The War to End All Peace

F. Roger Devlin and Stephen J. Rosse



Today, 6 April 2017, marks the one hundredth anniversary of America’s entry into the First World War, probably the decisive factor in the eventual outcome of that war a year and a half later. Most schoolchildren, if they are taught anything at all about this event, hear it attributed to the German sinking of the Lusitania with American passengers aboard. Many do not know that the Lusitania was a British ship, that its sinking occurred nearly two years before our entry into the war, and that it was carrying a substantial amount of munitions, making it fair game under the laws of war. The existence of the munitions was only publicly acknowledged in 1982 after a salvage operation was announced; the British government finally admitted the truth, citing fear that explosives still inside the wreck might claim a few lives even yet.

Anti-German propaganda made much of the fact that the Lusitania was not a warship, but failed to mention that Britain had commonly disguised its warships to look like merchant ships and even to fly the flags of neutral nations. It was in response to such illegal practices that the German navy adopted a policy of treating any and all ships heading for Britain as potential enemy combatants. In the case of the Lusitania, the German Embassy in Washington even issued public warnings to potential travelers that if they sailed on any ships headed for Britain, they did so at their own risk.

A prominent representative of the New York German-American community also tried to take out ads in 50 major American newspapers, warning Americans of the risk of embarking on any transatlantic voyage to England. Only one paper, the New York Tribune, ran the warning—on the very morning the Lusitania sailed, too late for anyone to make new travel plans.

Also absent from the usual accounts of the Lusitania is the information that it was a response to the British blockade of the Central Powers, illegal under the laws of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War. This blockade led to terrible shortages of food and medicine for German soldiers and civilians alike. The people were largely reduced to subsisting on turnips from 1916 onward, and by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a desperate effort to break through the blockade, and the attack upon the Lusitania was consistent with that announced policy.

These were not the only falsehoods that helped nudge America toward involvement in the bloodletting. The outbreak of war was accompanied by copious propaganda about fictitious German atrocities, such as bayoneting Belgian babies, raping nuns, and nailing Entente prisoners on barn doors. The present authors know of a recent case where a US Marine recruit heard the “bayonetting babies” story in boot camp just within the last few years!

 

Another atrocity story destined for a great future, was the supposed German Corpse Factory. This lurid tale claimed that the Germans used the corpses of their own war dead for industrial purposes such as producing tallow for candles. This entirely discredited story may have inspired the later holocaust chestnut involving soap made from murdered Jews.

The British government went so far as to appoint a commission to “investigate” the allegations; they dutifully reported back that the stories were true. When historians tried to examine the committee’s papers after the war, these were found to have disappeared. Surviving correspondence makes clear that members were in fact skeptical.

Of course, the greatest fabrication of the whole conflict was the claim that Germany was uniquely responsible for starting the war. The historical record shows that it was Great Britain—and in particular King Edward VII and his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray—which invested years of diplomatic effort into the isolation and encirclement of Germany. They accomplished their purpose in 1907 when the Triple Entente was established: an alliance between Britain, France and Russia against Germany.

On the home front, America’s entry into the war was accompanied with an intimidation campaign against German-Americans, and all things German. Sauerkraut was renamed “Liberty Cabbage”; breeds of dog associated with Germany were at times reportedly killed, and it was not uncommon for German Americans to be assaulted. German language newspapers and periodicals were forced to shut down; German schools and social clubs getting forcibly closed; German churches switched to holding their services in English. Many German families in America even began changing their family names (i.e., from Schmidt to Smith, or Müller to Miller). As a result, many of their descendants are unaware of their German heritage to this day.

Ultimately, as we have seen, such lies employed by Britain, played an important role in whipping up popular support for America’s entry into the conflict. Most Americans, then as now, will support wars if they can be framed as a struggle between good and evil. The priggish Woodrow Wilson promised his countrymen they would be fighting variously the “war to end all war” and to “make the world safe for democracy”—making the venture very much the prototype for today’s so-called humanitarian interventions.

German troops trying to rescue a French soldier from sinking in a mud hole, 1916

After the guns fell silent, Wilson insisted upon the inclusion of the “War Guilt” clause into the Versailles Treaty, stating that Germany “should, morally, pay for all war costs, but, because it could not possibly afford this, would be asked only to pay for civilian damages.”

Germany was dismembered and forced to pay crushing reparations, wrecking what was left of its economy and making the rise of a revanchiste German nationalist political movement virtually inevitable. But rather than adopt this natural direction of causation, many still prefer to project Hitler back onto the history of Imperial Germany.

The work of the Versailles Treaty was completed by the occupation which followed the Second World War. It is essential to understand that so-called denazification was not limited to eliminating vestiges of National Socialism in the strict sense, but sought to destroy any sense of German pride, identity, and healthy self-respect. And if this did not entirely succeed among those who actually remembered the war, it succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest dreams with those born later, who were happy to think of themselves as morally superior to their parents’ and grandparents’ generation.

Today’s Germany is a kind of Through the Looking Glass anti-German caricature, and it can come as no surprise to anyone who has lived there that the country is now taking the lead in opening up Europe to foreign invasion. They are doing this on the basis of what they were taught by those who defeated them in the two world wars. Denazification was the original form of political correctness, and German guilt was the prototype of today’s White guilt. There is a grim justice in the way such psychological warfare has turned on its original creators, the western allies, who never imagined they would fall victim to what they self-righteously unleashed on a defeated enemy.

Addendum, April 8, 2017: The Zimmermann Telegram was a coded diplomatic message sent by the German Foreign Office to the government of Mexico in January 1917 proposing a military alliance between Germany and Mexico in the event of America’s entry into the war. Mexico was to be awarded the States of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona for their help in fighting the United States. The telegram was decrypted by British intelligence and made known to the American public in a manner that downplayed the conditional character of the offer and suggested Germany was proposing aggression against the United States. The Mexican Government was intelligent enough to realize the folly of attacking the US even with German help, so the telegram had little practical effect apart from its propaganda value in whipping up support for America’s entry into the war.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

76 Comments to "The War to End All Peace"

  1. AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
    April 6, 2017 - 11:24 am | Permalink

    I’ve noticed that many on the Alt-Right have a special fondness for Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany, and I think that much of this is based on distortion. I also see that while this article raises some valid points, it leaves out many important facts about World War I, and the origins of the war. I consider myself Alt-Right, in many of my beliefs and goals. But there are some historical myths floating around which need to be corrected.

    Edward VII and British and French ministers were not developing their diplomatic initiatives without provocation from Germany. Under Wilhelm II especially, Germany embarked on a reckless course of empire-building and battleship-constructing, directly provoking the British and French. I believe that German diplomatic and political developments degenerated after Wilhelm ditched the services of Bismarck, who would have known better. There also was a very militaristic culture which grew and gained a lot of influence around the Kaiser. And I believe that Modris Eksteins, in his book Rite of Spring, demonstrated how modernist culture in Germany encouraged a dangerous romanticizing of Germany’s mission, along with a contempt for traditional morality.

    Let’s also keep in mind that Germany could be very ruthless during World War I. They were the first, after all, to make use of poison gas on the battlefield. Also, before the war broke out, Germany guaranteed its support of Austria-Hungary, which had made ridiculously extreme demands on Serbia as a result of the assassination of the Archduke.

    Some on the Alt-Right argue that Germany was denied a rightful hegemony in Europe, by Britain, France and other nations, and that it would have been better for us all if Germany had won World War I and II. Why, I ask, should Germany have had such a hegemony? The largest military or the largest population doesn’t automatically mean to me that a nation should dominate a continent. For centuries, Britain reasonably believed in the need for a balance of power on the Continent, in large part for its own security. I don’t see this perspective as any less valid than the one which says that Germany should have been allowed to be dominant. Also, France had not had such a great experience with Germany in the latter half of the 19th Century. It too had legitimate concerns about German expansion.

    World War I was undoubtedly one of the greatest disasters in western history. It has helped lead to the destruction of our culture, and maybe ultimately our race. But Germany was not blameless in it.

    • April 6, 2017 - 6:34 pm | Permalink

      Nobody is entirely blameless in any incident.

    • Grauhund's Gravatar Grauhund
      April 6, 2017 - 8:18 pm | Permalink

      AngloBilly, I would recommend Robert Massey’s wonderful book Dreadnaught for less biased perspective on Britain’s antagonism against whomever it regaded as the most powerful Continental nation leading up to the Great War. Up until 1871, Britain’s propaganda was aimed at her neighbor across the channel.

      • AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
        April 10, 2017 - 3:37 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, Grauhund. It has been a while since I read Dreadnaught, and would like to take a look at it again.

