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

[Patroklos]

Apparently Loringhoven just died on the the second, my birthday. An extreme amount on first hand knowledge goes with him

[Ned]

Nice post, Pat.

Back to WWI for a moment. The Military Channel has been running a series on WWI. Last week they covered Turkey. In the opening phases of the war, the Turks invaded Russian Armenia. They lost and fell back. But during the operations, Armenians from the Turkish side of the border attacked them. The Turks decided to move the Armenians out of the war zone. This became what we know as the genocide of the Armenians.

Now whether the bulk of Armenians were loyal Turks is quite beside the point. The actions of a few tarnished the reputation of all and many suffered for it.

During WWI, virtually the same thing happened to the Japanese in the US and to the Chechens in Russia who were thought to support Germany.

Now let's turn back to Germany. Whether most Jews were loyal Germans is quite beside the point. The Zionists cut a deal with Briton during the war. The socialists conducted strikes against the war effort. Germans (and not just the Nazi's) had a reason for believing the "Jews" could not be trusted during a time of war. This was not some floating, middle-age, embedded anti-Semitism that was the spark of what happened later.

While we understand why the Brits wanted Jewish support and agreed to a Jewish homeland, and we understand why the Zionists took the opportunity of the British war necessity to get the deal they had so long sought, I wonder, really wonder, whether they gave one thought on how their deal would affect the relations between Jews and Germans in Germany?

[Patroklos]

I am confused because of this

During WWI, virtually the same thing happened to the Japanese in the US and to the Chechens in Russia who were thought to support Germany.

amd this

Now let's turn back to Germany. Whether most Jews were loyal Germans is quite beside the point. The Zionists cut a deal with Briton during the war. The socialists conducted strikes against the war effort. Germans (and not just the Nazi's) had a reason for believing the "Jews" could not be trusted during a time of war. This was not some floating, middle-age, embedded anti-Semitism that was the spark of what happened later.

It seems to me you are mixing WWI & II in a wierd way and I can't sort it out.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
molly, there is nothing inconsistent with my two statements. The Brits did Balfour with the intention of gaining Jewish support in Russia and the US.

Again, you're confusing 'ASSERTION' with established fact.

You haven't shown, by using, say, the words of a British politician, that this was in fact the case.

You're simply assuming that because there were some Jewish Zionists in the United States and some Jewish Zionists in Russia, therefore the Balfour Declaration had somehow been devised to get them to whip up support for the war in those places- a rather strange notion, given that Russia was already a member of the Entente and at war with the Alliance, and that Imperial Germany seemed bent on doing its utmost to drag in America against it by reckless acts of sabotage, terrorism and committing war crimes as policy.

Whether they succeeded or whether the Jewish support was decisive is quite beside the point.

It is when you haven't even shown that this was their intention, or that they were not first approached by Zionists in Palestine or elsewhere.

When the average German heard about this, what is he going to think?

When was the 'average' German meant to hear about this ?

Who is this 'average' German ?

I don't presume to 'think' for the 'average' German in 1917, and neither should you.

As A.E.G. ( a company headed by a patriotic German Jew) and its owner were fully behind the German war effort in 1917 (along with German Jewish financiers and German soldiers) this is yet another of your ill-advised attempts to pass the buck.

As to the strikes, they were lead by socialists who were dominated by Jews.

More 'ASSERTION' presented as fact. I've mentioned in other posts how German Socialists in the Reichstag before and during WWI were also behind the war effort, and indeed acted in a typically patriotic fashion.

So far all you've done is simply make sweeping statements.

You haven't bothered telling us in any detail where these strikes took place in Germany, when, or who were the strike leaders.

Try harder.

The intent of the strikes was to cripple the war effort.

Was it ? Which strikes, where ?

The actions of some Jews in persuing whatever cause they were persuing left the Jews in general open to the smear that they betrayed Germany even if a majority of German Jews were quite loyal.

Again, ASSERTION presented as fact.

You have failed to show by direct quote or linkage that any Germans blamed German Jews for the war's defeat based on the Balfour Declaration or for the activities of other Jews in bringing the United States into the war.

