Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: The True Cause of World War 1

  1. #1
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    The True Cause of World War 1

    Not that much new but some views on WWI which should be known and might be of general interest.

    What Really Caused World War 1?

    The True Cause of World War 1

    History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914.

    This is the typical explanation. But the "revisionist historian" knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

    Up until America's entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796. President Washington said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?'

    President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America's involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.

    The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

    The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

    Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909."

    So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."

    The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

    Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: "From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization... has been steadily growing."

    The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

    Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."

    The Sinking of the Lusitania

    The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

    The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.

    It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. "As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods."

    England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that "By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol...."

    This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

    The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

    Secretary Bryan promised that "he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing... ."

    Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:
    Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

    House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.
    On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

    This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as "the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas."

    But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the "flame of indignation" did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

    Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: "We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war."

    After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written that "Both sets of archives... contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel."

    But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The cover-up was now official.

    But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

    The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson's book and concluded: "The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill."

    President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of "keeping us out of the War" during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.

    The Real Reason for World War 1

    But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America's entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson's major advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: "The House-Grey memorandum... pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election."

    But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson urged the creation of the League of Nations in a speech entitled League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government.

    Some were not happy with the slowness of America's entry into the war. One of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who:
    In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

    For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane."

    He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

    Roosevelt favored both.

    And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].

    The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights."

    This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.
    Roosevelt's badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in the war "to end all wars," and "to make the world safe for democracy."

    The war wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918.

    Historian Walter Millis wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about House's basic intent: "The Colonel's sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order [a world government] of peace and security...."

    The Outrageous Treaty of Versailles

    The official treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Versailles, where representatives of all sides sat down at a conference table and wrote the treaty.

    Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, and representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother. Max, the head of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany, and who "was not only in charge of Germany's finances but was a leader of the German espionage system" was there as a representative of the German government.

    The Treaty was written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference. Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and declared: "This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years." Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war, and he correctly predicted the year it would start: 1939.

    Lord Curzon was indeed a prophet: he picked the actual year that World War II would start!

    One of the planks of the Treaty called for large amounts of war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government. This plank of the Treaty alone caused more grief in the German nation than any other and precipitated three events:
    1. The "hyperinflation" of the German mark between 1920 and 1923;
    2. The destruction of the middle class in Germany; and
    3. The bringing to power of someone who could end the inflation: a dictator like Adolf Hitler.
    This plank was written by John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight Eisenhower.

    Even John Maynard Keynes became concerned about the Treaty. He wrote: "The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it".

    In addition to writing the Treaty of Versailles, the nations who were victorious in the war also wrote the Charter of the League of Nations, which was ratified on January 10, 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and asked the Senate to ratify it The Senate, remembering George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty. President Wilson was not pleased, possibly because he saw himself, as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was quick to point out, as: "... a future President of the world."

    It is now apparent that Wilson intended to head up the world government the war was fought to give the world, and he became depressed when the Treaty was not ratified. Imagine the disappointment of one who had come so close to becoming the very first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Imagine the sense of incredible power that Wilson must have felt, thinking he would become the very first individual in the history of mankind to rule the world. Others had tried and failed, but Wilson was confident that he would succeed.

    But the American people, expressing their displeasure through the Senate, would not let him.

    The Rich Get Richer

    Others were not so disappointed, however. "The war, in brief, provided an unparalleled opportunity for the richest families to grab [exorbitant profits] at the expense of the public and, without exception, they made the most of this opportunity. The rich families, to be sure, wanted the war to be won, but they took care that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers. They uttered no cries for government economy... so long as the public treasury was at their disposal."

    One of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were "the Rockefellers, who were very eager for the United States to enter World War I, [and who] made far more than $200,000,000 from that conflict."

    But support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members: "It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations...."

    As could have been anticipated, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920.

    The Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter: "It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part."

    He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican "warhawks," who was ".. .backed by a powerful group of rich men who wish(ed) a military man in the White House."

    The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as an evidence of that distrust and concern. Harding outpolled his opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson who had "kept us out of the war" during the election of 1916. Wilson got only fifty-two percent of the vote, and Harding got sixty-four percent

    Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft's campaign manager, as his Attorney General.

    His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise, however, as he unexplainably surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry.

    For instance:
    • his Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil;
    • his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil;
    • his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and
    • his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.
    It was Mr. Fall who was to be President Harding's downfall, as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy's oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.

    There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons:
    1. Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join as the League had survived the Senate's prior refusal to ratify the treaty, and
    2. Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.
    These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on August 2, 1923, before the story completely surfaced. (There are those who believe that there were some who couldn't wait for the Teapot Dome Scandal to remove President Harding, and that he was poisoned.)

    But the oil interests allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests.

    The warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States.



    Source: http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
    Compare with:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=62281
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Mazorquero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 4th, 2016 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Son of Mars
    Ancestry
    South Tirol mainly, Italy, Northern Spain and France
    Subrace
    Subnordid + Atlantoid admix
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Córdoba
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Peronista ortodoxo
    Religion
    Agnóstico
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Well, the article is really interesting. I thought it was going to mention a bit more about the general situation, but it focused on USA mostly. Well, we all know the real cause were territorial possesions, like colonies and the Alsace-Lorraine issue between France and Germany.
    That wasn't at all the first time that USA creates an excuse to make a war. It happened first in Cuba and Philippines (against Spain, with the misterious attack against the Maine), then in Central America (were Sandino caused the first important defeat to USA around 1930), some historians may mention the war with Mexico (both, in XIX cent. and the incursions to caught Pancho Villa). It's said also, that Pearl Harbour was well known before it happened, and Roosevelt ordered to allow the attack so they could have an excuse to enter into WWII. Others suggest the possibility of a previous secret (very secret it seems) attack against the Japanese navy, which was answered with the Pearl Harbour attack (3 or 4 years ago it was found a Japanese submarine sunk apparently by USA torpedoes, before Pearl Harbour ). So, it wouldn't surprise me that USA government had carefully planned the 9/11, without caring the cost of lifes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Of interest are these books:

    American Empire

    Wilson's War

    And also Hoppe's introduction to Democracy - the God that failed.

    Wilson could not stand seeing a powerful, non-"democratic" nation flourish. Hence his idiocy.

  4. #4
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 19th, 2009 @ 02:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Saxon
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Internet publishing
    Politics
    Right of centre
    Religion
    Theist
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    The causes of American involvement in the First World War, as we call it on this side of the Pond, are as varied as the reasons for the rapid involvement of all the Great Powers in Europe becoming involved. The system of treaties carefully worked out by Bismark was soondestroyed by the Kaiser's ineptitude.

    The American involvement was as much the fault of a German government which was under the control of a powerful imperial/Army control as it was the fault of the USA. It must be remembered that the USA was a small imperial power itself by this time, having missed out on the land-grab that took place especially between Great Britain and France in the nineteenth century. America's eyes were turned on her own, internal frontiers during that century and it was not long after that that she began to look at gaining status in terms of influence (cf the Monroe Doctrine) which she had always claimed. As American industry was already beginning to overtake British and German, she was already one of the most powerful engines of industry by 1914. Her wealth was something the Great Powers would need to rely on more and more as the War progressed. However, it suited the USA to let the Great Powers bleed themselves to death, because the ultimate beneficiary would be America, and so it proved.

    It is a fair point to note that there was a good deal of cynicism in the USA about Europe. It was (and still is) a view that America exists in spite of Europe. Thus, anything that would humble the mighty powers of the Old World would resonate with the Establishment in the USA. Standing by for the first three years of the First World War fits with that world view and ambition,theultimate expression of that ambition only came to flower after the Scond World War, since the USA retreated behind its historic isolationist stance after the Great War and did not join the League of Nations.

    A point to mention, which is of rather great importance is that it was Great Britain, not England that was involved. If one cannot get basic facts like that right, then one must question the validity of any arguments being put forward. Who, for example, has ever heard of the 'English Navy'? It's the Royal Navy. I suppose we could always talk about the Texan Army, or the New England Government when meaning the American Army or American Government, but it would be equally inaccurate.

  5. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    852
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxenfoord View Post
    The causes of American involvement in the First World War, as we call it on this side of the Pond, are as varied as the reasons for the rapid involvement of all the Great Powers in Europe becoming involved. The system of treaties carefully worked out by Bismark was soondestroyed by the Kaiser's ineptitude.
    It is fashionable to sneer at Kaiser Wilhelm for his "incompetence" and "stupidity". In fact, this man was one of the most farsighted humans that ever lived on this planet.

    Already in 1900 he foresaw the coming rise of China that is causing such sensation among the Anglo-Saxons now. He warned the British ambassador in Berlin on that, though overstretched the imagination of Her Majesty's servant.

    That Bismarck's system was so great is a die-hard myth. E.g. the Russo-German "reassurance treaty" was temporally limited. Signed in 1887, it was due to run out after three years in 1890. Of course, it could have been prolonged, for another three years, and another, and another and so on. This would have meant to bring German policy fully under the control of the Russians. They could at any time decide to dump it, but as long as the "treaty" was in force, Germany could not take all proper and necessary measures to beef up its eastern defence.