    • FranksandBeans's Gravatar FranksandBeans
      April 6, 2017 - 10:27 pm | Permalink

      Well, I am sure Germany has to be blamed as well. They too were not correct during WW-1 and 2. However, I guess they felt that they had to flex muscles since everyone else was against them. The Jews did do a number on them and they did it undercover. So I guess we have to blame the Jews for most of the west’s problems.

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      April 7, 2017 - 11:27 am | Permalink

      “Under Wilhelm II especially, Germany embarked on a reckless course of empire-building and battleship-constructing”.

      If I remember correctly, the German writer Hans Grimm (who stayed in South West Africa/Namibia and South Africa for some time) stated the reasons in his book “Warum – Woher – aber wohin?” (Why – from where – but whereto?)

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

      As I remember it, Germany saw the comparable high living standard of Britain, and asked, why may they also not have a place in the sun to live like this, instead of in poverty.

      Then German scientists made some trailblazing discoveries, e.g. synthetic dyes (Wikipedia I.G. Farben for more discoveries, see also synthetic rubber), which threatened Englands clothing industry which was dependant on natural dyes.

      The war had many fathers. Wilhelm II was cautious against a confrontation with England – key word “Kruger telegram”, thus he did not support the Boers in South Africa in their war effort against the British empire. Germany was too weak.

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

      • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
        April 8, 2017 - 9:40 am | Permalink

        One must also see Germany in the bigger historical context. “Germany” was a recent phenomenon, a product of Chancellor Bismarck, and Napoleon (which united the duchies, because of a common enemy).

        Before there was Germany, there were the German duchies, the 1948 revolution, and the thirty years war (which brought the Germans spreaking duchies together). There were times when Germany/Prussia and England were allies! It is a very intricate history, and somewhere the Jew factor crept in in a big way (Rothchild/Bauer).

        Even I tend to forget the detail, whilst being involved in day to day existential challenges, which leave no time to reflect on the bigger, historical picture. But one somehow remembers a book or two, that one has read long time ago in the past on all these topics, trying to be an educated person (and inquisitive person – why are we on earth, life is short, learn as much as possible, and all these kind of questions).

    • 1984's Gravatar 1984
      April 7, 2017 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

      “They were the first, after all, to make use of poison gas on the battlefield.”

      Supervised by the german-british-zionist jew Fritz Haber, the father of modern chemical warfare (and – coincidentally – the inventor of Zyklon-B). His German wife committed suicide. Haber later changed loyalty and moved to Britain.

      Mainstream narrative on him
      https://www.famousscientists.org/fritz-haber/
      About his role in convincing Germany to use gas in WW1
      http://www.sonicbomb.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=107

    • Armor's Gravatar Armor
      April 8, 2017 - 8:55 pm | Permalink

      AngloBilly: “Also, France had not had such a great experience with Germany in the latter half of the 19th Century. It too had legitimate concerns about German expansion.”

      In the latter half of the 19th century, France attacked Germany but lost the war. Before that, Napoleon invaded Germany in the first half of the 19th century. I think they also invaded part of Germany after the 1789 revolution. And Louis XIV took Alsace from Germany in the 17th century.

      In the beginning of the 20th century, France’s objectives were not legitimate at all: take back Alsace to destroy its German culture in the East, keep destroying Brittany in the West. And not long after the war, the government would start bringing in the first Africans to both France and Germany.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      April 9, 2017 - 10:58 am | Permalink

      France had not had…

      France has experience of Germany since the times they were Franks and Saxons, more or less 1200 Years.
      The whole European History can be considered the History of the battles and wars between French people and German people, with the ancillary battles and wars with English, Spanish, Italian, Scandinavian, Slavic peoples.
      Even today the whole politics of EU is made by agreement or disagreement between France and Germany. All the other Nations are simply witness, bystanders, pawns…UK finally understood it and rightfully decided to leave the company.

      • Armor's Gravatar Armor
        April 9, 2017 - 1:35 pm | Permalink

        re: battles and wars between the French and the Germans

        I blame the Italians: Julius Caesar invaded what was called Gallia and started collecting tributes and taxes. After the Roman empire retracted from Britain, France, Spain, Yugoslavia, and so on, there was no political unity and no effective defense against the vociferous English, Danish, German and Arab invaders, since the local elites had been destroyed by the Roman occupation. As a result, people found themselves having to pay tribute to their Frankish overlords, instead of their former Italian overlords. (Brittany refused to pay and remained out of the Carolingian Empire). Then, during the French Revolution, the Frankish mafia was finally ousted, and the tribute is now collected by ZOG, and used to finance the colonization by Afghans and Somalis who are fleeing Assad’s brutal gas attacks in Syria with the help of a number of NGOs financed by Soros and the EU.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        April 10, 2017 - 11:45 am | Permalink

        Rosa, years ago a historian without any axes to grind did some elementary tabulation. He took 16 European states and simply researched how many years, over the last 400, each was at war.

        GB was No. 1; Germany came in 14th.

    • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
      April 11, 2017 - 6:57 am | Permalink

      At the beginning of the last century it was unclear whether it would be a German or an American century, though it was clear to most perceptive persons that these nations were rising, and would eventually eclipse Britain and France. We know how matters unfolded. Would it not have been better for the cause of Magna Europa for it to have been a German Century? I think the point unarguable. Germany under the Kaiserreich stood for authority, hierarchy, blood and community. America stood for “the rights of men”, mobility, equality and King Dollar. The German Century might well have prevented racial degeneration (and this without Nazi extremism and intrawhite warfare), equalitarian thought, democratic expansion and even socialism (the great enemy of materialist socialism is not individualist capitalism, but propertarian traditionalism). The American Century paved the way for these vices.

      • April 11, 2017 - 10:47 pm | Permalink

        Leon,

        A very good comparative question you pose:

        American ‘Exceptionalism’ vs. the German Sonderweg

        Based on all the historical record and evidence, which one was the better and truer steward – in its totality: culturally, morally, spiritually, not just economically – for the people, the volk, for the nation, that each creed purported to serve?

        • April 11, 2017 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

          Btw – the article I posted just above is not an endorsement of Catholicism or of the Roman Church (either the Traditional variety or its contemporary, post-Vatican II version, fully replete with all its neo-Marxist catechesis), but what I feel is, in my estimation, hands-down the best historical and philosophical explanation of what makes America truly ‘tick’.

          That essay both now, and going all the way back to its Founding Era, veritably examines and enlightens the reader on the genuine roots of what, ultimately, became the Religion of Americanism.

        • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
          April 14, 2017 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

          S. Rosse: Thank you for that article. I have not yet read it, but a perusal suggests much of interest. I will read it, perhaps in the next week. I have an ambivalent relation to both Catholicism (my creed) and Christianity more broadly. My chief interest in the intellectual aspect of the struggle to preserve the White race (and for me, traditional Western Civ) lay in reconciling Christian theology with White preservation. I see no conflict whatsoever (though the longer “de-pollutant” measures are delayed, the more ethically problematic, as well as physically difficult, they become). But casuistically detailing why this commonsensical conclusion should be so in light of Christian moral theology is complex. We have a human right (and, again for extremely abstract reasons having to do with the nature of human duty and finally the meaning of human existence, a moral obligation) to reject the pagan cult of “diversity”, and ensure the biological perpetuity of our people. I was awakened to this over 30 years ago, and I’m glad that the internet has now awakened a critical mass among the rising generation. I’m also worried that that mass, while enough to ensure a vibrant Racial Right for many years to come, will not be enough to save our people. Years ago, I wrote a lot of lengthy comments explaining my position at the UK based website Majorityrights.com.

  2. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    April 6, 2017 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

    It has been tritely said that ‘what goes around comes around’. Well now folks, listen up….
    A perverse form of poetic justice is quite literally blowing back onto the deluded, and morally sanctimonious Anglo/White populations everywhere. The deep well of poisoned intellectual sophistry that has afflicted the Anglo world for a long time, and which has toxified many other Whites around the world as well, has now taken a terminal hold on the base hypocrites themselves. When otherwise sensible White people come to believe their own foolish lies and propaganda, self-destruction is the inevitable consequence. Yes, the deceit has admittedly been compounded and accelerated by (((alien interlopers))), but the fact remains that the Anglo psyche has been running amok for a long, long time. The giddy Anglo ship-of-fools had better wake up, realize their blunders, and change course P.D.Q.

    • April 10, 2017 - 4:31 am | Permalink

      Thank you Junghans for your excellent feedback, and where, like with Tom Sunic, getting and appreciating the main point of this article.

      This is the whole, occult-like foundation of “German guilt” – which, since at least the 1970’s, has morphed fully and completely into wholesale “White Guilt”™ – which is the underlying basis for all ‘political correctness’. This is most strongly and evidently abundant for the average, common White folks of the Anglo-sphere, whose governments, and cultural/intellectual elites, were Germany’s most intransigent opponents – and whose governments today are committing the same military and international “crimes” that they so hypocritically accused, and wholesale prosecuted, all the German people for in the last century.

      This was my response to Dr. Sunic, and it perfectly sums up my rely to your observations, as well as his, of what Mr. Devlin and I were most saliently trying to convey.

  3. PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
    April 6, 2017 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Why no mention of the famous Zimmermann Telegram? That secret and later decoded telegram had more influence on American public opinion than the prospect of losses to American shipping due to unrestricted submarine warfare.

    • FranksandBeans's Gravatar FranksandBeans
      April 6, 2017 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I felt that the Zimmerman telegram should have been mentioned. That played a pivotal role in getting the US to join WW-1

      • AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
        April 7, 2017 - 9:54 am | Permalink

        I agree. This article left out way too much to be taken seriously.

  4. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    April 6, 2017 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

    This shows how shallow the roots of white nationalism are. Under the eternal Law of Conquest, whereby territory belongs to those who seize and hold it by whatever means necessary, the greatest threat to a strong white nation is another strong white nation.

    The NAACP was founded by Jews, and the independence movements that swept across Africa in the 1960s were only possible because the Soviet Union was giving them guns and ammo — always one white nation playing for power at the expense of other white nations. (Jews and Russians being no less white than Irish and Italians)

    Since 1700 the only non-white nation that’s ever come close to playing in the white league is Japan.

    • April 8, 2017 - 6:20 am | Permalink

      Jews, white? You need to rethink (and/or ask for a raise from your paymasters)

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      April 8, 2017 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Well, Russians, the true Russians, not the various Soviet people, are white, Jews are NOT.

  5. m's Gravatar m
    April 6, 2017 - 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Jewish Bolshevism had but lost Russia. Instead, the Jewish-Anglo-American alliance has Germany. What an ironic turn. The inheritors of this movement are currently planning a three front war–Syria, North Korea, and, it appears, Russia once again. We had some hope that Trump would moderate the process, but unless he’s got something planned we don’t understand, it appears that he’s simply an incoherent fool, from a foreign policy standpoint.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      April 8, 2017 - 8:02 am | Permalink

      Months ago, right here, I swam against the torrent of euphoria stating that I was going to take my Cold War nuke bunker out of mothballs.

      Not a single Reply; neither pro nor con; leaving the alternative that this lunatic best be disregarded.

      Welcome – y’all to my bunker. Beer and bratwurst are on the table over there.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        April 8, 2017 - 4:53 pm | Permalink

        I know you’re being largely tongue-in-cheek here, Charles, but still, you’re not being quite fair. There were probably a dozen regulars hereabouts—I was one; the others know who they are—who were either skeptics or outright denialists anent Trump. Besides, I’m sure you haven’t forgotten the common-law maxim most famously cited by Thomas More: silence equals consent.

        Nonetheless, please don’t take the foregoing to imply that I won’t gladly accept your invitation to partake of your virtual beer and bratwurst!

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          April 8, 2017 - 10:09 pm | Permalink

          Pierre, no German, for centuries to come, will ever be allowed to forget that ” silence equals consent “. There are far too many ‘ reminderers ‘.

          Though the maxim in itself is logical and a requisite tool for a court of law, I wonder whether even More would not bite his tongue if faced with unpleasant, non-English alternatives; more or less. If silence is enforced in ANY way, consent, which is always defined as voluntary and informed, cannot be automatically inferred.

          But, enough playing around for today. I hear you and agree with what you said. I was not alone in my dissent. I also concluded my comment, if memory serves, with my sincere hope that I would be proven wrong. My home and livelihood are here, but my heart belongs to the US; warts and all. Be well.

  6. April 6, 2017 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    In view of what we know now — and who knows what is still concealed? — I’m not at all sure this war could have been prevented. Jews controlled the Federal Reserve since 1913, and wanted to enrich themselves with war profits and war debt and loot from Russians. New York Jews were poised to take over Russia, and many rather moronic militarists in Britain hated Russia, mainly because propaganda had been drip-fed them for their lifetimes by e.g. Reuters. Probably there was a set of secret agreements over Russia, rather like Balfour, handing it over for Jews to use, somewhat like the Boer War, and for that matter the Russo-Japan war. And of course they hated Germany and Austria. I doubt there was much awareness over the Ottoman Empire (and murders of Armenians). Jews held the deciding vote, and as always wanted profitable mass destruction. And of course most Brits hadn’t the slightest ideas what was happening; reading people like H G Wells and Bertrand Russell and Shaw and Keynes is an agonising thing; they were considered intelligent, yet misunderstood everything.

    • m's Gravatar m
      April 7, 2017 - 4:41 am | Permalink

      …of course most Brits hadn’t the slightest ideas what was happening; reading people like H G Wells and Bertrand Russell and Shaw… is an agonising thing; they were considered intelligent, yet misunderstood everything.

      The men you mentioned considered themselves to be techno-modernists in every way, and thought that rational universalism would be the key to overcoming petty nationalism and resulting discords. They were part of a liberal vanguard of British intelligentsia, and as such were typically highly anti-Czarist, generally more than less pro-Soviet. They were against monarchy, for women’s suffrage (plus the entire feminizing litany of social progress ideas), but also open to racialist arguments–at least as far as genetics and eugenics goes. Anyone interested can read their period writings in the London publication, The New Age, which copies can be found archived on line; with the possible exception of Russell, whom I don’t think contributed to the journal.

      For his part, Shaw was rather circumspect about placing blame for WWII on Germany, finding that Versailles contributed dearly to the Second War. Too, he was not the anti-Nazi expected of him, and lost some support for it. Jews to this day often consider Shaw to be an anti-Semite (which, of course, just means that he was on to them more than they wanted).

      Wells was a political and social universalist, and no Zionist. But was pro-British during the war.

      For his part Russell was anti-German (but pacifist) during the First War, and pro-communist after the War. However, after a trip to Moscow, the “socialist aristocrat” wrote that the Soviet government was a stifling regime manned by mostly Jews.

      • April 7, 2017 - 11:00 am | Permalink

        Russell commented on the USSR, run by “Americanized Jews”, with an autocracy “more terrible than the Czar’s”. But he added he thought it the right government for what he called ‘Russia’ (Russell never referred to it as the ‘USSR’). I wondered if Russell was just another Jew-subservient liar, but his efforts against nuclear weapons (he believed in them) and (((US))) genocide in Vietnam convince me he was a useful idiot and dupe of Jews.
        .
        http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/bertrand-russell-duped-by-jews-physicists.html

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        April 7, 2017 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, m, for this knowledgeable comment.

        As I know rather more about Shaw than about Russell and Wells combined, I’ll add only this: While I in no way dispute the accuracy of your characterization of Shaw’s attitudes, anent the Great War as anent much else, Shaw maximized his famous contrariness to serve his own psychological and financial purposes (in re the latter, productions of several of his best plays were then on London and New York stages, and Shaw was frankly desirous of publicity).

        Many Americans have “learned” (wrongly) that Shaw urged the enlisted men of the Allied and Entente armies to “shoot your officers and go home,” but few if any know that the quote was plucked from a hypothetical context:

        I see the people of England united in a fierce detestation and defiance of the views and acts of Prussian Junkerism. And I see the German people stirred to the depths by a similar antipathy to English Junkerism, and anger at the apparent treachery and duplicity of the attack made on them by us in their extremest peril from France and Russia. I see both nations duped, but alas! not quite unwillingly duped, by their Junkers and Militarists into wreaking on one another the wrath they should have spent in destroying Junkerism and Militarism in their own country. And I see the Junkers and Militarists of England and Germany jumping at the chance they have longed for in vain for many years of smashing one another and establishing their own oligarchy as the dominant military power in the world. No doubt the heroic remedy for this tragic misunderstanding is that both armies should shoot their officers and go home to gather in their harvests in the villages and make a revolution in the towns; and though this is not at present a practicable solution, it must be frankly mentioned, because it or something like it is always a possibility in a defeated conscript army if its commanders push it beyond human endurance when its eyes are opening to the fact that in murdering its neighbours it is biting off its nose to vex its face, besides riveting the intolerable yoke of Militarism and Junkerism more tightly than ever on its own neck. [emphasis mine]

        Whether in his heart Shaw actually believed, as he also wrote, that Britain should have given military aid to neutral Belgium even before the German incursion is debatable, I think, but his saying as much makes him in some respects ucomfortably akin to those of the SJW mind-set that the Jews have always fed and watered to their own purposes.

