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

[Wycoff]

This thread is like watching 1988 Mike Tyson box Emmanuel Lewis. Sorry Ned, but you've been demolished.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


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

They beat the lions up (WWI), took away their food (Versailles), threw the Christians into the arena (Balfour) and opened the lions' gate (DOW in '39). Then when someone dares say that you Romans must share some of the blame for what happened to the Christians, you say that that is an anti-Semitic comment, or some such crap.

Brit-apologists say they are blameless: It was those lions who ate the Christians. True, but the whole structure of the Coliseum was built by the Brits and the stage for what happened next was set.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wycoff
This thread is like watching 1988 Mike Tyson box Emmanuel Lewis. Sorry Ned, but you've been demolished.

Hardly.

Besides, Wycoff, molly and his supporters are only pretending to stand on firm ground. They never say what the Brits were trying to do with Balfour. They just deny it had anything to do with gaining Jewish support for the war.

But that is patent nonense and any fair reader knows it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Hardly.

Besides, Wycoff, molly and his supporters are only pretending to stand on firm ground. They never say what the Brits were trying to do with Balfour. They just deny it had anything to do with gaining Jewish support for the war.

But that is patent nonense and any fair reader knows it.

The brits wanted Zionist support during the war. So did the Germans. Both sides bid for Italian support, and Romanian support, and Greek support. The Germans tried to get Flemings in Belgium to collaborate, and the allies looked to get the slavic peoples of Austria to support them.

So what? No one on either side expected any of that to lead to genocide by the other side. Because that just. was. not. done.by.civilized.people.

When the Turks did whatever you want to call what they did to the Armenians, the whole world was shocked. Including Germans. Because you just.did.not.do.that.

Deliberate genocide, on anything but a tiny scale (and even then, usually only against non-whites living on the margins of society) was a novum in the modern (IE post 1789) West.

It had very much to do with the radical attitudes toward violence, and death that were part of fascism, derived in part from anarchist-terrorist worship of death, with pseudo-Darwinian racialism, and with post October revolution disdain for "liberal" constraints on radical action.

It certainly was also influenced by the difficulty many had in adjusting to the modern world. I would suggest that it relationship to conservative Christianity is more complex. Right wing populist neoCatholicism has a lot of blame to bear for the revival of antisemitism (Im thinking mainly of Luegers Austrian antisemites, but I probably should be thinking of Drumont in France) but the more purely racialist, and more exterminationist antisemitism associated as early as the 1880s with extreme German nationalism, was more anticlerical (see Schorske, Fin de Siecle Vienna, for example)

[Ned]

LoTM, finally someone concedes the obvious.

I will also grant you that no one anticipated what would happen during WWII else more would have been done by all parties to avoid it. What happened was so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior by all sides to that conflict that it horrified and shocked the world to its foundations.

But, having said that, it was also true that the Zionists took sides in WWI. While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic, the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI. Propaganda, molly would call it. But that is quite beside the point.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned

LoTM, finally someone concedes the obvious.

Im not sure what you think I conceded.

I will also grant you that no one anticipated what would happen during WWII else more would have been done by all parties to avoid it. What happened was so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior by all sides to that conflict that it horrified and shocked the world to its foundations.

I was saying that no one in 1917 anticipated that the Germans would commit genocide in the 1940s. Surely the Nazis in 1939 anticipated what they were going to do, as theyd been hinting at it for some time.

But, having said that, it was also true that the Zionists took sides in WWI. While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic, the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI.

The Zionist Organization located in Copenhagen during the war, specifically to be neutral. Chaim Weizman was of course, pro-British, but then he was a British citizen. The Balfour declararation was issued, IN PART, to influence the Jews of the United States. For the same purpose, Germany was distributing information about the antisemitism in Tsarist Russia. AFAIK all of the German antisemitism related to the end of the war was related to the stab in the back legend, and to the role of allegedly Jewish influenced socialists on it, not to the Balfour declaration.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned

LoTM, finally someone concedes the obvious.

Im not sure what you think I conceded.

I will also grant you that no one anticipated what would happen during WWII else more would have been done by all parties to avoid it. What happened was so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior by all sides to that conflict that it horrified and shocked the world to its foundations.

