The parallells between the destruction of Germany and that of Iraq are
- despite great differences as to the threat their existence showed -
too conspicious to be ignored. For those who want to know, there's no
coincidence.
First there is in both cases the two-step strategy: first a trench war,
which, after being won, is to be payed for by the loser, followed by a
Blitz-/shock and awe Krieg, to bring the integral destruction of both
countries themselves.
Deceit and lies determine the warm-up of both undertakings.
A reconsideration of what has happened and still is happening, and as a
consequence a 'revaluation of the old values' is necessary, even if all are
looking to the other side. (there will be exposure anyway, even amidst explosions)
Lately i encountered a report by The Dutch chairman of the Foundation Studycenter
First World War, mr. Andriessen, called Myths and reality in ww1 historiography.
One and the main myth is that Germany was solely responsible, guilty. Just like
Iraq was twice tricked and nailed. As i wrote earlier to one of the many English
mythologists, now Russia is generally considered to be the main instigator, because
they were the first to mobilize. I'm not interested in re-blame, just in
de-mythologization.
The pact between France - terrified towards Germany from the 1870 war on, which it
(still) had to fight without allied help - and Russia, declared with insistence, that
mobilization by one of the partners would actually mean war. Studying the proces
easily shows that Germany could hardly have acted otherwise than it did. Being between
two fronts, they attacked France via Belgium. England used an old treaty with Belgium
to declare war on Germany. (Quwait, originally Iraqian, plays more or less the part
of Belgium) Andriessen states that England could have prevented this escalation, but
chose not to. Instead propaganda and lying are expanding. (Germans chopping off
children's hands and so on) They referred to the old treaty with Belgium (1839), 'poor
little Belgium' But this was simply a lie, writes Andriessen, the little paper was
totally insignificant. Would it have been of importance, then Holland would have been
obliged to defend Belgium too. But it was all too glad not to have to.
The next myth, which i believed up to now, consists in Germany naval efforts. Andr. quotes
... Churchill, who said, in 1909, that the English position towards Germany was basically
one of filthy lying and panic-making. His words.
Next was the already mentioned mobilization by Russia, a threat to Germany. Why don't some people
look at a map of Europe for a change!
Next: the Serbian government, contrary to what was said, had knowledge of the conspiration to kill
Prince Ferdinand in Sarajevo. They wanted the war with Austria, and counted on Russia.
Already in 1915, in England two historians were ordered to write the history of the war. The first
conclusions were however desastrous for England and its Allied, so that they were fired. From then
on, only General Edmonds wrote history (read: myth) Churchill knew everything.
Andriessen concludes by calling official English historiography 'untrustworthy'
In this light, it was a pity to see Schroeder on an Allied victory party.
Kohl had never appeared on those filthy occasions.
-------
All this cannot be stopped, so that one might as well start the next round of
questions: why are the Germans since Friedrich 2 the dupes? There exists a German
saying: 'The loser carries the pest in his body'. Never more he can do something good,
even retrospectively. The same is already affecting America now.
rdb
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- despite great differences as to the threat their existence showed -
too conspicious to be ignored. For those who want to know, there's no
coincidence.
First there is in both cases the two-step strategy: first a trench war,
which, after being won, is to be payed for by the loser, followed by a
Blitz-/shock and awe Krieg, to bring the integral destruction of both
countries themselves.
Deceit and lies determine the warm-up of both undertakings.
A reconsideration of what has happened and still is happening, and as a
consequence a 'revaluation of the old values' is necessary, even if all are
looking to the other side. (there will be exposure anyway, even amidst explosions)
Lately i encountered a report by The Dutch chairman of the Foundation Studycenter
First World War, mr. Andriessen, called Myths and reality in ww1 historiography.
One and the main myth is that Germany was solely responsible, guilty. Just like
Iraq was twice tricked and nailed. As i wrote earlier to one of the many English
mythologists, now Russia is generally considered to be the main instigator, because
they were the first to mobilize. I'm not interested in re-blame, just in
de-mythologization.
The pact between France - terrified towards Germany from the 1870 war on, which it
(still) had to fight without allied help - and Russia, declared with insistence, that
mobilization by one of the partners would actually mean war. Studying the proces
easily shows that Germany could hardly have acted otherwise than it did. Being between
two fronts, they attacked France via Belgium. England used an old treaty with Belgium
to declare war on Germany. (Quwait, originally Iraqian, plays more or less the part
of Belgium) Andriessen states that England could have prevented this escalation, but
chose not to. Instead propaganda and lying are expanding. (Germans chopping off
children's hands and so on) They referred to the old treaty with Belgium (1839), 'poor
little Belgium' But this was simply a lie, writes Andriessen, the little paper was
totally insignificant. Would it have been of importance, then Holland would have been
obliged to defend Belgium too. But it was all too glad not to have to.
The next myth, which i believed up to now, consists in Germany naval efforts. Andr. quotes
... Churchill, who said, in 1909, that the English position towards Germany was basically
one of filthy lying and panic-making. His words.
Next was the already mentioned mobilization by Russia, a threat to Germany. Why don't some people
look at a map of Europe for a change!
Next: the Serbian government, contrary to what was said, had knowledge of the conspiration to kill
Prince Ferdinand in Sarajevo. They wanted the war with Austria, and counted on Russia.
Already in 1915, in England two historians were ordered to write the history of the war. The first
conclusions were however desastrous for England and its Allied, so that they were fired. From then
on, only General Edmonds wrote history (read: myth) Churchill knew everything.
Andriessen concludes by calling official English historiography 'untrustworthy'
In this light, it was a pity to see Schroeder on an Allied victory party.
Kohl had never appeared on those filthy occasions.
-------
All this cannot be stopped, so that one might as well start the next round of
questions: why are the Germans since Friedrich 2 the dupes? There exists a German
saying: 'The loser carries the pest in his body'. Never more he can do something good,
even retrospectively. The same is already affecting America now.
rdb
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---