Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: The True Cause of World War 1

  1. #11
    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

    Sorry about that. Not nit-picking, just being correct. You Belgians would know all about that, of course!

  2. #12
    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 
    117
    Thanked in
    86 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxenfoord View Post
    Sorry about that. Not nit-picking, just being correct. You Belgians would know all about that, of course!
    If you wanted to be correct, you would stop using America and call us Dutch and not Belgians nor Germans.
    "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)

  3. #13
    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
    34
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: The True Cause of World War 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxenfoord View Post
    The question is: How would Germany have won the war in the way (I believe) you are suggesting?
    Here is some counterfactual history as to how Germany might've won the war. It's not precisely what you are referring to, but it is of interest nevertheless.

  4. #14
    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

    I missed the footnote earlier. So, you're a Rothschild, eh?

  5. #15
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Politics
    GPWW
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    I quote British historian Capt. R. Grenfell who wrote in "Unconditional Hatred: German War Guilt and the Future of Europe" (1953).
    5
    Who Started the First
    World War?

    On June 2 8th, 1914, in the year following the conclusion of the Balkan wars, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the aged Emperor of Austria, was assassinated with his wife when on a visit to Sarajevo in Bosnia, a Slav province of Austria which Serbia coveted for her own. Bosnia had formerly been under Turkish rule but had been occupied by Austria, with the agreement of Russia, in 1877. Austria had been granted the further right, acknowledged by the powers in conference at Berlin in 1878, to annex the province whenever she wished. She exercised this right in 1908, for reasons connected with the "Young Turk" revolution of that year in Constantinople. The annexation raised a storm of indignation in Serbia, where there was a clamor for war against Austria. The Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it may be added, was known to be of a liberal and conciliatory disposition and might be expected when he came to the throne, as he obviously soon would in view of his uncle's
    [64]

    advanced age, to do all he could to reconcile the Slav portions of his Empire to Austrian rule.
    The assassination, which the Austrians then believed (and which is now generally agreed) to have been connived at, if not organized, by the Serbian Government, came to the Austrian Government as the culminating provocation of the Serbian challenge. The Austrian statesmen knew that the Serbs had for years been plotting the break-up of the Austrian Empire, and that in this they were being abetted by Russia. Rightly or wrongly, the Austrian authorities came to the conclusion that the assassination of the Archduke marked the decisive point in the Austro-Serbian question. Unless the Austrian Empire was passively to allow itself to be dismembered piecemeal, the time had come to make a stand against Serbian aggression. If Serbia's menacing intentions were to be frustrated she must be taught a sharp lesson.
    Is Austria seriously to be blamed for adopting this attitude? Not at all. She had a better historical claim to Bosnia than had Serbia, since it had for long periods before the arrival of the Turks been either part of the Western Empire or of the Kingdom of Hungary, now joined with Austria under one Emperor. For these same historical reasons, the Bosnians were Roman Catholics where they were not Moslems, whereas the Serbs were of the Greek church.
    After waiting nearly a month, the Austrians sent Serbia a very stiff note on July 23, 1914, demanding various drastic measures to end anti-Austrian agitation and hostile activity.
    What would Britain have done? When faced with an analogous situation in Ireland in 1920, she proceeded to act in much the same way as Austria in 1914, by bringing the strongest coercion to bear on the Irish
    [65]

    Republican Army that was openly trying to free Ire*land from British rule. Long-drawn-out and ruthless operations were conducted against the Irish guerrilla forces, in which terrible atrocities were perpetrated by both sides, on the British mainly by a special force of "Black and Tans" recruited from the gangster types. In the middle of the campaign, Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, declared publicly that "there would be no shaking hands with murder." Yet in the end he did shake hands with it, partly because it was proving so tough an antagonist in Ireland and partly because the Americans were twisting the lion's tail on the other side of the Atlantic. But had the Prince of Wales been assassinated by Irish gunmen while on a visit to Dublin, it cannot be doubted that the Anglo-Irish struggle would have been even bitterer and more prolonged.
    The peculiar danger of the Austrian action was, of course, that it might involve all Europe in war. Russia was known to be backing Serbia, so that punitive action by Austria against the latter might bring in the Russians. Russia's entry would bring in Germany and perhaps Italy on the side of Austria, which in turn would involve France in support of Russia and possibly Britain too. Was Austria, then, to do nothing against the assassins of her Imperial heir, or nothing to check the continual and avowed sapping by the Serbs of the Imperial foundations? If so, it meant that, faced with unquestionably aggressive intentions on the part of a neighbour, she was to be denied the right to defend herself.
    The question of whether Austrian action against Serbia was to result in a general war really depended on Russia's reaction. It Russia abstained from aiding Serbia, peace might be saved. It is known that
    [66]

    Germany had no wish for war, nor Britain. It is true that Germany did not discourage Austria, anyhow in the early stages of the crisis, from taking drastic action against the Serbs. But Germany could hardly have done otherwise. Her whole strategically policy was based on the Triple Alliance of herself, Austria, and Italy. In Italian loyalty she had no confidence, and with just cause. There remained Austria as Germany's probable sole support. It the Serbs were to continue unhampered their intrigues and plans to destroy the Austrian Empire, they might succeed in doing so; and this would leave Germany alone to confront a hostile combination of France, Russia, and probably Britain. It was to Germany's vital interest that the Austrian Empire be kept intact, and therefore that Serb conspiracies be held under control.
    Englishmen of the 1914 generation will recall the then popular view of Germany as the European military colossus, terrorizing other nations by the menace of her huge army. A dispassionate examination of the strategically facts of the case may, however, suggest that the picture looked quite different through German eyes. The pre-war estimates of war strengths of the various armies gave the Franco-Russian combination an excess over the German-Austrian combination that varied from 700,000 to 1,200,000 men; and there is evidence that, in spite of all their seeming arrogance and swashbuckling confidence, the Germans were governed by a genuine fear of Russia's millions of soldiers. This may seem hard to credit in the after-light of the pitiful Russian collapse in the war. But it has to be remembered that dangers seem always particularly formidable in prospect. The British, with a decisive lead in naval power, felt anxious enough over the challenge of the inferior German fleet; so anxious
    [67]

    that the challenge drove them into the arms of France and Russia, the two chief traditional enemies of the British past. No Briton therefore has the right to question that Germany could have felt grave concern at the menace of the superior Russian Army. Nor will the reader need to be convinced of the acute concern which has dominated the whole of the Western world, including the United States on the other side of the Atlantic, during the last five to eight years, over the reported huge size of the present-day Russian military machine.
    If, however, Germany had good grounds for regarding the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand as pregnant with menace not only to Austria but to herself, there is reason to suppose that to Russia it came as a welcome opportunity. To her it must have appeared as the spark which might be fanned into the flame of that general European war which there is now strong cause to think both she and France had previously determined to provoke, Russia to obtain Constantinople and the Straits and France to regain Alsace and Lorraine. Or not so much Russia and France as Sazanov and Poincare and their respective pro-war supporters; for as Sir Patrick Hastings has said, "war is the creation of individuals not of nations."**
    The respective interests of Austria, Germany, and Russia in regard to the assassination crisis should now be fairly plain. Austria believed that Serbian intrigues and ambitions constituted a deadly menace to the continued existence of her Empire, as they undoubtedly did, and she was aware that she must either
    * In 1914, the peace strengths of both the Russian and French armies were greater than that of the German.
    * * Sir Patrick Hastings—Autobiography, p. 52.

