I don’t usually like to just highlight other blogs without at least a bit of elaboration, but this one says it all: From radio host Kevin Barrett at TruthJihad.com blog:
US Congress Moves to Israel in Deficit-Reduction Effort
August 12 2011
Disassociated PressIn the wake of the announcement that 81 US Congressmen are leaving on an AIPAC-sponsored junket to Israel, the new SuperCongress announced today that the entire legislative branch of the US government will be moved to Tel Aviv. The reason, according to informed sources, is to save on travel junket expenses to reduce the national deficit.
Relocating Congress to Israel is expected to significantly lower the cost of AIPAC-sponsored junkets: Airfare costs will be eliminated, hotel costs reduced, and “preferred customer” cocaine and prostitution discounts taken advantage of. The move should bring a noticeable reduction in the hemorrhage of US taxpayer dollars to the Zionist state.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Israelis should be subject to U.S. federal tax. As it stands, they get representation without taxation. They get our military, without having to pay for it. They get de facto welfare payments, without having to fund them.
The situation isn’t fair for the rest of the members of this political entity.
Supposing we achieve an end to the support for the state of Israel how does that help us put an end to immigration ? In fact the liver-lipped liberals who bleat about Israel being an ethnically orientated (nationalist) state are the very same ones who would open all white countries to an unending unwhite influx, onnce they have taken down israel they’d turn all there moralizing hatred on white countries The universalists who make up much of the anti Israel crowd are called anti Semites by Israelis and neocons but don’t let that kid you, they are not. The whites like (Steven Walt) and leftest Jews (like Philip Weiss) who oppose Israel’s right to try remain a Jewish state are the mortal enemies of nationalism- ALL NATIONALISM.
We need to establish that nationalism is legitimate, attacking Israeli /Jewish nationalism doesn’t help us at all.
@Someday:
Whatever you think of nationalism, Americans shouldn’t be bearing the costs of Jewish-supremacist nationalism. Let Zionists pay for that with their own money and their own lives, if that is what they choose. Americans have paid huge costs already for Israel in direct fund transfers (billions and billions of “foreign aid”), in our ever expanding “national security state” (with as yet difficult to quantify costs to our liberty and political system), in economic shocks (the 1970s inflation), and most importantly, with our lives (1991 Iraq invasion, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Beirut bombing, USS Cole, East Africa embassy bombings, 9/11, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, etc.). Heck, how much of WWI and WWII were related to Zionism?
Letting your own country and people get used and abused to further the nationalism of a completely different country is the very antithesis of nationalism. Withdrawing our slavish kowtowing to Israel would constitute an assertion of American nationalism, if that is what is important to you.
Why should American independence from Israel hurt efforts to protect our own borders? I don’t see how it hurts that important issue, but here are two ways it could help: (a) encouraging a mindset of American independence and nationalism is consistent with defending our borders; (b) extricating ourselves from Israel would undercut the “terror threat” and free up time and space in the media to discuss other important issues–such as immigration.
Steven Walt on the Congressmen’s trip.
He sounds a like TOO but reread the article ‘Stephen Walt on Anders Brevick, Immigration, and Western Culture’ and remind yourself what he (and the rest of the anti Israel crowd) think about white nationalism. He thinks it’s a “warped worldview”. The mainstream Israel bashers are a type, what Jaensche called Der Gegentypus.
@Someday:
Prostituting your own country for someone else’s country is the very antithesis of nationalism. This couldn’t be more clear.
@Someday wrote:
We need to establish that nationalism is legitimate, attacking Israeli /Jewish nationalism doesn’t help us at all.
So why not support Palestinian nationalism then? And given your concern with immigration, aren’t the Palestinians more analogous than the Zionists to ethnic Americans–as an indigenous majority, the traditional stock of a territory, that is facing an effort by new arrivals to take over?
@Anon2:
‘Letting’ doen’t come into it the strategy has to deal with the fact of WN’s powerlessness to affect Middle East policy and concentrate on the immigration issue alone.
I want neocons to have to choose between continuing support for Israel and continuing immigration, I think their priority is Israel and they’d chose to halt the immigration if it came to that. If they wanted to they could end immigration with a flick of their eyebrow. The reason that the borders are open is nothing to do with the resources that go into US support for Israel. I do think that a price should be asked for continuing support for Israel, it should be neocon support for halting immigration. (W. Nationalists are kidding themselves if they think that the Israel lobby is worried about them, in fact Israel bashing by WNs is good for Israel).
“Heck, how much of WWI and WWII were related to Zionism?”
Zero. Germany’s leadership started WW1 quite deliberately, their reasoning was that it was now or never check the growth of the Russian colossus, they thought that this had to be done before 1917 when the (French financed) Russian military railway building programe would be completed and remove any possibility of successfully fighting a war against Russia and her allies. Bethmann Holliwig reluctantly decided war was necessary but to be successful the war had to come about in such a way that that the German people would see it as self defence and unite behind its government; hence he put up a facade to give the impression that Germany had not intentionaly started the war. In 1914 the German leadership actions were designed to draw Russia into war but avoid the responsibilty for starting it by blaming them. He understood that Britain, having bound itself to France and Russia would NOT stay out but he preferred a continental or world war to the alternative.
Appearances to the contrary were the result of the German leadership deliberately misleading their own people, their Austrian allies , and the Russians. The people had shifted ‘both politically and culturally, from nationalism to internationalism. Left-wing parties were gaining ground, and their worldview was essentially internationalist’. However the German leadership were careful to make it look like they were not trying to start a war because were worried about the reaction of the Social Democratic party and the workers, so they tried to make it look like they were acting in self defence.
They had to avoid letting the Austrians (who were needed for the German military plan to work ) know what they were up to, delaying the British entry (seen as inevitable) was a secondary motive.
Germany adriotly used Austria to draw Russia into a war. The Origins of Major War Page 79- relevant chapter .
The motivation of Hitler for WW2 was similar: fear of the Russian colossus.
@Anon2:
Support the ‘Palestinians’ and we will end up like them.
@Someday:
Right, because the United State’s serving Israel hand and foot for the past 60 years hasn’t coincided with the large-scale displacement of ethnic Americans in the United States, has it? Ethnic Americans are now, in effect, ending up like the Palestinians. It’s not because of support for Palestine–there hasn’t been any.
Maybe it’s time for a different approach.
@Someday:
I want neocons to have to choose between continuing support for Israel and continuing immigration, I think their priority is Israel and they’d chose to halt the immigration if it came to that.
I think the neocon priority has been immigration, although the motivation behind both is the same: to counter the European Threat. The European Threat, as the Zionists have seen it, is two-pronged: European hostility toward Jews and European attraction toward Jews (or Jewish attraction toward Europeans), in other words, assimilation. Which of immigration or Israel are more effective at neutralizing the European threat? I think it has been immigration. I don’t know if it will remain the priority going forward because once Europeans have lost power and collective identity, the European Threat is diminished and immigration’s work will be done.
RE Zionist influence and WWI and WWII:
How much of a role did Zionism play in Great Britain’s confrontational approach to Germany in WWI? Or in America’s entry into that war? The timing of the Balfour Declaration is rather interesting. Was there any of the kind of lobbying then that we have all witnessed recently in regard to pushing the United States into confrontations with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?
In regard to WWII, I understand that Adolf Hitler cited Zionism in Mein Kampf in narrating how he formed his worldview. I was also surprised to learn recently that Zionist groups supported the Nuremberg Laws.
Just a reminder:The SPLC is a racist hyperethnic Jewish organization whose mission is to racially cleanse the Native Born White American Christian Majority out of America.
