Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 尼克·科勒斯特伦(Nick Kollerstrom)档案
论第一次世界大战的可避免性
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>
威廉皇帝二世(Kaiser Wilhelm II)享有缔造和平的美誉。 在1890年的照片中显示。Bundesarchiv,Bild 183-R28302 / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

1 年 1914 月 1916 日,欧洲正在爆发可怕的战争,德国大使利希诺夫斯基亲王拜访了英国外交大臣爱德华·格雷爵士。 Rudolf Steiner 博士在 XNUMX 年在瑞士的一次演讲中对这次会议发表了如下评论:

“一句话,西方的战争就不会发生。”

在那次会议上,他断言, 只用一句话, “这场战争本来可以避免的。”[1]鲁道夫·施泰纳(Rudolf Steiner), 不真实的业力 卷1(13年4月31日至1916日在瑞士多纳赫(Dornach)举行的1988场演讲),19年,第2005页。 注意,它可以作为Google图书在线使用,其分页与此处使用的分页相同。 XNUMX年新版(副标题为 秘密社团、媒体和大战的准备) 有特里博德曼的精彩介绍。

为了检查这个听起来令人发指的说法,我们深入研究了一个有点神秘的东西,即一千年来德国和英国之间的第一次冲突:两个国家被同一个王室束缚,欧洲的每个政治家都大声宣布希望和平,不惜一切代价避免战争; 然后大屠杀发生,终止了对欧洲文明的巨大希望并熄灭了它的光明乐观,因为防御联盟的建立神秘地翻转并变成了进攻性的战争计划。

可怕的“施利芬计划”被启动,作为德国自卫的总体计划,其中包含对灾难性灾难的可怕速度的需求。 法国和俄罗斯已经达成了共同防御协议(每个人都声称他们的军事同盟是防御性的)。 founded斯麦创立了德国,是个明智的政治家,但这种情况被避免了,这种同盟是他最黑暗的噩梦。 但是威廉皇帝(Kaiser Wilhelm)未能避免这种情况,因此德国东西方的邻国组成了相互的军事同盟。 施利芬计划的前提是德国不能在两个战线上打仗,但可以迅速击败法国。 因此,如果在东部对俄罗斯发动战争,则其部队必须向西移动,通过比利时坠毁,成为通向法国的道路。 这一切都必须迅速进行,因为德国的军队比俄罗斯的军队还小。

关键时期的时机表明了其可怕的速度:为了响应奥匈帝国与塞尔维亚之间的敌对行动,俄罗斯于29月29日动员了军队; 皇帝于31日和31日向沙皇派出了两条绝望的电缆,劝阻他不要继续动员军队,因为那意味着战争; 法国政府“不可逆转地决定”在1日晚间支持俄罗斯参加战争,并于1月XNUMX日凌晨XNUMX点将此决定以电缆形式发送给俄罗斯外交大臣[2]巴恩斯(Barnes),1926年,第284-8页。; 然后,在同一天的下午,德国开始动员并向俄罗斯宣战,而两天后又进入了比利时。 英国下议院于5月XNUMX日一致投票通过战争,将德国视为好战的战争贩子。

威廉大帝的复仇女神

皇帝享有和平缔造者的声誉:

现在……他在世界各地被公认为是我们时代可以显示的最大和平因素。 我们听说,正是他在世界上最大的军事组织(由他自己建立的组织)的支持下,一次又一次地发挥了他支配性格的重担,无论在欧洲上空的战争云如何聚集,都为实现和平提供了平衡。 '('威廉二世,普鲁士国王和德国皇帝,皇帝皇帝25年,被誉为首席调和人,' “纽约时报”,8 年 1913 月 XNUMX 日。[3]贝尔福,1964 年,第 351 页。)

美国前总统威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱(William Howard Taft)这样评价他:“历史的真相需要这样的判决,考虑到他在各国中的至关重要的部分,在过去的 XNUMX 年里,他一直是唯一的实际维护世界和平的最大力量。 ([4]罗斯,2009年,第9页。 对于美国外交官兼总统顾问上校E.House的信,关于皇帝的和平哲学,在他于1914年523月进行访问之后,请参见巴恩斯,第XNUMX页。 对于前皇帝关于“证明德国和平意图的证据”的观点,即德国是如何没有为战争做准备或没有预料到战争的观点,请参见: 我的回忆录,1878-1918 年 作者:前凯撒威廉二世,1992 年,第 10 章“战争爆发”。,[5]莫雷尔,第 122 页:德国“在 XNUMX 月爆发战争时保持了四十四年的和平……没有其他大国可以拥有这样的记录。” (莫雷尔的书可以在线查看))。 致敬! 1960 年,英国广播公司 (BBC) 向德皇百年致敬时获准说:“重点是他对英格兰的热爱以及对他祖母维多利亚女王的深深依恋。”

和平的爱人……。 熟练的外交官…对维多利亚女王的深深依恋..让我想起那场大战,夺走了XNUMX万人的生命?

如果皇帝也许将更多的注意力集中在战争的艺术上,战争可能会避免-如何避免进军比利时? 没有“B计划”! 在后来的日子里,德皇常说,他被军事时间表扫除了。 WHO 通缉使欧洲陷入如此可怕冲突的战争? 仅仅是一系列的连锁条约就带来了它吗?

30 月 31 日至 XNUMX 日晚上,德皇威廉感到被看似不可避免的事件所困,悲惨地自言自语:

脆弱和虚弱将使世界陷入最可怕的战争,其最终目的是推翻德国。 因为我不再怀疑英国,俄罗斯和法国拥有 议定 彼此之间-知道我们的条约义务迫使我们支持奥地利-以奥塞族冲突为由发动一场战争 歼灭 反对我们……这样我们的盟友[奥地利]的愚蠢和笨拙就变成了套索。 于是,著名的围剿德国终于成为公认的事实…… 网突然在我们头上合拢,英国在全世界肆意推行的纯反德政策赢得了我们所证明的最壮观的胜利我们无力阻止,而他们通过我们对奥地利的忠诚让我们尽管挣扎着独自进入网络,却继续扼杀我们的政治和经济存在。 一个伟大的成就,即使是那些对它意味着灾难的人也一定会钦佩。[6]巴尔弗(Balfour),1964年,第354页

'那些可怕的无意义大屠杀领域'

有成千上万的年轻人,英格兰之花, 去泥泞的田野,战斗而死? 炮弹、刺刀、毒气、机枪——有什么意义? 他们绝不是在保卫自己的国家或帝国——因为没有人威胁到它。 没有欧洲国家受益:这意味着毁灭 所有 其中。 我们是否需要 恐惧 诗人的话的愚蠢:

如果我要死,就只想我这个
有一个异域的角落
那是永远的英格兰'? (鲁伯特·布鲁克)

英国领先的和平主义者ED莫雷尔(ED Morel)因其书中表达的观点而受到广泛谴责 真相与战争 (1916 年),并因被关进彭顿维尔监狱而使他的健康受到破坏(如伯特兰·罗素所描述的那样)。 他的书以令人难以忘怀的洞察力来描述:“那些可怕的无意义大屠杀的领域”是由“徒劳而邪恶的治国之道”带来的——由那些“通过秘密阴谋和反阴谋……使人民相互毁灭。 谈到战争的爆发,莫雷尔写道:“因此就这样了。 虽然已向下议院作出消极保证,但陆军部和海军部在外交部的授权下采取了与这些保证截然相反的积极行动。 联盟的所有义务都已承担,但以最危险和最狡猾的方法承担; 以这样一种方式招致内阁自由否认任何正式羊皮纸记录它们的存在,并自由地代表其在国内外作为与敌对大陆集团的合同分离之一的政策。[7]莫雷尔(Morel),1916年,第6、8、13和42页。 布莱尔将英国带入伊拉克战争,与布什达成了协议,同时不断否认国内有任何此类协议存在,这是一个完全比喻。 一旦隐瞒的合同的中心重要性变得明显,两名内阁成员于1914年辞职:莫雷子爵和约翰·伯恩斯。

温斯顿·丘吉尔 (Winston Churchill) 给出了更正统、确定性的观点:“入侵比利时使大英帝国统一到了战场上。 一旦它开始展开,任何人力都无法打破致命的锁链。 造成了一种局面,数百名官员只需对各自国家履行规定的职责,就可以摧毁世界。 他们尽了自己的职责'。[8]丘吉尔,1933 年,卷。 1,第107页。 导致毁灭的必要链条才开始 after 我们观察到施泰纳博士所暗示的关键性讨论。

考虑到德国于3月26日进入比利时,而第一和第二海上领主丘吉尔和蒙巴顿则命令在30月3日至XNUMX日动员英国舰队,因此在第三日之前的几天,世界上最大的舰队海军在苏格兰北部准备突袭德国——他的话可能看起来是某种极端的虚伪。 在英国宣战前一周,英国舰队的动员是一场大规模事件,极大地抢占了政治讨论的先机。[9]同上的丘吉尔,于29月30日至XNUMX日夜间秘密调动了英国舰队。 休·马丁,在 战斗,Rt Hon的人生故事。 温斯顿·丘吉尔,1937 年:“丘吉尔根据自己的责任,不顾内阁的明确决定,下令动员海军后备队” 27 日,“舰队 [被] 派往北方,以防止其被封锁,”第 105 页。 整个皇家海军的“测试动员”于 26 月 XNUMX 日在斯皮塔海德国王面前游行,之后海军进行了全面的战斗准备(蒙巴顿勋爵的生平和时代,约翰·特伦斯(John Terrence)1968,第11-14页); 然后,“29 月 XNUMX 日,丘吉尔秘密命令舰队核心向北移动到其受保护的战时基地......以最快的速度行驶,熄灯,它在北海撕毁了夜晚。” (结束一切战争,第一次世界大战如何分裂英国, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85)。
(Churchill,1933年,第1卷,第107页。)
,[10]德皇战争迫在眉睫的第一个迹象是,当他得知英国舰队“在 Spitalhead 审查后并未散去,而是保持集中”。 (我的回忆录,p.241)。

秘密联盟

英国没有必要参加欧洲战争,没有与英国人民或其议会所了解的法国结盟,而且长期以来一直有避免卷入欧洲冲突的正常政策。 但是,部长尤其是外交部长格雷暗中与法国达成了协议。 引用伯特兰·罗素(Bertrand Russell)的自传说:“在过去的几年中,我注意到爱德华·格雷爵士撒谎的谨慎程度,以防止公众知道在发生战争时他让我们支持法国的方法。”[11]伯特兰·罗素, 自传,卷。 1,1967 年,第 239 页。 HG威尔斯(HG Wells)断定:“我认为他(灰色)想要战争,我想他希望战争在战争结束时爆发……指控是,他没有明确警告德国,我们当然应该参战,他暧昧到足以让她冒险和攻击,而且他是故意这样做的。 我认为这个指控是合理的。 (自传实验,二,1934年,第770页) 考虑到法国签署了一项条约义务,因德俄冲突而参战,英国是否会被拖入欧洲战争,因为法国是几个世纪以来的传统敌人? 法国渴望为过去在法德边界上的不满报仇雪恨,意识到它和俄罗斯联合起来对抗德国的军队的优势——并相信它可以把英国拖入战斗。

在24年1913月XNUMX日,英国总理被问及英军在何种情况下可以登陆该大陆。 他回答说:“正如一再重申的那样,这个国家没有任何不公开和不为国会所知的义务,迫使它参加任何战争” –双重否定,掩盖了一个隐藏但当时存在的和解!

