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: 45,342
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: 11,886
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.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.
Page generated in 0.11560 seconds.