    Bismarck made an irrepairable mistake when he didn't smash the Hapsburg Empire in 1866. He believed, at that time, that it would not have been possible to delete this "millennium-old" venerable monarchy, which was foul and rotten, though already. Later, and for most egoistic potato-acre-landlord interests, he wanted to take the "Austrians" in politically, but to keep them out economically, which couldn't work in the long run and only led to the disintegration of the German folk in "Austria".

    The best thing Germany could have done was to smash the Donaumonarchie in 1908 and to share it with the Russians, very much the same way as the partition of Poland in 1939.

    There were negotiations between Britain and Germany about the partition of the Portuguese colonies in Africa. The agreement was ready for signature in July 1914. Another given-away opprtunity.
    The American involvement was as much the fault of a German government which was under the control of a powerful imperial/Army control as it was the fault of the USA.
    Who was in control in Germany was the sovereign affair of the Germans and did not touch the US. In Germany, nobody was caring about whether the USA government was under the control of this or that jew.
    It must be remembered that the USA was a small imperial power itself by this time, having missed out on the land-grab that took place especially between Great Britain and France in the nineteenth century.
    The USA today is the forth biggest state in the world. In 1914, it was the sixth biggest empire.
    America's eyes were turned on her own, internal frontiers during that century and it was not long after that that she began to look at gaining status in terms of influence (cf the Monroe Doctrine) which she had always claimed.
    The seizure of the Phillipines in 1898 was a clear violation of the Monroe-doctrine. Also the US engagement in China in 1900. And the US interference into Russian-Japanese peace negotiations in 1905.
    As American industry was already beginning to overtake British and German, she was already one of the most powerful engines of industry by 1914.
    US-american industry would not have overtaken German industry if Germany had won the war. To prevent this and to make Germany "dependent on" US-american loans, the USA entered the war.

    Another reason was: if Germany had won, all the French and British debts could not have been paid back. "American wealth" would have been greatly reduced, maybe irrestorably, and the rise of the USA checked and thwarted. They couldn't allow that happen.
    Her wealth was something the Great Powers would need to rely on more and more as the War progressed. However, it suited the USA to let the Great Powers bleed themselves to death, because the ultimate beneficiary would be America, and so it proved.
    Germany did not need American wealth to rely on as long as the war went on. After the war Germany was plundered in a way unseen in history of mankind, and from then on it "needed" to rely on American (jewish) loans.
    A point to mention, which is of rather great importance is that it was Great Britain, not England that was involved. If one cannot get basic facts like that right, then one must question the validity of any arguments being put forward. Who, for example, has ever heard of the 'English Navy'? It's the Royal Navy. I suppose we could always talk about the Texan Army, or the New England Government when meaning the American Army or American Government, but it would be equally inaccurate.
    It is not "The Bank of Britain", but it is "The Bank of England".

    It is not "The King/Queen of Britain", but it is "The King/Queen of England".

    And if you are so correct: please, it is not "America" but it is the USA, not "American" but US-american.

  6. #6
    Alles Geistige muß auf der Erde einen Leib haben, um in der Geschichte tätig sein zu können: Dieser Leib baut sich von selbst auf, wo man den Geist nicht hindert ihn zu bauen. (Paul de Lagarde)

  7. #7
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 19th, 2009 @ 02:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Saxon
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Internet publishing
    Politics
    Right of centre
    Religion
    Theist
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    The Kaiser was the man who succeeded in having Germany hemmed in on all sides, something that Bismark never allowed. He may have been 'far-sighted' as you say in 1900 about China. That was probably due to the Boxer Rebellion in China that would have brought that nation to the forefront of most European politicians' minds in that year. Again, as to being 'far-sighted', he didn't seem to be sufficiently so to halt the mobilisation of his Army . He appealed to his Army command to halt the mobilisation in July 1914, but was told that it was too late to do so. Moreover, valid comment does not equate to sneering. One could comment on the fact that for all its faults, Germany was a well-governed country that led the world in many things (old age pensions being one such example).

    However, the system was the thing that brought Europe to war in 1914. Great Britain was focussed on the Irish Home Rule Bill rather than the events of Sarajevo in July 1914. Once the Great Powers began their manoeuvering after the Serbians mobilised, the entire system of treaties, many instigated by Germany and others signed because of Germany, toppled, like a row of dominoes. It was the Kaiser who had sole responsibility for the treaties that Germany had with its neighbours. He controlled German foreign policy.

    I don't know where all this talk about Jews comes from. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

    You argue against my point that the USA was a small imperial power at the time. While the nation itself is, indeed, an empire in sheer land terms, I was meaning an empire in an external form such as France and Great Britain held. Russia, of course, was another empire, like Austria-Hungary, that was part of a single imperial entity in geopolitical terms.

