The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
We Are Heading for Another Tragedy Like World War I
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We are now before the 100th anniversary of World War I, the war that was supposed to end all wars. While honoring the 16 million who died in this conflict, we should also condemn the memory of the politicians, officials and incompetent generals who created this horrendous blood bath.

I’ve walked most of the Western Front of the Great War, visited its battlefields and haunted forts, and seen the seas of crosses marking its innumerable cemeteries.

As a former soldier and war correspondent, I’ve always considered WWI as he stupidest, most tragic and catastrophic of all modern wars.

The continuation of this conflict, World War II, killed more people and brought more destruction on civilians in firebombed cities but, at least for me, World War I holds a special horror and poignancy. This war was not only an endless nightmare for the soldiers in their pestilential trenches, it also violently ended the previous 100 years of glorious European civilization, one of mankind’s most noble achievements.

I’ve explored the killing fields of Verdun many times and feel a visceral connection to this ghastly place where up to 1,000,000 soldiers died. I have even spent the night there, listening to the sirens that wailed without relent, and watching searchlights that pierced the night, looking for the ghosts of the French and German soldiers who died here.

Verdun’s soil was so poisoned by explosives and lethal gas that to this day it produces only withered, stunted scrub and sick trees. Beneath the surface lie the shattered remains of men and a deadly harvest of unexploded shells that still kill scores of intruders each year. The spooky Ossuaire Chapel contains the bone fragments of 130,000 men, blown to bits by the millions of high explosive shells that deluged Verdun.

The town of the same name is utterly bleak, melancholy and cursed. Young French and German officers are brought here to see firsthand the horrors of war and the crime of stupid generalship.

Amid all the usual patriotic cant from politicians, imperialists and churchmen about the glories of this slaughter, remember that World War I was a contrived conflict that was totally avoidable. Contrary to the war propaganda that still clouds and corrupts our historical view, World War I was not started by Imperial Germany.

Professor Christopher Clark in his brilliant book, `The Sleepwalkers’ shows how officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia’s murder of Austro-Hungary’s Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world’s surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary’s South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia’s desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion.


Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically, Germany was then Europe’s leader in social justice.

Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted ‘On to Berlin’ or ‘On to Paris.’

Few at the time understood the impending horrors of modern war or the geopolitical demons one would release. The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict, but Europe’s grandees paid scant attention.

Even fewer grasped how the collapse of the antiquated Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires would send Europe and the Mideast into dangerous turmoil that persists to our day. Or how a little-known revolutionary named Lenin would shatter Imperial Russia and turn it into the world’s most murderous state.

This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany’s surrender.

Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true tragedy of the Great War.

Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.’

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: World War I 
Hide 84 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon[168] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Contrary to the war propaganda that still clouds and corrupts our historical view, World War I was not started by Imperial Germany.

    Yes it was. Germany wasn’t solely to blame, but it struck first. Maybe it had sound reasons, but the side that struck lit the fuse.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @anon
    , @byrresheim
  2. Alistair says:

    How to maintain peace when the aim is “WAR” itself; one of the legacy of the WWI was the creation of the American Military Industrial Complex, i.e. the restructuring of the U.S manufacturing base from civilian industry to Military Industrial Complex, which still continues to impose itself on the world peace.

    The American Military Industrial Complex feeds on wars, it needs wars; low intensity but continuous military conflicts around the world to sell its expensive War machineries to the richest clients; it’s not coincidence that Oil rich nations are the top purchaser of the Military Industrial Products and victim of continuous regional conflicts since 1930’s.

    So, how to maintain peace when the superpower’s aim is the “WAR” itself; it’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

  3. anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:

    What is worthy of attention here is how one portion of the population in these countries could assert ownership over the lives of the other portion and force them to fight and die as directed. They were the owners of everyone else and their lives were at their disposal. It’s a form of slavery yet most of the slaves went along with it. It’s also amazing how callous the various leaderships were with the lives of others, throwing them away in massive numbers with such little concern. Times have changed and people’s thinking has evolved. The US had to do away with the draft in the face of growing domestic strife during the Vietnam war. Now all US wars have to be fought with volunteers and casualties have to be kept low so as not to arouse too much public notice and opposition. The US could never reinstate the draft and launch a war requiring massive numbers of troops but has to rely on firepower instead. Of course, should some leadership idiots stumble into a nuclear exchange then we are back to gargantuan death tolls, this time greater than ever before.

  4. A nice analysis. I’d add the following:

    It was primarily Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Edward Grey, and First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, who conspired and pushed to get Britain into the War. Absent these two, Asquith’s government could easily have avoided being drawn into the conflict. Without British involvement, the Schlieffen plan would have succeeded and a highly mobile offensive would have captured Paris within weeks and with relatively few casualties. At this point, Russia would have realized that further fighting was useless and arranged peace with Germany. The end result would probably have been similar to that following the Franco-Prussian War some forty years earlier. The bloodbath that was WW I would have been avoided, four imperial governments would have survived, and the maps of Europe and the Middle East would not have been redrawn in a way that ensured WW II and genocidal levels of violence that continue to this day, e.g., in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Myanamar, etc., etc.

    Woodrow Wilson bears a good deal of blame for the final outcome of the War. If he had had the moral courage and fortitude required to keep the USA truly neutral, the War would probably have had a different conclusion. Both the Central Powers and the Triple Entente had fought themselves to exhaustion by 1917. If the USA had not entered the War, the politicians of both sides would have eventually been forced to conclude an armistice and treaty that essentially restored the status quo ante. This would likely have led to considerable political instability as the ordinary citizens of all these countries realized how badly they’d been had by their rerspective establishments. But the catastrophic instabilities created by the Treaty of Versaille might have been avoided.

    Churchill was far more of a dangerously fanatic war monger than most historians are quite ready to admit. Besides playing a major role in starting WW I. He played an even more prominent role in starting WW II. Absent the “war guarantee” with Poland, which he helped promote, Western Europe and Britain might have been spared the horrors of WW II. On multiple occasions Hitler offered an end to the War with France and Britain and a return to the status quo ante in Western Europe and the rest of the non-European world. Churchill refused and the end result was the loss of some forty million lives, the destruction of most of central Europe, the rise of a murderous tyranny in Eastern Europe as bad, if not worse, than anything the Nazis planned, and the bankruptcy and dissolution of the British Empire Churchill thought his machinations and intransigence would save.