和平的最后希望

我们现在转向德国驻英国外交大臣大使于 1 月 XNUMX 日提出的问题,该问题通常从历史书中关于该主题的书中省略。 如果战争与和平确实取决于它——正如施泰纳博士所断言的那样——可能值得引用一些关于它的判断。 这是格雷那天写的自己的信:

格雷给英国驻柏林大使的信: 1月XNUMX日,关于他与利奇诺夫斯基亲王会晤:

他问我,如果德国做出不违反比利时中立原则的承诺,我们是否会保持中立。 我回答说我不能这么说:我们的双手仍然自由,我们正在考虑应该采取的态度……。我不认为我们可以在这种情况下单独做出承诺。 大使就我是否可以制定我们保持中立的条件向我施压。 他甚至建议,可以保证法国及其殖民地的完整。 我说过,我感到有义务绝对拒绝任何以类似条件保持中立的承诺,我只能说我们必须放手。”[12]爱德华·格雷(Edward Gray)于1月1926日写信:英国的《蓝皮书》,HMSO,261年,第1928页。 另请参阅Morley 38,第9-XNUMX页。,[13]内阁和总理罗伊·詹金斯(Roy Jenkins)认可了格雷在1月XNUMX日对德国大使表示的不置可否的态度, 阿斯奎斯 1964,第363页。

瑞士作家乔治布兰德斯总结了这次会议:

”德国驻伦敦大使利奇诺夫斯基(Lichnowsky)王子问,如果德国避免违反比利时的中立原则,英国是否同意保持中立。 爱德华·格雷爵士拒绝了。 英国想保留“自由之手”(“我不认为仅凭这种条件我们就不能做出中立的承诺”)。 他会同意德国是否要保证法国及其殖民地的完整吗? 不。'[14]Steiner,Karma,第18页:Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, 苏黎世 1916 (Brandes 是丹麦人)。 Steiner 广泛引用了其中的内容,Karma,第 14-23 页。

美国历史学家哈里·埃尔默·巴恩斯(Harry Elmer Barnes):“格雷在1914年阻止战争的唯一方法,就是宣告如果德国不入侵比利时,英国将保持中立……”,但格雷拒绝这样做。这是:“在格雷拒绝向德国大使承诺,如果德国同意不入侵比利时,英国将保持中立,德国大使要求格雷制定英国保持中立的条件,但格雷拒绝了一点——空白这样做,尽管他后来错误地告知下议院他已经陈述了这些条件”。[15]巴恩斯,1926 年,第 497 页。 巴恩斯赞扬了该杂志的社论 曼彻斯特卫报 30 月 XNUMX 日 - 反对支持战争的沙文主义 “泰晤士报” ——它宣称:“我们不仅现在是中立的,而且在整个战争过程中我们现在而且应该保持中立。”

英国法官兼律师罗伯特·里德(Robert Reid)是洛尔本伯爵(Earl of Loreburn),也是 1905 年至 1912 年的英国大法官,所以他应该知道发生了什么。 他的书 '战争如何进行 描述那是怎么回事 秘密 与破坏一切的法国打交道:

最终的错误是,在实际危机发生时,一种决定或另一种决定可能并且可以判断,完全避免了大陆战争……恶作剧是爱德华·格雷爵士(Sir Edward Gray)采取了一项新政策。 ,但没有军队,条约或未经议会批准的命令……该国有权知道自己的义务,并准备履行这些义务并决定自己的命运。 当必须做出我们整个历史上最重大的决定时,我们没有自由决定权。 我们参加了一场我们事先在黑暗中发动的战争,国会希望在两小时后通知自己无法使我们摆脱这种可怕的困境……如果政府认为我们的荣誉或我们的安全能够做到这一点要求我们代表法国进行干预,那么他们应该如此明确地说 before 愤怒的欧洲大国坚信我们应该保持中立,采取了不可撤销的步骤。 他们没有说任何一个,而是继续在调度中说他们的双手完全自由,并告诉下议院同样的事情。 这些文件结论性地表明,直到德国宣战之后,我们的部长才对两个问题都下定决心,他们是否会为法国而战,以及是否会为比利时而战。 当然,比利时只是通往法国的走廊,除非法国受到攻击,否则比利时没有危险。[16]洛尔本,1919 年,第 15-19 页。

结束后,美国总统伍德罗·威尔逊在 1919 年 18 月总结了它的可避免性:“我们肯定地知道,如果德国曾一度认为英国会与法国和俄罗斯联手,她永远不会承担这项计划。 .' (第 XNUMX 页,洛伦本)。 这就是英国促成可怕的冲突的原因。 明言真话本可以避免它——如果这是想要的话。

我们使自己想起了施泰纳博士的比较:大英帝国于是覆盖了地球陆地的四分之一。 俄罗斯七分之一; 法国及其殖民地占十三分之一; 和德国,占三分之一。 (因果报应 第11页)

皇帝在1月XNUMX日早些时候收到利奇诺夫斯基亲王的电报后,皇帝下令订购一瓶香槟来庆祝,好像有希望与英国达成协议。 即使他只是在当天下午签署了动员德国军队的命令,他在某种程度上还是可以回想起这件事……但是,这是一个虚假的希望,当天晚些时候爱德华国王的电报向他解释说,英国外交大臣与德国大使之间的“误会”。[17]Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke 和第一次世界大战的起源 2001 CUP p.219-223:Lichinowsky 的电报被误解了(注意,我不支持她关于德国战争罪的论点)。

格雷的口是心非

格雷在26日或27日告诉内阁,如果他不支持他动员英国支持“我们的盟友”法国的战争,他将不得不辞职。 他将无法与英国保持中立。 直到1日或2日战争刚刚开始的这段时间里,英国自由党政府的所有内阁除了丘吉尔和格雷外,都赞成英国保持中立。 是那两个人将英国拖入战争。 格雷还不知道比利时政府是否会拒绝德国要求通过的请求。 为了发动战争,格雷不得不以“贫穷的小比利时”为出发点。 比利时说“不”之后,德国仍然进入(这是进入法国的唯一途径),然后确保了内阁的多数席位。

2 月 3 日,格雷向法国大使提供了相当于英国对战争支持的保证。 XNUMX 月 XNUMX 日,格雷向下议院提出了支持英国代表法国进行干预的慷慨激昂的请求——没有提及德国的和平提议。 国会议员菲利普·莫雷尔(Phillip Phillip Morrell)随后在当天的唯一反战演说中指出,并指出,在英国保持中立的条件下,德国已保证不入侵法国,并予以拒绝。 至于为什么格雷没有提到德国的提议,后来有人认为德国大使只是以私人身份发言![18]格雷在 3 日告诉内阁关于与利奇诺夫斯基的谈话,声称后者的观点“只是个人的,未经授权”。 (Morley, pp.13-14) 如果是这样,为什么这次谈话会被记录并发表在英国的重要战时文件“白皮书”中? 一个德国大使怎么能提出一个纯粹的个人建议呢? 其他这样的“白皮书”文件被记录为个人文件,但不是这个。 正如莫雷尔指出的那样(第 26-7 页),英国的“蓝皮书”公布了这次采访的记录,没有暗示大使只是在私下行事——利奇诺夫斯基于 8.30 月 1 日晚上 26 点 XNUMX 分给他的政府的电报表明,他一直按照“指示”行事。 他的要约与凯撒和德国外交大臣随后发来的电报大体上是一致的。 (莫雷尔,第 XNUMX 页)

比利时所谓的中立是一个骗局,因为该国的部长们已经秘密地与英国和法国制定了详细的反德战争计划。 难怪德皇有一种被敌人“包围”的感觉,因为“中立的比利时实际上已经成为与德国缔结的联盟的积极成员”[19]Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117。(有关 Fuehr 的评论,请参阅 Ross 2009,pp.116-7:Fuehr 的描述“肯定有偏见”但“有据可查”。)有关控罪文件,请参阅罗斯第 300 页,注释55.皇帝大帝回忆起在战争前夕如何在比利时边境附近发现成堆的英国陆军大衣和比利时地图: 我的回忆录,第251-2页。 –即它策划了一个友好国家。 引用赞美有见地的乔治·伯纳德·肖的话说:“德国人违反比利时的中立立场是我们正义的中流;柱。 而且我们在美国市场上花的钱远远超过了它的价值。 我猜想,当德国人对我们与比利时打交道的说法到达美国,并得到他们在布鲁塞尔发现的一系列秘密外交文件的传真后,我们会发现,我们对比利时的待遇与中立性一样不那么兼容。德国入侵。[20]罗斯,2009年,第42页。

斯坦纳的观点

鲁道夫施泰纳在他 1916 年 XNUMX 月的演讲中的判断(在此期间英国拒绝了德国的和平提议):

``让我只说一句,发生了某些事情,后来才得出的唯一明智的结论才是正确的结论,即在那些以某种方式出现在那里的人偶在英国站着的人背后,是一群强大而有影响力的人他顽强地将事情推向了与德国的战争,通过这场战争,人们为一向被预言的世界大战铺平了道路。 当然,可以为预期发生的事情铺平道路。 ..不可避免地要意识到,像强大冲力的哨所一样,站在前台的木偶后面的那组人有多强大。 后者当然是完全诚实的人,但他们是人偶,现在他们将消失在默默无闻之中……。[21]施泰纳 因果报应,pp.84-5。

格雷和丘吉尔是两位一贯支持战争的内阁部长。 保守党坚定地支持战争,如果自由党内阁中的太多人可能会辞职而不是参战,丘吉尔已经准备好与他们达成协议。 施泰纳在这里评论道:

“任何[在英格兰]说出[战争]真正原因的人都会被公众舆论所扫除。” 需要一些完全不同的东西——一个英国人可以接受的理由,那就是违反比利时的中立性。 但这首先必须被实现。 爱德华格雷爵士真的可以用一句话来阻止它。 历史总有一天会表明,如果爱德华·格雷爵士发表声明,比利时的中立将永远不会受到侵犯;如果他能够随心所欲,那么他很容易做出声明。 但由于他无法随自己的意愿而不得不服从来自另一方的冲动,因此他不得不做出声明,使比利时的中立性受到侵犯。 乔治·布兰德斯(Georg Brandes)指出了这一点。 通过这一举动,英格兰被认为是有道理的。 这就是整个练习的重点:向英国提出一个合理的理由! 对重要的人来说,没有比不侵犯比利时领土更令人不安的了![22]同上,第86页。
(斯坦纳, 因果报应,第84-5页。)

格雷背后的权力是否有 通缉战争引导事件 为此? 施泰纳争辩说 不可避免地陷入战争的普遍观点:“你不知道在这些事件中寻求简单的连续性是多么不负责任,因此相信世界大战毫不费力地发生了,或者必须发生,作为一个奥地利向塞尔维亚发出最后通牒的结果。 (第 82 页)

我们在这里想起了莫雷尔的叙述,秘密策划如何使辩论陷入瘫痪:

“他们自己秘密行径的克星使我们的部长们感到束手无策。 它使他们为维护和平而进行的真诚而绝望的努力陷于瘫痪。 这使他们之间产生了分歧……他们对英国人民和世界都不诚实。 他们尽管通过道义上对法国的承诺,却无法通过及时宣布声援法国和俄罗斯来制止在德国造成战争的因素。还是时间。[23]莫雷尔 1916 年,第 297 页。

4月XNUMX日,英国宣战, 夜晚切断了来自德国的跨大西洋海底电话线,[24]罗斯,2009年,第15页,第27页。 使英国的残暴宣传工作在很大程度上没有受到挑战。 引用最近关于这个主题的工作,“英国成功的宣传工作的标志是据称德国的巨大暴行强烈影响了渴望从远处进行侠义战争的天真美国人”。[25]同上,第3页。
(罗斯,2009年,第15、27页。)
这种一致的,有意的故意行为是相当创新的,这就是为什么如此有效的原因:“在那场战争中,仇恨宣传第一次受到了有组织的关注”。[26]格伦费尔,1954 年,第 125 页。 因此,莫雷尔所说的“徒劳而邪恶的治国之道”的克星出现了,因为英国士兵被来自他们自己政府的无休止的谎言洪流所驱使去战斗。[27]同样来自法国政府:巴恩斯(Barnes),……有关一般性评论,请参见乔治·泰尔(Georges Thiel), 异端:“对那些对[德国]的谎言的清单让人感到头昏眼花,这些谎言后来又被拆毁了。” 历史评论出版社,2006年,第31页。

最后,我们是否同意 Steiner 博士的观点? 引用巴恩斯的话说,“因此,显然,对造成战争的俄国致命动员的责任必须由法国和俄罗斯共同分担,而且大概应该平等地分担。” 这是因为法国内阁的普遍鼓励,然后最终决定在 29 月 29 日开战,其中巴恩斯评论道:“庞加莱、维维亚尼和梅西米于 328 日晚上与伊兹沃尔斯基协商的秘密会议。七月,标志着战争的恐怖在欧洲特别解开的时刻。 (pp.242,XNUMX)一定是时候了, 这是唯一的机会, 因为这些战争策划者会知道在这些决定性的日子里,世界上最大的海军——英国的海军——已经动员起来,准备好开战了。 俄罗斯将军们威逼沙皇签署文件以表示同意——为了一场他不想要的战争[28]关于前皇帝关于他后来得知的电报如何在那些关键时期极大地影响了沙皇尼古拉斯的说法,请参阅: 我的回忆录,第 10 章。。 31日,从凯撒(Kaiser)又收到了一封绝望的电报,询问如果只有俄罗斯停止其动员,“如何仍然可以维持欧洲和平”,但沙皇已不再具有这种能力。 德国不参加宣战或采取步骤动员到1月XNUMX日下午,使自己处于军事劣势,比任何其他大国都要晚。 如果当天下午在伦敦达成协议,东欧的冲突可能仍会发生,但是它将是有限的,外交官也可以处理它:是的,世界大战本可以避免。


基本文字
  • 亚历山大·菲尔(Alexander Fuehr) 比利时的中立,纽约1915
  • ED莫雷尔, 真理与战争 1916
  • 伯爵罗伦本, 战争是怎么来的, 1919
  • 哈里·埃尔默·巴恩斯(Harry Elmer Barnes) 世界大战的起源战争内疚问题介绍, 1926
  • 关于战争起源的英国文件,1898年至1914年,第XI卷,HMSO,1926年。
  • 辞职备忘录 约翰子爵,莫利,1928 年,39 页。
  • 阿尔弗雷德·冯·韦格勒 驳斥凡尔赛战争罪论题, 1930
  • 温斯顿·丘吉尔, 大战第一卷1, 1933
  • 拉塞尔·格伦费尔船长, 无条件仇恨、德国战争内疚和欧洲的未来(主要是关于二战)纽约,2
  • M. Balfour, 皇帝及其时代 1964
  • 斯图尔特·哈尔西·罗斯 战争宣传,美国如何适应 1914-18 年的大战, 2009.

说明

[1] 鲁道夫·施泰纳(Rudolf Steiner), 不真实的业力 卷1(13年4月31日至1916日在瑞士多纳赫(Dornach)举行的1988场演讲),19年,第2005页。 注意,它可以作为Google图书在线使用,其分页与此处使用的分页相同。 XNUMX年新版(副标题为 秘密社团、媒体和大战的准备) 有特里博德曼的精彩介绍。

[2] 巴恩斯(Barnes),1926年,第284-8页。

[3] 贝尔福,1964 年,第 351 页。

[4] 罗斯,2009年,第9页。 对于美国外交官兼总统顾问上校E.House的信,关于皇帝的和平哲学,在他于1914年523月进行访问之后,请参见巴恩斯,第XNUMX页。 对于前皇帝关于“证明德国和平意图的证据”的观点,即德国是如何没有为战争做准备或没有预料到战争的观点,请参见: 我的回忆录,1878-1918 年 作者:前凯撒威廉二世,1992 年,第 10 章“战争爆发”。

[5] 莫雷尔,第 122 页:德国“在 XNUMX 月爆发战争时保持了四十四年的和平……没有其他大国可以拥有这样的记录。” (莫雷尔的书可以在线查看)

[6] 巴尔弗(Balfour),1964年,第354页

[7] 莫雷尔(Morel),1916年,第6、8、13和42页。

[8] 丘吉尔,1933 年,卷。 1,第107页。

[9] 同上的丘吉尔,于29月30日至XNUMX日夜间秘密调动了英国舰队。 休·马丁,在 战斗,Rt Hon的人生故事。 温斯顿·丘吉尔,1937 年:“丘吉尔根据自己的责任,不顾内阁的明确决定,下令动员海军后备队” 27 日,“舰队 [被] 派往北方,以防止其被封锁,”第 105 页。 整个皇家海军的“测试动员”于 26 月 XNUMX 日在斯皮塔海德国王面前游行,之后海军进行了全面的战斗准备(蒙巴顿勋爵的生平和时代,约翰·特伦斯(John Terrence)1968,第11-14页); 然后,“29 月 XNUMX 日,丘吉尔秘密命令舰队核心向北移动到其受保护的战时基地......以最快的速度行驶,熄灯,它在北海撕毁了夜晚。” (结束一切战争,第一次世界大战如何分裂英国, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85)。

[10] 德皇战争迫在眉睫的第一个迹象是,当他得知英国舰队“在 Spitalhead 审查后并未散去,而是保持集中”。 (我的回忆录,p.241)。

[11] 伯特兰·罗素, 自传,卷。 1,1967 年,第 239 页。 HG威尔斯(HG Wells)断定:“我认为他(灰色)想要战争,我想他希望战争在战争结束时爆发……指控是,他没有明确警告德国,我们当然应该参战,他暧昧到足以让她冒险和攻击,而且他是故意这样做的。 我认为这个指控是合理的。 (自传实验,二,1934年,第770页)

[12] 爱德华·格雷(Edward Gray)于1月1926日写信:英国的《蓝皮书》,HMSO,261年,第1928页。 另请参阅Morley 38,第9-XNUMX页。

[13] 内阁和总理罗伊·詹金斯(Roy Jenkins)认可了格雷在1月XNUMX日对德国大使表示的不置可否的态度, 阿斯奎斯 1964,第363页。

[14] Steiner,Karma,第18页:Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, 苏黎世 1916 (Brandes 是丹麦人)。 Steiner 广泛引用了其中的内容,Karma,第 14-23 页。

[15] 巴恩斯,1926 年,第 497 页。

[16] 洛尔本,1919 年,第 15-19 页。

[17] Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke 和第一次世界大战的起源 2001 CUP p.219-223:Lichinowsky 的电报被误解了(注意,我不支持她关于德国战争罪的论点)。

[18] 格雷在 3 日告诉内阁关于与利奇诺夫斯基的谈话,声称后者的观点“只是个人的,未经授权”。 (Morley, pp.13-14) 如果是这样,为什么这次谈话会被记录并发表在英国的重要战时文件“白皮书”中? 一个德国大使怎么能提出一个纯粹的个人建议呢? 其他这样的“白皮书”文件被记录为个人文件,但不是这个。 正如莫雷尔指出的那样(第 26-7 页),英国的“蓝皮书”公布了这次采访的记录,没有暗示大使只是在私下行事——利奇诺夫斯基于 8.30 月 1 日晚上 26 点 XNUMX 分给他的政府的电报表明,他一直按照“指示”行事。 他的要约与凯撒和德国外交大臣随后发来的电报大体上是一致的。 (莫雷尔,第 XNUMX 页)

[19] Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117。(有关 Fuehr 的评论,请参阅 Ross 2009,pp.116-7:Fuehr 的描述“肯定有偏见”但“有据可查”。)有关控罪文件,请参阅罗斯第 300 页,注释55.皇帝大帝回忆起在战争前夕如何在比利时边境附近发现成堆的英国陆军大衣和比利时地图: 我的回忆录,第251-2页。

[20] 罗斯,2009年,第42页。

[21] 施泰纳 因果报应,pp.84-5。

[22] 同上,第86页。

[23] 莫雷尔 1916 年,第 297 页。

[24] 罗斯,2009年,第15页,第27页。

[25] 同上,第3页。

[26] 格伦费尔,1954 年,第 125 页。

[27] 同样来自法国政府:巴恩斯(Barnes),……有关一般性评论,请参见乔治·泰尔(Georges Thiel), 异端:“对那些对[德国]的谎言的清单让人感到头昏眼花,这些谎言后来又被拆毁了。” 历史评论出版社,2006年,第31页。

[28] 关于前皇帝关于他后来得知的电报如何在那些关键时期极大地影响了沙皇尼古拉斯的说法,请参阅: 我的回忆录,第 10 章。

(从重新发布 不便的历史 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 发展史 •标签: 学院, 德国, 第一次世界大战 
隐藏279条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. One Tribe 说:

    I was fascinated reading “结束和平的战争:通往 1914 年的道路” by Margaret MacMillan, which enlightens my comment here.

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

    我很惊讶这种高度紧张和反应过度的地缘政治环境是如此接近 复制 今天又来!

    It wasn’t until I read Douglas Reed’s “锡安之战” that the pattern made sense.

    唯一在两次世界大战中易手的领土是中东的一小块土地!

    回到当前的 2019 年 XNUMX 月环境:
    歇斯底里!
    The illogical and seemingly irrational agitations by the likes of the U.S. Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor, like ranging sociopaths, contrary to the best interests of 99.5+% of the citizens…
    …who’s benefitting?!

    有人受益!

    弄清楚谁在受益,你就会弄清楚谁/什么正在积极主动地制造危机。

  2. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:

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

    • 回复: @Bill Jones
    , @Frank Hilliard
  3. Sean 说:

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Logan
    , @sally
    , @utu
  4. Epigon 说:

    It wasn’t the Jews, FFS.

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

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

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

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

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

    • 同意: Bill Jones
    • 回复: @Jon Baptist
  6. Fox 说:

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

    • 回复: @refl
  7. Catherine 说:

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

    • 同意: anonymous1963
    • 回复: @anon
  8. Tom Welsh 说:
    @One Tribe

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

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

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

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

  9. Tom Welsh 说:

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

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

  10. Gefreiter 说:

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @anon
    , @Templar
  11. There was no avoiding WW1. The Jews needed it for their Zionist project.

  12. LondonBob 说:

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

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
    , @Jacques Sheete
    , @FB
  13. Voltaire 说:

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

    上帝帮助我们。

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

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

    • 回复: @Jake
  15. Vinnie O 说:

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

    • 回复: @Alden
  16. Gefreiter 说:
    @LondonBob

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  17. Vojkan 说:

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

    • 同意: Cortes
    • 回复: @Epigon
    , @Jacques Sheete
    , @Wally
    , @refl
  18. Very informative. May I suggest as additionnal reading: Patrick Buchanan, 丘吉尔,希特勒和“不必要的战争”:英国如何失去帝国,西方如何失去世界, Crown Forum, 2009,

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

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

    • 回复: @FB
  20. Anonymous [AKA "Tamer abdel dayem"] 说:

    How dreadful to think that millions of brave men lost their lives due to the secret agendas of a handful of politicians.

    RIP brave souls….shame on the deceitful politicians.

  21. utu 说:

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

  22. Anonymous[225]• 免责声明 说:

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

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

  23. Gsjackson 说:
    @Tom Welsh

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

    • 同意: Jacques Sheete
    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  24. Jake 说:

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Parsnipitous
  25. Jake 说:
    @The Alarmist

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

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

  26. Logan 说:

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jake
    , @Aufklærer108
  27. Epigon 说:
    @Vojkan

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Vojkan
  28. Logan 说:
    @Sean

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Sean
    , @anonymous1963
  29. Vojkan 说:
    @Epigon

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

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  30. Desert Fox 说:

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  31. Jake 说:
    @Logan

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Logan
  32. @Gsjackson

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

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

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

  33. Walter 说:

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

    I believe excerpts were printed in The Guardian.

  34. Walter 说:

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

    and first-up? This:

    “找到与德国开战的理由”:令人震惊的信记录了乔治五世国王如何敦促外交大臣在第一次世界大战爆发前两天为冲突辩护

    一封信记录了乔治五世国王和爱德华·格雷之间的会晤
    国王敦促他的外交大臣找到与德国战争的理由
    King George V, revealed what had taken place to Sir Cecil Graves in 1933
    Sir Edward’s great-great-nephew Adrian Graves uncovered the information

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

    • 回复: @Nonny
  35. @One Tribe

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

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

    And a bit longer, but still reasonably short, are 锡安长老的礼节。

  36. All by design my friends..

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Anon
  37. @Gefreiter

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

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

    我们的哲学家将讨论 goyim 的各种信仰的所有缺点。 但是,没有人会从真正的角度来讨论我们的信仰,因为除了我们之外,没有人会完全了解这一点,他们永远不会 背叛它的秘密。

    知道这一点 even the brotherhood in its turn dare not protest. By such methods we have plucked out of the midst of masonry the very root of protest against our disposition. While preaching liberalism to the goyim 我们同时让我们自己的人和我们的代理人处于一种状态 毫无疑问的提交。

    协议 #14 和 15

    Sick SoBs.

    • 回复: @Nonny
  38. refl 说:
    @Fox

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

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

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

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

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

    • 同意: Haxo Angmark
    • 回复: @refl
  40. @LondonBob

    Mobilisation of forces is an irrelevancy.

    This is UR; not Comedy Hour.

  41. @Voltaire

    上帝帮助我们。

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

  42. @Gefreiter

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

    Partly because it succumbed to Talmudification a few centuries ago.

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
  43. Desert Fox 说:
    @refl

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

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

    上帝帮助我们!

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

  45. @John Taylor

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

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

  46. Epigon 说:

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
    , @Maowasayali
  47. AnonFromTN 说:

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  48. @Vojkan

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
    , @Vojkan
    , @FB
  49. lysias 说:

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

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @Jus' Sayin'...
  50. @Jake

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

    You should call yourself Jake the Hammer.

  51. @Desert Fox

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

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

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

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

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

    • 同意: Tom Welsh
  53. Gefreiter 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Patricus
  54. wayfarer 说:

    如果您认识敌人并了解自己,则无需担心一百场战斗的结果。 如果您认识自己而不是敌人,那么每获得一次胜利,您也会遭受失败。 如果您既不认识敌人也不认识自己,那么您将在每场战斗中屈服。

    ― Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

    政治控制的革命方法。 (http://newworldwar.org)

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  55. 好文章。

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

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

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

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

    – ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, “MARCH OF THE [American] FLAG” (16九月1898)

  56. Wally 说:
    @Vojkan

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

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

    罗斯福密谋发起欧洲第二次世界大战: https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    为什么德国入侵波兰,作者:约翰·威尔(John Wear): http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

    • 回复: @Wally
  57. @AnonFromTN

    Whatever happened did happen, alternative reality does not exist.

