This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: If Only The U.S. Had Stayed Out Of World War I

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by David Stockman via The Japan Times,

The first big wave of embracing a liberal international economic order - relatively free trade, rising international capital flows and rapidly growing global economic integration - resulted in something remarkable.

Between 1870 and 1914, there was a 45-year span of rising living standards, stable prices, massive capital investment and prolific technological progress. In terms of overall progress, these four-plus decades have never been equaled — either before or since.

Then came the Great War. It involved a scale of total industrial mobilization and financial mayhem that was unlike any that had gone before. In the case of Great Britain, for example, its national debt increased 14-fold.

In addition, England’s price level doubled, its capital stock was depleted, most offshore investments were liquidated and universal wartime conscription left it with a massive overhang of human and financial liabilities.

Despite all that, England still stood out as the least devastated of the major European countries. In France, the price level inflated by 300 percent, its extensive Russian investments were confiscated by the Bolsheviks and its debts in New York and London catapulted to more than 100 percent of GDP.

Among the defeated powers, currencies emerged nearly worthless. The German mark was only worth five cents on the prewar dollar, while the country’s wartime debts — especially after the Carthaginian peace of Versailles which John Maynard Keynes skewered so brilliantly — soared to crushing, unrepayable heights. In short, the wave of debt, currency inflation and financial disorder from the Great War was immense and unprecedented.

With all that in mind, one important question only rises in importance: Was the United States’ intervention in April 1917 warranted or not?

And did it only end up prolonging the European slaughter?

Never mind that it resulted in a cockamamie peace, which gave rise to totalitarianism among the defeated powers. Even conventional historians like Niall Ferguson admit as much.

Had President Woodrow Wilson not misled the U.S. on a messianic crusade, Europe’s Great War would have ended in mutual exhaustion in 1917.

Both sides would have gone home battered and bankrupt — but would not have presented any danger to the rest of mankind.

Indeed, absent Wilson’s crusade, there would have been no allied victory, no punitive peace — and no war reparations. Nor would there have been a Leninist coup in Petrograd — or later on, the emergence of Stalin’s barbaric regime.

Likewise, there would have been no Hitler, no Nazi dystopia, no Munich, no Sudetenland and Danzig corridor crises, no need for a British war to save Poland, no final solution and Holocaust, no global war against Germany and Japan — and, finally, no incineration of 200,000 civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nor would all of these events have been followed by a Cold War with the Soviets or CIA-sponsored coups and assassinations in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and the Congo, to name just a few.

Surely, there would have been no CIA plot to assassinate Castro, or Russian missiles in Cuba or a crisis that took the world to the brink of annihilation.

There would have been no Dulles brothers, no domino theory and no Vietnam slaughter, either. Nor would the U.S. have launched a war in Afghanistan’s mountain valleys to arouse the mujaheddin from their slumber — and hence train the future al-Qaida.

Likewise, in Iran there would have been no shah and his Savak terror, no Khomeini-led Islamic counter-revolution, no U.S. aid to enable Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks on Iranian boy soldiers in the 1980s.

Nor would there have been an American invasion of Arabia in 1991 to stop our erstwhile ally Saddam from looting the equally contemptible emir of Kuwait’s ill-gotten oil plunder — or, alas, the horrific 9/11 blow-back a decade later.

Most surely, the axis of evil — that is, the Washington-based Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon axis — would not have arisen, nor would it have foisted a near-$1 trillion warfare state budget on the 21st-century U.S.

The real point of that Great War, in terms of the annals of U.S. economic history, is that it enabled the already-rising U.S. economy to boom for the better part of 15 years after the onset of the war.

In the first stage, the U.S. became the granary and arsenal to the European allies. This triggered an eruption of domestic investment and production that transformed the nation into a massive global creditor and powerhouse exporter, virtually overnight.

U.S. farm exports quadrupled and farm income surged from $3 billion to $9 billion. Land prices soared, country banks proliferated and the same was true of industry. For example, steel production rose from 30 million tons annually to nearly 50 million tons.

Altogether, in six short years from 1914 to 1920, $40 billion of U.S. GDP turned into $92 billion — a sizzling 15 percent annual rate of gain.

The depression that could have been avoided

Needless to say, these figures reflected an inflationary, war-swollen economy. After all, the U.S. had loaned the Allies massive amounts of money — all to purchase grain, pork, wool, steel, munitions and ships from the U.S.

This transfer amounted to nearly 15 percent of GDP, or an equivalent of $2 trillion in today’s economy. It also represented a form of vendor finance that was destined to vanish at war’s end. As it happened, the U.S. did experience a brief but deep recession in 1920. But it was not a thoroughgoing end-of-war one that would “detox” the economy.

The day of reckoning was merely postponed. It finally arrived in 1933 when the depression hit with full force. The U.S. economy was cratering — and Germany embarked on its disastrous “recovery” experience under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.

These two events — along with so many of the above-listed offenses later on — could have been avoided if only the U.S. had shown the wisdom of staying out of World War I.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:46 | 4948908 CashCowEquity
CashCowEquity's picture

USA was on its way to GOAT nation status, The Fed made sure that didnt happen.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:53 | 4948938 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

If only the serpent had not approached Eve.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:59 | 4948954 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Woodrow Wilson: "I have unwittingly ruined my country"

The New Freedom by Woodrow Wilson - Project Gutenberg

.. and apparently, the rest of the world.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:04 | 4948961 Manthong
Manthong's picture

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? 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, humor or caprice?”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:09 | 4948974 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Rothchilds (red child) pushed US into war with Germany, who didn't want war. Rothchilds wanted control of Germanic empires and seem to at this time finally have control, but the German's are waking up yet again to their crafty monetary City of London masters. 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:54 | 4949081 0z
0z's picture

It means red shield, and it's a very common name. The Great War was very bad for the Rothschilds business, but they nevertheless tried to profit from it as much as possible.
That being said, America was founded on stealing lands, plunder and slavery. So it shouldnt be a surprise that they conquered Western Europe after it had been weakened by 3 years of intensive War. Then they exported the model, which is still all the rage around here in Burma, where tribes are being genocided because they don't want the oil drills to come destroy their lands. 500 years of the same thing, over and over again. I call it the 500 year War.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:21 | 4949123 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

"I call it the 500 year War."

And they call it "Business as usual" same as it ever was...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:06 | 4949228 JoeSexPack
JoeSexPack's picture

Close Billy, Rothschilds are red-shields, as in Red Hex shield of the World Revolutionary movement of centuries past. Yes, they own major shares in central banks worldwide, centered in London, start most wars & have for centuries. Germans knew this in 30's, as did most Euro's & Americans.

 

UK was broke & failing fast in WW1, French army mutineed, Germany knocked out Russia & moved armies west. Roth's cut a deal to give UK $$$ & push US into war on UK side (Lusitania nonsense in MSM), in exchange for Palestine (Israel). It worked, UK won & took Palestine from dead Ottoman Empire, gave to Lord Rothschild. Same fam still owns most Israeli land in a trust, Israeli Jews are serfs.

 

Roth's wanted a colony of Jews in Palestine, but Euro Jews would not go, they liked Europe's climate, culture & wealth. So, Roth's searched for anti-Semitic politicians to light a fire under Euro Jews & push them to Palestine. They found the NSDAP & its leader Hitler, & funded them in 1930's. They got the World Jewish Congress to declare war on Germany in 1933, BEFORE Nazi's formed gov't or Hitler was chancellor. Predictably, Hitler responded with Krystallnacht & Nurnberg Race Laws. UK, USSR, USA & France said little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnW_vO0VeI0

Until....Hitler printed debt-free notes, secured by German labor, & the German economy boomed, ending their Depression. Same way the US economy boomed when Lincoln printed debt-free notes in 1860's during Civil War. Debt-free notes kill debt-notes from central banks, & so Roth's responded to this mortal threat to their Empire of Debt & Fiat $$$ with war, or assassination in Lincoln's case. All 4 assasinated US presidents were in favor of debt-free $$$. 2 others that were shot, but lived, also favored it, Jackson & Reagan.