@Someday:
Someday,you are a Jewish activist with the (self chosen) task to push WN in the direction of supporting Israel.That is clear enough from your comments. Your reasoning though is right that there is an ideological contradiction in the WN support for an ethno-state for themselves but not for the Jews in Israel. But that is only a theorethical thing.There is no interest for us in Israel’s welbeing or even existence at all.Rather to the contrary,it costs us money and sympathy in the world.Besides there is little love between us and the Jews.We know very well who is behind our race-replacement (virtually our genocide) so why should we care for their problems?You try to make a deal with us:support Israel, then we will support you in not being genocided by us.How generous!First you tried to exploit and destroy us,now you have come to the conclusion that it is better not to destroy us but use us for Israel.You really think we will be gratefull?
@Franklin Ryckaert:
What is the ideological contradiction between support for a white majority state in the United States but not a state for Jews in Palestine? Is there also an ideological contradiction with nonsupport for a state for Palestinians in Palestine? What if there are competing claims by several groups to the same territory–how does a white nationalist avoid inconsistency in such a scenario?
@Anon2:
Short formula: Whites in the USA : Native Americans (Indians) = Jews in Israel: Native Palestinians.If you are for an ethno-state for Whites in America (at the cost of the Indians),then logically you should also be for an ethno-state for Jews in Palestine (at the cost of the Palestinians).If you see Jews and Palestinians as two groups with equal claims to the same land however,then there is an uneasy parallel with the rival claim of the Mexicans of la Raza to the SW of the USA.
Ultimately there is no such thing as “historical rights”. Everything is based on power,whoever has the power has the right.That happens in nature,that happens in history.
I feel no remorse that Europeans have colonized great territories in North and South America,Australia,New Zealand and Siberia.Those regions were all sparsely populated by primitive peoples.I do feel remorse however that their dispossession often happened with cruelty that could have been avoided. There were only 1 or 2 million natives (Indians and Eskimos) North of the Rio Grande when the Europeans arrived.They all could have been resettled on Vancouver Island and then be left alone.Instead they were dispossessed in an unnecessarily cruel way.Same with the 250,000 Aborigines who lived in Australia when the Europeans arrived.To steal land in a rational and humane way seems to have been unconceivable to the European settlers.Everything went in a haphazard and cruel way.Now the descendents of those settlers feel “guilty” for their past and are prepared to accept their own dispossession in their turn by non-White immigrants.Stupidity rules the world.
This is the middle finger of the Republican Congress, directed straight at the White House. I think it hits the nostrils with the bouquet of **gefilte fisch** that has been in the desert sun for two days.
It’s kind of clever, though. Israel has outflanked its enemies on the Right.
@Someday:
“We need to establish that nationalism is legitimate, attacking Israeli /Jewish nationalism doesn’t help us at all.”
Jews have no problem simultaneously attacking European nationalism while supporting Jewish nationalism. This is a good strategy; generate sympathy for your people while demonizing others. There’s really no downside, especially since people suck at recognizing hypocrisy.
We need to learn to use their own tactics against them. Any Faustian pacts with Zionists will only lead us to ruin. Muslims are not our allies. Nor are Jews. Whites need their own perspective and their own viewpoint. They don’t need any kind of external alliances.
Also, there is no equivalency between European and Jewish nationalism. There are no European nations that are bombing and oppressing their neighbors and acting in a thoroughly aggressive manner against defenseless people. This would be a great talking point: paint Israelis as aggressive and murderous and Europeans as peaceful and democratic. Because, you know, that’s kind of the reality.
One theory holds that the ever insidious British got the Zionist project in Palestine rolling in order to possess a mechanism for keeping the increasingly restless hordes of mohammedans in check.
In that the so-called Israel has been and shall continue to be a Western project.
Hoping for a day when Israel will let go of America’s teat is unrealistic as they have long run out of alternative patrons. In the past the dubious honor of being Israel’s weapon dealer; banker; diplomatic getaway driver; moral booster and so forth used to be held by France. Until eventually the Israelis overplayed their hand (now here’s news) forcing de Gaulle, who struggled to mask his contempt for the Jew all along, to now come out and officially bid them a heartfelt F*CK OFF.
Starting with the order to shut down the entire Mossad grid in France; the largest in Western Europe @ the time.
Gov. Rick Perry recently raised the issue of treason vis-à-vis Ben Shalom Bernanke’s actions as chairman of the Fed. The Democrats and neocons quickly circled the wagons on behalf of Bernanke and their (Jewish) Fed paymasters.
http://www.libertariantoday.com/2011/08/neocons-and-liberal-fascists-circle.html
Ron Paul and his anti-Fed agenda are getting more attention than ever. Ron Paul himself is getting more attention than ever.
I get the distinct impression that the Jewish-owned establishment is getting increasingly hot under the collar, and increasingly fearful that its goose may be cooked.
Maybe this parody isn’t so far-fetched. We know U.S. Zionist Jewry always keeps back door escape plans to Tel Aviv close at hand. Why not its treasonous goy collaborators, as well?
@Someday: “Support the ‘Palestinians’ and we will end up like them.”
What exactly do you mean by that? In open air concentration camps under the gun of Judeo-Bolshevik-Zionist sadists? Are you making a forecast or a threat?
Based on your comments, it seems that you are either Jewish (in which case your motives are self-evident), or a Judeo-Christian Zionist.
Marxist Jews had their treasonous, pseudo-”Christian” useful idiots in the Soviet Union prior to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and Zionist Jews have their treasonous, psuedo-”Christian” useful idiots in America today.
The only difference is that the American ones lean right instead of left, but they’re equally infected with a Jewish-engineered “fire in the mind.”
Ultimately, though, it’s they that get burned, whereas Jewry will simply skip off to Israel just as the Judeo-Bolsheviks did.
@Anon2: AMEN!!!!!!
81 Congress members going on an all expenses paid trip (via AIPAC) to Israel is yet another slap in the face by the nasty putrid hook nose jew. I’d hate to state the obvious and harsh but the only defense Americans have against the jew would be to set up a military coup – one designed to destroy all facets of zionism – freeze the jew out of government positions, dismantle their control over the media (print, television, internet, etc.), kill the FED, shake down many of the jewish run investment banks/financial institutions and topple unworthy, dishonest (but powerful) organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL. People, conservatives especially, are too concerned with Mexicans, Muslims, the Chinese, etc. – it’s the jew who poses the greatest threat to not just White America, but all forms of human life.
At the end of WW2, Jews decided to create a STATE of Israel with clearly defined borders under the assumption that the US would ALWAYS be there to defend it, militarily, financially, as well as ideologically. Wow, you don’t get more parasitic than that; to create your dream ethnic state in the middle of the biggest religious hot mess on the planet, safe in the knowledge that you can always con another nation into picking up the pieces for you and funding your various exploits until the end of time. I do believe the Jews have coined the perfect word for it: Chutzpah!
81 members of the US Congress accept bribery.
Let’s make it clear what Israel is – “A Jewish State” in the middle of muslim country. Prior to Israel, Jews had thought about settling in Argentina, which has a large Jewish population. The Holocaust brainwashing fraud has been their greatest trick thus far…because of it, they’ve acquired land, foreign aid (from various countries), lots of sympathy – it’s their wild card…they throw it down when ever they commit human rights violations and are subject to questioning.
@Anon2:
“How much of a role did Zionism play in Great Britain’s confrontational approach to Germany in WWI?”
I have already said . Zero
Many years ago there was a BBC comedy called ‘Ripping Yarns’ one episode was called Whinfrey’s Last Case and concerned hero in pre WW1 England investigating a rumor that ‘the Germans will start the war one year early’.
Believe it or not, it was predicted in advance (almost to the day) that the Germans would start the war in 1914. By an obscure writer ? No, by the head of the British Navy. Here. Britain took a confrontational attitude to Germany because it accurately understood that the German intention was to crush Russia before it became too powerful, neutralize France, and establish a German hegemony over Europe. German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912
One important reason for the Balfour declaration was that the British were worried that Germany was about to make a similar declaration, The war had been going on for some time before the need to get the US in the war on Britain’s side (by offering US Jews on the Allies’ side a Jewish homeland in Palestine) became an issue . However the main reason that the US came in was their concern that Germany might win; for reasons of power politics it didn’t make sense for the US to allow Germany to win WW1 and become a superpower.
France can be seen as the éminence grise behind WW1, it encouraged the Russians to expect that coordinated offensive operations would quickly defeat Russia. Pyrrhic Victory: French Strategy and Operations in the Great War, Page 23 Crucially, France financed improvements to Russia’s railway system that made the Germans think they had to act before 1917. <a
On August 18, 2011 President Obama expanded sanctions against Syria and demanded their leader bow down to mob rule. (We have frozen their assets, too!) Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton shakes her fist at Iran and warns them to not interfere!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/18/obama-demands-syrian-leader-step-down/
@Someday:
Your own posts appears to acknowledge that Zionists pressured the United States to enter World War I. It also appears to acknowledge that the Balfour Declaration may have been a quid pro quo with the Zionists to have them use their influence in the United States to push us into war. U.S. support of Britain certainly emboldened Britain in its dealings with Germany, making a negotiated settlement less likely.
Anon 2 asked “The timing of the Balfour Declaration is rather interesting. Was there any of the kind of lobbying then that we have all witnessed recently in regard to pushing the United States into confrontations with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?”
it was massive bribery both of individual politicians and also Rothschild, Oppenheimer, Montifiore, Kuhn Loeb and other Jewish bankers lending much of the cost of WW1 to the government of England.
Winston Churchill got about one hundred thousand pounds which enabled him to buy for 50,000 pds and totally modernize, remodel and landscape (another 50,000) the only home he ever owned, Chequers.
Germany had to keep Russia in check ?!
Russia was a sleepy backwater ruled by a limp-wristed emperor with certifiable mental asylum escapee of a spouse.
Only 9 years prior, Russia managed to lose a war to Jacob Schiff-financed Japan that learned modern naval warfare literally the day before yesterday.
Kevin Barrett PhD has dedicated his life to expose official lies about Muslims behind 9/11. His ideas irked the state pro-Israel congressmen who ran a vicious campaign to get him fired from the University. Now, no American University dare to hire him. As the result, Dr. Barrett started his own radio talkshow. It was his search to find the 9/11 truth which helped him to convert to Islam.
In June he took his 9/11 Crusade to Turkey and Germany.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/911-truth-tellers-in-turkey/
YES – Dr. Kevin James Barrett (born 1959) do deny the ’9/11 official story’ that Muslims were behind the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. On ‘April Fool Day (April 1, 2011) he posted ”if Americans deny that their government murdered two million Muslims in vengeance to 9/11 – he can easily deny “the German murders of Gypsies, Slavs, handicapped people, communists, Jews, and others during World War II constitutes a holocaust”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/kevin-barrett-im-911-denier/
@mari: The Churchills’ home in County Kent was Chartwell not Chequers. [Chequers since the 1920's is the official country retreat of the British Prime Ministers.] Chartwell cost 5,000 pounds (a handsome sum in 1923) not 50,000. The cost of the necessary renovations is unknown. Churchill did some of it — on the outbuildings and grounds — with his own hands.
Churchill had to contemplate selling Chartwell in 1947 because the property was so costly to keep up. It required a staff of eight at the very least. The National Trust took it over with the Churchills allowed to reside there for the remainder of their lives. Clementine Churchill declined to stay there after the death of Winston Churchill in 1965.
Winston Churchill supported himself primarily with his writing. There were rumors that his losses in the stock market crash were made good by American financier and presidential adviser Bernard Baruch but this is supposition.
Churchill was enthusiastic for The Great War long before there was any thought of the United States entering the war.
@Rehmat: At first I thought this was just another hireling, but even though some Arab oil sheikhs have a lot more money than brains, why would they give it to someone so clearly out of his senses?
It’s sad, really. Another “Beautiful Mind” story.
@Sam Davidson: Syria has just been banned from World Cup competition in 2014.
More bowing to “mob rule” — or a reaction to a government that thinks it’s still the 16th century?
@Anon2: President Wilson and the American people were much more kindly disposed toward France than Britain. As recently as 1899 we had taken sides against Britain in a border dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana.
There were however war loans to Britain. A more cynical view is that the USA came in the war to protect its creditors and make sure they would survive to pay us back.
The only one that did was Finland.
@Fenria:
You wrote: “…Jews decided to create a STATE of Israel with clearly defined borders…”
Israel has NEVER formally defined its borders, which is why it is NOT an ally of the United States and can never be an ally of the United States without defining its borders first. Without a declaration of territorial boundaries an alliance between the United States and Israel is a legal impossibility. So, anyone who calls Israel an ally is either ignorant or lying.
(Three guesses why Israel has chosen not to define its borders, but I know you can accurately answer why in one try.)
@mari:
In the interest of accuracy, Chequers is the country home of the British PM. Chartwell was Churchill’s home.
@Caleb:
What evidence to people who take this view point to? I mean, beyond the mere existence of loans (the nature and quantity of which I’d actually be interested in knowing, if you have the info).
@Anon2: On a Hungarian site we had a lot of conversations about it, and I think the numbers in early 1917 were on the order of maybe 10-20% of the US GDP of the time. However, apparently the US press was quite hostile to the entry into the war until the stupid Zimmermann-cable, and the US only broke diplomatic relations with Germany after the renewal of the total U-boot blockade of England, and didn’t enter the war (as they had promised earlier).
Nevertheless, at least in Hungary many people believe that this was the reason.
I think at least some of these congresspersons must hate Israel and the Jews. Some people are willing to sell themselves for money and power, but they don’t always enjoy it.
@Gabor:
Is there any evidence that banks lobbied the government to enter the war? I’m not doubting there is, just wondering what the facts are for those who espouse this theory.
What does your circle in Hungary think about Brandeis’s strong influence with Woodrow Wilson and the theory that the Balfour Declaration was a quid pro quo for pushing the U.S. toward entry into the war on the side of Great Britain?
@Anon2: We had that conversation some 3-4 years ago. The facts that could be established show that
1) the amount of the debt was large, but the cost of war even larger, so even if that was the motivation, it could not have been a US national interest
2) the US didn’t enter the war even after the start of the U-Boot warfare
3) the proximate reason for the US entry was the stupid Zimmermann-cable, which caused general (and understandable) outcry and the personal indignation of president Wilson. (The cable was sent through a US cable line, the usage of the cable line was granted to the Germans because the president wanted to facilitate diplomatic contact between the Germans, himself, and Allied powers. Obviously he didn’t lend the cable to send messages to Mexico about attacking the US…)
I think Wilson had every reason to enter the war: at last, popular opinion was in favor of it, and the Germans really did something outrageous, insulting not only the American people but the person of the president as well.
@Anon2: I suppose Jews lobbied against the entry to the war until March 1917, when the Russian revolution changed the situation for them. Probably they stopped all that lobbying after that, but I’m not quite sure how much they could have done a turnaround that quickly. They themselves needed some time to assess the changes in Russia, and what would be good for the Jews in the new situation.
@Caleb:
Have you ever thought that if some of those Sheikhs had both money and brains – the White folks would have been licking Arab shoes instead of Jewish shoes!!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/holocaust-how-thee-serve-israel/
@Felix Grubel: Could this be because Israel had no borders, only cease fire lines, between 1948 and 1974, the Arab states **en bloc** refusing recognition?
The land borders with Egypt and Jordan are fixed and settled.
@Caleb: However, the ceasefire lines were and are internationally recognized, so Israel could declare those borders permanent. They obviously don’t want to do that, because they need Eastern Jerusalem, the Golan, and many other parts.
BTW Egypt’s borders are permanent and fixed, but Israel’s aren’t. Because Gaza is both controlled by Israel (when it comes to controlling maritime borders, like in the case of the Gaza Flotilla), and not controlled by them (when it comes to responsibility for maintaining order or feeding the civilian population).
