I am generally, but not absolutely opposed to censorship.
Nobody is absolutely opposed to censorship, no matter what they say. The
question is where one draws the line.
I draw the line at someone referring to the Nazi war against
the Jews, so-called "gypsies", the Russian people, Slavic people in general, as
well as the other victims---totalling tens of millions of civilians killed by
the Nazis------referring to that as "Hitler's excesses". (see Leonard's original
post below). It should make other members of the WSN list uneasy that this type
of posting appears on a list with which we are all associated.
I write this as someone who is absolutely opposed to the US
government and the Israeli government's murderous wars against Arab people and
who has publicly stated so to thousands of people, (and with, of course, the
understanding that terrorist attacks against civilians, including Jewish
civilians in Israel is also inexcusable).
Alan Spector
===================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:42 PM
Subject: Anglo-German competition for Zionist support in
WWI
> On the general subject of
us-uk vs. europe or an anglo-american axis
> dominating the continentals
(and rest of world), and following on the
> verification done on this list
re the Julius Caesar quote, could anyone
> authenticate the excerpt "David
Lloyd George, Memoirs" below,
> which is now circulating on the
net?
>
> its burden is to show that in the closely matched struggle
of WWI,
> key jewish support was bartered for palestine to the first
bidder
>
> also is it true that David Lloyd George was hired as
legal counsel for the
> World Zionist Organization starting in
1906?
>
> sorry to bother you but i'm a long way from the nearest
research library!
> and we want to refer to the source below in a pending
publication
>
> [i intend to use this source to show, among other
things, that Germany
> really was stabbed in the back. not to justify
hitler's excesses of course;
> i have other sources
that show he was sponsored indirectly by the same
> american financial
"elite" that sponsored the bolsheviks.
> Some sources are footnoted at
http://www.petitiononline.com/stoputsh/
>
> A related unverified allegation is that Clemenceau, who pushed for
the
> mad peace treaty of Versailles, was a British agent. Any feedback
on
> that would be welcome too.
>
> what i am going to try to
show is that an anglo-american cabal more or less
> planned the calamities
known as the first half of the 2oth century, both for
> private profit and
as a continuation of the strategy of divide and conquer,
> called by them
the balance of power.
>
> I feel this is very topical now that only
the us-uk axis supports an
> unprovoked attack to grab the iraqi oil
fields, and it should be addressed
> to avoid more of the same calamities
recurring in the 21st century]
>
> ---------------
>
>
David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, New
>
Haven, Yale University Press 1939; (ch. XXIII).
> {p. 722} The next factor
which produced a momentous change was the
> decision to come to terms with
Jewry, which was clamouring for an
> opportunity to make Canaan once more
the homeland of their race. There
> are more Irishmen living outside
Ireland than dwell in the old country.
> Still, Ireland is the homeland of
the Irish people. No one imagined that
> the 14,000,000 of Jews scattered
over the globe could find room and a
> living in Palestine. Nevertheless
this race of wanderers sought a
> national hearth and a refuge for the
hunted children of Israel in the
> country which the splendour of their
spiritual genius has made forever
> glorious.
> It seems strange to
say that the Germans were the first to realise the
> war value of the Jews
of the dispersal. In Poland it was they who helped
> the German Army to
conquer the Czarist oppressor who had so cruelly
> persecuted their race.
They had their influence in other lands - notably
> in America, where some
of their most powerful leaders exerted a
> retarding influence on
President Wilson's impulses in the direction of
> the Allies. {ed. -
before the Balfour Declaration} The German General
> Staff in 1916 urged
the Turks to concede the demands of the Zionists in
> respect of
Palestine. Fortunately the Turk was too stupid to understand
> or too
sluggish to move. The fact that Britain at last opened her eyes
> to the
opportunity afforded to the Allies to rally this powerful people
> to
their side was attributable to the initiative, the assiduity and the
>
fervour of one of the greatest Hebrews of all time: Dr. Chaim Weizmann.
>
He found his opportunity in this War of Nations to advance the cause to
>
which he had consecrated his life. ...
> {p. 723} Propaganda on both sides
probably played a greater part in the
> last war than in any other. As an
illustration I might take the public
> declarations we made of the Allied
intention to liberate and confer
> self-government on nationalities inside
the enemy Empires, - Turkey,
> Germany, and Austria. These announcements
were intended to have a
> propagandist effect, not only at home, but also
in neutral countries and
> perhaps most of all in enemy countries.
...
> {p. 724} The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of
all
> parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it
in
> 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons. I should
like
> once more to remind the British public, who may be hesitating about
the
> burdens of our Zionist Declaration to-day, of the actual war
position at
> the time of that Declaration. We are now looking at the War
through the
> dazzling glow of a triumphant end, but in 1917 the issue of
the War was
> still very much in doubt. We were convinced - but not all of
us - that
> we would pull through victoriously, but the Germans were
equally
> persuaded that victory would rest on their banners, and they had
much
> reason for coming to that conclusion. They had smashed the
Roumanians.
> The Russian Army was completely demoralised by its numerous
defeats. The
> French Army was exhausted and temporarily unequal to
striking a great
> blow. The Italians had sustained a shattering defeat at
Caporetto. The
> unlimited submarine campaign had sunk millions of tons of
our shipping.
> There were no American divisions at the front, and when I
say at the
> front, I mean available in the trenches. For the Allies there
were two
> paramount problems at that time. The first was that the Central
Powers
> should be broken by the blockade before our supplies of food
and
> essential raw material were cut off by sinkings of our own ships.
The
> other was that the war preparations in the United States should
be
> speeded up to such an extent as to enable the Allies to be
adequately
> reinforced in the critical campaign of 1918 by American
troops. In the
> solution of these two problems, public opinion in Russia
and America
> played a great part, and we had every reason at that time to
believe
> that in both countries the friendliness or hostility of the
Jewish race
> might make a considerable difference. ...
> {p. 725}
The support of the Zionists for the cause of the Entente would
> mean a
great deal as a war measure. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies
> were to a
great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the
> Central
Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that
> immediate
and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian
> persecution of
the Jewish race. In addition to this, the German General
> Staff, with
their wide outlook on possibilities, urged, early in 1916,
> the
advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an
>
arrangement
> {p. 726} to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a
German
> guarantee. The practical difficulties were considerable; the
subject was
> perhaps dangerous to German relations with Turkey; and the
German
> Government acted cautiously. But the scheme was by no means
rejected or
> even shelved, and at any moment the Allies might have been
forestalled
> in offering this supreme bid. In fact in September, 1917,
the German
> Government were making very serious efforts to capture the
Zionist
> Movement.
> Another most cogent reason for the adoption by
the Allies of the policy
> of the declaration lay in the state of Russia
herself. Russian Jews had
> been secretly active on behalf of the Central
Powers from the first;
> they had become the chief agents of German
pacifist propaganda in
> Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing
for that general
> disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as
the Revolution.
> It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the
fulfilment of
> Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one
effect would
> be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the
Entente.
> It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a
potent
> influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the
Entente
> the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in
this
> respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost
exhausted
> the gold and marketable securities available for American
purchases.
> Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled
the British
> Government towards making a contract with Jewry.
> Men
like Mr. Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Robert Cecil, and myself were in
>
whole-hearted sympathy with the Zionist ideal. The same thing applied to
>
all the leaders of public opinion in our country and in the Dominions,
>
Conservative, Liberal, and Labour. There were only one or two who were
>
not so favourably inclined to the policy.
> ==
> posted to frameup@yahoogroups.com by Dick Eastman
>