives after complete devastation of germany as a country, collectively giving up on trying to be top dog. subservient to usa, coming under the american umbrella. that is all I can think of on the top of my head.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  39. Sparkon says:

    President Wilson had been blackmailed by Samuel Untermeyer, who was holding a packet of love letters written by Wilson during an illicit love affair, according to Br Nathanael Kapner:

    Untermeyer produced a packet of letters from his pocket written by President Wilson to his colleague’s wife…Untermeyer then informed Wilson that his former sweetheart was in dire need of $40,000.

    President Wilson informed Untermeyer that he did not have the $40,000 to pay his blackmailer. Untermeyer then volunteered to give Wilson’s former sweetheart the $40,000 out of his own pocket – but on one condition: that President Wilson promise to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, the Zionist and Talmudic Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis.
    Justice Brandeis, through the advice of his Zionist colleague, Rabbi Stephen Wise, volunteered his opinion to President Wilson that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex by a German submarine in the English channel with the loss of lives of US citizens justified a US Declaration of War against Germany.
    Indeed, Congress declared war against Germany because of Wilson’s assertion that Germany had sunk the S.S. Sussex and that US citizens aboard had perished with the ship. But after General Pershing’s troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no citizens of the US had lost their lives.

    Wison was putty in the hands of Schiff, Untermeyer, Baruch, Wise, Brandeis, and Col. Edward Mandel House, Wilson’s counterpart to FDR’s Harry Hopkins.

    …we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky’s behalf.

    Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax …all inquiring into Trotsky’s situation and urging his immediate release.

    The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way.

    Wild Boar – Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?

    As “Fate” would have it…

  40. @Astuteobservor II

    coming under the american umbrella

    More than that. Imo, West Germany was rebuilt and maintained with artificially high standard of living – as a Cold War facade of ‘capitalism with human face’. I guess they knew which side their bread is buttered, and played along. Try a hard long recession, high unemployment, deep cuts in the social safety net – and watch how all that ‘guilt’ disappears in 5 minutes.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  41. Alden says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Actually, many of the commenters on this site such as Mr Feces himself. Jaqueses Sheete believe that if its not in Wikepedia it didn’t happen and every thing posted in the Internet is true.

    The truth is that all the European nations were at fault. It’s as ridiculous to totally exonerate Germany today as it was to totally blame Germany for the outbreak of war 100 years ago.

  42. Matra says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Besides accounts of streets littered with nun’s breasts and dead babies ( wait, didn’t we just get that a couple of days ago?) there seems to have been certain instances of civilian executions and towns put to the torch for real or alleged sniping. Sorry Boyo, but those are the rules of war whether written or unwritten. That is the basis of the distinction of being or not being in uniform.

    Rounding up over 600 civilians as the Germans did in Dinant, including a three week old baby, and executing them are not part of the rules of war.

  43. @Timur The Lame

    there seems to have been certain instances of civilian executions and towns put to the torch for real or alleged sniping. Sorry Boyo, but those are the rules of war whether written or unwritten.

    That depends on whose army you’re in. (Which is not to deny that even British and U.S. troops have occasionally gone My Lai on civilians.)

  44. Alden says:
    @jacques sheete

    You only come on this site to argue and attack other commenters. I doubt you have ever had an original thought in your head.

    Someone who lives across the street from Nancy Pelosi’s house and sees her all the time could post that she is short and thin and you would rant and rave that she is tall and chubby.

    What’s your point? Well I guess it’s better than shooting a neighbor because of a parking dispute.

  45. Agent76 says:

    Mar 22, 2017 Troops Are Awakening to The Deception

    It seems as if none of the other outlets want to report on the fact that troops are awakening to the mass deception.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  46. Mr. Anon says:
    @jacques sheete

    Now tell us about the Belgian rape of the Congo. German mistreatment of civilians was nothing compared to what the other empires had been engaging in for decades.

    The awful record of the Belgians in the Congo doesn’t excuse german war crimes carried out against belgian civilians in WW I, anymore than do those german crimes excuse atrocities committed by russian soldiers against german civilians in East Prussia.

    I don’t think America should have intervened in WWI. It would have been better if we hadn’t. That doesn’t mean I need to think that the Kaiser and his “Huns” (his term, by the way) were emmisaries of charity, hope, and light.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wishkey
  47. Mr. Anon says:

    When somebody – anybody – is trying to stampede your country into war, it’s a good idea to step back and ask: Why? What’s in it for me? What’s in it for you?

  48. Mr. Anon says:

    That was a completely contentless monologue. The guy had nothing substantive to say, put he took five minutes to not say it. If I want to listen to Alex Jones, I’ll listen to the original, not some wannabe.

  49. @From The Hague

    It was described as such in the following books:

    Yup. Most people still parrot the same old tired crud. In fact, I’ve found that the vast majority of such material written after 1950 isn’t even worth laughing at.

    Nice try, but you’re at UR, where people generally know a thing or two, and are especially aware of the concept that people in power lie cheat steal and murder without a second thought.

    What has you convinced that your sources are credible?

  50. @Clark Westwood

    One problem with researching the German invasion and occupation of Belgium in WWI is that Belgian records for the time period were later destroyed by the German occupiers in WWII.

    Any credible sources for that claim?

  51. @Alden

    You only come on this site to argue and attack other commenters.

    So what? Judging by your comment, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse me of. What gives?.

    I doubt you have ever had an original thought in your head.

    Possibly true, but I don’t see what value there is in you worrying your little head over it. Do you have anything of value to contribute?

    What’s your point?

    My basic point is along the lines of what’s implied in the article, i.e., that most of what people think they know about the wars is pure BS, and, as you know, I’m an expert in all things relating to compost. Now, what was so hard about that? 🙂

  52. @Mr. Anon

    The awful record of the Belgians in the Congo doesn’t excuse german war crimes carried out against belgian civilians in WW I, anymore than do those german crimes excuse atrocities committed by russian soldiers against german civilians in East Prussia.

    No one ever said it excused any war crimes. The point is that what’s so special about the Germans in Belgium as a cause of war? In other words, there were plenty of atrocities committed in contemporary times to use as pretext to go to war. Why dump on the Germans? Why wasn’t the war begun over Belgium’s crimes?

    Here’s another…Why didn’t the world go to war over the atrocities of the US the Philippines, for example?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  53. @Mao Cheng Ji

    flip through Capturing the German Eye, by Cora Sol Goldstein (not going to link to the book on Amazon because Amazon is censoring holocaust revision texts and authors).

    Goldstein’s titular thesis is how American military occupation used visual media to “re-educate” the German people, in the process, excising from the German artistic landscape traditional German art forms and replacing them with “modern” art.

    Subtext of Goldstein’s writing are that:
    — Jews held a dominant position in the re-education force in US occupied Germany;
    — US military leaders and US Congress were opposed to the methods and goals of the (Jewish-led/dominated) coercive, psychological warfare practices
    — CIA was actively involved; they and others “worked around” official (military & Congressional) directives to implement their own agendas.
    — the practices employed were most definitely psychological warfare, they endured for many years, they involved deprivation of basic human necessities until and unless one complied; the goal (as someone expressed earlier_ was not just “de-Nazification” but de-Germanization: the complete eradication of notions of German identity, and their replacement with western notions of capitalism, consumerism, and guilt.

    Even after all the practices Goldstein details, dominated by practices such as destroying or otherwise removing (to New York & elsewhere) tens of thousands of pieces of German art and replacing them w/ art that suited the Occupiers’ preferences; and even after relentlessly shaming and rubbing German noses in the now-iconic (and in some cases fraudulent & contrived) photos purportedly giving evidence of “Nazi genocide of Jews in concentration camps,” a 1955 poll of Germans revealed that a majority of Germans still endorsed National Socialism.

    This situation prevailed until 1970, and the release of TV series “Holocaust.” It flooded German television and infected a new, tender, young generation with the bacillus of holocaust guilt.

    Hmm… If a psychological reconditioning of a society as large as Germany was indeed possible, and in a span of only two generations, that would’ve been a huge breakthrough.

    In my opinion, it happened.
    The German people were, perhaps uniquely, susceptible to such massive brainwashing/psychological warfare: they thought of themselves as “good, Christian” people who tried to practice Christian virtues and susceptible to the imposition of guilt. Moreover, they were profoundly vulnerable and utterly dependent upon their occupiers/controllers.

    The persons who devised and implemented the brainwashing/psychological warfare were, likewise, uniquely eager and capable of playing on the German psyche, and willing to use the most punitive and psychologically pernicious means available.

  54. Wishkey says:

    Donald Trump has just been inducted into the Woodrow Wilson Club.

    In 1916, Woodrow Wilson campaigned and won on the pledge to keep America out of WWI. Wilson ran on a campaign slogan of “He Kept us Out of War”. We just saw the 100 year anniversary of Wilson taking the US into WW1 in 1917.

    In his campaign, Trump ran on saying that the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake. He ran saying that the wars of ‘regime change’ had been a mistake. Now, nearly on the 100 year anniversary of Woodrow Wilson’s quick turnaround and taking us into WW1, Trump has executed a similar quick turnaround and taken the US into yet another quagmire of a Middle East war for regime change.

    Woodrow Wilson and Donald Trump. Both nearly tied for making antiwar statements during an election and then quickly getting the US into a war after being elected.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  55. @From The Hague

    If so, give me sources of non-US writers, who deal with the start of the war.

    Check out some of A J P Taylor’s stuff (He was a Brit).

    Here’s another, which is full of great and interesting perspectives.

    This desire to possess what we do not own, to get wealth by hook or by crook, is not a sentiment likely to heal the ills of humanity, especially in the West, where the love of combat is already so deeply rooted.

    -Hsu Shih-Chang , as quoted by Georges Soulie de Morant, in The Present and Future of the World, The Living Age , July 23, 1921, pp. 193-199

    -Hsu Shih-Chang was a former President of China, and a scholar and writer of distinction among his own people.

  56. @Alden

    It’s as ridiculous to totally exonerate Germany today as it was to totally blame Germany for the outbreak of war 100 years ago.

    Ever watch the balls on Newton’s Cradle achieve equilibrium?

    The anti-German imbalance has held sway for nigh on a hundred years.

    If the pro-German balls claim their rights, in a few decades we may achieve a balance.

    If the pro-German effort is invested with a bit more energy than is absolutely 100% fair, balance may be achieved in our lifetimes, and the world will be spared grievous mistakes as have been committed by forming policy based on egregiously unbalanced history.

  57. Wishkey says:
    @Mr. Anon

    One problem with discussing World War 1 in America is that because of language most of what Americans know about WW1 is from British sources. Or, largely British propaganda. Just seeing the reference to “Kaiser and his Huns” says clearly that someone has been heavily influence by British propaganda and rhetoric.

    The case of what happened in Belgium in 1914 is clouded for this very reason. Much of what Americans think they know was what would now be called “fake news”. It was essentially propaganda. Britain was trying to whip its citizens up for a war in that first month of the war. English politicians were worried that the working class and labor unions might not want to go die for their King. The British press was thus constantly full of lurid tales of the evil that the Germans were committing in Belgium. Some of it might have been true. Some of it was true, but greatly exaggerated in its telling. Some of it was just journalists making up entirely what their editor said they wanted. For instance, a Brit propaganda piece might focus on what German troops did, but leave our or underplay the fact that some Belgium was taking shots at German troops out on the road. Most Americans read little or no history. But its extremely rare for Americans to read history in German or French. So, most Americans know the British version if they know anything at all.

    I don’t believe that the Germans in Belgium in 1914 were an army of gentle saints. But much of what most Americans think they know is really British fake news from this time.

  58. Mr. Anon says:
    @jacques sheete

    No one ever said it excused any war crimes.

    You were implying that it did.

    The point is that what’s so special about the Germans in Belgium as a cause of war?

    Perhaps……..that they were Germans………….in Belgium – a country that didn’t actually belong to them, and the neutrality of which they themselves were pledged by treaty to honor.

    And anyway, nobody here has claimed that the atrocities were the cause of the war. Nobody at the time did either – they were merely cited as aggravating factors to justify the war effort.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  59. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Wilson was unquestionably the worst president in history. Had he not engaged in a war of choice in 1917 – after being elected on a slogan of “he kept us out of war”(!) – the great war would have ended in a draw in 1917. All the horrors of Stalin, Lenin and Hitler would never have happened.

    The supposed reason was that it was wrong of Germany to sink civilian ships or American ones in British waters. WRONG!! Since Britain was at war with Germany it was completely right for Germany to consider the waters around Britain as a war zone. Why would Americans think they had the right to travel unmolested in a war zone without consequences? Why should US citizens be human shields in effect? The only Americans ever endangered by Germany were those who freely chose to enter into British waters. They did so with the full knowledge they were risking their safety. Should ships going into Japanese waters in WW2 not have been sunk by US submarines because it was possible a citizen of a neutral country might have been onboard one of them? Such logic never bothered Americans then. In any case the numbers of Americans killed in the war was incomparably higher to the few who were killed by U-boats before the USA entered the war.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  60. @From The Hague

    If so, give me sources of non-US writers, who deal with the start of the war.

    Here you go. I believe Trotsky and Churchill said similar things.

