Posted on 04/23/2011 8:53:56 PM PDT by freepguy
You’re joking right?
In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Dembitz Brandeis to become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
Relatively late in life the secular Brandeis also became a prominent Zionist leader. He became active in the Federation of American Zionists in 1912, as a result of a conversation with Jacob de Haas, according to some.[45] His involvement provided the nascent American Zionist movement one of the most distinguished men in American life and a friend of the next president. THAT WAS WILSON!!
Yep! The USSR being at peace with Germany back then is a joke. The guy that said that has got to be drunk.
“...The only way it could attack anything would be by ramming.”
Which it was ordered to do by Churchill. http://smoter.com/america’.htm
QUE? NO HABLA ENGLES CABRON.
>Did the Zionist movement in america have anything to with it?
I’m just trying to get different opinions.<
You would be well served to take the “information” you get from the likes of Stormfront for the dreck it is.
Agreed. The world would have been a much better place had the kaiser ruled europe and the U.S. beaten and subjugated Mexico at a time when it was still politically correct to colonize and spread English and Ango law.
We’d have a European Union based on a German economy and NAFTA based on the U.S. Constitution. We might have 57 states as well.
I guess I'm not sure why you put the word defense in quotation marks. There was a war in 1920 between the Poles and Soviets and it reached the gates of Warsaw. It was quite real.
I don’t think I’ve ever commented at FreeRepublic before but this topic is of special interest to me. Please forgive the long post in advance.
Germany/Soviet Union. Yes, the German High Command dispatched Lenin, Radek and other revolutionaries to Russia once it was clear that the genuinely popular February 1917 revolution would lead to the creation of a real parliament, the allowance of political parties, and that the czar could thereby be, in the words of Lenin, “isolated,” weakened, and destroyed. The Bolsheviks, like their German hard-left counterparts, had been one of the only parties to adopt pacifist views at the beginning of World War I. They kept to that line throughout - in fact, Lenin invented the phrase “turn the class war” or “imperialist war” “into a civil war” - thereby beginning the tradition of “bring the war home” revived during Vietnam by the Weather Underground and others. Once in power, with massive German support, Lenin’s first act was to begin negotiations to end the war as promised. BUT he also provided strategic raw materials to Germany so that it could continue the war against the West (Germany’s industry was exhausted and plagued by mass strikes from 1917 onward). Why would Lenin do this? Because “the worse, the better” for Communist world revolution: the more war weakened the Western powers’ establishments, the greater chance that both internal leftist parties and external invasion would succesfully destroy the native government, and then Russian resources and even the Red Army could be used to prop those governments up “in defense of the revolution.” Remember that “land, peace, and bread” would have resonated not just with Russian infantry, but also with French infantry.
The Politburo didn’t actually sign Brest-Litovsk until the German Army advanced to within dozens of kilometers from St. Petersburg because they were sick of negotiating with these idiot Communists. This is actually when Lenin changed the capital to Moscow, by the way. But then what happened? The war ended on November 11, 1917 - and Germany was almost conquered by internal Communist revolution that began on NOVEMBER 13, 1917. Hungary actually fell in Communism under Bela Khun until March 1918. The Soviets tried again in 1920 and 1923. Interesting fact: Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch calling for a Revolution in Germany in 1923 (which had the public support of Ludendorf) occurred on November 9, 1923. The Communist 1923 revolution was supposed to begin on the same day.
Anyway, Germany was eventually foiled by (1) the entry of the USA into the war - an economy completely untouched by war, (2) the exhaustion of the German economy under “war socialism” inaugurated by Ludendorf and Hindenburg, and (4) the failure of the 1918 Summer Offensive, which led even Ludendorf to conclude that Germany had to sue for peace in order to avoid a horribly punitive peace - along the same lines as the one they’d offered to the West in 1916 and 1917.
The war was caused, above all, by the aggression of the German Crown and its High Command, who established the “encirclement” propaganda used to rationalize its war policies and then went on to launch the von Schlieffen Plan, which had first been formulated in 1896, and revised several times until its finalization in 1912. I think the question should be looked at seriously as to whether the Black Hand in Serbia was in connivance with German Intelligence - it was Germany that invented this now-well-known tactic, put to such use by the Soviets for the next 70 years. By March 1914 Germany had a standing army of 5 million men, by Far the largest land army in Europe. What do you think Germany, which was suddenly the most productive economy on Earth, intended to do with that army and the plan they’d been nursing for about a decade?
America entered the war because it agreed with Britain’s ancient policy of maintaining the European status quo (cf. Napoleonic Wars; guarantee of Belgian neutrality), and it agreed that, contrary to nonsense about “inevitable mobilization,” Germany had intended to conquer the same country, France, which it had so easily defeated 40 years before, and which it had overmatched ever since. Few remember how precarious France’s colonial possessions were, and how inadquate they were to compete with the English. Nor do they remember the real dissaray of French politics during that period. And by the way America has, to my knowledge, never been repaid for “loans” lent to Britain and Frnace during WWI.
Few also remember how brutal was the German occupation of the Low Countries and Poland.
America had every reason to believe that a victorious Germany would impose a truly Prussian “peace” over Europe, particularly since France and England were near exhaustion. Wilson simply employed characteristically idealistic but incomplete American rhetoric. For example: of course we’re going to establish democracy in Iraq, but really what we’re doing is destroying an outpost of Soviet terror infrastructure within the Middle East. In Afghanistan, we are opposing Pakistan and the ISI but really what we’re doing is opposing China.
Sorry this is already too long. The best book on Germany’s purpose in World War 1 is “Germany’s Aims During the First World War” by Fritz Fischer. Awesome book.
“Ah.
A muslim or a muslim sympathizer.”
Wrong-O there Pubic6961.
The Belfor Decleration was huge in WW1. The Zionist Movement in America was real. The Zionist movement in Britian was real. The first Jew to be named to the Supreme Court in 1916 was nominated by pres Wilson...WAS REAL! The US entered WW1 in 1917.
I suggest you do some study and connect the dots.
"Delusions?" In fact, even after Pershing's 8th Army expeditionary force had withdraw from Mexico, an undeclared state of war existed on the southern border. During this time US military forces garrisoned in American border towns exchanging fire with both Mexican rebels and federals massed along that border. Then, in 1918, US military intelligence discovered both German military advisers training the Mexican military along the border and plans for cross border attacks.
After the US entered WWI, the "Battle of Nogales" soon erupted with the US 35th Infantry & the 10th Calvary eventually crossing the border and forcing the surrender of the Mexican military and German military advisers. The US Army reported their burial of 129 Mexicans & 2 German bodies.
See: Wikipedia
Mexico accepting Germany's military assistance in furtherance of her "Reconquesta" of American border states was not delusional but historical reality.
The Mexican ruling elite have NEVER given up their dreams or claims to the US Southwest. They have taught it in their schools and thinly couched it in their political rhetoric.
“You=noob and are probably a muslim, muslim apologist, or an anti semite. All in all you are anti-Israeli and are a turd. Mohammed was a murdering pedophile.”
Holy crap man! Count to 10 or something...
I’m just doing research on what got the US into WW1.
The Brits promised the Zionists Palestine in the Balfor Agreement. Check it out for yourself. This happened right smack in the middle of WW1. Palestine was controled by the Ottoman Turks and Britan attacked the Turks and took it.
To say that Zionism had no place in WW1 is just to stick your head in the sand.
Come on man....do some homework!
Thanks for answering my question. Interesting.
“Too lazy to do your own research, Bub?”
I’ve got about 7hrs of research so far, pal.
You’re contribution is noted. Have another drink.
Thanks to both of you for posting the argument for going to war in 1917. What you are both saying makes me want to read the books suggested in this thread. I want to know more.
And what you are both saying is basically the US presence was necessary to prevent a German victory.
However, neither of you have addressed the question of Hitler.
If the US had not entered WWI, isn’t it safe to say that no matter what happened next (either a stalemate or an outright German victory), Hitler would not have risen in Germany?
Now, of course, no one in 1917 could know that Hitler was in their future, but still, I find the question interesting.
Any thoughts?
It had something to do with the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.
What....is that a video game?
“I’ve often heard it stated that Hitler blamed Germany’s defeat in WWI on the German Jews, that they “stabbed Germany in the back”. Obviously Hitler was a demented lunatic, but what was he referring to?”
Listen to Freedmans speech. Its sobering. The implications are....unfathomable.
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmanSpeechPart_1.mp3
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmanSpeechPart_2.mp3
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmanSpeechPart_3.mp3
You might really enjoy reading Ken Follett’s new book “Fall of Giants” - the first of a trilogy. It’s fiction but based on the real events of WWI, and as he says, is based on things that happened or “could have happened”. A great read.
“History” is lived forward. Hitler was not inevitable; there are no inevitabilities. That is Hegelian-Communist nonsense.
The problem with the Versailles Treaty was not that it was punitive, but that it was absurdly punitive - it provided an excellent pretext for revanchism, no matter which party arose. Versailles was a rallying cry for Lenin, too, who considered it a “bomb beneath Europe waiting for one spark.”
The Soviet Union had a great deal to do with Germany’s ABILITY to wage strategic war by 1939. In 1920, General von Seeckt of the German High Command began secret negotiations with Soviet Russia to collaborate on military experiments on Soviet soil; in 1922 they formalized the relationship with the Treaty of Rapallo. Under that treaty, Germany for over a decade (until Hitler formally cancelled the arrangement in 1933 or 34) developed the air, tank and infantry tactics and weapons that would be used in the blitzkrieg. They even jointly developed a blitzkrieg doctrine - the Soviets called it “offensive in depth” or “deep penetration.” At home, the Communist Party of Germany was strong, and fed on similar resentments to the German Workers’ Party, which became the National Sozialismus German Workers’ Party in I think 1920. As I mentioned both groups somewhat mysteriously had the same day for a national revolutionary uprising in 1923. But furrther down the road, from 1928-33, the Communists and Nazis often collaborated against their mutual enemy, the establish German Social Democratic Party under Stresseman.
And of course we have the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which among other things provided for massive Soviet deliveries of strategic materials, including oil and metals, without which Germany was simply incapable of waging mass armored warfare.
To sum up, the Versailles=Hitler trop is not very convincing in light of a ton of other more important forms of cooperation between the USSR and the German Oberkommando between the wars.
And don’t forget that the Soviet NKVD and German Gestapo and Abwehr had contacts and began collaboration as early as 1938, over one year before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was
Too lazy to formulate a decent reply, so you resort to ad hominum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.