        See also this excellent article, which examines the matter in far greater detail and depth.

        • April 8, 2017 - 6:17 am | Permalink

          It’s surely crystal clear by now that Shaw (and Wells, Russell) had no idea of the part played by Jews; they were Jew-naive pontiffs, pontificating. But Keynes must surely have had some idea – most of his work had been on money and international finance. I suspect he was muffled and suppressed in some way.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          April 8, 2017 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

          It’s surely crystal clear by now … I suspect [Keynes] was muffled and suppressed in some way.

          On the contrary, these assessments are anything but “sure” or “crystal clear,” at least to those who are in less of a hurry to compound fact-poverty with suspicion-wealth.

  7. Maple Curtain's Gravatar Maple Curtain
    April 6, 2017 - 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Ah, well, that’s all well and good, but what are we going to do about Assad, and Russia?

    n.b. /sarc

  8. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    April 6, 2017 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    A gem of historiography in such a limited space. Thank you both; a hundred times over.

    I read that Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty withdrew the usual destroyer escorts assigned to all ships entering the Irish Channel, only from the Lusitania, to facilitate its U-Boot sinking. Not surprising, given his subsequent criminal record; nor his prior one of gassing pesky Kurds in Iraq

    Even that self-described Holocaust expert Lipstadt, silent throughout her Irving trial, spoke elsewhere about soap made of corpses during the Third Reich. That ignorant smug peasant even lacks knowledge of the various German fonts.

    I remember the coarse yellow, merely semi-refined soap well, used primarily for laundry chores. It said on the wrapper:
    ” Reines Industrie Fett ” [ pure industrial fat ].

    However in the font in use at that time, the capital letter ” I ” reached below the base line, reading as a “J” in our font. Therefore it read RJF, propagandistically profitably translated as “: Reines Juden Fett “, [ Pure Jewish Fat ]. War-time Germans were inundated with ersatz [ substitute ] products including edibles, but who the hell would knowingly wash their face, or any other part of their body with the remains of another; however diluted in its processing ?

    This and Ilse Koch’s human skin lampshades have long since been discredited; even by Yad Vashem, which did not prevent the recent Montreal advertising of a human soap bar by a peddler of ‘ genuine ‘ war memorabilia.

    At least the British had the post-war decency to apologize for their lies, which did not prevent other Londoners from recently accepting ca. 96 million Euros as Germany’s final WWI reparations installment.

    You omitted the incredible propagandistic activism of Brandeis and Frankfurter, remarked upon in a report by even the Polish Ambassador to Washington, to his Foreign Secretary.

    The heavy pre- and pro-Israel presence, and others, in their typical Near-East wheeler-dealer, handwringing bazaar mentalities, employing what I call Rococo English changed the Vorvertrag: the Rules to govern the Conferences themselves. They illegally added the forced German acceptance of Alleinschuld, the sole guilt clause. The Germans demurred, the British continued the blockade of Germany, ending in your cited mass starvation. Not very propitious.

    One could add a hundred pages on the non-performance of Wilson’s 14 points. All necessarily leading to September 1, 1939.

    Again, excellent and impartial work, given the restrictions of time and space placed upon you including your assessment of post WW II Germany. Vielen Dank !

  9. William Gruff's Gravatar William Gruff
    April 6, 2017 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    After the guns fell silent, Wilson insisted upon the inclusion of the “War Guilt” clause into the Versailles Treaty, stating that Germany “should, morally, pay for all war costs, but, because it could not possibly afford this, would be asked only to pay for civilian damages.”

    That’s interesting: I was taught at school, more than forty five years ago, for O-level history, that Britain and France insisted on reparations and the US opposed the demand, arguing against any reparations.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      April 8, 2017 - 8:27 am | Permalink

      War ? I give it to you wholesale. Pay only for civilian damages !
      Since we have collateral on all our various nation-debtors anyvay, who will repay with compounded interest. For decades to come. Or, in the case of Germany, a century. Even if it costs GB an Empire, which we’ll gladly take off their hands.

  10. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    April 7, 2017 - 8:28 am | Permalink

    “by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths.”

    I would guess that number is very low. Let’s hear from some witnesses:

    But the most riveting account of Germany’s conditions in early 1919 was offered by Keynes* as the testimony of a member of Hoover’s American missions.

    “You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven an eight years. Tiny faces with large dull eyes, overshadowed by huge, puffed, rickety foreheads, their small arm just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints, the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema…. “You see this child here,” the physician in charge explained; “it consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet it did not get any stronger. I found that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food” a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger woes than the actual pangs.”

    From, The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919, by C. Paul Vincent, 1985

    An anonymous visitor to Germany – wrote in that first winter of the of the peace “The picture is etched upon my mind. A man emaciated, half clothed, propped up between a perambulator and a tiled stove, feeding the baby he was too weak to lift. He was feeding the baby with a paste made of black bread and cooked in water with the addition if a little lard and salt. That was the only food he had.”

    The starvation is done quietly and decently at home. And when death comes, it comes in the form of influenza, tuberculosis, heart-failure or one the new and mysterious diseases caused by the war, and carries off its exhausted victims.”

    A group I can never forget, I encountered in the Zimmerstrasse, presumably in their way to the hospital. They were working women with their babies in their arms. They themselves were pale and worn, the children looked like figures of white wax. As they were passing, one woman stooped down to pick up a cigar-end, The action gave me a full view of her baby. Its cheeks resembled enameled glass. The sight of its face was shock; the emaciation of its tiny, wither sticks of arms was a thing uncanny to look upon.”

    From, Unfinished Victory, by Arthur Bryant, 1940

    *John Maynard Keynes

  11. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    April 7, 2017 - 11:58 am | Permalink

    Earlier in this thread, three gentlemen conflated the actual Zimmermann telegram with the propaganda bonanza that its revelation afforded the advocates for US participation in the European bloodletting. They are not, however, the same thing.

    As the telegram, while hardly an exemplar of highmindedness, was a representative specimen of diplomatic fiddling, it is a mistake to treat it as anything much out of the ordinary in international relations generally and in the conduct of war specifically. Indeed, to do so is an exercise in naivety—precisely the sort of naivety to which the Jews have worked hard to accustom our fellow whites to the long-term end of serving their own purposes. And what better serves the Jews’ purposes than white Christian peoples, nations, and societies destroying one another? Yet Jews, history’s greatest provocateurs, never balk at using the selfsame device for the Tribe’s own vicious purposes, nor have they ever exhibited any shame or remorse on the odd occasions when they have been caught red-handed.

    Kaiser Bill was by no means the first crowned head to mismanage his domestic and foreign affairs because he succumbed to vainglory. Indeed, in his own day and on his own continent he was one among many who did. Yet surely, while his failings as a prince may have been necessary to the inauguration and ongoing prosecution of the Great War, they were far from sufficient.

    Put otherwise, hasn’t he already been blamed enough to be granted an exemption amounting to a single TOO article?

  12. Al Ross's Gravatar Al Ross
    April 7, 2017 - 6:05 pm | Permalink

    The Boers’ war against the British Empire was mainly a war against “German” – Jewish mining interests according to British Parliamentarian, John Burns.

    In that Victorian era of Empire – driven jingoism, Burns had the temerity to provide Parliament with a blinding flash of the obvious, viz., “the British Army is the Janissary of the Jews.”

  13. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    April 7, 2017 - 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Readers will decide whether Wilson’s remarkable volte-face on WWI participation has any contemporary parallel.
    http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs086/1103027403968/archive/1110552167130.html

    • April 8, 2017 - 5:58 am | Permalink

      I was thinking of recommending Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War by Docherty & Macgregor, which has material on Ireland and WW1. Prompted by your comment, I checked the index of their book for Untermeyer and Brandeis; neither were present. If Docherty & Macgregor read this — come on, guys, put revisionist material in vol 2.

  14. April 8, 2017 - 7:59 am | Permalink

    I have added an addendum on the Zimmerman Telegram which was another factor in promoting American involvement.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      April 8, 2017 - 10:28 am | Permalink

      Thank you. Zimmerman Telegram before US entry
      ” DECODED ” BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE. The same people who had to have their molars pulled by Irving to release their decodes of Polish-tapped wire communications between Auschwitz and Berlin, reporting on ACTUAL number of deaths on a daily basis.

      Also the same outfit employing ” The Cambridge Four “, soviet spies: one of whom [ their chief agent in Spain ] was dining with the Br. Governor of Gibraltar and Gen. Sikorski, during the evening before Sikorski, the head of the Polish Government in Exile [ London ] died in the crash of his plane into the Mediterranean just after takeoff.

      The German playwright Rolf Hochhut wrote the play
      ” Soldiers “, covering Churchill’s assassination of Sikorski, who troubled British-Soviet relations by consistently demanding to know from Stalin where thousands of Polish soldiers ended up after fleeing eastward from the German advance. [ Photos of S and S, consulting in Moscow ]. [ Katyn aside ].

      Since the Zimmerman Telegram produced the desired results, Churchill’s friend, the Canadian ex-airman William Stephenson [ ” The Man Called Intrepid ” ], domiciled in NYC and mandated to bring America into the war, forged a SECRET MAP, MADE BY HITLER, DEPICTING HITLER’S INTENDED INVASION OF MONROE’S WESTERN HEMISPHERE, as displayed by FDR to Congress. [ Photos ].

      Apparently Hitler was so consumed by his plans to conquer the world, that he forgot to cease production of resource-swallowing kitchen appliances for several years.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        April 8, 2017 - 11:53 am | Permalink

        The forged secret map, in its “Sketch 3” notes at its upper left
        merely “Secret” [Geheim], in other words, don’t spread it around at your pub. What about “Streng Geheim” or ” Top Secret ” ? Or “Geheime Staatssache”, ” Secret State-Matter ” ? Tired at the end of a strenuous day ?

      • Rolf's Gravatar Rolf
        April 11, 2017 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

        The British Empire was 66 times the size of the German Empire at commencement of WW2.

        Hitler never seized any country permanently unless it was formerly part of Germany. He never seized any country’s government (Illegal under international law). The German government was illegally arrested after WW2.

        Hitler was a suporter of the British Empire and, as he wrote to Lord Rothermere, he had given four to five thousand speeches and in none had written or said anything against Britain or its interests. He even offered the services of the German military to Britain to stave off Stalin. The dunderheads joined Stalin. Churchill eventually understood that he had been fighting the wrong enemy.

  15. April 8, 2017 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the good piece. The new international order set up after the defeat of Germany and her allies and followed by the Versailles Treaty in 1919, introduced legal clauses of “war guilt, “ “crime against humanity,” “just war”, as well as a procedure of criminalizing and pathologizing the foe in international politics. Gone is the notion of the military adversary; now he has become a total enemy who needs to be destroyed and whose national-racial-family consciousness must be totally obliterated. Of course, such a legal practice of (aka “WMD” hoaxes ) political demonization of the enemy reached its zenith after WWII in the Nuremberg trials and continues unabated in international law. Consequently, “human rights” cannot be applied to a defendant if he is already tagged as a non-human or an extraterrestrial monster. Again we may look at the visionary Carl Schmitt and his very pessimistic view of modern international law. ( cf. Ex Captivitate Salus: Experiences, 1945-47. http://journal.telospress.com/content/1987/72/130.full.pdf+html

    • April 10, 2017 - 1:47 am | Permalink

      Gone is the notion of the military adversary; now he has become a total enemy who needs to be destroyed and whose national-racial-family consciousness must be totally obliterated. Of course, such a legal practice of (aka “WMD” hoaxes ) political demonization of the enemy reached its zenith after WWII in the Nuremberg trials and continues unabated in international law. Consequently, “human rights” cannot be applied to a defendant if he is already tagged as a non-human or an extraterrestrial monster.

      Thank you for your reply Mr. Sunic. It is an honor to have your feedback.

      Thank you, most importantly, for concisely and accurately expressing what was the salient point of this article that myself and my friend and colleague Roger Devlin were trying most to convey: that of the complete, total dehumanization of an opponent/enemy, particularly a military adversary. Where no nuance or shades-of-grey is permitted or tolerated (at least on a large-scale) – in seeing, understanding, or appreciating their perspective, i.e. ‘their side of the story’.

      This awful precedent, which like you stated, has been set and codified in international legalese, since the end of the First, and especially, the Second World War. A very cruel and insidious modern-day form of vae victis – “victor’s justice” – was created on the backs of the German people and nation, not just their government and military/armed forces. Additionally, as you so correctly, and somberly point out, an enemy “whose national-racial-family consciousness must be totally obliterated”.

      This perhaps is the greatest, large-scale, most amply-documented case in all of history where an ethnicity and a nation-state has been exposed to such an unrelenting assault – be it physically, culturally, morally and spiritually – as the German people went through for almost the totality of the twentieth century, right up to the present day. We see this for example, and in a most pernicious way, with the pressure that the “international community” and other globalist institutions maintain on Germany to keep its national borders wide open. For ‘refugees’ in particular, and foreigners of all types in general, as a way they can ‘atone’ for their ‘collective guilt’ – as the famous, politically left-leaning German banker Thilo Sarrazin, in his book Deutschland schafft sich ab, so presciently described it, by abolishing itself.

      Virtually every nation in the world, by this standard, can be held liable and be found “guilty” of something, since history is one tale after another of conquest and expansion. Yet its the Germans in particular, and all Whites in general for the last 30-40 years or so, that are held up to such ridiculous standards and cultural metrics for what essentially constitutes childlike, cartoon-character notions of “Good” and “Evil”.

      This is the whole, occult-like foundation of “German guilt” – which, since at least the 1970’s, has morphed fully and completely into wholesale “White Guilt”™ – which is the underlying basis for all ‘political correctness’. This is most strongly and evidently abundant for the average, common White folks of the Anglo-sphere, whose governments, and cultural/intellectual elites, were Germany’s most intransigent opponents – and whose governments today are committing the same military and international “crimes” that they so hypocritically accused, and wholesale prosecuted, all the German people for in the last century.

      • AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
        April 10, 2017 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

        I will at least agree with you that, since the 1970’s, Germany has been unfairly maligned in popular culture and academia, as have whites in general, of course. Rather than place the blame on the Anglosphere, though, this is the result of the “68’ers” gaining prominence and positions of power in western Europe, and North America. I’m old enough to remember when there was not so much of an obsession with The Holocaust, and when Hitler and the Germans were not constantly accused of being the epitome of evil the way they are today. Anglosphere histories of World War II, while understandably focusing on the role of the Commonwealth and USA, did not routinely accuse all German soldiers and civilians of being evil. British historians such as Basil Liddell-Hart took pains to get the German side of the story.

        And until the late-70’s onslaught, when the New Left consolidated their power, American and British TV documentaries such as “The World at War” still presented the Germans as human, rather than today’s cartoon character. A good example of this is the episode in the latter series on Stalingrad. The portrayal of Germans in Hollywood and British movies such as “The Longest Day” and “The Battle of Britain” are a far, far cry from the ridiculous (((Hollywood))) propaganda of today.

        David Irving, while shaking up the academic history establishment in the 70’s, was still highly respected back then for his books such as Hitler’s War. It wasn’t until later that he became Anathema. I don’t see enough evidence to blame the Anglosphere for how Germany lost its self-identity. As I’ve written elsewhere….

        “Some alt-righters argue that, following the Second World War, the American occupation of western Europe forcibly installed a liberal-left regime, which fundamentally altered the region by destroying traditional European mores. I strongly disagree. Although US troops were stationed in western Europe for decades, western European nations were still allowed much more political and cultural freedom than the nations behind the Iron Curtain, and these same nations experienced an economic boom through the 1950’s and 60’s. Charles DeGaulle, a staunch French nationalist, ensured that France once again became a force to be reckoned with, despite its humiliation in World War II, and the painful loss of Indochina and Algeria. And DeGaulle often did what he liked against the wishes of the USA. Along with conservative and centrist political parties, socialist and even communist parties were quite active and prominent in France, Italy and the UK. Yet the far-left did not dominate the politics of NATO countries, and did not gain much of a political foothold until the New Left upheavals of 1968 and afterwards.

        While the Nazi Party was outlawed, and many Nazi party officials, military officers and collaborators of the Germans in various countries were punished, right-wing parties and organizations were still allowed to operate in the West after 1945. Most Wehrmacht and SS veterans in West Germany were able to build successful lives for themselves, or they at least lived unhindered by their former enemies. West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer worked tirelessly and successfully to bring back surviving POW’s from Soviet prison camps. Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard led the post-war West German reconstruction, and by the 1950’s West Germans were experiencing an “economic miracle,” similar to other western European countries. Adenauer and Erhard were both staunch conservatives, opposed to Marxism.”

