Who started both World Wars?

[ddt]

1917 changed all of that. Admiral von Holtzendorff wrote a memo in December 1916 which argued that unless the Germans cut off Britain from supplies, they'd lose the war. Further, they would need to sink at least 600,000 tonnes of shipping a month to accomplish this. Holtzendorff also reassured the Kaiser not to worry about the American response, promising him that 'not one American will land on the continent.'

The Kaiser signed the order for Unrestricted Submarine Warfare on 1st February, 1917, and it was initially successful, with German U-Boats sinking 500,000 tonnes of shipping in February and March. This extracted a huge toll on American ships importing goods to Britain, and resulted in America declaring war on Germany on April 6th, 1917.

When you look at this table, Germany actually managed to achieve Von Holtzendorff's objective of 600,000 tonnes/month: in the period February-July, 3,856,998 tonnes in total were sunk, i.e., 642,833 tonnes/month. It didn't knock the UK out of the war. Where did Holtzendorff go wrong in his analysis?

 

[Uzzy]

I don't think he was wrong in his analysis. It's noted that the UK's supplies of wheat, for instance, shrank to 6 weeks worth. However, the U-Boat campaign wasn't successful for long enough, and the Royal Navy finally introduced convoys in May/June, ensuring that the amount of shipping lost fell drastically, never rising above 400,000 tonnes lost after August 1917. Furthermore, the Germans couldn't replace the loss of U-Boats and their experienced crews quick enough.

The UK came close to being knocked out the war, but close isn't good enough.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Now, let's see what the significance of the Zimmerman telegram is to your theory that the sinking of the Lusitania was engineered by Jewish interests to bring America into the war. We know, first of all, that nearly two years elapsed between the sinking of the Lusitania and the entry of America into the war (at least, the rest of us know that; I suspect you imagine it was only a couple of weeks), so it seems a little unlikely that there was a direct causal relationship.

Initially I indeed assumed that there was a direct causal relationship between the sinking and the war entry but I realized as early as in post #343 that that was not the case. And I never suggested that Jews themselves loaded the Lusitania with contraband on a dark moonless night. The only but decisive link between the Jews and US war entry is the Balfour declaration. I cannot prove who was responsible for the war material; it could well have been private American arms dealers delivering on request of the British government. Maybe the American government was involved. I do not know. But it is very likely that the German government had reason to suspect that arms deliveries were going on, deliveries that indeed took place as was proven recently by these 'self-hating British divers'.

We know that the German government discontinued its Atlantic U-boat campaign later in 1915, and that tension between America and Germany decreased markedly as a result. We know that the Zimmerman telegram re-inflamed these tensions, as it contained an outright declaration that Germany was resuming unrestricted submarine warfare; there had been sinkings of American ships, one in a surprise attack, in the early months of 1917, and the official stamp conferred by the Zimmerman telegram removed any hope that Germany could pretend that these were accidents or aberrations. And, finally, the Zimmerman telegram made it clear that Germany had hostile intentions towards the United States homeland, and was prepared to assist a third party in actual invasion of US territory.

According to wikipedia this was the content:

FROM 2nd from London # 5747. "We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN..

Little complication: this telegram was intercepted by the British who were so kind to unselfishly hand over this telegram to the Americans. There always was suspiscion about it's authenticity. But let's assume it is genuine...

It is obvious that the intent of the Germans is defensive and not hostile towards the US. The deliveries (not just arms) by the US to Britain were threatening the Germans to loose the war, so they had to do something.

Regarding the Mexican question: the proposal was that Mexico would join Germany to go to war in case the US would declare war against Germany. So what? Germany was collecting allies just in case a war broke out. And I believe that the Mexican government did not take the offer seriously.

The final act was Zimmerman's public admission that the document was genuine. Once its authenticity was beyond doubt, American public opinion was solidly in favour of war.

Sure, after having been whipped up into this mood. But the American population does not make policy, that's the (Jew) controlled government who does that. And they wanted this war.

Because of Balfour. The ships and telegram were used to sell the war to the American population.

Again not even Churchill used this lame argument to explain the US war entry. It was irrational.

 

[dudalb]

I have also read that the Jews caused World War One in hopes of destroying Czarist Russia, which meant they should have supported the Central Powers.
Can't you freaking Anti Semites make up your minds?

 

[TSR]

Initially I indeed assumed that there was a direct causal relationship between the sinking and the war entry but I realized as early as in post #343 that that was not the case.

.
Which is why you immediately withdrew the assertion.



No, wait...
.

But it is very likely that the German government had reason to suspect that arms deliveries were going on, deliveries that indeed took place as was proven recently by these 'self-hating British divers'.

.
Going on using passenger ships?

Why do you pretend there was any such reason *at the time*?
.

There always was suspiscion about it's authenticity.

.
... right up until the time that Zimmerman confirmed that it was true...
.

It is obvious that the intent of the Germans is defensive and not hostile towards the US. The deliveries (not just arms) by the US to Britain were threatening the Germans to loose the war, so they had to do something.

.
Because a cease fire and opening negotiations for a permanent end to hostilities simply *wouldn't* do.
.

Sure, after having been whipped up into this mood. But the American population does not make policy, that's the (Jew) controlled government who does that. And they wanted this war.

.
Your white sheet is showing.
.

 

[ddt]

I don't think he was wrong in his analysis. It's noted that the UK's supplies of wheat, for instance, shrank to 6 weeks worth. However, the U-Boat campaign wasn't successful for long enough, and the Royal Navy finally introduced convoys in May/June, ensuring that the amount of shipping lost fell drastically, never rising above 400,000 tonnes lost after August 1917. Furthermore, the Germans couldn't replace the loss of U-Boats and their experienced crews quick enough.

The UK came close to being knocked out the war, but close isn't good enough.

Your answer, though, points out one quantitative error in his analysis and two qualitative.

1) The U-boat campaign did achieve the objective of 600,000 tonnes/month for 6 months, but didn't achieve in knocking out the UK; so Holtzendorff's calculations were too optimistic. Or did the UK shift usage of available tonnage to the most urgently needed materials (such as wheat)?

2) He didn't take into account that the UK could go back to convoying. Had the UK done that earlier, the losses would have dropped earlier.

3) He didn't take into account replacement of the inevitable losses in U-boats and crews.

 

[Thunder]

The bigotry in 9-11 Investigator's posts really do make debating him on political and historical issues, kinda useless and pointless.....huh?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You will be surprised to learn that Buchanan does not mention the Zimmermann telegram anywhere in his latest book.

Probably not that big an issue.

Or possibly he doesn't mention it because he's an incompetent historian or a liar who's deliberately ignoring any evidence that doesn't agree with his idealogy. It's universally acknowledged by competent historians that the Zimmerman Telegram was an important factor in America's declaration of war on Germany; indeed, only an idiot could deny its significance. If Buchanan doesn't even mention it, that's not a reflection on the significance of the Zimmerman Telegram; it's a reflection on either the competence or the honesty of Buchanan.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Little complication: this telegram was intercepted by the British who were so kind to unselfishly hand over this telegram to the Americans. There always was suspiscion about it's authenticity.

And there we see that, when you don't like the evidence, you try to cast suspicion on it by any means. But there is, in fact, absolutely no grounds for suspicion about its authenticity:

However, first on March 3, 1917 and later on March 29, 1917, Arthur Zimmermann is quoted as saying "I cannot deny it. It is true."

Since you've read this article, I can only conclude that you're lying when you say "there always was suspicion..."; there was no such suspicion after March 1917.

It is obvious that the intent of the Germans is defensive and not hostile towards the US. The deliveries (not just arms) by the US to Britain were threatening the Germans to loose the war, so they had to do something.

They were losing the war because the Allies were beating them on land and sea, and being beaten at sea means you can't exercise sea control or denial, and your enemy is the only one who gets supplies from overseas; that's one way wars are won. Germany was limited by international law as to what they were allowed to do. They chose to ignore international law, and to kill American citizens in deliberate surprise attacks, which they were doing prior to the declaration of war; look up the attack on the SS California, an American ship sunk by surprise torpedo attack. If you don't see that as hostile intent, it's hard to imagine what you would see as hostile intent.

Oh yes, I forgot: in your world, being Jewish is the only admissible proof of hostile intent.

Sure, after having been whipped up into this mood. But the American population does not make policy, that's the (Jew) controlled government who does that. And they wanted this war.

Assumes your conclusion. America is a democracy; the whole point of a democracy is that public opinion dictates government policy.

The bottom line is that the German U-boat campaign against American civilians was a prima facie legitimate cause for a declaration of war, and the Zimmerman Telegram proved beyond doubt that it was official policy of the German government. Nobody's fooled by you sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear that.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...
To be honoust, the actions of the Japanese before Pearl Harbor had escaped my perfidious Euro-centric mindset for a moment...

Genocides in general have a strange way of escaping your attention, haven't they?

 

[Oystein]

I assume the correct answer is "the Jews" and that 9/11's hero, Hitler, was totally innocent.

The Jewish Armed Forces had been upgrading their weaponry for 1900 years going and had fully mobilized left and right of every major European border, after they had successfully fooled Japan into devestating China.
The Jewish declaration of war on ... urrr ... everybody was immediately followed by the 1st, 2nd and 4th armoured divisions of the Jewish army ransacking innocent German village and breaking radios.

I'll release the book in short while, if your interested...

 

[Oystein]

...
Far more interesting is how WW1 ended, how America came involved, Versailles, etc. This is where the real controversy will emerge, I predict.

Not really. WW1 ended in the old 19th century fashion: A conference is called, winners take all, losers eat dirt. Fines are demanded.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Or possibly he doesn't mention it because he's an incompetent historian or a liar who's deliberately ignoring any evidence that doesn't agree with his idealogy. It's universally acknowledged by competent historians that the Zimmerman Telegram was an important factor in America's declaration of war on Germany; indeed, only an idiot could deny its significance. If Buchanan doesn't even mention it, that's not a reflection on the significance of the Zimmerman Telegram; it's a reflection on either the competence or the honesty of Buchanan.

Dave

Buchanan merely quotes Churchill who basically says that he does not understand why the US joined the war.

Dave, of course could go so far as to rank Churchill as well as an "incompetent historian or a liar who's deliberately ignoring any evidence that doesn't agree with his idealogy". He has to.

But he won't.

Now Dave has a problem.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I was going to ask what all this ruckus was about after 12 pages, but then I scanned the OP and the last entry.

That's all I need.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Genocides in general have a strange way of escaping your attention, haven't they?

You must have missed the holocaust thread kindly named after me. I am open to listen to horror stories as told by my Anglo friends here. Not convinced so far.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Buchanan merely quotes Churchill who basically says that he does not understand why the US joined the war.

Let's see the quote, and maybe I can explain to you what it really means.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

And there we see that, when you don't like the evidence, you try to cast suspicion on it by any means. But there is, in fact, absolutely no grounds for suspicion about its authenticity:

Since you've read this article, I can only conclude that you're lying when you say "there always was suspicion..."; there was no such suspicion after March 1917.

If the British government (war party) is intercepting such a telegram than there is always ground for suspicion. The BG was anticipating suspicion itself!

They were losing the war because the Allies were beating them on land and sea, and being beaten at sea means you can't exercise sea control or denial, and your enemy is the only one who gets supplies from overseas; that's one way wars are won. Germany was limited by international law as to what they were allowed to do. They chose to ignore international law, and to kill American citizens in deliberate surprise attacks, which they were doing prior to the declaration of war; look up the attack on the SS California, an American ship sunk by surprise torpedo attack. If you don't see that as hostile intent, it's hard to imagine what you would see as hostile intent.

Now you are undermining yourself your ridiculous idea that Germany, apart from fighting Britain, France and Russia on 2 fronts were looking for a fight with the US as well. The telegram, if genuine (it probably was), was a desperate attempt to gain a (worthless) ally in the event that the US would declare war on Germany. It backfired on Germany because it could be used by the US gov to gain popular support, but it was never reason for the US gov to declare war on Germany. You should stick with your German torpedos if you want to fight the real reason why the US went to war: the AIPAC of those days.

Oh yes, I forgot: in your world, being Jewish is the only admissible proof of hostile intent.

Are you Jewish as well?

Assumes your conclusion. America is a democracy; the whole point of a democracy is that public opinion dictates government policy.

This remark is so uterly ridiculous. Democracy is a system where the population once in 4 years can choose some hand picked candidate. It has zero influence on political decisions. The great majority of the American electorate (including most blacks!) want a halt to immigration. The Arizona government tries to impose limitations. Nevertheless Jewish run Washington fights this decision. The hell with your 'Democracy in America'.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Let's see the quote, and maybe I can explain to you what it really means.

Dave

Are you reading my posts at all?

#435

 

[9/11-investigator]

Another nice indication that the Americans were used by the British:

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A dispatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. 1,200 lives were lost, including 128 Americans. It took 60 years for the truth about its cargo to be confirmed; that it had carried munitions which exploded when the torpedo hit. But Secretary of State Bryan remarked to his wife, "I wonder if that ship carried munitions of war... . If she did carry them, it puts a different face on the whole matter! England has been using our citizens to protect her ammunition."

From this I tentatively conclude that the US gov was not involved in these war material deliveries, but that the British government was behind it, buying arms from private American arms manifacturers and loaded it onto the Lusitania in crates marked as 'cheese' or somethng similar.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you reading my posts at all?

#435

OK. Churchill's post doesn't say he didn't understand why America entered the war when it did. It just says that he could see reasons for them not to. Buchanan is misrepresenting that quote, as I'd expect of him.

I'll leave it to loathsome racist scum to decide if it's relevant to anything whether I am or am not Jewish.

Dave