Hypocrisy and Vanity

I think it was Henry Fielding in ‘Joseph Andrews’ who pointed out the difference between vanity and hypocrisy. Vanity, he said, involved a person doing good in order to be seen and praised; hypocrisy involved a person doing evil under the guise of good. The definitions came to mind as I began to discover more about the so-called American Red Cross mission to Russia in 1917.

Surprisingly, this ‘mission’ of 24 people comprised only 4 doctors and the rest were financiers, photographers and lawyers, and the mission leaders lived in the most expensive hotels, taking photographs and, no doubt, eyeing the resources of the country to which they had not had access under the Tsar.

In fact that mission, financed by J.P. Morgan (and probably donations from the sincere and well-meaning American people), had very little to do with the American Red Cross, which was actively working in a far more constructive way in various other countries. This mission, however, had a very different agenda – that of the Wall Street bankers and international financiers who had been involved in prolonging the war for financial gain, for access to the Russian oilfields and, of course, as part of their plan to dismantle all the autocracies of Europe.

Calling this the ‘American’ Red Cross Mission is as greater a misnomer as calling it a ‘Red Cross’ mission, since this had very little to do with the American people at all. It is interesting that until the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917 most Americans were (naturally!!) eager to stay out of the war that was raging in Europe. Woodrow Wilson was re-elected on his campaign slogan, “He kept us out of the war...” Moreover, most of the newspapers favoured the Central Powers over the Entente Powers and were largely pro-German. A German submarine managed to evade the British blockade to make its way to America where it was greeted with great applause and amply supplied for its return journey. Suddenly, however, the press, owned by the same financier families, changed their tune, as did President Wilson, and Germany was now the enemy and Wilson came out with his statement about wanting to ‘make the world safe for democracy’. The excuse was Germany’s employment of unrestricted submarine warfare but the Kaiser had suspended this for a long time believing that Woodrow Wilson would put pressure on the British to stop their illegal blockage, which was leading to starvation for the people of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Woodrow Wilson refused to intervene but even when unrestricted submarine warfare was unleashed, the Germans allowed for the free passage of ships between Britain and America twice a week, and ordered U-boat captains to give plenty of warning to allow ships to be evacuated and passengers taken to safety before sinking them. A huge propaganda campaign began in America stating that the Kaiser wished to take over the world! Ironic, considering that Wilson’s real motive for dragging the American people into the war was to have a say in the peace negotiations which would involve the dismantling of empires (particularly Austria-Hungary), destroying all autocracies and imposing a new world order on just about everyone!

Germany was an autocracy but it was a very prosperous nation and had introduced Labour Laws, retirement pensions, sick pay and other benefits for workers long before anyone else did. What became of Wilson’s idea to ‘make democracy safe for everyone’? A grand imposing idea  that led to Hitler, Stalin and Trotsky (who, incidentally, had been driving round New York in a limousine before setting sail for Russia, and was released from captivity in Canada on the orders of Britain and America so that he could continue the revolution in Russia) and Lenin, who – great socialist that he was! – had been living in relative luxury in Switzerland before being funded by the financier Jacob Schiff and others, to cause such disruption in Russia.

Everything....everything we were taught about the First World War is a great myth and one that involves a good deal of hypocrisy! This is but the tip of the iceberg. I would go so far as to say that up until that time, it was the great crime ever committed against humanity, the greatest con in history and even to this day people believe the lie that it was an Imperial War led by kings and emperors.

What was it Fielding said about the difference between hypocrisy and vanity? 

(As a later added postscript....Here is a brilliant article: http://drchojnowski.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/1917-democratic-jihad-and-popes-peace.html )

"The Butcher of Verdun" ?