I suspect part of the problem is that you've simply been reading too many devoutly antisemitic websites, where the notion of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy is repeated as fact, ad nauseam.

The kind of websites that are long on baseless ASSERTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS and short on verifiable evidence.

I fail to see how 'the Jews in general' could betray Germany, since 'the Jews in general' were not German subjects or backers.

BTW, I am quite sure the Balfour agreement had nothing to do with the German socialist-lead strikes.

Work that one out for yourself, did you ?

I mean, it's not like you've provided a detailed chronological breakdown of events, is it ?

The socialists were for the war so long as the Czar was the enemy.

Uh huh. More fact-free assertion.

Tedium.

They changed positions as soon as he abdicated and went into their traditional anti-war mode.

La di dah.

Ennui.

As to all this having no effect at all on what happened later, I am sure you really don't agree with that.

Look, I understand that you have some weird antipathy for direct quotes, but really, if you want to make up inaccurate paraphrases for what I've said, I will object.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

The Military Channel has been running a series on WWI.

Oh joy. Another 'in depth' television programme.

ow let's turn back to Germany. Whether most Jews were loyal Germans is quite beside the point.

It's nothing of the sort. The Dolchstoss was a fabrication, based on post-WWI propaganda by German historians and the self-exculpating memoirs of Ludendorff.

It was promulgated and avidly propagated by Rightists, militarists and antisemites- as Otto Pflanze said, one way to unite a divided people is to have an external enemy.

The solution for the Rightists and militarists was obvious- combine the Left, whether Communist or Socialist, with 'the Jews', as Hitler persistently did, and eventually as Hitler himself said, by one enemy many can be meant.

Hitler on propaganda:

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

'Mein Kampf' .

Unfortunately, Ned, you appear to want to believe the propaganda and ignore verifiable facts.

Colour me shocked.

The Zionists cut a deal with Briton during the war.

Gosh, Ned 'the Zionists' and not 'the Jews' ?

Well, we can't all be quick studies.

The socialists conducted strikes against the war effort.

Assertion.

Germans (and not just the Nazi's) had a reason for believing the "Jews" could not be trusted during a time of war.

Just look at the crass, blinkered bigoted thinking behind this statement.

When did German Jews (who fought in the front line, as photographs of a Jewish service for German soldiers in WWI demonstrate) become non-citizens ?

'Some' Germans blamed German Jews, 'some' Germans blamed a fictitious worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and 'some' Germans did neither.

None of them had 'a reason' for believing 'the Jews' en masse, could not be trusted during a time of war.

This is simply your taking at face value the bile spewed out by those vile websites you frequent which preach race hatred.

This was not some floating, middle-age, embedded anti-Semitism that was the spark of what happened later.

Oh right, because you've shown such an in depth knowledge of domestic German history, from 1819-1945, and antisemitic movements and writers in Germany and Eastern Europe.

More clueless ASSERTION, based on ignorance.

While we understand why the Brits wanted Jewish support and agreed to a Jewish homeland

I've no idea who this royal 'we' is you're speaking for, because you haven't shown any sign of understanding anything of the sort.

and we understand why the Zionists took the opportunity of the British war necessity to get the deal they had so long sought

Oh lordy lordy.

So having shown no knowledge of Nineteenth Century Zionism (or any earlier manifestations of the same), as well as speaking for this unknown 'we', you're also assuming you know what these unnamed Zionists were thinking and how long they had been aspiring for a Jewish homeland.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

Do you channel figures from history too ? At public exhibitions ?

I wonder, really wonder, whether they gave one thought on how their deal would affect the relations between Jews and Germans in Germany?

Right- because that would have been uppermost in the minds of a British Jew wouldn't it, one who had no interest in the German domestic scene, or any relatives in Germany ?

The sorriest, most ignoble attempt at blame-shifting you've made in some time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Patroklos

It seems to me you are mixing WWI & II in a wierd way and I can't sort it out.