 

& yeah, with gold claims to FED, anti-FED marches & leaning to Russia, Germans appear to be reawakening. Good for them. Let freedom ring.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:11 | 4949240 JoeSexPack
JoeSexPack's picture

Attached is link to Rothschild family crest.

 

That fam funded & started Zionism in 1800's, to give ideology for Euro Jews to return to Isreal, which Roth's wanted as their private colony.

 

Zionists took 6-pointed star from Roth crest, also blue & white colors for Israel's flag. Lord Rothschild is on Israeli bank notes.

 

http://webpages.milwpc.com/phgulgow/g_photos10/CoA%20of%20the%20Barons%2...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:16 | 4949242 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Excellent JSP. Thanks for the conscise history.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:35 | 4949273 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Stare at that crest long enough..

It is one crazy-ass piece of work.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:20 | 4949322 JoeSexPack
JoeSexPack's picture

6-pointed star has 6 points, around 6 triangles, around a 6-sided hexagon. 666.

 

Colors of Chase are blue & white.

 

With a weird shape in logo.

 

Coincidence?

 

You decide.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 01:20 | 4949359 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The crest reads (in English), "unity, integrity, entrepreneurship."  Sounds kind of Randian, which is not surprising given that she fucked a Rothschild heir (look it up).  And then there's this:

"The Rothschilds are a remarkable pan-European Jewish family. Taking their name from the house of their 16th century ancestors, “zum roten Schild” (at the sign of the red shield) in Frankfurt’s Jewish ghetto, they became one of the wealthiest and most powerful 19th century dynasties; bankers to monarchs and governments, builders of great houses and collectors of the finest art. Mayer Amschel (1744-1812), who founded the banking business, came from a modest merchant family who set up as a dealer in antique coins before becoming Court Agent to William, the future Elector of Hesse."  http://www.therothschildfoundation.com/history/family

They like their wealth, and they are not ashamed of their greed.  All four centuries of it because, you know, the Productive Class likes to inherit shit.  This is what Rand celebrates, and what it begets, all of you fuckholes who worship her.  

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 01:55 | 4949392 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Hahaha, exactly.

-Chumbz.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 08:26 | 4949623 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

So Rand is now a Rothchild agent?

Got it.

Please step away from your ad-hom crack pipe.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 09:18 | 4949677 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it?

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:11 | 4949701 nmewn
nmewn's picture

LTER"s conclusion was:

"They like their wealth, and they are not ashamed of their greed.  All four centuries of it because, you know, the Productive Class likes to inherit shit.  This is what Rand celebrates, and what it begets, all of you fuckholes who worship her."

And here I thought Rand's writings (as it applies to individuals and in the context LTER has the greatest problem with) had to do with ownership, that is, what you have worked for (the benefts of your own personal labor) or will ever work for in the future...belongs to the one who toiled away for it.

Not some interloper who comes in after the hard part is done (the work part, the long hours part, the sacrificing of immediate pleasure for self sufficiency & security later part) and reapportions the benefits of the aforementioned labor to those who have done absolutely nothing to merit it.

So who has more greed now, the thief who steals what is not theirs or those who would hire a thief (or governments) to take what is not theirs by force?

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:18 | 4949916 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Or to phrase it slightly differently and more accurately:

"Rand's writings . . . had to do with ownership, . . . what you have STOLEN (the benefts of your own personal labor) or will ever STEAL in the future...belongs to the one who STOLE it, NOT TO THE ONES IT WAS STOLEN FROM."

The Rothschild family STOLE THEIR FAMILY WEALTH. They acquired and kept their wealth by fraud and by lying, stealing, cheating and killing. By loaning money to and bribing politicians and other government officials, they KEPT THEIR BOOTY and AVOIDED PAYING TAXES ON IT.

"So who has more greed now, the thief who steals what is not theirs or those who would hire a thief (or governments) to take what is not theirs by force?"

The Rothschilds used both methods to acquire and keep their wealth. They are a criminal family enterprise that spans many generations. This has been well documented over the years even though the Rothschilds' media empires have worked tirelessly to prevent the truth hidden.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:34 | 4949947 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I have stolen nothing.

LTER''s tiresome diatribes are usually directed at making people feel guilty of their own accomplishments.

Because of the Rothschilds use of the states apparatus to aquire their wealth somehow means we should not protect our own from the greed of the states machinations...errr, ahhh...the benevolence of the states roving bands of re-apportioners?

Which is (by the way) the very thing that allowed the Rothschilds to become wealthy in the first place ;-)

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 14:26 | 4950274 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

To clarify, for the sake of argument, assume your parents stole something valuable. The theft has not been recovered by the victims. They die and you are their heir. Do you believe that, since YOU STOLE NOTHING, the stolen property is and should be yours without any claims thereon from the victims?

According to your "logic", why should Swiss banks return any stolen property to heirs of victims if they stole nothing? Why should any stolen property ever be returned to the victims if the thief no longer possesses the stolen property?

And what about land that was, contrary to valid, legal treaties, stolen from American Indians? A cloud on the title or no?

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 17:44 | 4950800 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

If anyone approached me with proof of ownership of something in my possession I would give it to them. This is simply the right thing to do. However if an heir of Chief Joseph came to me and claimed a legitimate ownership of my property, I would not relinquish it. Not from the legalistic ploy that Native Americans had no concept of European land ownership and therefore the claim could not be valid, but that the land was "owned" by someone who died more than 100 years ago. All of us live on land stolen from someone if one looks back far enough historically.

Many atrocities were committed against the Native Americans. I acknowledge, sympathize and wish it didn't occur but these sins were not committed by me. Those who did bear the guilt of their crimes and hopefully will have some Devine retribution heaped on their souls.

Unfortunately life is not fair and debts are not paid. Having experienced this myself I understand the anger and frustration.

Miffed;-)

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 21:15 | 4951265 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

So it's a matter of how much time has expired since the theft occurred? What about property that has been stolen by unlawful foreclosures by banks within the last few years?

How much time does the victim have to reclaim his property from you?

Some paintings are reclaimed by their original after many years. It's been over 70 years now in the case of the Nazi thefts.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 23:34 | 4951516 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

You have a point about time. It is tenuous at best. However, I believe returning property to the original owner seems valid. I remember gazing at the Luxor obelisk in Paris and realizing I was staring at a blatant theft. How many examples of this are throughout the world? Reparations for global misdeads should be required if possible but can never be fully realized in all cases. Having been stolen from myself a considerable amount of money, I can synpathize.

Miffed;-)

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:21 | 4951693 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

If anyone approached me with proof of ownership of something in my possession I would give it to them. This is simply the right thing to do. However if an heir of Chief Joseph came to me and claimed a legitimate ownership of my property, I would not relinquish it. Not from the legalistic ploy that Native Americans had no concept of European land ownership and therefore the claim could not be valid, but that the land was "owned" by someone who died more than 100 years ago. All of us live on land stolen from someone if one looks back far enough historically.
_________________________________________________________

That is such an 'american' answer.

For 'americans', the group is all.

No one else, in all human history, has spent as much resources as 'americans' to try to paint oneself as one is not.

An 'american' world is a world of fantasy.

Indians were guilty of not being condoned by an 'american' state apparatus. Therefore their natural rights could not exist.

And this is how things are in an 'american' world.

Now compared this fact to the number of 'americans' on this site claiming that they owe nothing to their state, that the state gives them nothing?

'Americans' are statists at heart. The State is core to their society.

But they cant paint themselves as they are so 'americans' enjoy claiming they are not statists.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:29 | 4951699 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

To clarify, for the sake of argument, assume your parents stole something valuable. The theft has not been recovered by the victims. They die and you are their heir. Do you believe that, since YOU STOLE NOTHING, the stolen property is and should be yours without any claims thereon from the victims?
_________________________________

To clarify? But 'americans' clarified that point long ago. Only people who wish not to see do not see.

The US is a colonial country that is based on recet.

'Americans' look at point of no return, it is their way of doing.

They steal, deny they've stolen and once recourse against theft is no longer available, 'americans' drop the issue.

That is why 'americanism' contains that germ for large scale slaughters, genocides.

'Americans' strive to reach that point when no original owner is possible to trace back.

When this point is reached, 'americans' can go out and tell they feel sorry, that they would gladly return what they have stolen but there is no fitting candidate.

It is no surprise that in the context of a world population boom, the population of Indians in the US has been decreasing.

Indians in the US are less numerous than they were at the start of the 20th century.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 01:40 | 4949383 The_Dude
The_Dude's picture

Try this on for a conscise history....40 minutes...worth every one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

A warning for all of us....know your enemy!

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:19 | 4949255 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

BALFOUR DECLARATION

Mystery solved in two words.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 09:54 | 4949707 Blazed
Blazed's picture

The Kosher collective and their MSM were pushing the "6 million Jews" holocau$t figure long before WWII as well! 

SIX MILLION JEWS 1915-1938: 10 Major Newspapers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk

The First Holocaust

Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns

with Holocaust Claims

During and After World War One

 http://vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:04 | 4949881 Darth Sidious
Darth Sidious's picture

wow, unbelievable . . . there were someonewhere between 6 and 8 million jews in europe during that period, mostly in poland, russian and the ukraine . . . so when referring to those areas the newspapers rounded to 6 million several times and then the actual number exterminated was rounded to 6 million.  What a shocking revelation.

That guy is a regular sherlock holmes uncovering the great international zionist conspiracy

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:24 | 4949929 Monty Burns
Monty Burns's picture

Excellent, Joe.  All I could add is that Churchill had become bankrupt in th early thirties and had been rescued by YKW.  After he got power he resisted every chance to shorten the war, thereby being responsible for millions of unnecessay deaths.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:20 | 4949133 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"That being said, America was founded on stealing lands, plunder and slavery."

That's the M. O. for all governments.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:30 | 4949156 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Yup, and what were the govts of europe, asia, africa and south america formed on?   What were the "govts" of the "native americans" founded on?  

 

I would venture to say- "stealing lands, plunder and slavery".  

 

Your point?

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:34 | 4949163 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Sorry. 

That comment was meant as a reply to oz.

 

Beer...

 

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:08 | 4949217 JoeSexPack
JoeSexPack's picture

WW1 was disaster for US, & gave rise to Isolationist Movement & America First idea to keep US out of future foreign wars.

 

That is reason MSM tries so hard to disparage both ideas.

 

Don't be fooled.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:51 | 4949438 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

In some point of history, as men did not appear from nowhere, it happened that human beings entered lands that were empty.

Not empty as 'americans' thought theirs were empty, that is filled with human beings that 'americans' would tag as sub humans or non humans in order to claim the lands were empty, but empty.

At this point, well, it might be hard to maintain the 'american' fantasy of that stealing lands, plunder and slavery etc

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 11:47 | 4949864 viahj
viahj's picture

I'm pretty sure that Tibet wasn't empty.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:32 | 4951703 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It is also pretty sure that 'America' was not empty and that the guys who performed the thieving act claimed that right to property is a human right.

Free Tibet!

Free the United States of America.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 04:15 | 4949508 0z
0z's picture

America was an interesting case if only for the sheer size and expediency of the massacre. The natives were caught unprepared in every aspect, and the plunder of gold/silver, which resulted in runaway inflation, was sending population-moving price feedbacks into Europe, where high costs of living were forcing colonists over to America, reinforcing the cycle. Quite the story actually. The ciminal Lords, in the end, only enjoyed a life of plenty in the wake of their Blood Empires, but everyone else lost, and is still losing to this day. The Great Irony is; they are fucking themselves up in the end. We all inherit the ruins. Where is the Nile Delta? We might get it back in... 1000 ... 2000 years?
Here's a good book about the conquest of America: http://theebooksbay.com/conquest-of-america-how-the-indian-nations-lost-their-continent-hans-koning/

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 07:04 | 4949583 Marco
Marco's picture

The native Americans didn't even need any real government to do it ...

For laws which are supposed to be natural Rothbard's natural laws sure lack historical precedent.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:38 | 4949167 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Great American expansion after 1870 consisted of decimating the plains and western native Indian tribes and confiscation of their lands. There was not one but two great depressions following giant bubbles :1873-9 known as the Great Depression and 1893-7 during which unemployment in New York was 35%. Despite great wealth and technological advances there was extreme inequality and wealth disparity. Crony capitalists formed legal cartels to put everyone else out of business using under the table rebates and kickbacks. There were strikes, marches on Washington, bombs on Wall Street and civil unrest in the cities prompting the construction of the armory system in New York City to put down unrest with guns. There was child labor, sweat shops, company stores, and 16 hour workdays. Alcoholism was huge.

Yes it was a glorious time

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:02 | 4949223 max2205
max2205's picture

No Kardashians. ..bush..barry....drugs....corp fraud....income taxes...property taxes....unions.....ect

 

Dream on

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:20 | 4949321 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

No surveillance grid.  Nice.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:27 | 4949934 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

No juvenile delinquents on the streets either. They were too busy working in the coal mines where they belonged. That taught them the value of long hours of hard work. And it saved a lot of money teaching them useless skills like reading and writing.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 05:18 | 4949546 goldsansstandard
goldsansstandard's picture

The National Banking Oligopoly centered in Mew York fed the booms and thus the busts. It was created by Lincoln, and destroyed the free banking system that prospered from 1837 till the civil war.
Fractional reserve fraud was the problem, It is built into the bank charter granted by the politicians.

Despite all of the predations of the banksters, progress out of the Middle Ages proceded.

and the concentration of wealth given to the benefactors of fractional reserve credit started to crumble.

The elite would have none of that, the country banks and small banks had to be brought to heel.

Thus the Progressives gave us the Fed.

The politicians give the bankers this power because the banks buy .gov paper.

Lefties like the free stuff that fractional reserve fraud buys.

Lefties, Useful idiots for the Banksters, romancing the state, and it's bastard creation , the banking system.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:40 | 4949960 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Funny how competition is recommended for every market except the most important, that of the note issue. The irony betrays how the world really works. Progs and plutocrats were made for each other.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 18:48 | 4950956 robobbob
robobbob's picture

at least in past history, when a depression came, aggregate prices actually fell, helping the suffering masses by lowering the cost of living and giving a net near zero inflation rate averaged over time.

since the great innovation of the Fed,  prices generally only head in one direction, and so does the average citizens wealth.

an 1830's dollar was similar to an 1880's one. a 2014 one is only worth 2% of the 1914 version.

viva central planned stability.

 

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:08 | 4949720 Nels
Nels's picture

America was founded on stealing lands, plunder and slavery ...  I call it the 500 year War.

You might as well call it the 50,000 year war.  This is true of all cutlures, all governments, with the exception of a very few, very small groups like the shakers.  The Aztecs and Mayas weren't so nice, neither were the Norh American natives free of war.

It's the human condition.  The best you get is a few civilizations were the idea erupts that maybe it isn't the best way to do things.  You know, like Western Civ thinks now.  Unfortunately, that thought tends to note the later years of said civilization, just before folks who enjoy stealing and plunder come in.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 01:52 | 4951666 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It is the human condition? Western civilization? It is hoped western civilization does mean 'american' civilization because since their inception, 'americans' have engaged in the largest theft spree ever, all disguised under the natural rights theory.

It is only 'american' nature to do so, to claim that 'american' nature is human nature.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 11:34 | 4949842 EINSILVERGUY
EINSILVERGUY's picture

Thats a simplified and leftist view of history and Im personally sick of this lefist prism. 

I won't refute each of your charges in detail because I think Dinesh Dsouza has done that in his film. I would make similar points.  

Conquest is as old as time. Native americans conquered and fought for and over lands hundreds of years before the first settlers arrived. Indians murdered and enslaved each others (as did native Africans)The United States is not unique in that a more advanced group of individuals have subdued a culture that could not match its numbers or technological superiority.  

