Richard Rowland

This is a long read, I don't expect many on here have the patience or inclination to read it in its entirety. In fact, I haven't reached the end. I will continue reading later. However, for those who do put forth the effort, it will be enlightening. It speaks of the creation of Isreal, to the questionable re-election of President Wilson, much like our last election, except this time around the losing side has not graciously conceded, and a host of other information that will leave the reader realizing how little we really know.

The more I learn, the more I realize how we as American's have been, and are still being, manipulated. We all have, those of us awake anyway, generally concluded that we don't always get the real facts. However, one needs to do a bit of digging to learn the extent.

Reading G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island", we learn how little our leaders and those of other nations think of there citizens. False flags creating wars for profit, or to save the financiers who have bankrolled the wrong side. It's unsavory business, paid for with lives lost.

One nagging question foremost in my mind; what are the reasons the manipulators chose Donald Trump to be our president. Could it be what a previous piece posted is inferring; the president is a useful idiot?

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/category/usa/edward-mandell-house/

Lonewolf

Donald will sign anything put in front of him thats the only reason he's still there

Chocura750

I disagree that manipulators control society. Certainly they try and have some success, such as the present conservative cabal, but the people have ways of avoiding manipulation. Trump is many things, but he is not a conservative. He is the most radical President in the history of the country and I don't believe people who voted for him were manipulated.

Richard Rowland

Then Chocura, you haven't delved deeply enough into history. I suggest you read how and why America became embroiled in WWI, unless, of course, you don't feel society being at war is a bad thing.

Changing subjects: I just saw on TV that President Trump has tweeted that the press can cause war. The narrator asked his guest, Cory Lewandowski, in a rather disbelieving and doubtful manner, can the press really cause war?

Obviously, the narrator doesn't know his history, for wasn't America more or less drummed into war with Spain by Randolf Hurst's editorials.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Wake up!

It's been the British and worldwide banking cabal ever since we supposedly became a "nation".

This will explain in a mere 4 minutes:

Does America still belong to England?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_OiWI_Re4A

Richard Rowland

I'm exhausted. Both from reading this long piece, which I still have much to read, and the horror at the callousness of the money changers who deliberately thwarted peace initiatives, due to the high profits being made from the war. Their attitude was to prolong it (the war) as long as possible. The false flag operation of sinking the Lusitania, with the tragic loss of the innocent, is beyond comprehension. That there are heinous individuals who mastermind false flag operations against unsuspecting, is enough to make one give up on humanity.

It's reported that Winston Churchhill deliberately pulled the Lusitania's escort of destroyers, so the German U-boat would have unfettered access. I wonder if Churchhill when laying his head on his pillow, ever visualizes the victims struggling and drowning, due to his actions.

Richard Rowland

This has been a most distressing read. I'm glad I never read anything like this when younger. I wonder how this information would affect the young if read. Could it be put into perspective and acted on in a meaningful way? One thing I can guarantee: After reading this, the government need not count on me to volunteer myself or family, for things have changed little from those days.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Lonewolf

I'm amazed the Brits didn't sink her themselves

JoyV

In the first section, the comment is made that Woodrow Wilson had little influence he wielded in Europe. Yet he yielded enough to push through his unpopular League of Nations. He spent his political capital on getting the League at almost any cost. No matter what he thought about the treaty or other events, they took aback seat to establishing the League.


Balfour’s reply ‘accepted the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted…and [we] will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them.’ What? How do you ‘reconstitute’ a country?

That question presupposes there was a country, and not just a region which had formerly been part of the Ottoman; to reconstitute in the first place. There was no Palestine State. Palestinians were the residents of the Ottoman Empire which lived in the region called Palestine. There were Palestinians who were Christians. Palestinians who were Jews. Palestinians who were Arab. And other Palestinians. Since Palestine was lost to the Ottomans, should the allies have simply walked away leaving a vacuum? The groups making claims to Palestine did NOT include any identifying themselves as Palestinians. The first division is known as the Sykes–Picot Agreement. It divided the region into primariyu British and french spheres of influence, as with Russia being nominally included. But Britain had made two conflicting promises to both the Arabs and Zionists. So they divided the area into two portions. One larger portion to the Arabs which they called Transjordan, and one smaller portion to the Zionists which they called Palestine. The idea was that all Jews previously living in the Arab Transjordan region, would move to Palestine, and all Arabs living in the Jewish Palestine region would move to Transjordan. But not everyone wanted to move. So a second division was made in the Palestine region (partition) which split the smaller Jewish portion of Palestine again into a Arab and Jewish portion. They were simply called Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. It was only when the Jewish state was formed that they chose the name Israel.