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

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
  58. @refl

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

  59. @wayfarer

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

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

  60. OK time to reference Webster Tarpley has to say on the subject: Blame lies with King Edward II
    英格兰的

  61. Alden 说:
    @Vinnie O

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

    How many European wars did England instigate?

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

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

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  62. Gefreiter 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Whatever happened did happen, alternative reality does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    等等。

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

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
    , @Jacques Sheete
  63. Gefreiter 说:
    @Epigon

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

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

    你是个胡言乱语的白痴。

    • 同意: Alden
  64. Sean 说:
    @Logan

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

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  65. Amanda 说:

    Benjamin H Freedman 演讲 1961~Big History Lesson~(Freedman 是 Bernard Baruch 的得力助手)

    抄录在这里: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    摘抄:

    “第一次世界大战在 1914 年夏天爆发。XNUMX 年是第一次世界大战爆发的那一年。 在我这个年纪,很少有人记得那件事。 现在这场战争是由英国、法国和俄罗斯在一边发动的; 另一边是德国、奥匈帝国和土耳其。 发生了什么?

    两年之内,德国赢得了这场战争:不仅是名义上的胜利,而且是实际上的胜利。 令世界大吃一惊的德国潜艇从大西洋扫荡了所有的船队,而英国站在那里没有给她的士兵提供弹药,站在那里面对她一个星期的食物供应——然后是饥饿。

    当时,法军已经叛变了。 他们在索姆河上保卫凡尔登时损失了 600,000 万法国青年之花。 俄罗斯军队正在叛逃。 他们收拾玩具回家,他们不想再打仗了,他们不喜欢沙皇。 意大利军队已经崩溃。

    现在是德国——没有在德国土地上开过一枪。 没有一名敌军士兵越过边界进入德国。 然而,这里是德国向英国提供和平条件。 他们在律师所谓的“现状”基础上向英国提供了谈判和平。 这意味着:“让我们取消战争,让一切都像战争开始前一样。”

    嗯,英国在 1916 年夏天就在考虑这个。 严重地! 他们别无选择。 要么接受德国慷慨地向他们提供的谈判和平,要么继续战争并被彻底击败。

    在这种情况下,代表东欧犹太复国主义者的德国犹太复国主义者去了英国战时内阁——我要简短,因为这是一个很长的故事,但我有所有文件来证明任何声明如果这里有人好奇,或者根本不相信我所说的是可能的,我会说 - 伦敦的犹太复国主义者去了英国战争内阁,他们说:“看这里。 你仍然可以赢得这场战争。 你不必放弃。 你不必接受德国现在提供给你的谈判和平。 如果美国成为你的盟友,你就能赢得这场战争。”

    [更多]

    那时美国还没有参战。 我们很新鲜; 我们还年轻; 我们很富有; 我们很强大。 他们(犹太复国主义者)告诉英国:“如果你在赢得战争后向我们承诺巴勒斯坦,我们将保证让美国作为你的盟友加入战争,与你并肩作战。”

    换句话说,他们达成了这样的协议:“我们将把美国作为你的盟友卷入这场战争。 在你赢得战争并击败德国、奥匈帝国和土耳其之后,你必须为我们付出的代价是巴勒斯坦。”

    现在英国有权向任何人承诺巴勒斯坦,就像美国出于任何原因必须向爱尔兰承诺日本一样。 绝对荒谬的是,英国——在所谓的巴勒斯坦地区从来没有任何联系、任何利益或任何权利——竟然把它作为王国的硬币来支付犹太复国主义者将美国带入战争的费用。

    然而,他们在 1916 年 XNUMX 月做出了这个承诺。XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月。 不久之后——我不知道这里有多少人记得——美国,几乎完全亲德——完全亲德——因为这里的报纸被犹太人控制,银行家是犹太人,所有的媒体这个国家的大众传播是由犹太人控制的,他们是亲德国的,因为他们的人,在大多数情况下来自德国,他们想看到德国舔沙皇。

    犹太人不喜欢沙皇,他们也不希望俄罗斯赢得这场战争。 因此,德国银行家——德国犹太人——库恩·勒布和美国的其他大银行拒绝为法国或英国提供一美元的资金。 他们站到一旁说:“只要法国和英国与俄罗斯捆绑在一起,一分钱都不要!” 但是他们向德国倾注金钱,他们与德国一起对抗俄罗斯,试图舔沙皇政权。

    现在那些犹太人,当他们看到获得巴勒斯坦的可能性时,他们去了英国并达成了这笔交易。 那个时候,一切都变了,就像交通灯从红变绿。 报纸一直都是亲德的,他们一直在告诉人们德国在商业和其他方面与英国作战的困难,突然间德国人不好。 他们是恶棍。 他们是匈奴人。 他们正在射杀红十字会护士。 他们正在切断婴儿的手。 他们不好。

    好吧,在那之后不久,威尔逊先生对德国宣战了。

    伦敦的犹太复国主义者将这些电报发送给美国,给布兰代斯法官:“去为威尔逊总统工作。 我们正在从英格兰得到我们想要的东西。 现在你去工作,你去为威尔逊总统工作,让美国卷入战争。” 那确实发生了。 美国就是这样卷入战争的。 我们对它不再感兴趣; 就像今晚我们必须在月球上而不是在这个房间里一样,我们没有更多的权利参与其中。

    现在,美国参加的战争——第一次世界大战——完全没有理由成为我们的战争。 我们进入了那里——我们被强行拉进了它——如果我可以粗俗的话,我们被卷入了——那场战争只是为了让世界的犹太复国主义者能够获得巴勒斯坦。 现在,这是美国人民从未被告知的事情。 他们从来不知道我们为什么要参加第一次世界大战。 现在,发生了什么?

    我们参战后,犹太复国主义者去了英国,他们说:“好吧,我们履行了协议的一部分。 让我们以书面形式表明,在您赢得战争之后,您将继续讨价还价并给我们巴勒斯坦。” 因为他们不知道战争会持续一年还是十年。 于是他们开始计算收据。 收据采取了一封信的形式,用非常神秘的语言措辞,以至于整个世界都不知道它的全部内容。 这就是所谓的贝尔福宣言。

    贝尔福宣言仅仅是英国向犹太复国主义者支付他们所同意的作为让美国参战的考虑因素的承诺。 所以你听到很多关于这个伟大的贝尔福宣言,就像一张三美元的钞票一样虚假。 我不认为我可以让它更强调这一点。

    现在,这就是所有麻烦的开始。 美国参加了战争。 美国打垮了德国。 我们去了那里,这是历史。 你知道发生了什么。 现在,当战争结束,德国人前往巴黎,参加 1919 年的巴黎和会时,那里有 117 名犹太人,以伯纳德·巴鲁克为首的代表犹太人的代表团。 我在那里:我应该知道。 现在发生了什么?

    犹太人在那次和平会议上分裂德国,并将欧洲分配给所有这些拥有欧洲部分领土权利的国家,犹太人说:“巴勒斯坦对我们来说怎么样?” 他们是德国人第一次了解该巴尔福宣言。 因此,德国人第一次意识到:“哦,这就是游戏! 这就是美国参战的原因。” 德国人第一次意识到自己被击败了,他们遭受了惨重的赔偿,因为犹太复国主义者想要巴勒斯坦,并且他们决心不惜一切代价得到巴勒斯坦。

    现在,这将我们带到另一个非常有趣的地方。 当德国人意识到这一点时,他们自然会反感。 直到那时,犹太人在世界上任何一个国家的生活都没有比他们在德国更好。 ”

    • 回复: @JMcG
  66. @Logan

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

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

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

    • 回复: @JMcG
  67. Sean 说:
    @Epigon

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

    Germany was too strong,it was a potential European hegemon. That is why they ended up fighting the whole world 两次.

    • 同意: baythoven
  68. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  69. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Gefreiter

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

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Gefreiter
  70. Cyrano 说:
    @Vojkan

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Vojkan
  71. Vojkan 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
  72. @One Tribe

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

    • 同意: Zumbuddi
    • 回复: @Haxo Angmark
  73. Vojkan 说:
    @Cyrano

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

  74. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Vojkan

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

    • 同意: Vojkan
    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  75. Bill Jones 说:
    @anonymous1963

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  77. TG 说:

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

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

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

    奥匈帝国从40,000,000年的大约1890增长到战争爆发时的至少50,000,000,在这种趋势下出现的程度较小,每年出生人数超过死亡人数的比例约为XNUMX万,其中但是,每年有大约四分之一的人口移民。

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  78. refl 说:
    @UncommonGround

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Epigon
  79. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @Logan

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Logan
  80. @Gefreiter

    And the Holodomor.

    等等。

    Whatever happened is certainly not the narrative planted ___________.

    当然。

  81. @AnonFromTN

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

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

  82. @lysias

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Alfred
  83. ricpic 说:

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

  84. @AnonFromTN

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

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

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

    Cannot, and will not, argue with that.

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
  85. @Gefreiter

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

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

  86. @Johnny Walker Read

    …and perhaps more importantly who backed Pike?”

    No “perhaps” about it, sir!

  87. S 说:

    An excellent and informative article.

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

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

    But why target Germany in such a way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There is also a third link of selected excerpts taken from the 1853 新罗马 书。

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

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

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

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

    新罗马(1853)–第105页

    '所有民族的大起义,那 世界大战 which is for ever seen to hang, like the sword of Damocles, over the passing joys and troubles of the hour, will fall when the Anglo-Saxon empire shall lay its slow but unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation.’

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  88. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

  89. @refl

    Exceedingly interesting insights and conclusions there!

    • 回复: @refl
  90. @anonymous1963

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

    Why would that be so inconceivable?

  91. refl 说:
    @Vojkan

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Zumbuddi
    , @L.K
  92. Agent76 说:

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

    第一次世界大战开始时,伍德罗·威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)最初采取了中立政策。 但是,摩根银行是当时最强大的银行,在第一次世界大战期间为盟军筹集了超过75%的融资资金……由于威尔逊银行的破产,威尔逊银行比他们早就摆脱了中立状态。渴望参与战争的一面。

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

    *所有战争都是银行家的战争*作者:迈克尔·里维罗(Michael Rivero)

    我知道很多人很难理解发动了多少次战争,除了迫使私人央行进入国家之外,所以让我分享一些例子,以便您理解为什么美国政府陷入困境。针对如此众多外国的许多战争。 对此有充分的先例。

    The Bank War

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

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

    • 同意: Desert Fox
  93. Anonymous[378]• 免责声明 说:
    @Alden

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

  94. Patricus 说:
    @Gefreiter

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  95. Zumbuddi 说:
    @refl

    “Disaster will not be prevented,”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The True Price of All Governments For the Individual:

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

    [更多]

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

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

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

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

    A Possible Exception?

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

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

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

    此致onebornfree

    • 回复: @anonymous
  97. @One Tribe

    唯一在两次世界大战中易手的领土是中东的一小块土地!

    Although Douglas Reed’s book is well worth reading (it’s available on the web at 锡安之战), that quoted statement is wrong.

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Fox
    , @Jacques Sheete
  98. S 说:

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

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

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

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

    [更多]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    对共济会内部这些部队的领导人的思想进行的研究表明,他们的梦想,意图和计划是要在英美两国之间创造出新罗马,新世界帝国,思想和生活方式的新统一,从而拥抱整个世界。 为此,建立了一个新的州,美国,第一个“世界州”…

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

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

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

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

    他继续...

    圣殿与罗马帝国精神

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

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

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

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

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

  99. JMcG 说:
    @Amanda

    我的天,我以前从来没有听说过这个。 谢谢你。

  100. JMcG 说:
    @Aufklærer108

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

  101. L.K 说:
    @refl

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

    没错。

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

    如此真实。

  102. @Carolyn Yeager

    顺便,

    玛格丽特·麦克米兰

    is the grand-daughter

    of Lloyd George

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

    of the rapacious Versailles Diktat

    that spawned Round II.

  103. Sparkon 说:

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

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

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

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

    ‘…let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.’”

    ——Max Nordau,巴黎,1903 年

    (no bold emphasis needed)

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Sparkon
  104. anon[949]• 免责声明 说:
    @Catherine

    Whites are to be blamed for all this.

    不太确定

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

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

  105. sally 说:
    @Sean

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Anon
  106. anon[949]• 免责声明 说:
    @Gefreiter

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

    听起来不错

  107. Fox 说:
    @Kratoklastes

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

  108. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @LondonBob

    Agree absolutely…

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

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

    Irrelevance is the perfect word…

  109. @S

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

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

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

  110. @sally

    Dynamite comment. Please comment more often!

