When is war justified?

[Ned]

Molly, No doubt the Germans of WWI were landgrabbers as well. Perhaps it made no difference who won that war as any settlement would have laid the seeds for future wars.

Wilson's "Points," in restrospect, were part of the problem. He advocated an independent Poland and breakup of the Austrian empire. Even though Wilson spoke of giving distinct peoples their own government, what happened was that areas that had a predominant German population were given to both Poland and Czechoslovakia and one part of Germany was left isolated from another. Then, he notes, that Poland's independence should be guaranteed (by Britain and France).

Wilson DOES deserve some of the credit for what happened next.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ned? I'd really like to know why the sources you quote from wrt to the argument are neo-Nazi websites.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Let me say I'm more anti-British empire and share that thinking with those questionable sites. I first came by these views after long discussions with an Indian friend.

[Kidlicious]

Molly Bloom for putting in so much effort.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned

Let me say I'm more anti-British empire and share that thinking with those questionable sites. I first came by these views after long discussions with an Indian friend.

What does it say about your views when the only support for them can be found solely among neo-Nazis?

There are a lot of people who have been critical of the British and the Empire, over a variety of subjects. Some of them actually make good arguments. However, they are not good enough for you. No, your pathology can only be satisfied by finding fellow-travellers who are best described as irrational step-children of the Klan.

It's sad, Ned, but at least now we know where you are coming from.

[Ned]

It is interesting that questioning the holier-than-thou's motives of the saintly and pure British Empire can ONLY be explained by being a Nazi.

Brit propaganda triumphs once more.

What this exercise has done for me, though, is give me a deeper appreciation of FDR. He went out of his way to stop the brewing war in Europe and did the same with the ongoing war in China. If there are any views I share on this issue, they are the ones held by FDR.

[notyoueither]

Not ONLY be a Nazi, but when your only sources are neo-Nazi and the people whose arguments you parrot are neo-Nazi... you're walking and talking like a duck...

[Perfection]

When it increases my net worth

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Brit propaganda triumphs once more.

The Nazis like to use pretty messed up propaganda Ned, or do you think that is just Brit propaganda?

[MrFun]

. . . . . . and the Holocaust never happened!

[Ned]

Just saw a movie where Brit propaganda was on fine display. It was the movie about the incident during Christmas, 1914, where Germans, Scots and French began to sing Christmas carols and then all got together between the trenches where they called a truce, celebrated Mass (in Latin), etc. After several days of comradeship, the higher-ups found out what was happening and sent the troops involvled elsewhere, the Germans going to the Eastern front.

But, in chastising the Scotish priest who held mass, the Scotish archbishop went on to hold a sermon to the assembled troops where he spewed forth all the filthy garbage were have often heard about the barbarity of the "Huns" and why it was their duty to "kill them all."

Clearly, the makers of this film, who include Germans, knew all about British propaganda.

Below is a link to a scholarly paper detailing how Brit propaganda was used to get America into WWI. We all know that at the close of the war, most Americans realized how they were duped when they witnessed the land-grab orgy that was Versailles. But this paper lays out the Brit propaganda, point by point. See, especially page 4 where the false descriptions of what went on in Belgium are descibed.

Of particular interest here is the fact that Belgium had secret pacts with the British and French and was in fact, not neutral. Her behavior is contrasted with that of Luxembourgh, exactly as I have done in the other thread. What I didn't know is that what appeared to be true, that Belgium was a British ally was, in fact, true.

If it is true, and I assume it is, it is quite apparent that the British propaganda view of that war still prevails in literature and history books 'til this day.

http://www.flheritage.com/museum/programs/historyfair/docs/OrtelTextII.doc

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
If it is true, and I assume it is, it is quite apparent that the British propaganda view of that war still prevails in literature and history books 'til this day.

What do you expect? It's also capitalist propaganda. I don't turn to neo-nazi propaganda and swallow it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The Nazis like to use pretty messed up propaganda Ned, or do you think that is just Brit propaganda?

The Nazis and the commies are well known propagandists. You have know anything they tell you is either a boldfaced lie or only half true.

The same is not true of the Brits who are very, very skilled at manipulating other countries' public opinion to serve their interests. The Brits manuevered us into supporting them in WWI and did so again in WWII.

Just saw a bit on the Military Channel last night called Warlords. It detailed how Churchill maneuvered Hitler into attacking Stalin by planting lies that Stalin was planning to attack himself. Churchill then sends a note to Stalin saying that Hitler is planning to attack the USSR. Stalin apparently thought Churchill was lying (again) and did not prepare for the oncoming German assault.

Exactly what I've been contending all along in these threads.

So much for neo-Nazi propaganda. The Brit propaganda is just as much a pack of lies.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
Just saw a movie where Brit propaganda was on fine display. It was the movie about the incident during Christmas, 1914, where Germans, Scots and French began to sing Christmas carols and then all got together between the trenches where they called a truce, celebrated Mass (in Latin), etc. After several days of comradeship, the higher-ups found out what was happening and sent the troops involvled elsewhere, the Germans going to the Eastern front.

But, in chastising the Scotish priest who held mass, the Scotish archbishop went on to hold a sermon to the assembled troops where he spewed forth all the filthy garbage were have often heard about the barbarity of the "Huns" and why it was their duty to "kill them all."

Clearly, the makers of this film, who include Germans, knew all about British propaganda.

Below is a link to a scholarly paper detailing how Brit propaganda was used to get America into WWI. We all know that at the close of the war, most Americans realized how they were duped when they witnessed the land-grab orgy that was Versailles. But this paper lays out the Brit propaganda, point by point. See, especially page 4 where the false descriptions of what went on in Belgium are descibed.

Of particular interest here is the fact that Belgium had secret pacts with the British and French and was in fact, not neutral. Her behavior is contrasted with that of Luxembourgh, exactly as I have done in the other thread. What I didn't know is that what appeared to be true, that Belgium was a British ally was, in fact, true.

If it is true, and I assume it is, it is quite apparent that the British propaganda view of that war still prevails in literature and history books 'til this day.

http://www.flheritage.com/museum/pro...rtelTextII.doc

Better, Ned.

But what is to be said of Ms Ortel's essay? Well, it appears that one of her major sources for British perfidy was a book I have not read. Can't say much about it.

I read this review though.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_7-8_35/ai_106096930

Here is a part of it.

"The Illusion of Victory is hyperbolic and so hostile to Wilson that it borders on the cartoonish. Fleming's Wilson was a coward, bull-headed and abusive, a mean-spirited commander-in-chief who was obsessed with keeping his grip on power. Fleming reports that Wilson's top aides concealed facts, put their enemies in jail, and encouraged "super-patriots" to assault anti-war protesters. He seems determined to assail the Allies for acting like immoral powers and to blame them for the war's greatest atrocities. He cites Britain's naval blockade in the Atlantic Ocean that left millions of German civilians malnourished. He also attacks the tactics of British propaganda organs such as Wellington House, which depicted the Germans as murderous Huns during the war. Like many students of the Great War, Fleming concludes that the Allies sought a vindictive treaty that ultimately led to the outbreak of WWII.

Yet, when Wilson returned from Europe after negotiating his "peace without victory," the U.S. Senate rejected his proposal for a League of Nations. Fleming's reflection on Wilson's post-war failures sounds like a taunt. "What electorate," he writes, "would not have become disillusioned with a president like Wilson? From the time he asked Congress to declare war under the illusion that he would not have to send more than a token force to Europe to the time he agreed to peace with Germany on the basis of the Fourteen Points, his conduct of public affairs was calamitously incompetent."

The book, unfortunately, misses the chance to reconsider the war's causes and consequences and address the prevailing view that World War I was a debacle from start to finish. Chock full of hyperbole and ham-handed efforts to popularize a subject of serious historical inquiry, this book includes odd chapter titles ("Politics is Adjourned, Ha Ha Ha") and bald counterfactual assertions that the majority of readers will find unconvincing. Wilson, perhaps, was a poor politician, but his idealism resonated with millions of people at home and around the world. He argued that the United States had a moral obligation to participate in global affairs. He opposed imperialism as a force for evil. He articulated the view that people from Africa to Asia had the inalienable right to democratic self-rule and a peaceful coexistence with other citizens. Such themes have defined America's foreign policy over the course of the last century. A more sympathetic account that challenged the conventional wisdom could have shed light on World War I's lasting impact."

