The #WorldWarI #Scam

Mike King vs Egghead Professor
by Mike King

 

 

 

Events



Army recruits filled a street in New York in April 1917 soon after President Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany. Many would be killed and dumped in ditches.

New York Times: Should America Have Entered World War I?
By Michael Kazin

 

REBUTTAL BY

As far as historical accounts go, this particular piece about America's entry in World War I, submitted to Sulzberger's Slimes by Georgetown University History Professor and "noted author" Michael Kazin (cough cough), isn't so bad. Nonetheless, in spite of its relative objectivity, some important elements are missing. The "Editorial Board" of The Anti-New York Times is pleased to add a bit of much-needed muscle to this skeletal narrative. 

The "distinguished" Professor Kazin from Georgetown only gets it half-right. The B-student party-boy from Rutgers gets it 100%. (Yet Kazin rakes in millions of dollars while we have to plead for donations and book sales! (hint-hint) Go figure.

Kazin: In 1917, Congress voted to enter what was then the largest and bloodiest war in history. Four days earlier, President Woodrow Wilson had sought to unite a sharply divided populace with a stirring claim that the nation “is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured.”
Analysis: Nothing wrong with what Kazin wrote in those two sentences, but get a load of Woody Wilson gleefully spewing idiotic platitudes about "America" (meaning him) being "privileged" to "spend the blood" of its young men for the sake of "principles" and "peace." Disgusting.

Kazin: The war lasted only another year and a half, but in that time, an astounding 117,000 American soldiers were killed and 202,000 wounded.
Analysis: Horrible numbers, yet only a fraction of what each of the major European powers lost in that bloodbath. What a tragic waste!

Kazin: Still, most Americans know little about why the United States fought in World War I, or why it mattered...World War I is less easy to explain (than World War II).
Analysis: Actually, Professor Pointyhead, World War I is very easy to explain. Here it is in just 152 words:

*****

The jealous British and French wanted to take out their German economic competitor.

The Russians allied themselves with Britain and France because they wanted to take Constantinople (aka Istanbul) from Turkey.

The Jewish Globalists wanted to restructure the sovereign states and empires of Europe along Communist and/or "democratic" lines -- while the Jewish Zionists (many of whom were also Globalists) wanted to crush the Turkish Empire (which was allied with Germany & Austria-Hungary) so that Palestine could be stolen on their behalf.

Toward those evil ends, the main states of Europe were pitted against each other in a game of mutual destruction in which the sole innocent party was Germany. Under false pretenses, the United States -- under the Jewish-controlled Woodrow Wilson -- was maneuvered into the war on the side of Britain and France, only after the British agreed to steal Palestine from Turkey and allow Jews to start settling there (Balfour Declaration).

*****

Bada bing, bada boom -- done! What was so hard about that?

Kazin: America intervened nearly three years after it began, and the “doughboys,” as our troops were called, engaged in serious combat for only a few months. More Americans in uniform died away from the battlefield — thousands from the Spanish flu — than with weapons in hand.
Analysis: Kazin neglects to mention that the "Spanish"-flu (which actually originated at a US Army base in Kansas) had all the indications of a US-engineered bio-weapon -- one that killed many German / Austro-Hungarian soldiers before getting out of hand and killing as many as 75-100 MILLION people worldwide!

Kazin: After victory was achieved, Wilson’s audacious hope of making a peace that would advance democracy and national self-determination blew up in his face when the Senate refused to ratify the treaty he had signed at the Palace of Versailles.
Analysis: Kazin makes it sound as if Wilson was a well-meaning idealist who screwed things up. In reality, Wilson (a black-mailed puppet of the Big Jews), wasn't out to "advance democracy and self-determination." Those high-sounding platitudes were just bits of bait to lure in starry-eyed suckers. The real plan for the post-war world was to begin the drive towards world government -- a New World Order whose real purpose, ironically, is and has always been to impose a global structure that is very anti-democratic and anti- "national self determination."

"...Occasionally, on a Saturday morning in the summer of 1912, Bernard Baruch would walk into the Democratic Headquarters with Woodrow Wilson in tow, leading him like one would a poodle on a string. Wilson would be quite solemn-faced in appearance....According to my friend Wilson would be given his special "indoctrination course" in politics, by several of the top advisers assembled there. The course consisted chiefly of outlining to him and his agreeing in principle to: Aiding and pushing the projected Federal Reserve Bank Legislation through Congress when Paul Warburg approved the final draft of the opposed Act, then being worked on....(And) if called upon, to lend a sympathetic ear and aid indicated "policy" if war should break out in Europe....Wilson dutifully received and absorbed his indoctrination, shook hands all around, and then departed...."
-- From: FDR: My Explited Father-in-Law, By Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR (Image 3)

Kazin: But attention should be paid. America’s decision to join the Allies was a turning point in world history. It altered the fortunes of the war and the course of the 20th century — and not necessarily for the better.
Analysis: The professor gets one right.

Kazin: Its entry most likely foreclosed the possibility of a negotiated peace among belligerent powers that were exhausted from years mired in trench warfare.
Analysis: Correct! Britain and France were seriously considering Germany's request to simply stop the war and return to the pre-war status quo. It was only US entry (engineered by the usual suspects) that encouraged the Allies to drag out the war until the "Yanks" could arrive.

Kazin: Although the American Expeditionary Force did not engage in combat for long, the looming threat of several million fresh troops led German generals to launch a last, desperate series of offensives. When that campaign collapsed, Germany’s defeat was inevitable.
Analysis: True, but Kazin omits the reasons why the great German Spring Offensive of 1918 (after stunning initial success) ultimately fizzled out and failed -- namely, because Jewish-Marxist-Zionist Labor Union leaders called for factory strikes right when Germany was about to win the war before the Yanks arrived. Although this form of subversion was eventually overcome, adding greatly to the internal treachery were the Jewish-owned newspapers which suddenly turned pessimistic and negative on the war effort. As a result, new recruits came to the front lines with a defeatist mentality. After the war, this undeniable Jewish subversion came to be referred to as "the stab in the back."

Kazin: How would the war have ended if America had not intervened? The carnage might have continued for another year or two until citizens in the warring nations, who were already protesting the endless sacrifices required, forced their leaders to reach a settlement. If the Allies, led by France and Britain, had not won a total victory, there would have been no punitive peace treaty like that completed at Versailles, no stab-in-the-back allegations by resentful Germans, and thus no rise, much less triumph, of Hitler and the Nazis. The next world war, with its 50 million deaths, would probably not have occurred.
Analysis: All true. But notice how Kazin references the "stab-in-the-back allegations" without defining the context of the term in regard to the bizarre German surrender of November 11, 1918. This clearly indicates that Kazin knows what happened but cannot (or will not) to tell us -- not if he expects to keep his cushy tenured position at Georgetown. 

Post-World War I cartoons depict the fact that Germany was "stabbed in the back" by home-front Jews (Zionists and Communists) who wanted Germany and Turkey to lose the war.

Kazin: The foes of militarism in the United States had tried to prevent such horrors. ... They mounted street demonstrations, attracted prominent leaders from the labor and suffrage movements, and ran antiwar candidates for local and federal office.
Analysis: Again, all true. But Kazin makes it sound as though only "liberals" (labor and women's suffrage) opposed the war, ignoring the fact that many conservatives were also against Wilson's warmongering.

Kazin: They also gained the support of Henry Ford, who chartered a ship full of activists who crossed the Atlantic to plead with the heads of neutral nations to broker a peace settlement.
Analysis: Indeed, before America even became involved, Ford was so opposed to the war that, in 1915, the Oscar II ocean liner was commissioned by him to become The Peace Ship. The peace mission was mostly mocked by the warmongering Fake News at the time (especially in Britain & France) as a ridiculous idea. The ship was dubbed, "To Good Ship Nutty.” After the war, Ford would blame "the International Jew" for both bringing about the war -- and later dragging the United States in under false pretexts.

Kazin: Once the United States did enter the fray, Wilson, with the aid of the courts, prosecuted opponents of the war who refused to fall in line. Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, thousands were arrested for such “crimes” as giving speeches against the draft and calling the Army “a God damned legalized murder machine.”
Analysis: This persecution of peacemakers has been mostly erased from the history books because it would expose the sainted "liberal" Wilson as the cruel tyrant that he was (albeit a helpless puppet tyrant).

Kazin: The intervention led to big changes in America, as well as the world. It began the creation of a political order most citizens now take for granted, even as some protest against it: a state equipped to fight war after war abroad while keeping a close watch on allegedly subversive activities at home.
Analysis: Spot on -- and that new "political order" is the essence of The New World Order which threatens to engulf us today.

Kazin: The larger aim of American foreign policy under both liberal and conservative presidents had remained much the same: to make the world “safe for democracy,” as our leaders define it. To achieve that purpose required another innovation of World War I: a military-industrial establishment funded, then partly and now completely, by income taxes.
Analysis: Spot on -- and "democracy" ™ is a buzz-word for corrupt puppet parliamentarian governments that (((they))) can more easily control.

*****

Though there is nothing overtly false in Kazin's piece, and it does offer up quite a bit of useful data, we still have to grade it a "C-" for the simple reason that the unsuspecting reader will come away with the grossly mistaken impression that American entry into World War I was a historical "blunder" based upon misguided idealism. In reality, the event was a master stroke of geo-political genius -- evil genius to be precise -- planned and executed by (((the usual suspects))) for the usual reasons, namely: the advancement of Globalism (post-war "League of Nations") and its evil overlapping cousin -- Zionism (post-war Jewish immigration to British-occupied Palestine).

1. British cartoon mocking Ford's "Peace Ship" for trying to end the still-young war in 1915 // 2. Henry Ford eventually learned the truth about World War I -- claiming that several honest Jews had informed him about the International Jewish hand involved in engineering the war. Ford then tried to warn the world about "The International Jew." //
3. Not long after his death in 1947, the Globalists seized control of his foundation and have used it ever since to promote the very Globalism that Ford had tried to expose (before being pressured into shutting up). 

Boobus Americanus 1: I read an opinion piece by a distinguished professor of History in the New York Times today. He questioned the wisdom of the United States entering World War I.
Boobus Americanus 2: What a senseless tragedy that war was.

*

St. Sugar: Tragic, yess, Boobuss. But it wass not "ssenseless." The New World Order crime gang achieved some very important objectivess.
Editor: Globalism, Communism and Zionism --- the big winners of BOTH World Wars.