  111. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Jacques Sheete
  112. @Patricus

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

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

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

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Patricus
  113. Fox 说:
    @refl

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

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

    • 同意: Carolyn Yeager
  114. @Kratoklastes

    唯一在两次世界大战中易手的领土是中东的一小块土地!

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

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

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

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

  115. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @James N. Kennett

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  116. @One Tribe

    唯一在两次世界大战中易手的领土是中东的一小块土地!

    Where, exactly did you obtain that quote?

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

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

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

    • break a Germano-Russian alliance in essentially destroying both

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

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

    No reference is complete on the subject of WW1 without Doherty and Macgregor’s 隐藏的历史:第一次世界大战的秘密起源.

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

    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/

  118. John 说:

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

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

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

  119. @AnonFromTN

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

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
  120. @Fox

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

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

    • 回复: @Fox
    , @Epigon
    , @UncommonGround
    , @lysias
  121. Ron Unz 说:
    @FB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 同意: Jacques Sheete
  122. @Jake

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

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

    Sure, you’re welcome for the simplification.

  123. @TG

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

  124. @Ron Unz

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

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

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

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

  125. Fox 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

    • 回复: @Epigon
    , @dfordoom
    , @Logan
  126. Epigon 说:
    @refl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    but the secret elite in London.

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

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

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

    • 回复: @refl
  127. Epigon 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
    , @dfordoom
  128. Epigon 说:
    @Fox

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Gefreiter
    , @NoseytheDuke
  129. @Wizard of Oz

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  130. Gefreiter 说:
    @AnonFromTN

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
  131. Gefreiter 说:
    @Epigon

    In case of any disturbance, these trade routes need protection

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

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

  132. Gefreiter 说:
    @Epigon

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

    • 回复: @Epigon
  133. refl 说:
    @Epigon

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

    • 回复: @Epigon
  134. Nonny 说:
    @Walter

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

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

  135. refl 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

  136. Ron Unz 说:
    @UncommonGround

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  137. @Fox

    This has always fascinated and appalled me as well,

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

  138. Epigon 说:
    @Gefreiter

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Gefreiter
  139. @FB

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

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

    有一个愉快的一天。

  140. @Ron Unz

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

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

  141. Templar 说:
    @Gefreiter

    ‘By 1916 Germany was winning the war…’

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

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  142. @FB

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

  143. Epigon 说:
    @refl

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

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

    After war broke out, nothing came of this transfer.

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

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

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

    Serbia was in no position to wage war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @refl
    , @Seraphim
  144. @Gefreiter

    He’s a Holodomor denier too.

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
  145. @Epigon

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

  146. @Epigon

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Epigon
  147. Patricus 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

  148. Nonny 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

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

  149. Epigon 说:

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

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

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

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

  150. Seraphim 说:

    我发现很难理解反复尝试重写历史和粉饰德国使第一次世界大战不可避免的责任。 弗里茨·费舍尔 (Fritz Fisher) 的“德国在第一​​次世界大战中的目标”仍然无懈可击,尽管发起了一致的运动来抹黑它。
    The hardly deniable fact is that Germany was the only country which wanted the war. Germany (as Miranda Carter, the author of the highly readable “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I” put it) “was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war”. Add to that already toxic mix the intoxication of German nationalism with the myths of the ‘Aryanism’ promoted, ironically, by the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain, writing in the same tune as a Cecil Rhodes.
    Germany was dreaming to become a ‘Weltmacht’. Hitler’s well known quote ‘Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all’ was the driving force of the ‘Weltpolitik’ of Wilhelmine’s Germany also, which got rid of the Bismarckian ‘Realpolitik’. The building of the ‘Kriegsmarine’ to rival the British Navy could not but raise the suspicions and annoyance of England. The creation of a huge army, obviously directed at Russia, could not please the Russians who were engaged in a policy of reduction of armaments leading to disarmament and creation of an international court of arbitration (which Germany starkly opposed). The Anglo-Russian Convention was the result. Some sane British politicians (the debauched ‘Uncle of Europe’ Bertie/Eduard VII among them) realized that they were stretching too thin for the good of the Empire, and that the policy of ‘containing Russia’ in the ‘Great Game’ by pitting Japan against Russia did not yield the expected results (Russia did not lose the war and the 1905 ‘revolution’ petered out and Japan immediately engaged in subverting the British dominion of India) came to their senses and realized that England’s ‘splendid isolation’ ceased to pay to much, made a deal with Russia, which despite frequent attempts to derail it, held on, and buried the multi-secular hatch with France. England was reverting to the policy of the ‘Concert of Europe’ of the Vienna Congress, that she sabotaged through most of the 19th century.
    In the years leading to WW1 German policy made every effort to secure Great Britain’s neutrality in the case of the ‘inevitable’ conflict with France and Russia, wishfully thinking that GB would accept a German hegemony in Europe (based on the supposed Aryan/German/Anglo-Saxon/Nordic invented ‘commonality, if not ‘community’).
    But in order to realizing this goal Germany had to make Russia or France appear as the aggressors. But Sir Edward Grey was always clear that although ‘being concerned to maintain some balance between the groups of Powers’, [Britain] could under no circumstances tolerate France being crushed’, Rudolf Steiner’s occult communications notwithstanding. German policy makers slid into the delusional frame of mind that Britain’s opposition to German demands was due to ‘hatred and envy’. In the Kaiser’s mind: “The imminent struggle for existence which the Germanic peoples of Europe (Austria, Germany) will have to fight out against the Slavs (Russians) and their Latin (Gallic) supporters finds the Anglo-Saxons on the side of the Slavs. Reason : petty envy, fear of our growing big”.
    The ‘racial’ motivation was in force long before Nazism. The Kaiser, an admirer of Chamberlain whose ‘Foundation, ordered the psychological preparation of the nation by instructing the Foreign Ministry that “recognition of the coming life and death struggle of the Teutons against Gauls and Slavs must be made ‘the basis of our policy’, and allies for it must be recruited wherever they could be found”.
    What’s more, and that the Jew-biting ‘Whiteys’ are not ready to contemplate, is that the German-Jewish bankers (not a few and not the lesser, emigrated to… England and America) went full steam with the ‘Aryan-Ur-Germanisch’ tall stories. A ‘piquant’ detail is that Theodore Herzl, before ‘rediscovering’ his Jewish roots, idolized Wagner and was enamored with German culture and its nationalistic myths!

    • 巨魔: L.K
    • 回复: @FB
    , @Parsnipitous
    , @Bronek
    , @L.K
  151. Epigon 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

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

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

  152. anonymous[202]• 免责声明 说:
    @onebornfree

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

  153. @Ron Unz

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

    • 回复: @Steve Naidamast
  154. @Wizard of Oz

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

    • 哈哈: Epigon
    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  155. Sparkon 说:
    @Sparkon

    Prophesying WWI(I), 1834

    [更多]

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

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

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

  156. lysias 说:
    @Fox

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

  157. lysias 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Wizard of Oz
  158. Gefreiter 说:
    @Epigon

    罗斯柴尔德 issued loans that funded the entire Tegethoff-class dreadnought programme.”

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

    • 回复: @Maowasayali
  159. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Ron Unz

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jon Baptist
    , @Ron Unz
  160. Logan 说:
    @Sean

    a massive build up of the British army followed.

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Sean
  161. Wally 说:
    @Wally

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

    构成我们意识和虚假历史意识的谎言:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/paul-craig-roberts/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

    摘录:

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

    美国总统伍德罗·威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)向德国保证,如果她同意停战,将无休止地破坏了数百万生命的世界大战停战协定,将不会给德国带来领土损失和赔偿。 当德国同意停战协定时,是德国占领了对方营地的领土。 在德国领土上没有外国军队。
    The Sleepwalkers: How … Christopher Clark Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $9.89 (as of 10:45 EDT – Details)

    德国一脱离接触,英国就实施了粮食封锁,迫使饥饿的德国人屈服于剥削性的凡尔赛条约,这违背了威尔逊总统做出的每一项承诺。

    请继续关注,关于第二次世界大战的谎言更加宏大。

  162. Logan 说:
    @anonymous1963

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 同意: Wizard of Oz
  163. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Templar

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

  164. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Seraphim

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

    Well done…thanks for taking the time and effort…

    • 回复: @Seraphim
  165. @Seraphim

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

    • 同意: Ron Unz, Gefreiter, L.K
    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Parsnipitous
  166. @FB

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

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

    • 回复: @FB
  167. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

  168. @lysias

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

  169. @Steve Naidamast

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

  170. @lysias

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

  171. @Parsnipitous

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

  172. Seraphim 说:
    @FB

    Thank you, I am always pleased that my efforts were not in vain.
    As you could see there are still people around who believe that Germany actually won the war! I can’t be surprised, they play to much computer games or read ‘alternative histories’.
    我听说在美国组织了一次关于物种灭绝的民意调查,一个问题是:“拯救‘智人’值得吗?你关心多少?”。
    答案各不相同:
    “并不是说我不喜欢智人,我们一直生活在没有他们的情况下,所以,我不知道”
    我不知道智人是什么,如果他们正在走向灭绝,那很可悲,但毕竟我不在乎”。
    “是的,我曾经在动物园看到过一个智人。 他又大又毛茸茸的'。
    “除了拯救智人,我们还可以将税款用于其他用途。
    “智人”? ——让他们死,拯救人类。

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
    , @Parsnipitous
  173. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Jacques Sheete

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

  174. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Seraphim

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

  175. @Seraphim

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

    • 回复: @Parsnipitous
  176. @Parsnipitous

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

  177. refl 说:
    @Epigon

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

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

  178. Sally 说:
    @Ron Unz

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

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

  179. Alfred 说:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

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

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

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

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

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

  180. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Jon Baptist

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Jon Baptist
  181. Ron Unz 说:
    @FB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Historiography provides interesting patterns once you begin to notice them.

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

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

    • 回复: @FB
    , @FB
  182. @Fox

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

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

    But it was a stupid reckless move by Germany.

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  183. @Epigon

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

    Overseas colonies were essentially worthless. They were prestige items.

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

  184. Seraphim 说:
    @Epigon

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

  185. joe2.5 说:
    @Tom Welsh

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

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

    One Tribe seems to be absolutely right.

    • 回复: @Logan
    , @Grace Poole
  186. FatR 说:

    通过允许已经发动战争的力量并保证战争将蔓延到整个欧洲大陆,可以“避免”战争的想法,除非它的敌人采取任何行动,而不是完全将军事盟友扔到公共汽车下,自由统治,即使该权力公开设计你自己的势力范围,并在过去 20 年里拒绝了在该领域的几次妥协和解提议,但它是如此彻底和完全迟钝,以至于任何人都认真地进入了这一事实,即使是一秒钟只能用盎格鲁的傲慢和根深蒂固的怀疑来解释任何其他国家可能拥有任何类型的机构。

  187. FatR 说:

    除此之外:

    “轻率和软弱将使世界陷入最可怕的战争,最终目标是推翻德国。 因为我不再怀疑英国、俄罗斯和法国已经同意——知道我们的条约义务迫使我们支持奥地利——利用奥塞冲突作为对我们发动歼灭战的借口……”

    别说谎了,威利! 您不仅在 6 月 7 日至 8 日给奥地利人提供了臭名昭著的“空头支票”,而且很清楚这意味着战争,而且您的外交官还不断纠缠维也纳,要求在 23 月 XNUMX 日至 XNUMX 日之间尽快升级为一场枪战,所以您不要有借口被迫支持奥匈帝国,以免失去最后一个重要的盟友!

    • 回复: @FB
  188. Logan 说:
    @joe2.5

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

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

    • 回复: @joe2.5
  189. Logan 说:
    @Fox

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

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

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

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

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

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

  190. Logan 说:
    @dfordoom

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  191. joe2.5 说:
    @Logan

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  192. Anon[402]• 免责声明 说:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    After clicking on the link:

    被禁止
    您无权访问此服务器上的/。
    Server unable to read htaccess file, denying access to be safe

    此外,403的Forbidden错误时遇到试图使用一年ErrorDocument来处理请求。

  193. @joe2.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  194. @FB

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

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

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

    • 回复: @anonymous
    , @Cyrano
  195. @Logan

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

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

    A friendly power? Are you kidding?

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

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  196. anonymous[202]• 免责声明 说:
    @Jon Baptist

    哇。
    Extremely important analysis.

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

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

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

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

  197. Cyrano 说:
    @Jon Baptist

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

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

    • 同意: FB
    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Jon Baptist
  198. Ron Unz 说:
    @Cyrano

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  199. Cyrano 说:
    @Ron Unz

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

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

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

  200. Sean 说:
    @Logan

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

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

  201. FB 说: • 您的网站

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

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

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

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

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

    —Ackerman, Trotsky in New York

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  202. @Cyrano

    The October revolution was a net positive for Russia.