  5. Technomad says:

    After the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson had no choice but to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. However, he didn’t have to send troops.

    A lot of the Germans’ problem, vis-a-vis neutrals, was that they were horrible at PR. And the British had huge cultural prestige, particularly in the US, that they took full advantage of.

    That said, I have never understood why Serbia doesn’t get the blame for the war. They supported terrorists who shot the Austrian Crown Prince and his wife, which is a casus belli if ever I’ve seen one. Imagine what would have happened if the Provisional IRA had killed Charles and Diana, back when they were together. Even British royalty-haters would have screamed for war with Ireland and the US be damned.

    • Replies: @Jamie_NYC
    , @anon
    , @anon
  6. Anon[171] • Disclaimer says:

    Not to be too pedantic, but didn’t Austria strike first?

    • Replies: @Anon
  7. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Not to be too pedantic, but didn’t Austria strike first?

    Locally. It was Germany that made the first major attacks.

  8. And now the Brits are running around demanding everyone wear a poppy to commemorate their dead. Not likely! It’s a myth that Britain was dragged reluctantly into WW1, and a myth that the British public was peaceable. Neither are true. A relative of mine (an American) was in the U.K. in 1916 and he wrote first-hand of the bloodthirsty attitude of the Brits. They actually got in his face, Antifa-style, for being an American and not supporting their glorious war. To hell with these people.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  9. AWM says:

    I really feel it will be much more like a WW II tragedy, one that lasts about 40-50 years longer than actual hostilities.

  10. It seems too me that-We are the Great War.
    We all slid out this womb into the bloody mud and Lewiswite.
    WW2- A tawdry sequel to an unpeace deliberately hatched and oh so carefully tended.
    Restrained to proxy conflict because the profit margins were and are
    higher and more consistent.
    So the sympathetic detonations of the great munitions pile 20 years in the making,
    that lit off in 1914- Yet defines our degenerating world and minds.
    After 5 generations of man.
    The lite off was an accident-the build up wasn’t. You can I think trace the sympathetic
    detonations to beyond 2001.
    The manipulation of the realities revealed is on going.
    Two hundred years is a long span of -Undefeats if not victories for any society.
    Canada was lucky in this-not skilled.
    We just appeared so because of the Allies we kept hopping in bed with.
    So we get our butts mounted around our eyebrows, by Afghani hill bandits and the only skill
    demonstrated is how to NOT face it and learn from it.
    This is of course the only skill our inbred and cut rate Treasonous whores elites have ,the only ability they ever will.

  11. llloyd says: • Website

    Britain was close to a civil war in Ireland in 1914. There were in Britain massive strikes by the insurgent unions and random terrorism and disruption by the suffragettes. It was with huge relief that a small Britian military force (the contemptibles) were sent to Europe in a festive atmosphere that recalls the World Cup in August 2014. Germany won that tournament. I recently read that King George V ordered foreign secretary Grey to declare war. King George may have had an atavistic hatred of German militarism as an Hanover. Or perhaps he was just a shite, like the war mongers at present in Washington DC.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  12. WW1 didn’t put nazis into power.
    Hitler & NSDAP did poorly in ’24 & ’28 elections (< 3%). It was the '29 Wall St. Crash that gave them a plurality in the Bundestag in1932.

  13. Make that ‘Reichstag’.

  14. Jamie_NYC says:

    That said, I have never understood why Serbia doesn’t get the blame for the war. They supported terrorists who shot the Austrian Crown Prince and his wife, which is a casus belli if ever I’ve seen one.

    No, they did not. The operation to kill the Archduke was a private enterprise, not an undertaking of the Serbian government. Serbian government responded to Austrian ultimatum in the most conciliatory way possible (even declaring several days of mourning for the slain couple), in consultations with its allies: UK, France and Russia. There was no real reason for declaring war, except that certain personages in Austria wanted to use this occasion to ‘put Serbia in its place’. The Germany gave them the now infamous ‘blank check’, although the Keiser initially declared: “Now, there is no reason for war”, when he saw the Serbian government’s response to Austrian ultimatum. It was too late.

    Imagine what would have happened if the Provisional IRA had killed Charles and Diana, back when they were together. Even British royalty-haters would have screamed for war with Ireland and the US be damned.

    This sounds crazy. By this logic, British should have at least bombed Doublin after some of the other IRA bombings that actually occurred.

    • Replies: @llloyd
  15. llloyd says: • Website

    That sounds like 911. The Afghan Teleban Government, with an ambassador at UN, denied responsiblity and offered to expatriate Bin Laden if given evidence. Bin Laden denied it also. Event was used to invade Afghanistan as 911 event was used by Austria- Hungarian Empire .

  16. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Striking first is not same as starting first. Will Syria be blamed for starting a war if it strikes Israel today with army ,navy,and air force?
    Will Iran be held responsible of starting a war if it decides to attack US because of American habits of hurting Iran by abusing the status as the veto wielding power at UN ,for pursuing secondary sanctions ,for sending terrorist to its borders and beyond?

  17. anon[266] • Disclaimer says:

    Zimmerman telegram even if were true did not justify entering into war. It was conspiracy not a war. Many ‘Zimmerman telegrams’ have since then been concocted and sent by US -UK throughout the world to actually start civil war ,depose government and cause inhuman economic destruction.

    Origin of Zimmerman telegram , the way it was discovered and used by US today should serve as a reminder and wakeup call that empire would never stop stooping to any lowest of the low to continue the business of initiating and continuing a war .

  18. dvorak says:

    It’s fundamentally a mischaracterization to call out the “idiot generals” for the bloodbath. You have question the author’s knowledge of military history.

    Just as in the US with Grant and Lee, most of the bloodbath was a result of technology, not foolhardiness. McClellan and Grant will tell you that it’s tough to fight a democratic army of White men defending their homeland, an army that is highly mobile, that digs defensive fortifications, and that employs accurate rifles and sharpshooters. That’s where the bloodbath comes from.

    Add artillery, airplanes, machine guns and gas for more blood.

  19. It is not fun to watch you hypocrites agonizing at trying to make excuses for World War I.

    You are what is wrong with the world.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @ThreeCranes
  20. Monkhouse says:

    This essay presents a passable synopsis of “Sleepwalkers” but it does not live up to its title. Much as I do agree that “We Are Heading for Another Tragedy Like World War I,” this assertion is not supported by one single argument in the essay. How exactly are “we” headed for that kind of tragedy?