It seems strange to speak of the The ‘Battle’ of Verdun, which took place between February and September 1916, since I think of battles as being won or lost in a day but this was one of the bloodiest and most horrific episodes in the whole of the senseless war of 1914-1918. The intention on the part of the Germans was to seize the fortress town of Verdun not only because it would allow them to break through the French lines and march on Paris, but also because the place, which was the last fort to hold out against the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War, had a great symbolic significance to the French. Due to its strategic and symbolic importance, the place had been well-fortified in the years between 1871 and 1914 and was surrounded by a ring of other forts.

According to some reports, which are now being questioned by certain historians, the Germans had another motive in attacking the city. The Chief of Staff, Falkenhayn, is alleged to have claimed that his intention was to ‘bleed France white’. From the icy days of February, through to the sweltering heat of May, the German artillery unleashed a series of relentless bombardments the like of which had never been seen before. The resulting injuries are too horrific to begin to describe – one can only imagine the long-term effects on the soldiers of witnessing such horrors! – and the losses (on both sides) total over 700, 000.

The scale of the slaughter and the vileness of the whole campaign cannot be underestimated but, long after the war was over, one man was unjustly left to shoulder much of the blame. Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, eldest son and heir of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was the commanding officer of the Fifth Army, which played a major role at Verdun. Undoubtedly due to his high profile as the Kaiser’s son, the Crown Prince was portrayed on numerous Allied propaganda posters as the ‘monster of Verdun’ – illustrations showed him devouring women, children and babies, and laughing demonically at the carnage. The notion these posters invoked became a myth and, later, the Crown Prince was known as the ‘butcher of Verdun’ or the ‘laughing murderer of Verdun’.

 In reality, within a few weeks of the initial attack, the Crown Prince was disgusted by the slaughter and, concerned, too, for the welfare of his own men, he repeatedly wrote to the General High Command requesting an end to the campaign but his requests were ignored:

“Consequently, I soon did everything in my power to stop the attacks; and I repeatedly gave expression to my views and the deductions to be drawn from them. In this matter I stood somewhat opposed to my then Chief of Staff, General Schmidt von Knobelsdorf, and my representations were at first put aside; the orders ran, "Continue to attack." "

As early as November 1914, the Crown Prince had written (sincerely quite justifiably, I think): “Undoubtedly this is the most stupid, senseless and unnecessary war of modern times. It is a war not wanted by Germany, I can assure you, but it was forced on us...” , and, unsurprisingly , his memoirs, written in exile soon after the war, show his bitterness as the unjust allegations heaped upon him.

 “The laughing murderer of Verdun? So that’s what I am, is it? One might almost come to believe it is true after hearing the calumny so often. It cuts me to the quick because it concerns what I have saved as my last imperishable possession out of the war and out of the collapse. It touches my unsullied memories of my relations to the troops entrusted to me. It touches the conviction that those men and I understood and trusted each other, that we had a right to believe in one another because each had given his best and done his best.”

He goes on to recount various episodes which demonstrate his concern for his men and the rapport he had with them. 

So many atrocities were committed by all sides in the First World War, that it seems that it is simply because he was the son of the equally unjustly vilified Kaiser, that the Crown Prince was made the scapegoat for the particular horrors of Verdun. In truth, he was one of the few commanders who petitioned for an end to the slaughter and by 1916 he was actively trying to create a peace accord and bring that whole pointless war to an end. Verdun was butchery...but Crown Prince Wilhelm was not the butcher.

The Myths of The First World War

History, as the famous quotation says, is written by the victors. Consequently, I grew up – decades after the events – believing that Germany, and particularly the German Kaiser, was responsible for the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles (and later the League of Nations), though a little extreme, was an attempt to ensure that no such horror could ever happen again. Now, what nonsense that seems! There are countless myths surrounding that terrible war and one blog post cannot begin to touch on them all but here are few thoughts about the misrepresentation of Germany – and particularly the German royalties – in World War 1.