On March 22, 2011 – the ‘self-hating Jew’ Dr. Richard Falk was interviewed by Kevin Barrett PhD, during which Falk said: “I would add one word about Ahmadinejad; I had a message from a friend in Lebanon who said his recent visit to Lebanon was greeted with the greatest enthusiasm expressed toward any foreign leader in the history of the country. This is an indication of how far we, in this country, and our media, are disconnected with the mood and climate of opinion elsewehere. Lebanon is a country that wasn’t particularly thought of as even being in the Islamic world, it’s as a divided country. But Iran did a great deal to help the reconstruction of Lebanon after the 2007 devastating air attacks by Israel, and the people of the country recognize this, and express their thanks and gratitude toward Ahmadinejad, as well as his position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is very, somehow, important that like your own try to break through this wall of deception that the American people have been living behind for so long now that they don’t even understand that they are being manipulated in a very dangerous and self-destructive way”……..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/richard-falk-cartoon-and-the-lobby/
The US entered WW1 because it looked like Germany was going to win, become a superpower, it would then be in a position to threaten US security.
Jews did not want Britain to go to war with Germany. The Kaiser’s friend Ballin tried to improve relations. (Though Ballin had encouraged the Kaiser to push Germany’s foolish seapower strategy and it was Admiral Tirpitz’s objection that the navy was not ready which caused the Germany to miss its best chance in 1905.
HereIn 1912 and 1913 German chancellor Bethmann passed measures to increase standing land forces by 25%, the war minestry warned Bethmann that this would cause other countries respond with their own a military buld ups and that therefore Germany sould only take the measures if war was imminent Here. The military advised Bethmann that for Germany to have a hope of winning it was necessary to fight before Russia acheived its full military potential of “overwhelming proportions”.
In 1905 Russia had been in chaos ( and an opportunity for Germany had been missed in 1905 when the Kaiser overruled his generals, who wanted to mount a surprise attack) But the defeat by Japan had halted Russia’s drive east (Here). While it is true 1905 caused people to see Russia as a paper tiger, 1905 was a turning point because perception of Russia’s weakness made Britain realize that they couldn’t pass the buck any longer. Britain began to build a substantial army and, in effect, allied itself with France in a militarily understanding. The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 completed the alliances There was no real doubt at that point that Germany would not be facing Russia on a one to one basis and that Russia was only going to grow in strength. Moreover. the Russians had improved relations with Japan and could put the bulk of their troops into the west, the double track of the trans Siberian railway was completed in 1914.
There is a case that the German leadership maybe expected the Russians to back down but Germany’s behavior carried a considerable risk a major war, as they were well aware. Gottlieb von Jagow said ” I have no wish for a preventive war, but if the fight offers itself, we dare not flinch. …” Crucially, Sarajevo was just the last in a string of crisis where Germany had behaved in a similar manner namely 1908-9, 1912, 1913 and early 1914. On each occasion the Russians had backed down. In 1914 the Russians were stronger and had added confidence because they knew the Schlieffen Plan mandated the full weight of the German army would be turned on France for the first 6 weeks.(<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D3O7YKJcBfYC&pg=PA68&dq=Power+shifts,+strategy,+and+war:+declining+states+and+international+conflict+maneuver+strategy+russia's+firm+stance&hl=en&ei=jVhSTqaMH4uWOr3Qmf0G&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"Power shifts, strategy, and war: declining states and international conflict. P66 -68 When Russia finally did not seem keen to back down the Germans took the opportunity to crush them. If there had been no Sarajevo there would have been some other crisis which the Germans would have used.
WW2 was no different
The Origins of Major War p.138
@Rehmat:
Mark that “if”.
@Gabor:
Wilhelmine Germany had quite a lot of Jews including some very influential ones, the entry of the US into the war was hardly good news for them was it.
In 1917 it looked like U -boats were going to win Germany the war, the US came in to forestall that eventuality. Germany had every incentive to try and prevent the US coming in on the side of Britain and rumors that the Germans were going to declare in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to try and keep the US out caused the British to issue the Balfour declaration. That suggests no more than the British thought that US Jews had some influence. It was the U-boat campaign which caused the Balfour declaration. But the US came in for their own reasons and if all the British had to do was give the BD to get the US to enter the war on their side why didn’t they give the BD in 1914, 1915 or 1916 ? The answer is perfectly obvious, they knew that it would have no effect and that, influential as they were, Jews could not get the the USA to enter the war unless it was in the interest of the USA to do so, as it was in 1917.
It must be remembered that Palestine did not belong to Germany and it it was not a forgone conclusion that the Ottoman Empire would enter the war on Germany’s side. When it did it was months later after the begining and largely the result of mistakes by the British navy in failing to engage the Goeben and Bresla which allowed them to slip into Ottoman waters where Germany gave them to the Ottoman empire. That tipped the balance and the OE joined the central powers, but the there was still a protracted debate in the OE leadership before that happened.
The British empire with millions of Muslim subjects certainly didn’t want to fight the Ottoman Sultan (who, as Caliph, also claimed to be the supreme spiritual leader to Muslims)
.
@Gabor: As any “Hunkie” well knows, it takes two to fix a boundary. [Is that Temesvar...or Timisoara?]
The right to exist within secure **and recognized** borders has been a fundamental requirement of the State of Israel ever since its founding. It also is part of UN Resolution 242 which ended the Six Day War.
@Someday: Very thorough, Someday.
I would add that the US government itself was the largest creditor to the Entente Powers, some $10 billion worth, including post-war relief. The question of how much should be paid back landed eventually in the lap of Pres. Coolidge.
Among private lenders, the largest was J.P. Morgan’s bank. The Rothschild Bank lent large sums to the French but the US was not going to go to war to save a foreign bank. Jacob Schiff through Kuhn, Loeb made loans to Britain and it is unclear how much was paid back.
The assumption, on both sides in fact, was that the loser of the Great War would pay the winner so that the winner could pay its war debt. When the victorious powers tried to put this in effect under Versailles, the Germans soon defaulted, the French occupied the Ruhr, Germany replied with hyperinflation.
I guess you know by now that 81 (20%) of American lawmakers took a week-long vacation in Israel and enjoyed Dead Sea, beautiful beaches and of course 280 brothels in Tel Aviv. However, I bet, most of you did not know that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D. Illinois), son of ’anti-Semite‘ Rev. Jesse Jackson was also among the 26 Democrats who along with 55 fellow Republicans visited Israel.
Jesse Jackson Jr. even wrote a column for Israel daily Jerusalem Post (August 17, 2011) in which he warned Palestinians that if they tried to seek recognition as a state from United Nations next month – the US will “almost certainly use its veto in the UN Security Council, which will insure that Palestinian statehood effort will fail”. Therefore, his advice to the victims of foreign Jews, was to abandon military resistance against the aggressor and adopt non-violent protests (like the Israeli ‘tent protests’).
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/shapiro-%e2%80%98why-only-81-lawmakers-going-to-israel%e2%80%99/
@Someday
Re: WWI – all wars are economic wars.
It is well established that King George V was openly hostile to his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II from the beginning of his reign in 1910, and on many occasions publicly humiliated him. The reason was Germany was becoming an economic rival soon to pass Britain. The Kaiser was known to have sought George V’s acceptance and attempted to build bridges with Britain. All attempts were rejected. As for war with Russia, Czarina Alexandra was Wilhelm’s first cousin, and George V also her cousin. All 3 were grandchildren of Victoria. Blaming Germany for WWI is like blaming the Palestinians for the Ottoman Turks entering WWI.
The US entered WWI because of the sinking of the Lusitania. The Germans claimed that it was carrying munitions from an allegedly neutral US to Britain. The US denied it. Within the last few years, the Lusitania was located off Ireland, and was found to be full of munitions.
“Russian” Revolution: Jewish bankers from New York trained and funded the Bolshevik leaders, then sent them to Russia to start the revolution. The Czar had already abdicated when he and his family were murdered. Churches in Russia were destroyed, but not synagogues.
The Balfour declaration promised Lord Rothschild the same land that the British government through T.E. Lawrence had promised the Arabs for their uprising against the Ottomans. Purely a co-incidence that Lawrence died in an “accident” after expressing his objection to the betrayal.
According to Benjamin Freedman, who was actually at Versaille, WWI was orchestrated by Jewish bankers.
If you ever bother to get past the ever popular Hitler started it because he invaded Poland, you would have found out that Poland had invaded Czechoslovakia; Hitler offered a peace treaty that would have guaranteed Poland’s borders; Poland was carrying out ethnic cleansing in the Danzig corridor; and finally Poland signed a pact with Britain and broke off negotiating with Germany, but never declared it. In the Anglo – Polish pact, Britain was to defend Poland if it was attacked. How is it that Britain never attacked the Soviet Union when it invaded and occupied Poland?
Back to all wars are economic wars. The Jews declared an openly economic war on Germany in 1933. The NS reconstruction programme for Germany again led to Germany becoming a thriving economic powerhouse while the rest of “the West” was starving its citizens. How? Just like Lincoln and his greenbacks – debt free currency which was also free from the international banking system.
We are seeing the same things being played out in the world today. Saddam: selling oil in Euros = invasion. Gaddafi: oil to be sold in an African gold Dinar = invasion. Ahmadinejad: create an oil bourse to sell oil in many currencies = invasion. Who controlled Britain and the US during WWI? Jewish bankers. Who controlled Britain and the US during WWII? Jewish bankers. Who controls all Western economies today? Jewish bankers.
By the way, AJP Taylor had a different view than you about WWII.
I forgot to add that Alfred Pike wrote history more than 50 years in advance. Two world wars and a clash of civilizations Christians against Muslims. Freemasonry is a Jewish construct.
@Curmudgeon:
British promised Sharif of Makkah to declare him King of all the Arab lands under Ottoman empire, Jajd, Palestine, Syria and Iraq. Sharif Makkah was himself a Turk and he was not looking for a ‘homeland’ for the Turks as the World Zionist movement was looking for a homeland for the western Jews to save them from Europe’s centuries-old ‘anti-Semitism’. Lord Balfour was a Zionist Christian on the payroll of Jewish Rothschild family.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/western-mass-media-and-israel/
“Someday” is a Jew with the (self) imposed task to push the burgeoning WN movement in the direction of supporting Israel.For this purpose he has to do two things: 1)Convince us that WN and Israel have similar aims (perhaps) and that they “need” each other (nonsense),2) convince us that Jews in the diaspora haven’t been so bad after all towards us goyim. For point 1) he resorts to curious reasonings, even veiled threats (“If you support the Palestinians you will end up as Palestinians”).For point 2) he has to do a lot of historical revisionism.His present shtick is to present the Balfour Declaration not as the result of typical Jewish machinations behind the scenes but as due to other reasons.If you know how Jews have used their power to start wars throughout history you cannot be easily convinced.The Balfour Declaration was not only addressed to “Lord” Rothschild but virtually dictated by himself (a letter from himself to himself,so to speak). For details see Douglass Reed : The Controversy of Zion ,a long history of Jewish criminal behaviour throughout history (can be read on-line).
You can be sure that the Jew “Someday” and his fellow Jew “Caleb” will continue telling their lies even if they have been exposed long ago.This type of persistence is typically Jewish.Their presence here is therefore useful as a demonstration how the Jewish mind works.
@Franklin Ryckaert: I think it’s the “workings” of **your** mind that bear scrutinizing, Professor.
Which wars have the Jews “used their power” to start, the Peloponesian? The Punic? How about the Spanish-American?
@Rehmat: Who is this “Sharif of Makkah”? Never heard of him.
Do you mean Omar Sharif, the Egyptian movie actor famous for playing a Jewish gangster in “Funny Girl” opposite buxom Jewess Barbra Streisand?
Just as Japan specialized in sneaky surprise attacks (at Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor), Germany’s leaders specialized in ensuring popular support for war by engineering the course of events leading up to war so as to make it seem other states started it. Germany set Russia up and waltzing them into WW1 (just as they had done with France in the Franco-Prussian War).
Re WW2 The British thought the USSR was the real problem, Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany. The guarantee to Poland originally covered only their independence; the British were happy to allow Germany to take some Polish land and assumed when Nazi Germany had a border with the USSR it would make war between Germany and the USSR quite likely (Chamberlain’s strategy was to encourage this). Thus the original British guarantee to Poland was most limited;
It was only when the the Nazi-Soviet pact was announced that the full guarantee was given to Poland :
There was no committment to prevent Germany getting some territory from Poland when there was a prospect of Germany fighting the Soviets. The British attitude to Germany changed completely when the Nazi-Soviet pact was announced. That made it clear the USSR was not going to be fighting Germany and that Germany was free to attack West. At that point the Foreign Office mandarins decided war was necessary.
Only after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was the guarantee extended to Polands territory because at that point the British decided war was necessary; Germany taking part of Poland was acceptable, the USSR being friendly with Germany was not acceptable.
Clearly Stalin understood that he was freeing Hitler to strike in the west by making the pact. In effect he acted to facilitate Hitler’s strike in the West, it is ridiculous to imply that Stalin didn’t understand that in making a non agression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everyone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Gemany to win against France and Britain. It’s only because things didn’t go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.
Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the ‘fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies’, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.
With the the Nazi-Soviet pact the powerful Soviet deterent to any aggression was out of the equation and the British realized the balance of power had moved against them, which was unacceptable in a way that war between the Nazis and Soviets was not. If Hitler didn’t have to worry about the Soviets at his back that suddenly made all the previous calculations obsolete. (It was just like Israel after the Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty Begin didn’t have to worry about Egypt so they started attacking Lebanon. “The Camp David agreements in 1978-79 neutralized Egypt, leaving Israel “free to sustain military operations against the PLO in Lebanon as well as settlement activity on the West Bank” )
@Someday: Egypt has never gone to war solely for the Palestinians. “What is Palestine to us?” exclaimed a young Egyptian army officer named Gamal Nasser to Yitzhak Rabin, then also a young officer, during the disengagement of forces following the 1948 Rhodes Accords. I would doubt the Egyptian Army is any more sympathetic to Hamas than is Israel. Islamic terrorists have severely harmed Egypt’s tourist industry, which goes back to the time of Heroditus.
Egypt no longer has the Soviet option. It must restrain any tendency to reopen hostilities on pain of losing the $2 billion it annually receives from the United States.
Though Israel had always held out the hope of permanent peace with the Hashemite kingdom — this was finally achieved in the 21st century — Israel had undertaken military operations against Palestinian guerillas in Jordan when the Jordanian army could not or would not restrain them. After they took refuge in Lebanon, carved out a state-within-a-state and began launching attacks on pre-1967 Israel from there (see the Ma’alot Massacre of 1974 in which a Druze woman and 25 Israelis were killed, most of them small children) Israel launched a number of forays into Lebanon.
@Curmudgeon:
Lusitania was sunk on 7 May 1915, the US declared war on Germany on April 6th 1917. The sinking of the Lusitania had nothing to do with it.
Here
The US declared war on Germany on April 6th 1917, like I said they did so in order to stop Germany winning the war with its U-boats.
Re Charles Lindbergh Jr, I think he represented a populist and anti-WASP strain of thought that did not understand the danger for the US in allowing the Germans to win .
Lindberg was hopelessly unrealistic. If Germany had won the war it would have been a superpower and a potential threat to the USA. Mearsheimer on aggressive realism (long video interview but the link starts it at relevant point, if you watch for 4 minutes you’ll get the gist) .
Opposition to US involvement in WW2 was not a credible position and betrayed a failure to come to terms with realism. For example Senator Robert A. Taft:
@Caleb:
Ever heard of Wikipedia?Google:sharif of Mecca.The king of Jordan is from that line.And yes I am a “professor” in anti-Semitiology
@Someday: Senator Taft’s opposition to US entry in World War II came uncomfortably close to being pro-Nazi, or at least pro-German. He also was a bitter critic of the Nuremberg Trials and not always for reasons of principle. The Senator just didn’t see any guilt in many of the defendants.
Senator Taft’s pacifism also was, shall we say, selective. When the enemy was Communism he was quite militant as his speeches during the Korean War reflect.
Caleb, read the article ‘Principles Without Program:
Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy’
As to your assertion that Taft was a Cold War Warrior:-
Taft was consistent.
As for Korea, it is now known than Taft was quite correct that the seemingly weak commitment in Acheson’s speech of January 12, 1950, to the National Press Club speech (coming on top of the withdrawal of US troops in 1949) had tipped the balance for Stalin allowing the North Korean attack.
@Someday: Thank you for pointing out out Sen. Taft’s manifest hypocrisy. He did indeed want to arm those countries he said were “threatened by Communism” (and never mind wasting money on food for mothers and milk for children). But when it came to arming countries threatened by Nazi Germany, as Britain surely was, he began bleating about “the rights of Congress”.
Sen. Taft’s “all the way in or all the way out” speeches in the Senate during the Korean Conflict were called “unhelpful” by the Truman administration, which was a considerable understatement.
Marshal aid was a gift from American taxpayers to big business and in Britain much of it was spent on importing tobacco (considered essential for working class morale).
Taft thought the Cold war should be seem as political and he opposed the military build up. The second disaster of the Korean war (crossing the 38th Parallel) stemmed from drawing an inappropriate parallel with the aggression of Nazi Germany.
@Someday: I must doubt Gen. MacArthur was thinking of Nazi Germany when he decided to unify the Korean peninsula under Syngman Rhee, who was a cross between der Fuehrer and Romania’s Nicolae Ceaucescu. [Madame Rhee headed up the Korean Prostitutes Union.]
The resemblance between Vietnam-era draft resisters and Sen. Taft is somewhat like the resemblance between Nazis and the Zionist movement in the thirties, or between the America First Committee and the American Communist Party — up until the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In both cases there existed a superficial convergence of aims with very different reasons underlying them.
Marshal Aid was America at its finest. Our non-punitive attitude toward the German people was received so gratefully that there exists today the German Marshal Fund to do public service in (a now much reduced) USA as recompense for our generosity.
MacArthur was not alone as mainstream opinion (Walter Lippman) said a return to the 38th line was unacceptable. Because it was thought (correctly) that Stalin would not dare use Russian troops everyone in the leading positions (with the exception of George Kennan) assumed there the threat from (non Nuclear) China was non-existent. Kennan was not listened to when he pointed out that China could not, would not, tolerate US forces on its border and would do whatever it took to stop them, as realism would predict.
I think you will find that Truman drew a parallel between Hitler’s tactics and those of N.Korea and warned of the dangers of appeasement. (A warning perhaps, to those fond of drawing parallels between the Nazis and anyone they don’t like.)
The Stalinist intellectuals of New York managed to almost completely whitewash what had long been happening in the USSR (80,000 NVKD victims in just one 30′s pit). If they can be compared to anyone it would have to be the Israel Lobby today as the dominance in media and elite institutions is similar. But the America First Committee’s failure was largely due to the fact that the USA had no choice but to fight Germany even if Germany had been a democracy (as it was close to being in WW1). Weimar’s Stresemann, the Nobel peace prize winner, was no different to Hitler in harboring eastern territorial ambitions which could only be realized by the use of force or the threat of it. See The Origins of Major War, p.123-124 “Against this backdrop Hitler’s own obsession with Russia is an extension of traditional German geopolitical thinking “
@Overagainst: Where was this crowded “pit”?
I think Beatrice and Sidney Webb, G.B. Shaw weren’t living in New York and weren’t even particularly Stalinist. Lots of people were deceived — or deceived themselves — about life in the Soviet Union in the ‘thirties. At that time, life in these United States wasn’t beer and skittles for most people, either.
MacArthur got in trouble as much for his mouth and his demeanor as his military strategy. Not that his strategy on the Korean peninsula was one of unalloyed brilliance, either. Like that other glory hound Mark Clark, Gen. MacArthur passed up the chance to destroy the enemy’s forces in the field in order to hold a hollow ceremony in a newly conquered capital. And he should have saluted his commander-in-chief when he and Pres. Truman met on Wake Island.
This particular one was in the Urals (’80,000 ghosts return to haunt Moscow’ , the Independent 6 Sept 1989). It was uncovered in the early post communist days before the authorities clamped down on the uncovering of such things. The NVKD had taken people, along with their families, out of their flats and shot them. In a Belarus forest 3000 people were found in a circular pit with layers of clothes on top, (They were made to strip before being shot, remind you of anything ?) and it could be seen that there were scores, maybe hundreds of similar pits under the trees. The authorities stopped them digging any more.
NYC Jews knew what was going on, Fred E. Beal’s account of the Ukrainian famine was published in the Forward, in Yiddish. Roosevelt’s advisor on the Soviet Union was Walter Duranty but Duranty (or the Webbs) was only believed because of the climate created by NYC intellectuals.
The US army advances at the speed that the heavy artillery can be moved forward. Mark Clark’s multi ethnic army was disfuctional, especially as it included N. Africans more interested in raping than fighting.
@Overagainst: Those same North Africans — the **Goum** tribesmen of Morocco — were the ones under Gen. Jouin who finally took Monte Cassino. Mark Clark liked to trot out the polyglot nature of his army as an excuse. Something momentous was supposed to happen when he took Rome. Nothing did.
That fellow who said, on returning from Stalin’s Russia “I have seen the future, and it works”, was he a New York intellectual? His name was Lincoln Steffens. Doesn’t sound very Jewish to me.
Juonin’s troops did no real fighting in the battle, they filtered around it into mountain villages where they victimize helpless females while others were dying. Muslims do not make good soldiers. Clark also had Indian army units, whole regiments made up of the so called ‘martial races’ of India who had ran away from the Japanese.
According to current TOO article ‘American White Awareness during World War II’ the north Africans were not allowed into Rome. If you’re not bothering to read the articles …
By ‘something terrible’ they meant what happened to the Italian women. Emmitt Till’s father was sentenced to death for raping and murdering while he was serving in Clark’s force. Afro-Americans were also busy-
It is hardly surprising to me that the views of non Jewish intellectuals sympathetic to the Soviet state were promoted by Western media in which Jews played a central role (eg the NYT), communism was largely created by Jewish thinkers and in the first twenty years of the Soviet state a good half of the leadership were Jews.
But why were the truthful accounts of what was happening (ie mass murder), in a state where Jews played a major role, being suppressed during the 20′s and 30′s ?
@Someday: I’m surprised you didn’t repeat the one about the negro soldiers having tails, carefully hidden under their uniform trousers, of course.
Not a word of these accusations is true but every one was broadcast to the German citizenry by Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry starting in 1945. It seems way too many German houses in way too many towns were hanging white flags from the windows at the approach of the “Amis”.
Moslems don’t make good soldiers? Tell that to the GI’s who fought beside the Turkish regiment in Korea! Or to the Israeli veterans of the Jordanian front during the Six Day War.
More than a few ignoramuses, French and American, thought “little, yellow dinks” couldn’t fight, either. Heard of the Ia Drang? How about Dien Bien Phu?
The **Goum** troops, natives of the Rif Mountains of Morocco, executed a turning movement in very difficult terrain. The Germans defending the Cassino Abbey — what was left of it –found enemy soldiers behind them and were forced to surrender.
Emmett Till’s father, Louis Till raped two women and murdered a third while serving in Italy with Mark Clark’s command.
Outflanking maneuvers require other troops to engage the enemy, I wonder what the Poles would say to you ignoring their sacrifice and giving the credit to a bunch of rapists.
Arabs are terrible gunners – can’t hit a barn door.
My great uncle was captured at Kut, if you read the book of the same name you’ll find out about what those POWs suffered and about the sordid and violent depravity of Turks. (Captured Israeli soldiers suffered similar treatment at the hands of Arabs). My mother’s cousin was one of those GI’s who fought beside the Turkish regiment in Korea and he said that the Turks sexually abused the corpses of dead Koreans.
Dien Bien Phu? Ha! The North Africans at Dien Bien Phu ran away from the fighting and congregated in the middle of the position (where the brothel was) The fighting was left to white men (which included quite a few ex SS in the Foreign Legion paras).
@Someday: A brothel at Dien Bien Phu, in the remotest jungle valley on the Vietnam-Lao border? Where do you get such bizarre ideas?
The French did not have planes enough to bring in the building materials that might have allowed them to hold off the Vietminh until relief arrived. Can you truly believe they would expend precious cargo capacity to fly in whores?
Algerians in the French military won high decorations for service in Indochina, including at Dien Bien Phu. Unhappily, some of these veteran soldiers went home to lead a bitter, nine year war against their former comrades-in-arms.
Not one account of the 54 day siege of Dien Bien Phu — and there have been scores of them — has ever mentioned a brothel.
Poles are courageous and very good at stopping bullets (though a sandbag is better). With the help of the mountain-dwelling **Goum** they were the first to plant their flag on the summit of Monte Cassino. It didn’t go nearly so well on their previous attempts, made without the help of Gen. Jouin’s Moroccans. The Poles suffered heavy losses for no gain.
Just how many Israeli soldiers have ever come in captivity by Arab regular forces? The only time it happened was at the start of the 1973 War on the Sinai Front when all but one of the Bar Lev outposts was overrun and the surviving soldiers taken prisoner by the Egyptians. Those prisoners were shown on Egyptian television, were treated according to the Geneva Convention and repatriated when the cease fire went in effect.
So many tall tales came out of the Korean War — mainly to explain, not very successfully, the serious tactical shortcomings of the American forces at the start of hostilities, and sometimes later. [All democracies begin wars badly. Check out "An Army at Dawn" by Rick Atkinson for the story on the US Army in North Africa.] One legend often repeated was that the Chicoms fought so bravely because they were all high on opium which they carried in little bags hanging from their necks! [And naturally, since American soldiers weren't high on opium they could not be expected to fight so bravely.]
The veterans I spoke to had nothing but good things to say about the Turks though their natural ferocity could be off-putting. If a Turk drew his knife it had to taste blood. He would cut his own arm, just a little, if he found that he had drawn it on a friend. The Turkish troops would build bonfires to keep warm at night, as if daring the Chinese to come and attack them. They never did.
The US was grateful that Turkey sent a regiment of 5,000 men, few of whom were postal clerks or truck drivers, to Korea and maintained it at that strength to the end of the war. One statistic that really stands out is what happened when Turkish soldiers were forced to surrender — due usually to units on their flanks breaking and running. Few Turks died in Communist captivity and none at all collaborated with their captors. The corresponding figures for Americans don’t bear thinking about.
I do not know about the Till case but I do know that as regards court martial prosecutions for **civilian** offenses, such as rape, during World War II the number of white defendants exceeded black by several times their proportion in the military services. Negro soldiers more often got in trouble for military offenses, accused of insubordination, desertion, dereliction, that sort of thing.
It suited the Nazis’ purpose greatly to exaggerate the **number** of blacks in the US Army in Europe — quite small, actually during the War– as well as to portray them as savage animals bent on violating as many blonde German women as they could get their hands on. This was understandable in that so many Wehrmacht soldiers who by then were often pathetically young were receiving letters from home urging them to surrender to the Americans first chance they got.
If you can’t be bothered to google ‘Dien Bien Phu brothel’ for your self…
Goebbels didn’t invent French officer De Castries, who allowed N.African troops to go on a rape rampage in Frankfurt. De Castries, who fancied himself a mobile operations expert, was later the commander at Dien Bien Phu where he became paralyzed with indecision as his N. African troops ran away from the perimeter. The paras did the fighting.
(Goebbels didn’t invent Moshe Katsav or Dominique Strauss-Kahn either).
The Chinese were uninterested in Turkish prisoners and they were left alone unlike American POW who were subjected to severe maltreatment I wonder what you did for your country as a 19 year old.
@Someday: My past life is my concern. I’ll allow that the accounts I heard of the Turkish soldiers in Korea weren’t given in some mall in Peoria.
This notion of the Chinese Communists being so fiendishly adept at manipulating the minds of impressionable young Americans has also proven to be largely myth. In real life there were no Manchurian Candidates. What the Chinese did do was to exploit the differences already present in American society, and the rather low level of intelligence of the typical Korean War draftee or enlistee. The US economy was booming. The Army had to take what it could get.
I guess Goebbels didn’t invent William Kennedy Smith, either!
Ah, the Internet Educated Man — the modern day equivalent of Malcom X getting his education in the prison library only worse. There is no editor on the internet, no fact checking.
Suggest you go to primary sources; crack a book once in a while. For this you might start with Bernard Fall’s “Hell in a Small Place”. Much more reliable than the propaganda of the Government of Vietnam which naturally would like to denigrate the French defenders of Dien Bien Phu by portraying them as vice-ridden mercenaries.
What happened to those alleged Algerian prostitutes? They seemed to have disappeared. There is no record of any of them either as prisoners or being repatriated.
Most of the Americans who died in captivity died not of maltreatment but of malnutrition. They would not eat the unfamiliar rations their captors offered them. The reason? Good old American racism with a dollop of stupidity.
The Turks did not invent insulting nicknames for the Chinese and North Koreans. They were simply **dushman**; in their language, the enemy. They ate everything the Chinese gave them and augmented their diet with plants they found outside their barracks and carefully brought back. The Turks maintained their chain of command even inside the POW camp, electing a leader and having him deal with camp authorities, and they kept their pride and their morale. None of them succumbed to the “giveupitis” that afflicted so many of the American POW’s.
Peoria ? Nope. You may find it difficult to understand but not every GI from NYC who served in Korea did so because their IQ was too low to enable them to dodge the draft, my relative suffered permanent damage to his health there but went on to become a successful businessman. He voted for Obama.
It is true that the Turks fought fairly well but the Turkish unit sent to Korea would obviously be carefully selected and a high quality one. (Franco sent the elite ‘Blue’ division to the Eastern Front, not his Moorish rapists).
It is quite ridiculous to claim that POWs starved because they were too blasé to eat rice, like it was ‘all-you-can-eat’. The US POWs were subjected to particular attention to prevent them from cooperating in their common interest. Communist guards stopped US officers who tried to organize their men, only collaborators were allowed to do that, some of the officers who chose to play along with the commies to save lives were convicted by a US court martial after their release.
Anyway, I think that it is undeniable that non whites are prone to mistreat women (including their own). Ethiopians comprise one percent of the [Israeli] population but 25 percent of women killed by their husbands or partners in the past 10 years have been Ethiopian immigrants.
Are blacks different in Israel ?
Are Israelis evil for noticing the differences ?
@Someday: It’s all relative. The Ethiopians have come far, considering the kind of society they came from. It took the Irish in America a long, long time to reach middle class status. During that time other immigrant groups zoomed ahead of them in income level, education, business ownership, even health and longevity.
It is in some ways like here. In rural areas of Latin America there very little crime. But when those folks come to the USA for work, they find that to get cheap rent they have to live in an inner-city slum. It is there they learn criminal behavior, the young people especially.
Those officers should not even have pretended to collaborate with the Chicoms. After all, it’s easy to claim you were “just pretending” when you come home and have to account for your actions. And after you’ve pretended for a while, you might forget it’s all just a pretense.
The Chicoms regarded the POW camp as just another battlefield. Their prisoners in UN Command camps kept fighting, something for which we were completely unprepared and handled badly. The story of Cheji-do is well known. The war might have been shortened by a year had we not insisted that every Chinese prisoner be in effect urged to renounce the People’s Republic in favor of the R.O.C. Our own prisoners, languishing in Communist camps, got a raw deal from their own side.
