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

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,493
Likes
2,795
I detect a weaselling of words.

Let me be explicit: President Wilson's note of 23 October 1918 (over the signature of the Secreary of State) is well-known, and — if not — can be read here.

At no point in it do I see any stated demand for the Kaiser's abdication. As I said in my earlier post, the demand is (and this is the longer extract):
It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the Empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the Empire is unimpaired; that the determinating initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that 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.
Clouding the issue with Article 227 of the Treaty of Versailles is an irrelevance. It was a futile gesture (aimed, I'd imagine, at the French and Belgians, in the hope of ameliorating their excessive demands) to put William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor on trial. Note the post-eventum acceptance of the abdication. The Dutch weren't going to accede to the Allied request, and that was generally expected and understood.

Any parallels with the Instrument of Japanese Surrender (2 September 1945) is bizarre.
Since you continue your tone deaf obtuse policy of ignoring your own references sources and links I have highlighted the evidence above already provided by yourself that you keep shouting and screaming for.

It is quite clear that these words to the German representatives mean :Get rid of the Kaiser or we won’t talk to you..

From your post again “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.“

There is little point in maintaining any discussion with a poster like you until you learn to understand the meaning of plain English
 

Sham Fox

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
2,736
Likes
3,213
Location
Clare/Leitrim/Mayo/Donegal/Dublin/Tipp
Since you continue your tone deaf obtuse policy of ignoring your own references sources and links I have highlighted the evidence above already provided by yourself that you keep shouting and screaming for.

It is quite clear that these words to the German representatives mean :Get rid of the Kaiser or we won’t talk to you..

From your post again “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.“

There is little point in maintaining any discussion with a poster like you until you learn to understand the meaning of plain English
I think he was an english teacher, believe it or not.
 

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,391
Likes
2,859
Since you continue your tone deaf obtuse policy of ignoring your own references sources and links I have highlighted the evidence above already provided by yourself that you keep shouting and screaming for.

It is quite clear that these words to the German representatives mean :Get rid of the Kaiser or we won’t talk to you..

From your post again “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.“

There is little point in maintaining any discussion with a poster like you until you learn to understand the meaning of plain English
Since America's entrance into the struggle, the president has been unswerving in his determination to sweep the kaiser from the throne.
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
81
From your post again “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.“

There is little point in maintaining any discussion with a poster like you until you learn to understand the meaning of plain English
It isn't 'my' post quoted there. It is a formal message, dated 23 October, from the US Secretary of State, on behalf of his President, which makes no — repeat, no — explicit comment on the status of Willhelm II Hohenzollern.

For that, we could go back as far as Wilson's statement of 4 July 1918, which affirmed the US intent for:
the destruction of every arbitrary power everywhere [which could] separately, secretly and of its own single choice disturb the peace of the world. The power which has hitherto controlled the German Nation is of the sort here described. [Source: Lutz, vol 2, page 397]​
The kindness of my heart offers you that. It is more clearly a demand for the dethroning of the Kaiser than anything in the October exchanges. Useful activity, 'fluttering over books': wise to do so in formulating arguments.

Even by mid-1918 (and the time of that statement) the Kaiser had lost his power and control of the military — that was already evident in the negotiations over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. However calculated, his power leached away over many months. By October 1918 Wilhelm was little more than a by-stander — though one that Hindenberg, Ludendorff and the others in the military were regularly inveigling in their different feudings.

Nor has any one referred to Prince Max, addressing the Reichstag on 5 October 1918, outlining his aims in government. One declaration was that the Chancellor should serve at the will of the Reichstag — no longer of the Kaiser. There would be speedy electoral reform. The stage of siege (which amounted to a form of martial law) was lifted. He saying he was communicating to Wilson, asking for 'a speedy and honourable peace of justice and reconciliation'.

It seems, at least to me, eminently reasonable for Lansing, on behalf of Wilson, to enquire what the heck was now the state of government in Germany.

On 22 October Prince Max convened the Reichstag to announce a series of constitutional amendments. These included the sole power to make war or peace would lie with the Reichstag, and the officers of the Army would be appointed by a Minister responsible to the Reichstag.

The Kaiser was now no more than a constitutional figurehead, and for Max and others increasingly an inconvenient one. There, more than anything from the US State Department, is from whence came the pressure for abdication.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,493
Likes
2,795
I think he was an english teacher, believe it or not.
It isn't 'my' post quoted there. It is a formal message, dated 23 October, from the US Secretary of State, on behalf of his President, which makes no — repeat, no — explicit comment on the status of Willhelm II Hohenzollern.

For that, we could go back as far as Wilson's statement of 4 July 1918, which affirmed the US intent for:
the destruction of every arbitrary power everywhere [which could] separately, secretly and of its own single choice disturb the p[eace of the world. The power which has hitherto controlled the German Nation is of the sort here described. [Source: Lutz, vol 2, page 397]​
The kindness of my heart offers you that. It is more clearly a demand for the dethroning of the Kaiser than anything in the October exchanges. Useful activity, 'fluttering over books': wise to do so in formulating arguments.

Even by mid-1918 (and the time of that statement) the Kaiser had lost his power and control of the military — that was already evident in the negotiations over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. However calculated, his power leached away over many months. By October 1918 Wilhelm was little more than a by-stander — though one that Hindenberg, Ludendorff and the others in the military were regularly inveigling in their different feudings.

Nor has any one referred to Prince Max, addressing the Reichstag on 5 October 1918, outlining his aims in government. One declaration was that the Chancellor should serve at the will of the Reichstag — no longer of the Kaiser. There would be speedy electoral reform. The stage of siege (which amounted to a form of martial law) was lifted. He saying the was communicating to Wilson, asking for 'a speedy and honourable peace of justice and reconciliation'.

It seems, at least to me, eminently reasonable for Lansing, on behalf of Wilson, to enquire what the heck was now the state of government in Germany.

On 22 October Prince Max convened the Reichstag to announce a series of constitutional amendments. These included the sole power to make war or peace would lie with the Reichstag, and the officers of the Army would be appointed by a Minister responsible to the Reichstag.

The Kaiser was now no more than a constitutional figurehead, and for Max and others increasingly an inconvenient one. There, more than anything from the US State Department, is from whence came the pressure for abdication.
You are nit picking once again.
It was your post referencing an official message to German representatives from the American govt, it clearly implied no talks until the Kaiser goes.

That formal message was sent with Wilsons imprimatur.

But you don,t understand political diplomacy either as is now patently evident.

TBH you are getting tiresome and my having to explain your posts back to you will no longer occur.
 

Karloff

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,101
Likes
1,524
Strange this snippet from an article i read today...


In an attempt to drum up support, Turkey’s president last week condemned Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Israeli control over the Golan heights, but this proved a spectacular own goal by convincing foreign investors that Ankara was on a collision course with Washington. The lira plunged.
I don't understand how a comment about the Golan could scare investors from Turkey and spark a crisis in their currency. Everyone knows that the idea that the Jews control international finance and use it as a weapon is just an antisemitic trope, right?
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
81
TBH you are getting tiresome and my having to explain your posts back to you will no longer occur.
Well, please don't bother. The Field Marshal's 'explaining' amounts to recycling what I offer, and then attempting to make it mean the very opposite.

Were he looking for serious points to use in his refutations, he could try Toose, pages 224-225. Oh, look! I'm doing it again! Pointing up a weakness in my own argument! After all, here is Toose:
On 14 October in his response to Max von Baden's second armistice note, the President demanded proof that germany was really on the road to democracy. The implication was clear: the Kaiser must go.
To which, of course, I would respond: ah, yes! 'implication', but no explicit demand! Refer back to post #319, and find The Field Marshal agreeing with that interpretation:
In late October, Wilson's third note seemed to imply that negotiations of an armistice would be dependent on the abdication of Wilhelm II
Pity he didn't stick with such a reasonable view: it would have spared us outbursts of intemperate abuse.

The Field Marshal doesn't believe in using texts, sources: that's 'fluttering over books'. Bald assertion is so much more convincing.

Had The Field Marshal come across Toose, he would also see him continuing:
Once again Wilson's concern was as much for public opinion at home as for any real change in Germany. He needed to appear both forceful and liberal at the same time. But as far as London and Paris were concerned, this too was a serious misstep: In Germany, making democratization a condition of peace was bound to have a counter-productive effect; the advocates of reform would look like puppets of the enemy. The European Allies were right.
Sorry about the American spelling there: it wouldn't be my choice. And — no — I don't understand Toose's use of the colon + initial capital. I just have to work with what I'm given.

Far be it from me to argue with a Yale Professor. Were I to do so, I'd be wondering about 'democratisation' in 1918. In the UK the recent Representation of the People Act had tripled the electoral base, but was still a long way from universal (the restriction of female emancipation, the multiple votes of 7% of the electors). In the US the 19th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1920. In France female suffrage didn't happen until 1945, in Belgium and Italy until 1946. All that makes the German constitution of 1919 look progressive.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,493
Likes
2,795
Well, please don't bother. The Field Marshal's 'explaining' amounts to recycling what I offer, and then attempting to make it mean the very opposite.

Were he looking for serious points to use in his refutations, he could try Toose, pages 224-225. Oh, look! I'm doing it again! Pointing up a weakness in my own argument! After all, here is Toose:
On 14 October in his response to Max von Baden's second armistice note, the President demanded proof that germany was really on the road to democracy. The implication was clear: the Kaiser must go.
To which, of course, I would respond: ah, yes! 'implication', but no explicit demand! Refer back to post #319, and find The Field Marshal agreeing with that interpretation:
In late October, Wilson's third note seemed to imply that negotiations of an armistice would be dependent on the abdication of Wilhelm II
Pity he didn't stick with such a reasonable view: it would have spared us outbursts of intemperate abuse.

The Field Marshal doesn't believe in using texts, sources: that's 'fluttering over books'. Bald assertion is so much more convincing.

Had The Field Marshal come across Toose, he would also see him continuing:
Once again Wilson's concern was as much for public opinion at home as for any real change in Germany. He needed to appear both forceful and liberal at the same time. But as far as London and Paris were concerned, this too was a serious misstep: In Germany, making democratization a condition of peace was bound to have a counter-productive effect; the advocates of reform would look like puppets of the enemy. The European Allies were right.
Sorry about the American spelling there: it wouldn't be my choice. And — no — I don't understand Toose's use of the colon + initial capital. I just have to work with what I'm given.

Far be it from me to argue with a Yale Professor. Were I to do so, I'd be wondering about 'democratisation' in 1918. In the UK the recent Representation of the People Act had tripled the electoral base, but was still a long way from universal (the restriction of female emancipation, the multiple votes of 7% of the electors). In the US the 19th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1920. In France female suffrage didn't happen until 1945, in Belgium and Italy until 1946. All that makes the German constitution of 1919 look progressive.
You have been told what you have been told and it has not yet sunk in.
Having already provided the proof yourself ,you then howled for days seeking this proof that the USA demanded the Kaiser go.

You utterly fail to understand that when a govt uses the phrase " can not meet untill X conditions are fulfilled " that is in effect a demand

Now when all thats demonstrated to you, you seek refuge in upside down filibustering.

Have a look at this cartoon.
You are the misfortunate Coyote resorting to increasingly elaborate tricks that always backfire on him..
Meep Meep.

 
Last edited:

Nebuchadnezzar

PI Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
212
Likes
46
It seems to me that the Kaiser’s abdication was driven by internal german forces rather than being due to Wilson’s dislike of autocracy. A question for those who insist it was due to Wilson....if this was a American fundamental requirement for a peace agreement why is there no mention of the Kaiser or indeed the form of government in Germany in Wilson’s Fourteen Points statement of principles for peace of Jan 1918?

 

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,391
Likes
2,859
 

Dublin 4

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
26,338
Likes
18,822
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #348
 
Top Bottom