    The other group of belligerent nations is headed by the British and the French bourgeoisie, who are hoodwinking the working class and the toiling masses by asserting that they are waging a war for the defence of their countries, for freedom and civilisation and against German militarism and despotism. In actual fact, this bourgeoisie has long been spending thousands of millions to hire the troops of Russian tsarism, the most reactionary and barbarous monarchy in Europe, and prepare them for an attack on Germany.

    In fact, the struggle of the British and the French bourgeoisie is aimed at the seizure of the German colonies, and the ruining of a rival nation, whose economic development has been more rapid. In pursuit of this noble aim, the “advanced” “democratic” nations are helping the savage tsarist regime to still more throttle Poland, the Ukraine, etc., and more thoroughly crush the revolution in Russia.

    – V. I. Lenin From “The War and Russian Social Democracy”, November 1914

    • Replies: @Alden
  61. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Timur The Lame

    At the end of 1915 the Central Powers offered Tsarist Russia peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo. That was an incredibly generous offer. In 1915 the Central Powers had pushed the Russians right out of Poland and part of the Baltic. They had also inflicted at least 2,000,000 casualties on the Russians that year. Had the foolish Tsar accepted, he would have saved countless lives including his own and his family too. He might even have preserved his corrupt dynasty as well.

  62. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @From The Hague

    Even if I agree with everything you say sir, how does that make it necessary or even wise for America to go to war in April 1917?

    • Replies: @Austro
  63. Re. atrocity claims, wasn’t it said that the Germans gassed 700K Serbs?

  64. @anon

    “Wilson was unquestionably the worst president in history. Had he not engaged in a war of choice in 1917 – after being elected on a slogan of “he kept us out of war”(!) – the great war would have ended in a draw in 1917. All the horrors of Stalin, Lenin and Hitler would never have happened.”

    Come on, no one has that kind of foresight.

    The fact is WWII could have been avoided if the allies hadn’t wrecked the German economy.
    If Germany had been allowed to recover faster, there would have no rise of Hitler to power.

    Commies took power in 1917, before German defeat. Also, Germans aided the commies against the Tsar and Provisional Government. You can’t hang that one on Wilson.

    All in all, it would have been better if US and UK had stayed out of the war. But there was no way of foreseeing what might really happen down the line.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @MarkinPNW
    , @anon
  65. @Mr. Anon

    No one ever said it excused any war crimes.

    You were implying that it did.

    I never implied, nor did I ever intend to imply such foolishness. Now why would anyone claim that I implied such a thing? It’s one’s own obtuse outlook that did that.

    This article did a fine job of pointing out the dastardly use of Allied propaganda and refuted it well and yet some still cling to dippy notions about who did what. I have little desire and no faith in their ever seeing the light, so why should I bother?

    Anyway, that’s enough for now. In fact, the info I’ve provided is evidently way more than some here can process, so I don’t intend to waste any further time about this on this thread.

    Have a very nice evening!

  66. @jacques sheete

    More generally, British protestations re. violations of Belgian neutrality would be laughable if they weren’t so appalling. The British Empire has far more blood on it’s hands than the Germans could ever be realistically accused of.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  67. @From The Hague

    “Gender, sex and the shaping of modern Europe”

    I always appreciate a book whose title immediately informs the reader that it’s crap.

  68. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Indeed. Take away an American’s iPad for five minutes, and their militant embrace of stupidity and hypocrisy will vanish, it won’t take much discomfort to puncture many illusions. It’s coming, that’s why the American oligarchs are planning for full lock-down.

  69. @Alden

    The Germans showed poor judgment before both world wars, no doubt, but even mild pro-German apologia is more accurate than Anglo-American agit-prop posing as history.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  70. @Clark Westwood

    Partisan warfare is generally regarded as illegal (the Americans call it “insurgency”), and reprisal shootings are generally considered justifiable responses, within certain guidelines (which are of course never followed in war).

  71. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Amen. And thank you!

    I hope some bright bulb here can explain to me why the Boer Wars weren’t an excuse for all out war. 😉

  72. @Clark Westwood

    (Which is not to deny that even British and U.S. troops have occasionally gone My Lai on civilians.)

    Unfortunately it’s more than merely occasionally. One example: Sherman’s march…

  73. Incitatus says:
    @jacques sheete

    What depth and introspection. Those nasty Belgians (given Leopold’s crimes in the Congo) were at fault for WW1, not to mention the Frogs. Anybody but the Huns. Who were, by pure accident deeply lodged in both countries. No doubt it was the fault of those evil Belgians and the never trustworthy French. Just as it was in WW2. Pass the sauerkraut and schnitzel!

    Our last interchange? 12 August 2016. In those days you called yourself ”Jacues.”
    I tried my best to help you from making a fool of yourself, remember?


    Incitatus #68 12aug16 “btw shouldn’t ‘Jacues’ be spelled ‘Jacques’?”

    Jacues Sheete reply #83 13aug16 “At one time it was, but your mention of it is as irrelevant as it is petty. Anyway it’s about time you became aware that it’s pretty common for folks to vary things a little. “


    Well, of course I was chastened by your reply. Sure, we all like to misspell our screen names. Really? In what universe? Planet Germania of course! Enough said.

    Mind you, Jacues/Jacques I’ve enjoyed many of your posts since. Agreed with some. Disagreed with others. Don’t doubt you’re a widely read and genuinely concerned individual. The clincher? Lucian of Samosota. Read him in ‘72. Nothing better. Thus my silence till now.

    My biggest question, Jacues/Jacques, is how you got UNZ to retroactively change your (first misspelled Jacues) screen name? I look back, and now you’re always ‘Jacques.’ You know that’s not the case. Unless you’re as phony as Alexander.

    “Blaming others for your own crimes is an old trick.”

    I bow to the practiced expert.

    All the best from an old equine.

    • Troll: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  74. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor

    You can’t hang that one on Wilson.

    I hang it all on him and more

    it was that vile and vain little man who facilitated the death of freedom and dignity and beauty and hope in the world

    he handed over control of this nation’s money supply- it’s life blood- to the world’s most greedy, hateful, cursed. arrogant netherworld scum that ever bubbled up from the putrid pus of a thousand oozing boils

    every major war since his reign, every atrocity from Germany being starved into slavery and rape, to the burning cities and gulags and enormities of WWII- are a direct consequence of that vile little man’s grandiose ineptitude and fatuous conceits.

    from his pathetic 14 points- used to betray Germany, to his acquiescence to enslaving the nation and ultimately the planet to Jekyll Island’s little band of wretched super-scoundrels- no other man has caused more suffering and doomed more people to horrors, death and misery than that singular POS in human history. And that’s saying a lot!

    a thousand curses upon his apocalyptic ineptitude and brazen, herculean mediocrity

    would that he had never been born!!

    the only man from 20th history to be nearly as damnable for tragic cloddishness leading to horrors unimaginable- is Tsar Nicholas, who doomed not just his own people, but all of Eastern Europe and more to the Fiend itself.

