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
 博客浏览帕特·布坎南(Pat Buchanan)档案
卢西塔尼亚号沉没的背后
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

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

关于美国如何卷入某些战争,已经提出了许多阴谋论——其中一些已被证明是正确的。

当詹姆斯·K·波尔克宣战时,墨西哥“在美国土地上流下了美国人的鲜血”,众议员亚伯拉罕·林肯要求知道它发生的确切地点。
西班牙人真的炸毁了哈瓦那港的缅因号战舰,这是美西战争的宣战理由吗?

涉及美国驱逐舰 Maddox 和 C. Turner Joy 的东京湾事件仍然存在争议。 但是,北越巡逻艇在公海袭击美国军舰的指控导致了 1964 年授权越南战争的决议。

2003 年,美国人被迫支持入侵伊拉克,因为据称萨达姆侯赛因在 9/11 事件中是同谋,拥有大规模杀伤性武器,并且能够用炭疽病淹没我们的东海岸。

富兰克林·D·罗斯福的众议员克莱尔·卢斯说:“(他)欺骗我们参战,因为他没有带领我们参战的政治勇气,”据许多历史学家说,罗斯福曾努力挑起德国潜艇攻击美国军舰,并通过与日本的战争的“后门”将我们带入欧洲战争。

本周是第二次世界大战 75 周年,上个月是第一次世界大战 100 周年。

因此,现在是 Eugene Windchy 的好时机 “十二场美国战争:其中九场是可以避免的。” 这本新书中引人入胜的一章由《东京湾》的作者撰写,讲述了第一任海军大臣温斯顿·丘吉尔如何计划将美国拖入 1915 年的英国战争。

1907 年,英国推出了“海上灵缇犬”卢西塔尼亚号,这是漂浮速度最快的客船。 1913 年,丘吉尔请来了冠达的负责人,并表示必须对卢西塔尼亚进行整修,以应对他预计将在 1914 年 XNUMX 月爆发的战争。

温奇写道,卢西塔尼亚号“被改装成一艘带有隐藏隔间的货船,用于存放炮弹和其他弹药。 从各方面来看,都安装了旋转枪架。”

4 年 1914 月 XNUMX 日,宣战后,卢西塔尼亚返回干船坞。 为货物提供了更多空间,这艘船现在作为“辅助巡洋舰”载于 Cunard 的书籍中。
丘吉尔(Churchill)在干船坞参观了这艘船,并称路西塔尼亚号(Lusitania)为“另外45,000吨活饵”。

战争开始时,德国潜艇上尉为了拯救鱼雷,将浮出水面并允许货船船员争先恐后地冲入救生艇,然后他们将投下炸弹或使用炮火击沉船只。

丘吉尔的回应是为商船配备隐蔽的枪支,命令他们冲压潜艇,并推出伪装成商船的“ Q-ships”,直到潜艇浮出水面时才露出枪支。

德国海军指挥官开始命令潜艇击沉商船。 第一海军上将约翰·约翰爵士(“杰基”)·费希尔说,他会做同样的事情。

立即订购

丘吉尔(Churchill)看到了将美国带入英国战争的机会,他在贸易委员会上写道:“最重要的是将中立航运吸引到我们的海岸,特别是希望美国与德国陷入困境。 …我们希望流量-越多越好-如果其中一些遇到麻烦,那就更好了。”

国务卿威廉詹宁斯布莱恩想要警告美国人不要乘坐英国船只旅行。 但是,温奇写道,伍德罗·威尔逊总统“说,即使在战区,美国公民也有权乘坐交战船只而不受惩罚”,这是对常识的蔑视和对国际法的荒谬解释。

1 年 1915 月 XNUMX 日,卢西塔尼亚号从纽约启航。 正如 Windchy 所写,这艘船“秘密携带弹药和身着便衣的加拿大军队,这在法律上使其成为(德国)U 型潜艇的公平竞争。

“战后,丘吉尔……承认卢西塔尼亚号携带了“一小批重达 173 吨的步枪弹药和弹片”。 纽约海关收税员达德利·马龙告诉威尔逊总统,“几乎她所有的货物都是各种违禁品。”

未来的国务卿罗伯特兰辛知道英国客船携带战争物资。 纽约的德国外交官警告美国乘客,他们在卢西塔尼亚号上处于危险之中。 卢西塔尼亚号没有从爱尔兰北部航行到利物浦,而是向南航行,进入了众所周知的德国潜艇狩猎场的水域。

卢西塔尼亚号在 18 分钟内爆炸并沉没。 当鱼雷击中时,弹药可能会引起二次爆炸。 大约 1,200 人丧生,其中包括 128 名美国人。 当接下来的事件发生时,美国着火了,准备开战,就像 1917 年美国商船在类似水域沉没一样。

如果威尔逊公开警告美国公民不要乘坐交战国的船只航行,并禁止悬挂美国国旗的商船携带违禁品前往交战国,美国可能会置身于战争之外,而这场战争可能会以休战告终,而不是德国打败。

可能没有阿道夫·希特勒,也没有二战。

帕特里克·J·布坎南 (Patrick J. Buchanan) 是新书《最伟大的复出:理查德·尼克松 (Richard Nixon) 如何从失败走向创造新多数》的作者。 版权所有 2014 Creators.com。

 
• 类别: 发展史 •标签: 第一次世界大战 
隐藏43条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. But Pat, if Wilson didn’t authorize secret war provocation via the Lusitania, then how the heck could he have gotten the USA’s Wall Streeters in on the booty of the secret Sykes-Picot Treaty divvying up the Middle East among the allied belligerents? Without it, where would we be in the Mideast today, propping up or establishing failed satrapies, while charging taxpayers for “mowing the lawn”?

    Incidentally, anti-communist media maven Malcolm Muggeridge called Churchill a truly evil man. Unlike Syria’s Assad, he openly advocated using poison gas on the rebellious Arabs he’d deceived into believing they would have independence after helping the allies. Russia, spurned from participation in the spoils of Sykes-Picot after the war, published the text of this allied duplicity for all the world to see, including the stunned Arabs who’d helped the West. Churchill, unimpressed, created Iraq with boundaries designed to divide and conquer – the gift that gives us now our Third Iraq War. Syria was given to France – any wonder now that France is the leading advocate for overthrowing an independent Syria and creating a western satrapy within its own sphere of influence?

    World Wars I and II – the gifts to warmongery that just keep on giving.

  2. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Woodrow Wilson was the worst thing to ever happen to the west.

  3. KA 说:

    布坎南先生
    What was the role of S S Sussex in dragging US to the WW 1 ?

  4. Even without US troops becoming involved in the war on the side of the Allies, Germany was not going to win WW1 or even get a truce. More than a quarter of a million Germans had died of malnutrition by 1918. The Allies, with or without Americans, were going to go on blockading Germany, starving them out, the Slavs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were not going to fight for it any longer, the Turks had reached the end of the line, manpower was running out and Germany was on its way down, even without any US involvement at all. US involvement just sped the process up a bit. Agree on one point: Wilson was one of the worst things ever to happen to Europe and the West.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @colm
    , @Carlton Meyer
  5. Pat, you need to follow these things through to their conclusion-if there had been a truce, and no WWII and no Hitler, then there may not have been the uprising of all of those wonderful diverse colonies to independence. And the press, schools, and Hollywood could not get traction in trying to push whites to self-flagellate and tear their civilizations apart for the benefit of brown people. Are you telling me that white men are not pure evil? That whites don’t benefit in net from the sea of diversity that surrounds them, from the loss of basic freedoms, from the opportunity to pay brown people in perpetuity and burden their own descendants with a mountain of debt? If you’re telling me that, then that’s just crazy talk there, mister.

    • 回复: @KA
    , @Numinous
  6. “…trying to push whites to self-flagellate and tear their civilizations apart for the benefit of brown people.”

    Oh yeah, just what Europeans, those most selfless of beings, have always done sacrificially for the interests of their little brown brothers.

    One of many consequences would have been different: the USA wouldn’t have got drawn in to supporting France’s colonial dominance of French Indochina, taking it over for itself after its collapse post WW II, stomping on a people who modeled their own declaration of independence on Jefferson’s, with several million of them killed by carpet bombing and napalm (“Love the smell of it in the morning!”) dropped on them by Jefferson’s wayward descendants. They would have been content for us to leave their civilizations alone, just as they were already leaving ours alone.

    Hard to see what benefit’s been left for any of the civilizations our military-industrial-financialist nexus has lately torn to pieces.

    Definitely, civilizations are being torn apart, but recent flagellation (seems related to what Mark Twain called “rag worship”) has been at foreign venues like Abu Ghraib. And nobody’s pushing us except our own financially self-interested elites, who think they will always benefit from making wars, no matter what happens to the detriment of us common American folks.

  7. Kiza 说:

    Perhaps Wilson and Churchill (the greatest Briton of all time) were both the worst thing to ever happen to the West. If not for the whole of the West then at least for the Americans who Churchil got killed to get US dragged into WW1. Although the fall of the British empire was inevitable, participation in WW1 and WW2 only sped it up. Similar with the US now – just too many costly wars (profiteering) to continue being the top dick of the world for much longer. Especially after attacking two lands which have a reputation of breaking the teeth of empires: Afghanistan and Russia.

    I wonder why this subterfuge with Lusitania reminds me so much of MH17? Maybe because “..instead of sailing north of Ireland to Liverpool, the Lusitania sailed to the south, into waters known to be the hunting ground of German submarines…”, as MH17 was directed by the Ukrainian ATC to fly over the war zone to the north, instead of following the tracks of the previous Malaysia Airlines flights 50-100 miles to the south.

    Casus Belli are becoming carbon copies.

  8. KA 说:
    @Kinstlinger

    That was the best part of WW1&2: the liberation of the colonies. But it did not survive . The masters are now invisible ,transnational,transreligious,and global.Poor whites are getting screwed as effectively as the Brwonies and Yelloites are by the Transparent colorless or colorblind psychopaths . Its good. The next decolonization will not smell of color or religion.

  9. Numinous 说:
    @Kinstlinger

    Yeah, whites suffer loss of basic freedoms when non-whites gain independence from white rule. Such white rule having been established through invasion and conquest. But of course, the world must bend to the needs of whites, the rest be damned.

    This website resembles Stormfront more and more with every passing day.

  10. USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)
    Said “War is a racket. It always has been.

    它可能是最古老的,最容易获利的,当然也是最恶毒的。 它是唯一的国际范围。 它是唯一一种以美元计算利润和生命损失的方法。

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

    And so, sadly it goes on and on.

  11. Interesting twist in history I knew little about. thank you

  12. conatus 说:

    I like Fox and I have watched O’Reilly since he started but lately I have been thinking that we should make O’Reilly a General and Brit Hume a Colonel and have them lead the Big Mouth Brigade into battle against ISIS. I guess ‘Gates of Hell’ Biden could lead the Dems Old Men New Modern Army from the other side and cut off ISIS with a pincer movement of yelling.
    Do these people never tire of calling for young men to do their fighting for them? These TV tough guys, call for OTHER MEN, men they would detest if the met them on the street, guys from Mississippi and Montana, guys who like to hunt and get dirty, to go out and do their killing for them.
    Let these commentators go out on their fourth tour of a land full of people who hate their guts and try to …what is that bulls*t phrase?….oh yeah “Make the world safe for democracy”
    Let the Saudis and the Israelis fight their own wars, in case you haven’t noticed we have the Atlantic and the Pacific, which work pretty well, but our southern border is not really that…a border.
    That is what needs work to make us a ‘country ‘that deserves that name.

  13. Jordan 说:

    There were no Canadian troops on 路西塔尼亚. 那是一个神话。

    A cargo of munitions – not at all secret – did not maker her “fair game” for torpedoing without warning.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @Bill Jones
  14. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    You need to remember back there wasn’t a good technology to identify ships on open ocean. U-boat captains followed the strict ROE on open ocean ordered by Hitler. The ship sank because the ship didn’t activated all lights at night to display the ship is non-combative. But for some strange reason the ship blacken out and changed the ship’s heading constantly and randomly which it led the U-boat to torpedo it to bottom of the sea in accordance with ROE. We should start asking why the ship was being blacken out with thousands of people on board.

    • 回复: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  15. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Steve (not Sailer)

    Disagree completely. Negotiated peace was most likely outcome. Russia was out. Romania was out. Italy was on its last legs. French army was in a state of moral collapse. The British failures at the Somme and Passchendaele made it clear a breakthrough was impossible. It was a stalemate. Negotiated peace was most likely outcome. Germany evacuates Belgium and cedes Alsace-Lorraine to France and gets recognition of Brest-Litovsk treaty in the east and return of its colonies. This would have been a far better outcome for Europe and the world then what actually did happen. Agree completely that Wilson was a total tool.

  16. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Jordan

    When your traveling in a war zone you can’t expect to be treated as a human shield. The British blockade killed far more people, btw.

    • 回复: @Jordan
  17. Jordan 说:
    @Anonymous

    Of course the British blockade killed more people. The British knew what they were doing. The German unrestricted submarine campaign just turned the neutrals against her.

    Nobody was a human shield on 路西塔尼亚: everyone was warned and travelled at their own risk. The point is that prize rules cover the issue of contraband, so the munitions do not provide a case for overriding them in favour of “sink on sight”.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  18. colm 说:
    @Steve (not Sailer)

    That is probably very lame excuse for Britain and France which were in verge of collapse.

    Have you ever heard about the French Mutiny of 1917? Petain promised the French soldiers no new offensives until the doughboys arrive to save their behinds.

    No American intervention, Petain gets sent to the isle of Yeu 30 years before schedule.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  19. Great article, but two points need clarification.

    1. For those who still doubt, they found the sunken Lusitania a few years back. A couple years ago divers went down to investigate and confirmed tons of weapons and ammo are there.

    2. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is not in dispute. Watch the great documentary “Fog of War” where actual audio recordings from Admirals and SecDef MacNamara himself say the President learned that follow-on reports stated no American ships had been attacked, and President Johnson knew this BEFORE he ordered air attacks.

  20. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Jordan

    Wilson seemed to think American ships and citizens in waters of countries at war were effectively human shields. WHY SHOULDN’T the Germans have regarded all ships in British waters as legitimate targets? They were at war with Great Britain and all those ships supported some aspect of Britain’s economy which was being used against Germany. Did the U.S. air-force not drop bombs on factories in German cities in WW2 because they knew they would also kill German women and children? That didn’t stop America.

    • 回复: @Sam Haysom
  21. @Steve (not Sailer)

    False. The Germans had defeated/neutralized Russia, shifted divisions to the Western Front and were on the march to Paris in 1918 when newly arrived American units went into battle to save the day. If the Germans had won, the King of England would have congratulated his first cousin, the Kaiser, and everyone gone back home while British banks lost billions of dollars as England defaulted.

    • 回复: @Geoff
  22. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @colm

    Good point. The French army, whose combat effectiveness was already much reduced after Verdun, was basically out of the war after the disastrous Nivelle offensive. “We must wait for the Americans and the tanks”, was the basic viewpoint of the French high command after April 1917. This was also the very moment when America (very foolishly) entered the war. Had this not happened, France would have had little option but to enter into serious peace negotiations.

    1916 had seen the worst fighting of the war so far. The Somme campaign had consumed well over a million casualties in total for both sides. The Verdun struggle probably not many less. In the east the Brusilov offensive cost the Russians ALONE over a million casualties. None of these battles gained anything strategically. You would think ANY STATESMAN with half a brain would give thanks to god his country was not involved in such madness and butchery. But Wilson was an egomaniac and wanted to have his hour on the world stage. His arrogance ruined everything.