    It would take another essay (or a book) to make the case, but just start with a simple proposition that really was made by Lenin, back when. It’s about imperialism (as the ultimate form of capitalism). But, granted as fact, imperialism has always been a big part of the human experience, back to the beginning of the state as a form of political organization (say, in Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, China, etc.).

    At the time WWI began, much of the world was ruled as colonial empire. The sun never set on the British Empire, did it? Same could be said about the French. And then, the empires of the Dutch, the Spanish, the Belgians, the Americans, the Ottoman Turks, and the Austrian-Hungarians, and etc. Russia’s European empire resulted directly from Napoleon’s aggression, so they had something of a good excuse, though the Asian empire was built at the same time and in the same way as the American Manifest Destiny. But poor Germany was getting screwed in the imperialist deal, especially at the Berlin conference of 1885, only getting the sloppy leftovers of Namibia, Tanganyika, Cameroon and a couple of Pacific islands. Competition and conflict over the dispensation of power led directly to the war. Why should the British and French have ruled so much of the world forever?

    But now how does this translate to the situation we see, a century down the road? Is the world still dominated by empire? And what does that portend? Will there be another final round that settles the score? What do China and Russia really envision as the “multi-polar” world they want to realize? Whatever happened to that “uni-polar moment” that we used to hear so much about, back in the 1990s? What about that “hyper-power” and the “indispensable nation” of Bill Clinton? What did Paul Wolfowitz imply with the doctrine that never again would the United States ever face another “peer rival”? What did Donald Rumsfeld want to achieve with the “redeployment” of US forces in Europe, up to Russia’s present borders? What did the cover-story and the smoke-screen of the GWOT add up to, since 9/11? Come on, Margolis. Or should we just read the prognostications of Paul Craig Roberts in the Unz Review?

  21. Why is anybody with an IQ above room temperature willing to engage in this fucking stupid idea that we are supposed to ‘honour’ anyone who was stupid enough to get themselves killed in the slaughterfests engineered by the political class?

    By all means, express some condolence for the massive waste of potential that happened as a result of young men being enslaved by their nation’s militaries – those who were ‘conscripted‘ or ‘drafted‘ (the typical weasel-language used by the filth that occupies the halls of power).

    The national ‘commemorations’ that are happening now are a deliberate State propaganda mechanism designed to reinforce the glory of war in the public mind: nothing else.

    Fuck every man jack of them: everyone who profits from, or willingly participates in, any industrialised murderfest.

    The aggregate human IQ goes up slightly every time a willing soldier dies, and dead politicians should have their graves desecrated (up to and including digging the cunts up and pissing on their remains).

    If men had morals, they would have sat on their hands and said

    “No, fuck off. I don’t give a fuck which of three cousins is absolute monarch over which bits of Europe: it’s neither here nor there to me.”[1]

    Because let’s be absolutely clear: the ‘lot’ of the average peasant in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, France, Belgium, Germany Austro-Hungary, Russia and Turkey etc, was not going to change one single iota if the ‘ownership’ of the land changed. Not one fucking jot.

    And since massive resources were diverted towards the carnage, the broad populations of all belligerents were made worse off. All in furtherance of a gigantic pissing contest between a bunch of the very worst humans in the herd – politicians.

    Same is true for the second ‘big show’: in exchange for their participation, British serfs got rationing that lasted until 1955 – and 300m Eastern Europeans got handed to Stalin by Churchill and FDR (one an inbred syphilitic megalomaniac, the other a closet Soviet).

    But boy, those in the finance and armaments industries sure got rich.

    Muhammad Ali got it exactly right when he refused to be enslaved to go kill people he didn’t know, in furtherance of the aims of a clique of parasites.

    “Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?

    No, I am not going ten thousand miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would put my prestige in jeopardy and could cause me to lose millions of dollars which should accrue to me as the champion.

    But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is right here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality…

    If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow.

    [1] New Zealand didn’t have conscription for either war, and I am immensely proud of my forebears that none of them signed on to engage in either of the two gigantic festivals of slaughter in the first half of the 20th century. Neither had anything whatsoever to do with New Zealand – except for the scum in the political class, who thought that they could increase their chance of getting a pat on the head from England – a knighthood – if they sent enough young men to die in European mud. Dig them up and piss on their bones, and expropriate their descendants.

  22. anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    It is not fun to watch you hypocrites agonizing at trying to make excuses for World War I.
    You are what is wrong with the world.

    Another fact-filled analysis from Obwandiyag.

  23. anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    I agree. Generals try to win wars – what’s the surprise there? Question is who starts the war?
    Big technology and big mass organization make for bigger wars.

  24. Milton says:

    “Wars are nothing but punishment for the sins of the world” – St. Jacinta Marto, Fatima seer

    “And He gathered them together to the place called, in Hebrew, Armageddon.” – Rev. 16:16

  25. eD says:

    On the counter-factuals of Jus’ Sayin’, the British Expeditionary Force was not that great a factor in the 1914 campaign, its importance has been exaggerated by English language historians, so Britain staying out initially would not have had a big impact at first. However, it would have likely kept other neutral countries (Turkey as well as Italy and Japan) on the sidelines, and starting in 1916 the British blockade and their army in Flanders did start to become major factors. They would either had to get involved at that point or pushed for an earlier negotiated settlement. There would have been serious bad blood between Britain and France and Russia, both of who expected the British to join in.

    The British are to blame for expanding what would have otherwise been a shorter though still nasty continental war. Intervening once the Germans invaded Belgium was reasonable. However, they could have warned the Germans more clearly to stay out of Belgium (with a promise of non-participation if Germany complied) and even after declaring war on Germany they had alternatives to building up a large army to fight alongside the French.

    I agree with the blame put on Grey, and most of the blame put on Churchill, though with the caveat that his responsibility was to prepare the navy for the conflict, which he did very aggressively, but his moves could have been reversed if the Cabinet had not outsourced its entire foreign policy to Grey. No foreign secretary since then has been given that latitude.

    I also agree completely about Wilson prolonging the war.

    The initial aggressive move among the great powers was the Russian mobilization, against Germany as well as Austria-Hungary. The Germans contributed the invasion of Belgium.

  26. @obwandiyag

    Just remember obwangerdang, in spite of our horrendous losses due to futile European wars, our overall death by homicide is around 3% of the adult male population. In contrast, primitives such as Stone Age New Guineans murder about 50% of their males through tribal warfare etc.