In the case of the Armenians, Chechens and Japanese, the populations were moved away from a war zone because they were perceived to be pro-enemy.

Now we turn to the Jews of Germany. Post WWI, they were perceived to be untrustworthy because 1) they lead the munitions strikes that were intended to cause Germany's defeat; and 2) Zionists cut a deal with the Brits for a homeland in Palestine in the middle of the war.

When Hitler came to power, he was met with a declaration of war by the Jews. They called for boycotts and mass demonstrations.

Now, given all this, was anyone surprised that Hitler wanted to round up and deport the Jews of the Reich, especially as war approached?

Some, see molly, would chalk down what happened as naked anti-Semitism divorced from any rationality. Indeed that was a factor. But what happened during WWI was also a factor, if not a decisive factor.

I gave four examples in an effort to show that there is a general principle involved:

1) a minority;
2) a war;
3) the minority acts or is feared to act in favor of the enemy; and
4) the nation involved reacts by rounding up, holding in concentration camps and deporting, if possible, the minority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Again, you're confusing 'ASSERTION' with established fact.

You haven't shown, by using, say, the words of a British politician, that this was in fact the case.

You're simply assuming that because there were some Jewish Zionists in the United States and some Jewish Zionists in Russia, therefore the Balfour Declaration had somehow been devised to get them to whip up support for the war in those places- a rather strange notion, given that Russia was already a member of the Entente and at war with the Alliance, and that Imperial Germany seemed bent on doing its utmost to drag in America against it by reckless acts of sabotage, terrorism and committing war crimes as policy.

molly, this is why I find discussing things with you so frustrating. I cited at least one and perhaps two references that said what I said. But you behave and pretend I didn't do anything of the sort.


Now in the above, you ask for quotes from Brit politicians on their intentions to sway Jewish opinion knowing noone will find such a thing reported because, as we all know, the Brits are very discrete.

In the end, you pat yourself on the back for having bested me again. The fair reader, not knowing of any history of the thread will conclude that indeed you have. But the truth is, you have thrown up one more smokescreen in your effort to avoid admitting any defects in your position that the Brits are entirely blameless in all things.

[Ned]

As to your dissection of my "argument," I have very little to say because you are in complete denial of the facts. I have demonstrated them to you repeatedly, with cites and quotes and still you act as if I am pulling this stuff out of thin air. I will not repeat the quotes and the cites and will not respond to you in detail because it is more than a waste of my time.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

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

Wow. Just... wow.

Maybe they "declared war on Hitler" because he had promised to exterminate Jewish culture, Judaism and the Jewish "race", and had backed up his words by inciting acts of violence against Jews? Maybe because SA, NSDAP and Hitler Youth already had a history of attacking, humiliating and killing Jews in 1933?

Go ahead, reply whatever you want, I've lost all interest in discussing with you several days ago. It's just that statements like the above shouldn't be left uncommented, in case someone without much historic knowledge stumbles into this thread and takes your "arguments" at face value. Thankfully, someone a lot more eloquent and knowledgeable than me continues to debunk your nonsense.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Wow. Just... wow.

Maybe they "declared war on Hitler" because he had promised to exterminate Jewish culture, Judaism and the Jewish "race", and had backed up his words by inciting acts of violence against Jews? Maybe because SA, NSDAP and Hitler Youth already had a history of attacking, humiliating and killing Jews in 1933?

Go ahead, reply whatever you want, I've lost all interest in discussing with you several days ago. It's just that statements like the above shouldn't be left uncommented, in case someone without much historic knowledge stumbles into this thread and takes your "arguments" at face value. Thankfully, someone a lot more eloquent and knowledgeable than me continues to debunk your nonsense.

ElTigre, Hitler was a known quantity to the world's Jews from at least the publication of his book. Of course they had reason for concern.

But you seem to want to deny that the German right wing had no basis whatsoever for their concerns about Jewish loyalty.

I assume that Stalin was simply a bigot when he deported the Chechans. Ditto the Turks and the Armenians and FDR and the Japanese-Americans.