    There’s just no scale on which to weigh the sheer incomprehensible human suffering that Woodrow Wilson has condemned so many hundreds of millions of people to by his sheer, worthlessness as a man, let alone a president.

    may he rot in the bowels of Dante’s ninth circle of hell for what he’s wrought on so terribly, horribly, tragically- many ~ [and most of them are yet to come]

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  75. @SolontoCroesus

    that is very interesting, thank you.

  76. @Incitatus

    The commissar order was a directive to shoot on sight Red Army political officers. A war crime, no doubt, but it’s difficult to feel much sympathy for the affected parties. Why did you bring it up? No one disputes that war on the eastern front was ugly stuff.

    • Replies: @L.K
  77. MarkinPNW says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Also, Germans aided the commies against the Tsar and Provisional Government. You can’t hang that one on Wilson.”

    Actually, the prospect of having to face an entire and fresh new enemy on their Western Front (Wilson’s US) provided the Germans with a desperate incentive to get Russia out of the war even to the point of sponsoring and aiding the Bolsheviks on condition that the Bolsheviks would take Russia out of the war upon taking power!

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  78. Austro says:

    To rule the planet?

  79. @jacques sheete

    I read that and learned a lot. Thanks to you and to Amanda. If only The Unz Review were read by more people. Cheers

  80. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    You say no one could have had that kind of foresight. But consider this, the Franco-British “war-winning big push offensive” at the Somme had ended in disaster with over a million casualties. There had been the ten-month long horror of Verdun. The Italians were going nowhere with vast casualties on the Isonzo. The Russians ALONE had lost over a million casualties in the Brusilov offensive. This all occurred BEFORE Wilson made the decision to go to war. One would think anybody with half a brain would thank god they were not involved in this train wreck. You can bet the Dutch, Swiss, Spanish, Swedes, and Danes were thanking their lucky stars they were not involved in this horror. The one neutral that had so foolishly joined in 1916, Romania, was promptly devoured by the Central Powers.

    “Commies took power in 1917 before German defeat”

    ONLY because the Germans sent Lenin in a sealed train to Russia to overthrow Kerensky. They did this ONLY because Wilson had brought the USA into the war and the German high command knew time was running out. Wilson had also done everything he could to persuade Russia to stay in the war, thus destroying any chance a non-Bolshevik government might have ruled over Russia.

    So YES I DO BLAME WILSON AND BLAME HIM PERSONALLY. He was elected on a platform of peace “he kept us out of the war”. So he had a mandate for peace, not war, from the American people.

    Google Winston Churchill’s comment in 1936 to William Griffin.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  81. @Alden

    Actually, a person living anywhere in the world could post that Nancy Pelosi is a traitor to America and that both she and her husband have exploited her position in the Democratic Party to enrich themselves at the expense of the best interests of the American people.

  82. @SolontoCroesus

    In my opinion, it happened.

    What did happen is that the official narrative was created, maintained, and enforced. Just like in any other society, except that the ‘virtuous victimhood’ component – which is always the basis, the most important part everywhere – was verboten in Germany.

    But that’s the official narrative. My doubt is whether this narrative is really so deeply internalized by the populations. Because I don’t believe it suits human nature. What I’m saying is that it’s merely an artificial veneer, a pose, pretense.

  83. @Rurik

    tell us what you really think, Rurik!

    What do you make of the fact that Jane Harman, forced (sort of ) to relinquish her senate seat due to her soto voce misdeeds, was given the consolation prize of overseeing the Woodrow Wilson Center, and provided with taxpayer funds to keep alive the memory of the man who did so much to create Israel, and to act towards the USA as the Polish princes who invited Jews into Poland . . .

    In The Accursed, Joyce Carol Oates gathered up the few remaining words of opprobrium your assessment of Wilson neglected to mention, combined them with sketches of Mark Twain as Wilson’s matchmaker; Grover Cleveland’s tragic grief, and various shape-shifters and slithery evildoers to weave a tapestry of horror on a bucolic Princeton landscape

    • Replies: @Rurik
  84. @MarkinPNW

    Yes. It was a short-sighted strategy, but driven by war necessity. The bulk of the blame for the inter-war political chaos can rightly be attributed to Wilson’s crusading, which prevented a stable negotiated end to the war.

  85. @Alden

    Why is it controversial to believe that British policy, long before the 20th century, was to prevent by any means necessary the rise of a competitive continental power? Was Lenin wrong on this? Maybe there’s a reason we have to look to Marxist sites for this kind of information rather than our own official history accounts.

  86. @Alden

    why do you so casually dismiss what lenin wrote?

  87. @Alden

    He asked for foreign sources, of which Lenin is one.

    There were plenty of Americans, even at the time, who would’ve agreed with Lenin. It’s pretty amazing that people 100 years ago saw things so clearly while a century later people still believe in abject compost.

    LaFollette’s speech of April 4, 1917 is a gem and a classic. Here’s a tiny sample.

    Here in history I find the real cause for this war. England would tolerate no commercial rivalry. Germany would not submit to isolation…

    La Follette’s speech in the U. S. Senate against the entry of the United States into the World War, April 4, 1917

    And here’s some from another classic.:

    The first war zone was declared by Great Britain. She gave us and the world notice of it on, the 4th day of November, 1914. The zone became effective Nov. 5, 1914. . .

    The first German war zone was declared on the 4th day of February, 1915, just three months after the British war zone was declared. Germany gave fifteen days’ notice of the establishment of her zone, which became effective on the 18th day of February, 1915.

    It is unnecessary to cite authority to show that both of these orders declaring military zones were illegal and contrary to international law. It is sufficient to say that our government has officially declared both of them to be illegal and has officially protested against both of them.

    The only difference is that in the case of Germany we have persisted in our protest, while in the case of England we have submitted.

    George William Norris Opposing US Entry Into World War I 4 April 1917 Congressional Record, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. LV, pt. I, pp. 212-13.

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  88. @jacques sheete

    May I inform you that WW1 didn’t start in 1917.
    It started in 1914 (NOT in November).

    You could read this:
    Germany invaded neutral Belgium on 4 August 1914. From the next day, civilians were executed en masse, as the invasion force advanced on its first obstacle, the ring of forts around Liège. To retaliate for the shelling from these forts, the German troops rounded up inhabitants of surrounding villages. Victims were selected and shot, those still alive being killed off with bayonets. By 8 August, nearly 850 civilians were dead. – See more at:

  89. May I inform you that WW1 didn’t start in 1917.
    It started in 1914 (NOT in November).

    I never said it did. Neither did La Follette nor anyone else that I know about.