    [68]

    curb the capacity of Serbia for further anti-Austrian mischief or see the Empire perish, and that probably soon. And if action had to be taken some time, the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne by admittedly Serbian terrorists offered as favourable an issue on which to base that action as could be expected. The Austrians were therefore determined to force matters to a head. Resolute action at once might succeed. But if not, if it precipitated a European war, it indeed this war were to be disastrous for Austria —well, if the Austro-Hungarian Empire had to go down anyway, it might as well go down fighting. This line of argument may or may not have justified the action that the Austrian authorities took in 1914;
    but at least it is an understandable one.
    As to Germany, it was to her interest to localise the Austro-Serbian dispute, so that the Serbs might be suitably dealt with by the Austrians without anyone else being involved. Russia, on the other hand, was interested in the support of Serbia and was also resolved to use the Sarajevo assassination to bring on a general war, as her actions during the crisis clearly indicate.
    It has been the fashion among British historians to describe the Serbian reply to the Austrian note as extraordinarily conciliatory, all but two of the Austrian demands being conceded. The present author does not take that view. The two rejected demands were the key ones that alone could have made the rest effective. All the remainder, even if nominally complied with, could easily have been evaded in practice and reduced to nullity by the Serbs. The Serbian
    One of the proposed Austrian means of doing so, which might or might not have been carried out in practice, was to distribute portions of Serb territory among the Bulgars, Greeks and Rumanians.

    [69]



    Two hours later, Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia to cancel her mobilisation. This ultimatum may seem to put the responsibility for the actual commencement of the general war on Germany's shoulders. But, in fairness, there is this to be said for her. The total mobilisation of two countries in the state of near hostility to each other that Russia and Germany were at this time meant, as all the then General Staffs were agreed, inevitable war between them. If war were to come, it was naturally of vital importance for each country concerned to gain every possible advantage it could for the success of its own arms. One of the cardinal advantages Germany had over Russia was a more efficient and quicker mobilisation system, and to make full use of that advantage Germany needed to strike at her enemy the instant her mobilisation was complete. This was particularly so in regard to a more numerous enemy like Russia who, if given time to complete her mobilisation before being attacked, would be able to bring her greater numbers to bear with the most effect. Actually, the German plan for a Franco-Russian war was to demolish the French first, and turn on the Russians second. But the time factor remained just as urgently important. Hence, the necessity for the German ultimatum. The Russians, if left to themselves, would probably delay the declaration of war until all their far-flung manpower had assembled on the German frontier, and the German advantage of quicker mobilisation had thus been eliminated. It was vitally important for the Germans to forestall them.
    It is, I think, fairly clear that the progress towards a general European flare-up was determined by Russia. Had she not mobilised, it can be taken as fairly cer-
    [72]

    tain that Germany would not have done so either;
    and as long as neither Russia nor she had taken this final and fatal step, there was always a chance of the Austro-Serbian war being localised. The Russian initiative in mobilisation was not forced upon her by compelling necessity. Her security was in no wise threatened by the Austro-Serbian conflict. The Austrians had even assured the Russian Government that any punitive measures they might adopt against Serbia did not include the acquisition of Serbian territory for themselves; and though the Russians could legitimately have disbelieved them, we know that the Austrian Ministers were opposed to the inclusion of any more of those turbulent Serbs in the Empire. In any case, the Austro-Serb situation could obviously develop a long way before Russia's own safety began to be in jeopardy. But Russia would not wait; and there is no doubt that her precipitate mobilisation was determined by ambition and not by fear. And also by the confident assurance of French support.
    At this point, we come back to the question of France and the "butcher-bird." This was the second occasion on which, according to the legend, innocent France was wantonly attacked by a predatory Germany. At the same time as they sent their ultimatum to Russia, the Germans sent one also to France, well aware of the Franco-Russian alliance and knowing that hostilities against Russia would involve also hostilities against France. Since this was an inevitable outcome of the situation that had arisen, one might think that the French, it they had been anxious to avoid war, would have put pressure on their Russian
    * Gooch and Temperley—"British Documents on the Origin of the War," No. 125.

    [73]



    allies not to force the issue? But the French not only had taken no mollifying action of this kind at St. Petersburg; they actually, though secretly, encouraged the Russians on to extreme measures.
    Why did the French thus work for war? For two reasons.
    When M. Poincare became President in 1912, he made it clear to the Russians that they could count on French military support in all circumstances, whether Russia were being attacked or whether she herself were doing the attacking. And this comprehensive assurance of the President's was undoubtedly due to his determination to bring on a general war as the only way of recovering Alsace and Lorraine, and to the prevailing belief on the part of the French General Staff that France and Russia would beat Germany and Austria.**
    It was a repetition of 1870. The French Army was once more ready to the last gaiter button: the French Generals supremely confident of victory.
    Alas, they had miscalculated for the second time: and for the second time the fault for this cannot be laid at the Germans' door. The French strategy was based on the theory of "the unconditional offensive," the magic qualities of which would quickly carry the French Army to Berlin. But the true qualities of the theory proved to be more suicidal than magical and led mainly to fearful slaughter among the French troops. In a matter of days, the French war plan was in ruins and the French Army, instead of advancing into Germany, was in wholesale retreat towards Paris. The French had also overestimated the military value of their Russian allies, which was revealed as far below expectations.
    * Lowes Dickinson, "The International Anarchy," pp. 329-354.
    ** See, inter alia, Benckendorff to Sazanov, 25-2-1913.

    [74]

    If anyone was to blame for the invasion of France by the Germans in 1914, it was the French themselves. Had their President thrown the weight of his influence into dissuading the Russians from hurrying into warlike preparations, instead of egging them on, it is quite likely there would have been no Armageddon. But Poincare and the war party were hankering after revenge for the debacle of 1870, were resolutely set on regaining the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, and had once again mesmerised themselves into the belief that they were the heirs of the great Napoleon's victorious Grande Armee. They were, in fact, anxious for war.
    As for the Germans having started the 1914 war, there could be no greater myth, in the author's opinion, based on the available evidence. If any nation could, in his view, be said to have "started" the war in the sense of taking the first steps which led to hostilities, it was Serbia for the Austro-Serbian war, and Russia for the larger conflict. Had the Serbs eschewed their "Greater Serbia" ambitions, there seems to be no reason why they and the Austrians should ever have come into collision. As I see it, the Serbs were the primary aggressors and the original causers of the First World War. But they were closely seconded by the Russians, who were the initial agents in converting a local conflict into a global disaster. Whether the Serbs were culpable in planning and working for a "Greater Serbia" object, and the Russians in encouraging them, is another matter altogether, which I shall not argue. The point here is whether the Germans "started" the 1914 war, as has often been alleged against them, and I think the truth is otherwise.
    [75]

    The original participants in that war can be divided into two classes: those who looked for positive gain from a European war and those who desired only to keep what they had. In the first class were the Serbs, the Russians, and the French, and two of the three eventually received the booty they coveted. In the second class were the Austrians and the Germans, who for that reason had more to lose and therefore—especially in Germany's case—less incentive to want a general war than the others. In that ill-starred summer of 1914, I should say that of all the European Great Powers those who wanted war the least were the Ger*mans and the British.
    So much venom has been hurled against Prussian militarism in the last forty to fifty years that it comes as something of a shock to discover that at the height of the 1914 crisis the German General Staff addressed a memorandum to its Government on July 29, which contained sentiments of a most admirably balanced, farseeing, and statesmanlike character. "Russia has announced," the German Generals said, "that she will mobilise against Austria if Austria invades Serbia. Austria will therefore have to mobilise against Russia. The collision between the two States will then have become inevitable. But that, for Germany, is the casus foederis. She therefore must mobilise, too. Russia will then mobilise the rest of her forces. She will say: T am being attacked by Germany.' Thus, the Franco-Russian Alliance, so often held up to praise as a purely defensive compact, created only to meet the aggressive plans of Germany, will become active and the mutual butchery of the civilised nations of Europe will begin. . . . After this fashion things must and will develop, unless, one might say, a miracle happens to prevent at the last moment a war which will anni-
    [76]

