Replies

I bought the book and read it.It was well-researched and not at all sensationalist.History can't be presented in neat little packages to fulfill an expectation.What interested me greatly was Rigg's analysis of Jewish participation in World War 1 for Austria-Hungary and Germany.Jews served and died in large numbers for both empires without hesitation.My grandmother's brother enlisted in the Austro-Hungarian Army in the 1890's when he was a teenager-he took his mother's name which didn't sound "Jewish" as opposed to his father's,which did.The Emperor at that time,Franz Joseph was very decent to Jews,but that didn't carry over throughout the Army.His grandson received the Distinguished Flying Cross in Vietnam.The Anzacs at Gallipoli were commanded by Lt.General John Monash ,an Australian Jew,and his opposite number assisting the Turkish Army was Field Marshall Otto Liman von Sanders,a German who was half-Jewish.I find this kind of stuff interesting.In any event,the book was very interesting and thought-provoking.

> interesting how desperate the standard academic historians are to deprecate and diminish his accomplishment. What a bunch of insecure dweebs they are.

That's quite an understatement! Much like what Schlieman found when he went in search of Troy.

Try doing research on any subject where "all the answers are known", like about the Lost Tribes of Israel, and see how much support you get. Virtually none from established, entrenched, and timid clergy. Very little from "scholars" who are too lazy to redo their lecture notes, and outright hostility from vested interests that don't want their boats rocked. Whole empires are based on faulty but established "known answers".

Fortunately, I got some good support when I attended Oxford; from a lone Jewish Professor, but not from the Protestant ones. Some of the results are reflected in my Profile.

Very interesting. And interesting how desperate the standard academic historians are to deprecate and diminish his accomplishment. What a bunch of insecure dweebs they are.

Academic historians are every bit as lazy, status-anxiety driven, herd-mentality following, as, oh, I don't know...journalists, for instance.

Few things piss off academic historians more then a young historian who does actual, original research, especially when the research covers a topic that they would prefer remain permently buried.