What Really Caused World War 1?

 TRUTH or FICTION:  ANONE WANT TO READ MORE?

The above link is from today's piece with Scott Simon on NPR, who conducts another interview-installment with well-read London cabbie, Will Grozier.  The book Grozier most highly recommends is Hidden History, meticulously documented Dockerty/McGregor book, which seems to throw the old account of WWI to the dogs. 

I now know what I want to read next summer!   To prepare for this read, I checked out and now republish here this entry below, which is already Revisionist History.  But does it mesh at all with the new Dockerty/McGregor book? Time will tell.  Please weigh in!  What is it that you are taught in school these days? 

Here's what my search revealed after googling "revisionist history of WWI". --rsb
 
History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914.

This is the typical explanation. But the "revisionist historian" knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

Up until America's entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796.  President Washington said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.... 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, humour or caprice?'

President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be.  There were those who were secretly planning America's involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.

The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question.  If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.  That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war.  This is in 1909."
So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."

The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: "From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization... has been steadily growing."

The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.
Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."

The Sinking of the Lusitania

The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.
It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. "As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods."

England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that "By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol...."

This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany.  The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

Secretary Bryan promised that "he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing... ."

Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey:  What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?
House:  I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port.  The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel.  Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as "the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas."

But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the "flame of indignation" did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: "We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war."
After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918.  Mr. Simpson has written that "Both sets of archives... contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel."
But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard.  

The cover-up was now official.

But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson's book and concluded: "The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill."

President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of "keeping us out of the War" during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.


But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America's entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson's major advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: "The House-Grey memorandum... pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election."

But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson urged the creation of the League of Nations in a speech entitled League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government.

Some were not happy with the slowness of America's entry into the war. One of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who:

In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane."
He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

Roosevelt favored both.

And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].
The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights."

This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.

Roosevelt's badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in the war "to end all wars," and "to make the world safe for democracy."
The war wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918.
Historian Walter Millis wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about House's basic intent: "The Colonel's sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order [a world government] of peace and security...."

The Outrageous Treaty of Versailles

 

The official treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Versailles, where representatives of all sides sat down at a conference table and wrote the treaty.

Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, and representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother. Max, the head of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany, and who "was not only in charge of Germany's finances but was a leader of the German espionage system" was there as a representative of the German government.

The Treaty was written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference. Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and declared: "This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years." Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war, and he correctly predicted the year it would start: 1939.

Lord Curzon was indeed a prophet: he picked the actual year that World War II would start!
One of the planks of the Treaty called for large amounts of war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government.  This plank of the Treaty alone caused more grief in the German nation than any other and precipitated three events:

1. The "hyperinflation" of the German mark between 1920 and 1923;
2. The destruction of the middle class in Germany; and
3. The bringing to power of someone who could end the inflation: a dictator like Adolf Hitler.

This plank was written by John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight Eisenhower.

Even John Maynard Keynes became concerned about the Treaty. He wrote: "The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it".

In addition to writing the Treaty of Versailles, the nations who were victorious in the war also wrote the Charter of the League of Nations, which was ratified on January 10, 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and asked the Senate to ratify it The Senate, remembering George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty. President Wilson was not pleased, possibly because he saw himself, as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was quick to point out, as: "... a future President of the world."

It is now apparent that Wilson intended to head up the world government the war was fought to give the world, and he became depressed when the Treaty was not ratified. Imagine the disappointment of one who had come so close to becoming the very first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Imagine the sense of incredible power that Wilson must have felt, thinking he would become the very first individual in the history of mankind to rule the world.  Others had tried and failed, but Wilson was confident that he would succeed.

But the American people, expressing their displeasure through the Senate, would not let him.

The Rich Get Richer

 

Others were not so disappointed, however. "The war, in brief, provided an unparalleled opportunity for the richest families to grab [exorbitant profits] at the expense of the public and, without exception, they made the most of this opportunity. The rich families, to be sure, wanted the war to be won, but they took care that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers. They uttered no cries for government economy... so long as the public treasury was at their disposal."
One of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were "the Rockefellers, who were very eager for the United States to enter World War I, [and who] made far more than $200,000,000 from that conflict."

But support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members: "It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations...."

As could have been anticipated, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920.

The Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter: "It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part."

He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican "warhawks," who was ".. .backed by a powerful group of rich men who wish(ed) a military man in the White House."

The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as an evidence of that distrust and concern.  Harding outpolled his opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson who had "kept us out of the war" during the election of 1916. Wilson got only fifty-two percent of the vote, and Harding got sixty-four percent

Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft's campaign manager, as his Attorney General.

His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise, however, as he unexplainably surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry.
For instance:

• his Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil;
  
• his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil;
  
• his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and
  
• his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.
  

It was Mr. Fall who was to be President Harding's downfall, as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy's oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.
There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons:

1. Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join as the League had survived the Senate's prior refusal to ratify the treaty, and
   
2. Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.
   

These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on August 2, 1923, before the story completely surfaced. (There are those who believe that there were some who couldn't wait for the Teapot Dome Scandal to remove President Harding, and that he was poisoned.)

But the oil interests allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests.

The warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States.

WWI Adversisement

BBC  (Beware:  There are English references which can befuddle a bit; hang in there! -- rsb)

Ad BreakdownThe Magazine's review of advertising

Ad Breakdown: Sainsbury's WW1 Christmas truce advert.

="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HcRBDQYR4zM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Christmas supermarket advertisements used to show a paper-hatted extended family, lashings of mince pies, copious tinsel, and an inordinately large turkey. But this year's Sainsbury's offering rewinds 100 years to dramatize the Christmas truce of 1914, writes Tom de Castella.

It starts with the boom of artillery. It's night and British soldiers huddle in the trenches. Snow is falling. A Tommy opens a parcel from home - out falls a woman's photo and a bar of chocolate. The Sainsbury's Tommy - for it is he - smiles. Silent Night rises eerily - at first in German and then in English. The Sainsbury's Tommy pokes his head above the trench and after momentary tension - will they shoot? - the two sets of soldiers are in No Man's Land playing football and chatting.

The protagonist hands his chocolate to a German called Otto and in return receives what looks like a piece of hardtack biscuit. In the distance the guns rumble, both sets of troops return to the trenches, and the rousing score morphs into meditative piano. "Christmas is for sharing," flashes up on screen, followed by the familiar orange Sainsbury's logo, and finally "Made in partnership with the Royal British Legion".

Some have seen it as a massive counter-offensive against John Lewis after their penguin and boy blockbuster. While John Lewis had opted for "a mawkish story about a lonely penguin" using CGI, Sainsbury's had created a moving memorial based on lots of historical research and austere production values, one newspaper review said. But foranother it was a "dangerous and disrespectful masterpiece".

Rory Sutherland, vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK, says Sainsbury's probably decided there was little point trying to outdo John Lewis. Instead it's opened up a new front in the ad wars. It's risky, Sutherland suggests. There's always going to be a certain number who feel you're using millions of deaths to "sell wrapping paper", he says. But most people will like it. "It's a healthily oblique way to do a Christmas advertisement" that sells "the spirit of Christmas".

There were powerful emotions on Twitter.

"I know, I know: capitalism etc but still: *sobs* #sainsburyschristmas" Angela Clarke tweets.

Matt Henry opined: "The Sainburys Christmas ad should win an award. Sorry John Lewis you don't even come close."

"Great ad, beautifully made AND doing good," says Chris Arnold - a reference to the £1 chocolate bar that will be sold in aid of military veterans.

There were plenty of naysayers too.

It "shamelessly exploits a moment of genuine humanity during #WorldWar1 to get us to buy more stuff" writes Chris Hudson.

Above a photo of the Tommy shaking Otto's hand, Gareth Dimelowwrites: "What say we put aside our differences and get every customer to spend an extra ten shillings?"

Tim Footman moves the Anglo-German struggle from the trenches to the supermarket aisles: "Subtext of the #sainsburyschristmas ad: poor Germans, they only have Lidl and Aldi."

As the guns fall silent incongruity appears to have won the day, Alison Dunn tweeting: "Yes, the ad is nicely made but horrid orange sign at the end makes me fear Jamie Oliver will pop up in the trench."

Based on "In Flanders' Field" a poem by John McCrae about World War 1.

Libera's lovely video sung by precious young boys, whom we can only hope will never need to go to war. 



Remember to wear a poppy on Tuesday! 

-- Your poppy doesn't have to be ceramic, but wouldn't it be cool if it were?  Here are a few which will soon be on sale.  These poppies, from an art installation, called Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red, are the main part of London's tribute to WWI.  It is the creation of ceramic artist Paul Cummins and by November 11th it will feature 888,246 ceramic poppies, each representing the British and Colonial soldiers killed during the war.


The poppies were hand-made by 50 potters at Cummins' Derby studio using only techniques available to potters during the First World War, meaning each poppy will be individual and unique.

The setting is by stage designer Tom Piper, who has calculated 50 poppies per square metre would be necessary to fill the 16 acres of moat: 'When you think of it in terms of pure logistics it can get very mechanical, but when you consider that each of these poppies will represent a life it becomes very poignant.' 

 

Pictures: REUTERS

Other magnificent photos, including an aerial, can be found HERE.

 

-- I'm wondering: Do you know a veteran or service person to thank on Veterans' Day?  How will you celebrate Veterans' Day this year?

 

 

Language Learning and the Law

From Wikipedia:


Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923),^[1] was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 25, 1920, Robert T. Meyer, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School, a one-room schoolhouse in Hampton, Nebraska, taught the subject of reading in the German language to 10-year-old Raymond Parpart, a fourth-grader, the Hamilton County Attorney entered the classroom and discovered Parpart reading from the Bible in German. He charged Meyer with violating the Siman Act.<sup>[3]  **

**</sup>
On April 9, 1919, Nebraska enacted a statute called "An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the state of Nebraska," commonly known as the Siman Act. It imposed restrictions on both the use of a foreign language as a medium of instruction and on foreign languages as a subject of study. 

• With respect to the use of a foreign language while teaching, it provided that "No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language." 
• With respect to foreign-language education, it prohibited instruction of children who had yet to successfully complete the 8th grade.

Meyer was tried and convicted in the district court for Hamilton county, Nebraska, and fined $25 ($294 in today's dollars). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed his conviction by a vote of 4 to 2. The majority thought the law a proper response to "the baneful effects" of allowing immigrants to educate their children in their mother tongue, with results "inimical to our own safety." The dissent called the Siman Act the work of "crowd psychology."^[3]

Meyer appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. His lead attorney was Arthur Mullen, an Irish Catholic and a prominent Democrat, who had earlier failed in his attempt to obtain an injunction against enforcement of the Siman Act from the Nebraska State Supreme Court. Oral arguments expressed conflicting interpretations of the World War I experience. Mullen attributed the law to "hatred, national bigotry and racial prejudice engendered by the World War." Opposing counsel countered that "it is the ambition of the State to have its entire population 100 per cent. American."^[4]

Majority opinion

In his decision, Justice McReynolds stated that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process clause "[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Analyzing in that context the liberty of the teacher and of parents with respect to their children, McReynolds wrote: "Practically, education of the young is only possible in schools conducted by especially qualified persons who devote themselves thereto. The calling always has been regarded as useful and honorable, essential, indeed, to the public welfare. Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable. Plaintiff in error taught this language in school as part of his occupation. His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the amendment." And further: "Evidently the Legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own."

And finally: "That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution​—​a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means."

He allowed that wartime circumstances might justify a different understanding, but that Nebraska had not demonstrated sufficient need "in time of peace and domestic tranquility" to justify "the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed."

SOUNDS LIKE A CLOSE CALL TO ME!  Not sure if other languages besides German have been targeted in this way.   Check out this further article regarding challenges which teaching the German language has had to overcome.  -- rsb

Call To Ban Teaching German Language Split Allentown Board During Wwi School District's Compromise To Keep It As An Elective Was Eventually Overruled By State Legislature, Which Forbid It.

March 27, 2000|by FRANK WHELAN, The Morning Call

 

On the evening of May 27, 1918, a thunderstorm pounded the Lehigh Valley with rain, wind and hail. Inside the Allentown School Board's meeting room, the mood was almost as stormy. The members had the most controversial subject on their agenda that they had ever faced, it combined a volatile mix of patriotism and the teaching of a foreign language.

School Board Chairman J. Dallas Erdman was demanding that the members forbid the teaching of German in the public schools. If not, they would be siding with the nation's foes who were killing Americans at that moment in World War I.

The Catasauqua School Board, Erdman pointed out, had already banned German. It was up to Allentown to follow.

Board members William F.P. Good, Oliver A. Iobst and Charles A. Reber were in Erdman's corner. But members Wilson Arbogast, Harry G. Correll, William J. Dietrich, the Rev. Charles J. Rausch and Oliver T. Weaber could only be pushed so far.

Make German an elective rather than the required high school course it had been since 1858, they argued. But don't do away with the teaching of the language of Luther, Goethe and the German ancestors of everyone in the room.

The board's argument grew heated. When their loyalty was questioned, the dissidents protested. `I am an American," said Rausch after a cutting remark in German by Iobst. `Do you challenge my patriotism?` said Weaber, rising, `menacingly from his chair," the Call reported.

The argument raged on, but the German supporters would not budge. Finally, the board agreed to the compromise of making German an elective. Part of the agreement was replacing the course's textbook, `Im Vaterland," which means `My Fatherland,` with something that sounded less pro-Germany.

The roots of this argument went back to the earliest days of the city and region's education system.  Until the Civil War, German was the first language of the Lehigh Valley. Newspapers were written in it, God's word was preached in it and school children were taught in it. It was not unusual to find rural schools in the Lehigh Valley where Pennsylvania German was the only language spoken into the 20th century.

This was not confined to public schools. Into the 1900s, Muhlenberg College's faculty and administration were deeply divided between those who felt all its courses should be taught in German and those who believed that only its theology courses -- the school was founded to train students for the Lutheran ministry -- should be taught in German.

But after the Civil War, the region was becoming more and more bilingual. English was the language of business and the popular culture that surrounded the Lehigh Valley. It was clearly being heard more often, mixed with the Pennsylvania German dialect, in the region's cities and towns. Perhaps for that reason the city's educational leadership, particularly clergymen, wanted German as a required part of the public school curriculum.

As the German Empire rose to a position of world power, many people in the Lehigh Valley were proud of it and their German roots. Teaching German in the schools was a part of the community's ethnic heritage that few questioned.
But World War I and the anti-German hysteria that followed America's entry in April 1917 changed all that. Sauerkraut became liberty cabbage and anybody who spoke the `Hun's` language was as good as a traitor.

The Allentown School Board's decision was made the same spring that the most popular movie in the city was a propaganda film, `The Kaiser -- The Beast of Berlin." Ads for the film in the Call showed a sinister Wilhelm II with blood dripping from his hands.

The day after the board's decision, the Allentown chapter of the Past Presidents Association of the Patriotic Order, Sons of America, denounced the members and demanded German be dropped.

Eventually, the board's compromise decision was overruled by a higher authority. In April 1919, six months after the war ended, Pennsylvania's Legislature banned the teaching of German in the state's public and normal schools. Although the law eventually lapsed and German came out of hiding, the debate of 1918 is a reminder of how volatile a mix language and politics can be.