    hilate for decades the civilisation of almost all Europe."
    Is it possible, after reading the above extract, to continue to regard the German General Staff as nothing more than jack-booted, goose-stepping, sabre-rattlers; or as a criminal organisation such as the prosecution at Nuremberg tried to stamp them? Not for me, anyway. I know of no other General Staff at this time that showed any such reluctance as is instinct in the German memorandum. Sir Henry Wilson's Diaries portray him either as licking his lips at the prospect of a war or tearing his hair at the possibility that Britain might not enter it.
    The forecast in the German General Staff memorandum was all too accurate. There was, indeed, only one error. The Russians did not wait for German mobilisation to order total mobilisation for themselves. They did it first—by 20 hours.
    Finally, let me give the verdicts on the question of war responsibility of three historians, an Englishman, an American, and a Frenchman. The Englishman, G. Lowes Dickinson, sums the question up as follows:
    ". . . we must inquire which has the greater justification—a State (Austria) which is defending itself against disruption, or one (Serbia) which is desirous to extend its power by the disruption of its neighbour. That really was the question between Austria and Russia. I should answer myself . . . that the justification lies with Austria and the aggression with Russia.
    We next come to Germany. Against her has been directed most of the moral indignation of the victorious Powers. That this is not justified by the facts should be clear, after our analysis. . . . The Powers of the Entente
    * Quoted by Lowes Dickinson in his International Anarchy, pp. 445 & 448.

    [77]

    say that the offence was Germany's backing of Austria. Germans say that the offence was Russia's backing of Serbia. . . . To my mind, the German position is the more reasonable."*
    Secondly, here is the opinion of the distinguished American historian. Dr. H. E. Barnes. Summarising the relative responsibility for the war in his detailed study of the evidence. Dr. Barnes says:
    "In estimating the order of guilt of the various countries we may safely say that the only direct and immediate responsibility for the world war falls upon Serbia, France and Russia, with the guilt about equally distributed. Next in order—far below France and Russia—would come Austria, though she never desired a general European war. Finally, we should place England and Germany, in the order named, both being opposed to war in the 1914 crisis. Probably the German public was somewhat more favourable to military activities than the English people, but, as we have amply explained above, the Kaiser made more strenuous efforts to preserve the peace of Europe than did Sir Edward Grey." **
    Lastly, the Frenchman, M. Morhardt, has this to say about President Poincare's visit to Russia in July, 1914, at the height of the Sarajevo crisis:
    "The fact alone of undertaking such a trip at such a time meant a plan for war. ... If M. Raymond Poincare wanted peace, a letter to St. Petersburg would have sufficed. It Russia had been warned that France was resolved not to espouse, before the world, the cause of the assassins at Sarajevo, the whole matter would have been solved.
    * The International Anarchy, pp. 478, 479.
    ** Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War, Knopf, pp. 661, 668.

    [78]

    Peace would have been maintained. Never if he [M. Poincare] had not gone to preach savagely the war crusade in St. Petersburg, as M. Maurice Paleologue has told us, would the cowardly Nicholas II have dared to take the aggressive initiative."*
    http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/Grenfell.pdf

  6. #16

    I was chatting to my dad yesterday, which was Remembrance Sunday, 11th November, an occasion Britain still takes very seriously. He asked me what World War One was about as it seemed so pointless and futile.

    Well, I said, have you heard of the Balfour Declaration? Then I went on to explain all about it, how the British Foreign Secretary in late 1916, as the incredibly bloody Battle of The Somme was drawing to a close, had written a letter to Lord Rothschild, who was acting on behalf of the Zionist International; in said letter, he promised to give them Palestine, which was the first step towards the eventual creation of Israel.

    I explained how the Zonists had first gone to the German Kaiser with the same request – that he give them Palestine in return for their assistance in winning the war. The Kaiser, despite his failings, was a scrupulously honourable man; therefore he declined their offer giving the perfectly correct reason that Palestine belonged to his Ally, the Ottoman Empire and therefore was not his to give. So the Zionists went to the British with the same offer and the British took it.

    This is why the British sent one of their best army commanders – General Allenby, to the Middle East to take command in Egypt and greatly expanded the British forces in that theatre at a time when the Western Front was placing immense demands on manpower and fighting troops were badly needed.

    Before Allenby’s arrival, the fighting in the Middle East had been confined to the British successfully defeating a Turkish advance into Egypt’s Sinai desert, a disastrous Indian Army expedition into Iraq that ended in the awful Siege of Kut and the capture of the entire British Indian force; and most famously, the small scale support of the Arab Revolt through the sending of a liaison officer who greatly overstepped his orders and became the legendary Lawrence of Arabia.

    Lawrence’s campaign had been restricted to blowing up bits of the Hejaz railway and nuisance raids against isolated Ottoman garrisons, the British had yet to supply sufficient arms and gold to really ignite the revolt into a serious problem for the Ottomans.

    However, once the Balfour Declaration had been issued and Allenby arrived with large numbers of reinforcements in tow, the arms and gold Lawrence needed for the Revolt were furnished in abundance. Watch the film – all this is depicted and it’s a superb piece of filmmaking, a true epic of the cinema.

    It took Allenby the whole of 1917 and 1918 to fight his way north from Egypt’s Sinai up through Gaza, then the Jordan Valley and on through the Judean hills and the coastal fertile plain to take first Jerusalem and then end the war in Damascus.

    Thus Palestine was conquered on behalf of the Zionists and the beginning of the Israel project. Australian troops formed the backbone of this army and the film The Lighthorsemen is worth watching to get a feel for the nature of this fighting, as well as being a very good, entertaining movie.

    So that’s what the British did to fulfil the Balfour Declaration, but what did the Zionist International do to fulfil their side of the bargain and ensure Britain won the war? The plan was twofold; firstly, they cut off Germany’s supply of essential materiel, including finance and secondly, they brought the US into the war, thus providing several million corn-fed midwest doughboys to join the Allies in France and overwhelm the Germans through sheer weight of numbers.

    Those that have been paying attention will have raised an eyebrow when I said that Germany’s supplies were cut off, for the simple reason that very few are aware that Germany had only been able to fight as long as she had because she was receiving all the supplies she needed but could not produce domestically which were needed to clothe, feed and arm her forces. German soldiers were fed on imported beef, their backs covered with imported cloth and their explosives manufactured from imported chemicals.

    But how were these imports getting through, after all, everyone knows that the British Royal Navy had blockaded Germany and successfully shutdown all trade into German ports such as Hamburg and Kiel? The answer is both simple and obvious – they were carried on both neutral and British flagged vessels into the ports of the neutral countries of Holland, Denmark and Sweden to then be transshipped on to Germany and thus sustain her war machine.

    Without this secret trade, the war would have been like all European wars that preceded it – the two sides would have fought for a few months the, both exhausted and running out of money, they would come to the peace table and sign a treaty, usually exchanging a province or two, as the French had in 1870 when they handed Alsace-Lorraine to Germany after being defeated in the Franco-Prussian War. However, thanks to the secret supplying of Germany through the neutral backdoor, this war was able to be prolonged for almost five long, bloody years.

    Which brings us to the title of this article and it’s reference to Hitler’s infamous claim that Germany lost World War One because the Zionist Jews stabbed her in the back. Of course, orthodox history insists this was a great lie, but let me assure you, it was absolutely true and I will explain how the stabbing took place.

