Re: Anglo-German competition for Zionist support in WWI

I know of few people who are doing more right now to prevent FUTURE 
genocides than John Leonard. If you think he should have used the word 
"atrocities" instead of "excesses," that's certainly a defensible opinion. 
But to suggest that John is engaging in apologetics by using a milder word 
than you would have preferred is simple absurdity.

Buddy Grizzard
Press Secretary, Garrett for Governor, Georgia Green Party





----Original Message Follows----
From: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Anglo-German competition for Zionist support in WWI
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:52:29 -0500

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 -----
From: "John Leonard" <leonardjp@earthlink.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
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
 >


_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp