The True Cause of World War 1

[Ferran]

What Really Caused World War 1?

The True Cause of World War 1

History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914.

This is the typical explanation. But the "revisionist historian" knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

Up until America's entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796. President Washington said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?'

President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America's involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.

The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909."

So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."

The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: "From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization... has been steadily growing."

The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."

The Sinking of the Lusitania

The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.

It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. "As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods."

England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that "By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol...."

This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

Secretary Bryan promised that "he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing... ."

Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as "the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas."

But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the "flame of indignation" did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: "We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war."

After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written that "Both sets of archives... contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel."

But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The cover-up was now official.

But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson's book and concluded: "The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill."

President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of "keeping us out of the War" during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.

The Real Reason for World War 1

But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America's entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson's major advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: "The House-Grey memorandum... pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election."

But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson urged the creation of the League of Nations in a speech entitled League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government.

Some were not happy with the slowness of America's entry into the war. One of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who:

In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane."

He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

Roosevelt favored both.

And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].

The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights."

This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.

Roosevelt's badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in the war "to end all wars," and "to make the world safe for democracy."

The war wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918.

Historian Walter Millis wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about House's basic intent: "The Colonel's sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order [a world government] of peace and security...."

The Outrageous Treaty of Versailles

The official treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Versailles, where representatives of all sides sat down at a conference table and wrote the treaty.

Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, and representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother. Max, the head of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany, and who "was not only in charge of Germany's finances but was a leader of the German espionage system" was there as a representative of the German government.

The Treaty was written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference. Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and declared: "This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years." Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war, and he correctly predicted the year it would start: 1939.

Lord Curzon was indeed a prophet: he picked the actual year that World War II would start!

One of the planks of the Treaty called for large amounts of war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government. This plank of the Treaty alone caused more grief in the German nation than any other and precipitated three events:

1. The "hyperinflation" of the German mark between 1920 and 1923;
2. The destruction of the middle class in Germany; and
3. The bringing to power of someone who could end the inflation: a dictator like Adolf Hitler.

This plank was written by John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight Eisenhower.

Even John Maynard Keynes became concerned about the Treaty. He wrote: "The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it".

In addition to writing the Treaty of Versailles, the nations who were victorious in the war also wrote the Charter of the League of Nations, which was ratified on January 10, 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and asked the Senate to ratify it The Senate, remembering George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty. President Wilson was not pleased, possibly because he saw himself, as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was quick to point out, as: "... a future President of the world."

It is now apparent that Wilson intended to head up the world government the war was fought to give the world, and he became depressed when the Treaty was not ratified. Imagine the disappointment of one who had come so close to becoming the very first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Imagine the sense of incredible power that Wilson must have felt, thinking he would become the very first individual in the history of mankind to rule the world. Others had tried and failed, but Wilson was confident that he would succeed.

But the American people, expressing their displeasure through the Senate, would not let him.

The Rich Get Richer

Others were not so disappointed, however. "The war, in brief, provided an unparalleled opportunity for the richest families to grab [exorbitant profits] at the expense of the public and, without exception, they made the most of this opportunity. The rich families, to be sure, wanted the war to be won, but they took care that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers. They uttered no cries for government economy... so long as the public treasury was at their disposal."

One of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were "the Rockefellers, who were very eager for the United States to enter World War I, [and who] made far more than $200,000,000 from that conflict."

But support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members: "It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations...."

As could have been anticipated, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920.

The Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter: "It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part."

He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican "warhawks," who was ".. .backed by a powerful group of rich men who wish(ed) a military man in the White House."

The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as an evidence of that distrust and concern. Harding outpolled his opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson who had "kept us out of the war" during the election of 1916. Wilson got only fifty-two percent of the vote, and Harding got sixty-four percent

Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft's campaign manager, as his Attorney General.

His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise, however, as he unexplainably surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry.

For instance:

• his Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil;
• his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil;
• his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and
• his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.

It was Mr. Fall who was to be President Harding's downfall, as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy's oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.

There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons:

1. Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join as the League had survived the Senate's prior refusal to ratify the treaty, and
2. Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.

These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on August 2, 1923, before the story completely surfaced. (There are those who believe that there were some who couldn't wait for the Teapot Dome Scandal to remove President Harding, and that he was poisoned.)

But the oil interests allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests.

The warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States.



Source: http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm

[Gladstone]

I can't speak as to President Woodrow Wilson desiring to be 'president of the world' as I don't know but there was (and very likely still is) an ideology of a 'United States of the World'.

Below is an article published in the United States in 1899. Keep in mind the context of the times it was written. Only a few years earlier the center of world finance had moved from London to New York, and the United States and United Kingdom had only just formed their 'special relationship'*, a relationship which is only just short of an outright political union. And while within not too many years the US alone would dominate the world economically**, the US-UK in their 'special relationship' and with their combined GDP's already would do so by 1900. This gets at what the 'peace movement' was in reality about. It certainly was not about 'peace' as people presumed it, but was rather about the maintaining and consolidation of the global economic hegemony the US-UK bloc had achieved by the start of the 20th century. The League of Nations and later the UN were, and in the case of the UN still are, very much a part of this. Sometimes I am surprised how many countries have joined the League of Nations and the UN, being that the establishment of both institutions were clearly long term goals of the British Empire, and can only conclude that the leaders of these countries were either bribed, coerced thru economic extortion, or intimidated...or possibly in some instances, as is all too often the case, never had much interest in their peoples' well being in the first place. As for the substance of this 'peace', it is multi-culturalism enforced worldwide at gunpoint. Multi-culturalism itself is simply the ideology of the immensely profitable*** trade in 'cheap labor', and cheap labor is merely a streamlined version of chattel slavery. Not coincidentally it was the British Empire which had dominated the global trade in slaves in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century's and it was the United States, it would appear, which led the way in the far more profitable**** (but exponentially far more socially destructive) new trade in cheap labor starting in the 1780's.


"The great idea of a world federation in some form has gotten clearly into men's minds. It is too powerful, too attractive and inspiring to be resisted. All obstacles to its realization will be broken down, if not tomorrow, then afterwards."

League of Nations

"We said that the great cause had found voice in Boston, and had also found a book. It is a singular good fortune by which at this precise moment appears Dr. Trueblood's book on "The Federation of the World." Dr. Trueblood's services in America for the cause of peace and international fraternity have been immense. "The Advocate of Peace," which he edits with such distinguished ability, ought to be every month on the table of every thoughtful man in the country, whatever else is there or is not there. His pamphlets on the history of arbitration and related subjects are the best which there are. No other translations of Kant's "Eternal Peace" is so good as his. But in this little book (Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, $1.00) he covers the whole ground in brief. The ten chapters treat: The Solidarity of Humanity, Solidarity Unrealized, The Causes of the Disunity, The Development of the War System, The Influence of Christianity in restoring the Federative Principle, War Ethically Wrong, War Anti-Federative, The New World Society, The Growing Triumph of Arbitration, and The United States of the World. An appendix contains the Czar's rescript, calling for the conference on reduction of armaments; and seven pages are given to a bibliography of the most important publications relating to the federation of the world. We wish that it were possible to illustrate here, by passages from sucessive chapters, the broad range, the wisdom and the vitality of this timely book; but this is not here possible. One pregnant passage from the striking chapter on "The United States of the World" we give, as an interesting forecast of the steps by which the better organization of the world may ultimately come about:

"Along what lines the movement toward this general world government will take place it is not easy to forecast, except in a general way. Two or three courses are open, any one or all of which may be followed. The United States of America may in time become really such. The very name seems to be prophetic. Canada, Mexico, and Central America may some day of their own accord, ask to be admitted into a federal union with the United States. In time a great South American republic of republics may be formed, through some movement or groups of movements akin to that already taking place among the Central American states and the British Australian colonies. Then may follow a federation of the two American continents. The United States of Europe, so long dreamed of and written of by European reformers, seem today but the shadow of a name; but whoever remembers the history of the consolidation of France and Italy, or Germany, or the still more remarkable history of the consolidation of the Swiss cantons composed of peoples of different races, speaking different languages, into a coherant national federation, will not say that a United States of Europe is an impossibility. On the contrary, the whole course of the modern history of nation building foreshadows a European federation. The continent of Asia may some day have a like transformation; and that of Africa, too, renewed at last by a Christian civilization; and that of Australia before either of them, if one may judge from the federative tendencies already showing themselves between the colonies there. If this should prove to be the way in which the world state is to work itself out, the islands of the sea will group themselves in with the continental federations where they naturally belong. At last these continental federations will flow together into a great world federation, the final political destiny of humanity, where all the larger hopes of love and fellowship, of peace and happy prosperity lie. I do not pretend to assert that the actual order of movement will be as here outlined, but only that this is a possible, perhaps a probable order in which the federation of the world will come, at least in part. This forecast is in harmony with actual historic processes now working, and having for generations worked, at several points in civilized society."

United Nations in New York

"Another course is possible. A great racial federation, as of the Anglo-Saxon people, may come first, with its centres of agglomeration in all parts of the world, which will gather to itself by an irresistable moral gravitation all other peoples. Racial federation is already playing its part very powerfully in the processes of civilization. Several races, it is true, are exhibiting, in greater or less degree, kindred phenomena. But racial distinctions are in many respects beginning to break down, because of the intermingling of peoples in all quarters of the globe. What may be styled the universal human characteristics, those belonging to the one race of man lying at the basis of all sub-races, are destined thus more and more to come to the front as against those whose which have marked off one portion of mankind from another. That race, whichever it may prove to be, which develops these general human characteristics most fully and most rapidly, and throws off most completely all that is adventitious and unessential, will, in the nature of the case, prove to be the nucleus or furnish the nuclei about which civilization in all parts of the world will crystallize. Men will not care at last by what racial name they are called, or what language they speak, provided their higher interests of every kind are served. They will feel it more noble to be men and to speak the one universal language of men than to be Englishmen or Germans or Frenchmen, and to speak any of these great tongues. Whatever race shall prove itself fittest to lead in this federative process, whether the Anglo-Saxon, as now seems possible, or some other, will itself be modified, purified, and strengthened for its work as the final world race by what it receives from the races which it draws to itself, and even from those which through weakness shall finally be eliminated."

Dr. Trueblood's book is the book of books for the crusade which is now being inaugurated among us; and it should be circulated by the thousands. It is a book of hope and confidence. After all the long and dark survey of history and sober estimate of present facts, the last word is the word of one to whom the federation of the world is already in sight; and we can close with no better word: "The great idea of a world federation in some form has gotten clearly into men's minds. It is too powerful, too attractive and inspiring to be resisted. All obstacles to its realization will be broken down, if not tomorrow, then afterwards. How soon, will depend largely on the purpose, the intelligence, the heart, which those already possessed of the great idea shall put into the work of reconstructing and reorganizing humanity on a world basis."

* The 'special relationship' is very much still in existance...ie the US-UK role in the present war in Iraq and Afghansitan

** And still does

*** Profitable for a very few...ie elites

**** Former US Treasurer and 'speculator in slaves' Robert J Walker would calculate in 1863 that cheap 'free' labor was four times more profitable than chattel slavery

A link to the full article in the April 1899 issue of The New England Magazine pg 258-259

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...FJ3026-1020-33

[Gladstone]

Below are some quotes from and a link to a free online book, The Crime Against Europe published in 1915, of somebody who had been part of the British Establishment...Sir Roger Casement...a person who really knew their geo-politics.

Sir Roger Casement (l) in New York - 1914

"During the first six months of 1914, German export trade almost equalled that of Great Britain. Another year of peace, and it would certainly have exceeded it..."

"The Anglo-American 'Peace Movement' was to be but the first stage in an "Anglo-Saxon Alliance," intended to limit and restrict all further world changes..."

http://www.irish-nationalism.net/for...ead.php?t=6219