    How about your native society? What’s the death rate in the primitive hellhole out of which you crawled?

  27. @Kratoklastes

    Good comment except that I would place the blame on the banksters rather than the politicians, though the politicians certainly were equally deserving of sharing the firing squads.

  28. @Kratoklastes

    So let me get this straight. You hate commies and communism. But you’re against war and the elites who run them.

    Then you must be against all wars except Korea and Vietnam. Seeing as how those were against commies, which I suppose you think is a good thing.

    Or would you say “Fuck the Vietnam Vets,” too.

    I doubt it.

  29. Now you’re defending Generals!

    What a bunch of douchebags.

  30. @obwandiyag

    I feel some sympathy for the Vietnam vets. They were lied into going over there to fight “for” America. An old Marine veteran friend of mine blamed the American war in Vietnam for the destruction of the USA (poor education and healthcare, neglected infrastructure, widespread poverty etc).

    The vets from the “wars” in Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other wars post Vietnam can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. They had the advantage of hindsight but chose to be “war-heroes” instead so my sympathies are with their innocent victims.

    BTW, communism was set up by the wealthiest people on planet Earth as a tool to effect global dominance and was always a fraud.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  31. detail says:

    How to keep the peace when the Great Game’s aim is the incessant creation and unleashing of geopolitical ghouls? Let’s face it. Even if the President unflaggingly desired to keep his country truly neutral, how would he be able to keep himself alive? Mired in predicaments akin to leaders Kim and al Assad, the Donald must admire their moral astuteness.

  32. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    “France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine.”

    Shows you the wimp-bully mentality of the French.

    France LOST this war which IT STARTED. Then the French kept whining for the next 43 years about their “lost provinces”. But Alsace was a German speaking region anyways and France would certainly have annexed German territory had it won the war. Between 1670 and 1810 France invaded Germany (or what would become Germany) no fewer then fourteen times. An average of once every ten years. Bismarck was actually willing to settle for peace without annexations but the German military felt that the mountainous new border would be a better defense line then the Rhine river.

  33. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Edward Grey, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were the greatest tragedies to happen to the western world. The latter is the biggest harmer of all. All he had to do was honor his 1916 election pledge to keep out of the war and the great war would almost certainly have ended in a negotiated peace in 1917.

  34. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    The Zimmerman telegram was used as a red flag. All Germany said was that IF it found itself at war with America – which would only have happened IF the USA declared war – that Mexico should have an alliance with her and take back the lost territory from 1848. You can’t blame Germany for seeking out potential allies against America if America declares war on her. The telegram was deliberately misconstrued as ‘meaning’ that Germany was encouraging Mexico to attack the USA.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  35. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Doesn’t the Russian Tsar bear a great deal of responsibility? Had he let Serbia know 100% that it was on its own wouldn’t they have backed down? Even had they fought the war would have been just a local Austro-Serbian brawl. The Tsar had the warning of the previous war with Japan. Had he stayed out of it, he would have saved his life, family and dynasty.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  36. “….it also violently ended the previous 100 years of glorious western civilization (sic), one of mankind’s most noble achievements.”

    That would be the “glorious western civilisation” that attacked and enslaved non-white nations across the globe, mass-murdered millions, looted our resources, destroyed our societies, and, after sucking us dry of all they could, now call us “third world hellholes”?

    The West can never suffer enough to expiate a tenth of its crimes. That’s apart from the fact that it was the First World War that destroyed the feudal system that held that selfsame West in its grip, and that it was only that war that created the modern social system in the west that has some measure of egalitarian justice.

    • Replies: @anon
  37. Anonymous [AKA "Wars are GREAT"] says:

    as they feed reconstructions and continue to feed those who survive.
    It’s a win-win, Mr.Trump, Trudeau, May know this best making sure we don’t loose.

  38. Anonymous [AKA "Robert HARNEIS"] says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Just sayin: I don’t think Churchill did help to promote the guarantee to Poland as such. From the back benches he promoted resistence to Hitler. Hitler’s offers to end the war were sincere as long as he got what he wanted and that was control of Europe. But once Churchill became Prime Minister, he was right to fight it out. He himself called it the unneccessary war. The mistake in 1918 was the failure to occupy Berlin so that the German people would understand that they had indeed been defeated. That this did not happen was the fault of the US and Britain who wanted to rebuild the German economy as quickly as possible. This mistake was not repeated in 1945. For me what Professor Clarke’s wonderful “Sleep walkers” shows is that we are normally governed by ambitious smart *rses who do not know what they are doing but are good at getting to the top of the greasy pole.

    I agree Churchill was wrong to support Britain’s entry into the First World War, in the way he did. Occupation of the Channel ports would have been a better solution to Britain’s fear of German domination of Europe then. I actually think the French would have defeated the Germans at the first battle of the Marne in 1914 without British help. German logistics and communications were not good enough to support a Schlieffen plan, which any way did not include enveloping Paris, at least intially. The British expeditionary force helped but was too small to alter the result. It is true that it can be argued that Churchill’s occupation of Antwerp slowed the Germans down and therefore caused the decisive German failure in front of Paris.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  39. Both Serbia and/or most pan-serbs desired to conquer all of Bosnia, all of Macedonia, all of Kosovo; big chunks of Croatia and Albania. So, must have had war on their mind also.

  40. mr meener says:

    are you out of your mind? those generals were 60-70 years old and thought horse mounted cavalry would break the lines. they used tactics from napoleon wars. they tried to wear out machine guns on mens chests. your kids should have been machine gunned down. after the Christmas truce if I was a commander NOBODY would leave the trenches. I would communicate with the enemy commander and ask that his men stay in the trenches hopefully it would spread and all just go home

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  41. mr meener says:

    only because the jews own the media is Germany blamed for the 2 world wars. it was the drunken bloated POS war monger Churchill who at the behest of the jews severely instigated both wars. the rotten bas tard Churchill is still seen as a hero. he alone lost the british empire. I look at the Germans as the Romans of the 20th century. if left alone there would not have been the 2 wars. even after being totally destroyed twice they still rose up and are biggest economy in Europe. do you realize how more far advanced the west would be without the 2 wars?

  42. eD says:

    Robert Harneis, a much better British strategy would have been to send the BEF into Antwerp, which Churchill actually wanted to do anyway, no declaration of war, but tell the Germans that a declaration of war would be forthcoming if the Germans either approached the Channel coast or did not accept a peace conference, which the British had already proposed.