    I have already explained that the Zionist Jews took two main actions against Germany in late 1916 in return for the British making the Balfour Declaration with the first action being the entry of the US into the war and the second being the cutting off of the supplies to Germany. As I stated, Germany was being supplied via neutral ports, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can read all about this trade in great detail, including all the actual figures of materiel shipped in the book The Triumph of Unarmed Forces, 1914-1918. By Rear-Admiral M. W. W. P. Consett, C.M.U. London: William and Norgate.

    In this book, Rear-Admiral Montagu William Warcop Peter Consett exposes the truth of how WWI was a complete fraud, a manufactured war that was artificially lengthened through secret trade and gives all the facts and figures to prove it. Amazingly, this most dangerous book is once more in print and available at Amazon.

    Consett explains that this roaring trade went on for the first two and a half years of the war, coming to a rather abrupt end around the end of 1916, which is just after the Balfour Declaration was issued.

    Therefore, in this little book, lies the proof that the stab in the back was all too real; the Germans were soon running out of materials of all kinds, the home front became the scene of starvation, with the winter of 1917-18 becoming notoriously known as the ‘Turnip Winter’ because all they had left to eat by then were turnips, a foodstuff that before the war, was not consumed in Germany, being seen as only fit for feeding to livestock.

    Even in the front lines, the Germans were noticeably running out of essentials as cloth bandages were replaced by ineffective tissue paper and ration staples such as coffee were replaced by ersatz replacements made of things like chicory and acorns. Meat became scarce and the soldiers had to tighten their belts, by the end of the war, the German Army was composed of skinny, malnourished men.

    One of the lesser known reasons for the failure of the great German spring offensives of 1918 is this slow, steady starvation of the Germans; when the German stormtruppen broke through the Allied lines and rampaged into the rear areas they found vast quantities of rations and supplies piled everywhere in incredible profusion, there were all kinds of things that had not been seen in Germany for years, real tobacco, Gin and Rum imported from far afield, Scottish Whiskey, French wine, vast stockpiles of cakes, biscuits, jam, chocolate, cheese, meat of all kinds, it was too much for the starving Germans to resist, many of them simply laid down their arms, pulled out their knives and forks and gorged themselves on food and drink, ignoring their officer’s pleas to continue the advance until they had eaten and drank their fill.

    This broke the momentum of the offensive and gave the Allies precious time to mount an effective defense in depth.

    Hitler was present in the trenches and lived through all this, he knew firsthand how it had felt to see the strength of the German Army slowly fading away as it’s men grew ever skinnier, as diseases became widespread, as munitions became scarce, he was there to witness the terrible collapse of the final few months in the face of continual Allied offensives, he knew from bitter personal experience that the German Army could have done no more, have given no more blood to the cause, therefore knew that the reason for it’s collapse was that they had been undermined and their strength sapped by an unseen hand – the German Army felt it had not been defeated in the field, rather, it had been stabbed in the back.

    The German Army was right, they had been stabbed in the back and Hitler was also right when he identified the Jews as the ones who had wielded the dagger.

    Here is a summary of
    Consett’s book.

    ADMIRAL Consett is the first writer who has dealt fully and statistically with the way in which Germany during the War obtained such supplies as a full exercise of our sea’ ‘power would have prevented from reaching her. This is an extremely important subject;though we must also add a very complicated one, and we are grateful to Admiral Consett for having written this book. In all future discussions of the subject it will be quite indispensable for its documentary evidence.

    No one was in a better position than Admiral Consett to keep track of the supplies that went into Germany through Scandinavia and Holland in the first two and a-half years of the War. He was naval attaché in Scandinavia from 1912-1919. The irony and the tragedy of it was that a tremendous proportion of these supplies came from Great Britain herself. We, in fact, diligently supplied and fed our enemy.

    In Admiral Consett’s view Germany would have collapsed perhaps a couple of years sooner but for this help, which she had not dreamed that we would ever give her or allow to reach her. Those who are content to regard the question simply from the point of view of failure to apply the physical power which we possessed will, of course, say that the British Government was guilty of a crime.

    But the question is not nearly so simple as that. There was also a political side to it. Few people need to be reminded of the way in which America championed the cause of the neutrals in the early part of the War. There were times when the ugly prospect had actually to be faced that if a few more restrictions were put on the trade of neutrals America would become our opponent instead of our potential friend. She might have cut off the supply of munitions. Admiral Consett is not unmindful of this difficulty ; he touches on it ; but in our opinion he does not allow nearly enough weight to it.

    Scandinavia, as he admits, was dependent upon her overseas supplies. Could we have isolated Scandinavia and Holland from the beginning of the War on the ground that whatever they bought from us would be sure to be passed on to Germany ? Could we have done this, we ask, without alienating the sympathies of the impartial world which we certainly deserved and which for the most part, as it was, we enjoyed?

    Admiral Consett says that Scandinavia had always expected to suffer if there should be a European war in which Great Britain was involved and that she was surprised that we called upon her to suffer so little. His evidence on that point satisfies us less than his evidence about the supplies which undoubtedly passed through to Germany.

    The political atmosphere which belligerents create for themselves during war is a matter of greater moral significance than some people would allow it to be. Another point worth noticing is that Scandinavia necessarily imported directly much more than before since great neighbouring ports, like Hamburg, were closed.

    We felt bound to make these reservations before coming to Admiral Consett’s facts, but having made them we are now free to summarize what he says and to emphasize its importance. His facts are, indeed, astonishing. Scandinavia and Holland promised that goods- imported from us would be used in the country of their reception and not be transmitted to Germany.
    Admiral Consett says that these promises were useless. He brings out very clearly what we confess we had not appreciated before, that a large part of the American indignation against us at the beginning of the War was based on the fact that Great Britain was, so to speak, competing with America in sending goods to neutral Europe. America complained that Great Britain, though a competitor, imposed unnecessary rules on her rival. One competitor was fixing the handicap of the other.

    This curious situation was obscured at the time owing to the contradictory statements of the Government. Thus on January 26th, 1916, Lord Robert Cecil stated in Parliament that ” not much was going through neutral countries ” to Germany.

    Yet in a message about the same time to America in answer to one of her complaints the Government said : ” It is common knowledge that large quantities of supplies have passed to our enemies through neutral ports.” The message went on to say that neutral ports had, in fact, been ” the main avenues through which supplies have reached the enemy.” Naturally America retorted : ” What about the supplies you are sending yourself ? “

    We may fairly assert, however, that the conduct of Great Britain, in many respects inimical to herself, was based on a generally scrupulous regard for pledges that she had given or implied, and for the customs of war. The Treaty of London, which had not been. ratified owing to the wise intervention of the House of Lords, was at first acted upon as though it had full validity. As everyone knows, it seriously detracted from our ability to make war effectually.

    Admiral Consett shows that the excess over our normal exports to Scandinavia amounted often to 200 or 300 per cent., and in some cases even to 1,000 per cent. Germany was thus enabled to stem the tide of starvation and to pull through 1916 and 1917. He says that in the first seven months of 1916 ” the meat export alone during this period, 62,561 tons, was sufficient to furnish about 1,000,000 meat rations per day throughout the seven months on the scale of the current German Army ration.”

    We cannot give many examples of Admiral Consett’s remarkable figures, but yr! must mention a few as typical. During the first four months of 1915, the increases in the amount of cocoa exported from Great Britain to Scandinavia, Holland and Italy as compared with the corresponding period in 1913 were almost tenfold greater.

    Coal was sent apparently without restriction to Scandinavia, and it was handed on freely to Germany. Denmark exported horses, cattle and food to Germany, while we supplied her with the fodder and fertilizers for producing them. We also supplied the apparatus of fishing, and it is to be noted that as a result, or at all events partly as a result, Denmark and Sweden sent to Germany forty-six times the amount of fish which they sent to this country. Great Britain more than doubled the amount of oil seeds, tallow, lard, fish oils, animal oils and fats which she sent to Scandinavia, and these went into Germany for the manufacture of glycerine used in high explosives.

    In 1913 Great Britain sent to Denmark 150 tons of lubricants ; in 1915 she sent 500 tons. Why ? The export of copper to Sweden doubled ; simultaneously the export of copper from Sweden to Germany trebled. In the first six weeks of 1916 we allowed 20,000 tons of zinc ore to go to Rotterdam. Thence it went to Liege. In 1915 we sent to Sweden twelve times the amount of nickel we had sent in 1913. Cotton was not declared contraband till August, 1915. In 1913 we had sent 1,940 tons of cotton to Sweden ; in 1915 we sent 10,300. The exports of cotton to Norway and Denmark rose correspondingly. Our exports of flax, jute, skins, phosphate, pyrites, sulphate of ammonia, rubber and many other things all increased greatly. Admiral Consett says that cement was the only commodity that formed the subject of particular inquiry when the general question of our trade during the War was raised.

    Consideration for neutrals, although in our opinion politically and morally necessary, surely provides no excuse for these huge increases over the normal. One would have thought that the obvious thing to do was to ration Scandinavia and to take our exports in the year before the War as the maximum figure allowable.

    After two and a-half years Admiral Consett’s advice was acted upon, and we did proceed on the rationing principle. But why not sooner ? America, so far from objecting, would have welcomed any restrictions we laid upon ourselves.



    Hitler Was Right – Germany was stabbed inthe back, Veterans Today, 13 Nov 2018.


    Hitler Was Right – Germany Was Stabbed In The Back by jews who manipulated the international situation to cause World War I which produced the conditions for a rematch World War II and hence the establishment of the jewish state in Palestine.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


  8. #17

    The First World War, Cecile Rhodes and Conspiracy Facts


    The First World War, Cecile Rhodes and Conspiracy Facts






    “History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books— books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon? ‘”— Professor Robert Langdon.



    The Decline of an Empire


    Why did World War One happen? The conventional fable agreed upon begins on June 28, 1914 with the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. The aftermath of the assassination spiraled out of control. It was like an unstoppable train speeding down the tracks. Suddenly all of the Western powers were at war. When the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 forty million people lay dead. Exactly five years to the day after the assassination of the Archduke, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Germany alone accepted all the guilt for the war. The end.


    Well, it was not “The End”. The outcome of The First World War led to World War Two. The outcome of WW2 led to the Cold War. “Winning” the Cold War created the mujahideen; rebranded as Al Qaeda it led to the Global War On Terror, and never-ending wars.


    In the 21st century the U.S. and its allies squandered their blood and treasure on never-ending criminal wars. Millions of people the U.S. slaughtered in West Asia are dismissed as “collateral damage”. Meanwhile, China has been using its resources for development, and lifting millions of people out of poverty.


    The U.S. Empire has been in a long decline for decades. More Americans are falling into poverty, and the U.S. has been steadily falling in the United Nations Index of Human Development. It currently ranks number 28th among developed countries. The index is a measure of infant mortality, healthcare, life expectancy, education, and per capita income. The U.S.
    infrastructure, such as road, rail and airports, public utilities, and the internet are behind other developed countries, too.


    China’s economy is expected to surpass the U.S. in 2028. Russia has also revitalized its economy in the last 20 years. Every advance that China and Russia make is propagandized by the U.S. as “aggression”.


    Instead of competing peacefully with China and Russia, the U.S. has engaged in a New Cold War. Each passing year the world grows closer to a Hot War. The Doomsday Clock of nuclear annihilations was at 14 minutes to midnight at the end of the Cold War. It is now at 100 seconds to Armageddon. That is the closest it has ever been. There is no effort in the U.S. to turn back the clock.


    August 2014 was the centennial of The First World War. The year was a grim reminder, which momentarily gave people pause, and a slew of articles resulted. For instance, Graham Allison wrote an article that appeared in The Atlantic: Just How Likely Is Another World War? . Allison assessed the similarities and differences between 1914 and 2014. His conclusion was:

    ”For the ‘complacent’ who live in what Gore Vidal labeled the ‘United States of Amnesia’, the similarities should serve as a vivid reminder that many of the reasons currently given for discounting threats of war did not prevent World War I.”


    Then Allison optimistically concluded that another world war is, “unlikely if statesmen in both the U.S. and China reflect on what happened a century ago.” Does anybody see “wise statesmen” reflecting, or see much concern in the United States of Amnesia?


    There is no viable anti-war liberal class in the U.S. demanding dialogue, diplomacy and compromise among nations. The U.S. has exited treaties, which were designed to prevent catastrophic wars. The U.S. has criminally abandoned international law and the United Nations Charter. Instead the U.S. has come up with its own “rules-based international order”. International law is based on treaties among nations. The “rules” are diktats made in Washington and Brussels, imposed on the rest of the world by U.S. militarism.


    In the unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. did as it pleased. It ruled the air, land and seas. With the rise of China and Russia the U.S. does not compete peacefully, nor does it show any desire to. Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are dirty words to U,S. warmongers, of which there are many.


    International capitalism is not based on peaceful competition. Instead it is based on military power, financial blockades, blackmail, and might makes right. International capitalism is a system of imperialism, monopoly, and war. When an empire is challenged, it lashes out. Empires try to destroy their competitors. Empires project their own lust for power and world domination onto all competitors.


    In the early 20th century the sun never set on the British Empire. Metaphorically, the sun started to set with the rise of Germany. The British saw a rising Germany as a threat to its goal of world domination.


    The following essay summarizes how the British Empire set out to destroy Germany in 1902. It led to The Great War. The similarities of that era are frighteningly similar to the U.S. paranoia and hostility to a rising China and Russia today.


    Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and The Society of the Elect


    The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War claim that it was Great Britain that started World War One, and not Germany. It is a convincing story. The authors George Docherty and James MacGregor call their book a conspiracy fact.



    The story begins in the late 1800s. The British Empire ruled the seas. In 1870 a young Cecil John Rhodes migrated to a British colony in southern Africa. After failing at farming he set out in pursuit of diamonds, which had been discovered in a region of Southern Africa. With the financial backing of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the young Rhodes monopolized the diamond trade. He became fantastically wealthy and founded the De Beers diamond company. In 1889 Rhodes was granted a royal charter for the British South Africa Company to colonize an area later named Rhodesia.


    In 1895 gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic controlled by Dutch settlers, known as Boers. Rhodes teamed up with Sir Alfred Milner, who was the British commissioner for Southern Africa. Together with a small group of wealthy British elites they instigate the Boer Warin order to grab the gold for themselves.


    Rhodes and Milner went on to form a secret society. As Rhodes had written earlier:

    ”Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire, and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”


    Rhodes’ ambition was to control all of the world’s wealth, for the benefit of the British Empire. He believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, and he believed that the British Empire should rule the world. After Rhode’s early death in 1902, Alfred Milner became the leader of the secret society. Milner was so admired by Rhodes that he is quoted as having said:

    “If Milner says peace, I say peace. If Milner says war, I say war. Whatever Milner says, I say ditto.”


    Conspiracy Facts

    The authors of the “Hidden History” uncovered many World War 1 documents, which lay the blame for WW1 on Rhodes’s secret society. Authors George Docherty and James MacGregor built on the work of Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley wrote:

    “One wintery afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in an earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest import to the British Empire and the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation of British imperialism and foreign policy.”


    “The three men thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealth empire builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably the most sensational , journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant to Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor to King Edward Vll, and King George V.”


    The Boer War was a long and costly war for Britain. It marked the beginning of the decline of the British Empire. Rhodes established his secret society of elites to reverse the decline. He named it The Society of the Elect.


