Did Zionists Entangle the U.S. in WWI?

Did Zionists entangle the United States in World War I? How did American involvement (which caused over 100,000 American deaths) serve American interests? Did the Balfour Declaration motivate American Zionists to push Wilson into war?

Historian James Gelvin: Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims?

LINK

Winston Churchill: Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory.

Malcolm Thomson: When writing the official biography of Lloyd George, I was able to study the original documents bearing on this question. From these it was clear that although certain members of the Cabinets of 1916 and 1917 sympathized with Zionist aspirations, the efforts of Zionist leaders to win any promise of support from the British Government had proved quite ineffectual, and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with the French for partition of spheres of interest in the Middle East seemed to doom Zionist aims. A change of attitude was, however, brought about through the initiative of Mr. James A. Malcolm, who pressed on Sir Mark Sykes, then Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, the thesis that an allied offer to restore Palestine to the Jews would swing over from the German to the allied side the very powerful influence of American Jews, including Judge Brandeis, the friend and adviser of President Wilson. Sykes was interested, and at his request Malcolm introduced him to Dr. Weizmann and the other Zionist leaders, and negotiations were opened which culminated in the Balfour Declaration.

 

Zionist Samuel Landman: the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentlemen's" agreement of 1916, made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence, and or approval of the Arabs, and of the British, and of the French and other Allied governments, and not merely a voluntary, altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or rather misrepresent ...

LINK

 

British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish: “The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world... and it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists...did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”

LINK

 

The sinking of the Lusitania was not a sufficient casus belli. The ship was carrying arms and sailing in a war zone.

 

The Germans in WWI were no more brutal than any of the other great powers.

Tales of German atrocities were mostly fiction.

 

The Nye Committee concluded that banks and the munitions industry pushed for American involvement in WWI. Not a few of these bankers sympathized with the Zionists.

 

Here's Samuel Landman's pamphlet: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine

 

Well, this falls right in line with Hitler blaming the Jews for starting WWII.

 

ZZZZZZZZZZ Yes of course anyone who criticizes any Jewish person is Hitler.

Now can you dispute the facts presented or not?

 

French diplomat François Georges-Picot: "After many years, I am still moved by the thanks he poured out to me as he gave me the two telegrams ... do not say that it was the cause of the great upsurge of enthusiasm which occurred in the United States, but I say that Judge Brandeis, to whom this telegram was addressed, was certainly one of the elements determining the decision of President Wilson."

 

Historian Jonathan Shneer: Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context

LINK

 

Arthur Balfour suggested that a declaration favourable to Zionist aspirations would enable Great Britain "'to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America".

LINK

Diplomat James Malcolm to Mark Sykes: "You are going the wrong way about it. You can win the sympathy of certain politically-minded Jews everywhere, and especially in the United States, in one way only, and that is, by offering to try and secure Palestine for them."

 

WWI, WWII, and Iraq. They left us alone to do Grenada.

 

So what does it mean if it's true, if the British thought that declaring Palestine a Jewish homeland would give them some advantage?

They were acting in the interests of Britain, not the Jews...and it really wasn't the Jews that initiated WWI, so what does it mean if in maneuvering for advantage I favor A over B?

 

Well don't you think pushing the U.S. into a war that didn't serve our interests is wrong?! Because of the Zionists thousands of Americans died in a pointless war. These soldiers didn't even know the real cause they died for.

 

America entered WWI based on American interests, I really don't think the Zionists played a big role, and if Wilson hadn't become ill, There might not be an Israel today.
Random stuff happens....

 

What interests?

 

Malcolm Thomson, biographer of Lloyd George, in The Times on 2 November 1949:

 

We never should have allowed loans to belligerents.

Secretary of State Bryan Opposes Loans to Belligerents

We never should have gone to war.

Opposition to Wilson's War Message

 

Weizmann wrote to congratulate Brandeis on November 2, 1917:

"... I need hardly say how we all rejoice in this great event and how grateful we all feel to you for the valuable and efficient help which you have lent to the cause in the critical hour ... Once more, dear Mr. Brandeis, I beg to tender to you our heartiest congratulations not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of our friends here -- and may this epoch-making be a beginning of great work for our sorely tried people and also of mankind."

 

In order to get his hands on Palestine, Weizmann opposed peace with Turkey. By doing so he possibly prolonged WW I.

quote: the fact remains that the leading Zionist of the day (and later first president of the state of Israel), Chaim Weizmann, saw nothing wrong with sacrificing the lives of Australian (and British troops) so long as he could get his hands on Palestine. Indeed, given his role in scotching the Morgenthau mission, those 175 Australian deaths may legitimately be viewed as sacrifices on the altar of the Zionist project.

As a more moral associate of Weizmann's, Harry Sacher, argued at the time: "To oppose the advocates of peace with Turkey meant possibly prolonging the war. 'I myself would not buy a British protectorate at the cost of prolonging the war by a single day'." (The Balfour Declaration, Jonathan Schneer, 2010, p 273)

LINK

 

The Lusitania wasn't, but the resuming of unrestricted submarine warfare against us and the Zimmermann Telegram sure as hell were.

 

The Germans were however the first faction to use gas during the war that was specifically designed to be lethal (chlorine gas). Which opened up a horrible, horrible can of worms that still haunts the world to this day.

 

It's clear:

1) The British sided with the Zionists so they would push the U.S. into the war.
2) Zionists were extremely influential in the Wilson administration.
3) Zionists publicly acknowledged their role in entangling the U.S. in WW I.
4) Some Zionists had no problem prolonging the war if it served their ends.
5) The U.S. had no compelling reason to declare war on Germany.

 

Did the U.S. have the right to prop up the British so the war could continue? The U.S. supplied war material to the British - allowing the British to bomb, starve, kill Germans.