As for the delay in announcing the presidency, there is no need for a conspiracy. They had to wait for the results to come in from the western states, including CA. This was only 1916 after all without our modern tech. Not to mention, if these phone calls were so secret that historians have not recorded them in any accepted historical account of the 1916 election; how did the authors of this article come to know about them?

Let me skip to the Lusitania. According to the author's implications, Churchill orchestrated the sinking to bring the US into the war. Since his correspondence with First Sea Lord Jacky Fisher has been lost; this leaves no way to say with any certainty what was going on. But lets look at it with the assumption Churchill wanted the Lusitania sunk. Did he 1) know the precise location of the Lusitania at any given point of her journey? Did he have secure constant communication with the German U boat captains to coordinate an attack? Any possible conspiracy could only have been one of withholding information from Lusitania and leaving chance to put the ship into harm’s way. A successful U-boat attack would require the submarine to be, not within a few miles, but within a few hundred yards of Lusitania and on a bearing suitable for attack. As for there being no destroyers or Q boats accompanying the Lusitania, there was a shortage of destroyers and Lusitania, and other ships, frequently sailed with no escort. Not to mention that there were other things to occupy the mind of Churchill and the navy. This points to the Lusitania not being considered of high priority. The author's implication that because the British Navy managed to meet and escort the steamship Hydaspes, then they should be able to escort every ship is ridiculous.


This article has enough facts to sound believable. But it is riddled with both inaccuracies and not only bias but blatant propaganda. The author is not conveying history, but is using certain historical facts and innuendo to push an agenda. Yes there have always been wealthy bankers and businessmen who make a profit off of war. But you give them to much credit to say they are the masterminds behind so much.

Richard Rowland

As I recall, and, I'm not going back and reading all of it again to be more factual, but the British, it is said, had cracked the German code and knew where every U-boats is at any given time. The ship could have been assigned a course that would have put her in harm's way. Also, if I recall correctly, there were a group of destroyers setting idle in the vicinity that could have given protection.

However, as you say, every ship could not have been protected. I do have a question though: If the Lusitania was set up, why waste good munitions, by sending her to the bottom. While you may be correct in making some of your points, this piece isn't the only source mentioning much of the same.

As for the comment of an agenda, I feel the only agenda, if there is one, is pointing out how America was dragged into that war. Besides that, there is too much material here, in my opinion, for it to be made up. Too many things that can be fact-checked by those with a desire to do so.

By-the-way, what's your agenda? Or are you merely expressing an opinion with your comment that, the author has an agenda?

JoyV

Hearing every communication will not pinpoint the positions. There was no GPS then. Not even radar or sonar. Ships within a convoy who were keeping in touch with each other, even lost each other in less than optimal weather conditions.

The reason why these conspiracy theories spread is few people actually check the supposed facts. Instead if it sounds reasonable to someone ignorant of the particular field involved, they buy into it. As you can see from my post, I DO check the details. Instead of looking at quantity of information, why not look at quality? This article is sprinkled with facts but is overall wide of the mark!

Richard Rowland

Positions, to my knowledge, were relayed to their base. It is possible to know where they were by listing. Are you inferring that every ship had to return to base for their instructions, and orders?

JoyV

Naval communications during WWI was by flags or flag semaphore, wireless telegraphy, or signal lamps. On land there was the semaphore towers, dispatch riders, carrier pigeons, and the telegraph.

The wireless telegraphy was extensively used by Germany. By the end of the war, England was employing it extensively as well. But early on, it was sporadically employed.

But this cannot provide continuous positioning so as to pinpoint a particular ship at any specific moment well enough to get a U boat into position to sink her. U boats captains knew the sea lanes which were in use and could lay in wait for ships. So it was a little better than just chance that they came across the Lusitania. At that time, ships did not travel in convoys so were more vulnerable. It was after the US entered WWI that American Adm. W. S. Sims urged the British War Cabinet to adopt a convoy system.

But I digress. The technology of the time was not sophisticated enough to keep continuous tabs of the exact location of even naval ships, let alone civilian.

JoyV

The code you seem to be referring to is the enigma code. That was WWII, not WWI.