Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 2nd, 2012 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default World War I

[This thread is for particularly interesting data or arguments concerning WWI and responsibility for it. Don't trash it up with gunk that can be found everywhere but with things most readers won't know that they need to know.]

How England Helped Start the Great War
by Paul Gottfried

March 01, 2012

A vastly underexplored topic is the British government’s role in greasing the skids for World War I. Until recently it was hard to find scholars who would dispute the culturally comfortable judgment that “authoritarian Germany” unleashed the Great War out of militaristic arrogance. Supposedly the British only got involved after the Germans recklessly violated Belgian neutrality on their way to conquering “democratic“ France.

But British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey had done everything in his power to isolate the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies, who were justified in their concern about being surrounded by enemies. The Triple Entente, largely constructed by Grey’s government and which drew the French and Russians into a far-reaching alliance, encircled Germany and Austria with warlike foes. In July 1914 German leaders felt forced to back their Austrian allies in a war against the Serbs, who were then a Russian client state. It was clear by then that this conflict would require the Germans to fight both Russia and France.

The German military fatalistically accepted the possibility of England entering the struggle against them. This might have happened even if the Germans had not violated Belgian soil in order to knock out the French before sending their armies eastward to deal with a massive Russian invasion. The English were anything but neutral. In the summer of 1914 their government was about to sign a military alliance with Russia calling for a joint operation against German Pomerania in case of a general war. The British had also given assurances to French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé that they would back the French and the Russians (who had been allied since 1891) if war broke out with Germany.

“The British were more hostile to the Germans than vice versa.”Grey spurned attempts by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg to woo his government away from their commitments to Germany’s enemies.

German concessions in 1912 included:

• The acceptance of British dominance in constructing railroads and accessing oil reserves in what is now Iraq
• Investments in central African ventures that would clearly benefit the English more than the Germans
• Meekly following England’s lead in two Balkan Wars where Austria’s enemy Serbia nearly doubled its territory.

The Russians and French were also vastly expanding their conscription to outnumber the German and Austrian forces, but neither German concessions nor the saber-rattling of England’s continental allies caused the British government to change direction. Lord Grey, who remained foreign secretary until 1916, never swerved from his view that Germany was England’s most dangerous enemy.

A book that makes this clear is Konrad Canis’s study of German foreign policy from 1902 until 1914. A massive volume of more than seven hundred pages, Canis’s Der Weg in den Abgrund (The Road Into the Abyss) is a groundbreaking revisionist account of the entanglements leading up to the war.

http://takimag.com/article/how_engla...#ixzz1o0HYM17N
 
Old March 2nd, 2012 #2
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,763
confederate
Default the main theme

if studying the machinations of the british leading up to both wars, what is found is that the british never did want the naturally strongest nation to dominate europe. today, they still don't.

what the british desire is to control events by never allowing any kind of combined european power. if this were to happen, britain would undoubtedly lose its' dominance in world trade and influence. i hope with the collapse of the euro and the euro-zone, germany can finally kick these meddlesome pain in the ass brits and undisciplined french squarely in the ass and take control of its' destiny on its' terms.

i think this was argued by a gentleman sometime around the late 1930's to mid 1940's.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old March 2nd, 2012 #3
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,865
Serbian
Default

Quote:
Meekly following England’s lead in two Balkan Wars where Austria’s enemy Serbia nearly doubled its territory.

It was not in the interest of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for the Ottoman Empire to fall and for the Turks to be driven out of Europe for the simple reason that such an outcome would spell trouble for their own interests as they too, like the Ottoman Empire, were a multi national/multi religious entity. The Habsburgs viewed the Ottomans as a check on Serbian demands for freedom, which if successful would have the effect of influencing other occupied Slavic peoples of their Empire into rebelling and demanding their own freedom.

Just to add that the Empire had no right to annex Bosnia Herzegovina which was Serbian and Croatian land. I understand that they needed access to the Adriatic but they had the Dalmatian coast, they didn't need Bosnia.

Also putting jews like Benjamin Kalaj in charge of administering Serbian land in order to attempt to create a fake Bosnian identity/nationality was not a good idea, its kind of like what the US/EU attempted and is still attempting to this day.
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old March 10th, 2013 #4
Norman Bean
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 157
Norman Bean
Default

It is pretty quickly apparent,reading on the subject of ww1, that if America had just stayed out of that mess There wouldn't have been a ww2.trying to talk to the common man about ww2, is very hard, because it has become a holy war,in the minds of most Americans.
 
Old April 25th, 2013 #5
Farwell Kirk
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 368
Farwell Kirk
Default

Speaking of WWI,the 100th anniversary of the start of the war is coming up next year and it sure will be fun.The Germanophobes will have a field day.We will no boubt be treated to endless accounts of the war's start,all indistinguishable from the 1914 Allied propaganda version.Then will come the 100th anniversaries of the Belgian babies,the crucified Canadian,Luvain,the Lusitania,etc,etc,etc.All the old propaganda stories will be dusted off and trotted out again.Yes,the next four years are going to be a whole lot of fun.
 
Old April 25th, 2013 #6
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

The Brits have always played the divide & rule game on the continent, no matter which nation was in the ascendency at any given moment in history. For centuries they've been a negative, degenerate force in world affairs - like Uncle Shmuel is now.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old July 10th, 2013 #7
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old July 14th, 2013 #8
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default WW I, Wilson, like FDR promised if elected no WAR.



This has to be one of the top ten of any lecture Dr. Pierce ever gave!
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old August 7th, 2013 #9
Farwell Kirk
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 368
Farwell Kirk
Default

Read the books by Harry Elmer Barnes and Sidney Fay,they had the story right way back in the 1930's.
 
Old October 31st, 2013 #10
Cale Sparks
anti-American
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,666
Cale Sparks
Default

(from the article below)

Chapter XXI

THE "LUSITANIA"

The sinking of the Lusitania was a hideous tragedy and one of the most terrible examples of the barbarity of modern warfare, but, from the point of view, suffering and loss of life, was not to be compared with many other episodes in the war. The very crucial political significance of the catastrophe, however, gave it special propaganda value in inflaming popular indignation, especially in America. Here obviously was the necessary lever at last to bring America into the war. That Germany should not have recognized this would be the result of such action on her part was one of the many illustrations of her total inability to grasp the psychology of other peoples.

From the point of view of propaganda it was necessary to show that the Germans had blown up a defenceless, passenger ship flying the American flag and bearing only civilian passengers and an ordinary cargo. This was represented as a breach of international law and act of piracy. The unsuccessful attempt to suppress certain facts which emerged leads naturally to the conclusion that other attempts were successful. No inquiry such as the Mersey inquiry, conducted in war-time with regard to the action of the enemy, can in such circumstances be regarded as conclusive.

The whole truth with regard to the sinking of the Lusitania will probably never be cleared up. Four points may be considered here:

(a) Whether she was armed.

(b) Whether she was carrying Canadian troops.

(c) Whether she had munitions on board.

(d) Whether a medal was issued in Germany to commemorate the sinking of the Lusitania.

(a) On this point there was a conflict of evidence.

The Lusitania was registered as an auxiliary cruiser. The Germans declared she was carrying concealed guns. This was categorically denied by the captain in the inquiry. "She had no weapons of offence or defence and no masked guns." Lord Mersey therefore found this charge to be untrue.

(b) The same may be said about the charge made by the Germans that she was transporting Canadian troops.

(c) These two denials would be readily acceptable, were it not for the fact that at first a denial and then a suppression of the fact that she was carrying munitions was attempted.

It is equally untrue that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition on its final voyage. ("Daily Express," May 11, 1915).

In America there was a threat to expel Senator La Follette from the Senate because he had stated that the Lusitania carried munitions. But Mr. Dudley Field Malone, collector at the port of New York, confirmed this charge as true.

D. F. Malone revealed that the Lusitania carried large quantities of ammunition consigned to the British Government, including 4,200 cases of Springfield cartridges. The Wilson administration refused to permit the publication of the fact. One of the principal charges upon which the attempt to expel R. M. La Follette from the Senate was based was that he had falsely declared that the Lusitania carried ammunition, and the prosecution of the Senator was dropped when Mr. Malone offered to testify on his behalf. (The Nation" (New York), November 20 1920)

It was eventually admitted that the Lusitania carried 5400 cases of ammunition. The Captain at the inquest at Kinsale said: "There was a second report, but that might possibly have been an internal explosion." The foreman of the Queenstown jury protested that all the victims were not drowned. "I have seen many of the bodies, and the people were killed; they were blown to pieces."

The ship sank in eighteen minutes, which accounted for the loss of so many lives. The Germans, in their reply to the American note, referred to this point and stated:

"It is impossible to decide, for instance, the question whether the necessary opportunity was given to the passengers and crew to escape, until it has been determine whether or not the Lusitania provided bulkheads and boat as ordered by the Titanic Conference for corresponding emergencies in peace-time, and whether or not ammunition or explosives carried in defiance of the American laws accelerated the sinking of the ship, which might otherwise have been expected either to get out the boats safely or reach the coast."

Included in her cargo was a small consignment of rifle ammunition and shrapnel shells weighing about 173 tons, Warnings that the vessel would be sunk, afterwards traced to the German Government, were circulated in New York before she sailed. ("The World Crisis," by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, M.P).

(d) The event having been condemned as a barbarous act of piracy, it became necessary to show that the Germans gloried in it.

The first rumour was that a special medal had been bestowed on the crew of the U-boat which sunk the Lusitania as a reward for gallantry. This was dropped when the medal turned out to be a commemoration medal, not a decoration.

It was then stated that the German Government had had a medal struck in commemoration of the event, but after the armistice had it withdrawn from circulation. In 1919 it was found in a shop in Berlin. In 1920 a traveller in Berlin, Frankfurt, and other parts of Germany could find no one who had ever heard of it or seen it, whereas in England the medals were well known and very easily obtained. It turned out that the medal was originally designed in Munich by a man of the name of Goetz and represents the Lusitania as carrying arms. Goetz may be described as a cartoonist in metal; his work was not official, and his Lusitania medal had a very limited circulation. Few Germans appear to have heard of its existence. The large number of casts of the medal, which gave the impression here that they must be as common as pence in Germany, was explained by Lord Newton, who was in charge of propaganda at the Foreign Office in 1916.

"I asked a West End store if they could undertake the reproduction of it for propaganda purposes. They agreed to do so, and the medals were sold all over the world in neutral countries, especially in America and South America.

"After some initial difficulty a great success was achieved. I believe it to have been one of the best pieces of propaganda." ("Evening Standard," November 1, 1926).

The Honorary Secretary of the Medal Committee stated that 250,000 of the medals were sold, and the proceeds were given to the Red Cross and St. Dunstan's. Each medal was enclosed in a box on which it was stated that the medals were replicas or, the medal distributed in Germany "to commemorate the sinking of the Lusitania." But many of them in England could be purchased without any box.

In addition to the medal, leaflets were circulated with pictures of the medal. In one case in Sweden a sentence was printed from the Kölnische Völkzeitung: "We regard with joyous pride this newest exploit of our fleet." This sentence had been torn from its context and had been originally used in quite another connection.

It therefore became clear that:

(1) No medal was given to the crew of the German U-boat.

(2) No medal was struck in commemoration of the event by the German Government.

(3) The German Government could not have withdrawn a medal it never issued.

(4) A metal-worker in Munich designed the medal which was always rare in Germany.

(5)The large number of medals in circulation was due to the reproduction of Goetz's medal in Great Britain.

The propaganda value of the medal was great, as Lord Newton admitted. The impression it created was absolutely and intentionally false.

http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/arc...nsonby.html#17
__________________
The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
- Hitler
 
Old October 31st, 2013 #11
Cale Sparks
anti-American
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,666
Cale Sparks
Default The Telconia off Emden, 4 August 1914.

"London's ultimatum had expired at midnight on August 4, while the Telconia was en route to its rendezvous point off Emden. Fathoms beneath the ship's keel lay a network of five cables that wended south from Germany through the English Channel, one to France, one to Spain, one to North Africa and two to New York City.

On board the Telconia were huge grappling hooks that enabled the ship to retrieve malfunctioning cables from the sea bottom for repairs. Down slid the grapples into the cold, gray depths, and soon, one by one, the five mud-covered sheaths of copper-covered wires were hauled aboard. Each was hacked apart and dropped back into the sea. Henceforth, Germany could communicate securely with the Western Hemisphere only through a subsidiary cable that ran from Liberia to Brazil, a line that was largely U.S. owned.

Six months later, after some friendly persuasion from London, which undoubtedly included plenty of pounds sterling, this link too was eliminated by one of Telconia's sister ships. That meant Berlin had to depend on Guglielmo Marconi's newly invented and somewhat undependable wireless -- and all these messages could be intercepted and deciphered by British cryptanalysts."

"THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY" (page 44) Thomas Fleming
__________________
The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
- Hitler
 
Old December 1st, 2013 #12
isaac schultz
Junior Member
 
isaac schultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27
isaac schultz
jewsign Ed Grey, war criminal

"The Origins of the World War", Sidney Fay:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/fay/origin_index.html
published in 1928

http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/fay/origin_212.html
Quote:
"Sir Edward could probably have prevented war if he had done either of two things. If, early in the crisis, he had acceded to the urging of France and Russia and given a strong warning to Germany that, in a European War, England would take the side of the Franco-Russian Alliance, this would probably have led Bethmann to exert an earlier and more effective pressure on Austria; and it would perhaps thereby have prevented the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia, and brought to successful issue the “direct conversations” between Vienna and St. Petersburg. Or, if Sir Edward Grey had listened to German urging, and warned France and Russia early in the crisis that if they became involved in war, England would remain neutral, probably Russia would have hesitated with her mobilizations, and France would probably have exerted a restraining influence at St. Petersburg. But Sir Edward Grey could not say that England would take the side of France and Russia, because he had a Cabinet nearly evenly divided, and he was not sure, early in the crisis, that public opinion in England would back him up in war against Germany."


==============
"Shall it be Again ?"
by John Kenneth Turner, published in 1922:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/tur...all_index.html

http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/tur...llitbe_22.html
Quote:
"Why, above all, did Foreign Secretary Grey conceal his intentions from Germany ? Was Germany “lured to attack,” as Bernard Shaw declared ?

Even Britons, who approved of the action of their government, have cheerfully held, with Shaw, that it was Grey—none other—that chose the fatal hour. President Wilson repeatedly expressed what is, in effect, the same opinion. For example, in his Columbus speech (Sept. 4, 1919), he said : “I did not meet a single public man who did not admit these things, that Germany would not have gone into this war if she had thought Great Britain was going into it.”

This amounts to an abandonment of the theory that Germany “chose its own time” for the war, and is a virtual admission that England chose its own time.

If Grey could have prevented war by letting Germany know that England would intervene, why did he not let Germany know ?

What other motive could he have had for leading Germany on except that he had decided that the summer of 1914 was a propitious time to “have it out” with the Central Powers ?

The action of Grey, indeed, was openly excused on the theory that the war was bound to come anyhow some day, by the choice of the Kaiser, that Britain chose the time righteously, since the wicked mad-dog of Europe had run amuck long enough, and the hour had struck for the “free peoples” of the world to unite and scotch it."
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cik...lhelm2_10.html

http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/rev...ampire_01.html
 
Old December 2nd, 2013 #13
Fico
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 379
Fico
Default

Ww1 have been war for preparing the grounf for jewish state Izrael.
All what we must,is look chronology of years before ww1:
1987.-First Zionist conference in Basel (Herzel-jew)
1913.-FED (Wargburg-jew)
1914.-war
1917.Bolshevik (jewish) revolution
1920.Britanian mandate in Palestine ( Masonry)
........................................................................
This chronology is sufficient for understant who is the winner in ww1 and also ww2.
I can tell here many examples in history but now we speak about ww1.
 
Old December 27th, 2013 #14
luftwaffensoldat
Witness to Genocide
 
luftwaffensoldat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Where there are no PAKIS and NIGGERS
Posts: 823
luftwaffensoldat
Default

Quote:
For twenty-seven years we Futurists have rebelled against the branding of war as anti-aesthetic ... Accordingly we state:... War is beautiful because it establishes man's dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks. War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt-of metalization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns. War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the scents, and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates new architecture, like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages, and many others ... Poets and artists of Futurism! ... remember these principles of an aesthetics of war so that your struggle for a new literature and a new graphic art ... may be illumined by them!
- Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, 1912
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 PM.
Page generated in 0.14699 seconds.