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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

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

And when have you shown any evidence to us of having perused any other sources than the ones you have linked to or quoted here, such as 'Jew Watch', the I.H.R. and David Irving ?

(I'm making an exception for the Florida high school girl and the mock-up of a WWI German newspaper done as a school exercise- I don't count them as would-be serious historical sources)

More to the point- if you are aware of their bias (and I suggest anyone unaware of the obvious biases of Jew Watch or I.H.R. or David Irving needs remedial help with basic reading and comprehension) then why quote them or link to them ?

They simply aren't serious historians or centres of reference- at least not if you're interested in a sober discussion of history and not at all intrigued by the racist, openly anti-semitic fantasies of Jew haters.

Why not link to Stormfront, or Aryan Nation websites, or quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ?

Or do you consider them too obviously extreme ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

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

I don't have to add anything of the sort- it was German policy to sink merchant shipping REGARDLESS.

It was not Allied policy to do the same.

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

Really ? Where's your proof of this assertion ?

By the way- there's a marked difference between a naval blockade, and a shoot and sink on sight policy.

The one saves lives and property, the other disregards them.

We also seemed to be loaning a lot of money to Britain and France, etc., but none to the Central Powers.

Again, another assertion with no facts to back it up.

What is your evidence for this statement ?

Thus, Che's contention that we entered the war to protect our investment.

It stands to reason that some American firms and individuals were linked to firms in the British Empire and British citizens- after all, monied Americans had been marrying European aristocrats, and London was the world's financial centre at the time.

However, as I've already demonstrated with Paul Warburg, the family and financial connections between the U.S. and Europe were by no means restricted to Anglo-American ones.

Now, assuming the above, we seemed to be neutral in name only.

You may assume, because certainly you don't provide any facts to back up your claims. From which point in the war do you claim the U.S. was 'neutral in name only' ?

After all, it lasted from 1914-1918.

We were openly supporting the Allies.

When ? Give specific instances and dates.

The Secretary of State resigned at one point because of it.

I take it you mean William Jennings Bryan- a note pacifist.

Which was after a U-boat sank the Lusitania....

That's one politician. Theodore Roosevelt believed in a more positively pro-Allied policy- so presumably there was a policy which was insufficiently active on the Allies' part for his liking.

There were pro-German sentiments and Isolationist American politicians too, were there not ?

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

Don't forget the many acts of espionage and the acts of terrorism and sabotage too.

Exactly what kind of 'pretext' are deliberately killed American citizens, deliberately sunk American ships, destructive acts of terrorism and sabotage on American soil, and an invitation to two other countries to go to war with Germany against the United States ?

I'd say that Wilson had exhibited quite a deal of forbearance- after all, you were the one who thought Austria-Hungary was justified going to war over one dead aristocrat.

I'm saddened to see you hold the lives of fellow Americans to be of such little worth....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

But some of what he said was true, and perhaps the thrust of what he had to say as a whole was more true than not.

Really ? I suppose you could say that straight-faced, because your knowledge of the events of World War One seems so sketchy and imperfect.

I also note that you say he

...was once an insider as he was at the Versailles conference representing Jews.

'Representing Jews' ?

What an odd phrase. In what capacity was he at Versailles exactly? Representing which Jews, which organisations, from which countries ?

Where is your evidence for this ?

If you mean he was a Zionist, that's a different matter- plenty of non-Jews are, or were, Zionists, and a great many left-wing Jews that I've met in Great Britain are most assuredly not Zionists.

Let's see what I've found by Freedman that's printable and won't make my blood pressure rise intolerably:

1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them.

[much other crap besides]

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

http://100777.com/jewry/freedman#german

Now let's see how you viewed this gentleman's historical accuracy, his desire for unalloyed truth:

There is a lot more, and it is all interesting.

Is it, my arse.

Benjamen Friedman, the author of the speech, is himself Jewish.

You also said. You neglected to mention that he had converted to Roman Catholicism. And we've all had some experience of the devotional excesses of converts, I trust.



No fool like an old fool, Ned.


And how old are you now ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Geronimo, I think historians in general dismiss it because they do not believe American mass communications are "controlled" by the Jews.

No, they dismiss it because serious historians do not spend their time propagating bias and distortion- which is what separates them from the nutjobs, the bigots, the looney-tunes and the racist freakshows that populate the web like an infection of necrotizing fasciitis.