I was saying that no one in 1917 anticipated that the Germans would commit genocide in the 1940s. Surely the Nazis anticipated what they were going to do, as theyd been hinting at it for some time.

But, having said that, it was also true that the Zionists took sides in WWI. While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic, the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI.

The Zionist Organization located in Copenhagen during the war, specifically to be neutral. Chaim Weizman was of course, pro-British, but then he was a British citizen. The Balfour declararation was issued, IN PART, to influence the Jews of the United States. For the same purpose, Germany was distributing information about the antisemitism in Tsarist Russia. AFAIK all of the German antisemitism related to the end of the war was related to the stab in the back legend, and to the role of allegedly Jewish influenced socialists on it, not to the Balfour declaration.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Ned
[

But, having said that, it was also true that the Zionists took sides in WWI. While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic, the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI.

actually, Im not sure the Zionist Org in Copenhagen ever specifically endorsed the allied side, despite the Balfour declaration. The notion of the BD as some kind of treaty between contracting parties, is simply historically mistaken, AFAIK.

[Ned]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Ned

LoTM, finally someone concedes the obvious.

Im not sure what you think I conceded.

I will also grant you that no one anticipated what would happen during WWII else more would have been done by all parties to avoid it. What happened was so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior by all sides to that conflict that it horrified and shocked the world to its foundations.

I was saying that no one in 1917 anticipated that the Germans would commit genocide in the 1940s. Surely the Nazis in 1939 anticipated what they were going to do, as theyd been hinting at it for some time.

But, having said that, it was also true that the Zionists took sides in WWI. While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic, the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI.

The Zionist Organization located in Copenhagen during the war, specifically to be neutral. Chaim Weizman was of course, pro-British, but then he was a British citizen. The Balfour declararation was issued, IN PART, to influence the Jews of the United States. For the same purpose, Germany was distributing information about the antisemitism in Tsarist Russia. AFAIK all of the German antisemitism related to the end of the war was related to the stab in the back legend, and to the role of allegedly Jewish influenced socialists on it, not to the Balfour declaration.

Conceded: at the close of the war and for some time thereafter I suppose all of the "stabbed in the back" anti-Semitism was about the socialists and the strikes. But there is also that Wiki statement that Germans came to believe that the Brits did Balfour with an intent to get the US into the war. I haven't pinned down when this belief arose. There is very little discussion of the "facts" of the Balfour agreement on the net, nor of Germany's reaction to it when they learned of it.

If you have a link to any serious discussion of the issue, I would appreciate it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


actually, Im not sure the Zionist Org in Copenhagen ever specifically endorsed the allied side, despite the Balfour declaration. The notion of the BD as some kind of treaty between contracting parties, is simply historically mistaken, AFAIK.

LoTM, from the Zionist POV, I am sure this is true.

But not so from the Brit POV.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


They beat the lions up (WWI),

The Jews did ? When and where ?

The United States President wasn't Jewish; nor was Lloyd George, nor the Belgian King, nor the French President or Prime Minister, nor the Italian King or commanders.

The only active military Jewish presence (fighting as Jews) was in Asia, a force attached to the British army.

German Jews and French Jews (and many British/Commonwealth Jews et cetera) fought as patriots for their countries.

As a trip to the Jewish Museum in Amsterdam could show you- there's a photograph of an open air service for German Jewish soldiers serving on the Western Front.

In fact, as far as I can recollect, World War One was the first time for a very long time indeed that large numbers of Jews had fought as soldiers against each other in the service of the armies of rival nation states.

took away their food (Versailles),

Actually you'll find that the victors were petitioned to start re-supplying the Alliance powers with food. And did so.

I'm surprised you don't mention how the Alliance deprived Russia of much of its grain growing areas at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Are you suggesting it was Germany's Jews who were responsible for that ?

It is obvious that in the peace with Rumania we shall take precautions to have our interests in the questions of grain, food supply, and petroleum fully protected.

[...]

In concluding peace with Rumania and Ukraine, it has been my first thought to furnish the monarchy with food-stuffs and raw materials. Russia did not come into consideration in this connection owing to the disorganization there.

We agreed with Ukraine that the quantity of grain to be delivered to the Central Powers should be at least 1,000,000 tons.