Slavery existed thousands of years before the US was founded and the US was the only country that pitted brother against brother and family against family and in the end delivered freedom to the slaves. Also, as noted above, Africans delivered Africans to western slave brokers and at the time of the original settlements there were more White slaves (indentured servants) than African. Having said that, this will always be a dark chapter in American history but the fact that the US elected the first African American (his competency is a seperate argument) speaks volumes that as Churchill once said, "the US makes the right decision only after it exhausts all others")

The US has had hegemonic power since WWII buts also the only true superpower(though failing fast now) that not freed millions from fascist tyranny. What other country invades Jap and Germany and Italy, spends billions to help rebuild those same countries (The Marshall Plan) and provides a protective umbrella of security to those nations ( who by the way don't mind the US guaranteeing their security but suddenly get squeamish when they have to increase monies for their own defense but don't want Pershing 2 or Tomahawk cruise missiles to counteract the Soviet SS20'.s Sure its ok that the missiles fly between Russia and the US but suddenly when the Europeans have to have skin in the game they get weak kneed)

The United States has lost its way over the last 25 Years.  We changed after successive progressives took control of the whitehouse (1990 to now).  Bush 41 screwed this country over by aligning his 1000 points of light with the globalists furthering the demise of the US economy.  Clinton spent more time chasing tail and take crediting over Reagan's piece dividend with a last gasp robust economy that was actually FED smoke and mirrors.  Just imagine if that POS had doe his job and took Osama Bin Laden out on the 3 seperate times he had the chance? Bush 43 put this country onto the road of bankcruptcy with his misguided military actions and atempts at nation building, expanded welfare ( No Child, Medicare Prescription D,) and arrogance to think you can bring people from the 12th century into the 21st.   He also let the orwellian genie out of the bottle using 911 as an excuse to sacrifice liberty for security and as B Franklin said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither". The US has brought its current situation onto itself. Now the demise is almost complete with this Alynskyite Marxist in the white house doing everything he can to reduce the US to a third world country and complete its collapse through the cloward piven strategy. Its these 1960's hate america crowd that will elliminate the last chance some measure of protection of freedom. 

For those that revel in the fall of the once great United States.  We were the last bastion of hope to many. See what life will be like when China and Russia rule. Ask the Hungarians, Czecks, Chechens, The Ukrainains from the 1930s, The Finns, the 60 million that China purged, the 5 million starving in N Korea.  Who's name will be printed on the humanitarian bags of food dropped from helicopters to starving people after war, or natural disaster? 

 

 

 

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:32 | 4949942 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

". . . simplified and leftist view of history and Im personally sick of this lefist prism. "

I take it that you believe The Enlightenment was a leftist conspiracy?

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:09 | 4951681 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That is a huge ton of 'american' history.

It is amazing how 'americans' are able to pack fantasy to a high degree.

________________________
Native americans conquered and fought for and over lands hundreds of years before the first settlers arrived. Indians murdered and enslaved each others (as did native Africans)
_________________________

Indians did not murder or enslave each other. Indians is a creation that was popularized by 'americans'.
There were no Indians. There were various peoples (that 'americans' prefer to diminish to the rank of tribes) warring against each other.
For 'americans', the group is all so they love their collective tag.

Back to reality, there were no Indians. They never perceived themselves as Indians before being forced by 'americans' to do so.

One funny by product: africans. 'Americans' use it to refer to negroes. But there are other people living in Africa and therefore Africans.
Once again, the love of the group.

Anything goes to give 'americans' their peace of mind.
______________
The United States is not unique in that a more advanced group of individuals have subdued a culture that could not match its numbers or technological superiority.
________________________

A group of individuals, what is that stuff?
________________________________
Slavery existed thousands of years before the US was founded and the US was the only country that pitted brother against brother and family against family and in the end delivered freedom to the slaves.
__________________________________
The US are the only country that managed to line two sides in a war in which slavery was a conflictual point, none of which opposing slavery. The Union supported a status quo on slavery, the Confederation fought for an expansion of slavery.
That is the deed achieved by 'americans' residing in the US. Adding to that, 'americans' claimed beforehand that slavery was against their creed as they stated that freedom was an unalienable human right.
Slavery, that could be opposed, favoured or be indifferent to.
The US managed the incredible deed to pit one side indifferent to slavery, and the other side favouring slavery, all things disguised under the claim that freedom was a human right.

It is going to be hard to match the deed.
__________________________
Also, as noted above, Africans delivered Africans to western slave brokers and at the time of the original settlements there were more White slaves (indentured servants) than African.
______________________

Delivered? These guys have thousands of coast lines kms and were unable to craft a boat.

Indentured servitude was slavery?

Anything goes to bring peace of mind to 'americans'. This is why the industry of entertainment is so big in 'american' societies.

'Americans' have this big urge of being diverted from who they are, and the reality they've created.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:11 | 4951685 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, yes, last point: in terms of fight against slavery, China, Korea, even some parts of West Africa present a better record than 'americans'.

It sizes up the quality of the effort.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 00:24 | 4951582 TheRedScourge
TheRedScourge's picture

"America was founded on stealing lands, plunder and slavery." Stealing lands is debatable, and the other two are flat out wrong. The North did not have slavery, and it was far more prosperous than the south, which did. You know how Brazil ended slavery? The government said it would stop catching escaping slaves and returning them to their owners, and the economics of slavery fell apart in short order. Why? Because slavery is actually very expensive, whether or not lazy and racist folks tended to enjoy it.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:14 | 4951688 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Everything must be debatable for 'americans' to get their piece of mind.

The land grabbing must be debatable. So must be the plunder and the slavery act.

The North existed out of thin air and had no economical connection with the South.

The North did not benefit from the existence of slavery in the South. On the opposite, it pushed them backwards.

For, it is well known, and as it can be witnessed today, 'americans' are that superior breed that can overcome the environment.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:21 | 4949412 Duffy Duck
Duffy Duck's picture

is it unwittingly if they give you a suitcase full of cash on a train?

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 11:03 | 4949790 ThirteenthFloor
ThirteenthFloor's picture

Rep. Charles A Lindbergh (1917) "Why Your Country Is At War, And What Happens To You Afterward"  part. Chp. 1 = "Inner Circle - Caused the War"

All copies of the book were seized and the printing plates destroyed by the Feds at the request of Pres. Wilson.  If more Americans read this book...we may have averted some horrible history and bloodshed. Later his grandson would be kidnapped. The message you do not challenge the Inner Cirlce.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:12 | 4948980 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Pretty much where my thoughts went.

You beat me to it.

If only William of Orange hadn't shown up.

If onlys are just another term for spilled milk.

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:17 | 4948995 Quus Ant
Quus Ant's picture

Never make mistakes and you'll never have to learn from them. 

A historian taught me that.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:50 | 4949066 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Government is a mistake that most people are hard-wired to be incapable of learning from.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

Emory study lights up the political brain

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 16:42 | 4950658 emersonreturn
emersonreturn's picture

thank you, anusocracy, that was fascinating.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:37 | 4949172 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

If only I hadn't fucked that fat asian chick with the rash on her thighs...

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:04 | 4949305 Ragnar12
Ragnar12's picture

Stockman is great but falacy of  causal oversimplification

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:58 | 4949356 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

Yup

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:35 | 4949950 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." -- Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 19:59 | 4951073 Nassim
Nassim's picture

What 9/11 "blowback"?

As home made as apple pie:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:57 | 4948947 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

It's even more interesting to study alternate histories in which Great Britain stayed out of it. They could have looked like Geniuses. Germany invaded France in 1870, only a human generation before; it was a short sharp event, they got paid off to leave and go home again; and so what ? England fell for their own bullshit and destroyed themselves. It was the end of the British Empire, and the implications for the rest of the 20th. Century, of the long horrendously expensive exercise, were truly catastrophic.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:15 | 4948991 logicalman
logicalman's picture

History is never about sense or logic.

It is always about weak, greedy men trying to look strong by getting others to do the fighting for them for their own selfish ends.

Time humanity woke up.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:23 | 4949325 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

this is what really happened to the british empire http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/uk-coal-prod...

they needed to capture the mideast oil fields from the germans/russians/americans, but they failed.

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:46 | 4951712 Seer
Seer's picture

ALL wars are [ultimately] about resources.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 13:21 | 4950069 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Some in that prior generation actually foresaw the disaster The Great War would become and recommended the conflict be settled along similar lines:

 

http://www.mrtom.com/quotes/huxley_essay.htm

 

But these voices were easily overwhelmed by the usual madness of crowds. The British Empire remaining aloof while the rest of the world has gone to war? They'd have been superhuman geniuses to question their own hubris at that point in history.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:17 | 4949737 zerocash
zerocash's picture

If all those events hadn't happened humanity would have invented other ways to screw up the future.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:47 | 4948912 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Well notice how the currencies went to zero, and you could blame it on "the war." That's why they are trying so hard to ignite WWIII, so the FED's culpability will be masked.
End. The. Fed.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:50 | 4948930 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

If the Fed and CBs are gonna make a new version, they gotta make sure the peeps don't know what the Fed and CBs do.

Lucky for them (unlucky for us), everyone outside of ZH and other select circles (as a generalization) don't give a fuck.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:17 | 4948996 logicalman
logicalman's picture

It's not that they don't give a fuck.

The problem is they know fuck all.

You don't fight something you don't know about.

Hence the Schooling System (erroniously/misleadingly referred to as the Education System).

 

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:49 | 4951713 Seer
Seer's picture

And most (present company excluded) that THINK they "know" really don't.

In the end it's still an issue of: What are you going to do about it? (perpetual growth on a finite planet- that's the REAL "problem")

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:49 | 4949767 ThirteenthFloor
ThirteenthFloor's picture

They are planning the End of the Fed as this article is written.  World Bank and Empire have the Economic Redevelopment Plan, with a new fixed currency set to 10% backing of gold, with gold set to 2500 USD oz.  The Eurasia Group (China, Russia and India) + rest of BRICS around the Chinese Investment Bank.  The elite banksters are around World Bank group.

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:48 | 4948918 duo
duo's picture

Thanks. Woodrow!

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:07 | 4948970 ILLILLILLI
ILLILLILLI's picture

When discussing Wilson, it is necessary to know who Edward Mandell House was, and the nature of his influence.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:15 | 4948993 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

And to understand Obama you need Saul Alinsky and Rev. Geremiah Wright.  Nobody drops into the White House from the moon.  

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:19 | 4948997 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Barry came out of nowhere.

One day nobody had heard of him, next day he's running for Pres!!!???

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:25 | 4949013 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Barry was kept out of view, on purpose, until he sprung onto the stage SEEMINGLY out of nowhere, at exactly the right time.  Look at his backround and you'll find all that fantastic ideology he learned was paid for by the Saudis.  He is the Manchurian Candidate.  He would have been unelectable at the Presidential level if there was more known history about him prior to his run for the WH.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:42 | 4949051 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Electable.

Now there's an interesting term.

See Jo Stalin counting votes.

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:24 | 4949139 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

In the 2012 elections in Philadelphia (the UNTIMATE one-party-town, putting even Chicago to shame) there were 49 voting precincts that went 100% for Obama.  Not one single vote for a Republican, Libertarian or ANYONE else.

Obama won PA by ~4%.

By geographic area, PA is MASSIVELY conservative-leaning.  But by vote count, you only need to control Philly and the rest of the state doesn't matter.

Next time you hear some TV pundit tell you that PA "could go Republican" (or for any conservative candidate of whatever stripe) you can tell them to blow it out their ass.  It will NEVER happen.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 13:45 | 4950140 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Applying the laws of statistics to these voting results leads one to conclude that you only need to control who counts the votes in Philthy. PA's not unique in this regard, it's a microcosm of the whole country: urban islands apparently infested with progs awash in a non-interventionist sea. Statists will continue to lord over the rest until it is monetarily impossible to do so. Buckle up.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:38 | 4949956 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The CIA had been keeping and grooming Barry until the time was ripe.

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/obama-all-in-the-company-part-i/

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:51 | 4948926 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Sensible piece.  The US never had any real reason to enter WWI or to arm England and France to the teeth while pretending nutrality.  Alternative history is always a squishy subject, but WWI and the Civil War had no winners,  everyone lost.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:59 | 4948953 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Poland won. They got their independence as a result of WW1. An absurd reply, I realize, but it was an absurd enterprise. And an absurd result.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:00 | 4948956 jaxville
jaxville's picture

Would have, could have, should have.

     Americas' entry into war was guaranteed by those who owned the financial sector/central bank.  The creation of the federal Reserve System in 1913 made it crystal clear who was calling the shots in America.  Stockman shows who paid for the war but is very vague about who exactly benefit from it.  There is a lot more to it than just a "war fueled economic boom.

 

  No matter how you cut it, WW1 was a huge loss for most of humanity. 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:07 | 4949233 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

The puppetmasters knew they had to establish the Fed before starting their big war.  America could not have been dragged in otherwise.  So if we want a better world, we might as well send the time travelling assassin back to Jekyll Island in 1910 and negate so much more misery.  There were no guards at Jekyll Island.  The cronies wanted to plot out the Federal Reserve in total secrecy.  

Just think, there are an infinite number of parallel universes in which Phillip K. Dick wrote about a dystopian parallel universe in which the Jekyll Island Massacre never happened.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:34 | 4949038 ChanceIs
ChanceIs's picture

Ummmmm.  Like....Dude.  Ummmmm....like weren't we funding all three sides in WWI?  Like weren't the American version of the Rothschilds funding the Bosh.  Or was it the Koch Brothers...or maybe Joe Kennedy.  No wait.  Joe Kennedy and the Bush family funded the Nazis during WWII. Funny.  I had never noticed that before...Bosh - Bush.....Bush - Bosh.  Guess that proves all of the conspiracy theories.  Halliburton somehow got its vig back in the Great War, I am sure.  More than enough for everybody. Don't lets be pigs.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:35 | 4949168 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Everyone, except the banksters lost.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 08:31 | 4949629 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

War has no winner, period.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:47 | 4949969 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Are you claiming the the Indian Wars in the American plains had no winners? What about the land speculators, the miners, and the ranchers? The Indians and the buffalo were definitely losers, though.

Just like successful armed robberies has winners and losers, so do wars. The winners are not always the most obvious ones.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:53 | 4948937 teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

say what you will about the u.s. being better off having possibly stayed out of ww1, but the specualtive crap about how much better off europe would have been is utter balogna.

 

 

seond guessing a complex set of historical circumstances is trrashy intellectualism. you just don't know what would have happened.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:01 | 4948957 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

On t he contrary, it's quite easy to see, in broard terms, what the results would have looked had England, and their hand-maiden, the US stayed out. A short, sharp encounter that the Germans won, which ultimately would mean little or nothing.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 20:57 | 4948949 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

Ah the meal of the forbidden apple. Agree absolutely. Though surely somebody would have fucked it all up between then and now. Concentrated power guarantees it. Oh, and the 9/11 thing wasn't al Qaeda. But he didn't exactly say that either.

On another note, The Lord of the rings wasn't just a fantasy novel. It was one of the most powerful books on centralized power that's out there. One ring to rule them all, and all that...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:21 | 4949006 logicalman
logicalman's picture

WW1 made Tolkein the person he was.

He wrote accordingly.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:09 | 4948975 grunk
grunk's picture

If the bankers had not financed both sides of the war...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:19 | 4949001 logicalman
logicalman's picture

There is a game called countries.........................

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:30 | 4949027 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

WW I was brought to you by the new Federal Reserve debt-printing tool.

War and Sports and Circuses: what else makes crazy money crazy fast?

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:31 | 4949030 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

These "what ifs"are foolish, in that the author is just linking all the negative things to one action.  Yet you could say the same thing about all the positive things that might not have happened - no men on the moon, no Beatles or Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan, no invention of computers, or jets, or cell phones, etc.  Even many of the negative things would not have gone away - Russia was collapsinig anyway - stopping Lenin would not have stopped the Russian Revolutionn anymore than arresting Thomas Jefferson would have stopped the American Revolution.  Oppressiing people only lasts for so long... even today...

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:53 | 4949079 22winmag
22winmag's picture

You don't seriously believe man has been to moon and back, do you?

 

It never happened, except for on a movie set.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:37 | 4949041 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Woodrow Wilson wearing shoe polish, a pen and a mobile phone to sigh executive orders. 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:43 | 4949052 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

lol ;-)

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:48 | 4949062 22winmag
22winmag's picture

JPM was financing the hell out of the war and pissing all over the Neutrality Act, that's for certain.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:51 | 4949071 Sandman
Sandman's picture

It's a trivial detail, I'll admit.  But Lenin made his sealed train trip back to Russia a month before the US declared war on Germany, so you can't really hang that one on Wilson.  Otherwise, it's a great "What if" story.  Love 'em!  <G>

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:52 | 4949984 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Wilson was a puppet of the same people that arranged Lenin's trip back to Russia. It matters not that the trip was before the US declaration of war. The war declaration, and Lenin's trip as well, could not be made until the time was ripe.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:01 | 4949073 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Had President Woodrow Wilson not misled the U.S. on a messianic crusade, Europe’s Great War would have ended in mutual exhaustion in 1917.

 

Prove this. You can't. You are speculating to justify historical revisionism taught to you at school.

You will trot out some think tank, some letters from one hundred years ago - all opinion by the way - but not one fact.

You must be one of those under 40, high self-esteem, USA educated modern thinkers who are applying the present to the past.

You don't know it, but you are a victim of Marxism>Cultural Marxism>Critical Theory>PC>Dumbed Down Education>Historical Revisionism.

Next people will post that they are disappointed that STNG did not film/video/record in HD widescreen...oh wait. People are already stating as such.

Those of you under 40 are idiots and what you refer to as "an education" was not even quality brainwashing.

Go back and read the most dystopian science fiction from the last 60 years.

Now ponder that the future is going to be far worse than anything ever written in those scenarios.

I already see the current state of affairs as a horror story worse than anything I ever read in any book or saw in any film.

Articles like this are reminding me, more and more, of a conversation wrt WW2 I had back in the early 1990s with a Native American who had a chip on his shoulder.

I quote:

"Why should I fight against the Germans? Hitler never did anything to me or my people..."

It's not possible to fix such profound ignorance.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:16 | 4949125 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Prove that being under government control is better than not being under government control.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:35 | 4949426 Mark_Noonan
Mark_Noonan's picture

Its not just Germans who believed the "stab in the back" legend - but no matter how you slice it, by September of 1918, the Germans were whipped. They had no effective means of stopping an endless allied offensive, which would eventually have led to the surrender in the field of most of the German army and the invasion of Germany. Its why the German high command was screaming for an armistice as early as August of 1918 - they knew they couldn't stop the allied armies.

I believe that this would have been true even if we Americans had stayed out - to be sure, American manpower helped a great deal, but it wasn't vital.  Numbers are not as crucial as weapons and tactics...and with the tank, the Anglo-French armies had the means of continually advancing 10 kilometers a day no matter what form of defense the Germans put up...unless Germany suddenly has tanks to fight the tanks, they were doomed...and they simply did not have and would not have in time sufficient tanks to rebalance the military picture.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:46 | 4949436 Duffy Duck
Duffy Duck's picture

The Injun had a solid point.  You just took a shit on the interwebs, fella.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 21:53 | 4949077 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

This article made me think of Monty Python.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:29 | 4949151 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

IF the United States had not entered World War I...

 

It may have turned out a lot better for the World...

 

But it may have turned out a lot worse for the World.

 

It happened the way that it happened. That is the reality that we have to deal with.

 

It surprises me that David Stockman would go on a flight of fantasy as I thought him to be a realist.

 

I guess that he has literary license to do that.

 

But it is a moot issue and does not help us with any current problems.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:00 | 4949218 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Well, speaking personally, If I were Hitler, I would have annexed the Sudetenland.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 07:17 | 4949588 Otto Zitte
Otto Zitte's picture

If I were Hitler I would have purchased Sudetenland with fiat deutsche marks backed by the faith and credit of the German people and given hindsight, assassinated more bankers and nobles earlier. Same as now.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:06 | 4949078 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

WW1 was a direct consequence of the discovery of Oil. First the British Empire (the colonial and banking center of the world at the time) switches its coal powered Navy to oil ships in 1904, which sends a clear message to everyone that "oil is the way of the future". Between 1904 and 1914 an exploration rush takes place. Most countries find plenty of sweet crude in their backyards (US included)... everyone except Germany, who had experienced hyper-industrialization during the coal-power era.

As a  solution, Germany accepts a "Drang nach Osten" policy (drive to the East) where it pours all of its resources into expansion of the  Orient Express rail line to Baghdad, hoping to link itself to the largest commercial discovery of the century, but before the last 100 miles of the tracks are laid, Britain dispatches 38 special divisions setting up a blockage from Basra to Egypt. It is then joined by many oil-rich allies. The world is split into oil-haves and oil-have-nots.

WW1 starts under false pretense and ends exactly where it started. Oil rich vs. oil poor. Then the debts of WW1 eventually accumulate and cause wold-wide depressions in 1920-1930's (Germany being the WW1 aggressor, burdened by reparation payments suffers the most). Then another oil push takes place during WW2 by which point Japan joins the Axis, having exhausted its limited oil discoveries. It tries to take over British colonies and advance West to where the fuel still exists.

Same game plays out. Germany and Japan are cut off from the oil and put into the stanglehold where they remain for the last 70 years...

... if only the US stayed out of WW1. Well, if it did, then Germany would be where the US is today - in Saudi Arabia. They'd be supplying weapons to the Middle East and nation-building from Africa to India. They'd be ruling over the Westent Europe through economic policy. They'd be the "EU" and the "IMF". They'd be everywhere we are - in 125+ countries... and instead of Petrodollars, we'd be prcing oil and gold in Petromarks.

The world would be exactly the same. Only different.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:49 | 4949437 Duffy Duck
Duffy Duck's picture

I junked you for starting strong but fumbling with the Germany as 'the aggressor' claim.

Palpable nonsense, son.

 

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 04:44 | 4949521 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

By aggressor I implied which side of reparation agreement Germany was on. In actuality the British Empire was the courtyard bully. It is quite possible that without their early intervention there'd be no WW1 or WW2. Germany migh've pursued peaceful commerce. There'd be no Weimar, no union busting Nazi's coming to power, no Hitler. However I'm inclined to think that blood would still be spilled either way in the Middle East, where the battles over trade routs and access to fresh water had been going for centuries, even with no oil present. Saudi's would still end up fortifying themselves. Israel would also rise to power, maybe even quicker... perhaps with Germany by its side. Jews ran the German banking system. That's why they became a convenient target of the Nazi regime. They had all the money and owned many businesses. With no nationalist propaganda, cooperation between the countries would have increased.

Having not scared away and killed all of their best scientists, Germany would've beatten the rest of the world in the nuclear race. Einsten would've continued his work for the "motherland" etc.

Japan? That's a different story. It would've invaded China even if German history took a different route... only by then it would likely be fighting Germany. Imagine that!

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:03 | 4949098 AUD
AUD's picture

I like the cut of Stockman's jib here. It's about time the disasterous financial consequences of the 'Great War' had light shone on them. Consequences that still are with us today.

 

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:53 | 4949967 algol_dog
algol_dog's picture

It's easy to postulate an outcome, if only this, or that hadn't happen. What's to say something worse wouldn't of taken its place. The whole premise of this article is an exercise of futility. You deal with what is, not would could have been.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:10 | 4949114 overthehill
overthehill's picture

J P Morgan Jr, As if his father wasn't bad enough, Jr. led the way into WWI , , , ,

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan,_Jr

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:36 | 4949170 logicalman
logicalman's picture

If only I hadn't met my first wife!

Or the second!

 

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:48 | 4949197 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

As far as Americans go World War I was nothing new. The revolutionary war, the Mexican American war and obviously the Civil War had far more devastating consequences to Americans than did World war I. Since America was an aspiring power before WWI and as a consequence of the Great war became a Great Power it did give rise to statism in the USA...which is a worthwhile discussion.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 13:10 | 4950035 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The viewpoint that America was effectively an English colony from the Mexican War period to WW2 is a worthwhile discussion point. The English non-involvement on the southern side, even though there was plenty of instant gratification therefor, is telling. Victoria's husband was instrumental. The large amount of English money, and the banking business that went with it, that was invested in the "winning of the west" in America was likewise instrumental.

The massive American navy buildup during Benjamin Harrison's regime set the stage for an American taxpayer supported complement for the Royal Navy. There would be no doubt which side America would be on in the major future conflicts involving Great Britain. There still is no doubt.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 22:50 | 4949199 wagthetails
wagthetails's picture

War and conflict is pure human. It was always going to end this way. Not doing WWI would have just meant some other conflict/dictator would have gotten us to this point.

Still a fun article though.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:00 | 4949214 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

Umm... well, if you want to be the #1 economic power, I think you have to be willing to fight wars... unless you want to be the swiss... or the japanese.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:00 | 4949215 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

Umm... well, if you want to be the #1 economic power, I think you have to be willing to fight wars... unless you want to be the swiss... or the japanese (after ww2).

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:29 | 4949246 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

Did you go to the sandbox or the kush,(and not as a fobbit) Panama or Vietnam? If not, it's a bit uncouth to lecture people about how important it is to send kids off to be maimed and killed, while murdering others for a flag.

Not cool dude.

(edit) Oh, and what's wrong with the Swiss, apart from the evil center of the reserve banks - the BIS?

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:44 | 4949284 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

This is a revisionists hack - so perhaps if the founding fathers hadn't went to war with England we would still be part of England and there would have been no wars since then and we'd all be happily talking about our shared English royalty - right.  People have been fighting since the beginning of time - just read the bible.  I hope we can avoid future wars, but sadly enough, I think some group will disagree with another in the future.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:14 | 4949241 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

It was more fun to see this game played on the Big Bang Theory-

Amy: In a world ruled by a giant beaver, mankind builds many dams to please the beaver overlord. The low-lying city of Copenhagen is flooded. Thousands die. Devastated, the Danes never invent their namesake pastry. How does one miss that?

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:29 | 4949262 TheObsoleteMan
TheObsoleteMan's picture

From an elitist standpoint, the war had to be CREATED. It accomplished many of their objectives, brought about a NEW WORLD ORDER of it's day so to speak. It brought down the major monarchies of Europe {except for the one that helped engineer it}, installed a bolshevik regime in Russia, purged Germany from being a global player, at least until it could be modeled to their liking, created the League of Nations, that was supposed to be a supra global governing body, and lastly, but not the least, IT CREATED PALESTINE. These were the real reasons for WW1. For a final thought, here is something you will NEVER read in any history book, because the victors write them: Many years ago, I employed an old Prussian lady {who's family before this war was well off} as a tutor for my son. This was back in the early 1970s, she was in her 80s then, but very fit in body and mind. She asked me this question: "Name me a war, where a country surrendered without so much as ONE  enemy soldier occupying the land?". The answer was Germany, in 1918. The eastern front had collapsed with the Treaty of Brest-Lotvosk, and the Germans were able to transfer over 2 million men to the western front. Much of the Allied gains of the previous years were lost in six months. So why did Germany surrender? The reason was that their own Banks called their government's war loans {Banks owned by the Warburgs by the way}. It caused a fiscal crisis, which led to mutiny by many German units, as they were not being paid, and conditions back home deteriorated rapidly. THIS IS THE STORY WE ARE NEVER TOLD. She said most Germans at the time believed victory was only months away. She also said she and her countrymen believed this betrayal was predetermined all along. This was just one reason out of many why most Germans wanted Jews out of Germany. Before all of this, they {Germans} never thought much about them {Jews}, one way or another. They never forgot this great betrayal.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:28 | 4949419 Mark_Noonan
Mark_Noonan's picture

Oh, nonsense - had Ludendorf not thrown up the sponge Foch would have been in Berlin by March of 1919.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:53 | 4949439 Duffy Duck
Duffy Duck's picture

And scrambling for Paris by May.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 20:25 | 4951147 Mark_Noonan
Mark_Noonan's picture

Only to receive his Marshall's baton - the Germans were whipped in 1918.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:32 | 4949943 Inbetween is pain
Inbetween is pain's picture

That's right, an old Prussian woman holds the secret to history that no one else knows.  Are you fucking kidding me?

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 00:00 | 4951558 TheObsoleteMan
TheObsoleteMan's picture

I'm not saying no one else knew, because PLENTY OF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS, AND STILL DO. What I said was that you will never read about it in any academic history book.

Fri, 07/11/2014 - 23:43 | 4949272 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

J.P. Morgan gave the allied nations ~$2.3 bn during the period of neutrality. (Note: JP Morgan was a piker when it came to Rockefeller's wealth, and Rockefeller had his money on the Ottoman Empire's dissolusion!?!)

If the US stayed neutral, as the Axis was turning the tide in Europe and gaining lost ground with multiple large victories-- Morgan's Bonds would be worthless, and Rockefeller's ME Oil would never come to fruition... and, with the British/ French Rothschild Banking House's never having gotten a Palestine(*Israel) Balfour Declaration ?!?

Ref:    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~le20j/NonNeutralityBeforeWar.html#topNonNeutrality  

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:00 | 4949299 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hilarious...

What did you really expect would happen given the WASPs' being emotionally attached to "Manifest Destiny"?

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 00:26 | 4949327 InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

Wasp... White Anglo Saxon ppl?  Hmmm. Pretty sure Saxon is German.  

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 06:06 | 4949562 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

Angles were German too

 

funny how that works

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 09:19 | 4949681 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Once again, the actual meaning of what I wrote was completely missed...

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:35 | 4951705 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Yep, it seems that this kind of people come from the same place...

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:18 | 4949405 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

each and every one of the wars and dramas stockman enumerated was caused completely, wholly, and without exception by the ziocon banksters of london and new york. none of those wars was accidental or happenstantial. wilson himself was baruch's sock puppet, a traitor, and complete whore. what baruch wanted, wilson gave him, including ww1 - the old read my lips lie

without the income tax and the federal reserve, the usa could never have entered the war as it did, and those 2 wicked crimes were foisted on america because the ziocon murderers were anxious for war.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 12:28 | 4949939 Inbetween is pain
Inbetween is pain's picture

It's amazing to see how even now in the 21st Century that morons like you still blame the Jews for every problem in the world.  It makes me think that another Holocaust is perhaps just around the corner.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:24 | 4949409 Mark_Noonan
Mark_Noonan's picture

While it can justly be claimed that all of that would not have happened had World War One ended in negotiation in late 1917 absent a US intervention, it must be kept in mind that a merely different set of problems would have resulted from such an end to the war - if, of course, the war would have ended in negotiation absent US intervention - the Anglo-French resources were still greatly superior to the German and with Churchill at the Ministry of Munitions, the campaign for 1919 would have been mechanized to a large degree, thus ensuring as crushing a German defeat in 1919 as they experienced in 1918.

Let us take a look at what would have happened in the "negotiated end" scenario:  the Anglo-French alliance just might have be able to get Germany out of Belgium and northern France as the German price for peace, but they would have had no capability of getting Germany out of the Baltic States, Poland or the Ukraine.  Possessed of the immense resources and manpower of these areas, the Germans would have been able to swiftly recover from the war, while France and Britain would have received nothing nearly like that in recompense for their efforts (the only real prize would have been the eventually heavy oil producing areas seized from the Ottoman Empire - but a negotiated peace would probably have left the Ottomans in command of Syria and northern Iraq - and additional territories taken from Russia in the Caucusus region). So, while Germany - which hadn't felt nearly the blood drain of France and which had a much higher birth rate - was rapidly regaining economic power in the post War world, France would still have been bled white and a functionally bankrupt Britain would have been hard pressed just to maintain naval superiority over Germany in the North Sea.  The end result of a negotiated peace, then, would be a German victory - leading to additional aggressive actions by Germany in future years as their dominance of the European continent became ever more pronounced.

On the other hand, had the Anglo-French hung on - and they were fully capable of it; even the massive German attacks in the Spring of 1918, even if they had managed to capture Paris, would not have fundamentally altered the strategic situation in western Europe - and gone into the 1919 campaign armed with a fully mechanized military force (which the Germans, late off the mark, were not remotely capable of building prior to the 1920 time frame), the Germans would have been beaten down just as thoroughly in 1919 as in real history they were beatan down in 1918. This would have resulted in much the same sort of end to the war and thus much the same sort of peace - except perhaps even more vengeful as the allies would have spent another year's worth of blood and treasure beating the Germans (though, to be certain, it is absurd to call the Treaty of Versailles "Carthaginian" - if you want to see a Carthagenian peace, I refer you to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany imposed upon Russia in early 1918 - what the allies did at Versailles was nothing compared to that). The problem with the peace wasn't the harshness of the treaty, but the lack of vision on the part of the allied Statesmen - most of them ignorant of history, they simply didn't understand the absolute necessity for preserving the Hapsburg Empire (first and foremost, to keep either Germany or Russia from dominating central Europe), nor did they secure for themselves the means of repairing their own economies while keeping Germany hobbled while they did so...they imposed what were considered high reparations, but they never really collected much on them (and they were, by the by, justified in imposing the reparations - Germany had no quarrel with France or Belgium in 1914 and went fully into the wrong by attacking those nations, thus fully justifiying Britain's entry into the war: in that sense, Germany was guilty and owed it to France, Britain and Belgium to pay the piper for their actions).

Now, after being on the winning side in World War One, Italy still went fascist - so there is no reason to suppose that some sort of Nazi regime would not have eventually risen in Germany.  It might not have been led by Hitler, but it could surely have happened - because there was a lot of disappointment in Germany and even after a "victory" in the form of a negotiated peace, there would still be a lengthy period of time while Germany was in dire straights - this would have led to various movements to carry out a revolution for one reason or another, and the Imperial government, like the Royal government in Italy, might have called in a "strong man" to preserve or restore order. As for Russia, there wasn't much chance of actually preventing Lenin, and thus not much chance of preventing Stalin.  The sad fact of the matter is that Lenin had correctly identified the path to power in post-Revolutionary Russia (and there was no chance of a negotiated peace prior to the overthrow of the Czar...nor much chance of such a thing happening before Lenin overthrew the Provisional Government) - this was to promise land and peace to the peasants, who still made up the overwhelming majority of Russia's population...as the various "White" forces in Russia were unprepared to offer such a thing, they never were able to mobilize sufficient popular support to oust the Bolsheviks, even when the Bolsheviks, being Bolshevik, had gravely alienated the peasantry. Only direct, allied military intervention would have worked - and while the allies were grappling with Germany they couldn't spare the men or material, while after the war no one was in a mood for a fresh foreign adventure (seeing further than anyone else, Churchill tried to get one started - but it simply wasn't possible in the 1919-1920 political atmosphere).

So, here's your choices in a non-US intervention world - a Germany victorious and eventually able to re-start aggressive action, possibly under some form of fascist regime - or a Germany beaten down and thus ripe for an eventual Nazi takeover...meanwhile, Italy still goes fascist and Russia still goes Bolshevik...the only joker in the deck is that a victorious Germany means a preserved Hapsburg Empire and that would offer a chance for Britain, if they lucked out in getting leaders who saw things clearly, in detaching the Hapsburgs from the Germans. Still, in all, not a very pleasant prospect.  The lesson here is that things are always going to be difficult - thinking that If Just One Thing Had Been Different might make a person feel better, but its not really a rational way to view things: had things been different, there still would have been nasty problems to deal with (and food for thought: win or lose, the Brit's were going to gain Palestine, which means the Jews were going to be able to move there in ever larger numbers, continuing the process started under the Ottomans...so, there'd almost certainly be an Israel in our counter-factual present just as there is in the real present...kinda funny how things can work out, huh? Almost makes you think there's a Plan somewhere at the back of it all...and a Planner).

In the First World War there were massive political and military mistakes - and both sides made them almost constantly. What was really lacking, from start to finish, was someone who had a clear idea of where he wanted to go. It was almost as if the war were started and fought in a fit of absent-mindedness; it certainly was controlled, however, by people who were small men not remotely up to holding their positions of power. Often financially corrupt, morally suspect and more interested in gaining or retaining power and position, they stumbled around while millions died...and then made a perfect hash out of the end of the war.

If we are ever to go to war again, the most important thing we must have is an idea of what we want - and then the guts to ruthlessly apply ourselves until that goal is reached.  If you are not clear in what you want, you will get it wrong and thus it is best not to fight, at all.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 03:02 | 4949447 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The roots of Nazism in Germany are traced back to prior the first world war. Germs started to appear in the 1900s.

It is one point that 'americans' prefer not to see, valuing much more the debt tale (especially in these times when they are compelled to prove by material evidences that they can produce more than they consume to soak up the huge debt they've burdened humanity with)

Even better, nazism is an offspring of 'americanism'. Nazis were greatly inspired by 'americans' and tried to emulate them on a shorter time span.

Instead of pondering the consequences of the non involvement of the US, another thing to do is to pondering the consequences of the non rise of 'americanism'.

No 'americanism', no nazism.

'Americanism' was the parent of nazism. Remove the parent...

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 20:22 | 4951140 Mark_Noonan
Mark_Noonan's picture

I'll have to disagre with that - Nazism grew out of a lot of different things, but the American ideal wasn't one of them. Hitler, himself, was uneducated and rather stupid - he merely proved that if you are charismatic enough, you can brazenly lie yourself up to a very high pinnacle. Hitler inherited the various nationalist and anti-Semitic strains of thought growing out of 19th century German liberalism - the nationalism fed on a myth of Germanic superiority, the anti-Semitism coming about because a lot of nationalists considered the Jews to be behind international finance capitalism (there were Jews involved, of course, but the overwhelming majority were non-Jews) which was in opposition to the sort of nationalism (which is a perversion of patriotism) rising in Europe in the 19th century. In essence, and especially given Hitler's birth in the supra-national Hapsburg Empire, Hitler's creed was a rejection of what he knew as a youth - rationalism, Catholicism, cosmopolitianism. Hitler despised all that and latched on to the Germanic myth because it excused him for being a failure - he wasn't a failure because he was a ne'er do well; he was a failure because The Jews were out to get Germans.  Hitler translated this personal idiocy into the German people by endless repetition - and Germans primed to believe it because they couldn't believe that they lost World War One because they were out-fought and out-generaled...it must have been The Jews that done it!

 

Sun, 07/13/2014 - 02:41 | 4951709 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' can disagree with anything they want.

Nazism was deeply inspired by 'americanism' or the 'american' ideal. The Nazi thinkers, for most of them, borderline worhsipped the US. Their intellectual matrix admired the way the US achieved it and looked as they never had enough paper and ink to tell how much the US were doing things the right way (segregation,reservation policy, land transfer, suppression of other cultures etc)

Nazis hated on other Europeans for their perceived cosmopolitanism to which they opposed the largely monopolitic, monolithic US of A.

Sat, 07/12/2014 - 02:20 | 4949410 Duffy Duck
Duffy Duck's picture

disasterous recovery experience?  I thought the prevailing alternative narrative is it was remarkable because Germany took control of its central bank and issued currency that wasn't a loan at interest from private banks, and that very economic recovery is what really troubled Britain, meaning the C.o.L.

 

No?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!