I don’t know that Turkey has any “bad” soldiers. Give them a stout pair of boots (extra wide), regular food and a rifle and they’ll march into hell if ordered.
The Spanish Blue Division did no better than the Romanians on the Russian front. During the Spanish Civil War, it was the Moors of the Tercio Legions that did much of the offensive fighting on the Nationalist side after the early battles. They committed rape, and announced that they would, to terrorize those in Republican territory.
Soybeans, it was soybeans, a staple throughout Asia, the G.I.’s wouldn’t eat.
Not to be pedantic like some, but the word blase implies a “been there, done that” attitude. It was more like suspicion and prejudice, hostility to anything not American. An arrogant expectation that the world would adjust itself to you.
@Someday: Ha ha! Did the Israelis train people in mugging and car stripping? Israel sold security systems, training included, to countries with active guerilla movements rural or urban within their own borders. The result was to **reduce** wanton killings by government forces as they became more efficient at tracking actual insurgents and denying them the general population to hide among.
If you are not given **enough** food to start with it makes little sense to refuse whatever you are given because it’s not hot dogs or apple pie. The Turkish troops were in general older and more professional. Any efforts to set them against each other would gave been totally futile.
It took some time to get the measure of the Chicoms. New tactics under MacArthur’s successors inflicted very heavy casualties on the PLA so that they had to tell Ho Chi Minh they were in no condition to help him against the French.
Today, the Irish are just another face in the shopping center. It was not always so. A century and a half ago they were regarded as irremediably stupid, depicted in newspaper cartoons as all jaw and no brain, relegated to hard and dangerous jobs like track laying and prize fighting which other immigrant groups avoided or abandoned as soon as they could.
In a nineteenth century foreshadowing of the phenomenon of White Flight in the twentieth, when the Irish moved in a neighborhood the Anglo-Saxons would move out en masse. This occurred from Hell’s Kitchen to South Boston.
The Ethiopians were rescued from starvation in their home country, the first spirited out in “Operation Magic Carpet”. As the men and boys were uncircumcised there were some problems with the religious establishment in Israel. They were found, to everyone’s joy, to keep many of the Jewish holidays and rituals despite millennia of separation from other communities.
Here is one of those POWs you are disparaging. Kurds and Armenians might dispute whether the Turks are one big happy family.
What did Jews think of the Irish, could it be something like : “Where I was brought up, there was Irish all round and we knew they was inferior”. (Alfred Sherman)
Training of Central American security forces is about the only thing that Israel has ever done to justify its status as a ‘strategic asset’ of the US.
Moreover Caleb, Re.
DId US troops invent invent insulting nicknames for the Japanese in WW2 is that why
.
Turks may well have been more resistant to diseases because of the primitive sanitation in Turkey.
Plants are not in the business of being healthful and nourishing food, wild plants generally contain mild poisons.
I am still wondering what you have ever did to feel so self satified about the ‘failings’ of those who went to Korea. If I remember rightly Caleb, you are of an age to have been drafted there during the war.
@Someday: My war was Vietnam. A Korean vet would be at least 76 years old today.
Merrill’s Maraunders was in effect a punishment regiment, full of rejects, brig rats, disciplinary problems from every unit in the Army. There was no farewell ceremony when the unit was disbanded, not even a final formation.
@Someday: You are right about more primitive sanitation in Turkey. Whether this made the Turkish soldiers resistant to another continent’s diseases is a very open question. It is beyond question that the Turks were more solicitous about hygiene. Poor hygiene and general fieldcraft among US troops was also remarked by the British in World War II. The result generally manifests as diarrhea.
Wild plants may contain necessary vitamins and minerals.
@Caleb:
The Nepalese soldiers in Haiti did not suffer too badly in the cholera outbreak there.
You seem to have a thing about white soldiers being respectful of the racial backgrounds of the enemy, but when the enemy are other whites those who urge the soldiers to show respect for the enemy, (like Lindbergh did) are branded traitors.
The main ‘reject’ for Merrill’s Marauders was the general commanding them, Stilwell was loathed. He left his replacement Wedemeyer no paperwork whatsoever and avoided meeting him – unprofessional in the extreme. Moreover Stilwell ordered that medically evacuated men with a temp of 102 degrees were to be sent back into the front line.
I think that speaks for itself.
@Someday: Gen. Stilwell was that rarity, a US officer who could speak and understand Guo Yue (Mandarin) Chinese. A realist regarding Chiang Kai-shek, Stilwell would have been condemned during the McCarthy era as one of those who had “lost” China had he not already died, his health broken by the arduous conditions of war in the CBI theater.
You are somewhat confused as to the attitude of Charles Lindbergh. He did not urge “respect” for the enemy. He tried to convince his fellow Americans that England and President Roosevelt were the enemy, and this before we even were at war!
Haitians believed with good reason that it was foreign soldiers who brought cholera to their island, Nepalese included. That they were immune is hardly surprising.
As I am barred from adding comments to new articles, and even reading others’ comments, I will no longer respond to comments on this entry.
I suppose I struck a nerve by my observation that KM’s antisemitism may be rooted in lust toward Jewish girls, presumably unrequited.
Was Lindbergh’s attitude to Jews conditioned by his ‘lust’ for Jewish females then ?
When it comes to racism – no other country can beat European Israeli hatred toward toward fellow Eastern and African Jews, Native Muslims and Christians and foreign non-Jewish workers replacing the Palestinian workforce.
“Every nation, in its time of misfortune, has conspirators who do their work in secret. In our case an entire nation has been raised on conspiracy. With others the conspiracy is political; with us it is religious and national,” – Chaim Kaplan wrote in his diary during Warsaw ghetto uprising, ‘The Scroll of Agony”
“This explains how come 94% of Israeli Jewish population supported the last genocide in Gaza. The consequences are devastating. The total majority of Israeli Jews not only say NO to ‘love thy neighbor’, they actually say YES to murder in broad daylight…..The Israeli is submerged in a self-notion of blamelessness, it’s somehow always the other who carries the guilt and the fault. This total discrepancy between Israeli self-perception i.e. ‘innocence’ and Israeli manifested practice i.e. barbarism beyond comparison, can be realized as a severe form of detachment on the verge of collective psychosis,” Gilad Atzmon.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/israelis-people-raised-on-hatred/
Classic Israeli aggression (below):
Hardline Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned Wednesday there will be “harsh and grave consequences” if the Palestinians persist with their plan to seek UN membership as a state.
Speaking shortly before a scheduled meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Lieberman did not elaborate on the threatened consequences.
“The moment has not yet come to give details of what will happen,” he said.
In the past he has called for Israel to sever all relations with the administration of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas should it press on with its UN bid.
“What I can say with the greatest confidence is that from the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences,” Lieberman told an agricultural conference in southern Israel.
“I hope that we shall not come to those harsh and grave consequences, and that common sense will prevail in all decisions taken in order to allow co-existence and progress with negotiations,” he added.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak earlier Wednesday met Ashton in Jerusalem.
Netanyahu’s office did not immediately comment on the talks while a short statement from the defence ministry said only that Ashton and Barak had discussed “relations with the Palestinians and the situation in the region.”
The EU foreign policy chief arrived from Cairo, where she met Abbas and Arab League ministers who have been discussing Palestinian preparations to request UN membership for a state of Palestine.
Source – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8762950/Israel-warns-of-harsh-consequences-of-Palestinian-UN-bid.html
In 2002, American author Greg Palast published his book, titled “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”. The book is a compilation of his investigating reports. The book exposes various powerful foreign, religious and industrial lobby groups which runs the government in United States through investing in the political parties by funding candidated for the White house, Senate and Congress. The book proves beyond any doubt that the US administration is not elected by the public but the interested lobbying groups. However, Washington, like many other myths – has kept its ‘world champion of democratic system’ myth through mass propaganda. Tragically, in most of the cases the “free elections” helped the anti-USrael got elected, i.e. in Occupied Palestinian Territoties, Lebanon and Iraq.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/how-lobby-money-controls-us-politics/