What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Ned, you at least should be aware of the possibility to lose all your credibility if you link to sites that list "Tionist Occupied Governments". That is all just total bull****. It's always interesting to reveal new details or put emphasis on things neglected beforehand. But when it doesn't fit into the greater pattern (which I tried to explain to you above) then these revolutionary details should be questioned twice. And without evidence, revisionism of whatever sort cannot make any sense at all. The statements about Jews that you cited from that obviously anti-semitic page (may this notion carry less negative judgement on your behalf than from us) are totally contradictional to the way we perceive political processes in the west, AND they lack evidence. Why should anyone grown up in western culture accept such statements?

Thanks, but I did question the information and suggested methods for testing whether the claims are true. I am conducting research on this now, to see whether American Jewish opinion suddenly changed and the timing of the German Jewish change from supporting the war to opposing it.

[Ecthy]

Do some research as to whether German Jews suddenly occupied 34% of the German service sector from 1932 on, how much it was before and where they all came from...

[Ned]

Attached is an article that notes the change in American public opinion from favoring neutrality to favoring intervention on the side of the allies, but it blames the change on British propaganda, such as the Nurse Cavell incident, where the Germans shot the nurse for aiding allied soldiers. This incident was obsessed about in the American press. At the same time, the allies shot two german nurses for doing the same thing. Not a word about this was printed in America.

Apparently, socialists maintained an anti-war stance throughout.

It is hard to tell about Jewish opinon from the above.

[Ned]

What I have been able to find out is that American Jewish opinion was divided. For example, Goldman of Goldman and Sacks refused to help Briton and was pro-German. Sack had a different view. Their partnership ended because of it even though the firm kept the name Goldman.

I have yet to find a date for any change in opinion of German Jews, although the circumstances of the Balfour declaration clearly implicate Briton in an effort to bring world Jewish support to their side. I think it natural to assume that some German Jews changed their views with news of this agreement reached them, especially when later the Russians dropped out of the war.

[Ned]

BTW, molly, Jack Straw shares the same opinion about Briton of that era that I do. He blames many of the worlds problems on British empire machinations, line drawing and interference. Here is a link to a story about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm

In particular, he acknowledges lying to the Arabs about their rights in Palestine.

"He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians, were not entirely honourable.

"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one," he said. "

He also acknowledges some responsibility for the Iraq territorial disputes that lead, for example, to wars with Iran and Kuwait.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


This is utterly ridiculous. One of the things about freedom of speech is the ability to look at the views and opinions of all parties, no matter how radical, to seek the truth. What, are you afraid of that you might get contaiminated by differing views and opinions?

One of the most important things a historian learns is to understand his sources. It's a key element of historiography.

I didn't say anything about forbidding the fine folks who run Jew Watch from writing their jew-hating crap. They have their freedom of speech, as do you. I reserve the right, however, to call a spade a spade.

JEW WATCH, Ned? Think about that, for just a second and ponder why a site named JEW WATCH might have "interesting" interpretations of the acts (or omissions) of one Adolf Hitler (and his enemies). Surely you're not so stupid as to be unable to figure that out.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Benjamen Friedman, the author of the speech, is himself Jewish. I suspect he has it in for the Zionists. But clearly he was once an insider as he was at the Versailles conference representing Jews.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe you.

But then again, as you've offered no evidence to support either the nature of Benjamen Friedman's background or origin, nor his status at Versailles, this in itself is no surprise.

By the way, being Jewish in itself does not automatically exclude one from a charge of anti-semitism, as a look at the career and public comments of Bruno Kreisky, once Chancellor of Austria, would show.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


This is utterly ridiculous. One of the things about freedom of speech is the ability to look at the views and opinions of all parties, no matter how radical, to seek the truth. What, are you afraid of that you might get contaiminated by differing views and opinions?

It's nothing of the sort.

When one has a plethora of historical sources to choose from, and one continually uses those sources which have a particular bias against one group of people, which David Irving, the Institute of Historical Review (sic) and Jew Watch certainly do, then one can certainly have one's poor choice of sources questioned.

And the reasons for choosing those sources.

I'm certainly not afraid of the truth, but as Irving, the I.H.R. and Jew Watch have either spent time denying the perfectly obvious and provable, misleading the public, or lying or simply making things up, then I'd say they're certainly afraid of, or biased towards, the Jews.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, the point of quoting from the Friedman speech is that American Jews apparently tried to keep the US out of the war (WWI) because they didn't want the US to side with the Russians.

The point of the Friedman screed seems to be this:

blame the Jews. Blame the Zionists.

It is not an accurate piece of historical research.

Even its opening is riddled with errors, of fact and conjecture.

Look at the unsupported twaddle you lap up as if it were well-referenced historical research:

I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make

That's the kind of garbage Senator McCarthy used to peddle, and it wasn't true in his day either.

The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare never seemed to be an adequate explanation.

Yeah, because which American President is really going to give a damn about countless acts of German sabotage on American soil, the sinking of American merchant ships and the death of their crews by German U-boats, the sinking of passenger ships and the deaths of American citizens caused by German U-boats, and a telegram from the German government inviting Mexico and Japan to wage war on the United States ?


Exactly how faux-naif are you going to pretend to be ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Thanks, but I did question the information and suggested methods for testing whether the claims are true. I am conducting research on this now, to see whether American Jewish opinion suddenly changed and the timing of the German Jewish change from supporting the war to opposing it.

Gosh, 'internet' based 'research' no doubt.

'Research' just like the 'research' you have yet to show us which determined where Poland's Jewish population lived in 1939.

Or the 'research' on the oil industry in the Middle East possessions of the Ottoman Empire in 1913-1914, which was according to you one of the factors behind Great Britain 'starting' WWI.

Haven't seen hide nor hair of that, either.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Attached is an article that notes the change in American public opinion from favoring neutrality to favoring intervention on the side of the allies, but it blames the change on British propaganda, such as the Nurse Cavell incident, where the Germans shot the nurse for aiding allied soldiers.

The shooting of Nurse Edith Cavell was not 'British propaganda'- it actually happened.

What a curiously biased way you have of phrasing it.

By the by- haven't you ever heard of cutting and pasting ?

But were the British the only parties creating propaganda ?

According to the article you yourself link to, apparently not:

Germany did mount a U.S. based effort to influence American public opinion. The headquarters of the German propaganda operation were located in New York City and was set up by the German ambassador to the United States, Count Johann von Bernstorff. The German propaganda strategy consisted of a number of activities.

http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/robertwells.html

Now as to the two German nurses- all we appear to have so far is a mention in one text telling us that this occurred because it is written about in another text.

What were their names, these German nurses ? And where in France were they shot, and by whom ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
What I have been able to find out is that American Jewish opinion was divided.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be because some of them were of German origin ?

And had relatives in Germany ?

People like Paul Warburg, for instance- on America's Federal Reserve Board.

His family in Hamburg were prominent bankers and financiers of the German war effort.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, molly, Jack Straw shares the same opinion about Briton of that era that I do.

Hoop de doo! A British politician who is dependent on the votes of a large Muslim population in his constituency, agrees with you.

Am I supposed to be impressed by this kind of thing, Ned ?

Is Jack Straw an historian by profession ?

Has he published any books on British history, the history of Zionism, or Zionist settlement in the Middle East ?

"He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians

Well that's quite interesting. Where is the evidence for this 'Palestinian' ethnic or political identity in 1917 ?

Still, I'm already familiar with your lack of knowledge of that area of the world, so I can't be bothered to spend any more time on the mere opinions of a British M.P. .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


One of the most important things a historian learns is to understand his sources. It's a key element of historiography.

I didn't say anything about forbidding the fine folks who run Jew Watch from writing their jew-hating crap. They have their freedom of speech, as do you. I reserve the right, however, to call a spade a spade.

JEW WATCH, Ned? Think about that, for just a second and ponder why a site named JEW WATCH might have "interesting" interpretations of the acts (or omissions) of one Adolf Hitler (and his enemies). Surely you're not so stupid as to be unable to figure that out.

-Arrian

And, you, for that matter, do not care that I say I recognize the bias and seek corroboration from other sources?

The whole point of this exercise is see if history has been written with a pro-Brit bias in the first place. If it were not, this would be a first in all history as the victors always write history to justify themselves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Yeah, because which American President is really going to give a damn about countless acts of German sabotage on American soil, the sinking of American merchant ships and the death of their crews by German U-boats, the sinking of passenger ships and the deaths of American citizens caused by German U-boats, and a telegram from the German government inviting Mexico and Japan to wage war on the United States ?


Exactly how faux-naif are you going to pretend to be ?

You have to add that the ships were sunk running the German blockade.

What you fail to add is that we didn't seem to have problems with the Brit blockade apparently because we respected it.

We also seemed to be loaning a lot of money to Britain and France, etc., but none to the Central Powers. Thus, Che's contention that we entered the war to protect our investment.

Now, assuming the above, we seemed to be neutral in name only. We were openly supporting the Allies. The Secretary of State resigned at one point because of it.

The renewed unrestricted sub warfare and the Zimmerman note were just a pretext for Wilson whose administration long before abandoned any true neutrality.