    I really see no further need to try and engage you in any serious manner, and since I have neither the time nor the inclination to humor you, please pardon me for ignoring you from here on out.

    You may ask yourself though, why Britain’s trampling of the rights of neutral nations including those of the US, didn’t lead to war against their war mongers.

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  90. Rurik says:

    Jane Harman,… …overseeing the Woodrow Wilson Center

    every time I hear that institution mentioned as if its namesake were any other than the worst man in American history (and beyond), I wince SC.

    Jews are not evil people. But some of them are, and the worst of the worst were given near total power over the rest of us by that most grievously ruinous fuck of a would-be man.

    Like a modern day Judas, his legacy is one of death, treason and incalculable misery and suffering. If any man was Satan’s little helper in the 20th century, it was Woodrow Wilson.

    He not only is directly responsible for WWII, and all of those horrors, but he’s also responsible for dooming humanity to its Orwellian destiny of that ‘boot, stamping on a human face, forever’.

    There’s just no way to calculate the infamy of WW, and every time you see the world wars expressed as WWI or WWII, think of that other WW, because those wars have Woodrow Wilson’s sinister name written all over them.

    Just consider SC, just consider…

    the founding fathers of this country (men, of a very different mettle than what you see today) were willing to give up their lands and wealth, their position and privilege and all that they had, all the way up to and including their very lives, to go to war with England and kill British soldiers who they likely considered their brothers, and often literally were, so that they didn’t condemn their progeny to be slaves to British bankers. That’s what those wars (Revolutionary and a redo in 1812) were fought about. It was their iron unwillingness to refuse to use Rothschild issued, debt-based fiat currency, *which meant slavery*. That’s why ((they)) tried to assassinate Andrew Jackson, because he too was pure American, freedom-loving presidential material, and told the slithering demonic snakes who would have us all be their slaves, to fuck off and die.

    All that heroism and all that struggle, all to keep the British Rothschild bank from enslaving America, and eventually mankind.

    And all of it tossed in the sewer of one execrable little man’s high opinion of himself.

    If I could go back in time and do one thing, it wouldn’t be to somehow thwart Judas Iscariot or smother Hitler or Stalin in their cribs, or even assassinate Churchill or FDR. No, what I’d do if only I could, would be to kill WW before he could implement- through his treacherous ambitions- mankind’s fateful demise.

    You have a great appreciation for history SC. Just try to even imagine what the world would look like today if WW had never been born, and the USA was printing its own money and bombing and imposing itself on no one.

    WWI would have ended peacefully. There would have been no Versailles abomination. No Danzig, no WWII. And more to the point SC, there’d be no WWIII, the coming, Rothschild-forced apocalyp$e that has Wilson’s name written all over it.

  91. @jacques sheete

    I wonder what you know about Belgium.
    It’s a part of Holland. North of Germany.

  92. @Alden

    Only you would believe anything Lenin wrote.

    Hey look, Woody hizown Professor self musta believed what Lenin wrote!!

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

  93. @anon

    Yes, Wilson, culpable indeed.

    a. But who set him up?

    b. and from WWI, cui bono?

    (a) stsinoiZ

    (b1.) from “The Transfer Agreement,” Edwin Black: “Zionists emerged from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantee of Jewish rights in lands where they dwelt in Europe.”

    (b2.)from “The International Jew” — Bernard Baruch never left Wilson’s side, and he was just one of the dozens of Jewish persons at Versailles: Jews comprised the largest contingent of any group at Versailles.
    It was at the insistence of Baruch & other of his clan that parts of Germany were sliced off and given to Poland — of all Jews in the world at the time, the largest proportion lived in Poland.
    (It is well-known that NSDAP actively worked to get German Jews to migrate from Germany, a goal that was consistent with the Feb. 14, 1933, directive of Louis Brandeis.
    It is less well-known that the Polish people and government were equally eager for Polish Jews to leave Poland. Other nations — most significantly England– did not want European Jews to migrate to their states. At one point the Polish government threatened the British that if they did not admit Jews, Poland would pass laws equivalent to the German laws removing Jews from various positions in government and elsewhere. Hershel Grynszpan’s situation developed due to precisely this situation: Poland was shoving Jews out of Poland and into Germany; the Germans were working with Mossad el-aliyeh Bet, a division of Irgun, to move Jews out of Germany. Mossad was a smuggling operation: the British attempted to halt migration of Jews to Palestine; Mossad smuggled Jews across the blockade. )

    (b3.) Leonard Stein was Chaim Weizmann’s right-hand man in the project of obtaining the Balfour declaration. Stein wrote “The Balfour Declaration,” a lengthy account of Weizmann’s efforts to achieve that goal. Weizmann, from Belorussia, made the bet that the British would be more pliable than the Germans in aiding that purpose (Germans had long been sponsors of the zionist settlements in Palestine; Arthur Ruppin, “the producer of Hebrew culture in Palestine,” was German by birth and education). Weizmann set out to ensure that the British won the war. The Balfour did not fall out of the sky, its acquisition was a well-thought out, deliberate project. Weizmann’s main tool in that project was antisemitism: he classified people in three categories: active antisemites, indifferent, and secret or guilty antisemites; the last category he considered the easiest to bring to compliance; Balfour was just such a ‘closet antisemite.’

    On the American side,
    Samuel Untermyer had earlier “made Wilson an offer he could not refuse” in order to gain the appointment of Brandeis to the Supreme Court.
    Louis Brandeis worked on Wilson to involve USA in the war. Jeffrey Rosen is head of the (U S taxpayer-funded) National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. In a televised interview, Rosen declared that the person he most admired was Louis Brandeis, because Brandeis did more than anybody else to achieve the acquisition of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Yes, indeed, Wilson was one bad hombre. But he was only a tool, and he was deliberately chosen for the presidency because those who wished to use him knew what a malleable tool he was, that could be bent to their purposes.

    When assessing the many evils from WWI, don’t let numerous, prominent zionist Jews out of the picture.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Rurik
  94. L.K says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Hey Beefcake,
    Well, inZitatus brought it up, bc he is basically a virulent anti-German propagandist. Anything this cretin can use against the German Nation, including outright lies, he will.

    Re the Kommissarbefehl, yes, it was an order clearly in violation of international law. We should not forget though, that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929. Germany had and was bound by it, but, in practice, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect that in such a brutal war only one side would follow the rules. Since day one of Barbarossa, the Soviets executed POWs, including wounded ones. The commissars have been determined to have been the ones chiefly responsible for the crimes and this had nothing to do with with the German commissar directive because such was not known to the Soviets during the early days of Barbarossa. The commissars were also very much involved with executions of red army soldiers. BTW, the murder of German pows did not include only NS party members, officers or Waffen SS personnel, but anyone who got captured. Hungarian, Italian and Rumanian pows were oftentimes executed as well. Not to mention extensive use of torture during interrogation.
    At any rate, the Kommissarbefehl was cancelled in May 1942 and, according to German historian Franz W. Seidler, the order had been only partially followed, having been largely ignored by the troops.

  95. L.K says:

    Given that several historians have recognized that WW2 was a repeat/continuation of WWI, or, as British historian A.J.P.Taylor put it;”Germany fought specifically in WW2 to reverse the verdict of the first and to destroy the settlement[extremely unjust] which followed it.” – it follows that, for the anti-German propaganda crowd, WWI, the original sin, must also be blamed on Germany.

    In reality though, members of the British ‘deep state’ were the key masterminds of WWI and Churchill and his war mongers were later also heavily responsible for WWII.
    Re WWI, the overwhelming Brit responsibility is superbly demonstrated by a new study by Scottish historians Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, in their “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War”.

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

  96. L.K says:

    Hey Solonto,
    “When assessing the many evils from WWI, don’t let numerous, prominent zionist Jews out of the picture.”
    The best summary I have seen re the zio Jewish responsibility in both word wars, has been written by Thomas Dalton:
    The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 1
    The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 2

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  97. Rurik says:

    When assessing the many evils from WWI, don’t let numerous, prominent zionist Jews out of the picture.

    yes of course, SC. But remember, they’re just serving their own people’s interests as they see it.

    Not betraying their own people’s interests, (who’ve made them president and are trusting them to protect those interests), but then who go on to betray those interests (and their nation and their sacred oath and the millions of people who voted for them and put their faith and trust in them) for reasons of political expedience and personal ambition. (dooming and condemning their countrymen to death and slavery for perpetuity )

    Dante ninth circle was reserved for treachery and betrayal, as it should be

    the reason Americans are on edge these days is because we’re all wondering if we’re all about to be betrayed…


  98. @L.K

    This is all true. The Soviets committed war crimes from day one, and we know that false flags involving NKVD dressed as German soldiers murdered civilians (not that the Germans didn’t carry out reprisal shootings of their own). The Germans approached the Soviets at least twice to come to an agreement regarding treatment of prisoners, but were rebuffed. Given the reality of Soviet scorched earth policy and their callous disregard for their subjects’ lives (populations were used as a weapon on the Eastern Front), the Germans had very little choice but to wage war by terror (esp. given their lack of resources). This doesn’t exempt them from actual crimes, but it is completely wrong-headed to portray German actions as somehow historically singular.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  99. @ThereisaGod

    If Israel has any sense, it will back neither the rebels nor Assad: either is likely to turn on Israel if it wins, and in the meantime, there’s the danger of collateral damage.
    In any case, the US, whose borders are nowhere near Syria, has the option of staying out of the whole thing, even if Israel does not. Remove Assad, and the void will be filled by Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, or whichever band of thugs gets there first. Haven’t we been through all this before?

  100. @ Hague,

    What kind of idiot are you to keep harping on the loss of no more than 5,000 civilians in a war that claimed 25 million casualties?

    The events that you are obsessed with are a side show of a side show. Would you care to read upon the civilian deaths in Eastern Prussia before General Francois rushed to the border?

    It’s war. Get your pussy hat over it.


  101. @Timur The Lame

    +1 for using “pussy hat” in a post.

  102. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Given the reality of Soviet scorched earth policy and their callous disregard for their subjects’ lives (populations were used as a weapon on the Eastern Front), the Germans had very little choice but to wage war by terror (esp. given their lack of resources).

    This is the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  103. @Timur The Lame

    You are wrong about the dates.
    Germany started the war by invading Belgium.
    Only after that the Russians entered Germany.

  104. @L.K

    Good reads, Thank you L.K and Thank you Germar Rudolf for your courage.

    @ Rurik #100.,– You make some good points. I can’t go so far as to soft-pedal the activities of zionist Jewish leaders who infiltrated and, effectively, carried out a coup on the USA. That’s the definition of an enemy, and they should be recognized as such. If we grant them the acknowledgement that, “Hey, they just do what they gotta do,” then how can we demand that Congress act differently than the way that they do?

    (I was going to say, “Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did based on his own interests; do we think that’s okay?” but that’s going a little far, don’t you think? Indubitably.)

    As for, Who was the greater/greatest scoundrel, I tend toward FDR rather than Wilson: I think Wilson was a dupe; he was pretty stupid and easily played; he represents a Beta-test.
    FDR, on the other hand, participated with zionist Jews with eyes wide open, and he enabled far greater and longer-lasting treachery and human misery than almost any other man in history.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Rurik
  105. @L.K

    You mention “day one of Barbarossa”.
    That day (22 june 1941) was the start of a terrible human tragedy.
    And like the start of WW1 (2 and 4 august 1914) that start was a pure German act and responsibility. Or do you see excuses?

    You can compare “day one of Barbarossa” with another day that stands for countless human tragedy: 20 march 2003
    That day the US started the hell in Iraq.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    , @L.K
  106. @From The Hague

    pure German act and responsibility

    Well, going back to the guilt thingy discussed above, I’d be more careful in assigning the blame. It was the responsibility of the German elite of the time, of the Nazis, who killed, among others, a whole bunch of Germans too.

    It seems important these days, as we see a number of people who voted for Trump expecting less aggressive/more isolationist foreign policy experiencing buyers remorse. Are they responsible for the current escalation? I don’t think so…

    • Replies: @L.K
  107. Rurik says:

    zionist Jewish leaders who infiltrated

    I’m not giving them a pass SC, hardly

    and insofar as they misrepresented their agenda and put on Cicero’s ‘traitor’s’ face, (I’m sure you’re familiar with the quote ; ) then they deserve the fate of all traitors, no doubt.

    But consider, Bernard Baruch and Chaim Weizmann and Theodor Herzl and all the rest of these open Jews and Zionists never pretended to be anything other that what they were. Openly Jewish and openly Zionists. They never suggested that their intent was putting the American people first. Any more than I’ve ever heard Jared Kushner suggest he does.

    It’s the guys who do say they put America first, and then betray the American people (and their oaths and all notions of human decency) to their worst enemies, for personal ambition- that I simply condemn to a deeper damnation than the openly Zionist Jews who are not really betraying anyone, but simply and openly acting in their people’s own best interest, as they see them.

    There is a difference, no?

    but that’s going a little far, don’t you think?

    I wrote a screed once comparing John McCain to John Wayne Gacy. I made the argument that McCain was far worse. I stand by it.

    Who was the greater/greatest scoundrel, I tend toward FDR rather than Wilson: I think Wilson was a dupe; he was pretty stupid and easily played; he represents a Beta-test.
    FDR, on the other hand, participated with zionist Jews with eyes wide open, and he enabled far greater and longer-lasting treachery and human misery than almost any other man in history.

    Yes, Wilson was more of a dupe. That’s why I sometimes compare him to that other catastrophe of mediocrity, Tsar Nicolas. But as for:

    enabled far greater and longer-lasting treachery and human misery than almost any other man in history

    Wilson wins that one hands down, IMHO

    Not only did he use treachery and guile to drag America into the war that would guarantee not only the starvation / enslavement of Germany, but also guaranteed the subsequent carnage of WWII. (Woodrow Wilson II), and all the injustices that followed, not least of which was the creation of Israel. (a happenstance that I don’t object to in and of itself, but certainly not as it was done or is being done)

    But SC, none of these wars or horrors would have ever been possible had now Woodrow Wilson handed over control of the United States economy and wealth to the world’s most greedy and domineering (Satanic) men.

    More than the wars, more than the slaughter and suffering… (which was very bad indeed!) what Wilson did by handing over the keys to America’s treasury and its life blood, and guaranteeing the perpetual enslavement of not just Americans, but all of Western humanity and beyond, is an act of evil so vile as to be literally incomprehensible.

    You can’t just say he didn’t know what he was doing. Our founders fought wars to prevent what Wilson simply handed over, and not out in the open, but on Christmas eve, in secret, like a rat in the dark.

    Men like Charles Lindberg were telling like it was. Wilson was an intellectual, he knew what he was doing.

    The Treaty of Versailles is all his doing. His Fourteen Points were used to seduce Germany into disarming. The second world war is a direct consequence of what Wilson had done, not only because of the outrages of the Versailles treaty, but more to the point, because by then the Zionists had total power over the US, and further, because they had been given the power to print our money, and control the credit, and create depressions on a whim, which is what they did.

    Now we’re all living with the consequences of that contemptible little rat’s decisions to be the ‘big man’, and act important, as if his pathetic Fourteen Points would make him a ‘great statesman’ in the history books.

    I piss on his memory, and pray that if there is a hell, and it does matter how much suffering your vanity and ambitions have caused for others, that he’s at the depths.

    FDR is #2 in my book, so he’s certainly up there.

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  108. Rurik says:


    I clicked the ‘publish’ button without edit capabilities

    please pardon the typos from the previous response

  109. @Rurik

    The Treaty of Versailles is all his doing. His Fourteen Points were used to seduce Germany into disarming. The second world war is a direct consequence of what Wilson had done,

    No, it’s completely different.
    In all ways Germany stalled and evaded The Treaty.
    With the help of the UK and the US (who wanted a central-European power against Russia).
    France was overruled again and again.
    So Germany could arm again…

    • Replies: @Rurik
  110. Rurik says:
    @From The Hague

    Germany stalled and evaded The Treaty.
    With the help of the UK and the US

    what are you doing here?

    no offence, but you’re obviously an imbecile

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  111. @ Hague,

    Is it internet day at the puzzle factory?


  112. @Rurik

    Thank you.
    I’m here to teach uninformed Americans.

    Maybe an uninformed but reasonable and interested reader (so obviously not you) can google:
    ig-farben standard oil thyssenkrupp dulles prescott bush

    For a detail, google:
    William B. Shearer 1927 Geneva Naval Conference

    • Replies: @Rurik
  113. Rurik says:
    @From The Hague

    Germany stalled and evaded The Treaty.

    this statement speaks for itself


    • Replies: @From The Hague
  114. L.K says:
    @From The Hague

    ‘From The Hague’ == Sad Little Liar.

  115. L.K says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    ‘It was the responsibility of the German elite of the time, of the Nazis’

    Nope, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it shows…
    The ‘elites’ of the ‘Allies” were heavily responsible for WW2, more so than than the NS regime.

  116. L.K says:

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

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

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

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

    Full article @

    • Replies: @From The Hague
    , @Rurik
  117. @L.K

    The English were prepared IF war broke out.

    It did when German barbarians invaded Luxembourg and Belgium

  118. @Rurik

    It’s true without a doubt.

    And yes, you are.

    Germany, forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to import armaments, receives generous supplies from Sweden (where Krupp controls the armament firm of Bofors) and Holland; forbidden to export armaments, she ships to South America, the Far East, or to any European nation that will violate its own treaty by ordering from her. Yet for all the might of the Krupp works we must look elsewhere today to find the real heart of the armament business

    ILLEGAL REARMAMENT in Germany following the First World War is a classic example of the use of governmental powers to evade a disarmament agreement.

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Rurik
  119. Rurik says:

    “A vastly underexplored topic is the British government’s role in greasing the skids for World War I

    not only vastly underexplored L.K., but entire books have been written to obscure it and blame Germany for England’s belligerence. (Just like with WWII)

    As even WW himself admits in the quote provided above by Jacques in post #95, that England wanted to crush Germany’s nascent economic rivalry and prevent it from having any ‘place in the sun’ in order to flourish economically, and rival England’s empire.

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    the whole tragic affair was a farce of treachery

    including Wilson’s complicity with the Balfour Declaration perfidy to grant the Zionists other people’s land for ((their)) collusion in dragging America into the war.

    If Trump manages to start WWIII between Russia (and Iran and others) vs. the ((West)), and it puts a stake though the heart of Western civilization once and for all, and delivers to Israel its coveted total domination of the planet, he’ll only be completing the work that Woodrow Wilson $tarted in earnest.

  120. HdC says:
    @From The Hague

    If you were to look up the definition of the word “treaty”, (pay particular attention to the ‘willing’ part) you would find that the “Treaty of Versailles” was anything but a treaty, but in fact a diktat forced upon the Germans by the threat of starvation. This after the cease fire.

    Thus the Germans were not bound by any treaty, only by the use of force until this was no longer feasible for the allies. Fact is, the British agreed, perhaps secretly, with most of Germany’s post war actions.

    Your whining and moaning about what the Germans did to the poor Belgians is a little tiresome. If Germany had not proceeded through Belgium then the British would have. The secret understanding that Belgium had with Britain to allow this puts lie to the claim that Belgium was neutral.

    Civilians firing on uniformed troops is always punishable by execution. All countries at war follow this rule. And when German soldiers saw their comrades torn apart by Belgian civilians using unjacketed lead bullets, you will forgive them if they were less than nice. HdC

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  121. Rurik says:
    @From The Hague

    It’s true without a doubt.

    I know

    you’re obviously an imbecile, and you keep coming back for more, so you’re not just an imbecile, but a masochistic one at that! 😉

    pretending that Germany should have honored the terms of Versailles (which they were betrayed into [by WW] and forced to sign on the verge of mass-extinction starvation) is the same as demanding that future generations of Afghans should be held to treaties signed by men languishing in Gitmo, with tubes up their arses.

    everything having to do with that historically iniquitous treaty is a black stain upon the Allies and their apologists. It was forced on an honorable Germany by dishonorable and treacherous scoundrels. [may they all rot in hell, and may they be joined by all treacherous and lying scum ; ]

    speaking of…



    Self-Determination for Europeans Only

    In 1919, a young Vietnamese nationalist named Ho Chi Minh, appeared at Versailles hoping to present the assembly with an eight-point program that would result in his country’s liberation from French colonial rule. These eight points included a general amnesty for Vietnamese political prisoners, equal rights for French and Vietnamese, the abolition of courts used to persecute Vietnamese patriots, freedom of the press and of thought, freedom of association and of assembly, freedom of movement and of travel abroad, freedom to go to school and to open technical and vocational schools for the Vietnamese, substitution of the system of law for that of decrees, and appointment of a Vietnamese representative in Paris to settle questions concerning Vietnamese people’s interests.

    Minh went to France from the United States, where he had lived for two years, because he had been inspired by President Wilson’s call for the self-determination of peoples. While in the U.S. Minh had come to admire the American notion of liberty as expressed by men like Thomas Jefferson. Once he had arrived at Versailles, however, Ho Chi Minh was turned away. The French of course would not speak to him because of their colonial interests. But neither would Woodrow Wilson grant Minh a private audience; this despite Point V of Wilson’s peace program, in which he had argued that in adjudicating colonial claims “the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the Government whose title is to be determined.” Soon after Wilson’s snub, Minh turned to the Bolshevik Government in Russia for assistance. It would be the beginning of Minh’s lifelong association with Communism. Wilson’s rebuff of Minh had tremendous consequences for the United States in the future as it was Vietnamese forces under Ho Chi Minh that defeated the United States in the Vietnamese War fifty years later.[23]

  122. @HdC

    If Germany had not proceeded through Belgium then the British would have.

    Pure speculation.
    That same hypocrite excuse of self-defense was used by Germany to invade sovereign states in 1939,1940 and 1941.

    when German soldiers saw their comrades torn apart by Belgian civilians using unjacketed lead bullets

    Oh, you believe an extreme variant of the franc-tireur myth (or do you have trustworthy eye-accounts?)
    Besides: Too late for whining and moaning after illegally crossing a border.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  123. @From The Hague

    What about the 700K Serbs that the Germans gassed?

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  124. @Beefcake the Mighty

    During WWII the Independent State of Croatia was established – a puppet state of the Nazi regime, ruled by the racist, fascist “Ustaša” party. The Ustaša established a number of concentration and extermination camps, in which over 500,000 Serbians were murdered, along with tens of thousands of Jews and Roma (Gypsies).

  125. @From The Hague

    Uhh, I was referring to the atrocity stories during World War ONE. I have to say, your act is starting to wear thin.

  126. L.K says:

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

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

    One can cite as examples such journalists as Victor Davis Hanson, Max Boot, and David Frum, all of whom never rise above clichés in their condemnation of the losing side in World War One.[…]
    More relevant to my discussion, however, are those who know something about the War but who can’t resist serving us warmed-over platitudes. Someone who fits this category is the distinguished British historian Sir Max Hastings.[…]In his narrative Hastings keeps coming back to the thesis constructed by the anti-national German historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s, that Germany in 1914 “directed policy toward precipitating a general European conflict.”[…]
    For better or worse, Fischer’s evidence that Germany and Austria were alone responsible for the War has been dying the death of a thousand stabs for decades. In Der Fischer, Komplex Gunter Spraul notes the sloppiness with which Fischer cites sources, particularly those attributed to the German Kaiser and to Helmut von Moltke, the chief of the German General Staff in 1914. Spraul could have added considerably to his list of Fischer’s misrepresentations and garbled citations, but doing so would take me too far afield.

  127. L.K says:

    Gottfried adds about Hastings;

    Too often his anti-German, anti-Austrian bias gets in the way of impartial judgment. Supposedly the German government lied when it claimed in 1914 that the English and Russians were coordinating plans to invade Pomerania. Evidence for this provisional agreement, however, has been available for more than a century(!!), ever since the Baltic German spy, Benno von Sieberts, who was working in the Russian embassy in London, uncovered plans for this joint military action.[…]
    The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, who worked from 1905 on to build an anti-German alliance, lied three times about the agreement, once to the German ambassador Prince Lichnowsky, who knew he was lying and then to members of his cabinet, who had been kept in the dark. The plan for German encirclement helped determine the fateful decision taken by the chief of the German general staff to go for broke. The Anglo-Russian plan made clear that those efforts by the German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg to reconcile the English government, by among other things abandoning German naval expansion, had failed utterly. The British cabinet was continuing to plot against the Germans, with continental allies.

  128. @From The Hague

    Also in Hungary (bordering country of Croatia) the German invasion led to immense horror.

    On March 19th, 1944 Nazi Germany invaded Hungary, and the massacre of 565,000 Hungarian Jews that followed is unrivalled in the speed and ferocity with which it was carried out.
    Below are the first-hand accounts of this event from those who survived it

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  129. @From The Hague

    OK, we get it: you’ve moved on from WW1 atrocity stories to WW2 atrocity stories. Thanks for telling us where Hungary is, BTW.

    • Replies: @From The Hague
  130. @Beefcake the Mighty

    With “atrocity stories” you want to say it didn’t happen?

    What about those half a million people murdered by the US with napalm in the Korean War, also fiction?
    (rather actual with that Mad Trump, BTW)

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  131. @From The Hague

    Not that crimes didn’t happen, rather that they were exaggerated and exploited for propaganda purposes. The claimed American crimes are believable in light of the information we have, the claimed German crimes are not. Which is not to say that German crimes did not happen.

  132. Hibernian says:

    “By the time he became King the monarch was nothing but a figurehead anyway”

    That is a myth.

  133. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    French … militarists

    Yes, pulling all troops 10 kilometers back from the border was a real provocation. And don’t forget how they cunningly coerced the Germans into going through Belgium.

    Look, pinning all war guilt on Germany is silly. Agreed. But making Germany out to be a sacrificial lamb is sillier by far.

Current Commenter

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 F. Roger Devlin Comments via RSS
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?