Firstly, the invasion of Belgium is what – ostensibly! – brought Britain into the war. The invasion of a neutral country is inexcusable and the Schlieffen Plan took no account of ordinary people living peaceably in their own land, harming no one and having no desire to gain power over other nations. That would truly capture the imagination of the British people who had no axe to grind with Germany but love to support the underdog! However, bearing in mind that for 43 years since Unification, Germany – which, unlike all the other ‘major powers’ of Europe had not been involved in any war – had been unable to form alliances with Britain or Russia, there was the fear of being attacked from both the east and west and the only way to resolve that was by following Schlieffen’s plan (defeat France quickly by marching through Belgium since there was no other swift route to success; and then turn and defeat Russia), it’s clear that Germany was not entering Belgium as an aggressor but rather seeing it as a defensive move. That is still inexcusable and, of great importance, is Kaiser Wilhelm’s opposition to that invasion. Interestingly, his eldest son was sent to Alsace-Lorraine (the Franco-German border, rather than via Belgium) where he became infamous for his attack on Verdun and later wrote of his horror of war. Interesting, too, that when the Germans arrived in Belgium, they found large quantities of British arms and supplies stashed away in various places. This war was planned well in advance.

Secondly, perhaps more than any other nation, the German Royal Family suffered in the war. Two of the Kaiser’s young German nephews were killed

in action (the peace-loving sons of his sister, ‘Mossy’ of Hesse-Kassel); his sister, Queen Sophie of Greece, was subjected to all kinds of abuse: one minute, the gossip-mongers said, she had a secret telephone line to Potsdam, the next she was betraying her homeland by siding with the Allies; another sister, Moretta, was desperate to restore relations with her British cousins after the war....alas, to no avail. Kaiser Wilhelm, meanwhile, ensured that his British cousins, who happened to be in the German army (such as Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein), were given positions that didn’t involve any form of combat. King George V, on the other hand, stripped his German-born cousins of their ranks and even changed their names!

Thirdly, much is made of the sinking of the Lusitania (the passenger ship,
the sinking of which led to the death of hundreds of innocent Americans and was one of the reasons – again, ostensibly - why America was eventually dragged into the war) and Germany’s use of submarine warfare. Prince Max of Baden – who had spent the early part of the war working for the repatriation of wounded British prisoners – was totally opposed to the unrestricted use of German U-Boats but eventually it became clear that the German people depended so much on foreign imports of food and the naval blockade was an attempt to starve the civilians to death! Nowadays that seems typical of warfare but it was not ‘cricket’ in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Lusitania was carrying huge amounts of arms for the Allies, and Winston Churchill had sent ‘secret’ telegrams to various

ministries stating that it was necessary to bring America into the war and the death of a few ‘innocent civilians’ would be the best way of achieving that....The whole Lusitania business is abhorrent! Fourthly, not a great deal is written about Austria’s role in the war. Strange, really, since Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s murder is said to be the cause of it! Shortly after his accession, Emperor Karl (who had seen the effects of war first-hand) went out of his way to create peace. All his efforts were rejected by the Allies and he was eventually ousted from his throne.

Fourthly...the Treaty of Versailles. What a vile piece of work! It occurred to me that even the choice of venue – Versailles – was a deliberate attempt to humiliate Germany since this was the place where German Unification had been declared. This treaty was aimed at bankrupting Germany and Austria, and removing the monarchies (the Russian monarchy, of course, had already been ‘removed’) In the ensuing chaos, came Lenin, then Hitler, then Stalin all of whom were funded by specific people and companies, all of whom could be named....but perhaps not yet...

On a personal level, I find it disgusting that my forebears died in this war, believing that they were fighting for ‘good’. Having met people from other nations whose forebears were killed in the same war, believing that they, too, were fighting for ‘good’, and knowing that the ‘ordinary’ German, Austrian, British, American, Russian, Canadian, Italian, French, African, Indian, Australian or Asian soldiers had no reason to kill each other and no idea why they were doing so, I am baffled by the extent of the treachery from governments on all sides. One thing is certain, though: neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Tsar Nicholas wanted this war. Those who created it and gained from it remain, as always, in the shadows.....