(On the culture-bit, I agree that Hitler was a social conservative and viewed the liberalism of the time as being a product of the Jews. Thus his statements about exterpating Jewish culture. But, this is not the main reason Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany.)

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned

(On the culture-bit, I agree that Hitler was a social conservative and viewed the liberalism of the time as being a product of the Jews. Thus his statements about exterpating Jewish culture. But, this is not the main reason Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany.)

Yah, he was a psycho, and that's the long and the short of it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Now we turn to the Jews of Germany. Post WWI, they were perceived to be untrustworthy because 1) they lead the munitions strikes that were intended to cause Germany's defeat; and 2) Zionists cut a deal with the Brits for a homeland in Palestine in the middle of the war.

.

And once again we have ludicrous assertions presented as fact.

Having failed to mention who led which strikes, when and where, or proved that anyone in Germany associated German Jews directly with non-German Jewish Zionists in Palestine and thus with Germany's defeat, you simply present these assumptions as facts.

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.

Not to mention the contents of the Zimmermann Telegram, revealed by the U.S. press on March 1st 1917.

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

'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.

They called for boycotts and mass demonstrations.

Who did ? Just German Jews, or 'the Jews', that mysterious entity you keep referring to ?

Now, given all this, was anyone surprised that Hitler wanted to round up and deport the Jews of the Reich, especially as war approached?

Firstly you're assuming that Hitler just 'rounded up' or 'deported' Jews.

He didn't- he imprisoned them, stripped them of civil rights, had them murdered, had their books burnt, their businesses boycotted or sequestrated, or forced them to emigrate on the payment of crippling 'fees'.

He had their shops looted, banned them from public places and schools and had their synagogues burnt down.

Well before he invaded Poland.

Some, see molly, would chalk down what happened as naked anti-Semitism divorced from any rationality.

Well, gosh, it would be great if you'd just stop paraphrasing me and putting words and concepts I've not used into my mouth, but then I suspect the Irving approach to 'history' has you conditioned to shy away from anything as dangerous as exact, direct quotes.

I gave four examples in an effort to show that there is a general principle involved:

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.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

molly, this is why I find discussing things with you so frustrating.

Imagine one's frustration with you- you keep making these freeform assertions, one after another, or in bunches, and then proceed into a, well I suppose I might call it a thesis if it had the intellectual underpinning of one, but it doesn't, mistaken conclusion based on those false premises.

I cited at least one and perhaps two references that said what I said.

No- what you did was refer to a convert to Catholicism from Judaism whose tall tales and unbelievable assertions were not backed up by any evidentiary proof from any other quarter.

That is not an accurate reference, nor should it be reason for you to then hypothesize and inaccurately argue that somehow 'the Jews' or the Balfour Declaration or the Zionists were the rationale for the Nazis treatment of German Jews and the Jews of Eastern Europe.

That's simply asinine, ignorant and fatuous- as well as insulting.

But you behave and pretend I didn't do anything of the sort.

No, I behave as anyone who has studied history carefully does- and as anyone who has a passing familiarity with 19th Century antisemitic politics in Europe, Vienna and Germany, and knows something about their effects on Hitler.

Now in the above, you ask for quotes from Brit politicians on their intentions to sway Jewish opinion knowing noone will find such a thing reported because, as we all know, the Brits are very discrete.

You can't even get my motivation right- if you make ludicrous claims about the supposed reasons for the Balfour Declaration, then I expect you to back them up- with references and cites.

Not content with propagating stereotypes of Jews, you now laughably claim that British politicians never commit thoughts to paper, or tape, or film.

Ever heard of Cabinet minutes or Hansard ?

In the end, you pat yourself on the back for having bested me again.

Not at all- I just despair that anyone can be taken in by antisemitic websites to the extent that they lap up the hatred preached there and then disseminate it on Apolyton.

The fair reader, not knowing of any history of the thread will conclude that indeed you have.

Anyone with the ability to read English and possessed of average intelligence can simply look at the difference between our posts. That should suffice...

But the truth is, you have thrown up one more smokescreen in your effort to avoid admitting any defects in your position that the Brits are entirely blameless in all things.

Firstly you're incorrect in stating that my

position [is] that the Brits are entirely blameless in all things.

I've never said nor implied anything of the sort.

Secondly, the only obscuration comes from your ill-thought out posts- only someone massively ignorant of German history or European history could come out with such illogical and anti-factual rubbish.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
As to your dissection of my "argument," I have very little to say because you are in complete denial of the facts.

Which 'facts' are those ?

The ones you shy away from so often ? That you can't be bothered to refer to ?

I have demonstrated them to you repeatedly

You have not. You do not seem to be able to distinguish between fact and assertion or opinion.

Assertions and opinions can be supported by facts; or they can be extrapolated from facts.

Yours seem to come despite the facts.

you act as if I am pulling this stuff out of thin air.

No, I act as anyone would presented with book reviews, opinions and anti-Jewish diatribes- not to mention fictitious newspapers created as part of a school project and the essay of a Florida high school girl.

I will not repeat the quotes and the cites

This assumes two (if not more) things:

that your alleged quotes and cites were relevant;

that they were accurate.

I have frequently found that neither of these were the case.

will not respond to you in detail because it is more than a waste of my time.

I'd say that it's actually because it's simply beyond your abilities to do so.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


ElTigre, Hitler was a known quantity to the world's Jews from at least the publication of his book.

So in fact Hitler was antisemitic even before Germany was in a war, even before he became Chancellor of Germany ?

Who'd have thought.

Of course they had reason for concern.

But you also said that given the sentiments expressed in Hitler's works that people would take him for a madman.

So why should Germany's Jewish citizens fear someone whose book when first published in 1925 did not sell at all well ?

Who was not Chancellor, and who had just been in prison because of his part in an abortive putsch ?

Blame 'the Jews' for not knowing better, eh ?

But you seem to want to deny that the German right wing had no basis whatsoever for their concerns about Jewish loyalty.

The German Right Wing- who, specifically ?

Ludendorff- the man who took part in the Munich Putsch, who had fled Germany after the ignoble failure of his virtual military dictatorship at the end of World War I, and who had this to say of his own troops:

...the temptations to which the men were exposed from the corruption of Jewish traders in the east and from Bolshevik propaganda, as indeed propaganda from home...

on the (un)reliability of men from the Eastern front who might be transferred to the West.

Compare that antisemitic failure who had said before leaving Germany to the politicians who had to pick up the pieces:

In the name of the Fatherland, I throw the shame [of the armistice] on you and your colleagues.

Ludendorff, 25th October 1918, Berlin,

with Walther Rathenau- German Jew and patriot, who backed Germany during the war and did his utmost to preserve it after- and was assassinated by Rightist-militarists for his efforts.

Ditto the Turks and the Armenians and FDR and the Japanese-Americans.

Again with the inaccurate comparisons.

The Armenians were not simply deported, they were also massacred. They had also rebelled in some areas (perhaps they were mindful of the massacres of 1894 and 1896 ?) and there were Armenians in Russian controlled Iran and in Russia itself.

When did Germany's Jewish citizens rebel ? If so, which state supported them against Germany, and when ?

The Japanese Empire attacked the United States- at Pearl Harbour. Japanese Americans were imprisoned, but did their treatment really compare with the Nazis treatment of Germany's Jews ?

Germany was not at war when German Jews were stripped of their civil rights and the first concentration camps were set up in March of 1933.

To my knowledge, the British Mandate of Palestine had not declared war on Nazi Germany, nor had Jewish Zionists launched a surprise air attack on Wilhelmshaven.

Perhaps your antisemitic chums think differently....

But, this is not the main reason Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany.

He did not simply want 'the Jews out of Germany'.

He wanted them exterminated. He was quite clear about it.

His first extant political statement makes this obvious.

Letter to Adolf Gemlich, September 1919:

In his (the Jew's) effects and consequences he is like a racial tuberculosis of the nations.

The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom.

An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combating and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/hitler2.html