It is demonstrably untrue that Jews 'control' the world's mass media, or even the media of the United States.

One has only to examine the backgrounds of the proprietors and individuals and companies concerned.

But the problem is, that the sources you seem to favour have the same relationship to professional historians and research that Erich von Daniken has to serious anthropologists, astronomers and archaeologists and linguists.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, I must admit, I am having a hard time finding any detailed discussion of WWI on the web.

Try books.

I realise to some people they may seem a new-fangled invention, but I think they're worth a shot.




Or you could try a thing called a periodical or magazine.


History Today:

http://www.historytoday.com/dt_front.asp?gid=19963&aid=&tgid=19963&amid=&g19963=x

World War One:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/

http://www.worldwar1.com/

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/

Took me slightly less than five minutes. Of course I've left out the anti-semitic and just plain unpleasant sites, but they're not my field of expertise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


In conducting the research, I was a little surprised to find that the German right wing generally blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat even though German Jews were highly patriotic and Jews worldwide admired her. The British machinations with the Zionists are to blame for this;

Can I suggest that when you make an evidently (to me at least) absurd claim like this, that you show some proof ?

You seem blissfully unaware of anti-semitism in Europe in general or in Imperial Germany, Prussia, and the Kaiser's court in particular.

There were anti-Jewish riots in Germany in 1819- note the date. These came after the defeats and political changes and economic chaos occasioned by the Napoleonic Wars. That has a familiar ring to it...

Later on there were people who popularized antisemitism, and attempted to give it a (spuriously) scientific nature too.

Richard Wagner, author of 'Das Judentum in der Musik', publ. 1850, a vile little antisemitic tract.

Then there were the likes of (English-born) Houston S. Chamberlain, and Lanz von Liebenfels, would be mystic, occultist and propagtor of Aryan ideology.

Richard Wagner wrote to Ludwig II of Bavaria:

I hold the Jewsih race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it. It is certain that it is running us Germans to the ground....

written in 1881.

Antisemites in Germany included journalists and radicals such as Otto Glagau and Wilhelm Marr who wrote anti-Jewish tracts attacking the 'Manchesterism' of Jewish financiers and the German Liberal and Jewish press.

Marr even tried to create an avowedly anti-semitic league, and wrote 'The Victory of Judaism over Germanism' in 1879- notably without the help of British diplomacy.

Preacher and rabble-rouser Adolf Stoecker brought about Berlin's first anti-semitic political movement- in 1878.

German Protestant theologian, politician, and anti-Semitic agitator; born at Halberstadt Dec. 11, 1835. He studied at the universities of Halle and Berlin, and in 1863, after having acted for some years as tutor, was appointed pastor at Seggerda, near Halberstadt. In 1866 he was called to Hamersleben, and in 1871 to the pastorate of a military division at Metz. In 1874 he was appointed court preacher at the Domkirche of Berlin, which position he held until 1890, when he was dismissed on account of his political views. In 1878 he founded the Christian Socialistic party, which gave impetus to an anti-Semitic movement. From the pulpit, as well as in public assemblies, he denounced Judaism and its adherents as a danger to Christianity and the German empire; and upon the strength of this and similar accusations he was in 1879 elected a member of the Prussian Diet. From 1881 to 1893 he was also a member of the Reichstag, which he again entered in 1898.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1108&letter=S

Then there were the likes of Karl von Vogelsang, Eugen Duhring, Theodor Fritsch, Otto Boeckel, Heinrich von Treitschke- his slogan was:

Die Juden sind unser Ungluck

rabid racists and antisemites all, and all long before the Balfour Declaration.

Let me suggest that you do a lot of research- not internet based, and not on anti-Jewish websites- on antisemitism in 19th Century Europe, and specifically, in Austria-Hungary and Imperial Germany.

Because you're becoming a bore and I have to quote racist filth in order to disprove your stupid assertions and assumptions, such as this:

Once again, in a very weird twist of fate, British diplomacy caused a lot of collateral damage.

and I don't like doing that very much at all.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
molly, I will grant you your point.

It would have been impossible not to do so.

Will you, in turn, give me your views on what the Brits intended to accomplish with the Balfour Declaration?

My views, such as they are, are my own.

Also, do you have information on who approached whom first and when?

Yes. Have you ?

Hint: libraries and bookshops are good places for finding books.


I use them all the time.