    By the turn of the 20th century, Germany was a rising power. It was outpacing Great Britain in industry, finance, science, technology, commerce and culture. Germany was acquiring colonies and expanding its navy. The Society of the Elect characterized every German advancement as an act of aggression. They conspired to start a war that would crush Germany, so that the British Empire would remain supreme.


    Circles Within Circles


    The Society of the Elect was organized as circles within circles. The inner circle was Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, W. T. Stead, The Viscount Esher, the Marquess Salsbury, Lord Rosebery, and Nathaniel Rothschild. King Edward VII was a central member, and after his death in 1910, King George V was too. According to “Hidden History”:

    “Stead was there to influence public opinion, and Esher acted as the voice of the King. Salisbury and Rosebery provided the political networks, while Rothschild represented the international money power. Milner was the master manipulator, the iron-willed, assertive intellectual who offered that one essential factor: strong leadership.”


    The Society of the Elect had an outer circle, which they named the “Association of Helpers”. The Helpers were like-minded elites. They were royalty, imperialists, financiers, greedy profiteers, war mongers, and egotistical and corrupt politicians. The Helpers were willingly manipulated, often unknowingly, by the inner circle.


    Some recruits to the Helpers were Jan Christian Smuts, Arthur Balfour, Edward Grey, Richard Haldane, H. H. Asquith, Lord Roberts, David Lloyd George, Sir Edward Carson, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Alfred Harmsworth, and Winston Churchill.


    During WW1 Churchill was among the most ruthless imperialists and warmongers. He is quoted as having said:

    “I think a curse should rest on me, because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment— and yet I can’t help it— I enjoy every second of it.”



    The Propaganda Machine

    The Boer War was an important prelude to World War 1. It started off badly in 1899. It was unpopular at home, and a drain on the British Empire. In 1902 it ended badly too, with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Boers.


    Tens-of-thousands of men, women and children died of disease and starvation in British concentration camps. This would prove to be an important event in the early development of propaganda.


    It was the British who began perfecting propaganda to promote the Boer War and to cover up its ugly aftermath. Newspapers had become an affordable mass medium of influence. The Society of the Elect had Helpers who owned the newspapers and published war propaganda eagerly. Rhodes had written of his planned secret society that it “should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people”.


    Winston Churchill was a self-promoting war correspondent who went to South Africa during the Boer War. He returned home as a self-aggrandizing hero. His wild story of being captured by the Boers, and his harrowing escape made him a national celebrity. In 1900 he was elected to Parliament, and remained there until his death in 1964.


    Even as a declining empire, the British navy was supreme in the early 20th century. The British naval policy was to keep its navy as large as the next two naval powers combined. When Kaiser Wilhelm II started expanding Germany’s navy the British propaganda called it “German aggression” and interfering with “freedom of the seas”. Yet, Kaiser Wilhelm’s policy was to keep his navy at less than two-thirds the size of the British navy. The German threat to the British Empire was invented propaganda, and the hype of a German invasion was ludicrous Germanophobia to frighten the public.


    The Triple Entente

    The Society of the Elect made ententes with France and Russia for a war on Germany. The alliances were secret, unknown to the public, Parliament and most of the Cabinet.


    The British had secret military “non-binding military staff conversations” with Belgium going back to 1906. In 1911 Belgium collaborated with France and Great Britain on how to defend Belgium’s “neutrality” from a German invasion. Both offensive and defensive alliances are a violation of neutrality.


    Belgium had instituted military conscription in 1913, and began making plans for a war with Germany. As “Hidden History” reports:

    “Documents found in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Brussels shortly after the war began proved Anglo-Belgian collusion at the highest levels, including the direct involvement of the Belgian foreign secretary, had been going on for years.”


    The Society of the Elect needed ententes with France and Russia because of their large land armies and strategic locations. The Society secretly promised Russia the prize of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, after the planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Russia had long-coveted a warm-water port. The Society promised France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French had lost to Germany in 1871. The secret triple entente planned to divvy up German overseas colonies among themselves.


    Germany knew that it had two hostile empires on its borders. The German army was confident that it could defend against either one. But a simultaneous invasion by both Russia and France could be fatal. A large and speedy German army was maintained for defense. Military thinking at the time was that the best defense is a speedy offense.


    In 1905 General Count van Schlieffen presented a defensive plan. It became known as the Schlieffen Plan. If both Russia and France attacked, then the German army would go through Belgium to attack the French from behind their lines. After the German army quickly defeated France, the plan was to rush to the eastern front to defend against the slower moving Russians. Time was of the essence. One day’s delay could result in disaster.


    From military intelligence and leaked information, the Society of the Elect learned of the Schlieffen plan. A spy in the German army known only as Le vengeur (The Avenger) sold the entire Schlieffen plan to the French. Alsoa general on the German staff was the brother-in-law of the King of Belgium, and he could have revealed Germany’s military secrets.


    The Society of the Elect used the Schlieffen Plan to set a trap. They had to make it appear that Germany was the aggressor. Otherwise, the British Parliament and the public would not support a war in Europe.


    Again, according to “Hidden History”, Belgian neutrality was a sham:

    “Belgium was involved in secret military plans for a possible war of aggression against an unsuspecting Germany but almost a decade later would be presented as the innocent victim of German aggression.”


    The Kaiser knew that the Schlieffen plan would likely fail if the British declared war too. The British could send its army across the English Channel to slow the German army in France, while Russia invaded from the east. The British navy could attack and blockade Germany from the North Sea, and it could protect France’s coast. The French navy could then be dispersed to the Mediterranean to deal with the German navy based in Pula, Austria on the Adriatic Sea.


    Mobilization is an Act of War


    It was understood in 1914 that the mobilization of an army was a de facto declaration of war. If Russia and France mobilized their armies, then Germany was confronted with a fatal disaster, unless they moved quickly. When Germany invaded Belgium, the trap was sprung. The Society of the Elect got their planned excuse to go to war.


    Here is what the “Hidden History” says about mobilization:

    “The Franco-Russian Military Convention [of 1892] was very specific in declaring that the first to mobilise must be held the aggressor, and that general mobilization ‘is war’”.


    The “Hidden History” documents the sequence of events that occurred after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.


    The Balkans had been a hotbed of conflict for years. Serbia was aggressively seeking a “Greater Serbia” of Slavic people. Nationalism was running high, and there was deep hostility towards Austria, for one because of its 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire.


    Serbia reacted with jubilation at the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo. Austria was outraged at the assassination of their future king. According to “Hidden History”, Austria had solid evidence that Serbia was behind the assassination. Austria then spent three weeks contemplating a response. On July 23rd Austria sent Serbia a list of 10 demands, and gave them 48 hours to reply.


    On July 25th Serbia’s answer was to mobilize its army, which was an act of war. Later the same day Austria began mobilizing. On July 28th Austria declared war on Serbia, and on July 29th Austria bombarded Belgrade. On July 30th Kaiser Wilhelm still hoped to placate Austria and Serbia.


    According to “Hidden History”, the Kaiser did not give Austria a “blank cheque” of military support, as stated in so many history books:

    “It is claimed that, in a deliberate attempt to force a war on Europe, the Kaiser gave an unconditional assurance to Austria by a so-called blank cheque. In fact, Austria-Hungary’s need to respond to Serbian aggression was endorsed by others including [publicly] Britain and the British press. The Kaiser and his advisors supported a local solution to a local problem and made absolutely no special preparation for war.”


    As “Hidden History” says, Germany showed no intention of attacking Russia. Nor did Russia have any obligation to defend Serbia militarily. So, the fable that the assassination of the Archduke triggered a chain reaction of opposing alliances is just that, a fable.


    The only “blank cheque” to go to war was the secret entente between Britain, France and Russia. On July 24th the Russians and the French secretly agreed to mobilize their armies. The British soon followed.


    Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty, and on July 29th he ordered the British navy to its war station in the North Sea. This put the British navy in position to attack and blockade Germany. Society of the Elect member Richard Haldane gave the order to mobilize the British army. The Society of the Elect took Great Britain to war even before the parliament authorized it.


    On July 26th Russia began mobilizing. Russia was mobilized by July 30th. The Kaiser sent a telegram to his cousin Czar Nicholas asking him to halt mobilization. The Kaiser waited in vain for 24 hours for an answer. Then Kaiser Wilhelm had his ambassador in St. Petersburg ask Russia’s minister of foreign affairs to halt Russia’s mobilization. On August 1st the Russian minister said that the Russian mobilization would continue. Later that day Germany declared war on Russia.


    Kaiser Wilhelm II Tried to Avoid War

    According to “Hidden History”, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything he could to avoid war. The Kaiser did not threaten to attack or declare war on France. He repeatedly asked his British cousin King George V if he could guarantee French neutrality. He pledged that if France would remain neutral, then Germany would not attack it.


    King George V never gave a straight answer. Instead he deceived his cousin, telling him that Britain would stay out of a “ruinous” war. It was a stall for time that Germany did not have. Belgium began mobilizing on July 31st. When the Kaiser could wait no longer he mobilized the German army on August 1, 1914. Germany was the last country to mobilize.


    On August 1st the German ambassador to London, Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky, met with Sir Edward Grey. While speaking with Lichnowsky, Grey allegedly offered that if Germany pledged not to attack France, then England would remain neutral and guarantee France’s “passivity”. Kaiser Wilhelm II accepted immediately; only to be told later by King George that “there must be some misunderstanding”. Lichnowsky then advised that if Great Britain would remain neutral, Germany would respect Belgium neutrality. Sir Edward Grey replied that he could not give this assurance since “England must have its hands free”. It had all been a stall for time, which Germany did not have.


    Babies On Bayonets


    On August 2nd the Kaiser asked Belgium for “permission“ to pass his army through. On August 3rd Belgium declined, and Germany declared war on France. On August 4th Germany invaded Belgium. The Germans were met with stiff resistance from Belgium’s 234,000-man army.


    The British propaganda machine went to work. They feigned outrage at the violation of Belgium neutrality. There were horrifying stories in the press about German atrocities, executions, rapes, and “babies on bayonets”. The British propaganda machine called it “The Rape of Belgium”.


    The British dredged up the 1839 Treaty of London. It supposedly obligated the British to defend Belgium’s neutrality. To “protect” Belgium, the British sent an expeditionary force to France on August 9th, as was secretly planned since 1906 and 1911 with French and Belgium military planners.


    The public was told that defending Belgium was a matter of honor for the British. The propaganda was that there would be a domino effect if the British Empire failed to act. Supposedly, Germany planned to conquer all of Europe; even the world. None of it was true, and Belgium neutrality was a sham.


    On August 4th King George declared war on Germany. The British parliament did not vote on the war until August 6th, and then it was to fund the war. The Society of the Elect got their war. Instead of reversing the decline of the British Empire though, the Great War accelerated it. The British came out of the war exhausted and deeply in debt to the U.S. They would have to cut spending, and reduce the size of their navy. The British Empire would never rule the seas again.


    The U.S. is Now Facing its “World War 1” Moment


    So, why did the First World War happen? The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War say that based on documentary evidence, a small group of wealthy British elites took the world to war to preserve the supremacy of the British Empire. It was a war the Society of the Elect chose.


    As Edward Bernays said:

    “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”


    Bernays was the “father of propaganda”, a dishonor usually reserved for Joseph Goebbels. During the First World War Bernays was developing war propaganda for the Allies. It was the British and the U.S. that began perfecting war propaganda.


    It takes war propaganda to stampede the public to war. Propaganda is how the British got the public to support the Boer War in 1899. Having used propaganda successfully for that war, they began using propaganda in the early 1900s to prime the British people for a war with Germany. Fear is the most effective weapon of war propaganda.


    As Henry Kissinger infamously said in 2002:

    “The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being.”


    And as H. L. Mencken said of democracy:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”


    The U.S. is now facing its “World War 1 moment”. For several decades the public has been feed constant fear mongering towards Iran, Russia and China. The public is easily frightened into giving up their liberties for the promise of protection from “hobgoblins”. Those who profit from war are not the ones who fight and die in them. With every new hobgoblin the war profiteers invent they line their pockets with money and feed their insatiable ego with power.


    Another world war could come at any time. The weapons of mass destruction are locked, loaded and ready to go in a matter of seconds. The next world war will be The Last World War.




    Suggested Books:

    The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War, by George Docherty and James MacGregor.

    Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years, by Jim Macgregor and George Docherty.

    Lord Milner’s Second War: The Rhodes-Milner secret society; the origin of World War I; and the start of the New World Order, by John Cafferky.
    Deep State Exposed: A New Trans Pacific Alliance May Now Take Shape, by Mathew J. L. Ehret.

    Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy, by Joseph Plummer



    If interested, I would strongly recommend people read the Hidden History book. They also have/had a blog that has the chapters on the internet.
    One main point that this article did not raise is that, in Hidden History, the authors show that Britain secretly kept Germany in the war through massive supplies secretly sent to Scandinavia, neutral Netherlands, and Belgium to Germany. Without being propped up, the Germany would have been forced to capitulate very soon after the war’s start. The goal was to destroy Germany permanently. A quick war would not suffice.
    Herbert Hoover – Belgian relief head – a Freemason/ Illmuninati agent. Huge efforts to erase this history after the war. Massive post-war archive/doc destruction and purge detailed in the book.




    Great overview of the period! Well done.
    One thing though, gold was discovered at what would later become Johannesburg in or about 1886, and not 1895. By 1895 Joburg had grown from nothing to about 100,000 people. It is a minor detail on the face of it, but the Jameson Raid at the end of 1895 (to provoke an uprising in Johannesburg to overthrow the Transvaal Government) played, I think, a material role in the process described.





    The First World War, Cecile Rhodes and Conspiracy Facts

    27 V 2021.

  9. #18

    SECRET ELITE's Censorship of WW 1 - HIDDEN HISTORY Conclusion - LIES, MYTHS AND STOLEN HISTORY


    SECRET ELITE's Censorship of WW 1


    Conclusion - LIES, MYTHS AND STOLEN HISTORY


    A 45 year-old ‘mining engineer’, Herbert Clark Hoover, was the Secret Elite agent charged with the mammoth task of removing incriminating documents from Europe. During the war, Hoover played a major role for the Secret Elite in operating an emergency food-supply organisation that was allegedly created to save starving Belgian civilians. In reality, the Commission for Relief of Belgium (CRB) had a much more sinister motive that will be revealed in our next book.


    An American by birth, Herbert Hoover worked in an Arizona mine owned by the Rothschilds. His geological surveys won high praise, and he came to the attention of the Rothschild mining experts. Sent in 1897 to manage Australian gold mines, Hoover proved himself ruthless. He became notorious as a hard, callous manager who cost lives by cutting back on safety props and was cordially hated by even the toughest of the Australian miners.


    In the early years of the twentieth century, Hoover moved to China and fraudulently gained control of the state-owned Kaiping coalmines. The Secret Elite in London backed Hoover’s activities to the extent the Royal Navy were sent in to protect his interests. The Chinese government eventually took legal action against him in the London courts, and Hoover was forced to confess that he had used repeated threats and brute force to claim ownership of the mines.