It seems Ms. Ortel isn't too picky about sources. I'm sure you can sympathise.

And then she veers into somewhat questionable conclutions when she suggests that British (and Empire) posters urging people to enlist were part of the British programme of programming America.

The next anti-German propaganda bonanza for the WPB came with the sinking of British passenger liner the Lusitania on May 7, 1915. Of 2,000 passengers on board, 1,198 died including 128 Americans. Americans were outraged, and the British propagandists seized the opportunity to distribute more anti-German materials. Posters were released featuring a drowning woman and child with the message “ENLIST” (Appendix 2.1). Another poster depicted a sinking ship with hands grasping the water fronted by the goddess of war Minerva urging men to “TAKE UP THE SWORD OF JUSTICE” (Appendix 2.2). Propaganda materials following the Lusitania disaster further distorted the image of Germans into justifiable “Huns.” However, most never realized that the Lusitania had been carrying a wide array of contraband, and few acknowledged that Germany had posted notices in New York City warning that the Lusitania was a targeted ship. (Appendix 2.3).13

This is ****, Ned.

Here's one now. I can see where the appeal led Nebraskans to join the marines immediately.

[notyoueither]

Here's a colour version of one of the posters sited in the appencices as stemming from the 'propaganda bonanza' of the sinking of the Lusitania.

It's a British and Empire recruiting poster!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, No doubt the Germans of WWI were landgrabbers as well.

D'ya think ?

Bethmann Hollweg's outline of eventual German war aims in his 'September Programme' included French and Belgian territory to be included in the new enlarged Reich, more German colonies in Africa, Poland and what was left of Belgium as vassal nations, a German dominated and controlled Mittel Europa trading union, Luxembourg to be a German state, and France to be permanently economically dependent and bound to the new greater Germany.

Perhaps it made no difference who won that war as any settlement would have laid the seeds for future wars.

Yeah right. See the programme outlined above.

He advocated an independent Poland and breakup of the Austrian empire.

As did Poles, Czechs, Croats, Hungarians, Ukrainians...

Or do you think only Germans are allowed to have a state of their own ?

Even though Wilson spoke of giving distinct peoples their own government, what happened was that areas that had a predominant German population were given to both Poland and Czechoslovakia and one part of Germany was left isolated from another.

Do you imagine anyone is unfamiliar with the outcome of the Versailles Treaty ?

The Sudetenland had not been part of Imperial Germany. There were German minorities in parts of neighbouring states- there were Germans in the area of the Volga, and Saxon Germans in Rumania and Hungary.

There were Germans in Canada, the U.S. , South America and the Barossa Valley in Australia.

Germany had minorities too.

Let me say I'm more anti-British empire

No, really ? It's so hard to tell the way you take such an even-handed view of the growth of Fascist and Nazi groups in post-WWI Europe.

and share that thinking with those questionable sites.

Dubious use of the word 'thinking'. It seems to me that you continue on these fact-free rants against the Allies of WWI and WWII and gloss over or choose to ignore the policies of Hitler at home and abroad in favour of fact-devoid tirades against Stalin or Chamberlain.

It is interesting that questioning the holier-than-thou's motives of the saintly and pure British Empire can ONLY be explained by being a Nazi.

You don't question anyone's motives, because you don't even address what British politicians SAID or DID.

You don't quote Chamberlain or Edward Grey or Halifax- you'd think a Prime Minister or Foreign Secretaries might have had something of interest to say in the run-up to WWI or WWII.

You don't even elaborate on the supposed Nazi peace conference offer in October 1939- instead you substitute what you like to think MIGHT have happened, or what Hitler MIGHT have offered.

Brit propaganda triumphs once more.

People here have quoted facts and used readily available data.

Again and again you've simply substituted your opinion or your idea of what people's motives might have been.