    • 回复: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  23. peterike 说:

    One constant I have noticed is that the more a historical figure is lionized by the media, the worse they were.

    Lincoln is overwhelmingly represented as the best President ever, when he was surely the worst. Churchill is depicted as a hero, when in reality he was a vicious beast. And both were lackeys to the finance powers of their time. Nothing changes.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  24. Geoff 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Bingo. Banks lose money?! We’ll have to get the US involved before that happens!!!

  25. Sam Haysom 说:

    One thing I’ve noticed about paleocons is that the more often they caterwaul about how much of a “vicious beast” someone is the more likely that person dedicated his life to defending and promoting the power and influence of the Anglosphere.

    I suppose its just an accident that paleocons seem so eager to defend Germany and Russia no matter what their actions, but call forth imprecations on anyone with the effrontery to tell the Germans to stay in there own country for once. Kind of makes you question the “founding stock” bona fides they always trot out in immigration arguments.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  26. Sam Haysom 说:
    @Anonymous

    Because the rules of naval warfare said otherwise. Carrying armaments was not a pretext to be sunk. It was a pretext to be boarded and the armaments confiscated. The Germany high command knew that unrestricted submarine warfare would likely bring the USA into the war and gambled that its effectiveness would end the war before America could fully mobilize. The position you are supporting is that the German staff should not have to bear the consequences, consequences they knew full well in advance, of their actions because you support the Germans. Do you think bookies should give the money back when someone makes a bad bet.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  27. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Sam Haysom

    You are completely wrong. First the “rules of naval warfare” you describe were an antiquated legacy from another time. Kind of like the rules the Titanic followed on determining the number of lifeboats required. Note too how the British deliberately disguised their warships as merchant ships to sink German U-boats that actually tried to do what you are saying. I speak of course of the notorious Q-ships.

    As for unrestricted submarine warfare “bringing the USA into the war” I would argue it simply gave Wilson an excuse to do this. Wilson was an egomaniac and wanted to strut on the world stage. This is why he manipulated America into war. He wanted a seat at the European peace table so he could impose his messianic views upon the world.

    The PROPER course of action for the U.S. government would have been to have issued a very clear warning to all American citizens to avoid traveling in the seas around the British Isles as they should be considered an unsafe war zone. The only Americans who were in any way threatened by Germany were those who did so. And they did so in the full knowledge of the risks they were taking. If people choose to place themselves in harm’s way they must accept the consequences of their actions. Wilhelmine Germany was never any threat or danger to America. By April 1917 over a million German soldiers had already died and its major ally, Austria-Hungary was close to collapse. All of this had been achieved without any military involvement on the part of the USA.

    Finally i don’t support the Germans. I simply believe Europe, America, the west generally and possibly even the whole world would have been better off if America had remained neutral in 1917. I still feel a negotiated peace in 1917 or early 1918 was the most probable outcome if Wilson had simply been less arrogant a man.

    • 回复: @Jordan
  28. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Sam Haysom

    I don’t see how you can say that at all. Can you give specific examples?

  29. Jordan 说:
    @Anonymous

    The Germans knew that unrestricted submarine warfare might lead to a break with the United States, or even war. They took a calculated risk. See “Holtzendorff Memorandum” (post-路西塔尼亚).

    The question is what gave the Germans the right to torpedo and sink on sight a merchant ship? The laws of war recognised the right to stop and search such a ship on the high seas. The Germans didn’t do this. They asserted military necessity, right of reprisal and various other justifications that didn’t really convince anybody.

    Germany had a fancy new weapon (the U-boat) and their hands were tied in the use of it. So they ignored the rules to the win the war. They lost. Maybe Germany should have sued for peace after the Marne? Maybe Europe would have been even better off if the Germans hadn’t reach the point of desperation where they fomented revolution in Russia? So is it America’s fault or Germany’s?

    • 回复: @colm
    , @Anonymous
  30. It’s not the first ship to sink with JP Morgan’s fingerprints:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqoEyfT2EGo

    But hey, he made a lot of money from WW I…

  31. colm 说:
    @Jordan

    It is not America’s fault or Germany’s. It is the fault of Woody Wilson, Colonel House, Walter Lippman, JP Morgan, you name it. Even Americans thought twice and elected Harding on 1921.

  32. colm 说:

    America should withdraw from Germany and let Germany and Russia divide the smaller countries in central Europe into their spheres of influence, in other words reimpose the Brest Litovsk treaty.

    That is the only way to atone the damages Woody Wilson and his gang did.

    Already Poland is like Germany’s Mexico; only the Americans are preventing it from making it into a full appendage of Germany. Ditto to Czechia and Slovakia.

  33. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Jordan

    ‘The Germans knew that unrestricted submarine warfare might lead to war with America.”

    It shouldn’t have. The Wilsonian view that U.S. citizens had the “right” to travel unmolested at will through a war zone, in essence, becoming human shields, was insane.

    “What gave the Germans the right to torpedo and sink on sight a merchant ship”?

    War. Those ships were in war zones and supplying Germany’s enemies. They had at best a sham claim to neutrality. In fact America pursued a sham neutrality right from the first day of the war.
    In WW2 in the Pacific could countries around the world expect to supply Japan with materials of war and not expect to be sunk by American subs? It was largely merchant shipping losses that crippled Japan.

    “The laws of war recognized the right to stop and search such ships”.

    A strategy rendered completely unfeasible by the British employment of Q-Ships.

    “They ignored the rules to win the war”.

    The British didn’t ignore the rules with their starvation blockade of Germany which killed countless more people, all of them civilians? What are your “rules of war” in regards to say, the bombing of Dresden? The British imprisonment of the Boer civilian population in 1900-02?

    “Maybe Germany should have sued for peace after the Marne..or not fomented revolution in Russia.

    Maybe the Tsar should have accepted the Central Powers extremely generous offer in December 1915 for peace and a return to the borders of the pre-war status quo. Since the Central powers had spent the whole year pummeling the Russian forces and advancing right across their territory, that was an extremely generous offer. The Tsar fool would have saved millions of lives, including his own, had he accepted. Maybe France should have accepted the Kaisers’ offer of peace in 1917 with the return of Alsace-Lorraine, but they didn’t. On and on it goes. Your argument is a circular one.

    “So is it America’s fault or Germany’s’?

    I would say America. It didn’t HAVE to go to war in 1917. IT CHOSE TO DO SO. Germany already WAS at war. It had already endured three years of a starvation blockade before it announced unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. The true question is did America’s intervention make things better or worse and was it good for Americans. I would say America made things worse because it ended any possibility of Europe having a NEGOTIATED peace instead of a DICTATED one. Finally many Americans wouldn’t have been killed or maimed if America has just stayed out.

  34. rabbitbait 说:

    People comment that Wilson did this or Wilson did that. What they really mean is House did this and House did that.

    Any decision Woodrow Wilson made has to be seen in the light of the fact that it was made under the total supervision and control of the the incredibly powerful Colonel Edward Mandell House. Such was House’s power and influence that it appears like the feckless and easily manipulated Wilson merely rubber stamped whatever the far more cunning House had previously decided.

    Wilson only started regaining some his independence very late in his administration after his second wife, who had disliked and mistrusted House all along, was finally able to dislodge the incredibly powerful Col. House by proving that House had been conducting foreign policy behind the now sickly Wilson’s back (which he had probably been doing all along) . It was only after House had lost power that Wilson got up enough courage to admit that The Federal Reserve Act which he had signed in 1913 had been a terrible mistake.

    This usurpation of power by House reminds one of what historian Robert Dallek contends the unelected Henry Kissinger was doing during the later stages of the Watertgate weakened administration of Richard Nixon.

    The Svengali Col. House had been very powerful even before moving east from his native start of Texas. Before his move he had been the primary force (like today, this means \$\$\$\$) behind the election of four separate Texas governors.