    Germany would have backed down under these conditions. They would have driven a wedge between Britain on the one hand and France and Russia on the other, and made their own point about their willingness to support their ally. It would have been a short but bloody war with a negotiated settlement, and the great powers would have been more cautious in the future. For Britain, no danger of a hostile power on the opposite side of the Channel and a much better financial position.

    Many people in the British government, including Gray and likely the King, just really wanted to go to war alongside France.

  43. @Anon

    It doesn’t matter who started that war. That is for British propagandists to discuss and lie about.

    What matters is that the British Empire lost and is not a force of evil any more. Its last ugly deed was to hand Eastern Europe to the bolsheviks, immediately before that to starve to death millions of people in India.

    Good riddance.

  44. @Kratoklastes

    Didn’t NZ have conscription in the first war? Peter Fraser (PM for the second) got charged with sedition for resisting conscription.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  45. @anon

    Never mind. Mexico is getting back the stolen territory anyway, what with Karma being a bitch.

  46. Alistair says:

    Recent wars are often “fait accompli”, as such, ordinary people/soldiers will be left with no choices other than to accept and fight the war that’s being imposed on them.
    Recent wars are products of “Engineered Political Events” – designed to produce public outrage – so the public accept and fight the war, especially, in societies where citizens are “apolitical”, such engineered political events produces the desired outcome for political or economic gains – and that’s the sad reality of our time which could be easily prevented by increased public awareness and fact checking.

    • Agree: Lost american
  47. @anon

    Not the Tsar.

    His hopelessly Anglophile government did, that is not quite the same thing.
    Whe Yussupoff and his accomplices murdered Rasputin, the British consul was with them.

    The oft slandered Rasputin was a vehement critic of this war and he clearly saw that it was suicidal for the old order of Russia.

    • Replies: @anon
  48. Anonymous[216] • Disclaimer says:

    Real sad untold history of both Wars I/II—USA was financing and promoting and instigating both world wars
    USA is a dying empire–expect WWIII

  49. Prep says:

    This time around CIA is taking steps to eradicate any trace of German rationality or pragmatism as described by anon[355] and mr meener. CIA is activating its new-look Gladio networks to murder antiwar elements. CIA wants to make sure they get their war.

  50. HBM says:

    If there is a next war in Europe, it will involve a France and Germany-led EU against the European objectors to their own displacement, dispossession and eventual genocide, such as Poland, Austria and Hungary.

    Brussels, Merkel and Macron are currently building an army with which to destroy Europe forever, at the instigation of “globalists” that have turned the Continent into a suicide-by-infinity-African-migrants cult.

    Mr. Margolis, as a Jew, of course views this as a good thing.

    Europe and most of the West has been gaslighted into total, civilization-scale suicidal insanity. There has been nothing like it in the history of the world, and if it succeeds planet Earth and humanity is over.

    A hundred years ago, Jewish intellectuals and technocrats talked openly of this plan to miscegenize Europe. Then as now they frame it as a supremely just and moral endeavor, a thing which was and is a stalking horse for their relentless, sociopathic drive for ethnic vengeance and a talisman of their fetishistic obsession with race; their own racially schizophrenic makeup attended by its interminable compulsion to malignantly repeat, project and invert their own ethnoreligious origins in migrations and proscribed breeding behaviors and the boundaries between themselves and goyim.

    In the middle of the last century Hitler observed: “Jews are responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.”

    He wasn’t wrong and he still isn’t. They’re still doing it, and as with their genocide in Palestine, still denying that they are doing it, mocking and deriding anyone wise to what they are up to.

    Hitler also said, “If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.”

    He wasn’t wrong about that, either.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
    • Replies: @anon
  51. @NoseytheDuke

    I imagine libertarians like you as cross-eyed, with the eyeballs rolling around in your heads.

  52. @llloyd

    King George may have had an atavistic hatred of German militarism

    Actually he hated his cousin, the Kaiser, who was Queen Victoria’s favourite grandson.

  53. @Anonymous

    Churchill, the philo-Semite, was bought off to oppose Germany. As early as 1937, he was stating that Germany had to be smashed. He also acknowledged, post war, that Hitler’s “mistake” was trying to create an economic system that cut out the bankers. Remember, “Judea” declared war on Germany in 1933, less than 2 months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. Stuffed down the memory hole is the fact that former Chancellor von Pappen had encouraged Hindenburg to appoint Hitler, because General Kurt von Schleicher, the previous Chancellor had tried to split the NSDAP by negotiating with a dissident NSDAP group, which led the Communists making large gains in the November 1932 election, at the expense of the NSDAP and Social Democrats.
    Germany’s ambitions in Europe were clear, it had always been about Versailles. Had it not been for British meddling, the territorial issues with Poland would likely have been settled, and the excuse for declaring war disarmed.

    • Replies: @szopen
  54. History never repeats, but it rhymes.

    It is said the carnage of WWI was exacerbated by the fact that tactics had not caught up with technology.

    There is little way to “catch up” with nukes – we have to hope or pray (according to your lights) that MAD holds us back.

    We could do more to defend against bio weapons, but appear to be asleep at the switch. Likely that will be the wild card this time.

  55. @Jus' Sayin'...

    On multiple occasions Hitler offered an end to the War with France and Britain and a return to the status quo ante in Western Europe and the rest of the non-European world. Churchill refused and the end result was the loss of some forty million lives, the destruction of most of central Europe, the rise of a murderous tyranny in Eastern Europe as bad, if not worse, than anything the Nazis planned …

    It is an interesting question whether Britain and France could have stayed out of WWII. However, this would not have prevented Hitler from invading the Soviet Union, and it was this action that led to the loss of life and destruction that you mention, as well as the imposition of communism on Eastern Europe. The USSR of course was already a murderous tyranny.

    Churchill is overrated, partly because he helped to write the history of WWII, and promoted the view that Britain played a “pivotal” role in the conflict. In fact, Germany’s main adversary was the USSR, and its second most important enemy was the USA. Hitler was determined to expand Germany eastwards, and he would have done so whether or not Britain and France had declared war.

    • Replies: @anon
  56. @Bragadocious

    People in all the combatant countries in Europe had similar bloodthirsty attitudes. It is a tragedy that was not confined to Britain, and it did not help anyone to think about why they wanted to fight.

  57. @dvorak

    It’s fundamentally a mischaracterization to call out the “idiot generals” for the bloodbath.

    When the main tactic is to send men with rifles and fixed bayonets walking into machine-gun fire, you would hope the generals would realize their mistake within the first hour. When they are using the same tactic 24 hours later, something is wrong with their thinking. When they try the same thing for four years it is fair to describe them as “idiot generals”.

  58. dvorak says:

    When they try the same thing for four years it is fair to describe them as “idiot generals”.

    They tried outdated tactics for too long, but it was not for four years, or one year. You just exposed your ignorance of military history. All you know is ‘received wisdom’.

    Again, the bloodbath of WWI was due to technology and White men on both sides, not foolish generals. Total wars between high-IQ foes get very bloody because of high technology, rapid technological advancement during the war and ability to organize complicated fighting forces with plans B, C, D, etc. to avoid the possibility of disorganized retreat (such a retreat would mean being wiped out by your pursuers).


    Wars between democracies become bloody because the mob cannot cut a peace deal the way that royals do. The mob has less to lose, or so it thinks until the War Department telegrams start coming in the tens of thousands. And by then, the sunk costs are too great for reason to prevail.
    h/t Moldbug.

  59. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    In fact what little infrastructure the third world has is a legacy of colonialism.

  60. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Hitler was right about a great many things. His methods were wrong but not the basic message.

    • Replies: @HBM
  61. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    The best strategy for the Franco-British would have been to have stayed neutral, while re-arming, and allowed a Russo-German war to have developed. As free agents, not committed to either side, they could have acted in their own best interests. Had Hitler looked about to defeat Stalin and create an empire from the Rhine to the Urals, aid could have been given to the USSR. Had Stalin looked likely to overrun east and central Europe aid could have been given to Germany to prevent this. In the meantime let both tyrannies wear themselves down and try to contact or support anti-Nazi and anti-Bolshevik groups in both countries.

  62. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    It is worth recalling at the end of 1915 the Central Powers offered the Tsar peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo. The year 1915 had seen massive and highly successful offensives by the central powers against the Tsarist forces. They had advanced along the whole front and occupied all of Russian Poland, part of the Baltic, and captured many prisoners. This was a very generous offer on Berlin and Vienna’s part. The Tsar should have taken the deal. We are always told how harsh the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, but the Central Powers certainly gave Russia a very fair chance to end the war on generous terms long before that.

  63. the introduction of nuclear weapons is the best example of the black swan you’re ever going to find. the probability of war between major powers is lower than ever but the possible /consequences\ are… vertiginous

  64. @dvorak

    They tried outdated tactics for too long, but it was not for four years, or one year.

    You appear to be correct. Thanks for making the point.

    I am not a student of military tactics and unqualified to judge, so I went to Wikipedia to get some background. Knowing Ypres to have been fought over repeatedly I started there and found:

    [my comments in brackets]

    First Battle of Ypres (19 October – 22 November 1914). During the Race to the Sea. More than 100,000 casualties. [traditional mass assault]
    Second Battle of Ypres (22 April – 15 May 1915). First mass use of poison gas by the German army; included first victories of a former colonial nation (Canada) over a European power (Germany) on European soil. Around 100,000 casualties. [gas, as noted]
    Battle of Passchendaele (31 July – 10 November 1917) also known as the Third Battle of Ypres. 400,000 to 800,000 casualties. [this assault was supposed to be augmented by tanks, which were bogged down and failed to fulfill their assigned roles]

    Assuming that at Passchendaele the assault would not have been attempted without the belief that new tactics and technology would make the difference, your point is supported.

  65. @dvorak

    They tried outdated tactics for too long, but it was not for four years, or one year. You just exposed your ignorance of military history. All you know is ‘received wisdom’.

    The Battle of the Somme began in July 1916, two years after the start of the war. The tactic was still to expend huge numbers of lives for little territorial gain.

  66. HBM says:

    The truth is that Hitler underestimated the Jews.

    He assumed, like any sane man might, that since his cause was right and just and because his enemy was so egregious and such an affront to nature that the victory of good over evil was inevitable.

    But this Law does not apply to Jews, because they operate outside of nature.

    • Replies: @Parbes
  67. Tony M says:

    Culpable persons flying under the radar are Alfred Milner (the late Cecil Rhodes #1 acolyte), Leo Amery (Milner’s #1 acolyte), Arthur Balfour (Milner’s #2 acolyte), who looked like rat-faced Lenin’s close kinsman, are the key behind the scenes villains. Asquith was compromised by a very indiscreet affair and could be brought down at will. He opposed conscription; not till the bloodless but most brutal and comprehensive coup of December 1916 – which utterly wrecked Britain for all time and which disposed of the few remaining mildy anti-Zionists in the process and foisted the evil puppet Lloyd-George on the countries of Britain – was conscription introduced.

    The British press, books, magazines, journals had been fomenting anti-German hate I would guess from at least the 1880s in lockstep, as one. This was a long game. Simply blunting German economic, commercial, technical successes and colonial ambitions, grew into taking down the Austria-Hungarian, the Turkish and Russian Empires as others joined and co-opted the conspiracy. From 1914-1917 all other goals were secondary to Zionist-Bolshevik takeover of Tsarist Russia, for which Germany had to be kept fighting in the east and their military supply needs met by Britain and the US, despite the appalling carnage in the west – the native British elite having been ousted from government of their own country the year before in a coup no less revolutionary than the Bolshevik one to come – no longer had any say in or control in the matter, and they had already overseen the wholesale destruction of the finest and fittest of Europes youth, opening the door to and ushering in alien totalitarianism for all.

    I like the sound of the book which ATL OP Eric Margolis highlights: “The Sleepwalkers” but can really recommend McGregor and Docherty’s two Forbidden History books as most riveting and mind-blowing reads on the 1914-1918 war A condensed online version is available here, use the ‘Next’ to click through to the suceeding pages, its a long read, so bookmark this and read what you can when you can until you’ve seen it through to the end, it is really worthwhile. Still too much disinformation out there even amongst the well-intentioned and earnest.

  68. Parbes says:

    “…this Law does not apply to Jews, because they operate outside of nature”

    NOBODY, and NOTHING, “operates outside of nature”. NOBODY, and NOTHING, is outside or above the Laws of Nature.

    Make that the starting point of your understanding of anything.

  69. @obwandiyag

    What makes you think I “hate commies and communism“?