Thirty cars of grain and peas are now en route, 6oo cars are ready to be transported, and these transports will be continued until the imports are organized and can begin regularly.

Count Czernin Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, on the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, 2nd April 1918

Same old Ned.

Entente Bad! Alliance Good!

threw the Christians into the arena (Balfour)

Arthur Balfour wasn't Jewish- and which 'Christians' is he meant to have thrown into which arena ?

I'm not that familiar with Holocaust-denial or anti-Semite codewords or buzz phrases, so if you don't want to be overly cryptic, do explain.

and opened the lions' gate (DOW in '39).

'They' who ? This is getting more and more bizarre- even by your standards.

Then when someone dares say that you Romans must share some of the blame for what happened to the Christians, you say that that is an anti-Semitic comment, or some such crap.

I believe 'claptrap' was the mot juste. Still averse to direct quotes....

I'm afraid I don't follow the tortured 'logic' of your screed nor the stream of consciousness approach to history.

See when you say this:

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

after having said this:

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

and this

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

and you reproduce that ridiculous front page from 'The Daily Express' to support your absurd contention that there was a world-wide Jewish conspiracy and declaration of war against Hitler's Germany, then I'm afraid I can only interpret your gnomic utterances in the context of what has gone before.

Brit-apologists say they are blameless

Which Brit-apologists ? I'm not a 'Brit-apologist'. I don't subscribe or pore over 'Brit-apologist' sites.

I know of someone who takes Holocaust-denial sites at face value though, and disseminates their propaganda....

It was those lions who ate the Christians.

Off your meds, Ned ?

True, but the whole structure of the Coliseum was built by the Brits and the stage for what happened next was set.

Emotive unhistoric drivel.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

molly and his supporters are only pretending to stand on firm ground.

'My supporters' ? Who are this mysterious band of compadres ?

I haven't needed supporters to expose the gaping flaws and lacunae in what you laughably term your arguments.

I rely on facts, first and foremost- not emotional outbursts and absurd extended metaphors and similes about 'Romans', 'lions', 'Christians' and 'the Colosseum' .

Perhaps you find ancient Roman history easier to deal with. Fewer original documents to consult or quote.

They never say what the Brits were trying to do with Balfour.

I do believe I have.

The British, being fully cognisant of the existing Zionist settlements in the Middle East and their expansion, the increase in immigration of Zionist settlers (despite the best efforts of Ottoman Turkish and Arab officials to halt or limit this) both Sephardic and Ashkenazic, acted to support the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the Middle East.

This was in no way dissimilar to recognising the disparate nationalist movements all across Europe- such as the Poles and Czechs in Eastern Europe, for instance.

They also supported the establishment of Arab states, ruled by Muslim Arabs.

They just deny it had anything to do with gaining Jewish support for the war

Which Jews did you have in mind ?

Walther Rathenau, German industrialist and minister ?

Already well behind Germany's war effort.

But that is patent nonense and any fair reader knows it.

Well, given the content of your posts so far, you appear to have the edge on me in writing nonsense.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

I will also grant you that no one anticipated what would happen during WWII else more would have been done by all parties to avoid it.

Really ? You just can't make up your mind, can you ?

...what happened when the right took over in Germany was somewhat predictable.

Ned

and:

The British machinations with the Zionists are to blame for this; and the Zionists should have been aware that German Jews would bear the brunt of German anger

And yet:

Hitler never mentions the Balfour declaration in 'Mein Kampf'

So although Nazi Germany's antisemitic Chancellor and director of industrial genocide never actually mentions this supposedly key document responsible for inflaming Germany's Rightists and antisemites, you think the British should have known that by making such a declaration in favour of a national homeland for Jews in Asia in 1917, that Hitler would target Germany's and Europe's Jews anyway ?

Brilliant Ned-logic that.

By the way- have you shown any other proof of German Rightists and antisemites using the Balfour Declaration to support their beliefs ?

Not so far, to my knowledge.

...the Zionists took sides in WWI.

Your knowledge of the Zionist movement being what it is, why should we give this any statement any credence ?

'Some' Zionists took sides- and frankly given the treatment doled out to existing Zionist settlements in the Nineteenth Century and in the early years of the Twentieth, this comes as no great surprise.

However- both Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire had hoped to entice support from Jewish subjects with offers of a Jewish national homeland.

Clearly some ideas are quite popular on both sides in a war.

While I am very sure most German Jews were very patriotic

Pity you seem to keep glossing over this though.

The way you write one could be led to believe that 'TEH JOOZE' were all Zionists and all acted either to undermine the German war effort internally (through vague, undated, unlocated 'strikes', membership of supposedly anti-war Socialist or Communist parties) or were members of enemy States acting externally against the Alliance and Germany.

Men like Albert Ballin:

Albert Ballin was the only Jew, not converted to Christianity, with whom Kaiser Wilhelm II had a personal relationship. However, the court including the empress, made no attempt to hide what they thought of the Jewish shipowner. The emperor maintained his close personal relationship with the man whose imposing ships flew the German flag the world over. In 1912, Kaiser Wilhelm II came especially to Hamburg for the launching of the luxury steamer Imperator.

http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035/ballindamm.html

And yet despite the antisemitism already in vogue at the German court:

Albert Ballin was highly nationalistic

http://ocean-liners.schuminweb.com/ships/albert-ballin.asp

It's easy to be a patriot when you are extended the same treatment as the majority of your country's citizens. Rather more difficult when you face openly discriminatory treatment....

the Zionists set them up to take the blame for the German loss in WWI.

That's an interesting way to describe Ludendorff fleeing Germany in disguise to Sweden after the failure of multiple German offensives on the Western Front.

The same Ludendorff who was anti-Slav and anti-Jewish, and who I've quoted as saying he was handing the shame for the armistice to the elected politicians.

The same Ludendorff who crept back from exile and took part in the failed Munich Putsch- along with another failure, Adolf Hitler.

Not a noted Zionist, was he, Ludendorff ?

Propaganda, molly would call it.

Try quoting me, directly. Just once.

I call what you unthinkingly lap up and ooze out propaganda- because that's what it is.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Conceded: at the close of the war and for some time thereafter I suppose all of the "stabbed in the back" anti-Semitism was about the socialists and the strikes.

Since you haven't actually directly quoted any of the Dolchstoss propaganda, nor even bothered to locate these alleged anti-war effort strikes, nor say who specifically their leaders were, then can we expect that you'll simply shut up about them ?

Because you haven't demonstrated that you have any detailed knowledge of the domestic German scene, in late 1918 nor 1919.

'I suppose' doesn't cut it- not even in Junior School history essays.

But there is also that Wiki statement that Germans came to believe that the Brits did Balfour with an intent to get the US into the war.

When will people learn that Wikipedia is not an invariably accurate historical resource, and that the United States entered the war SEVEN months before the Balfour Declaration ?

Memory playing tricks again Ned ?

Surely British propaganda and the likes of Teddy Roosevelt were far more effective in swaying the American republic than a last minute switch by a few prominent Jews.

Ned

Well- those sinkings of American ships and the death of American citizens and the Zimmermann Telegram and the German acts of terrorism and sabotage- they might just have helped swing American opinion, don't you think ?

Oh, those and war crimes in Belgium.

Makes the Balfour Declaration pretty much pointless, if its purpose was to persuade American Jews to get America into a war which it was already involved in, and which Imperial Germany's Military Command had predicted it would join, if the policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare was recommenced.

I haven't pinned down when this belief arose.

Imagine my shock.

There is very little discussion of the "facts" of the Balfour agreement on the net, nor of Germany's reaction to it when they learned of it.

Still don't trust that new-fangled invention 'the printed word', eh ?

Tricky things books.

If you have a link to any serious discussion of the issue, I would appreciate it.

Well, you have a lot of learning and the jettisoning of an awful lot of presumptions to do, before you're even capable of 'seriously discussing' the issue.

But do keep providing me with cheap entertainment. After a hard day's study, a good laugh is always appreciated.

[Dr Strangelove]

I read somewhere that Hitler's commanding officer while he served in France during WW1 was Jewish. It would seem to me not unlikely that Hitler might have eventually built up resentment against him, and that may have been partly to blame for his vehement anti-semitism. Certainly Hitler's childhood would have likely set him up to have difficulty with authority figures.