        I’m not trying to fight an Anglo vs. German war here. I believe that all white groups should work much harder at pulling together. There is a fashionable Anglo-bashing spirit, though, not only amongst the Left and popular figures such as Mel Gibson, but within the Alt-Right, and that badly needs to be corrected. The Anglosphere, over the centuries, has been relatively tolerant and humane towards other cultures, and towards its enemies. That might be a discussion for another time, but I have plenty of evidence if one wants to argue against that.

        • Armor's Gravatar Armor
          April 10, 2017 - 9:09 pm | Permalink

          AngloBilly: “While the Nazi Party was outlawed, and many Nazi party officials, military officers and collaborators of the Germans in various countries were punished, right-wing parties and organizations were still allowed to operate in the West after 1945”

          I think Thomas Goodrich gives a better account of what the Allies did to Germany in his book Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944—1947. Many Germans were liquidated after the end of the war. And before that, in the last months of the war, many German cities were fire-bombed for no reason.

          “Some alt-righters argue that, following the Second World War, the American occupation of western Europe forcibly installed a liberal-left regime, which fundamentally altered the region by destroying traditional European mores. I strongly disagree.”

          The Americans had no clue what they were doing, but they allowed the Jews to get back in power. The only way to resist Jewish power would have been to have nationalist governments that were strongly aware of the problem and took measures to prevent subversion. Instead, I guess criticism of the Jews was banned in Germany, and remains banned to this day. You resent the fashionable Anglo-bashing spirit, but many people have been criticizing the USA as a indirect way to criticize the Jews.

          After 1945, all of Western Europe got subverted again, as well as the USA itself. In France, the Vichy regime was replaced by the Gaullists and the communists. I think both groups relied heavily on Jews. They ended up restoring the parliamentary system under strong Jewish domination. The Jews launched the ENA school to provide the French central administration with fellow Jews and politically vetted civil servants. They sold the newspapers to new owners…

          Everything was gradually colonized by Jews. I think the damage was limited at first, while Jewish power was silently spreading, incubating and consolidating. The disaster became apparent in the 1960s. Even though conservative newspapers were authorized, no one could stop the decline of traditional culture and everything else. No one knew where the problem came from. People would blame the “Zeitgeist”. They were not allowed to say it was the Jews.

          All of Western Europe was subverted through the American influence, through Hollywood, the media, international organizations, international academic collaboration, and so on.

        • April 12, 2017 - 4:11 am | Permalink

          The are two meanings to 1968. One is the little-known but serious opposition to US war crimes in Vietnam and elsewhere, the cruelty organised no doubt by Jews, but acted out by innumerable Americans. This information is still suppressed by the Jewish media. The other 1968 is the Jewish element which of course existed in major form from 1913 and which was progressively growing; their role was to make money from the destruction of Vietnam, while managing the exit with commentary which deleting the jewish component. This is what the Jewish vocabulary (with its simple policy of repeating the opposite of truth) call ‘left’. You don’t seem to have disentangled these things.
          .
          Many of the commenters here don’t seem to realise what an advantage Jews had in being distributed across world capitals. From their point of view, and their genetic and ‘religious’ background, they controlled ‘Germany’ and ‘Britain’ and treated them like two cockerels in their cockpits, forced to fight for entertainment. They controlled the then-media, newspapers mostly, and their money, and the upper levels of personnel, easily bribed (or blackmailed, or assassinated). The ‘war guilt’ etc is just a manifestation of Jewish ‘ethics’ and must have seemed automatic to Jewish-educated inward-looking Jewish fanatics.

        • Armor's Gravatar Armor
          April 12, 2017 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

          Rerevisionist: “what an advantage Jews had in being distributed across world capitals”

          The Jews are certainly overrepresented in a lot of international organizations. In France, an example of that is Arte, which is supposed to be a Franco-German TV station showcasing French and German culture. In fact, it’s even more obnoxiously Jewish and anti-White than the rest of the French media.

          There’s the same problem with the French-American Foundation. It has a program called “young leaders” whereby young French politicians participate in “seminars” in the USA, where they are presumably vetted by ZOG USA. Many of them get hired by ZOG France as soon as they get back. It shows that ZOG France works closely with ZOG USA.

      • Rolf's Gravatar Rolf
        April 11, 2017 - 2:11 pm | Permalink

        Germany surrendered after WW1 because it believed that woodrow Wilson’s 14 points peace program would be honoured. Germany later realised it had been tricked when Wilson stated that his program was “just air”. Germany was the only country that disarmed and was therefore led to be plundered by the attendees of the Treaties of Versailles.

        This realisation led to pacifist books being symbolically burned before WW2 when the new leader said he would never allow Germany to be disarmed again.

        Note that he offered many peace treaties before and during WW2 that were always ignored. The Blitz occurred three months after seven German cities had been carpet-bombed and after he carpet-bombed London with peace pamphlets.

        • April 12, 2017 - 12:53 am | Permalink

          Rolf,

          Unfortunately, Wilson was the ultimate snake in his moral character, or, more realistically, his complete lack thereof.

          He ran, and was re-elected in 1916 on a promise/slogan: ‘He Kept Us Out of War!’

          Only to turn around, in less than a year , and get us into a war that he just previously campaigned against.

          {I know what a lot of you reading this may likely be thinking: About someone today bearing an ominously strange, uncanny parallel with Woodie, replicating an almost similar trajectory of change in political opinions and positions, and behaving in a similarly delusive manner, particularly in regard to international relations… but, I digress}

          Wilson, most importantly, and as you rightfully alluded to, never kept his end of the bargain up for the Germans, a ‘bargain’ that he likely never intended to keep up in the first place.

          The most salient *sales points* of his ‘Fourteen Points’ was the suggestively-touted motto of ‘no reparations, no annexations’. This was done to lure the Germans, especially their military leaders, into believing it would be what they were proposing in 1916 – a true Armistice, which, by definition, is distinctly different from an unconditional surrender – where everyone would essentially go home, back to their pre-war borders.

          Yet, when the war was over, Wilson proceeded to do just that, helping to impose crushing war reparations and debt (with even Liberal economist John Maynard Keynes dubbing it a “Carthaginian Peace”) and as well dismembering a total 1/3 of the former territories of the Reich (especially in the East).

          The belief in Wilson’s ‘kumbaya’ rhetoric was so beguiling that it even General Ludendorf was taken in by it, and was a principal pusher of the Kaiser’s abdication, rationalizing that Germany wouldn’t get the ‘sweetheart deal’ if they kept their monarch, since Wilson bore so much animus toward the Kaiser.

          Germany at this point was ultimately forced to accept the ‘Armistice’, and the terms and conditions it demanded, at the threat of mass-starvation by a continuation of the very illegal naval blockade of Germany.

        • Armor's Gravatar Armor
          April 12, 2017 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

          Stephen J. Rosse: ‘no reparations, no annexations’. This was done to lure the Germans (…) into believing it would be (…) a true Armistice (…) Yet, when the war was over, Wilson proceeded to do just that


          I’m glad Wilson lied if it made the war shorter. I’ve just read Wilson’s 14 points (January 1918). He says the peoples of Austria-Hungary must be given the “opportunity of autonomous development”. He mentions the principle of justice and liberty for all nationalities. But for some reason, the USA didn’t declare war on Britain in defense of Ireland’s right to self-determination.

          His speech says that an independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations. But on the other hand, he says Alsace is French territory and must be given back to France. Actually, the Alsatians used to eat sauerkraut and speak German. And Gutenberg used to work on his printing press while he lived in Strassburg. So, at least, the Alsatians should have been consulted in 1919.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          April 13, 2017 - 7:43 am | Permalink

          Versailles determined the holding of plebiscites in areas of intermingled nationalities. Sort of public referendums to join either one state or another. On the eastern borders many areas voted to go with Germany, including a large number of Poles, who may have cared more for economic advantage and an efficient administration. These plebiscites were then simply ignored in line with a greater plan.

          Yes, GB took time out to bomb Dublin in June [?] 1916.

      • April 11, 2017 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

        Why thank you very much Anglo-Billy for your cogent and insightful thoughts and commentary on this matter, both in this particular comment, as well as your others.

        I would like to tell you this right off the bat: I totally agree that we Whites, of whatever particular ethnicity, are fundamentally of one family (i.e. brothers, and/or at least cousins), and that there never should be any mean-spirited resentment or other unnecessary ill-will toward one another today over what may have happened in the past generations of our respective nations’ histories, particularly during a war.

        As it has so presciently been stated before: “The First Casualty of War is Truth” – and we should not be so post-critically capricious to those participants on either side of that war, or any conflict in history, for whatever side they may have fought. After all, most were merely young men just serving their country, for better or for worse.

        Nor should we be too anachronistically judgemental toward those individuals and societies who believed the atrocity stories, or whatever propaganda, their governments told them at that time, for what we now know in historical hindsight. (Moreover, with the unprecedented ability, largely thanks to the Internet, to so thoroughly research a subject that would have taken months or years for many in our fathers and grandfathers generations – or out of their realm or ability completely – if they didn’t happen to be a member of their country’s upper-class or elite, intellectual or otherwise.)

        For this is why Billy that I greatly admire the English, and other foundational stock of the Anglo-sphere, in that no matter what their government may have been officially telling them during the Brüderkrieg (brothers war), it was they, those soldiers on the front lines, who kept the most open of minds when dealing with their battlefield opponents.

        Especially on the evening of that epoch day of December 24, 1914, when German and British soldier alikeSaxon and Anglo-Saxon – laid down their arms for the Prince of Peace, as well as out of a profound sense of chivalry, honor and magnanimity that was once such an intrinsic quality in the heart and Geist (spirit) of European man.

        Like I said before, we Whites are all sons of the West, and most importantly, may we few, we happy few, we band of brothers never again be deceived by ‘powers and principalities’ … and may We always stand united, against them.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          April 12, 2017 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

          I disagree with the adage that ” the first casualty of war is truth “.

          Truth itself has to be the first casualty; TO FACILITATE WAR.

          It dies prior to the first shots; as clearly demonstrated by the text-book run-up to the second Iraq war; corroborated by innumerable case studies: as well as by your correct tenets of necessary pre-belligerence demonization.

        • AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
          April 14, 2017 - 9:45 am | Permalink

          Thank you, Mr. Rosse. Good points.

  16. Socratic Dog's Gravatar Socratic Dog
    April 8, 2017 - 12:54 pm | Permalink

    I second that reference. Excellent read.

  17. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    April 8, 2017 - 2:07 pm | Permalink

    I’d suggest reading: “The Anglo-American Establishment”, “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of I WW”, “The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914”.
    At the end , Europe was no more. Welcome the American and Jewish Centuries ! Thank you, Woodrow !
    You reap now what you sowed then.

  18. Les's Gravatar Les
    April 8, 2017 - 7:58 pm | Permalink

    I don’t support either side and am trying to look at things from a neutral perspective. But in the case of the Lusitania I do think that it was a deliberate set up to be sunk because the British had broken the German naval codes and refused to suppy a naval escort or tell the ship not to sail in that area where U-Boats were known to patrol. See review of the book on British naval intelligence “Room 40” –
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=10510

    • April 11, 2017 - 6:07 pm | Permalink

      But in the case of the Lusitania I do think that it was a deliberate set up to be sunk because the British had broken the German naval codes and refused to suppy a naval escort or tell the ship not to sail in that area where U-Boats were known to patrol.

      Les – I’ve read on more than one occasion that this was the idea of none other than Winston Churchill himself, who was then Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty, and who wanted to find a reason and justification to get America into the war.

      At the very least, even if he didn’t plan or mastermind this as a deliberate pretext for US involvement, he certainly knew of the abundant munitions on that civilian luxury liner. Additionally, he most certainly was fully aware of its travel route and itinerary, knowing full-well that it was sailing through territory known for sure to have a large U-Boot presence – nor, more importantly, did he authorize any naval escorts for her journey as the ship got progressively closer to England.

      So it was one of two things then: That Churchill was either malicious, or stupid. Either way, it doesn’t reflect well on him in the least. (He was also the master’mind’ of the ill-fated Gallipoli and Dardanelles campaign against the Central Power ally of the time Turkey, and we, unfortunately, know how those battles worked out for Britain and the Allies.)

  19. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    April 8, 2017 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

    My point of view is not based on research at all, but my impression is that European soldiers in WW1 accepted to go to war out of resignation, a sense of duty, and misguided faith in their government. It’s for the same reasons there is no rebellion today against the government’s race replacement program. The elites had been subverted just like today. The bishops would not dare denounce the war. It was a dictatorial system. Just like we didn’t vote for race replacement, people back then didn’t vote for WW1.

    No one really believed in the evilness of the opposite side. Instead people would philosophize about how sad and tragic it is to have to kill people who are just like us. The Germans and the English would play soccer on Christmas day, and then, go back to killing one another in their trenches. They were just as crazy as those today who think we have to go along with the genocidal plans of our treacherous rulers because there is no other way (Wir schaffen das!). ZOG gives the orders at the top, but still, the genocide is enforced by White people who should know better.

    Even so, the WW1 anti-German propaganda, used in conjunction with censorship, must have been useful to police public discourse and shut people up. I guess the political opposition was totally eliminated in the newspapers and in the parliaments. It doesn’t mean people believed the propaganda. People today do not really believe that race replacement is good for White people and that Bashar al-Assad is a psychopath who likes to gas babies for no reason.

    By the way, I wonder what was the situation in Germany: whether the government resorted to false propaganda about atrocities committed by the English, or whether they simply relied on people’s sense of duty. But why would the Germans expect their government to necessarily be on the side of reason and fairness? They knew the English would also expect their own government to be right. But most people in each country felt they had no other choice but be loyal to their nation. It doesn’t mean they had any grievance against enemy nations.

    Original Post: “There is a grim justice in the way such psychological warfare has turned on its original creators, the western allies, who never imagined they would fall victim to what they self-righteously unleashed on a defeated enemy.”

    I think the psychological warfare on Germany was mostly a Jewish thing. I can’t imagine normal people in England, France and America, thinking that German self-respect had to be destroyed.

    Tom Sunic: “Gone is the notion of the military adversary; now he has become a total enemy who needs to be destroyed and whose national-racial-family consciousness must be totally obliterated.”

    During WW1, I think the idea of the total enemy was pushed by some governments, while most people still saw other armies as honorable military adversaries. But there is a contradiction between seeing enemies as respectable soldiers, and trying to exterminate them with heavy artillery and gas shells. At least, the Jewish attitude is more logical: don’t love your enemy!

    • April 10, 2017 - 4:19 am | Permalink

      During WW1, I think the idea of the total enemy was pushed by some governments, while most people still saw other armies as honorable military adversaries. But there is a contradiction between seeing enemies as respectable soldiers, and trying to exterminate them with heavy artillery and gas shells. At least, the Jewish attitude is more logical: don’t love your enemy!

      You make some very good points, and present very valid observations Armor – especially regarding the baser, underlying motives for many an individual citizen, or in particular, a soldier’s patriotism – but I respectfully differ with the last two points you made (whether they’re a personal belief of yours or not):

      That in fighting an opponent or adversary on the field of battle necessitates hating, or even worse, dehumanizing him.

      Worst yet, the country, nation or tribe he serves.

      Not only did the Germans, as per your query, resort to deceitful, false propaganda alleging atrocities about their opponents, not even in retaliation for the malicious way it was done to them, but, collectively, in the very same month of December, 1914 that the British Bryce Report was published (alleging the most depraved acts and behavior about them as an army), the German soldiers, very and most tellingly, seemed to rise above it all, and demonstrated a historically unprecedented amount of decency and good-will toward their battlefield adversaries.

      The unprecedented military and cultural event was the Christmas Truce of 1914, where German front-line troops in the trenches initiated the largest, mass-scale fraternization, and evidence of chivalrous camaraderie, of soldiers in all recorded history. Christmas, and New Year’s (as well, reportedly in some relatively quiet parts of the front, right up until Easter, 1915) was celebrated with their British & French (and in some cases Russian) adversaries during the first year of the “Great’ War”.

      My colleague Roger Devlin wrote an excellent review for this very site on this not-to-well known, or properly appreciated occurrence, about the 2005 French-made movie production of Joyeux Noël:

      http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/12/joyeux-no%d1%91l-the-beginnings-of-wwi-and-the-christmas-truce-of-1914

      Most tellingly, the psycho-sociological evidence that this demonstrates, proves to contrary for the all-to-common resigned (largely American) belief that one must hate an “enemy”, instead of merely opposing an adversary, i.e. “Hun” .. “gook” .. “rag head” .. or the all-around, contemporary favorite moniker for those opposed to the American empire: “terrorist”, an existential term that serves to invalidate any legitimate grievances or divergent points of view that other nations, tribes, and ethnys may hold, however justified, as well as dehumanizing them as an individual(s).

      The fruits of this Pyrrhic “total war/total enemy” mentality and behavior of the Anglo-sphere is all-too-well in evidence to see and witness today, particularly the last fifteen to twenty-five years of our military involvement in the Middle East. This is something we as honorable White men and women of the West must do our utmost best to avoid, lest we get duped once again into another senseless war, one that will not only be our undoing, but that of the whole world.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        April 10, 2017 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Mr. Rosse, thanks once again. A neighbor and I discussed a recent burglary. I was reminded of one at our own rural home some 43 years ago. My stepfather had brought a beautiful, three-tiered, enameled brass candelabra into the family. Its provenance was that it had been “brought home” by his nephew, a sailor on the S.M.S. Panther, when it “docked” in Morocco, during the First Moroccan Crisis in 1905; followed by the Second in 1911.

        This reminded me of these Crises, which appear to have had an even larger influence on the War than Sarajevo. They definitively lined up the finally opposing belligerents.

        01 During the First Crisis the German stock market plummeted by 30% in merely one day. The Kaiser was afraid to be forced off the gold-standard of the Reichsmark: around the time of the preparatory Jekyll Island conference.

        02 The [loyal ] Hamburg Jew banker Warburg [two sons at Kuehn-Loeb NY], was the Kaiser’s ‘trusted ‘ friend and head of his Intelligence, having unquestionably had his policy finger in Lenin’s sealed train, en route to Petrograd.

        03 A well-read history buff once informed me, that during one of the many negotiations and secret meetings surrounding the 1911 crisis, it was decided by the Allies, that Germany would have to be permanently eliminated from commercial and colonial competition. [ In no uncertain language ].

        04 He added, that Germany was forced by the Treaty to stamp all of its exported products with ” Made in Germany ” to allow foreign importers and their distributor/retail clientele to boycott German goods. [ As later with Hitler ].

        I believe to speak for several commenters here, when I ask you two, or singly, to please briefly clear up the above points in a Reply for the irredeemably historically obsessed.

        PS [ My mother hid her smile from my stepfather, elated that this Diebesgut or booty candelabra had been stolen for a second time, no longer gracing our dining room ].

        • April 11, 2017 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

          Hi Charles,

          I just want to say bitte schön to you sir, and vielen danke to all your great commentary on this issue. Please forgive some of my late responses to this discussion thread, I’m new to publishing articles online, and been very busy with work as well.

          In regards to the questions you ask above, with the exception of #02, I’m not to sure of the others, but Mr. Devlin and I will be sure to research it for you, In fact, so many of the excellent commentary here has inspired me to write-up another article on this topic, since this one was rather brief, due to last minute idea and time constraints (I thought up this article’s title just less than a week before April 6, the anniversery of America’s entry into the war).

          02 The [loyal ] Hamburg Jew banker Warburg [two sons at Kuehn-Loeb NY], was the Kaiser’s ‘trusted ‘ friend and head of his Intelligence, having unquestionably had his policy finger in Lenin’s sealed train, en route to Petrograd.

          This Charles is an undisputed fact. Max Warburg, who, like you say, was a banker (don’t really know so much about the ‘loyal’ part) – and who additionally, for what its worth, was also on the board of the major German industrial chemical conglomerate, IG Farben – was an ‘advisor’ to Seine Majestät Kaiser Wilhelm II, and he most certainly was the ‘brains’ and the architect behind Lenin’s sealed train, en route to Petrograd to take Kerensky’s Russia completely out of the war, so as to finish off Germany’s involvement on the Eastern Front.

          At least that was how Warburg – along with the highly-questionable German Chancellor Count Bethman-Hollweg (who many feel was a Free Mason, and was at the very least a Liberal – cat least one by Prussian standards) – sold this scheme to Herr Hohenzollern, who initially was very resistant to the idea, feeling that it was probably not a good idea “having an armed Bolshevik nation on our doorstep … out of an enemy we shall create a monster”

          On top of all that my freund Charles, there was another ‘advisor’ (‘handler’ here may be more apropos) on the other side of the Atlantic who had the ear (or was it the other way around?) of the man in-lieu-of a president, Woddie Wilson, and that guy was Paul Warburg – who was the brother of Herr Max over in Hamburg.

          Geez, you think it was some kind of coincidence, that two men that ‘just happened’ to be brothers, were the personal ‘advisors’ to the two heads of state that were at war with each other? I mean, what are the odds of that??

          I definitely will be going into much greater depth over this angle of the saga and the intrigue behind the “Great” War for my next article on this site.

        • April 11, 2017 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

          On top of all that my freund Charles, there was another ‘advisor’ (‘handler’ here may be more apropos) on the other side of the Atlantic who had the ear (or was it the other way around?) of the man in-lieu-of a president, Woddie Wilson, and that guy was Paul Warburg – who was the brother of Herr Max over in Hamburg.

          Oh, meant to mention before as well Charles that Paul Warburg, who in coming as an immigrant to this country … in wishing to show his immense ‘appreciation’, and the ‘concern’ he had for the American people – motivated of course by an unbelievable sense of selfless altruism (heh), and before he so ‘patriotically’ served ‘his’ country and ‘president’ Wilson during the war – gave us the ‘gift’ of the Federal Reserve, as its Chief Architect, as well as the Income Tax, both in 1913.

          What a ‘gift’ that was, huh???

          The Federal Reserve – the gift that just keeps on giving…

  20. Rolf's Gravatar Rolf
    April 11, 2017 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    The US entered the war in 1917, after the Germans offered the best possible peace terms in the history of warfare. Germany suggested that all troops return with their arms to their borders before the war and Germany did not want reparations/compensation.

    British Zionists convinced the British government to continue the war because they would get the US involved against the Germans (Balfour agreement). In return they wanted Britain to give them Palestine.

    In the US Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed Woodrow Wilson (‘Peckadillo”‘) into appointing Brandeis as head of Supreme Court. Brandeis told Wilson to declare war against Germany because of the sinking of the SS Sussex (false flag).

    When almost 5 mil. US troops helped defeat Germany and 800,000 Germans were starved to death by the illegal blockade,Versailles imposed the least magnanimous conditions in history.

    As I understand it, the ‘Zimmerman Letter’ was actually written by British Intelligence.

  21. Rolf's Gravatar Rolf
    April 11, 2017 - 2:00 pm | Permalink

    US Lawyer Clarence Darrow offered $1,000 for anyone who witnessed the German atrocities but the money, enough to buy a house at that time, was never claimed.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      April 12, 2017 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Irving’s identical offer, regarding gas chamber photos or RELIABLE eye-witness accounts has never been claimed either.

      Hopefully I was no the only one amused by the “Shoa” shots, purportedly made surreptitiously. The Israeli filmmakers were filming out of a VW camper parked at the curb with full view INTO the coincidentally street-level apartment of a German, ready to spill the real beans on the Nazis.

      To protect himself, this ” authentic ” bean-spiller had cautiously lowered his venetian blinds against the possibly curious pedestrians. He ‘negligently’ forgot to turn the individual slats of the blinds down as well.

      Otherwise, how could the interviewing and openly merely tape- recording Israeli crew inside be filmed from the curb; across eight feet of adjacent lawn and a four foot sidewalk ?

      No one even bothered to cut out the three or four shots, in which this ‘ truth-teller’ looked directly into the camera.

      Reminiscent of that bombastic Bomba, filmed while cutting hair, to subliminally align it with his fabrications of cutting the hair of women from his own village, in the very ante-chambers of the ” gas chambers “; valiantly fighting back a nervous breakdown.

      Try again, Landsmann, Spielberg and the rest of you: still erroneously clinging to your dependence on eternal goyim gullibility.

  22. sylvie's Gravatar sylvie
    April 12, 2017 - 5:50 pm | Permalink

    According to the Zimmermann Telegram:
    “Mexico was to be awarded the States of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona for their help in fighting the United States”

    Did I get that right:
    The Americans were so frightened by the prospect of Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona that they sent (more than a million) troops to Europe to fight Germany?

    And the same Americans, after successfully fighting the Germans, some decades later welcome the additional invasion of California, Florida, etc. ?

  23. Al Ross's Gravatar Al Ross
    April 13, 2017 - 1:57 am | Permalink

    The connection between “The Balfour Declaration” and America’s entry in to World War I is explored, to my satisfaction at least, by Alison Weir in her copiously footnoted book ‘Against Our Better Judgement’.

    Her website is : http://ifamericaknew.org

  24. AngloBilly's Gravatar AngloBilly
    April 14, 2017 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    “Armor,” thank you to you and the others here, including Stephen Rosse, for the civil discussion with someone who had some disagreements. While I’ll “agree to disagree” on a few points, I strongly agree with you about how we have urgent interests in common. I’m very thankful for sites like this, which not only have interesting articles with a lot of substance, but also allow us to hash things out in these kinds of discussions.

Comments are closed.