    I think that the suggestion that America's industry would not have overtaken German industry if Germany had won the war is an imponderable. Industry must have markets. If Germany had won the war, then everything would have changed. The question is: How would Germany have won the war in the way (I believe) you are suggesting? They might have won the land war in much the same way as Napoleon did a century earlier. It is highly unlikely that he would have won the war in terms of defeating Briatin because of the Royal Navy's strength, the use of convoys to defeat German submarine warfare etc. That same naval power would have limited German markets for goods and, thereby, it would have limited the growth of German industry. Russia may have been beaten in 1918, but there wasn't any room for sales there as she was in turmoil thereafter as the Bolsheviks struggled for power. As to the USA going to war to make Germany dependent on 'US-american loans', I am mystified. How were the Germans going to to get American loans if they were at war with them?

    As to the loss of the huge debts built up by the Western Allies if they were to lose the war, there is more merit in that. However, there were many other factors too. The sinking of the 'Lusitania' and other losses of American lives in similar events plus the well-known 'Zimmermann Telegram' that threatened the United States with a potential German ally in the form of Mexico, which was the last straw.

    As to the American loans, I don't know what loans may or may not have been available to Germany during the war. No doubt there were loans and, no doubt, they were secured. After the war, it was French intransigence that caused the total melt-down of the German economy. As to the American (jewish sic) loans you refer to, can you verify the proportion of such loans that were 'Jewish' and clarify what the significance of that is in the context of the topic?

    You make one or two amusing points in your conclusion. The Bank of England was founded when England and Scotland were separate countries, although it was founded by a Scot (as the Bank of Scotland was founded by an Englishman). It retained its name after the Treaty of Union of 1707 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain (see below) became one nation in terms of government rather than monarchy. Its retention of that name is one of the points that particularly aggravates the Scottish and Welsh nationalists precisely because it leads foreigners to make mistaken assumptions.

    It is the Queen or King of Great Britain. The last monarch of England was Queen Elizabeth I of England. When she died in 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King of England too. In order to end the centuries of fighting between the two kingdoms, he created the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1605 and it has remained so ever since. Not that that has stopped English people continuing to refer to 'the Queen of England', but, I'm afraid that she ain't.

    If 'American' is wrong, why do you use it?

  8. #8

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    This article has its merits, but it somehow ignores the importance of the British role within the Anglo-American economic world hegemony. I would like to illustrate this point of view with a local example.

    British capital was no doubt welcomed in the early stages of German-South West Africa (1884-1915), when it used to be poor and apparently without resources. A historical study by Prof. Horst Drechsler has however shown how the (German) Jew Dr. Julius Scharlach (1842-1908) was effectively promoting British commercial interests in German-SWA at the expense of the German economy; - despite openly airing strongly German nationalist sentiments. Scharlach was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the "Hanseatische Land-, Minen- und Handelsgesellschaft für Deutsch-Südwestafrika" and member of the boards of several other colonial companies, including the "Otavi Minen- und Eisenbahngesellschaft", the "Kaoko- Land- und Minengesellschaft", and the "South West Africa Company". Despite being a member of the "Kolonialrat" it was one of Scharlach´s biggest achievements to ensure that the German-South West African economy had been effectively under the control of British capital already in the beginning of the 20th century, - before the onset of indigenous uprisings as from 1904 (these revolts were no doubt being fuelled from outside, that is, from the Union of South Africa, a British dominion).

    Ironically Scharlach died two weeks before the spectacular discovery of diamonds in the Lüderitzbucht area in April 1908. During the same year large quantities of diamonds began to appear on the Antwerp market, raising fears within the De Beers syndicate that it could be eroded by the establishment of a rival diamond syndicate in Germany. As midnight draw upon the Belle Epoque the German Reich had assembled one metric ton of high quality diamonds that were meant to be sold through its own syndicate, the "Berliner Regie".

    In July 1914, the governments of the German Reich and the Union of South Africa, the South African diamonds companies, the German selling agency ("Berliner Regie") and members of the De Beers syndicate had signed an agreement to divide up diamond production. A few days later, World War I broke out which rendered the agreement obsolete, and one of the first consequences was the entry of the Union of South Africa into the war, the leaders of which saw the opportunity to seize the diamonds fields and other resources of German-South West Africa for the British economy.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    121
    Thanked in
    90 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxenfoord View Post
    If 'American' is wrong, why do you use it?
    He wasn't nitpicking, you were. For a German there is only England, like the French call us l'allemagne we call your island England

    As long as people understand what is meant out of context (like with America) it isn't that offending, is it?

    Btw do you know who the Rothschilds were?
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Germany Tracing Its War Dead From World War II
    By Fredericus Rex in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 10:31 AM
  2. So Who Declared War on Whom? Who Really Started the Second World War?
    By Untersberger in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Friday, September 9th, 2011, 05:28 PM
  3. The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two
    By MCP3 in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, 07:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •