Psychological Support Systems of Two Chosen People
As anyone who travels in historical circles can testify, the English are once again dragging their historical fables of the World War One era out of the closet. Once again, they are promoting the fable of German aggression and brutality while ignoring the record of the British Empire. A researcher recently concluded that there were only twenty nations on earth that had not been the victims of English invasions over the centuries. That was English invasions, not German invasions. Yet these are the English who accuse the Germans of being uniquely horrible.
A Professor Sheffield is arguing nonsense such as the absurd contention that the Somme was a harbinger of victory and a paradigm of successful warfare. No one at the time so regarded it. Sheffield also claims that Douglas Haig, far from being a butcher, was a commander who gained great insights from the war. These “insights” were remarkably illustrated in Haig’s post-war comment that “the horse shall remain the queen of the battlefield”. If Haig learned anything, it certainly was not how to pull his head out of his horse’s ass. Professor Sheffield further amuses by claiming the English had won the war before the American Expeditionary Force arrived. He bases this on a few English victories at the end of the war and the fact that the German offensive had stalled. But Professor Sheffield ignores that had it not been for the possibility of getting America in, the English would have had to sue for peace in 1916 – after those devastatingly costly so-called “victories” at Paaschendale and the Somme.
Professor Sheffield knows perfectly that the English lied through their teeth about handless Belgian babies, human soap factories, crucified Canadian soldiers and the like. Yet he would have the reader believe that the same English told the truth about the origins of the war. As to brutality, Professor Sheffield is no doubt aware that it was the inhumane English who imposed a merciless starvation blockade on Europe, starving hundreds of thousands of civilians to death. It was precisely what one would expect from the criminal empire that murdered 25,000 Dutch children and 4000 women of disease and starvation in the Boer war. That was the innovation of the English Heinrich Himmler, Lord Herbert Kitchener, who was the role model for the German Nazis envious of his methods.
As to the origins of the war, Professor Sheffield knows, Fritz Fischer to the contrary that the Germans, and Kaiser Wilhelm in particular, had virtually nothing to do with it. The war was caused by Russian Pan-Slavic ambitions in the Balkans and the joint Franco-Russian mobilization. That left the Germans little choice but to strike in self-defense. No argument that England was acting to protect “poor, innocent” Belgium can be tolerated. Belgium was anything but innocent. The Belgian government had been secretly collaborating with the English in preparation for an upcoming war with Germany. Internal English documents show that England was prepared to invade Belgium herself without any provocation from Germany.
Professor Sheffield also knows that it was Kaiser Wilhelm who pleaded desperately with his cousin, Nicholas of Russia, to stop the onrush of war that would devastate western civilization beyond repair. The cold-blooded English imperialists, motivated solely by a desire to destroy a political and commercial rival, entertained no such humanitarian motivations. Professor Sheffield is no doubt aware of the highly inconvenient revisionists of the 1920’s who punctured the official lies of the Entente governments, particularly the British government. He would rather forget the works of Barnes, Fay, Montgelas and others and pretend that such works have been superseded by more “authoritative” (read: updated English lies) works.
Professor Sheffield is a contemptible charlatan. In this he is no different from any other English historian, past or present. The English will no more let go of their World War One holy lies than the Jews will let go of their “gas chamber” hoax. Both are a central part of their national identity. Both are psychological support systems of two “chosen peoples” the world can do without.