    House has something in common with two other men of immense and unelected power: the earlier Confederate Secretary of War Judah Benjamin and the later Bernard Baruch. All three men came from families that had long standing historic and continuing ties with the slave dependent cotton trade centered in Charleston and Savannah. This connection also meant that they came from families that were heavily dependent not just with the British cloth trade but also on cozy and often intimate relations with the English government. These continuing connections made their future abilities to be impartial with the UK financial interests highly suspect. (Benjamin would be the beneficiary of of these good relations after after having to flee the US for England after the fall of the Confederacy).

    True to form, House and Baruch were among those who, behind the scenes, heavily pushed for the very punitive financial rape of Germany desired by the bankers that was committed at the Versailles Conference.

    • 回复: @colm
  35. colm 说:
    @rabbitbait

    @smilingyahoo

    But it was Woody who signed the document and moved and shook the things himself, so the ultimate blame comes to him although House’s bad influence has to be recognized.

  36. ” In 1913, Churchill called in the head of Cunard and said Lusitania would have to be refitted for a war he predicted would break out in September 1914.”

    I’m ususally quite open-minded to the potential veracity of “conspiracy theories,” but this seems an extraordinary claim. How could Churchill have known, in 1913, that a war was to begin in September of 1914 (or August, as it eventually turned out), without being privy to advance knowledge of the assassination of the Austo-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinanad and Archduchess Sohpia, in Sarajevo? I’m not saying he didn’t know, but if there’s substantive evidence that he did, then all the history books of that era are going to have to be re-written.

    • 回复: @Kyle McKenna
  37. @Anonymous

    “You need to remember back there wasn’t a good technology to identify ships on open ocean. U-boat captains followed the strict ROE on open ocean ordered by Hitler. ”

    Corporal Hitler wasn’t directing U-boat rules of engagement in the Great War.

  38. @Anonymous

    “The Somme campaign had consumed well over a million casualties in total for both sides. The Verdun struggle probably not many less. In the east the Brusilov offensive cost the Russians ALONE over a million casualties. None of these battles gained anything strategically. You would think ANY STATESMAN with half a brain would give thanks to god his country was not involved in such madness and butchery. But Wilson was an egomaniac and wanted to have his hour on the world stage. His arrogance ruined everything.”

    Conservatives often cite Wilson as one of the worst, if not the worst, U.S. President. That doesn’t go far enough. He was one of the worst major national leaders in all of human history.

  39. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    About Churchill’s ability to predict war: he could easily have predicted it insofar as war seemed likely anyway. The exact match which lit the tinder surely wasn’t so easily predicted, but few history books need rewriting on this account.

    Otherwise a typically compelling essay from PJ, typically in desperate need of source references. As it stands it reads like one of Gore Vidal’s screeds, full of private ‘information’, and I seriously doubt PJ would appreciate this.

  40. Technomad 说:

    It has been pointed out, correctly, that the “laws of sea warfare” that were theoretically in place at the time had been mainly formulated in the days of fighting sail, and had not been updated to take account of new technology. I do not think the Germans acted wrongly by sinking 路西塔尼亚. And the Americans who died had nobody to blame but themselves—if I’d gone off to Sarajevo during the conflict there, and got my stupid head blown off by a Serb sniper, I’d have no right to complain; I knew full well that I was going into a war zone I could have avoided.

    That said, it wasn’t 路西塔尼亚 that got us into the war. The incredibly-stupid Zimmerman Telegram was what did it. Whoever it was who came up with that idiotic idea should have been shot for treason.

  41. sinking of Titanic a fraud — it was actually the Olympic, which had been badly damaged earlier. The switch enabled collection of insurance which had, just by coincidence, been increased 5 days before ‘Titanic’/Olympic sank. Olympic would not have been able to be insured for that sum — \$12 m. pounds.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqoEyfT2EGo

    An extensive coverup involved a rescue ship that never got the signal, and PM Asquith’s government. The government assigned Lord Mersey, practiced in the art of coverup, to preside at the Board of Inquiry.

    Lord Mersey also presided over the inquiry into sinking of Lusitania

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Pat Buchanan的评论