Hot Jews declare War on Germany- March 1933, in 1961- Former Jew Predicts WW3 with Arabs

Nebuchadnezzar

PI Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
212
Likes
46
Had the Kaiser been left as titular head of state then Adolf Hitler would never have come to power.

The Americans realised their monumental ignorant blunder of WW1 when in WW2 they left war criminal Emperor Hirohito in power after the war.
This ensured political stability and continues to do so in Japan..
Who is defending the Versailles Treaty? Hitler’s power was based on grievance and hate. He led his country and people into an utter dead end.

You take a kernel of truth and build a temple upon it. The way to address the unfairness of the Treaty was via negotiation with other european democracies.... the provisions of the Treaty were already being relaxed during the 1920s.

Your position is standard Nazis Big Lie argument .... the narrative of an innocent, besieged Germany striking back at an "international Jewry", which ‘started World War I’. That propaganda repeating the claim that a conspiracy of Jews was the real power in Britain, Russia and the United States .......that the Jews had begun a war of extermination against Germany, and so Germany had a duty and a right to "exterminate" and "annihilate" the Jews in self-defense.

Standard Nazi bullshit that Nazi war was just defensive action and that there was no alternative.
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
81
There is no weaseling of words at all

It is quite clear that the highly arrogent Wilson is saying the Kaiser must go or otherwise the USA will not deal with German represntatives.

The phrase in the link provided by you ie "in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
permits of no other construction.

Thank you for verifying that the USA insisted on the Kaisers abdication.
An insistence that paved the way for Adolf Hitlers takeover.
He doesn't get it. He doesn't get it at all.

Wilson didn't and couldn't attack the concept of monarchy. That wouldn't have washed with key allies: Britain (with the King-Emperor George V 'Windsor'), Belgium (Albert I, another Saxe-Coburg Gotha), Italy (Victor Emmanuel III di Savoie), Japan (Emperor Taishō).
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,516
Likes
2,815
He doesn't get it. He doesn't get it at all.

Wilson didn't and couldn't attack the concept of monarchy. That wouldn't have washed with key allies: Britain (with the King-Emperor George V 'Windsor'), Belgium (Albert I, another Saxe-Coburg Gotha), Italy (Victor Emmanuel III di Savoie), Japan (Emperor Taishō).
YOU dont get it.
Wilson was insisting the german state get rid of the kaiser before the USA would enter talks..

DO YOU UNDERSTAND GET RID OF?

here are the words of Wilson posted by yourself.

"in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."

These words mean unequivocally get rid of the kaiser.
 
Last edited:

Irelandfortheirish

PI Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
243
Likes
317
Yup you are an apologist for Hitler and the Nazis. Yup as an apologist you are a fellow traveler with Holocaust Deniers and assorted odd ball counter narrative pushers. Yup you repeatedly insist that the Jews declared war on Germany on the basis of a single newspaper headline and in the face of others pointing out to you that there is no basis for the claim.

According to your perverse ‘history’ Poland and the UK are responsible for WW2, the Jews are responsible for their own destruction because they initiated war against Germany, and now some other shyte about the Wall Street Crash being part of a deliberate plan(by the Jews no doubt?) to destroy the Weimar Republic.

You posted some mad and nasty crap on P.ie but you’re surpassing yourself here.

YUP.

Jews control all the media banks and have all Western governments in their pockets and their plan of white genocide is going to plan.

Shows to me your the one posing the crap but a pat on the head for you that's a good Goyim.
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
81
YOU dont get it.
So give chapter and verse. Your postings are astoundingly light on reference, quotation or citation.
Wilson was insisting the german state get rid of the kaiser before the USA would enter talks.
You have no evidence at all for that.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND GET RID OF?
Yes.

Do you understand Wilson's very moderate demands of Germany? —
We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this programme that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, — the new world in which we now live, — instead of a place of mastery.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

PI Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
212
Likes
46
Jews control all the media banks and have all Western governments in their pockets and their plan of white genocide is going to plan.

Shows to me your the one posing the crap but a pat on the head for you that's a good Goyim.
A supposed Irish patriot spouting Anglo Saxon WASP white genocide spew...Know Nothing semi literate fool.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,516
Likes
2,815
So give chapter and verse. Your postings are astoundingly light on reference, quotation or citation.

You have no evidence at all for that.

Yes.

Do you understand Wilson's very moderate demands of Germany? —
We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this programme that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, — the new world in which we now live, — instead of a place of mastery.
Is there something seriously wrong with you?
Really.

You yourself provided the evidence at post 323 where the profoundly arrogant President Wilson made it clear to the German representatives that the Kaiser had to go or otherwise the Americans would not talk to them.

The words are in blue. And the last 3 lines of the paragraph you attribute to Wilson
And they read as follows ( my third time quoting this matter to you)[ Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany.
The above in blue is the evidence you ask for as it clearly shows the Americans demanding the Kaiser to go.​
(If English is not your first language let us know.)​
As this is my third time posting back to you the evidence, evidence you yourself provided, then you must be quite quite OBTUSE in failing completely to understand what has been said.​
 

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,398
Likes
2,863
In a telegram from United States President Woodrow Wilson to the German Government during the pre-Armistice negotiations it became clear that a peace to end the war could not be achieved without the abdication of the Kaiser. The monarch’s support crumbled among his officials as they came to understand that his abdication was the only way to end the international conflict

The Allies demand Germany's unconditional surrender and the Kaiser's abdication.

Since America's entrance into the struggle, the president has been unswerving in his determination to sweep the kaiser from the throne. By open diplomacy, first directed at the German people, and later bluntly to the German government itself, the president has declared that the Hohenzollerns and all they represented were the greatest obstacles in the path of peace.
 
Last edited:

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
81
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
I'm not making a discussion about historical accuracy into a frenzy of abuse over semantics.

I'm still not convinced that anywhere we have seen definitive evidence that President Wilson said the Kaiser must abdicate.

parentheses (post #334) makes as good a fist as any, to show that others interpreted Wilson to derive that meaning. He has an undergraduate essay (and another decent one) to support that point. So let's consider Ms LeBlanc's worthy piece. From page 6 here is the nub of the matter:
Though the Americans had alluded to the necessity of the Kaiser’s abdication in their previous note, the “abdication crisis” truly began on October 23, when it was made clear by Wilson in a third note that peace could not be attained without the abdication of the Kaiser.
That essay uses the same material as I summarised in post #312, and there refers to the State Department's note of 23 October, which I cited at length in post #323.

Ms LeBlanc releases felines from her reticule when she footnotes that to Graf Ferdinand Czernin von und zu Chudenitz. Ottokar Czernin was an Austro-Hungarian diplomat (later a Czech), the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister from 23 December 1916 until he was dismissed on 14 April 1918 over the Sixtus Affair. So, an observer at Versailles, an ex-functionary.

That footnote reads:
As Czernin writes, “Short of saying in so many words that ‘the Kaiser must abdicate before we will sign an armistice,” Wilson’s note could not have been more explicit” (Czernin, 9).
Or, as Jack Black, as 'Dewey Finn', says — with appropriate finger gestures — 'Read between the lines'.

All here present, and beyond, are fully entitled to impose personal interpretations on what they read. What isn't acceptable to me is then pass that off as a categorical statement of fact. Wilson did not stipulate the abdication of the Kaiser. Perhaps he didn't need to, for two reasons:
  • the German people were doing that job already;
  • challenging the monarchical principle wouldn't go down well with his Allies (Cf: post #326).
I'd even wonder why not — except a genteel, scholarly, Presbyterian liberal, a couple of generations out of Strabane, would be above such things.

On the other hand, Lloyd George was prepared to get down-in-the-gutter proclaiming 'Hang the Kaiser' for the Khaki election.

Allow me to pursue that a moment more.

The sinking of RMS Lusitania (7 May 1915) give us an illustration. Asquith got stick for being wimpish, and implying that perpetrators acting under orders were immune from retributive punishment. That wasn't the view of the Inquest jury at Kinsale:
... this appalling crime was contrary to international law and the conventions of all civilised nations, and we therefore charge to officers of the said submarine and the Emperor and Government of Germany, under whose orders they acted, with the crime of wilful and wholesale murder before the tribunal of the civilised world’
Once the initial furore passed, cooler heads prevailed — as Hugh Bellot:
To indict a Government is as futile as to indict a nation, and even a Hague Tribunal would hesitate to create another St. Charles the Martyr in the person of William the Second. [page 46]​
In France, as the War drew to a conclusion, so the demands for vengeance intensified. The French Ambassador (11 September 1918) presented Foreign Secretary Balfour with a demand for Reparation for Acts of Devastation by German Army during withdrawal. The British didn't want to go that far, offered the French warm words, but Balfour felt:
suggestions as to actual method should be more precise (War Cabinet minutes, 20 September 1918)​
That plays nicely, except Balfour later added reprisals in the form of aerial bombing of German towns to produce the maximum of terror (Balfour memo: 8 October 1918). The French, though, were on a roll:
Acts so contrary to international law and to the very principle of all human civilisation shall not go unpunished. (French government press statement, 5 October 1918).​
The British Law Officers (FE Smith, star of the prosecution of Roger Casement, and Gordon Hewart) set up a Committee of Enquiry into Breaches of the Law of War. Although this was tasked with considering German responsibility including the German General Staff, or other highly placed individuals, again the Kaiser doesn't appear. When the Committee first met (6 November 1918), FE Smith frothed:
It is certain that in the events that have taken place in the last four and a half years many great crimes against International Law have been committed. This conclusion is not very vigorously disputed even in Germany today. The very origin of the War, the violation of Belgium, will for all time, I think, be remembered in the pages of history as one of the greatest crimes against civilisation. [The Committee was about] fixing and assigning responsibility for specific breaches of International Law in its many branches and departments of the War.
Still no mention of the Kaiser.

On the evening of Armistice Day, Lloyd George hosted a dinner at Downing Street. Sir Henry Wilson (no shrinking violet) recorded in his diary (page 149):
Lloyd George wants to shoot the Kaiser. F.E. agrees. Winston does not.

I trust I have flattered my critics here by taking their arguments as seriously as this. I'd happily accept conclusive proof that Wilson, or 'the Americans', demanded the Kaiser's abdication. I'm always open to new evidence. So far as I can see, that doesn't exist. So, think on:
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night- time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
 
Last edited:

Sham Fox

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
2,753
Likes
3,244
Location
Clare/Leitrim/Mayo/Donegal/Dublin/Tipp
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
I'm not making a discussion about historical accuracy into a frenzy of abuse over semantics.

I'm still not convinced that anywhere we have seen definitive evidence that President Wilson said the Kaiser must abdicate.

parentheses (post #334) makes as good a fist as any, to show that others interpreted Wilson to derive that meaning. He has an undergraduate essay (and another decent one) to support that point. So let's consider Ms LeBlanc's worthy piece. From page 6 here is the nub of the matter:
Though the Americans had alluded to the necessity of the Kaiser’s abdication in their previous note, the “abdication crisis” truly began on October 23, when it was made clear by Wilson in a third note that peace could not be attained without the abdication of the Kaiser.
That essay uses the same material as I summarised in post #312, and there refers to the State Department's note of 23 October, which I cited at length in post #323.

Ms LeBlanc releases felines from her reticule when she footnotes that to Graf Ferdinand Czernin von und zu Chudenitz. Ottokar Czernin was an Austro-Hungarian diplomat (later a Czech), the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister from 23 December 1916 until he was dismissed on 14 April 1918 over the Sixtus Affair. So, an observer at Versailles, an ex-functionary.

That footnote reads:
As Czernin writes, “Short of saying in so many words that ‘the Kaiser must abdicate before we will sign an armistice,” Wilson’s note could not have been more explicit” (Czernin, 9).
Or, as Jack Black, as 'Dewey Finn', says — with appropriate finger gestures — 'Read between the lines'.

All here present, and beyond, are fully entitled to impose personal interpretations on what they read. What isn't acceptable to me is then pass that off as a categorical statement of fact. Wilson did not stipulate the abdication of the Kaiser. Perhaps he didn't need to, for two reasons:
  • the German people were doing that job already;
  • challenging the monarchical principle wouldn't go down well with his Allies (Cf: post #326).
I'd even wonder why not — except a genteel, scholarly, Presbyterian liberal, a couple of generations out of Strabane, would be above such things.

On the other hand, Lloyd George was prepared to get down-in-the-gutter proclaiming 'Hang the Kaiser' for the Khaki election.

Allow me to pursue that a moment more.

The sinking of RMS Lusitania (7 May 1915) give us an illustration. Asquith got stick for being wimpish, and implying that perpetrators acting under orders were immune from retributive punishment. That wasn't the view of the Inquest jury at Kinsale:
... this appalling crime was contrary to international law and the conventions of all civilised nations, and we therefore charge to officers of the said submarine and the Emperor and Government of Germany, under whose orders they acted, with the crime of wilful and wholesale murder before the tribunal of the civilised world’
Once the initial furore passed, cooler heads prevailed — as Hugh Bellot:
To indict a Government is as futile as to indict a nation, and even a Hague Tribunal would hesitate to create another St. Charles the Martyr in the person of William the Second. [page 46]​
In France, as the War drew to a conclusion, so the demands for vengeance intensified. The French Ambassador (11 September 1918) presented Foreign Secretary Balfour with a demand for Reparation for Acts of Devastation by German Army during withdrawal. The British didn't want to go that far, offered the French warm words, but Balfour felt:
suggestions as to actual method should be more precise (War Cabinet minutes, 20 September 1918)​
That plays nicely, except Balfour later added reprisals in the form of aerial bombing of German towns to produce the maximum of terror (Balfour memo: 8 October 1918). The French, though, were on a roll:
Acts so contrary to international law and to the very principle of all human civilisation shall not go unpunished. (French government press statement, 5 October 1918).​
The British Law Officers (FE Smith, star of the prosecution of Roger Casement, and Gordon Hewart) set up a Committee of Enquiry into Breaches of the Law of War. Although this was tasked with considering German responsibility including the German General Staff, or other highly placed individuals, again the Kaiser doesn't appear. When the Committee first met (6 November 1918), FE Smith frothed:
It is certain that in the events that have taken place in the last four and a half years many great crimes against International Law have been committed. This conclusion is not very vigorously disputed even in Germany today. The very origin of the War, the violation of Belgium, will for all time, I think, be remembered in the pages of history as one of the greatest crimes against civilisation. [The Committee was about] fixing and assigning responsibility for specific breaches of International Law in its many branches and departments of the War.
Still no mention of the Kaiser.

On the evening of Armistice Day, Lloyd George hosted a dinner at Downing Street. Sir Henry Wilson (no shrinking violet) recorded in his diary (page 149):
Lloyd George wants to shoot the Kaiser. F.E. agrees. Winston does not.

I trust I have flattered my critics here by taking their arguments as seriously as this. I'd happily accept conclusive proof that Wilson, or 'the Americans', demanded the Kaiser's abdication. I'm always open to new evidence. So far as I can see, that doesn't exist. So, think on:
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night- time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
"I trust I have flattered my critics here by taking their arguments as seriously as this. "

You have flattered nobody here horsebox, especially yourself.
 
Top Bottom