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

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

    • 同意: L.K
    • 回复: @Cyrano
  203. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Ron Unz

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

  204. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @FatR

    I agree fully with both of your comments…

  205. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Ron Unz

    Just one more note…

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

    Ackerman in his 2016 book does likewise…

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

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

  206. gdpbull 说:

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

  207. Ron Unz 说:
    @FB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
    , @L.K
    , @FB
  208. @Epigon

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

    • 回复: @S
    , @anon
  209. @Gefreiter

    以斯拉庞德 说:

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

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

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

    • 回复: @NoseytheDuke
  210. Anon[402]• 免责声明 说:

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

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

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

    [更多]

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

    • 回复: @Anon
  211. @Ron Unz

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

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Sparkon
  212. Ron Unz 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

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

    新的 纽约日报 folded in 1966, but I’m sure its archives are available at least in microfiche at various major research libraries, and the quote has been floating around for decades.

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

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  213. Sparkon 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

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

    I found John Schiff’s statement cited in this article “Who financed Lenin and Trotsky” which seems to be comprised of two excerpts from G. Edward Griffin’s book 吉柯岛的生物 :

    在 3 年 1949 月 XNUMX 日的 纽约日报美国人 Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

    January 19,1963 page 31

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  214. @Maowasayali

    I’m an Englishman.

    (6:42)

    • 回复: @Grace Poole
  215. Anon[402]• 免责声明 说:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  217. @NoseytheDuke

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

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

    • 同意: anonymous1963
  219. Logan 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Very odd POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  220. Anon[402]• 免责声明 说:
    @sally

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

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

    • 巨魔: Carolyn Yeager
    • 回复: @ANONymous
  221. @anonymous1963

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

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

    • 同意: Carolyn Yeager
    • 回复: @anonymous1963
    , @Lurker
  222. @Logan

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Logan
  223. L.K 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz to FB

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

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

    Agree with the rest of your post.

    问候

  224. S 说:
    @Maowasayali

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

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

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

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

    谁能说?

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

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

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

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

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

    Hmm, all these ‘coincidences’.

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

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

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

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

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

    • 回复: @Maowasayali
  225. @One Tribe

    是的,道格拉斯·里德 (Douglas Reed) 的“锡安之争”也让我大开眼界。 它让这么多废话有意义。

  226. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Ron Unz

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

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

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

    You’re right that history is not my area of expertise, and that you have read much more than I…although it seems your reading has been heavily tilted towards the revisionist side, including almost certainly a lot of fantastic nonsense…

    In your article about the Jewish religion, you even endorse old wives tales about Jewish rituals and Christian blood…even the blood of children…so it seems to me that you are the one that’s gullible…

    My closing thought on this is that I agree with you that historiography is not an exact science…and is filled with clashing versions and endless debate…it does seem that very few history books can be relied upon authoritatively…but I think some of them can, and have stood the test of time, and assaults from clashing viewpoints…so eventually a consensus among reasonable men emerges…

    Arguing this obvious no brainer with you does indeed make me want to stick to the beautiful exactness of hard science…

    I thank you for the debate, but I’m sure we can both agree you have not made one step of progress in proving the fantastic notion that Schiff was a crypto-Bolshevist at Versailles…

    • 巨魔: Ron Unz
  227. Cyrano 说:
    @Jon Baptist

    I bet you cry yourself to sleep every night over the fate of the Russians under communism. You probably shed torrents of tears for the Jewish victims of the holocaust too. You phony.

    • 回复: @Jon Baptist
  228. S 说:
    @Grace Poole

    Yes, it was a quite powerful video as were the words from Ezra Pound’s 1942 broadcast regarding England.

    Hopefully England and the English people can find a way to preserve themselves.

    • 同意: Maowasayali
  229. ANONymous[202]• 免责声明 说:
    @Anon

    the link — what a disappointment

    NO babies on bayonets
    NO nuns impaled on barn doors

    I was counting on some good snuff-porn — I’ve used up my month’s subscription & SSI doesn’t come ’til the 5th of the month.

    got some better porn? maybe that kid that Israelis poured gas in his mouth & lit him up, or two-heads no-arms newborns from Iraq where the land was polluted with DPU for the next millennia?

  230. Logan 说:
    @Grace Poole

    75,000 innocent Persians were slaughtered — the same Persians who had extended hospitality to Jews, and contributed their treasure to enable Jews to return to their “beloved Zion?”

    Actually, that’s not the story. The 75,000 who died were those who gathered together and attacked the Jews on the day set forth by the King to do so. There is absolutely nothing in the story to indicate the Jews attacked random Persians.

    This is, of course, probably just a story, but it’s one of self-defense, not aggression against those they hated.

  231. @S

    Coincidence or 科恩发生率?

    What are the odds of the license plate being the same date numbers as the Armistice 4 years later?

    Greater or lesser than 1 in 6,000,000!?! There’s that lucky six million figure again.

    Nudge, wink, smirk.

  232. Logan 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    当然 Germany was not friendly to UK in 1914. I don’t think anybody argues that they were.

    My point was entirely about 为什么 they were unfriendly in 1914. It was almost entirely due to German naval expansion starting in 1897 or thereabouts.

    Britain had been quite friendly to Prussia/Germany before this, as their traditional enemy was of course France. Quite obviously Britain was a friendly neutral during the Franco-Prussian War which unified Germany.

    IMO the notion that Germany only wanted a huge High Seas Fleet to “protect its colonies” is, as I said, silly. In the event of war with Britain, the only way to accomplish that would be to defeat the RN. My analogy about Canada was based on a, IMO, quite reasonable comparison. If you can’t conceivably build a force sufficient to defeat a given enemy, then making an ineffective attempt to do so that only alienates that power is about the dumbest thing you can do.

    The German High Seas Fleet was simply not going to be reasonably capable of fighting and defeating the RN. And for peacetime patrol work or fighting another naval power it was ridiculously oversize.

    Bismarck, and many other German strategists, recognized that Germany was by definition a land power. As such, its best way to protect its colonies, if they had to have colonies (which they did for Kaiser Bill’s ego). was to remain on friendly terms with the world’s dominant naval power.

    Which they did up to the mid/late 1890s. When they quite knowingly and intentionally pissed off the British government and people in the most egregious manner possible. The High Seas Fleet was not, and never was going to be, big enough to win the war on the ocean. But it was plenty big enough to alienate the previously not unfriendly British, besides wasting an enormous amount of money that could have been much more efficientloy spent on the army.

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  233. Logan 说:
    @Jake

    How could they produce propaganda that Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies before the invasion of Belgium?

  234. @Cyrano

    The Bolshevik Revolution was a “net positive” but lets have “tears for the Jewish victims.” You are projecting. You are the phony.

    I have stated here before that tyranny is tyranny regardless of what flag is waving in the air. Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, British Imperialism, American “GloboHomo”, and Jewish Supremacism are all murderous ideologies. If you support any of these, you are the problem.

    The only way out of this societal downward spiral is honest dialogue and a quest for truth that the Unz Review provides.

    I do anguish for every single innocent victim killed for no reason. I also pray for the perpetrators of the death culture. I hope their hearts will change. I also pray for individuals like you even though, I must admit, it is very very tough.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  235. @Logan

    What a dishonorable b–tard you are. You are purposefully putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my comment. It was never about the colonies, it was about trade. Too bad there are no penalties here for outright lying.

    • 回复: @Logan
  236. @Bill Jones

    Never rely totally on someone like James Corbett. You need to look at more than a filmmaker with an ideology.

  237. Cyrano 说:
    @Jon Baptist

    The difference between Communism and Nazism is tough love vs. tough hate. Tough love is better. It still comes from someone who cares about you. Tough hate is not meant to be survivable. That’s all the Jews got from Germany – tough hate. I’d say Communism was better. Their tough love prepared them to deal with the tough hate when they had to face it. I don’t care for your prayers, find someone else to bestow on them your kindness.

  238. @Sparkon

    Thanks. Hard to know whether an interim conclusion prompted by that is that it leaves John Schiff’s alleged statement as a bit sus or that it puts it in context.

  239. Communism… is tough love.

    So mass murder is “tough love.”

    Before you kill someone off in your future Communist utopia, will they have to pronounce publicly that they are dying for the noble ideology of “tough love?” If not, will someone just put a bullet in their head?

    Who gets killed off first? Who decides? Are you qualified to make the decisions on who lives and who dies? What traits make someone either worthy or unworthy of breathing? You have just revealed yourself for the supremacist you are. Thank you. Everyone can now see you for what you really are.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  240. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Seraphim

    Looks like you’ve been reading the labour, dissertations and thick books of Prof. Richard Evans. Obviously you’ve got some decent points. It’s been a while since I’ve heard about Chamberlain, but it’s true what you elicit; mainly, masses adored the ideas of Chamberlain (including AH).

    • 回复: @L.K
  241. L.K 说:
    @Bronek

    Looks like you’ve been reading the labour, dissertations and thick books of Prof. Richard Evans.

    大声笑。

    Prof. Richard Evans == Anti-German Brit Court “historian”, i.e., anti-German Brit propagandist.

  242. L.K 说:
    @Seraphim

    Pathetic “blame-Germany for everything” shill ‘Seraphim’ has the nerve to tell the following bald-faced LIE, followed by many other equally outrageous stupidities:

    我发现很难理解反复尝试重写历史和粉饰德国使第一次世界大战不可避免的责任。 弗里茨·费舍尔 (Fritz Fisher) 的“德国在第一​​次世界大战中的目标”仍然无懈可击,尽管发起了一致的运动来抹黑它。

    In truth, Fritz Fisher has long been totally destroyed by many different historians.

    In his article about WWI, ‘Who’s To Blame for World War One?’, American Jewish historian Paul Gottfried writes:

    …Fischer’s evidence that Germany and Austria were alone responsible for the War has been dying the death of a thousand stabs for decades.

    In ‘Der Fischer-Komplex’, Gunter Spraul notes the sloppiness with which Fischer cites sources, particularly those attributed to the German Kaiser and to Helmut von Moltke, the chief of the German General Staff in 1914. Spraul could have added considerably to his list of Fischer’s misrepresentations and garbled citations, but doing so would take me too far afield.

    Opening his piece, Gottfried begins describing the sorry state of WWI “historiography” in general:

    Having devoted considerable time over the last forty years to studying the Great War, an interest that I developed in graduate school in the mid-1960s, I am no longer surprised or disappointed by fictional accounts of this conflict. In a forthcoming anthology, I try to explain why the glaringly obvious is so often neglected in most popular histories of the War. This is seen particularly in the attempt to attach overwhelming responsibility to the losing side while making the Allied governments look better than they were. These accounts also typically feature Imperial Germany as a forerunner of the Third Reich, that is, an aggressive power that unleashed immeasurable suffering while trying to achieve world dominance.

    In my book Revisions and Dissents, I examine this skewed approach not as an exception to current historical studies but as characteristic of the way they are now done: although at no other time has there been so much available historical information, perhaps never before has historiography been so drenched in ideology. Historians and journalists now have at their command more data than was available to great historians of the past. But this opportunity for accurate depictions is squandered when readers are bombed with ideologically shaped stereotypes.

  243. Cyrano 说:
    @Jon Baptist

    But then again – only in “democracy”: The love you fake (multiculturalism) is equal to the love you take (elections). Sorry, Paul McCartney.

  244. The major, intrinsic flaw in this article is the supposition that the Brutish Empire had the slightest intention of not provoking a massive war against . The logic of capitalist imperialism demanded it. Until the mid 19th century the Brutish and French, Dutch and Portuguese, Spanish and Italians, had roamed the world stealing and robbing and massacring to set up colonies to exploit for resources and to use as captive markets for their products. But by the early 1900s there were no further colonies to economically conquer – just about all the planet had already been expropriated – and the captive markets were approaching saturation. The logic of capitalism, though, required an ever expanding consumer base to keep generating profits. Ergo, the Brutish, as the most rapacious capitalist imperialist criminal entity around, needed to acquire markets elsewhere. At the same time the German union had created a powerful 经济 competitor. The military “threat” from Germany was a fiction; the Kaiser’s army was, as it turned out, as little prepared as any of its opponents for war, and came extremely close to losing the war in the first month itself, and would have but for the incompetence of the Russian General Staff. The primary threat was always economic, and the logic of the capitalist system needed the Brutish to knock out the competition. Whether Belgian neutrality was violated or not was immaterial. The Brutish were determined for war and would have found an excuse no matter what.

