Did Britain initiate both world wars?

[astro3]

Short book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-Initia ... 1530993180
Carolyn Yaeger interview: http://carolynyeager.net/nick-kollerstr ... world-wars
Comments welcome!

[Moderator]

astro3:
How about some comments from you concerning your links?
Thanks, M1

[madhatter]

Hi there,

Just like to say keep up the good work. I have had an interest in the 'behind the scenes' as it were, regarding historical events, for a while now and I must say the depth of research on this site is amazing. The latest video from Eric is an eye opener. I showed it to some friends who were very adamant about what happened, (believing the standard sory), and now they have gone very quiet!

I wonder if anyone has come across Terry Boardman. He has been studying WW1 since he was 16 years old. He has an interesting perspective on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yJ0zID_xw

[Mortimer]

Hi there,

Just like to say keep up the good work. I have had an interest in the 'behind the scenes' as it were, regarding historical events, for a while now and I must say the depth of research on this site is amazing. The latest video from Eric is an eye opener. I showed it to some friends who were very adamant about what happened, (believing the standard sory), and now they have gone very quiet!

I wonder if anyone has come across Terry Boardman. He has been studying WW1 since he was 16 years old. He has an interesting perspective on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yJ0zID_xw

Hi madhatter,
Welcome to the CODOH forums. With regards to Terry Boardman there is a WW1 forum if you feel like making a detailed post on his perspective - viewforum.php?f=27

[astro3]

"How about some comments from you concerning your links? " - Mod.

Ok, sure. This follows on from a study of ww1 and how, it seemed to me, Germany did everything to could to avoid it.(http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... ar_one.php)

It was a talk i gave in two parts, and the book's format retains that live format, eg its got some of the contributions from the audience. But I tidied it up a bit and put in some references.

I was very nervous giving this talk, because my point of view could in some respects be described as sympathetic to Hitler, in the way he was endeavouring to avoid the war. This went totally against what I'd believed all my life.

But afterwards I asked people and they said it seemed a balanced presentation. That gave me confidence. There was an audio recording made, and various people asked about the talk, so i transcribed it. It was quite easy to publish using Create Space.

Certainly, Churchill gets totally hammered in this text. I feel good about that.

I'm always conscious of the horror of living in a country that starts wars and that will bomb other countries. So maybe this short opus (70 pages or so) is my attempt to handle the way my fellow-countryment never seem to take the responsibilty for starting a war but always contrive to blame it upon the 'other.' who is actualy the victim.

There are loads of big, weighty texts on this topic but maybe there is a space for a short and easy-to-read text.

After composing it I read 'The Bad War' by Mike King. I put it as one of the recomended books, but that is more totally pro-National-Socialist than mine, so to speak.

Because there are such strong emotions around WW2, still today, as if its still being fought almost, I'm proposing that its better to discuss the two wars together, as they have a lot in common really in terms of how they were started.

This December we come up to the 100th anniversary of the German peace-offer: December 1916, Germany said, Look can we just stop this? Just go back home and be friends again? Its called 'Status quo ante.' But Britain rejected that, because ... (fil in your answer here!)

[astro3]

Its got a couple of five-star Amazon reviews, one by Fred Toben -
https://www.amazon.com/review/RBZU2874A ... eml_rv0_rv

[madhatter]

Here's an interesting passage from Power behind the Government today (1963) by Helen P Lassell.

In her book Helen Lassell writes that The Council on Foreign Relations, an organization supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation and others, made up its mind that no “revisionism” was to be encouraged after World War II: The following is an extract from the 1946 Report of The Rockefeller Foundation, referring to the Council’s work:

“The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War 1 should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear and competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the second World War.”

Accordingly, a three volume history of the War was to be prepared under the direction of Professor William Langer of Harvard , in which (one must gather this from the use of the term “debunking”) no revisionism was to appear. In other words, the official propaganda of World War 1 was to be perpetuated. - and the public was to be protected against learning the truth.

[Panther]

If there was a review of this book in something other than amazon, especially a library or newspaper, then my local library said they would purchase it.

[Depth Charge]

That is a poor interview, mostly because the author opens the discussion by claiming that the murder of Jo Cox was a hoax and that her death was faked. This is outrageous and damages anything he says afterwards about WW2, even if it's true.

[hermod]

Dr Nick Kollerstrom (Holocaust: Breaking the Spell ) speaks in Oxford for a lecture and discussion about his new book How Britain Initiated both World Wars...

February, 11, 2017

[789]

How diplomats make war
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/abbott/neilson.html
Within a year of the centenary of Waterloo, Europe is again engaged in a conflict, in which three Powers are united in awful bonds, to overthrow another military tyrant. Another hundred years of treaties, alliances, understandings, secret engagements, and ententes, leave Europe now in the throes of Gargantuan battles, the like of which Napoleon never in his wildest dreams imagined possible. A century ago, the vast majority of the millions of Europe believed it was absolutely necessary for nations to spend every energy in subduing the French Emperor, because he was a danger to the peace of the world and a menace to democracy. Twenty years of carnage, over fields extending from Moscow to Corunna, were spent in crushing the might of the "hero-monster" who rose at Toulon to be master of Europe. When at last the aim of the allies was accomplished, and the "man of blood" was safely isolated on St. Helena, Europe knew little peace, nor did Britain rest from the labours of the arsenal.
___________________________

Origins of the World War
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/fay/origin_212.html
___________________________

Shall it be again
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/turner ... be_22.html
The German government tried hard to find out whether England would intervene. The German ambassador asked Grey whether, in the event of war between Germany and Austria and France and Russia, England would remain neutral provided Germany would not violate Belgium. Grey’s refusal, alone, would be enough to dispose of the self-righteous claim the British government proceeded to make to its people, that the violation of Belgium was the sole cause of British belligerency.

The German ambassador inquired whether England would remain neutral, provided the integrity of both France and her colonies was guaranteed. Grey refused to tell him. Grey declined to state the conditions under which England would remain neutral; declined to state whether or not, in any event, England would remain neutral; at the same time declining to say that England would stand with France and Russia, but leading Germany on to hope that she would not.