    I certainly don’t hate people who (claim to) believe that Communism is
    (a) a viable means of organising production; and
    (b) a superior means to existing alternatives.

    It is abundantly clear that neither (a) nor (b) is true, but that doesn’t make me ‘hate’ those who believe otherwise. (Those who pretend to believe in order to grift a living… different story altogether: I hate those motherfuckers with a passion).

    People are entitled to be wrong about the appropriate way to organise production: Communism is relatively attractive ‘on paper’, if you completely ignore the dynamic consequences. Those dynamic consequences have been revealed in every circumstance that the ‘transitional’ political system (Socialism) has been implemented: lower productivity, lower (and stagnant) living standards; and corruption.

    When confronted with the realities of centrally-planned economies, advocates for central planning will assert that the Soviet Union was not ‘Communist’. They are telling the truth: that’s because in the standard Marxian formulation, there is a ‘transition’ phase – Socialism – where a ‘woke’ vanguard of the proletariat must ‘guide’ the system towards the genuine, non-stratified Communist system – using force as required.

    It’s paternalistic, as befits the half-thought-out gibberings of a 19th century hack whose entire ‘professional’ life was a grift.

    I give heart-felt “Commies” the benefit of the doubt, though: it seems to me that they may well be genuinely motivated by a desire for a better world.

    After all, if you don’t examine the theory closely, don’t check for logical holes and internal inconsistencies, and don’t think through the consequences, Marx’s work seems to promise abundance and liberty (eventually, once the State and Party wither away, having achieved the goal: predictably, no State ever seems to want to ‘wither’).

    Where it crosses the line, is when people who believe things foist their system on others at the point of a bayonet.

    And it does not matter if the system being foisted leads to improved economic well-being for those on whom it is foisted: the foisting itself is a moral wrong.

    Forcing things on people for their own good (assuming that it is actually, not ‘rhetorically’ for their own good) is the same as being a ‘nice’ slave-owner who takes good care of the slaves – feeds them well, houses and clothes them well, never whips them: be it ever so benevolent, slavery is still morally abhorrent at its core.

    And let’s just be clear: most of the time that people say “It’s for your own good”, they’re bullshitting.

    Now the Vietnam ‘conflict’ (war was never declared) is an interesting beastie: Ho and his group believed that socialism was appropriate for Viet Nam; they attempted to seize political power (from a government installed by foreign occupiers, and therefore a priori illegitimate). So… fuck them: they’re trying to be good slavemasters.

    Then the Yanks (more accurately, shitbag parasites in and around the Yank military-industrial-finance complex) decided that no, the Vietnamese needed to be rescued from this attempt to implement a bad idea. The rescuing was to be achieved by artillery, saturation bombing, and wanton habitat destruction if required – predictably, given that little brown men have always been Children of a Lesser God to the Yank Exceptionalists.

    So you have ‘indigenous’ fuckbags trying to foist a system on the locals, lined up against foreign fuckbags trying to prevent that from happening.

    In my hierarchy of fuckbag-ness, the foreigners are in the wrong every time.

    Why? Because in reality, local fuckbags can’t actually force a system on the demos in ways that ‘stick’ for more than a generation and a half. If the population is (or becomes) actively hostile to the system, no amount of murder and imprisonment will get the local fuckbags across the line (or keep them in power once the system is shown to fail to produce improved material well-being).

    If a group seizes power and implements central planning of output, then they consign the people under their thrall to a lower standard of living than would be the case otherwise. In the initial bloom of Revolution, the demos believes that the Revolution will deliver better outcomes than the status quo; over time that generally proves incorrect, and eventually the demos loses patience with their new ‘woke’ overlords and starts to kick against the traces.

    China was a case in point: it was barely a full generation from the initial Revolution (1949) to the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping (in the 1970s); by then, the system was very obviously not providing the promised improvements in living standards. Deng’s reforms moved towards economic pluralism – in particular, permitting people to ‘own’ production in excess of their state-mandated output level, and to trade that ‘excess’ amongst themselves: that single policy led to a 30% increase in agricultural production almost overnight, because it removed disincentives.

    It must be said that changing governments makes absolutely no difference to the everyday lives of the vast bulk of the population: what matters is the dynamics that are set up by different forms of political organisation.

    Socialism is inherently low-productivity, because there is no mechanism by which central planners can evaluate the least-cost, output maximising structure of production. It is the shittest way imaginable to try to get to the new Marxian, abundant, non-stratified tomorrow.

    You might have guessed while reading this: I think Marx was correct about the appropriate target for society – no stratification plus material abundance.

    He was completely and totally wrong about the appropriate transitional mechanisms: his system incentivises rent-seeking fuckbags just as much as crony-capitalism does. However crony-capitalism has a decent-sized non-parasitic productive sector, and that sector has incentives to develop technologies that improve productivity.

    We get to material abundance through capitalism; by the middle of this century (at the latest) we will go past the ‘knee’ of the expansion path of computational power, and we will hit the Singularity. Those who embrace it will become post-human; those who choose not to will live longer, healthier, more abundant lives.

    That scares the shit out of the political parasite classes, because they are highly motivated by the wealth gap between themselves and the demos. They would rather set the world on fire, than permit a narrowing of the wealth gap between themselves and everyone else.

  70. @Cowboy Shaw

    They did have conscription, from 1916 onwards.

    Kiwis were collectively too smart: they didn’t have enough young men who were stupid enough to sign up to kill and die in a stupid pointless pissing contest halfway around the world.

    That didn’t sit well with the forelock-tugging parasites of the pakeha political class: they wanted to send lots of young men into the meat-grinder, in order to impress Massah in Westminster – in the hopes of one day getting a pat on the head.

    So… conscription (i.e., military slavery).

    My paternal great-grandfathers – who were life-long mates – objected. They were young and able-bodied, and got called up.

    One objected because of religion – he was a Mick. The other objected on purely conscientious grounds.

    They were part of a group of about a dozen young men from the same small forestry town who refused en bloc.

    Their objections were rejected and they were all threatened with jail, however the local plodders knew better than to try to enforce that.

    All these blokes worked in forestry, were skilled bushmen and hunters and knew the Tarawera and Kaingaroa forests like the back of their hands. They were also in good standing with the Tūhoe (from Te Urewera forest: militant separatists to this day). It was made clear that if anyone came for them, the bodies would never be found; the local plodder knew to take that under advisement.

    After a fortnight, it was clear nobody was prepared to enforce the stupid edict. All of the men they spent the rest of WWI going about their lives with impunity; they worked in forestry throughout.

    Their story was still part of the local folklore among the elderly in the area when I stayed there during school holidays in the mid-1970s.

    My maternal forebears were Māori and could not be conscripted. 4 iwi (tribes) – collectively referred to as Tainui – signed on to be conscripted from 1917 onwards, but nobody was sent overseas.

    My great-grandfathers’ iwi (Ti Ati Awa) is not part of the Tainui federation. Ti Ati Awa arrived in a completely different canoe: the iwi that comprise Tainui arrived in a canoe called Tainui (surprise!); Ti Ati Awa arrived in one called Tokomaru (along with two other iwi: Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga). Shit like that is important among Maori, to this day (because fuck all those other canoes – they’re shit, apparently).

    So anyhow: the two pakeha forebears were part of a group that said “Screw your war. Come at us and see what happens.” and got away with it; the two spear-chuckers didn’t have to bother.


    WWII: NZ still had conscription (again, not enough stupid pawns willing to kill and/or die in someone else’s land).

    Maternal side: still spear-chuckers, ergo still exempt from military slavery.

    My paternal grandad said that even if he had wanted to join up for WWII, he couldn’t have: he would have faced the wrath of the entire community for betraying his father’s ‘legacy’.

    Not that he was remotely interested in doing so – he was his father’s son.

    Plus, like all working class Micks they had 7 kids under 11 at the time (they would eventually have 9 FFS: thank fuck that ‘family tradition’ was done away with when my Dad told Catholicism to go fuck itself and married an atheist mulatto spear-chucker).

    Anyhow, ‘Big Grandad’ refused point-blank to register for the military – as did all his brothers, and most of the sons of the WWI objectors.

    The government had better things to do than try to eat a porcupine while herding cats. It left them alone.

    From what I’ve heard, you only got imprisoned for refusing to be enslaved… if you turned yourself in.

    Those were the days.

    One distant cousin fought in Viet Nam (there’s always one bad apple).

  71. szopen says:

    Had it not been for British meddling, the territorial issues with Poland would likely have been settled, and the excuse for declaring war disarmed.

    I.e. without British meddling, Germany would have free hand to invade Poland. BEcause we in Poland are untermenschen who deserve no same rights as Germans.

    • Replies: @JLK
    , @anon
  72. JLK says:

    Unfortunately, the British guarantee didn’t do Poland much good.

    Poles should be proud of their brave resistance during the war, but don’t take Communist propaganda about what Germans thought of the Slavs at face value.

    • Replies: @szopen
  73. szopen says:

    I do not have to take Communist propaganda, because my family actually LIVED through the German occupation.

    • Replies: @JLK
  74. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    “..without British meddling Germany would have free hand to invade Poland.”

    Uh, hate to break it to you sport but Germany DID invade Poland, even with British “meddling” which included going so far as to declare war against Germany.

    Germany in 1939 had many legitimate beefs with Poland. In any case why you Poles took the British pledge seriously is beyond me. There was absolutely nothing the U.K. could have done in 1939 to have saved Poland and Britain’s war declaration was very much against its own best interests.

    • Replies: @JLK
  75. JLK says:

    There was absolutely nothing the U.K. could have done in 1939 to have saved Poland and Britain’s war declaration was very much against its own best interests.

    Britain and France had every reason to believe they could march into Germany and win a quick war. Their troops badly outnumbered Germany’s on the Western Front, especially with the wehrmacht bogged down in Poland.

    • Replies: @anon
  76. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Not so. The U.K. had maybe two divisions ready to fight and the French were still too emotionally and mentally scarred from WW1 to do that. Why do you think they built the Maginot line? They were thinking defensively and in terms of minimizing losses. And the German army was hardly “bogged down” in Poland. The opposite was true.

    • Replies: @JLK
  77. JLK says:

    On September 3rd 1939, when UK and France declared war on Germany, both ordinary Polish people and government officials became enthusiastic. There were spontaneous demonstrations of support for the French and British allies. People truly believed that Germans will soon be defeated. And from what I see those thoughts were reasonable – if an allied offensive, no matter how poorly prepared, took place, the allies would soon be in Berlin. Hitler left only 23 divisions on Western front, while the allies had 110 divisions. And those Germans divisions were poorly equipped. The French had 4 to 1 advantage in artillery, 80 to 1 advantage in tanks and the Germans hardly had any planes there. During Nurnberg trial general Alfred Jodl admitted that the Germany would easily be defeated in 1939 if the allies helped the Poles.

  78. Floda says:

    I had two German uncles who fought for the Kaiser in that war, both were wounded but survived, Two decades later they were at in again, manning Flack guns, a third, and youngest brother, my father was now attached to the Wehrmacht in the East. The wars parted them, my Father and family emigrated to Australia after the War, oldest Brother in West Germany, middle fellow in East Germany. They never saw each other again. In 1961 my father received the news that his brother in East Germany had committed suicide after the Berlin wall was built. My mother was a Ukrainian who was keen to work for the Germans the day they arrived in Poltava. She and her German husband survived but she had four sisters each of them lost a husband fighting in the Red Army, one of them Shura, lost TWO husbands. In 1964 Australian boys were being conscripted to fight in Vietnam. My father was friends with a Jewish guy who was the East German consul to Melbourne. The two of the LIED to the OZ Army when they came calling for me, saying I was, ‘on a cycling tour of East Germany’. I had no knowledge of this deception and often wondered how I was missed, as every boy in my High School class was called up to Vietnam. I found out long after the old man passed, he was not keen for his only son to become, ‘Canonen Futter’ for the US Army.

    • Replies: @Harpo
  79. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    for some reason Margolis doesn’t mention the Balfour Declaration, which is probably the cause of the U.S. entering the war

    • Replies: @anon
  80. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    That was certainly its intention. Britain hoped the declaration would induce Jews in the USA to support bringing America into the war on the side of the Entente.

    • Replies: @Hebraic Hypocrite
  81. @anon

    its another (((margolis))) writing your history and leaving out his own duplicitous role

  82. Harpo says:

    Floda, you are making it up. I just checked the DVA website. Between 1964 and 1972 approximately 800,000 Australian twenty year old men registered for national service. Only 15,000 of them served in Vietnam. It is not remotely possible that “every boy in your high sschool class” was called up to Vietnam.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.