    It’s worth noting that at the Treaty of Versailles, France and the Brutish Empire grabbed all the German colonies, claiming that the Germans had been so evil as colonial masters that they had proved themselves unfit to rule. Shouldn’t the solution then have been those give to colonies independence? Instead the Brutish, who were even then massacring hundreds of unarmed Indian protestors at Jalianwala Bagh, and the equally vile French, took those colonies for themselves. More resources and captive markets to exploit for the capitalist imperialist machine.

    Secondly, the Brutish needed war to seize the Ottoman oilfields. At that time the Brutish depended on sea power to enforce their criminal mafia empire, and their so called Royal Navy was in the process of upgrading from coal to oil. Most known oil reserves in the world at the time were in the Ottoman Empire, or the headchopper state of Saudi Barbaria. Without a major war it was impossible for the Brutish to own or access these oil reserves. The Brutish, from the very start of the war, worked extremely hard to push the Ottoman Empire into the enemy camp, just as they did to bring the Amerikastani Empire into their own side. The war against Germany was at least in part an excuse to seize Ottoman oil.

    Then, Germany had absolutely no moral requirement to join Austria-Hungary in its war on Serbia. The Italians, treaty allies of Germany and Austria-Hungary, refused to join the war on their side for the simple reason that it was an offensive war while the treaty was one of defence. Had Germany refused to join with Austria-Hungary, the decrepit empire would never have actually gone to war against Serbia. If Wilhelm actually had wanted to avoid war, it needs an explanation of why he did not repudiate the alliance right there and then.

    Also, the claim that the Germans 打印车票 to pass through Belgium to attack France is ridiculous. The passage through Belgium was only part of the Schlieffen Plan, which envisaged the French being encouraged to advance into southern Germany while the German army, advancing through Belgium, took Paris from the rear. But the Germans themselves immediately distorted the Schlieffen Plan beyond recognition, passing east of Paris instead of attacking it from the west, and ignoring the Channel ports altogether (the opposite of Schlieffen’s intention). It’s worth mentioning that in WWII the German army first took the Channel ports, and Paris fell with hardly a shot. That it was 不能 essential to go through Belgium to attack France was demonstrated by General Falkenhayn in 1916 when he attacked the French forts at Verdun, guessing correctly that the French would bleed themselves to death rather than permit such a symbolically vital but strategically useless fortification to be captured. If the German High Command had allowed Falkenhayn to continue the offensive for one month more, the French army would have been destroyed right there.

    Lastly is the idea that WWI was somehow a bad thing. Oh, sure, for the rapacious criminal imperialist regimes of Europe it was a disaster, for it destroyed some of them and wrecked all the rest beyond recovery. But for the rest of the world it was a very good thing indeed. Without the weakening of the Brutish and French colonial regimes in WWI and, as a direct consequence, their final bankruptcy in WWII, it’s hard to see how the decolonisation of the world from the late 1940s-60s could have taken place. I realise that for unz dot com European white “civilisation” was the pinnacle of humanity, but we in the rest of the world have no reason to mourn the self destruction of a continent of genocidal piratical monsters. At all.

    • 回复: @Maowasayali
  245. utu 说:
    @Sean

    After WW1 Poincaré, cousin of the superbrain physicist, was internationally notorious among the domestic Left (and even conservatives in former allied states) as having started the whole thing, and likely to do it again if given the opportunity.

    Did you get it form Ouija board? Jules Henri Poincaré died on 17 July 1912, i.e., two years before WWI began.

    • 回复: @Sean
  246. utu 说:

    Hitler economic miracle

    From 1933 to 1936 the number of Germans working in the construction industry tripled to 2 million.

    Employers were discouraged from taking on women while the NSDAP delivered propaganda for women to stay home and be good wives and mothers, alongside giving them increased family benefits for doing so. This took women off the unemployment list and pretty much paid them to breed more children.

    Imports were forbidden unless vital to survival and then heavily discouraged, with research established to reproduce these goods from inside Germany as soon as possible. No more bread was imported from Poland, so that meant more German bread was needed, creating new jobs for farmers and bakers who were needed to produce enough to supply the German nation.

    到 1935 年 XNUMX 月,将近 XNUMX 万德国人从事了全新的工作,尽管按照任何人的标准,他们的薪酬并不高。 但尽管如此,与两年前就业的德国人只有 XNUMX 万相比,这些工作提供了生活工资。

    With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of NSV by 1939, the agency “projected a powerful image of caring and support”.[4] The Nazis provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, which promoted the collectivity of a people’s community where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated 8,000 day-nurseries by 1939 and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families and was involved with a wide variety of other facilities.

    The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics”

    Kraft durch Freude (German for Strength through Joy, abbreviated KdF) was supposed to bridge the class divide by making middle-class leisure activities available to the masses. This was underscored by having cruises with passengers of mixed classes and having them, regardless of social status, draw lots for allocation of cabins.

    Starting in 1933, KdF provided affordable leisure activities such as concerts, plays, libraries, day trips and holidays.[1] Large ships, such as Wilhelm Gustloff, were built specifically for KdF cruises. They rewarded workers with taking them and their families to the movies, to parks, keep-fit clubs, hiking, sporting activities, film shows and concerts. Borrowing from the Italian fascist organization Dopolavoro “After Work”, but extending its influence into the workplace as well, KdF rapidly developed a wide range of activities, and quickly grew into one of Nazi Germany’s largest organizations. The official statistics showed that in 1934, 2.3 million people took KdF holidays. By 1938, this figure rose to 10.3 million.

    Two weeks after the Anschluss, when SS-Gruppenführer Josef Bürckel became Reichskommissar für die Wiedervereinigung as well as Gauleiter, the first five trains with some 2,000 Austrian workers left for Passau, where they were ceremonially welcomed. While Bürckel announced that he did not expect all KdF travelers to return as National Socialists, he did expect them to look him in the eyes and say, “I tried hard to understand you.”[5]

    At the outbreak of war, holiday travel was stopped. Until then KdF had sold more than 45 million package tours and excursions.[6] By 1939, it had over 7,000 paid employees and 135,000 voluntary workers, organized into divisions covering such areas as sport, education, and tourism, with wardens in every factory and workshop employing more than 20 people.

    Incarceration rate (including KL) in Germany in 1939

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-people-who-were-burned-to-ashes-on-ash-wednesday/#comment-2208510

    Prior to WWII (September 1, 1939) Germany (+Austria) had relatively low incarceration rate that included also the concentration camps.

    Prior to Kristallnacht (November 1938) no Jew was imprisoned because of him being Jewish. There were Jews in prisons and concentration camps like Dachau because of their politics (usually communism) or as criminals.

    The incarceration rate in Germany prior to WWII was 3.5 time lower than incarceration in the US in 2017.

    These are my estimates based on sources I could find.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-nazi-myths/#comment-1975420
    1939年德国:100个监狱,000 KL

    美国2017年:1,330,000个州监狱,630,000个地方监狱,197,000个联邦监狱,34,000个青年设施

    1939年的德国人口:66万
    美国人口2017:325亿

    Since as always Americans use Blacks as an excuse for the high incarceration rate I did take Black incarceration into the account.

    非洲裔美国人约占监狱人口的40%。

    So when you take these numbers you will find that Germany’s incarceration rate in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    There were few Blacks in Germany who were in jails for crimes and petty crimes as well as anti–social behavior (vagrancy) and it was reported that one of them died in Dachau or some other KL. It seems that the Left in Germany has not been too successful so far of spinning the stories of how the Nazis persecuted Blacks.

  247. j2 说:

    That Grey told that the UK has a free had and refuses to negotiate of conditions that could have led to German promise not to attack Belgium or France could mean only two things to Germans:
    1. That the UK allows Germany to attack France through Belgium and is not going to interfere (which is highly improbable in the case of the UK’s effort to prevent any Continental power to become dominant, but it may happen in some situations.)
    OR, and more likely:
    2. That the UK is planning on joining the war on the Allied side in any case whether Germany attacks France through Belgium or not. That is, when France would attack Germany, the UK would open a new front in Belgium.

    This logic is inevitable, since if the participation to the war from the UK side was connected with guarantees to Belgium or support of France, then UK would have been willing to negotiate the German offer.

    In both cases an attack to France through Belgium was better for Germans. Had Germany not defeated Belgium, the UK could have opened a new front against Germany in the Belgium border. Defeating this new front by an attack through Belgium would explain celebrating it with champagne.

    Thus, Grey’s answer would have been interpreted that Germany could not avoid a war against the Allies (including the UK) and for Germany, if there had to be a war, it was better to start it sooner rather than later. Germany’s best strategy was a modified Schlieffen plan.

    The picture of a future war in Europe before the WWI was that the war would be an annihilation war and it could not last long because of immense losses to the participants in a war like this.
    An annihilation war is heavy for both sides and it hardly can have been a war that the UK and other Allied planned in order to destroy Germany. While destroying Germany they would suffer too much damage themselves. That is how it was predicted to be before the war.

    The real goal of this war must therefore have been a goal of some powerful group of people, not the official UK or some other European power, with the following aims:

    1. To have a long war, not the short annihilation war as was expected. The central powers had top be funded by banks to be able to have a long war.
    2. The result of this war would not be changing of the borders in Western Europe in an important way. In this way it would fill the aimless purpose of a war to finish all wars.
    3. The war should destroy the remaining monarchies in Europe.
    4. The war should advance the Zionist and Communistic aspirations.
    5. The war should raise the USA to a world power.

    These would have been the logical goals of a long annihilation war, funded by banks. They quite well identify the group of people wanting the war.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  248. Logan 说:
    @joe2.5

    But the country that is now Israel didn’t “eat up a whole country.”

    It doesn’t even cover the whole area of the British Palestine mandate, much less the larger amount awarded to the British in the treaties or the territory covered in the prewar Ottoman provinces.

    The territory of Israel is “a whole country” only by hindsight. It’s also remarkably small. Leaving aside the pretty unproductive Negev, it’s really small in area.

    • 回复: @anon
    , @joe2.5
  249. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @Frank Hilliard

    There was nothing in the treaty (which was 75 years old by 1914) that said Great Britain had to send troops to the continent or make war on any country that violated Belgian frontiers.

    • 回复: @Frank Hilliard
  250. Sean 说:
    @utu

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9

    In the German-Soviet propaganda of the 1920s, the July Crisis of 1914 was portrayed as Poincaré-la-guerre (Poincaré’s war), in which Poincaré put into action the plans he had allegedly negotiated with Emperor Nicholas II in 1912 for the dismemberment of Germany.[32] The French Communist newspaper L’Humanité ran a front-page cover-story accusing Poincaré and Nicholas II of being the two men who plunged the world into war in 1914.[33] The Poincaré-la-guerre propaganda proved to be very effective in the 1920s, and to a certain extent Poincaré’s reputation has still not recovered.[32]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Pal%C3%A9ologue

    Paléologue was born in Paris as the son of Alexandru Paleologu, a Wallachian Romanian revolutionary who had fled to France after attempting to assassinate Prince Gheorghe Bibescu during the 1848 Wallachian revolution, He played a major role in the French entry into the First World War, when he was the French ambassador to Russia and supported the Russian mobilization against Germany that led to world war 1.

    • 回复: @utu
  251. @anonymous1963

    Exactly. Nor was there any enforcement provision on any of the other great powers. So, in short, British involvement in WWI was entirely optional.

    • 回复: @anonymous1963
  252. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    The major, intrinsic flaw in this article is the supposition that the Brutish Empire had the slightest intention of not provoking a massive war against somebody. The logic of capitalist imperialism demanded it.

    Yes, you’ve made an almost too obvious but excellent point. 

    Perhaps the epitome of the brutish nature of British Imperialism is/were the Opium Wars it raged against China in the 19th Century; which, I would argue, is still a very lucrative ongoing business, but it’s corporatized and worldwide now, and instead of just Brits, we have U.S. Yankee troops and 黑色的水 mercenaries from all over the world guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

    Old-fashioned monopoly imperialism disguised as free-market capitalism with the same Tribe Members and Families at the top of the Freemason Pyramid!

    [更多]

     

    Apparently Commissioner Lin sent a letter to the young  Queen Victoria exhorting her to acknowledge the laws of China that prohibited the importation and sale of opium, and warning that Chinese officials would order the seizure and immolation of any ships found engaged in the trade. Arthur Waley quotes this letter in translation:

    I am told that in your own country opium smoking is forbidden under severe penalties. This means that you are aware of how harmful it is. . . . . So long as you do not take it yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, you will be showing yourselves careful of your own lives, but careless of the lives of other people, indifferent in your greed for gain to the harm you do to others; such conduct is repugnant to human feeling and at variance with the Way of Heaven. . . . .

    On receiving this, Your Majesty will be so good as to report to me immediately on the steps that have been taken at each of your ports.

    That this is a noble letter no one will deny. Had the inexperienced young Queen received it she might well at first have doubted whether we ought to persist in what Gladstone called ‘this most infamous and atrocious trade’. But [Viscount Lord] Palmerston would soon have damped her qualms by the accepted sophistry that it rested with the Chinese to stop the opium traffic by suppressing the consumption of opium; he would have explained that only by importing opium could the balance of trade be maintained; and that the cessation of this traffic would be disastrous to the finances of India. (pp. 30-31)

    The trade with China, “balanced” by the importation of opium was also vital to the economy of Great Britain itself. Peter Ward Fay estimates that the duties collected by the government on leaf tea annually amounted to some three million pounds, about half the cost of running the Royal Navy!

    參考資料

    Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War 1840-1842。 教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,1975年。

    Waley, Arthur. 中国人的鸦片战争. 伦敦:乔治·艾伦和昂温,1958 年。

    来源: 维多利亚时代的网络

  253. Anon[402]• 免责声明 说:
    @Anon

    p.86 ” Belgian neutrality, a scrap of paper ! ” These unlucky words will stick for ever to the memory of Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg. This man of wide culture, with a more exalted sense of justice than many of his countrymen, has shown us that respect for treaties no longer existed for him, so long as strategic considerations demanded that they should be broken. The inviolabihty of small States, their independence and their right to live, had no more value in his eyes than the international agreements that sanction these principles. On the same day, in the Reichstag, the Chancellor admitted, without any subterfuges—a frankness which he regrets to-day—that the Imperial Government, by the invasion of Belgium, had transgressed the law of nations. But, he pointed out, necessity knows no law, and he tried to excuse himself by attributing, without any probability or material proof, a similar design to the French. Belgium should quietly have let herself be invaded ; she would have been indemnified later on !

    • 回复: @Frank Hilliard
  254. Logan 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    If I misunderstood you, I apologize. While you may have never said it, the idea that Germany needed its fleet to protect its routes to its colonies is a very common one.

    It all comes back to my original question, which was, “Protect its trade against whom?”

    They certainly did not need a battle fleet to protect trade against pirates and second or third grade powers. The only conceivable purpose of a massive battle fleet was to challenge the RN for command of the seas.

    Since there was simply no way they would ever be able to achieve that goal, working in that direction was remarkably stupid. IMO.

    Again, my apologies for mischaracterizing your position. I assure you it was unintentional. I don’t do such things on purpose.

    Here’s an article that covers my POV pretty well.

    https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/naval_race_between_germany_and_great_britain_1898-1912

    As far as colonialism being intimately involved with the naval buildup:

    “Many Germans in the late nineteenth century viewed colonial acquisitions as a true indication of having achieved nationhood, and the demand for prestigious colonies went hand-in-hand with dreams of a High Seas Fleet, which would become reality and be perceived as a threat by the United Kingdom. ”

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/German_colonial_empire

    You may certainly disagree with that, but it’s not like the idea is something I just made up yesterday.

  255. utu 说:
    @Sean

    What made you to confabulate about Henry Poincare?

    • 回复: @Sean
  256. 什么是 I said to you in comment #223 is this:

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

    That’s quite clear but you answered: “当然 Germany was not friendly to UK in 1914. I don’t think anybody argues that they were.” as though I had said something about that. That is disingenuous.
    Then you proceeded to repeat several times that Germany wanted a high-seas fleet to protect its colonies (all two of them?) which was an obsession with “Kaiser Bill.”

    You say what you want, you do not listen to anyone else. I’m not going to waste my time again.

  257. anon[833]• 免责声明 说:
    @Maowasayali

    i’ve heard Joe Atwill talk about this quite a bit like its incriminating evidence but seems more like just random noise

    there a lots of coincidences if you’re looking at everything under a microscope

    • 回复: @Maowasayali
  258. anon[833]• 免责声明 说:
    @Logan

    they haven’t killed all that many Palestinians either

    and besides, the Palestinians may not have really existed anyway

  259. Sean 说:
    @utu

    I am simply pointing out that as cousin of the superbrain physicist, Raymond shared lot of genes with a card carrying genius, and Raymond is the man who was largely responsible for encouraging Russia into a very early mobilisation while keeping Britain on side. Raymond continued after WW1 to pursue a policy of the break up of Germany. There was an occupation of Rhenish Bavaria. We know what started in Bavaria. Raymond Poincaré was a member of the Académie française (as was the Romanian fathered French Ambassador Paléologue). Raymond Poincaré was born in Lorraine, a province lost to France in a war with Germany and he openly said all efforts of French policy should be for the recovery of those territories. There were complicated background rivalries.

    The Ottoman Empire had been thrashed by Italy due to Ottoman naval backwardness, but that caused them to order massive dreadnought class battleships from Britain, which greatly alarmed Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%C5%9Fadiye-class_battleship

    Russian leaders wanted a general war so long as the British were going to come in. Brian Bond in his The Victorian Army and the Staff College) that Commandant Henry Wilson’s “School of Thought” was espousal of conscription and the military commitment to send a British Expeditionary Force to France in the event of war. Wilson was therefore the 杰出人物 behind Britain’s military understanding with France that enabled France to give a blank check to the Russian decision to begin in effect mobilising several days before anyone else did.

    After the predatory Serbians jumped in to piggyback on the Italian victories, doubled their country in size as a result of the First and Second Balkan wars, they precipitated the First World War and doubled it again. The Russian ambassador in Paris was Alexander Izvolsky a former Russian foreign minister who had chamioned a military understanding with Russia, but in the the 1908 Annexation crisis had been disgraced due to assuming that London would support opening of the Turkish Straits to Russian warships. Izvolsky’s papers are missing for four weeks in the run up to WW1. Very successful diplomacy by France they kept from Britain that Russia was mobilising as a result of the French encouragement. Poincaire wanted war and he was a clever man.

    • 回复: @Seraphim
  260. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @Frank Hilliard

    For Great Britain it was 100% a war of choice as with Italy, (entered 1915) Romania, (entered 1916) the USA, (entered 1917). All of these countries declared war on the Central powers.

    In my opinion it was a disastrous choice for the U.K. To give just one example, the war increased her national debt fourteen times.

    • 回复: @anon
  261. @anon

    there a lots of coincidences if you’re looking at everything under a microscope

    Is that a Jewish proverb or did Einstein say it? LOL

  262. anon[833]• 免责声明 说:
    @anonymous1963

    In my opinion it was a disastrous choice for the U.K. To give just one example, the war increased her national debt fourteen times.

    sounds like it was good for the bankers

  263. joe2.5 说:
    @Logan

    Fiddlesticks. The entire mandate Palestine and more is fully under Zionist entity occupation and control, not to mention the occasional additional conquests. One wonders about the planet you live on.

    Let’s add that the German enclaves in Slavic and Baltic lands were settler-colonialism relics alien to the territory, having started much like the Zionist entity, being constantly resented by their environment.

    • 回复: @Logan
  264. @Grace Poole

    It is sad indeed. I grew up there and it was lovely, as were the people, for the most part. I was chatting with a nice young lady from Surrey the other day but the young have all been bitten by the diversity bug and know nothing else.

    It is happening here in Australia too and at quite an alarming rate. On the ABC “news” this last week there was a young mixed-race “Englishman” on who has written a book about all of the positive changes that migrants have brought to Britain. I doubt that it will end up on my bookshelves but I rather think that the part about the growing high rate of knife-crimes won’t be in it.

  265. @Logan

    A very sound comment. The joke in Germany at the time was that if the British army ever invaded Germany they would send the police to arrest them.

    • 回复: @Logan
  266. @Anon

    “respect for treaties no longer existed for him”

    Germany, like Britain, had no treaty obligations to Belgium. As I said earlier, the obligations in the Treaty of London 1839 were exclusively on Belgium and the Netherlands.

  267. IP Freely 说:

    WWI was NOT avoidable because there was so much money to be made at the hands of the greedy and ambitious. Same as it ever was.

  268. Logan 说:
    @NoseytheDuke

    German Army 4M. BEF, 250,000.

    Yup, the British Army was a definite existential threat to Germany.

    • 回复: @NoseytheDuke
    , @Logan
  269. @Logan

    Meanwhile, Germany kept adding additional ships with guns of ever increasing size, just the thing to challenge the British dreadnoughts. Each time they did Britain would have to build more dreadnoughts to maintain superiority because, for Britain, no naval challenger was permissible due to having a history if invasions by sea. Building additional dreadnoughts was costly, politically unpopular and totally unnecessary minus German naval expansion.

    Carolyn’s tireless point that those ships were built in order to solely protect German merchant ships just doesn’t hold water but I still think that nefarious elements in Britain were the main cause of triggering the conflict.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  270. Seraphim 说:
    @Sean

    Russians did not want war. The idea that Serbians were “preadatory” in what was their country is preposterous. As the idea that Russia MUST have been “stopped” at any cost.

  271. Sean 说:

    Brilliant series of modern history lectures by Sean McMeekin.
    The Russians were expecting Turkey to take delivery of dreadnaughts to give them naval supremacy in June or July 1914

    In 1911. ‘Jackie’ Fisher the (ethnically oriental) head of the British navy predicted that war with Germany would break out in October 1914, following the anticipated completion date of work on the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of dreadnaughts. The Kiel Canal was completed in July, and war commenced in August 1914

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPIKF8DNGQpx6zpOc2AtVkO4gLojwezru

  272. Logan 说:
    @Logan

    I have no particular problem with that. It seems entirely possible that some Brits wanted to keep Germany down for political and economic reasons, as some seem to think it is obvious we should do with China.

    That is quite different from wanting to maintain the efficacy of their moat around the island, which was entirely justified. The Germans, in what to my mind was astonishingly ill-advised, spent 20 years poking the British lion. To build a fleet that never had a chance of doing what it was supposedly intended to do.

    How stupid/arrogant does one have to be to do that?

  273. Lurker 说:
    @Frank Hilliard

    Saw/heard the idea recently that Belgian neutrality was created as a tripwire for British intervention should Germany or France attack it. Or rather attempt to invade each other via Belgium.

  274. Logan 说:
    @joe2.5

    The original Palestine mandate was essentially what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It was assigned to the British in April, 1920.

    What is now Jordan was added to the Palestinian Mandate in March of 1921 after the French crushed the Arab Kingdom in Damascus. It remained essentially part of the Mandate until 1928, after which it became increasingly autonomous, achieving full independence in 1926.

    I had thought, until looking into it, that what is now Jordan was part of the original mandate. This was inaccurate. My apologies.

  275. @j2

    Great comment, as usual. OT, but thanks for posting your 9-11 thoughts on your blog.

  276. @NoseytheDuke

    but I still think that nefarious elements in Britain were the main cause of triggering the conflict.

    I have just returned to this thread in the course of checking on Nick Kollerstrom’s reliability [low I think] and have been pleased to find support for my view that, whatever can be said about British folly, the German naval expansion was a crucial error. (Sad for me too. I once spent Christmas with the charming grandson of the Grand Admiral Tirpitz who, I gather bears much of the responsibility).

    My question is: can you please elaborate on your words that I quote above?

  277. @Ron Unz

    Having a vague memory that anything by Nicholas Kollerstrom should be read sceptically when another article by him appeared in UR in the last day or so. Hence my return to this thread. The comments I note give support to my speculation that one of the underlying causes of WW1 for which Germany was to blame was the totally unnecessary development of a navy to rival the Royal Navy. However my point in returning here now is to raise the question of what you might agree should trigger scepticism about the reliability of an eccentric like Kollerstrom on any contentious issue. For an egregious error that should not have been missed I cite

    Upon receiving a telegram from Prince Lichnowsky earlier in the day of August 1, the Kaiser ordered a bottle of champagne to celebrate, as if there might be hope of reaching a deal with Britain. Even though he was just that afternoon signing the order for mobilisation of the German army, he could in some degree have recalled it … but, it was a false hope, and a telegram from King Edward [sic – W of Oz note] later that day explained to him that there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ between Britain’s Foreign Secretary and the German ambassador.[17]

    What should one make of that? I am about to return to his latest UR piece where my scepticism has already been roused by what, prima facie, is his failure to see an obvious explanation for what he propounds an eccentric explanation.

  278. Alexandros 说:

    Author is having a case of “not seeing the forrest for all the trees”.

    WW1 was inevitable because the creation of the German Empire in 1870 upset a thousand year old power balance in Europe. On top of that German industry stole half of Britain’s market share in international trade and they were planning to build a fleet to rival the Royal Navy.

    Like Hitler said, trying to become a world power without war is exactly what lead to war. Britain wasn’t going to sit around while somebody challenged their power, and France/Russia were all too willing to weaken a competitor and get a slice of the British pie.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过 RSS 订阅所有 Nick Kollerstrom 评论