    Though the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, which became ‘an octopus racketeering in the stock market, racketeering in the mines and racketeering in human lives’, Hoover expanded his own empire. He supplied the British South Africa Company with the Chinese labourers whose abuse cost Alfred Milner dear, and his Rothschild/Milner links were embedded in his racketeering excesses. His co-director of the mining company, and its highly profitable slave-driving sideline, was Emile Francqui, an ex officer in the forces of King Leopold of Belgium. Francqui had ‘distinguished’ himself in the brutal Belgium regime that massacred, tortured and mutilated millions of natives in the Congo to provide vast profits for Leopold’s company. The same Francqui later worked closely with his ‘humanitarian’ colleague, Herbert Hoover, to relieve the starving children in Europe – or so it was officially portrayed. Hoover’s bloody reputation was revised during the war to project the false image of an enlightened Quaker philanthropist, a caring man who had repatriated Americans stranded in Europe in August 1914 and gone to the head of the CRB. Hoover the ruthless, evil racketeer was reinvented as Hoover the saviour of starving children.


    In early 1919, Herbert Hoover was given another important task by the Secret Elite as they set about removing documentary evidence about the origins of the First World War. They re-invented him again, this time as a scholarly individual who ‘loved books’ and wished to collect manuscripts and reports relating to the war because they would otherwise ‘easily deteriorate and disappear’. No government gave official sanction to this removal of historical artefacts. It was dressed as a philanthropic act of preservation for the use of future historians. Indeed, like the thief in the night, stealth was the rule of thumb.


    On the basis that it was kept ‘entirely confident’, Ephraim Adams, professor of history at Stanford University, a close friend of Hoover’s from their student days, was called to Paris to coordinate the great heist and dress it in a cloak of academic respectability. Hoover ‘donated $50,000 to the project, recruited a management team of ‘young scholars’ from the American army and secured their release from military service. This team used letters of introduction and logistical support from Hoover to collect material and establish a network of representatives throughout Europe. He persuaded General John Pershing to release 15 History professors and students serving in various ranks of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe and sent them, in uniform, to the countries his agency was feeding. With food in one hand and reassurance in the other, these agents faced little resistance in their quest. They made the right contacts, ‘snooped’ around for archives and found so many that Hoover ‘was soon shipping them back to the US as ballast in the empty food boats’.


    Hoover recruited an additional 1,000 agents whose first haul amounted to 375,000 volumes of the ‘Secret War Documents’ of European governments. Hoover’s $50,000 ‘donation’ would have paid for 70 of these agents for a year, and it has not been possible to discover from which sources he funded the other 930. Most likely they were American or British military personnel released to Hoover under the direct orders of the Secret Elite, in which case the ultimate source of their funding was the US and British taxpayer.


    Hoover’s backers believed that there would only be ten years within which the most valuable material could be ‘acquired’, but it would take a thousand years to catalogue it. The collection was accelerated to a ‘frenzied pace’. They were primarily interested in material relating to the war’s origin and the workings of the Commission for the Relief of Belgium. Other documents relating to the war itself were ignored. The secret removal and disposal of incriminatory British and French material posed little or no problem for the Secret Elite, and, surprisingly, once the Bolsheviks had taken control, access to Russian documents proved straightforward. Professor Miliukov, foreign minister in the old Kerensky regime, informed Hoover that some of the czarist archives pertaining to the origins of the war had been concealed in a barn in Finland. Hoover later boasted that’Getting them was no trouble at all. We were feeding Finland at the time.’


    The Secret Elite thus took possession of a mass of evidence from the old czarist regime and that undoubtedly contained hugely damaging information on Sarajevo and Russia’s secret mobilisation. Likewise, damning correspondence between Sazonov and Isvolsky in Paris, and Sazonov and Hartwig in Belgrade, has been lost to posterity. As shown in Chapter 19, the Russian diplomatic papers from 1914 revealed an astonishing gap. Ambassador Hartwig’s dispatches from Belgrade for the crucial period between may and July 1914, when the decisions on Franz Ferdinand’s assassination were being finalized, were removed from the archives of the Russian foreign Ministry by an unknown person. These were documents of momentous importance that would have changed forever the myth of Sarajevo.


    It might first appear strange that the Bolsheviks cooperated so willingly by allowing Hoover’s agents to remove 25 carloads of material from Petrograd. According to the New York Times Hoover’s team bought the Bolshevik documents from a ‘doorkeeper’ for $200 cash, but there were darker forces at play which we will examine later.


    The removal of documents from Germany presented few problems. Fifteen carloads of material were taken , including the ‘complete secret minutes of the German Supreme War Council’ – a ‘gift’ from Friedrich Ebert, first president of the post-war German Republic. Hoover explained that Ebert was ‘a radical with no interest in the work of his predecessors’, but the starving man will exchange even his birthright for food. Hoover’s people also acquired 6,000 volumes of court documents covering the complete official and secret proceedings of the Kaiser’s war preparations and his wartime conduct of the German Empire.


    Bt 1926 the ‘Hoover War Library’ was so packed with documentary material that it was legitimately described as the largest in the world dealing with the First World War. In reality this was no library. While the documents were physically housed within Stanford, the collection was kept separate and only individuals with the highest authorisation and a key to the padlock were allowed access. In 1941,22 years after Hoover began the task of secreting away the real history of the First World War, selected documents were made available to the public. What was withheld from view or destroyed will never be known. Suffice to say that no First World War historian has ever reproduced or quoted any controversial material housed in what is now known as the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace. Indeed it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. WHY?


    Before his death in 1964, Hoover reflected that the institution had to constantly and dynamically point the road to ‘peace’, to ’personal freedom’ and ‘private enterprise’. His words betray an Orwellian doublespeak, a contradiction conjured from the past by the rewriting of history. To him and his elk, black was white, war was peace. ‘Personal freedom’ was restricted to the rich. It was the language of the Secret Elite.


    What this Hidden History has revealed is not revealed in British historical writing. Perhaps one day it will be. What is taught in classrooms and lecture halls bears no resemblance to the narrative in this book. Some historians have worn a straightjacket, limited by their willingness to go no further than the official evidence provided by departments of state, government reports, selected documentation, officially sanctioned histories and well-cleansed memoirs. Those who consider that the only true history is that which can be evidenced to the last letter necessarily constrain their own parameters. The individual who attempts to climb a mountain by taking only the givin pathway may well discover that, far from reaching the summit, he/she has become a cross-country runner between markers deliberately set to confuse.


    Ian Bell, the renowned Scottish journalist, wrote recently:


    What is known has to be said. What happened has to be faced. History, that baffling mess, has to be confronted. The evidence for that miserable proposition has been accumulating for generations.


    After a century of propaganda, lies and brain washing about the First World War, cognitive dissonance renders us too uncomfortable to bear the truth that it was a small, socially advantaged group of self-styled English patriots, backed by powerful industrialists and financiers in Britain and the United States, who caused the First World War. The determination of this London based Secret Elite to destroy Germany and take control of the world was responsible for the deaths of millions of honourable young men who were betrayed and sacrificed in a mindless, bloody slaughter to further a dishonourable cause. Today, tens of thousands of war memorials in villages, town and cities across the world bear witness to the great lie, the betrayal, that they died for ‘the greater glory of God’ and that ‘we might be free’. It is a lie that binds them to a myth. They are remembered in empty rollcalls erected to conceal the war’s true purpose. What they deserve is the truth, and we must not fail them in that duty.


    Book:

    HIDDEN HISTORY
    – The Secret Origins of the First World War

    By Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

    Conclusion - LIES, MYTHS AND STOLEN HISTORY P357 - 361



    05 VI 2021.

  10. #19

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •