Monday, September 10, 2007

EU foreign policy toward Iran

There is, of course, no such thing as an EU foreign policy, but it is a provision of the Reform Treaty that there will be an EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, and this presupposes that there will be an agreed common foreign policy for him to pontificate upon.

But in the case of Iran, it already exists, and it makes a complete mockery of UN Security Council resolutions calling for sanctions against Tehran over its uranium enrichment programme. The EU is Iran’s largest trading partner, accounting for 35% of Iran’s total imports. But the EU’s ‘big three’ - Germany, France and Italy – provide billions of euros of export credit guarantees to minimise the risk to private companies of doing business with this fanatical theocratic regime which has pledged itself to wipe Israel off the map.

In fact, EU trade with Iran has actually increased since the uranium enrichment process has been operative. This is manifestly a case where EU foreign policy is nothing but a front for the business interests of key EU members, and stands in diametric opposition to US foreign policy. And the UK is powerless to do anything about it.

There is something morally repugnant about latter-day Christendom exalting Mammon in order to sustain a corrupt Shi’a Muslim regime which is pledged to the extermination of Israel. And this is its divine mission. The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shi’a Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return. All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days in the company of Jesus. A common rumour is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have pledged themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi. Indeed, his military involvement in Syria and Iraq is purposely designed to agitate against Israel to hasten the Last Day. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes the Mahdi will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam and descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

At the moment, the UK is free to righteously and unilaterally impose its own sanctions against this repugnant regime. When the Reform Treaty is agreed in October, and ratified by the 27 parliaments, the UK shall be as complicit in perpetuating a terrorist regime and augmenting the threat against Israel as Germany, France and Italy presently are. And doubtless it shall incur the consequent preternatural wrath for abdicating its sovereignty in this crucial area.


Blogger Mission Impossible said...

In late 1916, with the Russian Empire already defeated, France in disarray, and Britain essentially defeated and facing starvation at home, Germany offered equitable peace terms.

This unprecedented peace gesture was ignored because, behind the scenes, European Jews, Anglo-Jews, and Jewish-Americans had concocted a plan to bring America into the war, and thus dramatically alter the balance of power in Europe. America was to be brought into the First World War in contravention of its Monroe Doctrine and in contravention of the Presidential re-election campaign promises of Woodrow Wilson. The quid-pro-quo would be that Britain, having secured the Trans-Jordan region from the collapsing Ottoman Empire, would offer that portion known as 'Palestine' to World Jewry, as the new Zion.

This is what came to pass, resulting in the Balfour Declaration. Subsequently, Europe was to lose a further 1-Million++ of its young men in needless battle before the Armistice of 11th November 1918.

So, yes, dear Cranmer, I suppose we must do something to prevent the madman in Tehran, lest we forgo the unnecessary and ultimate sacrifice so many of our young Gentile ancestors were obliged to give (even though they had no idea of why) by scheming, power hungry people who have only ever had their own interests at heart.

What fools we have been; led by the nose throughout the 20th century by a small minority who follow a different faith to ours. Willing to die to help bring about some crazy Old Testament or Talmudic prophecy.

Sounds a bit like the Madhi prophecy, right?

Moral of the story? Dispense with your guilt that has been imposed upon you through brainwashing, and open your eyes.

10 September 2007 at 08:29  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

Very good post if I may say so.

It just shows what the EU is all about and we should have nothing to do with it. Britain needs to be independant to survive as our history has shown time and again.

10 September 2007 at 09:36  
Anonymous the oracle said...

The brutalising effect of the Iran-Iraq war should not be forgotten when discussing Mr Ahmadinejad. This war was very similar to WW1 in its conduct and cost 1 million Iranian lives. Mr A was a participant and lost members of his family.

It is often said that Adolf H acquired his sense of personal destiny in the trenches. It is easy to believe, having read your piece, that Mr A also considers himself to be a man of destiny.

Frankly, I think that the current US leadership will eliminate Iranian nuclear technology. I don't see how George Bush can step down and leave this problem for a (Democrat) successor. And I don't doubt that every single day there are 'neocon' hawks telling him that he must act now.

As for the EU, well they will do what they are best at doing. Need I say more?

10 September 2007 at 11:18  
Blogger Alex said...

Why does your Grace consider that the United Kingdom behaves any differently from other European nations. Both BP and Shell are substantial current investors in Iranian oil fields (notwithstanding the nationalisation of the former's historic interests by the nationalist government).
BAe's interest in selling commercial aircraft 4 years ago is well documents (viz. Mills/Jowell/Symons), and the city of London plays hosts to a number of Iranian banks (Banks Melli, Sepah, Saderat and Persia International to name a few).
UK banks that deal with Iran inclue HSBC and Standard Chartered.

Whether or not the UK ratifies a European treaty, we are already complicit in this behaviour.

10 September 2007 at 11:19  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Mission -- Cranmer, like many so-called conservatives, will not challenge Jewish power or even admit that it exists. Understandably enough, he is frightened of it -- you don't get far in the modern West if you stand up to its chief enemies.

10 September 2007 at 11:35  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Messrs Nedsherry, Mission,

I don’t mean to be rude but what a load of old claptrap, put away your copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and start talking sense for heavens sake. Conspiracy theorists, good grief!

10 September 2007 at 12:32  
Blogger the doctor said...

Recusant ; there are none so blind as those who will not see . If you cannot see what is happening about you , just look at the religious composition of the governments and the advisers of America , Canada , U.K. and France and tell me if one group is not disproportionally represented .

10 September 2007 at 15:39  
Blogger Greg said...

the doctor

Do you mean the atheists?

10 September 2007 at 17:40  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Messrs Nedsherry, Mission,

I don’t mean to be rude but what a load of old claptrap, put away your copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and start talking sense for heavens sake. Conspiracy theorists, good grief!

I haven't said there's a conspiracy, but do you think Lord Levy, a practising Jew and committed Zionist, exercised no influence on government policy vis-`a-vis Israel and Iraq by means of the huge sums of money he supplied to New Labour from Jewish businessmen? If you do, do you think an equivalent Muslim funding Labour from Muslim businessmen would have no influence either? Cranmer is constantly decrying Muslim influence. I support everything he says. But Muslims aren't the only alien group in the UK with their own agenda.

10 September 2007 at 18:07  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the recusant ... I can understand 'where you are coming from' (as they say). Actually, I do wish it was all just a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately what I have posted is very much fact, and just a very small sample of what is available. If you weren't so lazy (or is it intimidated?) you would be able to confirm all of it yourself and with modest effort.

You have completely failed to understand the point I was making in this thread's opening comment. Let me put it simply ... it is not just Iran's current leadership who are guilty of planning for the so-called "end times." We are guilty of being complicit in the end-time plans of Jews to re-create a Zion, and thus regain possession of Jerusalem. The Talmudists wanted this because "it is written" (as they say). Jews living in and controlling Jerusalem (and the Holy Land) is a Talmudic 'end-time' prerequisite. We gave it to them, and then made the Jews in New York rich beyond their wildest dreams by allowing ourselves to be pushed into World War Two ... a war which they (not Hitler) provoked.

The Germans were not the only ones to invade Poland in 1939. The Russians did so too, and at the very same time! But, for some strange reason, Britain did not declare war on Russia (Stalin's Soviet Union). Have you never pondered that conundrum?? If not, why not?

The Jews in Europe and the USA got their Zion by first infiltrating and then manipulating both the British and US political elites. In fact, the USA was brought on-board during 1916-17 because President Woodrow Wilson was both legally and financially compromised (he was a dilettante who had had many affairs with married women). In other words, what I am telling you is that the USA entered WW-1 because its sitting President was blackmailed by Jewish interests. Can I put it any simpler?

And the cost of this plot so far? Well over a million young British men lost their lives in the trenches of WW-1 (following the Autumn of 1916) and in the battlefields of WW-2, not to mention the civilian losses during the early 1940s. When you add to this, the devastation of Germany and much of Poland combined with the millions of other European deaths, then you are looking at the real Holocaust, not the phony one that keeps the publishing industry and Hollywood movie makers busy (and rich).

These cultural cousins of yours died because of Jewish misdemeanors, political lobbying, and Machiavellian planning. These people are relatively recent immigrants. Their own ancestors come from Central Asia, north of the Caucasus. The vast majority have no authentic connection with the exiled Jews of Babylon. They are 10th century conversos to the Jewish faith.

When someone tries to enlighten you, you can call it whatever you want; it doesn't matter. You can blubber away about 'conspiracy theorists or nutters' all you like. I wouldn't call you a nutter in return; I just feel sad for you and for the many like you. Sad that you can't see the obvious; sad that you have lost your cultural self-identity and roots. Sad, that you should be satisfied with all that happened in the 20th century, and that all those terrible and self-destructive events between 1916 and 1945 were just an accident, one of those things, something to do with colonialism, or more likely, you really believe it was all Nazi Germany's fault.

P.S. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are completely irrelevant to this discussion, even though I know you only included that in your comment because you were trying to be clever.


Here are some real (i.e., not made up) quotes for you to dwell on ...

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means you recognize his superiority to yourself." [Joseph Sobran]

"When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours." [Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p.111; originally published in 1924, but still available today via ISBN: 094437929X]

"We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them." [Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October 1981]


nedsherry ... you don't get far in the modern West if you stand up to its chief enemies. Yes, that's certainly been the case so far. But it is my belief that will soon change as the present charade can no longer be sustained; it will implode. This is why the authorities are slowly becomming more authoritarian ... they are expecting an end-game too. Be patient but do not relent or slacken. Have faith in your fellow Brits and be ready to fight for your homeland, and your family's freedom.

As for Cranmer, his Blog is doing just fine. We should not expect him to invite hostility by publishing posts that reflect our reasoning, which most mass-media trained readers will find shocking. Truth is best served in small doses. In any case, Christianity has enough problems as it is: what with the current Marxist dupe we have sitting in Canterbury. Both the CofE and the West's spiritual health are in desperate need of Cranmer's help. If our grandfathers had been better Christians they would never have allowed the upper echelons of our culture to be infiltrated and then dominated by Asiatics, because the Jews made many in-roads during the inter-war years. But the root of our problem goes further back. Excluding Oliver Cromwell's role, the real rot started in the 19th century, when our Upper Classes started to breed with the daughters of wealthy Jewish immigrants.

10 September 2007 at 19:42  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Messrs Nedsherry, Mission and Doctor

Doctor, I don’t subscribe to your particular brand of paranoia; the Jews are a race more sinned against than sinning in the past century indeed in the past 2 millennium. As for disproportionally represented, the same could be said for the Scots with far more credence in Westminster than any real or imaginary Jewish lobby. On a cursory trawl I count 23 MPs, since 1974, not very threatening by any standard.

nedsherry, I hope Lord Levy, practising Jew or not has had some influence on government policy in the areas you mention, he is/was a government minister and so I would expect his input or else what are we paying him for. I may not agree with his ‘wanna buy a peerage policy’ (allegedly) but I would expect him to represent his views both domestic and foreign in cabinet and committee.

Mission, I can’t see how I can engage in productive debate with anyone holding the odious view that the Jews orchestrated WW2 and not Hitler. I find it quite contemptible that you should voice such an unbalanced opinion and will not encourage you in your delusions.

10 September 2007 at 22:35  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

I wonder what planet Mission Impossible is from. Clearly not Earth, given how minor American contribution to victory in 1918 was, which rather upsets his conspiracy theory.

And making out Germany had all but won in 1916 is just bad comedy. Falkenhayn would have dearly wished it to be so - if it was, maybe he would have kept his job?

10 September 2007 at 23:59  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the recusant ... the final paragraph of your 10:35PM post demonstrates some of my earlier points exactly. You sprinkle your comment with terms like, 'odious view,' 'contemptible,' 'unbalanced,' and 'delusions.' Quite an impressive achievement in just two sentences. Is this how you always respond to people who challenge your own facile interpretations of history?

Again you misinterpret what I write, because YOU are intolerant of alternative views. I apologise if I gave the impression I was arguing for the notion that Hitler did not contribute to the start of WW2, but for you to assert that only he orchestrated WW2 is equally odious, because it is plain wrong. Clearly, you have not studied the depravities of the Weimar Republic, and also the shockingly violent, sometimes racist, and always uncompromising rhetoric being used by Jews in the United States of America from 1933 onwards.

And to further disturb your smug assumptions, I also note you have completely failed to address my earlier question: The Germans were not the only ones to invade Poland in 1939. The Russians did so too, and at the very same time! But, for some strange reason, Britain did not declare war on Russia (Stalin's Soviet Union). Have you never pondered that conundrum?? If not, why not?

Your ability to analyse patterns seems to be acutely under-developed. Jewish influences on British political life has largely been "behind the scenes." You don't have to be an MP to wield influence in Westminster therefore your 23 MPs statistic does not tell us much. I suggest you examine the beginnings of the Rowntree Trust, an advocacy "charity" for unremitting immigration into the U.K. It was founded in 1967 (I think) by two Jews. Everybody in New Labour (and also Cameron's Conservatives) has been influenced by the lobby power and writings of the Rowntree Trust.

If I was so wrong, then why is it so easy to identify similar if not identical patterns across the Atlantic, in the USA?

Your assertion: the Jews are a race more sinned against than sinning in the past century indeed in the past 2 millennium is utter bunkum. What you are effectively suggesting is that throughout circa 2-thousand years, everybody else in the world has been wrong, and only the Jews have been correct. This too is dangerous language and literally invites the belief the Jews are somehow above and superior to everybody else. Are you really that crazy? It would seem you subscribe to the Master Race concept after all, only you call it by other names, namely: jew and judaism.

Your perverse logic is no different from arguing that a family that has been thrown out of a council house by local authorities on 15 different occasions and in ten different regions of Britain, are completely innocent and normal in outlook, and that the real fault for their "unfortunate fate" lies with all those evil, Nazi local authorities!!!!

Can you now see how stupid and contrived this Jewish victimology cult really is?


the last toryboy ... Thank you for your enquiry. I was born on Mars actually, but am now happily settled here on terra firma. Food isn't always to my taste ... I prefer green slime patties that ooze from the rocks deep in the Tharsis province of my planetary home; but the beer is definitely warmer here! Now, excuse me a moment whilst I adjust my antenna ... Ahem, aaah, that's better. OK, here we go.

You say the American contribution to victory in 1918 was 'minor' but offer no evidence to support your assertion. I would agree, in a simplistic sense, the American's military contribution to WWI was not particulary great, but they did suffer circa 57,000 deaths in that short time plus other casualties. What was decisive was America's industrial might, which had already surpassed that of Germany's before 1914. That is what made their entry into the war decisive!! And of course, we know that the fortunes of the Triple Entente took a turn for the better only after the USA declared war. Incidently, it is not "my" conspiracy theory; the events in Washington surrounding Woodrow Wilson have been established by research long ago. It seems clear that 'something' other than what you believe explains how the US was turned 180 degrees from a 'neutral' country into a belligerent in less than 3 months. If you wish to question my description of Woodrow Wilson, then why don't you give facts instead of shouting broo-ha like a yahoo from the sidelines?

No, stating that Germany had all but won by mid-1916 is not bad comedy at all. The French mutinied that year. Britain was facing food shortages thanks to the U-boats and was effectively bankrupt (kept alive by the banker Morgan). There were several key leadership changes in both Germany (because of internal disagreements over their 1916 peace initiative) and in France, which resulted in the arrival of Clemenceau who then galvanized and steeled the French forces. Clemenceau wanted revenge for his nation's easy 1871 defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, which had been started by France.

As I am sure you know, the First World War was one of attrition, so with the entry of America on the side of the Triple Entente, Germany could never win. It wasn't even necessary for the US to any send troops to France, for that inevitable result. All that was required for America to do, was to devote its industrial might and food sources to the effort.

As I told you, the quid pro quo for the Jewish success in blackmailing Wilson over his affair with the wife of a former colleague in Harvard, where he once taught, was for Anglo-Jews to ensure Britain offered Palestine as a form of payment in kind. In public, Arthur Balfour, the Foreign Secretary in Lloyd-George's Government, was declared the author of the Balfour Declaration; but, privately, he had commissioned Leo Amery to write it. He did not know that Amery was a secret (crypto) Jew.

Another point you fail to understand ... the last toryboy ... about who won what and when, is this. The first air-raids were performed by German air-ships and aircraft, on London during the First World War. Meanwhile, not one bullet was fired on German territory throughout WWI. Not one foreign soldier set foot on German territory during WWI. And finally, the First World War was NOT started by Germany, even though the Paris Peace Conference insisted they had, mainly on French insistence. No historian worth his salt today would even begin to argue that WWI was started by Germany. Germany only advanced into Belgium as part of a pre-configured plan to thwart an expected pincer attack from France, and her ally, the Russian Empire.


Voyager ... as expected, you have posted (on the other, earlier thread on Treason) some very interesting points worthy of deep consideration. To answer them all (and thus do them justice) would require a book length response. I will endeavour to respond to the most important, and within reasonable word limits, in due course. Give me a few more days. I am busy with other things and must ration my time. Personal regards to you.

11 September 2007 at 08:34  
Blogger Greg said...

Thank God for public libraries, the Internet and (I think) freedom of speech. We can all use selective quotes from history, but we are free to look at the whole picture and make our own minds up, especially those of us who have been around long enough to have experience to add to the mix.

11 September 2007 at 09:56  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Heh. You better stop before you embarass yourself further, "Mission Impossible.".

The French mutinied in 1917 after the Nivelle Offensive, not 1916. So that rather casts your knowledge of the period into doubt, for starters.

1916 from the German point of view was not a happy year. There were food riots in Austria-Hungary as early as 1915, that the Central Powers were worse off than the Entente in terms of food production is well established.

Falkenhayn in his memoirs notes that there was simply no way that the Central Powers could win after 1914 ended and the war became protracted, hence why his goals in 1916 were essentially to get out of the war with German dignity intact. His whole Verdun strategy was very limited, aimed not at defeating the French but in killing enough of them to bring them to the negotiating table. As Falkenhayn was in charge of the German war effort at the time and a very intelligent and capable man, I assume he knew what he was talking about, although hard reality proved unpalatable to the Kaiser.

In the same year the High Seas Fleet took on the Royal Navy (by accident), and though they made a decent accounting of themselves it was still plain that they only escaped total disaster by the skin of their teeth and thus they never set sail in force again. So all those German dreadnaughts, bought at great cost, were shown to be useless in 1916, and it was demonstrated that Germany was never going to manage to seize control of the seas and so was going to starve to death unless something drastic happened.

The German situation in 1916 was pretty grim.

US entry into the war had nothing to do with their 'industrial might' (which was, at the time, less than the industrial might of the European Entente powers - 1916 was not 1942). For starters, anything needed from the US was paid for, hence why the UK began WW1 as the worlds largest creditor and ended up as the worlds largest debtor. For seconds, if this is so then why did the US troops in 1918 have to borrow French artillery and British tanks, and had to be shipped across the Atlantic in British transports? In 1918 the US war economy was hardly moving.

The US's military involvement was likewise limited, most of the forces at 2nd Marne, which was likely the most scale-tipping battle US forces were involved in (they even named one of their divisions after the place when the war was over!), were French, to the tune of 10 to 1.

The Meuse-Argonne Offensive was the only engagement in which the American forces did not play an entirely auxiliary role, and that was merely an aside well apart from the main thrust of the Grand Offensive in 1918. The fact that in 1918 the BEF was responsible for 50% of all German POWs tells you that the BEF was leading the offensives that broke Germany, not the US.

In short, what you are saying is in contradiction to just about every book I've ever read on the subject, and given theres a shelf full of such books behind me, I rather suspect that you're occupying a different reality from most serious scholars of the Great War. Perhaps not surprising, as Jewish conspiracy theory books do not appear on those shelves.

To disabuse of the notion that the Central Powers were winning at any time after 1914, may I suggest this book :-

The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918 by Holger H Herwig

...who looks at the war from the point of view of the Central Powers (a nice change from the usual focus on the British trenches of the Western Front) and will very much disabuse you of the notion that they were somehow better off than us during WW1, let alone that they were ever winning after 1914.

How very Hitlerian of you, to pretend that the German Army would have won in WW1 if not for a Jewish conspiracy. Worth about two quick belly laughs, that is.

11 September 2007 at 10:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Toryboy,

Spring 1918 looks to be a time when Germany could have won the war. It was touch and go for a couple of weeks until most of the stormtroopers were killed and the British lads dug in and held ground at Arras and elsewhere. (Re)read Haig's Special Order to gauge what it was like in those days -

'..There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end. The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment...'

No surprise that the stormtrooper ethos went on to become integral to the Nazi ethos.

11 September 2007 at 10:25  
Anonymous The Recusant said...


I have not misunderstood you, I know exactly the message you peddle and refute it utterly. Your expressions of anti-Semitism are not from an intelligent analyst, trained to think, constructively scrutinizing a problem, fully aware of all the facts but emanate from a mind like an empty tin bath, ready to hold any effluent poured into it; desperately holding on to the mistaken belief that because you open your mouth, the noise that comes out must somehow be germane, instructive and essentially worthwhile, it is not. I may have underestimated your separation from sanity, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being too bland for your taste; perhaps your brand of extremism favours Mein Kampf.

11 September 2007 at 10:28  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the last toryboy ... I concur, mutiny broke out amongst the French army during April 29 - May 20, 1917. I simply confused this with another event, hence my late 1916 gaff. If I had to re-check the accuracy of every single fact I post, I'd be spending all day. I do better than most working from memory even though I have never claimed to be an authority on WWI history. Good to see we have someone with a ready library of books on WWI who we can count on, in future, to proof read everyone else's posts on this topic. Do you think you will be up to the task?

By the contempt laden tone of your responses, it seems you fancy yourself as an authority on WWI and do not like one bit anyone challenging that status.

I never pretended the German Army would have won WWI. That is simply down to you being silly. You can scroll up to read again what I actually wrote. My implications were that they were further from losing than the Triple Entente and were more than holding their own. They overran Romania (who had just entered the conflict) with ease, between August and December 1916.

Doubtless, the entry of Italy (28 August Italy declared war on Germany) followed by the introduction of the battle tank by the British (Battle of Somme) on 15 September 1916, influenced some German thinking.

It was on 12 December 1916 that Germany issued a peace note suggesting a compromise peace deal. This note was sent to the Entente powers through US President Woodrow Wilson. On 18 December 1916, Wilson requests statements of war objectives from warring nations mentioned in the peace note. On the 10 January 1917, the Allies state peace objectives in response. Then the initiative quietly dies a death for no clear reason, other than what I have described.

On the 3 February 1917, the US severed diplomatic ties with Germany.

During 23 February 23 - 5 April German forces withdrew to strong positions on the Hindenburg Line, meaning no Entente initiative was going to dislodge them.

Something or someone was pushing Woodrow Wilson into war, against the wishes of both Congress and the American public. Why? Well, on 12 March he announced the arming of US merchantmen by executive order (no less) after failing to win approval from Congress. This is doubly strange as German U-boats did NOT appear in US territorial waters until 25 May 1918!

As early as 20 March 1917, US President Woodrow Wilson's war cabinet voted unanimously in favour of declaring war on Germany. Quite an amazing political turn around, don't you think? Especially when you consider the American public remained dead set against war.

You are getting quite upset over America's war contributions aren't you. Here are some mobilization figures: Russia mobilised 12 million men during the war; France 8.4 million; Britain 8.9 million; Germany 11 million; Austria-Hungary 7.8 million; Italy 5.6 million; and the USA 4.3 million. So, America still managed to mobilize half of the British total, despite having to cross the Atlantic, and despite their war lasting less than just 15 months. The first US troops arrived in France (1st Division) on 26 June 1917.

You still think our American cousins made an insignificant contribution, but on 12 September US forces cleared the St. Mihiel salient, during which the greatest air assault of the entire war was launched by the US forces!!

If Germany was as down and out as you describe, then why don't you explain why and how the German Army was able to move into the Ukraine against Bolsheviks in the middle of February, 1918? The Germans soon occupied Dvinsk and Lutsk, and they also advanced at this time from Riga to Volhynia. They also entered Estonia and pressed on towards Reval and Petrograd. By early March, they had captured Kiev. Between 3-6 April 1918, the Germans landed 30,000 troops at Hango in Finland. On this basis, a lot of what you have written seems contradictory, and certainly far from complete. You still belly laughing toryboy?

As for Jewish conspiracies ... you believe they are immune from such behaviour, am I correct? Jews are constitutionally incapable of engaging in conspiratorial behaviour; that is what you believe, am I right?

The British delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, had a Jewish advisor. The French delegation to the Paris Peace Conference had a Jewish advisor, and the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference had a ... wait for it ... yes you've guess it ... a Jewish advisor. What's more, our blackmailed US President buffoon met with Rabbi Stephen A. Wise right before he left New York bound for France.

By now, I'd wager there are a good few people laughing heartily at you toryboy.


• January 1937 - At its Annual Meeting, the American Jewish Committee forcefully condemns anti-Semitism as an ATTACK ON AMERICA (!?*?!), not just an attack on Jews. "Anti-Semitism is a manifestation of the spirit of dictatorship, which first attacks the weakest—-the Jews—-and then proceeds to destroy all liberty."

This is exactly the kind of logically fallacious brain-washing that has brought our Western Anglo-Saxon culture down to our current level of intra-squabbling and caused us to lose our national identity and cultural self-confidence. The Jews have, since their arrival, been the most influential and wealthy immigrant group in the USA, yet they can somehow still describe themselves as "weak." What a lot of Chuzpa. As Jesus said, they (the Pharisees) are a nest of vipers.

11 September 2007 at 11:47  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the recusant ... I know exactly the message you peddle ... well, well, do you now? You only think you know this because your entire strategy has been to keep putting words into my mouth.

Your expressions of anti-Semitism are not from an intelligent analyst ... blah, blah, blah. What you really mean is, anyone who expresses a negative view of Jewish behaviour automatically lacks intelligence.

The corollary of this is, of course, is that anyone and everyone who rolls over and does what the Jews tell them to do and cooperates with the advancement of Jewish science, namely: multiculturalism, cultural relativity, 'race is a social construct,' the belief in one world government, psychoanalysis, et al, is very intelligent indeed!! Sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism to me, as it should do to all other democratic, free, and still thinking men and women.

'the recusant' ... Your endless finger pointing, accusations, and vitriol suggests you would have been very comfortable with life during the Jacobin Reign of Terror. You are therefore beneath contempt.

Me thinks you need to go away, lie down, and take a tablet until you recover your sense of proportion. Whilst you are horizontal, you might like to consider you are a failure and a loser, a disgrace to British sovereignty, and ultimately, a traitor.

I for one, am not going to let any more British lives go to waste satisfying sanctimonious idiots like you.

11 September 2007 at 12:07  
Anonymous The Recusant said...


You are raving, quite simply foaming at the mouth, levels of paranoia such as you exhibit are consistent with a psychotic personality, for you own sake get a reality check before you go into meltdown.

11 September 2007 at 13:03  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

recusant -- you're much less intelligent than Mission, much less knowledgable and much less aware of what is going on in the world. But pretend that he's a moonbat if it makes you feel better.

11 September 2007 at 15:32  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Well, I do fancy myself as an authority on WW1 - as for not liking anybody challenging that status - hardly, I hang out on war nerd forums all the time and have plenty of lively debate in which views are challenged all the time.

But what you seem to believe is just totally wrong. Sure, history is about opinion, but saying that Germany was on the verge of winning in 1916 just smacks of gross ignorance to me, let alone the talk on how Britain was starving and, one presumes, Germany was not. The economic blockade of Germany had the Central Powers in an absolutely dire state in rather short order, and thats one of the most notable things about what went on in WW1. I'm quite happy to discuss WW1 but not so much with someone who clings fiercely to such assertions in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary. And you wittering on about the Jews, well, I agree, anybody is capable of conspiracy, Jew or any other, but then you are putting yourself in the company of a whole internet full of foaming lunatics who really have nothing intelligent to say for themselves. Maybe you are the exception to the rule but evidence supporting that assertion seems fairly thin on the ground at the moment...

The US army would undoubtably have been a major player in 1919 had the war continued. However, as it was the AEF in Europe was one million men, and by November 1918 the AEF was completely played out and in need of reinforcement. They had shot their bolt and done as much as could be expected. And the casualty figures simply do not bear out that they were militarily significant.

I have had many discussions with knowledgeable Americans on this subject and even the most patriotic American has to admit that the numbers simply do not add up to make the AEF a decisive military force. I have seen plenty of arguments that state that the presence of the US in the war - making it clear to Germany that they were not going to win, that if they didn't win by the end of 1918 they were never going to because a fresh major player was about to turn up - had a serious impact on German morale and contributed to German defeat. That is somewhat persuasive, but then the fact remains that the German Army in 1918 was comprehensively outfought by a technologically and doctrinally superior mainly British/French force. The BEF in 1918 was probably the most advanced and effective army relative to its peers that Britain has ever put into the field, though the grisly aura WW1 has hanging over it and legends about donkey generals mean that most are unaware of just how good in 1918 we were. I must confess it does vaguely irritate me that the British army in WW1 is maligned so, especially when people start comparing with the German Army who the BEF did in the end comprehensively outfight.

Incidentally, re. Haig's one memorable address during the Lys Offensive, while the situation did indeed appear dire, the chance of the Germans breaking through was pretty minimal, though Haig wasn't to know that at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and all. As it happened the Germans were in a far worse condition after the Lys than before it. And in any case, there wasn't a US soldier in sight, so the Germans can't blame their failure on the Lys on any Jewish conspiracies either...

I remember a chat with a Turk once who thought the Queen Elizabeth was sunk at Gallipoli. It being part of the Turkish creation myth after all. He would not be persuaded otherwise. Never mind that the Queen Elizabeth fought in WW2 as well. I also remember an Argentine who was adamant that HMS Invincible was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands but this fact was covered up by the government - never mind the photos of the Invincible returning home, the half dozen journalists aboard who would have reported it, the lack of repair crews, etc. etc. In my experience you just can't argue with these people. Anyway, I have a healthy respect for the ability of propaganda to rot brains.

(Poor Cranmer, hijacking his thread on religio-political shenanigans with military history. Apologies, your Grace.)

11 September 2007 at 21:44  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Oh, and as for the Russians - this is a nation which sent peasants with no rifles into battle. A nation which had been politically unstable for decades, which had already been completely humiliated in the Russo-Japanese war, which was militarily completely backwards. The Germans had a fair bit of luck as well at places like Tannenberg, and they needed it due to the sheer size of Russia, but really - it doesn't take too much nous to work out why they could beat a sick, dying nation like Russia.

Funnily enough garrisoning all that captured Russian land took over a million men out of Ludendorff's hands. I know Holger Herwig was arguing that Ludendorff's megalomaniacal landgrab in the East caused the final defeat for Germany as those million men would be better off on the Western Front rather than minding the Ukraine, so theres a case to be said that Ludendorff managed to snatch defeat from victory... so much for the fabled German military competence, eh.

11 September 2007 at 21:48  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the last toryboy ... pearls do not grow lest an irritant enters the shell.

Well, well, you have certainly demonstrated you possess a profound knowledge of WWI and I tip my hat to you. We should be honoured you have chosen to post here at Cranmer. I had to push you somewhat before you began to provide us with some excellent stuff. This is what British blogs should be about, don't you agree?

It is therefore a pity you had to spoil your 9:44PM comment with yet more personal abuse:

And you wittering on about the Jews, well, I agree, anybody is capable of conspiracy, Jew or any other, but then you are putting yourself in the company of a whole internet full of foaming lunatics who really have nothing intelligent to say for themselves. Maybe you are the exception to the rule but evidence supporting that assertion seems fairly thin on the ground at the moment.

... which kind of took most of the shine off what would have been an excellent and erudite comment.

Any fool can throw insults at those who offer opinions or facts that challenge one's comfort zone. You have consistently failed to demonstrate a level of civility that one normally associates with a scholar and an intellectual. Furthermore, your repeated use of abuse does not reflect well on the Tory Party, which apparently you are a member of (re. your moniker).

It may surprise the likes of you, but I do not attend any blogs that focus on Jewish conspiracy theories. I study everything from history, Islam, and Christianity, to Judaism and foreign cultures. It is extremely likely I am far more travelled than you. I am a synthesist and not a specialist. I look for inter-relationships instead of studying every facet of just one topic. What I have learned about Jewish immigrant behaviour within Britain, Europe, and America has been collated from a multitude of sources, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I have rejected the more outlandish claims, and I only accept that which fits in with other knowledge. E.g., I try to avoid single source information except when it is unavoidable. I can recognize an unviable theory when I see one.

I note you are someone else who keeps trying to win his argument by dishonourable means ... by attributing statements or beliefs to his 'opponent' that have in fact originated in your own imagination.

I never tried to argue that Germany was defeated in World War One by a Jewish conspiracy. What I proposed was something quite different. I gave evidence for (there is a list of names I could also quote) a Jewish conspiracy to bring America into WWI, in return for being promised a Zion under the expected British Mandate in Palestine. Only a few months after the first American troops landed in France, British troops entered Jerusalem, thus taking it from Ottoman control.

So, what I actually suggested, and what you say I suggested, are two very different things.

You keep saying I am obsessed with Jewish conspiracies, but where is your evidence? I have not described a theory; what I have posted on this thread are a series of facts! Woodrow Wilson's habit of seducing other men's wives is well known to some historians, but evidently not you.

The man believed to have blackmailed President Woodrow Wilson for political gain is Samuel Untermeyer, a prominent New York City attorney. Mr. Untermeyer gained possession (from his female plaintiff) of a packet of letters written by President Wilson to his former University colleague's wife (the plaintiff) when they were neighbours at Princeton [NB. Apologies: in error I wrote 'Harvard' in my earlier post - correction; Wilson once taught at Princeton]. These letters established the illicit relationship which had existed between President Wilson and the wife of his former colleague and neighbour.

One of the pledges Wilson was forced to make, to avoid a crippling public scandal, was to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court a nominee to be recommended by Untermeyer. This is how Louis Dembitz Brandeis became the first Jew ever to be appointed to the US Supreme Court.

As it turned out, Brandeis and Wilson became personal friends, but this intimacy only serves to emphasise the predominantly Jewish influence over the Woodrow Wilson presidency, and their role in guiding America into WWI. Brandeis was to also enjoy great influence over American politics throughout the inter-war years, and contributed to the belligerent rhetoric aimed against Germany in the 1930s.

Prior to the October 1916 London Agreement (that led to the Balfour Declaration) Talmudists (note here that I am differentiating here between ordinary Jews and those dedicated to the Talmud and it prophecies) throughout the world were pro-German.

The German Emancipation Edict of 1822 guaranteed Talmudists in Germany all civil rights enjoyed by Germans. Every other country in Europe had quotas for Talmudists. The quota systems had existed for centuries in all European countries. Under the quota system in European countries, Talmudists were limited in all activities to a small percentage of the Christian population of the country. The quota systems applied to all occupations. After the Emancipation Edict In 1822, Germany was the only country in Europe which did not place restrictions on Talmudists under a quota system limiting their civil rights.

Jews throughout the world were informed (via their organizations) of this treachery (i.e., the October 1916 London Agreement) by cable from London. That information transformed them from pro-German to pro-British. Great Britain placed at the disposal of Talmudists in London their secret codes and worldwide cable facilities to inform Jews throughout the world about Great Britain's pledge to turn over Palestine to them as a reward for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally in their war against Germany.

If you are a genuine scholar, intellectual, and English gentleman -- the last toryboy -- then you will be surely tempted to view the following as the clincher; the piece of evidence which suggests my whole argument vis-a-via Woodrow Wilson, Jews, and the Balfour Declaration is true [with a high probability] and needs to be addressed today, in our contemporary political thinking:

Sir Winston Churchill said in an interview with a prominent editor, published in Scribner's Commentator in 1936, that he "could never understand why he [Woodrow Wilson] put us in [the War] in 1917."

In that interview Sir Winston Churchill stated further:

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace there would have been no collapse of Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all of these 'isms' wouldn't be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives."

It would also have allowed us to keep our Empire, which in turn would have prevented the scourge of Communism from sweeping throughout South East Asia, prevented the rise of militant Islam, and would have also prevented the Korean War, the debacle in Cambodia, etc, etc. This is why, dear 'the last toryboy,' some people rightly condemn a certain class of Jews as the world's leading trouble makers. It then follows logically, that it is surely time we became fully cognizant of their antics and strategies, and learned to prevent them from occupying strategic positions in Western governments, especially those influencing our foreign affairs and immigration policies (which was my original point at the very beginning). Have you ever counted the number of Jews in the Clinton Administration? Over in Blighty, the basic philosophy behind New Labour was a Jewish (Talmudist) creation; hence the dominant presence of Peter Mandleson and Lord Levy.

One should always admire someone's ability to master a single topic, so that he becomes an expert. I acknowledge your expertise in World War One, but such expertise very often comes at a price: An inability to see the big picture.

You and everyone else will forget at your/their peril this key fact: one of the first laws Lenin's regime passed was to render the death penalty for anyone expressing anti-Semitism.

If you want the United States or the European Union to gradually move towards something similar, then just stay in your three-monkey pose: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; and you or your children can be taken to hell in a handcart whilst you waste energy puffing your weak chest out, shouting obscenities at messengers like me.

Good day to you.

12 September 2007 at 09:37  
Anonymous The recusant said...

nedsherry, I have found that Pseudo intellectual and quasi-historical rants often impress extremists and the gullible, your protestations of relative intelligence etc not withstanding, which category do you fall into?

For someone who rejects God because of a lack of proof you sure seem willing to accept the most outlandish claims from a bloke on the Internet with no evidence, a strange philosophy of life and no mistake. However if you cannot discern fact from wild assertions then by all means carry on.

12 September 2007 at 10:59  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...


Ah, well, your original comment implied that the US entry into the war caused German defeat, with talk of how the Entente was almost beaten in 1916.

I've read that Churchill quote before, and I really can't see that happening. A great man but not necessarily a man who was always correct. Lloyd George wasn't exactly a convinced hawk, he was actually fairly anti-war behind the scenes, or at least anti-Haig and anti-doctrine of attrition, but he knew that if he went out and said that he would be removed from power in short order by a considerably more hawkish public. US or not I think we would have been fighting for some time, no peace in 1917.

All this stuff on Untermeyer et al I have no idea about, and so no opinion either way. But things like the Balfour Declaration happened mainly, it seems to me, to tear up the Ottoman Empire by any means necessary. The British made a lot of promises regarding Ottoman lands, almost all of which were subsequently broken. Incidentally the British were moderately pro-Arab if anything, it seems to me, in the British Mandate, so if there really was a Jewish conspiracy aimed at securing Israel it was only marginally successful.

Even in the 50s it wasn't the US supporting the Jews in Israel - it was France.

...and as for WW1 destroying the British Empire, well, yes. WW1 was the end of the old order alright. With hindsight it would have been best for us to stay the hell away from that one no matter what.

12 September 2007 at 11:35  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the last toryboy ... I'll go along with your 11:35AM post. Nice to close on a civilized note and on good terms (I trust?). Regards, MI.

12 September 2007 at 12:22  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

I don't take any online argument/debate personally, so good terms remain, Mission.

12 September 2007 at 17:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older