WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You also get the timing of the Balfour Declaration wrong.

November 2nd, 1917- not exactly 'the middle of the war', and hardly a ploy to bring Russia into a war which it had been involved in since 1914, or to somehow entice the United States- which had entered the war on 6th April 1917, after repeated diplomatic protests to Germany about its resumed policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare, slain American passengers and crew, sunken American shipping and German acts of sabotage on American soil.

molly, the agreement and the declaration itself were not contemporaneous. There were long negotiations over the exact language in the document that was finally issued.

I have asked you before, and I will ask you again now, do you know who approached whom first and when?

Now, as to the specific intent, the site I linked on this was an Israeli site, IIRC. Since the purpose was to gain Jewish support in Russia and in the US for the allied effort, the timing of the original negotiations would likely be soon after the revolution in Russia in which the Czar abdicated and the democrats took over. Jewish opinion would have been important in any such government, which is why I think the Brits did the deal.

[Ned]

Ned:
When Hitler came to power, he was met with a declaration of war by the Jews.


molly: 'The Jews' ? Do you mean German Jews, or the Jewish community worldwide ?

And if you can, could you provide us with this 'declaration of war' ?

I'm sure we'd all love to see this document- and find out things like- who wrote it ?

On behalf of whom ?

Where was it issued ?

When, and by whom ?

Otherwise you're just regurgitating antisemitic claptrap.

[Ned]

molly:

Racism ? Irrational prejudice against a set of people ?

Apparently you think that the Armenian massacres in some way parallel the treatment of the Jews of Eastern Europe and Germany- on the basis of a television programme you've just watched !

Why were the Armenians massacred in 1894 and 1896 in Ottoman Turkey ?

The Armenians had once had a state of their own in areas of what is now Turkey- the German Jews had never had a Jewish state on German land.

The Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbour- German Jews (or any other Jews or Jewish state) carried out no such attack on Nazi Germany, either with or without a formal declaration of war.

Japanese Americans were not exterminated, sent to labour camps to be worked to death or deliberately starved or used for the purposes of medical experimentation in the United States.

Your comparisons are inaccurate, grotesque and severely flawed.

And yet again, you are excusing race hatred and a policy of genocide.

Another example from another thread:

In the early 400's the Romans in Italy engaged in a general massacre of Germans. This occurred right after Italy was invaded and ravaged by Germans.

Cause and effect?

Racism?

Revenge?

Why?

Re: the Armenians. The Turks apparently had a long standing problem with the Armenians not unlike the problems they currently have with the Kurds. It is not surprising the Armenians were not "loyal" Turks and it is not surprising the Turks did not trust them.

This is not to say that what the Turks actually did was justified. But they had reason to move the Armenians as a means of national survival against the Russians.

I am sure Stalin has his reasons for Chechens.

I know FDR has his reasons for the Japanese.

That leaves us the Jews of Germany.

Why was their such animosity between the Nazi's and the Jews? You seem to say that it was just racism and nothing more. I say bull. The Nazi's were extreme nationalists who wanted to reverse the results of WWI. They blamed the Jews, not just the German Jews, for what happened to them in the war. I have said before, whether they were correct in this view is quite beside the point. I have linked articles that showed that the majority of Germans, not just Nazi's believed it to be true.

I say this not because I am trying to excuse what the Nazi's actually did, but to illustrate a point primarily about the British. They suckered the Zionists into siding with them during the war without a care to how such an alliance would be viewed inside Germany and regardless of the reprisals the Germans might take against the Jews because of it.

The Zionists themselves have to be partly to blame for choosing sides in a European war. They just made themselves a target to the enemies of their new ally.

What happened to the Jews of Europe after WWI happened in part, if not in large measure, because of the Brits.

[Ned]

And, molly, I must say these TV documentaries do get it wrong on occasion. I was watching a piece about Lenin's takeover in Russia. To explain why Russia was in the war, they said,

"When Germany declared war on France, the Russians came to the defense of their ally and declared war on Germany!"

Can you believe THAT?!!!!! Could it be that this is actually taught in schools today?

[ElTigre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany

Content and circumstances

In fact, the headline accompanied a story on the declaration of a boycott against German goods and products. The story was not represented as a "declaration of war" by the world media; the headline occurred only in a mass market British newspaper reflecting the sensationalistic style of what is now known as the tabloid press in the UK. Nizkor points out the attempted economic and financial boycott was declared in response to anti-Semitic actions by the Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.[2] The date of the article is important because it coincides with the so-called Ermächtigungsgesetzes[3][4] which passed parliament the day before.

Later abuse by antisemites

The headline has been used retroactively by antisemites and Holocaust deniers such as the Institute for Historical Review as a means of blaming World War II on the Jews and for arguing that German atrocities against the Jews, including the Holocaust, were defensive and a response to a supposed declaration of war by the Jews of the world. The IHR's article on the so-called declaration implies it was a real declaration of military war and not simply a resolution for a boycott. According to the Nizkor site, the use of this headline by modern "historical revisionists" is "a cheap trick to make it seem as if 'the Jews of the world' started the 'war' against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word 'war' means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure."[citation needed]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html

11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?

The IHR says (original):

Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War on Germany."

The IHR says (revised):

Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."

Nizkor replies:

"World media"? "Newspapers around the world"? One British newspaper is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott.

A transcript of the article is available. The next paragraphs after the headline were:

A strange and unfortunate sequel has emerged from the stories of German Jew-baiting.

The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany.

Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews." If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be: "The Jews are persecuting Germany."

The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. (See question 62 for information about various deniers' views on Hitler.)

In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if "the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure.

But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes? How many artillery shells?

The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Ned:
When Hitler came to power, he was met with a declaration of war by the Jews.


molly: 'The Jews' ? Do you mean German Jews, or the Jewish community worldwide ?

And if you can, could you provide us with this 'declaration of war' ?

I'm sure we'd all love to see this document- and find out things like- who wrote it ?

On behalf of whom ?

Where was it issued ?

When, and by whom ?

Otherwise you're just regurgitating antisemitic claptrap.

You're just regurgitating antisemitic claptrap.

That was a headline in one mass market British newspaper.

Where was this state of Judea ?

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/daily-express/judea-declares-war

This has a transcript of the article- helpful for the gullible like yourself, who buy into antisemitic drivel.

[ElTigre]

9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?

The IHR says:

Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their national sovereignty and survival, and because Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion. However, all suspected security risks -- not only Jews -- were in danger of internment.

Sounds familiar, Ned? Well, here is your answer:

Nizkor replies:

All the Jews were Communists or risks to national security? And the Jews of other countries, such as Poland? And the homosexuals, and the gypsies? This is Nazi propaganda of the worst kind reincarnated. The statement about Jews being "overwhelmingly represented" in "Communist subversion" and in the wrong "professions" is an exact echo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda.

The fact is that the Nazis used such propaganda to justify the slaughter of every Jew they found behind the advancing Eastern front, and in every other country they overran: millions of them, men, women, and children.

Holocaust-deniers, by the way, admit that hundreds of thousands of Jews, including women and children, were shot in the eastern territories. (See next question.) The Nazis claimed it was justified because of the wartime conditions. To find the same justifications turning up again, fifty years later, is, in our opinion, horrifying.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar09.html

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


In the early 400's the Romans in Italy engaged in a general massacre of Germans. This occurred right after Italy was invaded and ravaged by Germans.

Look, can I suggest that when you can't even get the facts of 20th Century history right, you should forget about making comparisons between Ancient Roman history and the actions of the Nazis.


Unless you're suggesting that the Romans combined a racial theory based on a distorted notion of Darwinian evolutionary theory along with a conservative Christian ethos that attempted to deal with the changes in society resulting from industrialization by stigmatizing Jews who were held responsible for the death of the Christian Messiah.

The Turks apparently had a long standing problem with the Armenians not unlike the problems they currently have with the Kurds. It is not surprising the Armenians were not "loyal" Turks and it is not surprising the Turks did not trust them.

May I suggest that you refrain from commenting on aspects of 19th and 20th Century history if all you know is based on a single television programme ?

You're not giving any new or detailed information, and your analysis is facile.

But they had reason to move the Armenians as a means of national survival against the Russians.

Uh huh. 'National survival' . That's why Armenians who lived nowhere near the border with Russia were killed, is it ?

Since you haven't seen fit to actually quote any Ottoman politicians or soldiers on the reasons for these 'deportations' I have no more interest in your comments on the matter.

I am sure Stalin has his reasons for Chechens.

But what were they ?

Conveniently you haven't quoted him on the subject. Even so, why would you believe Stalin ?

So far you've exhibited S.I.D.D.S. - Selective International Dictator Disbelief Syndrome- anything that right wing demagogues and fascist tyrants come out with is taken at face value and accepted as fact.

I know FDR has his reasons for the Japanese.

Super. He had reasons for using a wheelchair too.

Why was their such animosity between the Nazi's and the Jews?

You tell us. With the proper cites, quotations, references, et cetera. The way you always do...

You seem to say that it was just racism and nothing more.

Where ? Try quoting me. I've asked you before.

I say bull.

Oh boo hoo, I'm so upset. You've carefully shredded all my arguments now.

The Nazi's were extreme nationalists who wanted to reverse the results of WWI.

The Nazis were indeed extreme nationalists.

Point 4 of the Nazi Party programme:

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

Point 6:

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

That seems clear enough-

German Jews- not citizens.

Voting rights- only for citizens.

That sounds quite racist to me.

Point 7:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

Getting even clearer.

They blamed the Jews, not just the German Jews, for what happened to them in the war.

And yet again, you don't quote them on the subject, do you ?

Why is that ?

I have linked articles that showed that the majority of Germans, not just Nazi's believed it to be true.

No you haven't. There is a vast difference between quoting the opinion of someone who says that the majority of the Germans blamed Jews and actually showing that the majority of Germans believed this to be so.

But then again, on those anti-Jewish websites you seem so fond of, evidentiary proofs are sorely lacking when not actively avoided.

I say this not because I am trying to excuse what the Nazi's actually did, but to illustrate a point primarily about the British.

If you believe this, you are self-deluded.

By using those anti-Jewish websites, which preach race hatred and shy away from any facts which do not support their lies, you are simply condoning racism and the Nazi apologetics of Holocaust deniers.

All to serve your misguided notion that somehow the British, the Zioinsts, the Jews, anyone but the people actually responsible, were to blame for the genocide of the Jews in Europe.

They suckered the Zionists into siding with them during the war without a care to how such an alliance would be viewed inside Germany and regardless of the reprisals the Germans might take against the Jews because of it.

So far your ignorance of the Zionist movement in (or out of) Europe has been remarkable.

This bunch of garbage takes it into the stellar realms.

The Zionists themselves have to be partly to blame for choosing sides in a European war.

Uh huh. The European war in Asia ? You know, where Palestine is located.

By the way- both Germany and the Ottomans had entertained notions of supporting a Jewish homeland before WWI, but carry on deluding yourself.

They just made themselves a target to the enemies of their new ally.

You're mixing up two things:

Jews and Zionists.

A Jew may be a Zionist, but may not be. A Zionist is not necessarily a Jew.

[Ned]

Re: Armenia

It apparently still roils Europe and is a reason, if not a major reason, for Europe to deny Turkey membership in the EU. The Turks still deny that they intended to kill the Armenians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

What happened to the Jews of Europe after WWI happened in part, if not in large measure, because of the Brits.

Did the British make the Nazis draw up an antisemitic party programme ?


Did the British make the Nazis construct extermination camps for Jews ?

Did the British make Hitler invade Poland and European Russia ?

Did the British make Hitler an antisemite ?

If not, then the British are not responsible for the fate of the Jews of Europe under Nazi rule.

And once again, you are choosing to shift the blame- away from racists and mass murderers, and onto the British.


Your entirely irrational anti-British sentiments coupled with a quite astonishing ignorance of history has led you to arrive at this lamentable conclusion.

Do us all a favour- take up a modern history course at a local college- learn some of the skills needed to study history properly.

The internet and holocaust denial websites do not suffice.

[Ned]

You let a lion loose among defenseless Christians, you must share the blame for what happens next.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
You let a lion loose among defenseless Christians, you must share the blame for what happens next.

Is that kind of anti-Jewish drivel actually meant to mean anything ?

[Kuciwalker]

This thread may now have its well-deserved death.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


molly, the agreement and the declaration itself were not contemporaneous.

Aren't you the person who apparently doesn't :

know who approached whom first and when?

with regards the Balfour Declaration, British politicians and Zionists ?

Yet now you're claiming you do know something about it. Early onset Alzheimer's ?

And of course at the same time that the secret deliberations about the Balfour Declaration are supposedly swaying American and Russian opinion (something for which you've provided no evidence whatsoever), we are also meant to believe that:

[there will be no]....quotes from Brit politicians on their intentions to sway Jewish opinion ... because, as we all know, the Brits are very discrete.

So 'discrete' (sic) that they're apparently spreading news of the forthcoming Balfour Declaration before 1914, when Russia entered the war, or before April 1917, when the United States entered the war.

And yet, in order to convince Russian Jews and American Jews (and presumably, in your parlance 'TEH JOOZE! ) of the need to urge their respective governments to get behind the anti-Alliance war effort, they foolishly delay issuing the declaration until November 1917.

A tad dilatory, wouldn't you say ?

Now, as to the specific intent, the site I linked on this was an Israeli site, IIRC.

Did you even read it properly ?

'Israel and Judaism Studies- Course Notes For The New South Wales Syllabus'.

Israel is not the same as 'TEH JOOZE' who do not all live in Israel and are not all ardent Zionists.

Even a cursory glance at the paragraph you extracted reveals a rather curious notion- that the Balfour Declaration was 'designed' to encourage the Jewish communities of Western Russia and Poland to back the Russian war effort.

How, exactly ? Who were the Jewish leaders who were going to influence the Kerensky (or later, the Bolshevik) government with this enticing lure of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine ?

And why should that have had any martial effect on Jews living in the Baltic States, Poland or Russia ?

Now from the book review (!) you quoted, presumably to bolster the fatuous idea that ALL or the MAJORITY of Germans blamed the Jews:

... as the Germans, as a people, decided that the Jews were responsible for all their problems .

I know there is a body of thought that blames the Germans en masse for antisemitism and the persecution and attempted annihiliation of Europe's Jews.

This rather draws attention away from the Germans who weren't Nazis, never voted for Hitler, were persecuted themselves by the Nazis, or actively opposed the Nazi Regime.

It also ignores the antisemitism already existing in Europe- the Dreyfus Affair and its tortured history belong to France- Theodor Herzl was inspired to write 'Der Judenstaat' in 1896 by his experiences in France.

He had earlier experienced antisemitism in Vienna as a student.

Pogroms had taken place in the Ukraine after the fall of the Tsarist Empire, in Poland too, and the Viennese were the first to elect an avowedly antisemitic politician on an antisemitic platform as Mayor- Richard Lueger, in office 1897-1910.

Hitler admired Lueger:

...he [Lueger] had a rare gift of insight into human nature and was very careful not to take men as something better than they were in reality.

'Mein Kampf', p.94

As for the Germans, 'as a people' deciding that 'the Jews' were responsible, some voting figures:

Percentage of votes cast for the Nazi Party in May elections of 1928: 2.6%

Hitler had been leader of the party by then for 7 years.

In a secret Reich report of 1927, it was stated:

[the Nazi Party has] ... no noticeable influence on the great masses of the population.

Something borne out by the results of the next year's voting, it would seem.

By September 1930, the Nazi Party increased its percentage of votes cast to 18.3% .

The Communists increased their votes too, from 10.6 % to 13.1% . Now, as far as I can recall from my study of Weimar politics, the Communists and the S.P.D. didn't all blame the Jews for Germany's problems.

By July 31st 1932, the Nazis had increased their share to a hardly massive 37.4%.

And yet, EVEN given voter intimidation, favouritism shown by financiers and industry and the police, the Nazis' share dropped in November 1932 to 33%.

Pretty fickle, these Jew-blamers, eh ?

Goebbels lamented:

...we must come to power in the foreseeable future. Otherwise we'll win ourselves to death in elections.

Sounds like someone who's not convinced that a majority of the German electorate supports his party, doesn't it ?

Despite all the resources of state propaganda, political repression and further intimidation, the Nazis could still only manage 43.9% of votes cast in March of 1933.

Hardly the showing of a party which is trying to gain power based on the supposedly widely accepted notion that it was:

TEH JOOZE WOT DUN IT.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This thread may now have its well-deserved death.

Indeed, it's over 500 and should be allowed to die with whatever dignity it can claim to once have had.