The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: Understanding World War II
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Pat Buchanan and “the Unnecessary War”

In late 2006 I was approached by Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative (TAC), who told me that his small magazine was on the verge of closing without a large financial infusion. I’d been on friendly terms with McConnell since around 1999, and greatly appreciated that he and his TAC co-founders had been providing a focal point of opposition to America’s calamitous foreign policy of the early 2000s.

In the wake of 9/11, the Israel-centric Neocons had somehow managed to seize control of the Bush Administration while also gaining complete ascendancy over America’s leading media outlets, purging or intimidating most of their critics. Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in FebruaryMarch 2003.

Among print magazines, TAC stood almost alone in whole-hearted opposition to these policies, and had attracted considerable attention when Founding Editor Pat Buchanan published “Whose War?”, pointing the finger of blame directly at the Jewish Neocons responsible, a truth very widely recognized in political and media circles but almost never publicly voiced. David Frum, a leading promoter of the Iraq War, had almost simultaneously unleashed a National Review cover story denouncing as “unpatriotic”—and perhaps “anti-Semitic”—a very long list of conservative, liberal, and libertarian war critics, with Buchanan near the very top, and the controversy and name-calling continued for some time.

Given this recent history, I was concerned that TAC‘s disappearance might leave a dangerous political void, and being then in a relatively strong financial position, I agreed to rescue the magazine and become its new owner. Although I was much too preoccupied with my own software work to have any direct involvement, McConnell named me publisher, probably hoping to bind me to his magazine’s continuing survival and ensure future financial infusions. My title was purely a nominal one, and over the next few years, aside from writing additional checks my only involvement usually amounted to a five-minute phone call each Monday morning to see how things were going.

About a year after I began supporting the magazine, McConnell informed me that a major crisis was brewing. Although Pat Buchanan had severed his direct ties with the publication some years earlier, he was by far the best-known figure associated with TAC, so that it was still widely—if erroneously—known as “Pat Buchanan’s magazine.” But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace. Promoting such bizarre beliefs would surely doom Buchanan’s career, but TAC was already under continuous attack by Jewish activists, and the resulting “Neo-Nazi” guilt by association might easily sink the magazine as well.

In desperation, McConnell had decided to protect his publication by soliciting a very hostile review by conservative historian John Lukacs, which would thereby insulate TAC from the looming disaster. Given my current role as TAC‘s funder and publisher, he naturally sought my approval in this harsh break with his own political mentor. I told him that the Buchanan book certainly sounded rather ridiculous and his own defensive strategy a pretty reasonable one, and I quickly returned to the problems I faced in my own all-consuming software project.

Although I’d been a little friendly with Buchanan for a dozen years or so, and greatly admired his courage in opposing the Neocons on foreign policy, I wasn’t too surprised to hear that he might be publishing a book promoting some rather strange ideas. Just a few years earlier, he’d released The Death of the West, which became an unexpected best-seller. After my friends at TAC had raved about its brilliance, I decided to read it for myself, and was greatly disappointed. Although Buchanan had generously quoted an excerpt from my own Commentary cover-story “California and the End of White America,” I felt that he’d completely misconstrued my meaning, and the book overall seemed a rather poorly-constructed and rhetorically right-wing treatment of the complex issues of immigration and race, topics upon which I’d been heavily focusing since the early 1990s. So under the circumstances, I was hardly surprised that the same author was now publishing some equally silly book about World War II, perhaps causing severe problems for his erstwhile TAC colleagues.

Months later, Buchanan’s history and the hostile TAC review both appeared, and as expected, a storm of controversy erupted. Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it. Indeed, the response was so extremely one-sided that when McConnell discovered that a totally obscure blogger somewhere had agreed with his own negative appraisal, he immediately circulated those remarks in a desperate attempt at vindication. Longtime TAC contributors whose knowledge of history I much respected, including Eric Margolis and William Lind, had praised the book, so my curiosity finally got the better of me and I decided to order a copy and read it for myself.

ORDER IT NOW

I was quite surprised to discover a work very different from what I had expected. I had never paid much attention to twentieth century American history and my knowledge of European history in that same era was only slightly better, so my views were then mostly rather conventional, having been shaped by my History 101 courses and what I’d picked up in decades of reading my various newspapers and magazines. But within that framework, Buchanan’s history seemed to fit quite comfortably.

The first part of his volume provided what I had always considered the standard view of the First World War. In his account of events, Buchanan explained how the complex network of interlocking alliances had led to a giant conflagration even though none of the existing leaders had actually sought that outcome: a huge European powder-keg had been ignited by the spark of an assassination in Sarajevo.

But although his narrative was what I expected, he provided a wealth of interesting details previously unknown to me. Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries. Moreover, a secret military agreement between Britain and France had been a crucial factor in the unintended escalation, and even so, nearly half the British Cabinet had come close to resigning in opposition to the declaration of war against Germany, a possibility that which would have probably led to a short and limited conflict confined to the Continent. I’d also seldom seen emphasized that Japan had been a crucial British ally, and that the Germans probably would have won the war if Japan had fought on the other side.

However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell and his colleagues. Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon a prostrate Germany, and the determination of all subsequent German leaders to redress it. But whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.

Buchanan documented this controversial thesis by drawing heavily upon numerous statements by leading contemporary political figures, mostly British, as well as the conclusions of highly-respected mainstream historians. Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

ORDER IT NOW

Although many Americans might have been shocked at this account of the events leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War, Buchanan’s narrative accorded reasonably well with my own impression of that period. As a Harvard freshman, I had taken an introductory history course, and one of the primary required texts on World War II had been that of A.J.P. Taylor, a renowned Oxford University historian. His famous 1961 work Origins of the Second World War had very persuasively laid out a case quite similar to that of Buchanan, and I’d never found any reason to question the judgment of my professors who had assigned it. So if Buchanan merely seemed to be seconding the opinions of a leading Oxford don and members of the Harvard history faculty, I couldn’t quite understand why his new book would be regarded as being beyond the pale.

Admittedly, Buchanan also included a very harsh critique of Winston Churchill, cataloging a long list of his supposedly disastrous policies and political reversals, and assigning him a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both world wars, fateful decisions that consequently led to the collapse of the British Empire. But although my knowledge of Churchill was far too scanty to render a verdict, the case he made for the prosecution seemed reasonably strong. The Neocons already hated Buchanan and since they notoriously worshiped Churchill as a cartoon super-hero, any firestorm of criticism from those quarters would hardly be surprising. But the book overall seemed a very solid and interesting history, the best work by Buchanan that I had ever read, and I gently gave my favorable assessment to McConnell, who was obviously rather disappointed. Not long afterward, he decided to relinquish his role as TAC editor to Kara Hopkins, his longtime deputy, and the wave of vilification he had recently endured from many of his erstwhile Buchananite allies surely must have contributed to this.

Purging Our Leading Historians and Journalists

Although my knowledge of the history of the Second World War was quite rudimentary back in 2008, over the decade that followed I embarked upon a great deal of reading in the history of that momentous era, and my preliminary judgment in the correctness of Buchanan’s thesis seemed strongly vindicated.

The recent 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict that consumed so many tens of millions of lives naturally provoked numerous historical articles, and the resulting discussion led me to dig out my old copy of Taylor’s short volume, which I reread for the first time in nearly forty years. I found it just as masterful and persuasive as I had back in my college dorm room days, and the glowing cover-blurbs suggested some of the immediate acclaim the work had received. The Washington Post lauded the author as “Britain’s most prominent living historian,” World Politics called it “Powerfully argued, brilliantly written, and always persuasive,” The New Statesman, Britain leading leftist magazine, described it as “A masterpiece: lucid, compassionate, beautifully written,” and the august Times Literary Supplement characterized it as “simple, devastating, superlatively readable, and deeply disturbing.” As an international best-seller, it still surely ranks as Taylor’s most famous book, and I can easily understand why it was still on my college required reading list nearly two decades after its original publication.

Yet in revisiting Taylor’s ground-breaking study, I made a remarkable discovery. Despite all the international sales and critical acclaim, the book’s findings soon aroused tremendous hostility in certain quarters. Taylor’s lectures at Oxford had been enormously popular for a quarter century, but as a direct result of the controversy “Britain’s most prominent living historian” was summarily purged from the faculty not long afterwards. At the beginning of his first chapter, Taylor had noted how strange he found it that more than twenty years after the start of the world’s most cataclysmic war no serious history had been produced carefully analyzing the outbreak. Perhaps the retaliation that he encountered led him to better understand part of that puzzle.

Taylor was hardly alone in suffering such retribution. Indeed, as I have gradually discovered over the last decade or so, his fate seems to have been an exceptionally mild one, with his great existing stature partially insulating him from the backlash following his objective analysis of the historical facts. And such extremely serious professional consequences were especially common on our side of the Atlantic, where many of the victims lost their long-held media or academic positions, and permanently vanished from public view during the years around World War II.

I had spent much of the 2000s producing a massive digitized archive containing the full contents of hundreds of America’s most influential periodicals from the last two centuries, a collection totaling many millions of articles. And during this process, I was repeatedly surprised to come across individuals whose enormous presence clearly marked them as among the leading public intellectuals of their day, but who had later disappeared so completely that I had scarcely ever been aware of their existence. I gradually began to recognize that our own history had been marked by an ideological Great Purge just as significant if less sanguinary than its Soviet counterpart. The parallels seemed eerie:

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of the great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives. How could the great Lenin, father of the Revolution, have been such an idiot to have surrounded himself almost exclusively with traitors and spies?

But unlike their Stalinist analogs from a couple of years earlier, the American victims who disappeared around 1940 were neither shot nor Gulaged, but merely excluded from the mainstream media that defines our reality, thereby being blotted out from our memory so that future generations gradually forgot that they had ever lived.

 

A leading example of such a “disappeared” American was journalist John T. Flynn, probably almost unknown today but whose stature had once been enormous. As I wrote last year:

So imagine my surprise at discovering that throughout the 1930s he had been one of the single most influential liberal voices in American society, a writer on economics and politics whose status may have roughly approximated that of Paul Krugman, though with a strong muck-raking tinge. His weekly column in The New Republic allowed him to serve as a lodestar for America’s progressive elites, while his regular appearances in Colliers, an illustrated mass circulation weekly reaching many millions of Americans, provided him a platform comparable to that of an major television personality in the later heyday of network TV.

To some extent, Flynn’s prominence may be objectively quantified. A few years ago, I happened to mention his name to a well-read and committed liberal born in the 1930s, and she unsurprisingly drew a complete blank, but wondered if he might have been a little like Walter Lippmann, the very famous columnist of that era. When I checked, I saw that across the hundreds of periodicals in my archiving system, there were just 23 articles by Lippmann from the 1930s but fully 489 by Flynn.

An even stronger American parallel to Taylor was that of historian Harry Elmer Barnes, a figure almost unknown to me, but in his day an academic of great influence and stature:

Imagine my shock at later discovering that Barnes had actually been one of the most frequent early contributors to Foreign Affairs, serving as a primary book reviewer for that venerable publication from its 1922 founding onward, while his stature as one of America’s premier liberal academics was indicated by his scores of appearances in The Nation and The New Republic throughout that decade. Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments. And his professional stature was demonstrated by his thirty-five or more books, many of them influential academic volumes, along with his numerous articles in The American Historical Review, Political Science Quarterly, and other leading journals.

A few years ago I happened to mention Barnes to an eminent American academic scholar whose general focus in political science and foreign policy was quite similar, and yet the name meant nothing. By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.

Many of Barnes’ friends and allies fell in the same ideological purge, which he described in his own writings and which continued after the end of the war:

Over a dozen years after his disappearance from our national media, Barnes managed to publish Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, a lengthy collection of essays by scholars and other experts discussing the circumstances surrounding America’s entrance into World War II, and have it produced and distributed by a small printer in Idaho. His own contribution was a 30,000 word essay entitled “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” and discussed the tremendous obstacles faced by the dissident thinkers of that period.

The book itself was dedicated to the memory of his friend, historian Charles A. Beard. Since the early years of the 20th century, Beard had ranked as an intellectual figure of the greatest stature and influence, co-founder of The New School in New York and serving terms as president of both The American Historical Association and The American Political Science Association. As a leading supporter of the New Deal economic policies, he was overwhelmingly lauded for his views.

Yet once he turned against Roosevelt’s bellicose foreign policy, publishers shut their doors to him, and only his personal friendship with the head of the Yale University Press allowed his critical 1948 volume President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 to even appear in print. Beard’s stellar reputation seems to have begun a rapid decline from that point onward, so that by 1968 historian Richard Hofstadter could write: “Today Beard’s reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. What was once the grandest house in the province is now a ravaged survival”. Indeed, Beard’s once-dominant “economic interpretation of history” might these days almost be dismissed as promoting “dangerous conspiracy theories,” and I suspect few non-historians have even heard of him.

Another major contributor to the Barnes volume was William Henry Chamberlin, who for decades had been ranked among America’s leading foreign policy journalists, with more than 15 books to his credit, most of them widely and favorably reviewed. Yet America’s Second Crusade, his critical 1950 analysis of America’s entry into World War II, failed to find a mainstream publisher, and when it did appear was widely ignored by reviewers. Prior to its publication, his byline had regularly run in our most influential national magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers. But afterward, his writing was almost entirely confined to small circulation newsletters and periodicals, appealing to narrow conservative or libertarian audiences.

In these days of the Internet, anyone can easily establish a website to publish his views, thus making them immediately available to everyone in the world. Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter can bring interesting or controversial material to the attention of millions with just a couple of mouse-clicks, completely bypassing the need for the support of establishmentarian intermediaries. It is easy for us to forget just how extremely challenging the dissemination of dissenting ideas remained back in the days of print, paper, and ink, and recognize that an individual purged from his regular outlet might require many years to regain any significant foothold for the distribution of his work.

 

British writers had faced similar ideological perils years before A.J.P. Taylor ventured into those troubled waters, as a distinguished British naval historian discovered in 1953:

The author of Unconditional Hatred was Captain Russell Grenfell, a British naval officer who had served with distinction in the First World War, and later helped direct the Royal Navy Staff College, while publishing six highly-regarded books on naval strategy and serving as the Naval Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. Grenfell recognized that great quantities of extreme propaganda almost inevitably accompany any major war, but with several years having passed since the close of hostilities, he was growing concerned that unless an antidote were soon widely applied, the lingering poison of such wartime exaggerations might threaten the future peace of Europe.

His considerable historical erudition and his reserved academic tone shine through in this fascinating volume, which focuses primarily upon the events of the two world wars, but often contains digressions into the Napoleonic conflicts or even earlier ones. One of the intriguing aspects of his discussion is that much of the anti-German propaganda he seeks to debunk would today be considered so absurd and ridiculous it has been almost entirely forgotten, while much of the extremely hostile picture we currently have of Hitler’s Germany receives almost no mention whatsoever, possibly because it had not yet been established or was then still considered too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. Among other matters, he reports with considerable disapproval that leading British newspapers had carried headlined articles about the horrific tortures that were being inflicted upon German prisoners at war crimes trials in order to coerce all sorts of dubious confessions out of them.

Some of Grenfell’s casual claims do raise doubts about various aspects of our conventional picture of German occupation policies. He notes numerous stories in the British press of former French “slave-laborers” who later organized friendly post-war reunions with their erstwhile German employers. He also states that in 1940 those same British papers had reported the absolutely exemplary behavior of German soldiers toward French civilians, though after terroristic attacks by Communist underground forces provoked reprisals, relations often grew much worse.

Most importantly, he points out that the huge Allied strategic bombing campaign against French cities and industry had killed huge numbers of civilians, probably far more than had ever died at German hands, and thereby provoked a great deal of hatred as an inevitable consequence. At Normandy he and other British officers had been warned to remain very cautious among any French civilians they encountered for fear they might be subject to deadly attacks.

Although Grenfell’s content and tone strike me as exceptionally even-handed and objective, others surely viewed his text in a very different light. The Devin-Adair jacket-flap notes that no British publisher was willing to accept the manuscript, and when the book appeared no major American reviewer recognized its existence. Even more ominously, Grenfell is described as having been hard at work on a sequel when he suddenly died in 1954 of unknown causes, and his lengthy obituary in the London Times gives his age as 62.

Another top contemporary observer from that era provides a portrayal of France during World War II that is diametrically opposed to that of today’s widely-accepted narrative:

On French matters, Grenfell provides several extended references to a 1952 book entitled France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947 by Sisley Huddleston, an author totally unfamiliar to me, and this whet my curiosity. One helpful use of my content-archiving system is to easily provide the proper context for long-forgotten writers, and Huddleston’s scores of appearances in The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, and The New Republic, plus his thirty well-regarded books on France, seem to confirm that he spent decades as one of the leading interpreters of France to educated American and British readers. Indeed, his exclusive interview with British Prime Minister Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference became an international scoop. As with so many other writers, after World War II his American publisher necessarily became Devin-Adair, which released a posthumous 1955 edition of his book. Given his eminent journalistic credentials, Huddleston’s work on the Vichy period was reviewed in American periodicals, although in rather cursory and dismissive fashion, and I ordered a copy and read it.

I cannot attest to the correctness of Huddleston’s 350 page account of France during the war years and immediately after, but as a very distinguished journalist and longtime observer who was an eyewitness to the events he describes, writing at a time when the official historical narrative had not yet hardened into concrete, I do think that his views should be taken quite seriously. Huddleston’s personal circle certainly extended quite high, with former U.S. Ambassador William Bullitt being one of his oldest friends. And without doubt Huddleston’s presentation is radically different from the conventional story I had always heard.

As Huddleston describes things, the French army collapsed in May of 1940, and the government desperately recalled Petain, then in his mid-80s and the country’s greatest war hero, from his posting as the Ambassador to Spain. Soon he was asked by the French President to form a new government and arrange an armistice with the victorious Germans, and this proposal received near-unanimous support from France’s National Assembly and Senate, including the backing of virtually all the leftist parliamentarians. Petain achieved this result, and another near-unanimous vote of the French parliament then authorized him to negotiate a full peace treaty with Germany, which certainly placed his political actions on the strongest possible legal basis. At that point, almost everyone in Europe believed that the war was essentially over, with Britain soon to make peace.

While Petain’s fully-legitimate French government was negotiating with Germany, a small number of diehards, including Col. Charles de Gaulle, deserted from the army and fled abroad, declaring that they intended to continue the war indefinitely, but they initially attracted minimal support or attention. One interesting aspect of the situation was that De Gaulle had long been one of Petain’s leading proteges, and once his political profile began rising a couple of years later, there were often quiet speculations that he and his old mentor had arranged a “division of labor,” with the one making an official peace with the Germans while the other left to become the center of overseas resistance in the uncertain event that different opportunities arose.

Although Petain’s new French government guaranteed that its powerful navy would never be used against the British, Churchill took no chances, and quickly launched an attack on the fleet of its erstwhile ally, whose ships were already disarmed and helplessly moored in port, sinking most of them, and killing up to 2,000 Frenchmen in the process. This incident was not entirely dissimilar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the following year, and rankled the French for many years to come.

Huddleston then spends much of the book discussing the complex French politics of the next few years, as the war unexpectedly continued, with Russia and America eventually joining the Allied cause, greatly raising the odds against a German victory. During this period, the French political and military leadership performed a difficult balancing act, resisting German demands on some points and acquiescing to them on others, while the internal Resistance movement gradually grew, attacking German soldiers and provoking harsh German reprisals. Given my lack of expertise, I cannot really judge the accuracy of his political narrative, but it seems quite realistic and plausible to me, though specialists might surely find fault.

However, the most remarkable claims in Huddleston’s book come towards the end, as he describes what eventually became known as “the Liberation of France” during 1944-45 when the retreating German forces abandoned the country and pulled back to their own borders. Among other things, he suggests that the number of Frenchmen claiming “Resistance” credentials grew as much as a hundred-fold once the Germans had left and there was no longer any risk in adopting that position.

And at that point, enormous bloodshed soon began, by far the worst wave of extra-judicial killings in all of French history. Most historians agree that around 20,000 lives were lost in the notorious “Reign of Terror” during the French Revolution and perhaps 18,000 died during the Paris Commune of 1870-71 and its brutal suppression. But according to Huddleston the American leaders estimated there were at least 80,000 “summary executions” in just the first few months after Liberation, while the Socialist Deputy who served as Interior Minister in March 1945 and would have been in the best position to know, informed De Gaulle’s representatives that 105,000 killings had taken place just from August 1944 to March 1945, a figure that was widely quoted in public circles at the time.

Since a large fraction of the entire French population had spent years behaving in ways that now suddenly might be considered “collaborationist,” enormous numbers of people were vulnerable, even at risk of death, and they sometimes sought to save their own lives by denouncing their acquaintances or neighbors. Underground Communists had long been a major element of the Resistance, and many of them eagerly retaliated against their hated “class enemies,” while numerous individuals took the opportunity to settle private scores. Another factor was that many of the Communists who had fought in the Spanish Civil War, including thousands of the members of the International Brigades, had fled to France after their military defeat in 1938, and now often took the lead in enacting vengeance against the same sort of conservative forces who had previously vanquished them in their own country.

Although Huddleston himself was an elderly, quite distinguished international journalist with very highly placed American friends, and he had performed some minor services on behalf of the Resistance leadership, he and his wife narrowly escaped summary execution during that period, and he provides a collection of the numerous stories he heard of less fortunate victims. But what appears to have been by far the worst sectarian bloodshed in French history has been soothingly rechristened “the Liberation” and almost entirely removed from our historical memory, except for the famously shaved heads of a few disgraced women. These days Wikipedia constitutes the congealed distillation of our Official Truth, and its entry on those events puts the death toll at barely one-tenth the figures quoted by Huddleston, but I find him a far more credible source.

We may easily imagine that some prominent and highly-regarded individual at the peak of his career and public influence might suddenly take leave of his senses and begin promoting eccentric and erroneous theories, thereby ensuring his downfall. Under such circumstances, his claims may be treated with great skepticism and perhaps simply disregarded.

But when the number of such very reputable yet contrary voices becomes sufficiently large and the claims they make seem generally consistent with each other, we can no longer casually dismiss their critiques. Their committed stance on these controversial matters had proved fatal to their continued public standing, and although they must have recognized these likely consequences, they nonetheless followed that path, even going to the trouble of writing lengthy books presenting their views, and seeking out some publisher somewhere who was willing to release these.

John T. Flynn, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, William Henry Chamberlin, Russell Grenfell, Sisley Huddleston, and numerous other scholars and journalists of the highest caliber and reputation all told a rather consistent story of the Second World War but one at total variance with that of today’s established narrative, and they did so at the cost of destroying their careers. A decade or two later, renowned historian A.J.P. Taylor reaffirmed this same basic narrative, and was purged from Oxford as a consequence. I find it very difficult to explain the behavior of all these individuals unless they were presenting a truthful account.

If a ruling political establishment and its media organs offer lavish rewards of funding, promotion, and public acclaim to those who endorse its party-line propaganda while casting into outer darkness those who dissent, the pronouncements of the former should be viewed with considerable suspicion. Barnes popularized the phrase “court historians” to describe these disingenuous and opportunistic individuals who follow the prevailing political winds, and our present-day media outlets are certainly replete with such types.

 

A climate of serious intellectual repression greatly complicates our ability to uncover the events of the past. Under normal circumstances, competing claims can be weighed in the give-and-take of public or scholarly debate, but this obviously becomes impossible if the subjects being discussed are forbidden ones. Moreover, writers of history are human beings, and if they have been purged from their prestigious positions, blacklisted from public venues, and even cast into poverty, we should hardly be surprised if they sometimes grow angry and bitter at their fate, perhaps reacting in ways that their enemies may later use to attack their credibility.

A.J.P. Taylor lost his Oxford post for publishing his honest analysis of the origins of World War II, but his enormous previous stature and the widespread acclaim his book had received seemed to protect him from further damage, and the work itself soon became recognized as a great classic, remaining permanently in print and later gracing the required reading lists of our most elite universities. However, others who delved into those same troubled waters were much less fortunate.

The same year that Taylor’s book appeared so did a work covering much the same ground by a fledgling scholar named David L. Hoggan. Hoggan had earned his 1948 Ph.D. in diplomatic history at Harvard under Prof. William Langer, one of the towering figures in that field, and his maiden work The Forced War was a direct outgrowth of his doctoral dissertation. While Taylor’s book was fairly short and mostly based upon public sources and some British documents, Hoggan’s volume was exceptionally long and detailed, running nearly 350,000 words including references, and drew upon his many years of painstaking research in the newly available governmental archives of Poland and Germany. Although the two historians were fully in accord that Hitler had certainly not intended the outbreak of World War II, Hoggan argued that various powerful individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany just as his title suggested.

Given the highly controversial nature of Hoggan’s conclusions and his lack of previous scholarly accomplishments, his huge work only appeared in a German edition, where it quickly became a hotly-debated bestseller in that language. As a junior academic, Hoggan was quite vulnerable to the enormous pressure and opprobrium he surely must have faced. He seems to have quarreled with Barnes, his revisionist mentor, while his hopes of arranging an English language edition via a small American publisher soon dissipated. Perhaps as a consequence, the embattled young scholar later suffered a series of nervous breakdowns, and by the end of the 1960s he had resigned his position at San Francisco State College, the last serious academic position he was ever to hold. He subsequently earned his living as a research fellow at a small libertarian thinktank, and after it folded taught at a local junior college, hardly the expected professional trajectory of someone who had begun with such auspicious Harvard credentials.

In 1984 an English version of his major work was finally about to be released when the facilities of its small revisionist publisher in the Los Angeles area were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants, thus obliterating the plates and all existing stock. Living in total obscurity, Hoggan himself died of a heart-attack in 1988, aged 65, and the following year an English version of his work finally appeared, nearly three decades after originally produced, with the scarce surviving copies today being extremely rare and costly. However, a PDF version lacking all footnotes is available on the Internet, and I have now added Hoggan’s volume to my collection of HTML Books, finally making it conveniently available to a broader audience almost six decades after it was completed.

I only recently discovered Hoggan’s opus, and found it exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, though rather dry. I read through the first hundred pages or so, plus a few selections here and there, just a small portion of the 700 pages, but enough to develop a sense of the material.

The short 1989 introduction by the publisher characterizes it as a uniquely comprehensive treatment of the ideological and diplomatic circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the war, and that seems an accurate appraisal, one which may even still hold true today. For example, the first chapter provides a remarkably detailed description of the several conflicting ideological currents of Polish nationalism during the century or so prior to 1939, a very specialized topic that I had never encountered anywhere else nor found of huge interest.

Despite its long suppression, under many circumstances such an exhaustive work based upon many years of archival research might constitute the foundational research for subsequent historians, and indeed various recent revisionist authors have relied upon Hoggan in exactly that manner. But unfortunately there are some serious concerns. Just as we might expect, the overwhelming majority of the discussion of Hoggan found on the Internet is hostile and insulting, and for obvious reasons this might normally be dismissed. However, Gary North, himself a prominent revisionist who personally knew Hoggan, has been equally critical, portraying him as biased, factually unreliable, and even dishonest.

My own sense is that the overwhelming majority of Hoggan’s material is likely correct and accurate, though we might dispute his interpretations. However, given such serious accusations, we should probably treat all his claims with some caution, especially since it would take considerable archival investigation to verify most of his specific research findings. Indeed, since so much of Hoggan’s overall framework of events matches that of Taylor, I think we are far better off generally relying upon the latter.

The Landmark Historiography of David Irving

Fortunately, these same concerns about accuracy can be entirely dismissed in the case of a far more important writer, and one whose voluminous output easily eclipses that of Hoggan or almost any other historian of World War II. As I described David Irving last year:

With many millions of his books in print, including a string of best-sellers translated into numerous languages, it’s quite possible that the eighty-year-old Irving today ranks as the most internationally-successful British historian of the last one hundred years. Although I myself have merely read a couple of his shorter works, I found these absolutely outstanding, with Irving regularly deploying his remarkable command of the primary source documentary evidence to totally demolish my naive History 101 understanding of major historical events. It would hardly surprise me if the huge corpus of his writings eventually constitutes a central pillar upon which future historians seek to comprehend the catastrophically bloody middle years of our hugely destructive twentieth century even after most of our other chroniclers of that era are long forgotten.

When confronted with astonishing claims that completely overturn an established historical narrative, considerable skepticism is warranted, and my own lack of specialized expertise in World War II history left me especially cautious. The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation. All his material is massively footnoted, referencing copious documents in numerous official archives, but how could I possibly muster the time or energy to verify them?

Rather ironically, an extremely unfortunate turn of events seems to have fully resolved that crucial question.

Irving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity, and as such he is unable to see things in the record that do not exist, even if it were in his considerable interest to do so, nor to fabricate non-existent evidence. Therefore, his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion. This situation was rather similar to the troubles my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson had experienced around that same time upon publication of his own masterwork Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, the book that helped launch the field of modern human evolutionary psychobiology.

These zealous ethnic-activists began a coordinated campaign to pressure Irving’s prestigious publishers into dropping his books, while also disrupting his frequent international speaking tours and even lobbying countries to bar him from entry. They also maintained a drumbeat of media vilification, continually blackening his name and his research skills, even going so far as to denounce him as a “Nazi” and a “Hitler-lover,” just as had similarly been done in the case of Prof. Wilson.

During the 1980s and 1990s, these determined efforts, sometimes backed by considerable physical violence, increasingly bore fruit, and Irving’s career was severely impacted. He had once been feted by the world’s leading publishing houses and his books serialized and reviewed in Britain’s most august newspapers; now he gradually became a marginalized figure, almost a pariah, with enormous damage to his sources of income.

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.

I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.

 

A few years ago I had read two of Irving’s shorter works, Nuremberg: The Last Battle and The War Path, the latter discussing the events leading to the outbreak of the conflict and therefore mostly overlapping with Taylor’s history. Irving’s analysis seems quite similar to that of his eminent Oxford predecessor, while providing a wealth of meticulous documentary evidence to support that simple story first outlined two decades earlier. This concurrence hardly surprised me since multiple efforts to accurately describe the same historical reality are likely to be reasonably congruent, whereas dishonest propaganda may widely diverge in all sorts of different directions.

I recently decided to tackle one of Irving’s much longer works, the first volume of Churchill’s War, a classic text that runs some 300,000 words and covers the story of the legendary British prime minister to the eve of Barbarossa, and I found it just as outstanding as I had expected.

As one small indicator of Irving’s candor and knowledge, he repeatedly if briefly refers to the 1940 Allied plans to suddenly attack the USSR and destroy its Baku oilfields, an utterly disastrous proposal that surely would have lost the war if actually carried out. By contrast, the exceptionally embarrassing facts of Operation Pike have been totally excluded from virtually all later Western accounts of the conflict, leaving one to wonder which of our numerous professional historians are merely ignorant and which are guilty of lying by omission.

Until recently, my familiarity with Churchill had been rather cursory, and Irving’s revelations were absolutely eye-opening. Perhaps the most striking single discovery was the remarkable venality and corruption of the man, with Churchill being a huge spendthrift who lived lavishly and often far beyond his financial means, employing an army of dozens of personal servants at his large country estate despite frequently lacking any regular and assured sources of income to maintain them. This predicament naturally put him at the mercy of those individuals willing to support his sumptuous lifestyle in exchange for determining his political activities. And somewhat similar pecuniary means were used to secure the backing of a network of other political figures from across all the British parties, who became Churchill’s close political allies.

To put things in plain language, during the years leading up to the Second World War, both Churchill and numerous other fellow British MPs were regularly receiving sizable financial stipends—cash bribes—from Jewish and Czech sources in exchange for promoting a policy of extreme hostility toward the German government and actually advocating war. The sums involved were quite considerable, with the Czech government alone probably making payments that amounted to tens of millions of dollars in present-day money to British elected officials, publishers, and journalists working to overturn the official peace policy of their existing government. A particularly notable instance occurred in early 1938 when Churchill suddenly lost all his accumulated wealth in a foolish gamble on the American stock-market, and was soon forced to put his beloved country estate up for sale to avoid personal bankruptcy, only to quickly be bailed out by a foreign Jewish millionaire intent upon promoting a war against Germany. Indeed, the early stages of Churchill’s involvement in this sordid behavior are recounted in an Irving chapter aptly entitled “The Hired Help.”

Ironically enough, German Intelligence learned of this massive bribery of British parliamentarians, and passed the information along to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was horrified to discover the corrupt motives of his fierce political opponents, but apparently remained too much of a gentlemen to have them arrested and prosecuted. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.

My impression is that individuals of low personal character are those most likely to sell out the interests of their own country in exchange for large sums of foreign money, and as such usually constitute the natural targets of nefarious plotters and foreign spies. Churchill certainly seems to fall into this category, with rumors of massive personal corruption swirling around him from early in his political career. Later, he supplemented his income by engaging in widespread art-forgery, a fact that Roosevelt later discovered and probably used as a point of personal leverage against him. Also quite serious was Churchill’s constant state of drunkenness, with his inebriation being so widespread as to constitute clinical alcoholism. Indeed, Irving notes that in his private conversations FDR routinely referred to Churchill as “a drunken bum.”

 

During the late 1930s, Churchill and his clique of similarly bought-and-paid-for political allies had endlessly attacked and denounced Chamberlain’s government for its peace policy, and he regularly made the wildest sort of unsubstantiated accusations, claiming the Germans were undertaking a huge military build-up aimed against Britain. These roiling charges were often widely echoed by a media heavily influenced by Jewish interests and did much to poison the state of German-British relations. Eventually, these accumulated pressures forced Chamberlain into the extremely unwise act of providing an unconditional guarantee of military backing to Poland’s irresponsible dictatorship. As a result, the Poles then rather arrogantly refused any border negotiations with Germany, thereby lighting the fuse which eventually led to the German invasion six months later and the subsequent British declaration of war. The British media had widely promoted Churchill as the leading pro-war political figure, and once Chamberlain was forced to create a wartime government of national unity, his leading critic was brought into it and given the naval affairs portfolio.

Following his lightening six-week defeat of Poland, Hitler unsuccessfully sought to make peace with the Allies, and the war went into abeyance. Then in early 1940, Churchill persuaded his government to try strategically outflanking the Germans by preparing a large sea-borne invasion of neutral Norway; but Hitler discovered the plan and preempted the attack, with Churchill’s severe operational mistakes leading to a surprising defeat for the vastly superior British forces. During World War I, Churchill’s Gallipoli disaster had forced his resignation from the British Cabinet, but this time the friendly media helped ensure that all the blame for the somewhat similar debacle at Narvik was foisted upon Chamberlain, so it was the latter who was forced to resign, with Churchill then replacing him as prime minister. British naval officers were appalled that the primary architect of their humiliation had become its leading political beneficiary, but reality is what the media reports, and the British public never discovered this great irony.

This incident was merely the first of the long series of Churchill’s major military failures and outright betrayals that are persuasively recounted by Irving, nearly all of which were subsequently airbrushed out of our hagiographic histories of the conflict. We should recognize that wartime leaders who spend much of their time in a state of drunken stupor are far less likely to make optimal decisions, especially if they are as extremely prone to military micro-management as was the case with Churchill.

In the spring of 1940, the Germans launched their sudden armored thrust into France via Belgium, and as the attack began to succeed, Churchill ordered the commanding British general to immediately flee with his forces to the coast and to do so without informing his French or Belgium counterparts of the huge gap he was thereby opening in the Allied front-lines, thus ensuring the encirclement and destruction of their armies. Following France’s resulting defeat and occupation, the British prime minister then ordered a sudden, surprise attack on the disarmed French fleet, completely destroying it and killing some 2,000 of his erstwhile allies; the immediate cause was his mistranslation of a single French word, but this “Pearl Harbor-type” incident continued to rankle French leaders for decades.

Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain and certainly had sought to avoid the war that had been forced upon him. With France now defeated and British forces driven from the Continent, he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms and a new German alliance to Britain. The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations, and the German proposal probably would have received overwhelming approval both from the British public and political elites if they had ever been informed of its terms.

But despite some occasional wavering, Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue, and Irving plausibly argues that his motive was an intensely personal one. Across his long career, Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one. On the other hand, if he managed to continue the war, perhaps the situation might somehow later improve, especially if the Americans could be persuaded to eventually enter the conflict on the British side.

Since ending the war with Germany was in his nation’s interest but not his own, Churchill undertook ruthless means to prevent peace sentiments from growing so strong that they overwhelmed his opposition. Along with most other major countries, Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and although the British leader had very much hoped the Germans would attack his cities, Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities. The population saw the heavy destruction inflicted by these German bombing raids and was never informed of the British attacks that had preceded and provoked them, so public sentiment greatly hardened against making peace with the seemingly diabolical German adversary.

In his memoirs published a half-century later, Prof. Revilo P. Oliver, who had held a senior wartime role in American Military Intelligence, described this sequence of events in very bitter terms:

Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about “open cities”, had secretly carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the insane war to which their government had committed them.

It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering for its own people — for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to “loyalty” — and I suspect that an act of such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda….In 1944 members of British Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot for high treason against the British people…

Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities. But perhaps influenced by his chronic drunkenness, he later sought to carry out even more horrifying war crimes and was only prevented from doing so by the dogged opposition of all his military and political subordinates.

Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. However, late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation. If Churchill had gotten his way, many millions of British might soon have perished from German nerve gas counter-strikes. Around the same time, Churchill was also blocked in his proposal to bombard Germany with hundreds of thousands of deadly anthrax bombs, an operation that might have rendered much of Central and Western Europe uninhabitable for generations.

I found Irving’s revelations on all these matters absolutely astonishing, and was deeply grateful that Deborah Lipstadt and her army of diligent researchers had carefully investigated and seemingly confirmed the accuracy of virtually every single item.

The two existing volumes of Irving’s Churchill masterwork total well over 700,000 words, and reading them would obviously consume weeks of dedicated effort. Fortunately, Irving is also a riveting speaker and several of his extended lectures on the topic are available for viewing on BitChute after having been recently purged from YouTube:

The True Origins of the Second World War

I very recently reread Pat Buchanan’s 2008 book harshly condemning Churchill for his role in the cataclysmic world war and made an interesting discovery. Irving is surely among the most authoritative Churchill biographers, with his exhaustive documentary research being the source of so many new discoveries and his books selling in the millions. Yet Irving’s name never once appears either in Buchanan’s text or in his bibliography, though we may suspect that much of Irving’s material has been “laundered” through other, secondary Buchanan sources. Buchanan extensively cites A.J.P. Taylor, but makes no mention of Barnes, Flynn, or various other leading American academics and journalists who were purged for expressing contemporaneous views not so dissimilar from those of the author himself.

During the 1990s, Buchanan had ranked as one of America’s most prominent political figures, having an enormous media footprint in both print and television, and with his remarkably strong insurgent runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996 cementing his national stature. But his numerous ideological foes worked tirelessly to undermine him, and by 2008 his continued presence as a pundit on the MSNBC cable channel was one of his last remaining footholds of major public prominence. He probably recognized that publishing a revisionist history of World War II might endanger his position, and believed that any direct association with purged and vilified figures such as Irving or Barnes would surely lead to his permanent banishment from all electronic media.

A decade ago I had been quite impressed by Buchanan’s history, but I had subsequently done a great deal of reading on that era and I found myself somewhat disappointed the second time through. Aside from its often breezy, rhetorical, and unscholarly tone, my sharpest criticisms were not with the controversial positions that he took, but with the other controversial topics and questions that he so carefully avoided.

Perhaps the most obvious of these is the question of the true origins of the war, which laid waste to much of Europe, killed perhaps fifty or sixty million, and gave rise to the subsequent Cold War era in which Communist regimes controlled half of the entire Eurasian world-continent. Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.

During the 1930s, John T. Flynn was one of America’s most influential progressive journalists, and although he had begun as a strong supporter of Roosevelt and his New Deal, he gradually became a sharp critic, concluding that FDR’s various governmental schemes had failed to revive the American economy. Then in 1937 a new economic collapse spiked unemployment back to the same levels as when the president had first entered office, confirming Flynn in his harsh verdict. And as I wrote last year:

Indeed, Flynn alleges that by late 1937, FDR had turned towards an aggressive foreign policy aimed at involving the country in a major foreign war, primarily because he believed that this was the only route out of his desperate economic and political box, a stratagem not unknown among national leaders throughout history. In his January 5, 1938 New Republic column, he alerted his disbelieving readers to the looming prospect of a large naval military build-up and warfare on the horizon after a top Roosevelt adviser had privately boasted to him that a large bout of “military Keysianism” and a major war would cure the country’s seemingly insurmountable economic problems. At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests, seemed the intended goal, but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that fomenting a general war against Germany was the best course of action. Memoirs and other historical documents obtained by later researchers seem to generally support Flynn’s accusations by indicating that Roosevelt ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.

The last point is an important one since the confidential opinions of those closest to important historical events should be accorded considerable evidentiary weight. In a recent article John Wear mustered the numerous contemporaneous assessments that implicated FDR as a pivotal figure in orchestrating the world war by his constant pressure upon the British political leadership, a policy that he privately even admitted could mean his impeachment if revealed. Among other testimony, we have the statements of the Polish and British ambassadors to Washington and the American ambassador to London, who also passed along the concurring opinion of Prime Minister Chamberlain himself. Indeed, the German capture and publication of secret Polish diplomatic documents in 1939 had already revealed much of this information, and William Henry Chamberlin confirmed their authenticity in his 1950 book. But since the mainstream media never reported any of this information, these facts remain little known even today.

 

FDR seems to have played the crucial part in orchestrating the outbreak of World War II, greatly assisted by Churchill and his circle in Britain. But during 1939, the growing tensions over Danzig gave Stalin a tremendous strategic opening. Signing a pact with Hitler, the two of them soon jointly invaded Poland, but even as the Soviets seized half the territory, Britain and France declared war only upon Germany. And while Stalin then waited for the other European powers to exhaust each other, he began an offensive military build-up of unprecedented magnitude, soon having far more and better tanks than the rest of the world combined.

As I wrote earlier this year:

These important considerations become particularly relevant when we attempt to understand the circumstances surrounding Operation Barbarossa, Germany’s 1941 attack upon the Soviet Union, which constituted the central turning point of the war. Both at the time and during the half-century which followed, Western historians uniformly claimed that the surprise assault had caught an overly-trusting Stalin completely unaware, with Hitler’s motive being his dream of creating the huge German land-empire that he had hinted at in the pages of Mein Kampf, published sixteen years earlier.

But in 1990 a former Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West and was living in Britain dropped a major bombshell. Writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, he had already published a number of highly-regarded books on the armed forces of the USSR, but in Icebreaker he now claimed that his extensive past research in the Soviet archives had revealed that by 1941 Stalin had amassed enormous offensive military forces and positioned them all along the border, preparing to attack and easily overwhelm the greatly outnumbered and outgunned forces of the Wehrmacht, quickly conquering all of Europe.

Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets, fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat. Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition to their own woefully inadequate resources.

ORDER IT NOW

Although almost totally ignored in the English-language world, Suvorov’s seminal book soon became an unprecedented bestseller in Russia, Germany, and many other parts of the world, and together with several follow-up volumes, his five million copies in print established him as the most widely-read military historian in the history of the world. Meanwhile, the English-language media and academic communities scrupulously maintained their complete blackout of the ongoing worldwide debate, with no publishing house even willing to produce an English edition of Suvorov’s books until an editor at the prestigious Naval Academy Press finally broke the embargo nearly two decades later.

 

Although the primary focus of this discussion has been with regard to the European war, the circumstances of the Pacific conflict also seem to differ greatly from our official history. Japan had been fighting in China since 1937, but this is seldom regarded as the start of the world war. Instead, the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor is usually considered the point at which the war became global.

From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.

Given these facts, there were natural suspicions that Roosevelt had deliberately provoked the attack by his executive decisions to freeze Japanese assets, embargo all shipments of vital fuel oil supplies, and rebuff the repeated requests by Tokyo leaders for negotiations. In the 1953 volume edited by Barnes, noted diplomatic historian Charles Tansill summarized his very strong case that FDR sought to use a Japanese attack as his best “back door to war” against Germany, an argument he had made the previous year in a book of that same name. Over the decades, the information contained in private diaries and government documents seems to have almost conclusively established this interpretation, with Secretary of War Henry Stimson indicating that the plan was to “maneuver [Japan] into firing the first shot.” In his later memoirs, Prof. Oliver drew upon the intimate knowledge he had acquired during his wartime role in Military Intelligence to even claim that FDR had deliberately tricked the Japanese into believing he planned to launch a surprise attack against their forces, thereby persuading them to strike first in self-defense.

ORDER IT NOW

By 1941 the U.S. had broken all the Japanese diplomatic codes and was freely reading their secret communications. Therefore, there has also long existed the widespread if disputed belief that the president was well aware of the planned Japanese attack on our fleet and deliberately failed to warn his local commanders, thereby ensuring that the resulting heavy American losses would produce a vengeful nation united for war. Tansill and a former chief researcher for the Congressional investigating committee made this case in the same 1953 Barnes volume, and the following year a former US admiral published The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, providing similar arguments at greater length. This book also included an introduction by one of America’s highest-ranking World War II naval commanders, who fully endorsed the controversial theory.

In 2000, journalist Robert M. Stinnett published a wealth of additional supporting evidence, based upon his eight years of archival research, which was discussed in a recent article. A telling point made by Stinnett is that if Washington had warned the Pearl Harbor commanders, their resulting defensive preparations would have been noticed by the local Japanese spies and relayed to the approaching task force; and with the element of surprise lost, the attack probably would have been aborted, thus frustrating all of FDR’s long-standing plans for war. Although various details may be disputed, I find the evidence for Roosevelt’s foreknowledge quite compelling.

The Central Jewish Role in Orchestrating World War II

Roosevelt’s economic problems had led him to seek a foreign war, but it was probably the overwhelming Jewish hostility to Nazi Germany that pointed him in that particular direction. The confidential report of the Polish ambassador to the U.S. as quoted by John Wear provides a striking description of the political situation in America at the beginning of 1939:

There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain.

Given the heavy Jewish involvement in financing Churchill and his allies and also steering the American government and public in the direction of war against Germany, organized Jewish groups probably bore the central responsibility for provoking the world war, and this was surely recognized by most knowledgeable individuals at the time. Indeed, the Forrestal Diaries recorded the very telling statement by our ambassador in London: “Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the Jews had forced England into the war.”

The ongoing struggle between Hitler and international Jewry had been receiving considerable public attention for years. During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere. Indeed, immediately after he came into office, a major London newspaper had carried a memorable 1933 headline announcing that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany, and were organizing an international boycott to starve the Germans into submission.

In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.

Although our official government investigation concluded that the total financial cost of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been an absolutely trivial sum, the Neocon-dominated Bush Administration nonetheless used this as an excuse to establish an important new Treasury Department position, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. That office soon began utilizing America’s control of the global banking system and dollar-denominated international trade to enforce financial sanctions and wage economic warfare, with these measures typically being directed against individuals, organizations, and nations considered unfriendly towards Israel, notably Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria.

Perhaps coincidentally, although Jews comprise merely 2% of the American population, all four individuals holding that very powerful post over the last 15 years since its inception—Stuart A. Levey, David S. Cohen, Adam Szubin, Sigal Mandelker—have been Jewish, with the most recent of these being an Israeli citizen. Levey, the first Under Secretary, began his work under President Bush, then continued without a break for years under President Obama, underscoring the entirely bipartisan nature of these activities.

Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully. This seems quite reminiscent of the late 1930s political situation in Britain and America.

Individuals outraged by the misleading media coverage surrounding the Iraq War but who have always casually accepted the conventional narrative of World War II should consider a thought-experiment I suggested last year:

When we seek to understand the past, we must be careful to avoid drawing from a narrow selection of sources, especially if one side proved politically victorious in the end and completely dominated the later production of books and other commentary. Prior to the existence of the Internet, this was an especially difficult task, often requiring a considerable amount of scholarly effort, even if only to examine the bound volumes of once popular periodicals. Yet without such diligence, we can fall into very serious error.

The Iraq War and its aftermath was certainly one of the central events in American history during the 2000s. Yet suppose some readers in the distant future had only the collected archives of The Weekly Standard, National Review, the WSJ op-ed page, and FoxNews transcripts to furnish their understanding the history of that period, perhaps along with the books written by the contributors to those outlets. I doubt that more than a small fraction of what they would read could be categorized as outright lies. But the massively skewed coverage, the distortions, exaggerations, and especially the breathtaking omissions would surely provide them with an exceptionally unrealistic view of what had actually happened during that important period.

Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population. This conflict intensified after Jewish investor William F. Browder arranged Congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act to punish Russian leaders for the legal actions they had taken against his huge financial empire in their country. Putin’s harshest Neocon critics have often condemned him as “a new Hitler” while some neutral observers have agreed that no foreign leader since the German Chancellor of the 1930s has been so fiercely vilified in the American media. Seen from a different angle, there may indeed be a close correspondence between Putin and Hitler, but not in the way usually suggested.

Knowledgeable individuals have certainly been aware of the crucial Jewish role in orchestrating our military or financial attacks against Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Russia, but it has been exceptionally rare for any prominent public figures or reputable journalists to mention these facts lest they be denounced and vilified by zealous Jewish activists and the media they dominate. For example, a couple of years ago a single suggestive Tweet by famed CIA anti-proliferation operative Valerie Plame provoked such an enormous wave of vituperation that she was forced to resign her position at a prominent non-profit. A close parallel involving a far more famous figure had occurred three generations earlier:

These facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation, Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well beyond. Although he was not entirely purged from public life, his standing was certainly never even remotely the same.

 

With such examples in mind, we should hardly be surprised that for decades this huge Jewish involvement in orchestrating World War II was carefully omitted from nearly all subsequent historical narratives, even those that sharply challenged the mythology of the official account. The index of Taylor’s iconoclastic 1961 work contains absolutely no mention of Jews, and the same is true of the previous books by Chamberlin and Grenfell. In 1953, Harry Elmer Barnes, the dean of historical revisionists, edited his major volume aimed at demolishing the falsehoods of World War II, and once again any discussion of the Jewish role was almost entirely lacking, with only part of one single sentence and Chamberlain’s dangling short quote appearing across more than 200,000 words of text. Both Barnes and many of his contributors had already been purged and their book was only released by a tiny publisher in Idaho, but they still sought to avoid certain unmentionables.

Even the arch-revisionist David Hoggan seems to have carefully skirted the topic of Jewish influence. His 30 page index lacks any entry on Jews and his 700 pages of text contain only scattered references. Indeed, although he does quote the explicit private statements of both the Polish ambassador and the British Prime Minister emphasizing the enormous Jewish role in promoting the war, he then rather questionably asserts that these confidential statements of individuals with the best understanding of events should simply be disregarded.

In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young magicians, is often identified as “He Who Must Not Be Named,” since the mere vocalization of those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two factors has therefore induced such a “Lord Voldemort Effect” regarding Jewish activities in most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.

Those writers willing to break this fearsome Jewish Taboo regarding World War II were quite rare, but one notable exception comes to mind. As I recently wrote:

Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled The Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.

As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace.

Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of The American Conservative, Beaty’s book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking only behind Russell Kirk’s iconic classic, The Conservative Mind.

Books by unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies, but the work came to the attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general who had been one of Douglas MacArthur’s commanders, and he wrote Beaty a letter of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials, drawing the ire of the ADL, whose national chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was described as a “primer for lunatic fringe groups” all across America. Instead, Stratemeyer delivered a blistering reply to the ADL, denouncing it for making “veiled threats” against “free expression and thoughts” and trying to establish Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every “loyal citizen” should read The Iron Curtain Over America, whose pages finally revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began actively promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to silence him. Numerous other top American generals and admirals soon joined Statemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.

In contrast to nearly all the other World War II narratives discussed above, whether orthodox or revisionist, the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, and probably dismiss the author as being delusional and “Jew-obsessed;” but I think that Beaty’s treatment is probably the far more honest and realistic one. As I noted last year on a related matter:

…once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as “conspiracy theories.”

Beaty’s wartime role at the absolute nexus of American Intelligence certainly gave him a great deal of insight into the pattern of events, and the glowing endorsement of his account by many of our highest-ranking military commanders supports that conclusion. More recently, a decade of of archival research by Prof. Joseph Bendersky, a prominent mainstream historian, revealed that Beaty’s views were privately shared by many of our Military Intelligence professionals and top generals of the era, being quite widespread in such circles.

The “Black Legend” of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany

During the late 1960s, historians once again began focusing upon the central role of Jews in the world war. Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans. But the true history is actually far more complex than the simple cartoon that Hitler was bad and he hated the Jews because they were good.

ORDER IT NOW

Among other matters, there exists the historical reality of the important Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s, which played such a crucial role in establishing the State of Israel. Although these facts are thoroughly documented and even received some major media coverage during the 1980s, notably by the august Times of London, in recent decades the story has been so massively suppressed that a couple of years ago a prominent leftist politician was driven out of the British Labour Party merely for alluding to it. David Irving also uncovered the fascinating detail that the two largest German financial donors to the Nazis during their rise to power were both Jewish bankers, one of them being the country’s most prominent Zionist leader, though the motives involved were not entirely clear.

ORDER IT NOW

Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.

Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion. As I recently wrote:

By resurrecting a prosperous Germany while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum. After an extended 1936 visit, David Lloyd George, Britain’s former wartime prime minister, fulsomely praised the chancellor as “the George Washington of Germany,” a national hero of the greatest stature. Over the years, I’ve seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely acknowledged as the world’s most popular and successful national leader, and the fact that he was selected as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.

I discovered a particular example of such missing perspectives earlier this year when I decided to read The Prize, Daniel Yergin’s magisterial and Pulitzer Prize-winning 1991 history of the world oil industry, and came across a few surprising paragraphs buried deep within the 900 pages of dense text. Yergin explained that during the mid-1930s the imperious chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, who had spent decades at the absolute summit of the British business world, became greatly enamored of Hitler and his Nazi government. He believed that an Anglo-German alliance was the best means of maintaining European peace and protecting the continent from the Soviet menace, and even retired to Germany in accordance with his new sympathies.

Since the actual history of this era has been so thoroughly replaced by extreme propaganda, academic specialists who closely investigate particular topics sometimes encounter puzzling anomalies. For example, a bit of very casual Googling brought to my attention an interesting article by a leading biographer of famed Jewish modernist writer Gertrude Stein, who seemed totally mystified why her feminist icon seemed to have been a major admirer of Hitler and an enthusiastic supporter of the pro-German Vichy government of France. The author also notes that Stein was hardly alone in her sentiments, which were generally shared by so many of the leading writers and philosophers of that period.

There is also the very interesting but far less well documented case of Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest British military heroes to come out of the First World War and who may have been moving in a rather similar direction just before his 1935 death in a possibly suspicious motorcycle accident. An alleged account of his evolving political views seems extremely detailed and perhaps worth investigating, with the original having been scrubbed from the Internet but still available at Archive.org.

A couple of years ago, the 1945 diary of a 28-year-old John F. Kennedy travelling in post-war Europe was sold at auction, and the contents revealed his rather favorable fascination with Hitler. The youthful JFK predicted that “Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived” and felt that “He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.” These sentiments are particularly notable for having been expressed just after the end of a brutal war against Germany and despite the tremendous volume of hostile propaganda that had accompanied it.

The political enthusiasms of literary intellectuals, young writers, or even elderly businessmen are hardly the most reliable sources by which to evaluate a particular regime. But earlier this year, I pointed to a fairly comprehensive appraisal of the origins and policies of National Socialist Germany by one of Britain’s most prominent historians:

Not long ago, I came across a very interesting book written by Sir Arthur Bryant, an influential historian whose Wikipedia page describes him as the personal favorite of Winston Churchill and two other British prime ministers. He had worked on Unfinished Victory during the late 1930s, then somewhat modified it for publication in early 1940, a few months after the outbreak of World War II had considerably altered the political landscape. But not long afterward, the war became much more bitter and there was a harsh crackdown on discordant voices in British society, so Bryant became alarmed over what he had written and attempted to remove all existing copies from circulation. Therefore the only ones available for sale on Amazon are exorbitantly priced, but fortunately the work is also freely available at Archive.org.

Writing before the “official version” of historical events had been rigidly determined, Bryant describes Germany’s very difficult domestic situation between the two world wars, its problematic relationship with its tiny Jewish minority, and the circumstances behind the rise of Hitler, providing a very different perspective on these important events than what we usually read in our standard textbooks.

Among other surprising facts, he notes that although Jews were just 1% of the total population, even five years after Hitler had come to power and implemented various anti-Semitic policies, they still apparently owned “something like a third of the real property” in that country, with the great bulk of these vast holdings having been acquired from desperate, starving Germans in the terrible years of the early 1920s. Thus, much of Germany’s 99% German population had recently been dispossessed of the assets they had built up over generations…

Bryant also candidly notes the enormous Jewish presence in the leadership of the Communist movements that had temporarily seized power after World War I, both in major portions of Germany and in nearby Hungary. This was an ominous parallel to the overwhelmingly Jewish Bolsheviks who had gained control of Russia and then butchered or expelled that country’s traditional Russian and German ruling elites, and therefore a major source of Nazi fears.

Unlike so many of the other historians previously discussed, after the political climate changed Bryant assiduously worked to expunge his suddenly unfashionable views from the written record, and as a consequence went on to enjoy a long and successful career, topped by the accolades of a grateful British establishment. But I suspect that his long-suppressed 1940 volume, presenting a reasonably favorable view of Hitler and Nazi Germany, is probably more accurate and realistic than the many thousands of propaganda-drenched works by others that soon followed. I have now incorporated it into my HTML Books system, so those so interested can read it and decide for themselves.

The Enormous Scale of Allied War Crimes

For most present-day Americans, the primary image associated with Hitler and his German regime is the horrendous scale of the war-crimes that they supposedly committed during the global conflict that they are alleged to have unleashed. But in one of his lectures, Irving made the rather telling observation that the relative scale of such World War II crimes and especially their evidentiary base might not necessarily point in the direction of implicating the Germans.

Although Hollywood and those in its thrall have endlessly cited the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunals as the final word on Nazi barbarism, even a cursory examination of those proceedings raises enormous skepticism. As time passed, historians gradually acknowledged that some of the most shocking and lurid pieces of evidence used to secure worldwide condemnation of the defendants—the human lampshades and bars of soap, the shrunken heads—were entirely fraudulent. The Soviets were determined to prosecute the Nazis for the Katyn Forest massacre of the captured Polish officer corps even though the Western Allies were convinced that Stalin had actually been responsible, a belief eventually confirmed by Gorbachev and the newly-opened Soviet archives. If the Germans had actually done so many horrible things, one wonders why the prosecution would have bothered including such fabricated and false charges.

And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items. The Germans were notoriously meticulous record-keepers, embracing orderly bureaucracy like no other people, and nearly all their archives were captured at the end of the war. Under these circumstances, it seems rather odd that there are virtually no traces of the plans or directives associated with the monstrous crimes that their leadership supposedly ordered committed in such massively industrial fashion. Instead, the entirety of the evidence seems to consist of a tiny quantity of rather doubtful documentary material, the dubious interpretations of certain phrases, and various German confessions, often obtained under brutal torture.

Given his crucial wartime role in Military Intelligence, Beaty was particularly harsh in his denunciation of the proceedings, and the numerous top American generals who endorsed his book add considerably to the weight of his verdict:

He was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.

By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming. After all, it was Churchill who began the illegal terror-bombing of cities, a strategy deliberately intended to provoke German retaliation and which eventually led to the death of a million or more European civilians. Late in the war, military reversals had even persuaded the British leader to order similarly illegal poison gas attacks against German cities, along with the initiation of even more horrific biological warfare involving anthrax bombs. Irving located these signed directives in the British archives, although Churchill was later persuaded to countermand them before they were carried out. By contrast, German archival material demonstrates that Hitler had repeatedly ruled out any first use of such illegal weapons under any circumstances, even though Germany’s far deadlier arsenal might have turned the tide of the war in its favor.

Although long forgotten today, Freda Utley was a mid-century journalist of some prominence. Born an Englishwoman, she had married a Jewish Communist and moved to Soviet Russia, then fled to America after her husband fell in one of Stalin’s purges. Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war. Moreover:

Her book also gives substantial coverage to the organized expulsions of ethnic Germans from Silesia, the Sudatenland, East Prussia, and various other parts of Central and Eastern Europe where they had peacefully lived for many centuries, with the total number of such expellees generally estimated at 13 to 15 million. Families were sometimes given as little as ten minutes to leave the homes in which they had resided for a century or more, then forced to march off on foot, sometimes for hundreds of miles, towards a distant land they had never seen, with their only possessions being what they could carry in their own hands. In some cases, any surviving menfolk were separated out and shipped off to slave-labor camps, thereby producing an exodus consisting solely of women, children, and the very elderly. All estimates were that at least a couple million perished along the way, from hunger, illness, or exposure.

These days we endlessly read painful discussions of the notorious “Trail of Tears” suffered by the Cherokees in the distant past of the early 19th century, but this rather similar 20th Century event was nearly a thousand-fold larger in size. Despite this huge discrepancy in magnitude and far greater distance in time, I would guess that the former event may command a thousand times the public awareness among ordinary Americans. If so, this would demonstrate that overwhelming media control can easily shift perceived reality by a factor of a million or more.

The population movement certainly seems to have represented the largest ethnic-cleansing in the history of the world, and if the Germany had ever done anything even remotely similar during its years of European victories and conquests, the visually-gripping scenes of such an enormous flood of desperate, trudging refugees would surely have become a centerpiece of numerous World War II movies of the last seventy years. But since nothing like that ever happened, Hollywood screenwriters lost a tremendous opportunity.

I think perhaps the most plausible explanation for the widespread promotion of a multitude of largely fictional German war-crimes at Nuremberg was to the camouflage and obscure the very real ones actually committed by the Allies.

 

Other related indicators may be found in the extreme tone of some of the American publications of the period, even those produced well before our country even entered the war. For example:

But as early as 1940, an American Jew named Theodore Kaufman became so enraged at what he regarded as Hitler’s mistreatment of German Jewry that he published a short book evocatively entitled Germany Must Perish!, in which he explicitly proposed the total extermination of the German people. And that book apparently received favorable if perhaps not entirely serious discussion in many of our most prestigious media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time Magazine.

Surely any such similar book published in Hitler’s Germany that advocated the extermination of all Jews or Slavs would have been a centerpiece at Nuremberg, and any newspaper reviewers who had treated it favorably would probably have stood in the dock for “crimes against humanity.”

Natalie Nickerson, 20, gazes at a skull — reportedly of a Japanese soldier — sent to her from New Guinea by her boyfriend serving in the Pacific. (May 22, 1944 issues of LIFE, p. 35).
Natalie Nickerson, 20, gazes at a skull — reportedly of a Japanese soldier — sent to her from New Guinea by her boyfriend serving in the Pacific. (May 22, 1944 issues of LIFE, p. 35).

Meanwhile, the terrible nature of the Pacific War fought in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is suggested by a 1944 issue of Life magazine that carried the photo of a young American woman with the skull of a Japanese soldier her boyfriend had sent her as a war souvenir. If any Nazi magazines ever featured similar images, I doubt the Allies would have had any need to fabricate ridiculous stories of human lampshades or soap.

And remarkably enough, that grotesque scene actually provides a reasonably accurate indication of the savage atrocities that were regularly committed during the brutal fighting of the Pacific Theater. These unpleasant facts were fully set forth in War Without Mercy, an award-winning 1986 volume by eminent American historian John W. Dower that received glowing accolades by leading scholars and public intellectuals.

ORDER IT NOW

The unfortunate truth is that Americans typically massacred Japanese who sought to surrender or who had even already been taken as prisoners, with the result that only a small slice—during some years merely a tiny sliver—of Japanese troops defeated in battle ever survived. The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners. Indeed, since interrogating prisoners was important for intelligence purposes, late in the war U.S. commanders began offering rewards such as ice cream to their troops for bringing some surrendering Japanese in alive rather than killing them in the field.

American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls. Meanwhile, Dower notes the absence of any evidence suggesting similar behavior on the other side. The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.

 

During the late 1980s evidence of other deep wartime secrets suddenly came to light.

ORDER IT NOW

While visiting France during 1986 in preparation for an unrelated book, a Canadian writer named James Bacque stumbled upon clues suggesting that one of the most terrible secrets of post-war Germany had long remained completely hidden, and he soon embarked upon extensive research into the subject, finally publishing Other Losses in 1989. Based upon very considerable evidence, including government records, personal interviews, and recorded eyewitness testimony, he argued that after the end of the war, the Americans had starved to death as many as a million German POWs, seemingly as a deliberate act of policy, a war crime that would surely rank among the greatest in history.

For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.

Without attempting to summarize Bacque’s extensive accumulation of supporting material, a few of his factual elements are worth mentioning. At the close of hostilities, the American government employed circuitous legal reasoning to argue that the many millions of German troops that they had captured should not be considered “prisoners of war” and therefore were not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Soon afterward, attempts by the International Red Cross to provide food shipments to the enormous Allied prison camps were repeatedly rejected, and notices were posted throughout the nearby German towns and villages that any civilian who attempted to smuggle food to the desperate POWs might be shot on sight. These undeniable historical facts do seem to suggest certain dark possibilities.

Although initially released by an obscure publisher, Bacque’s book soon became a sensation and an international best-seller. He paints Gen. Dwight Eisenhower as the central culprit behind the tragedy, noting the far lower POW losses in areas outside his control, and suggests that as a highly ambitious “political general” of German-American ancestry, he may have been under intense pressure to demonstrate his “harshness” toward the defeated Wehrmacht foe.

Furthermore, once the Cold War ended and the Soviet Archives were open to scholars, their contents seem to have strongly validated Bacque’s thesis. He notes that although the archives do contain explicit evidence of such long-denied atrocities as Stalin’s Katyn Forest massacre of Poland’s officer corps, they show absolutely no signs of any million missing German POWs, who instead had very likely ended their lives in the starvation and illness of Eisenhower’s death camps. Bacque points out that the German government has issued severe legal threats against anyone seeking to investigate the likely sites of the mass graves that might hold the remains of those long-dead POWs, and in an updated edition, he also mentions Germany’s enactment of harsh new laws meting out heavy prison sentences to anyone who merely questions the official narrative of World War II.

ORDER IT NOW

Bacque’s discussion of the new evidence of the Kremlin archives constitutes a relatively small portion of his 1997 sequel, Crimes and Mercies, which centered around an even more explosive analysis, and also became an international best-seller.

As described above, first-hand observers of post-war Germany in 1947 and 1948 such as Gollanz and Utley, had directly reported on the horrific conditions they discovered, and stated that for years official food rations for the entire population had been comparable to that of the inmates of Nazi concentration camps and sometimes far lower, leading to the widespread malnutrition and illness they witnessed all around them. They also noted the destruction of most of Germany’s pre-war housing stock and the severe overcrowding produced by the influx of so many millions of pitiful ethnic German refugees expelled from other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. But these visitors lacked any access to solid population statistics, and could only speculate upon the enormous human death toll that hunger and illness had already inflicted, and which would surely continue if policies were not quickly changed.

Years of archival research by Bacque attempt to answer this question, and the conclusion he provides is certainly not a pleasant one. Both the Allied military government and the later German civilian authorities seem to have made a concerted effort to hide or obscure the true scale of the calamity visited upon German civilians during the years 1945-1950, and the official mortality statistics found in government reports are simply too fantastical to possibly be correct, although they became the basis for the subsequent histories of that period. Bacque notes that these figures suggest that the death rate during the terrible conditions of 1947, long remembered as the “Hunger Year” (Hungerjahr) and vividly described in Gollancz’s account, was actually lower than that of the prosperous Germany of the late 1960s. Furthermore, private reports by American officials, mortality rates from individual localities, and other strong evidence demonstrate that these long-accepted aggregate numbers were essentially fictional.

Instead, Bacque attempts to provide more realistic estimates based upon an examination of the population totals of the various German censuses together with the recorded influx of the huge number of German refugees. Based upon this simple analysis, he makes a reasonably strong case that the excess German deaths during that period amounted to at least around 10 million, and possibly many millions more. Furthermore, he provides substantial evidence that the starvation was either deliberate or at least enormously worsened by American government resistance to overseas food relief efforts. Perhaps these numbers should not be so totally surprising given that the official Morgenthau Plan had envisioned the elimination of around 20 million Germans, and as Bacque demonstrates, top American leaders quietly agreed to continue that policy in practice even while they renounced it in theory.

Assuming these numbers are even remotely correct, the implications are quite remarkable. The toll of the human catastrophe experienced in post-war Germany would certainly rank among the greatest in modern peacetime history, far exceeding the deaths that occurred during the Ukrainian Famine of the early 1930s and possibly even approaching the wholly unintentional losses during Mao’s Great Leap Forward of 1959-61. Furthermore, the post-war German losses would vastly outrank either of these other unfortunate events in percentage terms and this would remain true even if the Bacque’s estimates are considerably reduced. Yet I doubt if even a small fraction of one percent of Americans are today aware of this enormous human calamity. Presumably memories are much stronger in Germany itself, but given the growing legal crackdown on discordant views in that unfortunate country, I suspect that anyone who discusses the topic too energetically risks immediate imprisonment.

To a considerable extent, this historical ignorance has been heavily fostered by our governments, often using underhanded or even nefarious means. Just like in the old decaying USSR, much of the current political legitimacy of today’s American government and its various European vassal-states is founded upon a particular narrative history of World War II, and challenging that narrative might produce dire political consequences. Bacque credibly relates some of the apparent efforts to dissuade any major newspaper or magazine from running articles discussing the startling findings of his first book, thereby imposing a “blackout” aimed at absolutely minimizing any media coverage. Such measures seem to have been quite effective, since until eight or nine years ago, I’m not sure I had ever heard a word of these shocking ideas, and I have certainly never seen them seriously discussed in any of the numerous newspapers or magazines that I have carefully read over the last three decades.

Even illegal means were employed to hinder the efforts of this solitary, determined scholar. At times, Bacque’s phone-lines were tapped, his mail intercepted, and his research materials surreptitiously copied, while his access to some official archives was blocked. Some of the elderly eyewitnesses who personally corroborated his analysis received threatening notes and had their property vandalized.

In his Foreword to this 1997 book, De Zayas, the eminent international human rights attorney, praised Bacque’s ground-breaking research, and hoped that it would soon lead to a major scholarly debate aimed at reassessing the true facts of these historical events that had taken place a half-century earlier. But in his update to the 2007 edition, he expressed some outrage that no such discussion ever occurred, and instead the German government merely passed a series of harsh laws mandating prison sentences for anyone who substantially disputed the settled narrative of World War II and its immediate aftermath, perhaps by overly focusing on the suffering of German civilians.

Although both of Bacque’s books became international best-sellers, the near-complete absence of any secondary media coverage ensured that they never entered public awareness with anything more than a pinprick. Another important factor is the tremendously disproportionate reach of print and electronic media. A best-seller may be read by many tens of thousands of people, but a successful film might reach tens of millions, and so long as Hollywood churns out endless movies denouncing Germany’s atrocities but not a single one on the other side, the true facts of that history are hardly likely to gain much traction. I strongly suspect that far more people today believe in the real-life existence of Batman and Spiderman than are even aware of the Bacque Hypothesis.

“He Who Controls the Past Controls the Future”

Many of the elements presented above were drawn from my previous articles published over the last year or so, but I believe there is some value in providing this same material in unified form rather than only separately, even if the total length necessarily becomes quite considerable.

World War II dominates our twentieth century landscape like a colossus, and still casts huge shadows across our modern world. That global conflict has probably been the subject of far more sustained coverage, whether in print or electronic media, than any other event in human history. So if we encounter a small handful of highly anomalous items that seem to directly contradict such an ocean of enormously detailed and long-accepted information, there is a natural tendency to dismiss these few outliers as implausible or even delusional. But once the total number of such discordant seemingly yet well-documented elements becomes sufficiently large, we must take them more seriously, and perhaps eventually concede that most of them are probably correct. As was suggested in a quote widely if doubtfully attributed to Stalin, “Quantity has a quality all of its own.”

ORDER IT NOW

I am hardly the first individual to gradually become aware of this sweeping and cohesive counter-narrative of the Second World War, and a few months ago I happened to read Germany’s War, published in 2014 by amateur historian John Wear. Drawing from sources that substantially overlap with the ones I have discussed, his conclusions are reasonably similar to my own, but presented in a book length form that includes some 1,200 exact source references. So those interested in a much more detailed exposition of these same issues can read it and decide for themselves.

When intellectual freedom is under attack, challenging an officially enshrined mythology may become legally perilous. I have seen claims that thousands of individuals who hold heterodox opinions about various aspects of the history of World War II are today imprisoned across Europe on the basis of those beliefs. If so, that total is probably far higher than the number of ideological dissidents who had suffered a similar fate in the decaying Soviet Bloc countries of the 1980s.

 

World War II ended nearly three generations ago, and few of its adult survivors still walk the earth. From one perspective the true facts of that conflict and whether or not they actually contradict our traditional beliefs might appear rather irrelevant. Tearing down the statues of some long-dead historical figures and replacing them with the statues of others hardly seems of much practical value.

But if we gradually conclude that the story that all of us have been told during our entire lifetimes is substantially false and perhaps largely inverted, the implications for our understanding of the world are enormous. Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance. As I pointed out several years ago in my original American Pravda article:

Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood.

We must also recognize that many of the fundamental ideas that dominate our present-day world were founded upon a particular understanding of that wartime history, and if there seems good reason to believe that narrative is substantially false, perhaps we should begin questioning the framework of beliefs erected upon it.

ORDER IT NOW

George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s and discovered that the true facts in Spain were radically different from what he had been led to believe by the British media of his day. In 1948 these past experiences together with the rapidly congealing “official history” of the Second World War may have been uppermost in his mind when he published his classic novel 1984, which famously declared that “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Indeed, as I noted last year this observation has never been more true than when we consider some of the historical assumptions that govern the politics of today’s world, and the likelihood that they are entirely misleading:

Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime was generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions when we include the casualties of the Russian Civil War, the government-induced famines, the Gulag, and the executions. I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.

Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the dreaded NKVD.

Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.

Today’s American Neocons are just as heavily Jewish as were the Bolsheviks of a hundred years ago, and they have greatly benefited from the political immunity provided by this totally bizarre inversion of historical reality. Partly as a consequence of their media-fabricated victimhood status, they have managed to seize control over much of our political system, especially our foreign policy, and have spent the last few years doing their utmost to foment an absolutely insane war with nuclear-armed Russia. If they do manage to achieve that unfortunate goal, they will surely outdo the very impressive human body-count racked up by their ethnic ancestors, perhaps even by an order-of-magnitude or more.

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 1489 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Oh hell ya, come home from a long day to a new 20k+ word in depth essay about the most misrepresented conflict in history by none other than Mr. Unz himself. Time for some cozy reading.

  2. Great article, thank you. The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of choosing sides in foreign conflicts. Is seems credible to think that FDR enabled Churchill’s blood lust because encouraging the seriously weakened British empire to finish committing suicide by engaging in another ground war in Europe would clear the way for the US to finally replace the hated mother country as the world’s great power- just as another faction of the Founders dreamed. The motto on our National Seal “Novus Ordo Seclorum” is quoted from Virgil’s Eclogues, where it is the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to rule the world.

    Historian Murray Rothbard best described the impact of the war in this obituary he wrote for fellow popular historian Harry Elmer Barnes, “Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent system of conscription. It was the crucial act in expanding the United States from a republic into an Empire, and in spreading that Empire throughout the world, replacing the sagging British Empire in the process. It was the crucial act in creating a Mixed Economy run by Big Government, a system of State-Monopoly-Capitalism run by the central government in collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism. It was the crucial act in elevating Presidential power, particularly in foreign affairs, to the role of single most despotic person in the history of the world. And, finally, World War II is the last war-myth left, the myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown into our faces by the war-making Establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II.”

    • Agree: Erzberger
    • Replies: @Wally
  3. For those who lack the time to read these books, or even this great essay, here is a 13-minute video summary. For those shocked by this information, return and read this entire essay, then the books if you still fail to understand that history has been distorted.

  4. Thomm says:

    Ahh….we finally see the results of the Very Important Software Work(tm).

    (Standing Ovation)

  5. Mulegino1 says:

    “The Origins of the Second World War” is the indispensable primer for the canon of revisionist literature, with “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers: The Long Run Up to The Second World War” by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof being the final and decisive nail in the coffin of the establishment narrative.

    In the question of war guilt, Germany was far more sinned against than sinning with respect to both world wars.

    There will, no doubt, continue to be a sea of recriminations and calumnies against those who insist against sole or overwhelmingly preponderant German guilt for both world conflicts- especially the latter- but these must be based upon vague generalities and vacuous propaganda and never upon discrete facts or scrupulous and objective historical investigation.

    The fact remains that it was not the Germans who bore sole- or even preponderant- guilt for the Second World War. It was the British War party, international Jewry and the more radical elements of the FDR administration who were the intellectual authors of the conflict, and the stubborn and chauvinistic regime of the Polish colonels who provided the convenient tripwire and catalyst for this greatest of all European conflagrations.

    The Soviets were the great opportunists waiting like vultures over what they envisioned would be a European war of attrition.

    No more bullshit from the Hitler- I mean the History Channel- please.

  6. Mr Unz began with:

    “Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in February 2003.”

    I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest producers of Iraqi oil.:

  7. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Hmmm…. So it’s all down to Churhill and FDR. What about those nasty Zionists the UR commentariat love to blame?

    • Replies: @Bill
  8. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:

    Question for any of the Historians of the WWII period around here: where did the Jews who were deported by the German government during WWII, who were not fit for labor,(i.e., children, eldery, and disabled) go? If the Germans were such “notoriously meticulous record-keepers, embracing orderly bureaucracy like no other people, and nearly all their archives were captured at the end of the war,” it stands to reason that there should be an easy answer to this question.

    • Replies: @Alta
    , @Wally
    , @yallerdumb
    , @Saggy
    , @sally
  9. Charles says:

    To sum up: history is written by the victors. In 1945, the victors were Communists, people whom today we would refer to as “NeoCons”, and Zionist Jews. They won; they wrote the history. All others are purged.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  10. zogborg says:

    The Asian side to World War II is overlooked but its outcome affects us today. China sided with Zionists to bring down Imperial Japan. Later during the Cold War, China, under a fake communist regime, sided with Zionists yet again to bring down USSR. That’s why I laugh at China being under attack now by said Zionists. Suck it up chinks, you made your bed, now sleep in it!

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @stevecel
  11. Franz says:

    Thank You to Mr. Unz for mentioning the long-forgotten hero of the America First Committee, John T. Flynn.

    His biography, by Michele Stenehjem Gerber, is called An American First: John T. Flynn and the America First Committee and has not yet been banned on Amazon:

    Nonetheless I read it years ago, and it confirmed my suspicion that Lillian Gish, pioneering film actress, was on a blacklist of some sort, and indeed she was. And this was years before her name was removed from a college building here in Ohio. It is short, not hard to read, less a full biography of Flynn than an interesting look at that filthy period in US history when non-interventionists were slimed as “isolationists” and had their reputations ruined. Or at least dinged quite a bit.

    From an Amazon review:

    …This book inspires the broadening of the America First discussion, making references to Lillian Gish, who proved she was blacklisted, Charlie Chaplin, whose The Great Dictator was itself attacked as propaganda, and the charges of anti-Semitism from some names not already researched, like Brooklyn Dodgers’ president Larry MacPhail, S. H. Hauk, Laura Ingalls, and Wilhelm Kunze of the German-American Bund (but still no Walt Disney).

  12. Riveting. Eye-opening. Brilliantly formulated. Ron Unz has tossed another reality grenade into the matrix of fabricated historiography.

    On behalf of the millions of mangled, murdered and maligned victims who receive no pity and who have no voice- Thank you, Ron Unz.

  13. Wally says: • Website

    Thank you, Ron, for your courageous efforts.
    Only lies require censorship.

    Excellent discussion on all of these issues and much more:

    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    WWII Asia / Pacific Theater Revisionist Forum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=26
    ‘Holocaust’ Debate / Controversies / Comments / News: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2

  14. An issue so often overlooked, yet it is known in precisely the media and politics circus. It is the masonic hand in the two wars.
    As National Socialists rightfully called it, it was a jewish-masonic-bolshevik conspiracy. German holoyhoax references dub this a typical “anti-semitic” thought. “Oy veh, the truth is anti-semitic!”

    Communists fly masonic symbols on their flags, and communism is Judaism according to Rabbi Stephen Wise, and I agree with this assertion from my own experience with communists.

    What amazes me so much, you got in US TV series about US masonic history, such as “Sleepy Hollow”. In there, they proudly refer to the masons as founders of the masonic USA. In a typically masonic manner that makes one puke.

    How come, masons never get the spotlight, similar to Jews, if they have done something bad? You only hear about masons if they did something “good” like charity.
    They are portrayed as a noble choir boy club that would never do harm, but this is far removed from the truth.

    To connect to the World wars, Masons had the assassination ordered, to ignite the powder keg, US, Britsh and French leaders have usually been masons, the french Grand Orient is a powerful actor of which Lenin was a member. It’s like a necessity to get some office to be mason. If you count 1+1, this connects to Epstein type of stuff, blackmail.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
    , @Jake
  15. 4891 says:

    This is certainly a seminal work, compiling all your major discussions on WWII into one. But I’m curious with regards to your blanket dismissal of the accusations against David Irving, specifically of accusations of twisting sources. A quick search on Infogalactic found a book in the 90s by a John Lukacs, “The Hitler of History”, that essentially accuses Mr. Irving of, at best, interpreting sources in a creative way, a critique of him that goes back to the 70s. That said, this is the same John Lukacs who apparently smeared Pat Buchanan’s book, as mentioned earlier in this article, so I’m not sure how much I can trust such a critique. Perhaps we could have a thorough analysis of the accusations against Mr. Irving, or as near as is possible for someone with limited time available to them. Because while Mr. Irving’s books do interest me, I don’t like to be second guessing every single claim made in a book I read.

  16. Higgins says:

    Great article — apart from the usual pro-German, hence anti-Polish (or should that be anti-Polack?) American bias. Anyway, you’re getting warmer!

    Any American who really wants to understand the phenomenon of Judeo-America should first learn something about the equally taboo subject of Judeo-Polonia and the even more taboo subject of “Polish” Jewish collaboration with the invading Soviet forces in 1939. Even Irving doesn’t say much about this, perhaps because he doesn’t know Polish and has no access to untranslated sources (including Jewish sources).

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=191642#comment-934919

  17. axel says:

    You might also include Gerd-Schultze Rhonhof’s “The War That Had Many Fathers”. (The German original is “Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte”) and also Herbert Hoover’s magnum opus “Freedom Betrayed” edited by George Nash and published posthumously.

  18. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler

    Any one who says any kind of truth about Hitler is immediately labeled as some fawning neo-Nazi anti-Semite type.
    Can’t have no sunlight peeping in on the canned WWII history most of the West has had shoved down their throats.

    We must be good Goyim and each day, faithfully watch at least one holocaust movie and spit and cuss against those nasty Nazis for at least two minutes, unless we want the ADL and the SPLC recording our IPA in their various databases which they then use to show Congress all the alleged anti-Semitic activity, then demand and receive, another huge funding increase, which they use to extend their reach so they can record more alleged anti-Semitic activity, which is recorded…and the beat goes on.

  19. Tom Welsh says:

    I went to Cambridge University in 1966 to study history. Two things I recall very distinctly: the powerful impression Taylor’s books made on me; and the very subtle but unmistakable deprecation my tutors and lecturers applied to him and his work.

    Taylor was certainly very talented, they said, but prone to “bees in his bonnet”; over-enthusiastic; sometimes unreliable.

    Looking back, I can see how very effective this treatment was. As a rebellious and iconoclastic 18-year-old, if I had been told that Taylor was wicked and wrong and I must ignore his books, I would have hurried to study them deeply. But since I was cleverly informed that he was just mildly eccentric and prone to unjustified speculation, I neglected him in order to concentrate on the many other writers we had to read.

  20. Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.

    Coincidentally enough, today the Guardian has published its own lengthy, soul-searching essay entitled, “Why can’t we agree on what’s true any more?”

    Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde Left vs Right world, it’s still up to the ‘goodthinkers’ to preserve our liberties from the Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.

    As the Washington Post has it, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — neglecting to add, “We supply the Darkness.”

  21. Wonderful stuff, Mr Unz.
    For a short, easy to read account of this topic, see my How Britain Initiated both world wars.
    http://www.amazon.com/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Miggle
  22. Tom67 says:

    I have read most of the revisionist literature (regarding the holocaust) on your website and found most of it either beyond my ken or else rather poorly sourced. There is something though that I know for 100% sure and it mitigates against the revisionists: starting even before the war and then continuing the German government started to exterminate all Germans they considered not worthy of further sustenance. That is severly physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed. Although it was a government secret as this happened in Germany and to ethnic Germans the news inadvertedly spread and the practise was (officially but not entirely) abandoned after the Catholic Archbishop of Münster had publicly protested against it. So if gas was used in Germany to exterminate Germans it seems rather logical that it would be also used against Jews.
    Having said that I do agree that there are things that are rather spurious regarding the Holocaust. Specifically the numbers don´t seem to add up.
    One book in your archive stood out: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by
    WALTER N. SANNING: a book revising downward the number of Jews killed in Poland. A meticilously researched piece of scholarship about the demographics of Eastern European Jewry.
    Everything else I find rather doubtful. I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence. That is not to say that the numbers haven´t been exaggerated. Just as the numbers of German vistims after the war have been downplayed. Alas, that has been the way since antiquity: the victor writes what is later regarded as “history”….

  23. Antares says:

    Very interesting but I have a small note. Not that it matters politically how they entered France, but World War 2 was Blitzkrieg.

    “In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.” (RU)

    This makes me wonder when this happened and how the bombing of Rotterdam (may 14 1940) by the Nazis fits into the story chronologically.

    • Replies: @Alta
    , @tagaruda
  24. World War II I think really started, when Adolf Hitler inexcusably rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939, Adolf Hitler beginning to rule over non-German-speakers against their will … there is no explaining this away

    In that fateful March 1939 decision, Hitler showed himself to be another crass, lawless imperialist, either stupidly or intentionally inflaming and frightening the countries around him. This undermined and blocked the much more reasonable demand for German-speaking Danzig. ‘If Hitler had only restricted himself to consolidating Germans …’

    Going deeper into some rabbit holes, it seems there is an argument for Hitler himself having been a tool of some higher manipulative powers, with Hitler’s 1930s ‘economic miracle’ apparently in part the result of huge funds provided by both Wall Street and City of London financial sources … fattening up the Germans to be able to carry out a war, which the global oligarchy (Rothschilds etc?) apparently wanted to have

    The hidden agenda of World War 2, was perhaps to decimate the bravest male Europeans so thoroughly, and so enervate European society, that European warriors would never be able to successfully rise against the current international cabal of oppressors

  25. szopen says:

    Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany

    For Darwin’s sake, that was not the last Hitler’s demand. He also demanded plebiscite in Pomerania with outrageous conditions. Writing “last demand was Danzig to return to Germany and it was reasonable”, then this discredits him as a historian and reveals his bias.

    • Replies: @iffen
  26. Very interesting article.

    A few weeks ago a German television channel showed a program with a selection of parts of private films made during the Nazi time that may be related to some themes mentioned in the article. I remember particularly three of the films. Some showed images of German cities before their destruction which was practically complete. I was really astonished how beautiful they were. It’s difficult to believe that they are the same cities that exist today.

    A second film showed Hamburg after the destruction. Everything was burnt, there were people lying on the streets, I think that they were young people. This was quite impressive.

    The third film was made from a window opposite to a big house or rather a palace. It seemed to be a nice place. The film showed a group of French officers coming out of the door of the palace, laughing or smiling. They explained that a large number of French officers had been arrested, but that they were very well treated and were allowed to go outside when they wanted and withoug any surveillance. All they had to do was to say that they would come back.

  27. Aft says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    The David Irving videos at the other link are phenomenal.

  28. Simply magnificent. Simply infuriating.

    It’s bone chilling to read this.

    It must be an enormous burden for Mr Unz to possess this knowledge.

    It feels demoralising to simply be the recipient of it – knowing full well the price of telling the truth, even now, even today.

    It’s not even the facts in and of themselves but how wrenchingly viciously opposite they are to what we’re forced to regurgitate.

    All those men, slaughtered at the feet of world Jewry, and then their fate inverted.

    It’s as Miles Mathis says – World War 2 was just part of the stolen century. Jewish monopoly and domination of all nodes of culture leading to total fabrications of almost all culture, all history, in every medium, in every form, all manipulated, all synthetic, all superficial. All these wars, fomented by the Jews, for Jewish profit, and all that suffering for Jewish benefit.

    As Unz has hinted and Miles Mathis has proven, this fabrication of World War 2 can also be seen with the Napoleonic Wars, the religious wars of Europe like the 30 years war, the Norman invasion, the Bronze age collapse. Probably Atlantis itself was destroyed by the Jews.

    Not only was the prelude to WW2 a lie, it seems many of the events themselves were as well. Photo evidence of seminal events is all ridiculously faked.

    Supplement Unz with Miles Mathis and with Vox Popoli.

    And they’re so close now to achieving a new October Revolution across the entire West and dissolving the European nations just as they genocided the Ukrainains and the Russians, the Hittites, and the Minoans, and the Canaanites, and the Philistines, and possibly the Myceneans in the Bronze Age collapse.

    No more brother wars. No white men are ever going to raise arms against each other for Jews ever again. And white men who are socialists and communists are subhuman, and aren’t men, or truly white, so that designation doesn’t apply.

    It’s incredibly sad to see how prescient Hillaire Belloc truly is.

    The next 10 years are going to be critical. I just hope the Jews and the Governors and the reality weavers don’t continue down this path they are taking the world. Because they think they will be able to survive the conflagration and they are wrong.

  29. @Tom67

    Can you source your claim? I’m not saying you’re wrong, because Hitler absolutely did do much wrong and the Nazi’s weren’t the good guys. But can you source your claim?

    And how is that any different to euthanasia and abortion?

    In the Netherlands today Theo Boer who resigned from their Regional Euthanasia Committees has whistle blown that in many postal codes of the Netherlands, over 25% of the deaths are now induced killings. People are exactly as you say, injected with a needle, and in some cases they are gassed using Dr Phillip Nietschke’s ‘SARCO’ gas chamber for the disabled to commit suicide.

    Hitler promoted child birth. World Jewry has conducted the murder of literally millions of unborn white children as the result of Jewish ideology pertaining to feminism, and Jewish lies regarding the science of the status of the unborn child.

    Without question, the Jewish eugenicists have far exceeded in blood anything the Nazi’s committed.

    Hitler promoted the family. Jewish communists want it destroyed totally, so that the deracinated traumatised and disassociated moorless and disoriented victims can be easily manipulated and exploited and blinded.

    • Replies: @Tom67
  30. @Germanicus

    Henry Makow gives the Freemasonic movement their spotlight.

    But as Hilaire Belloc stated – the Freemasons are Jewish. It is a Jewish creation, and fundamentally Jewish to the core.

    Just like Israel is coterminous with international Jewry, Freemasonry itself is coterimouns with the Jews.

    All of these secret societies in the end answer to the Jewish families who constitute the ancient banking families, the ancient Phoenecian Jewish nobility, and the Jew dominated Intelligence Directorates that can assassinate or extract from our system people like Jeffrey Epstein with absolute impunity. The people who can crash planes and crash currencies. They’re above the media Jews and cultural Jews.

    Ultimately, we are going to have to take control of our own money supply. It is that action and sentiment which is ruthlessly crushed more then anything else.

    Because that’s the core of the modern day Jewish Question.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  31. Typical Unzian goulash. It is good that he exposed Churchill’s lunacy & Eisenhower’s culpability (although I’m not sure for how many victims Eisenhower is to blame).

    Though, I’m not convinced at all that Japanese soldiers would have surrendered en masse from 41. to 45. The situation with Soviets is simply not derivable from their previous behavior.

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they’re almost completely guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany’s miseries during 1940s (false).

    Readers & followers of this site think, I guess, that Jews are collectively guilty of __ (type in your favorite obsession). This is the inversion of another lunatic idea: Germans are collectively guilty for WW 2 in Europe.

    Of course, both claims are nonsensical. Collective guilt does not exist.

  32. gotmituns says:

    Here’s the scoop on ww2. that pos, fdr (he set up Pearl Harbor attack) got us into it even though he knew the vast majority of Americans were against going to war in Europe. We lost every encounter we had with the German infantry without our overwhelming air and arty support (Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Holland, Bulge, Hurtgen Forest, etc. Then we did unspeakable things to the German people and their leadership all for the jews. There you have it – simple.

  33. @Charles

    To sum up: history is written by the victors

    WRONG, and it is an insult to the courageous and diligent efforts of people like David Irving, Ernst Zundel, A J P Taylor, Harry Elmer Barnes, Ron Unz to keep repeating that Bernaysian drivel.

    What the victors wrote re the 20th century world wars is not history, it is a continuation of propaganda.

    Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.

    It is intellectually lazy and extremely dangerous to “sum up” by miming the victor’s 2 minutes of hate: you do their work for them.

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
  34. @Brabantian

    World War II I think really started, when Adolf Hitler inexcusably rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939

    Erm nope, have you ever read the Munich agreement?
    Where is your outrage about Soviet airbases in Czechia? Soviet rule over non russian speakers? British rule over Norwegians? You basically say, the 4 biggest colonial powers US,UK, France and Soviet Union were basically the good guys, just for WWII, having conquered 2/3 of the planet and ruled the colonies with iron fist, starved millions deliberately to death etc… truly ridiculous.

    WWII began with the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. WWI and WWII are one big war, with an intermediate economic warfare period, just like they do with Iran currently.

  35. PJ London says:

    “Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
    — Sefton Delmer, 1904-1979, former British Chief of Black propaganda, said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm

  36. SamMiller says:

    A remarkable article.

    Just finished reading Irving’s masterpiece “Hitler’s War” and Swedish journalist Stig Dagerman’s “German Autumn”. Both provide a profound view of those years that is so different than the ‘Hollywood history’ we’ve all been subjected to. Looking forward to Taylor, more Irving and Buchanon’s book.

    Hats off to Ron Unz for his research/writing/insights, the numerous links, his archives and esp this Review. It is very much appreciated.

    • Agree: Hail
  37. Miggle says:

    Ron, huge thanks.

    To me, mind-boggling. I used to think Churchill was the great man who had saved England. Now I know he was a fiend, and Hitler, friendly towards England, was doing his best for his own failed state.

    Incidentally, even before Hitler became Chancellor there were the SA and (in schools) the Hitler Youth who were assaulting opposition groups in the streets and schools, but that was the norm. Weimar Germany was a failed state, anarchy. Rosa Luxemburg was murdered by Berlin Police in 1919. Murdered by the police. Anarchy. And Hitler had the SS kill all the SA for a political reason, but again, perhaps, not out of the ordinary in a failed, anarchic state with the man at the top very busy working economic miracles.

    Prior to TV all political campaigning consisted of physical meetings, crowds drawn to a speaker, and in Weimar Germany the disputes tended to be physical.

    The Jew-baiting in Hitler’s Germany was nasty at the personal level, but Hitler was not micro-managing, he was focused on the big issues. I still think he was wrong in insisting that the Jews were a race, so Christians with parents who had converted to Christianity were counted as Jews. That would have made Karl Popper a Jew, but he was clearly not one.

    I was absorbed in reading your article when I heard a roar of laughter. It was me. I had just read:

    a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion

    No mention of which particular persuasion, but you didn’t need to say. The frog-marchers, the ones who adhere to ritual at every step, while motivated by hate.

  38. @Flint Clint

    I am no fan of Jew Makow, he is in my view a gate keeper, his WWII views are ridiculous, and I have problems with his jewish views on women.

    Anyway, the really insane thing is, you hear an endless pile of horse crap from the US, “values”, “democracy”, “freedom” etc… but not one of these muppets asks how secret oaths and secret meetings in the masonic lodge fit together with an alleged public office?

    JFK asked something similar in his “secret societies” speech.

  39. “A.J.P. Taylor lost his Oxford post for publishing his honest analysis of the origins of World War II.”

    Ron,

    Thanks for this on A.J.P. Taylor.

    By coincidence I too re-read the book a few months ago, having been assigned to read it as a Sophomore in college in 1966. It was one of those great books that left a permanent impression. The re-read was even more powerful given the mind control in place now. But I had no idea that Taylor suffered professionally from the publication. If he’d written it today, no mainline publisher would likely touch it,

  40. @PJ London

    2000 years of denied self proclaimed chosenitism surface in the worst posible way.

  41. Miggle says:
    @Nick Kollerstrom

    Good to see you here, Nick. I have a copy of your Breaking the Spell, with the proud badge “Banned by Amazon” printed on the cover.

    Particularly striking to me is that the rate of Jewish deaths at Auschwitz dropped once the Zyklon deliveries started to arrive at the camps.

  42. @Bardon Kaldian

    Yes, this reversed black-and-white thinking irks me too. I have said before that WWII was not a war of “good guys against bad guys”, even if we reverse the roles. All parties (including the Jews) were guilty in this conflict. All lied and all committed atrocities.

    As for “collective guilt”, I think to a certain degree it does exist. Groups of course are led by their leaders, and “collective crimes” are instigated by their leaders, but still it is the groups that choose or tolerate their leaders, and thus share a responsibility in their criminal conduct.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  43. Alta says:
    @Antares

    Chronologically, I am not sure.
    Some use Rotterdam and Warsaw as examples of terror bombing being used by the Germans before the British ever but they also leave out why those cities were bombed. Firstly they were not declared “open cities” as Paris was, secondly Dutch and Polish troops had occupied their respective cities before any formal cease fire/peace treaty had been formalized. Also in the case of Warsaw the mayor, or whatever the equivalent, had refused multiple German demands for surrender.

    • Replies: @szopen
  44. Alta says:
    @Brabantian

    Czechoslovakia was being torn apart by all its neighbors, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Not just Germany. There was also ethnic tensions among the Czechs and Slovaks. The prime minister of Czechoslovakia met Hitler in Germany a few days before the countries complete annexation REQUESTING Germany occupy the entire country before an ethnic civil war or perhaps the Hungarians or Poles decided they wanted more.

    • Replies: @Sab
  45. @Bardon Kaldian

    Wrong. Here is a Jewish concept that explains so much of the modern world and their exquisite inversion of the victim complex.

    “Few are guilty but all are responsible” – Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. That was the concept the Jews applied to George Zimmerman when they said he should be lynched for defending himself from Trayvon Martin – it is the call to Tikkun Olam the world, by holding everyone else responsible for Jewish crimes.

    Jews are unparalleled masters at attributing guilt to victims when they are the perpetrators.

    So until concepts like ‘white privilege’ are all renounced by Jews as a collective, they are collectivelly guilty for World War 2.

    Lets not forget that it was prominent Zionist Jews who funded both sides of both world wars, whilst they avoided fighting it, and then used it to obtain their wealth for their cirminal syndicates in California and Chicago even as they manipulated the draft system to send their enemies to the front lines.

    Kuhn Loeb with Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn and Paul Warberg funded all sides of World War 2, whilst Jewish community organisers ensured their people wouldn’t be drafted or fight in the front lines for the United States.

    And Maxim was funded by Rothschild, and Maxims culled generations of the best men of all the European nations in World War 1 – which was deliberately fomented by conspirators in Britain in particular causing diplomatic break downs and communication lacunas to force events.

    “Is not war already a revolutionary function? War? Since [1870] every war was a giant step towards Communism.” – Christian Rakovskey, aka Chaim Rakover.

    You Gentiles, by Maurice Samuel outlines the Jewish involvement in those wars. As does a book by Joshua Trachtenberg – an apostate talking about the truth of Jewish conspriacy and betrayal of states down the ages – including collusion with the Huns.

    Basil Zaharoff (Manel Sahar) worked for Rothschild, who owned Nordenfelt, Maxim and Vickers. Their machine guns killed goyim men in both world wars.

    See Eustace Mullins – new history of the Jews:

    The Jews began to spew out of their Balkan ghettoes, entering England at the rate of 600,000 a year, and the United States at the rate of one million a year. They took over government offices so completely that the English Foreign Office was known as “the Too-Foreign Office”, in reference to the great number of Jews with thick accents who filled its ministries. Jews became ministers of finance and justice in many countries, so that they could control the nations through these positions. The Minister of Finance in France was Klots; in Italy, Luzzatti; in Germany, Dernberg; in England, Isaacs. Of 355 English salaried consular officials, 200 were foreign born, and 120 readily identified as Jews, although the total was undoubtedly higher.

    Every European Government was rocked by financial and espionage scandals as the Jews sold state secrets and patents to the highest bidder. When the Gentile, Marconi, invented radio, the Jewish Isaacs family obtained possession of it, and the American branch RCA , was headed by the Russian Jew, David Sarnoff. On March 7, 1912, the English Postmaster, Sir Herbert Samuel, of the Jewish family which owned Shell Oil, and Charles Isaacs, president of Marconi, Ltd., split 100,000 shares of stock as a gift to his brother, Rufus Isaacs, Minister of Finance, and Lloyd George, the Prime Minister. When the scandal broke in the press, not only did Lloyd George remain in office, but, with typical effrontery, the Rothschilds forced Lord Asquith to appoint Rufus Isaacs as Lord Chief Justice of England, with the title of Baron Reading of Erleigh. Rudyard Kipling commented on this appointment, “This was unthinkable 3 years ago”.

    These same men who owned the arms companies and the arms of government arranged for the mass slaughter of World War 1.

    It’s that simple. The history of the world is the history of trying and failing to survive Jewish emnity.

    Unz referred to John D Flynn – he wrote about Zaharoff and the Jewish conspiracy to provoke world war in ‘The Merchant of Death’.

    I’m sorry, but the truth is that the Jews fomented both world wars, and Hitler’s culpability was secondary. If he himself wasn’t in fact a Zionist agent.

  46. @Bardon Kaldian

    “Readers & followers of this site think, I guess …. Collective guilt does not exist.”

    I think you just contradicted yourself.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  47. Alta says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is complete bullshit

    • Replies: @szopen
  48. onebornfree says: • Website

    So now, instead of now [erroneously] believing, as we were all , er, “taught”, that the allies were the good guys of WW2, and that the Japs and Germans were the bad guys, we are now supposed to believe the exact opposite, right, Mr Unz ? Jap and German governments now”good”- WW2 allies governments now “bad”?

    Reality fact: before, during and after WW2 and all the way up to this present moment in time, the US, Soviet, French , Polish, Brit [etc. etc. ad infinitum] governments lied; the German government lied, the Jap government lied. They ALL lied [and lie]!

    Reality fact: It [lying] is what all governments everywhere all do – , all of the time!

    Reality fact: It’s what they _must_ do to maintain power over their slave populations [ see the Bernays quote below].

    Regarding the fundamental nature of all governments, past, present, or future – this “just” in :

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    ” The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” Edward Bernays
    http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

    “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” ~ Adolf Hitler

    “My first rule- I don’t believe anything the government tells me- nothing!- ZERO!” George Carlin

    Regards, onebornfree

  49. WWI and WWII and all the following wars that America was forced into were zionist banking kabal wars aka the FED and have been the single most destructive force to America and are on going in the mideast , see the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution also by Anthony Sutton, they can be had on amazon.

    Zionism is the greatest enemy that America faces!

  50. anarchyst says:

    To see the hatred that jews had (and still have) for Germany, obtain and read the anti-German book “Germany Must Perish” by Theodore N. Kaufman.

    In his book, Kaufman advocates the complete destruction of EVERYTHING German.

    He advocated the total destruction and erasure of German history, culture, engineering, people, and land.

    Just as in the old testament, Kaufman advocated the complete erasure from history of EVERYTHING German.

    Sure sounds like an real “act of war” and “genocide” to me, unlike the fake jewish freak show–the holohoax.

  51. Tom67 says:
    @Flint Clint

    Hi Flint Clint
    That the Euthanasia program of the Nazis killed what was deemed “unworthy” life is so well known in Germany that nobody will dispute it.
    Here one link about the man who did m0re than anybody else to at least slow this program down: Graf von Galen. He was the Arch bishop of Münster and an indomitable fighter. Today he would be reviled by the left as he was also a German nationalist and a strict conservative. Look up him up here on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_Graf_von_Galen#Euthanasia
    You don´t know me and you don´t have to take my word. But the fact of the matter is that I am German and I can assure you that many familis were touched by this. Of course it wasn´t “official”. Just a letter that so and so died of “heart attack” a.s.o. Theere were though so many cases that people connected the dots. Especially tragic were the cases of children who were in special institutions to make the most of their limited mental abilities. They were transferred from these (usually church run) institutions to goverment institutions were they were very soon killed. In restrospect it is amazing that the Nazis thought they could get away with it.
    As a final note I might mention that the “Weltanschauung” of the Natis was in itself logical and coherent. There was “good” and “bad” inheritance and it was most important to constantly improve the “race”. Whatever was “bad” had to be radically exterminated to improve the general health of the population.
    Curiously the Stalinist rational for exterminating certain classes of people was the mirror opposite. Here the rational was that acquired traits were transmitted to the offspring. By exterminating the “exploiting” classes one was to create the “new” man. That was the background to the elevation of Lysenko to the guiding light of Soviet biology.
    Whatever having lived in both Russia and Germany and talked to people who survived Stalin and Hitler I have many times thought how lucky to be living now and not back then.
    As to whatever crimes the other side did: it doesn´t make whatever happened in Germany any better.

  52. The puzzle that never will be put together. But we have to respect people who at least trying.

  53. Paul says:

    What World War II in Europe was about: The British had the world, and the Germans wanted it (the Reich that would last a thousand years).

    • Replies: @Arnieus
  54. To get the low-down on the two world wars, read Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers: The Long Run-Up to the Second World War…which I translated.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11448682-1939—the-war-that-had-many-fathers

    • Replies: @George F. Held
  55. @Tom67

    Thank God we American’s were pillars morality. LOL

    Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

    Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his “bible.”

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

    • Replies: @Tom67
  56. @Stephen Paul Foster

    Collective guilt does not exist. However, a (self-selected) group’s stupidity- does.

  57. Nodwink says:

    Phil Donahue was thrown off TV because his opposition to the Iraq War, something which would be mocked by Western elites if it happened in Russia, or North Korea.

  58. @Franklin Ryckaert

    How can we measure it? Legally?

    For instance, most Germans did not vote for Hitler. And even if he was elected by 90% margin- what would it mean? He did many great things to heal German post-WW 1 humiliation & succeeded in spectacular economic recovery. When Europe (and world) descended into WW 2 – how could an average German, or any group of Germans, do anything to change the course of history?

    They were indoctrinated, but even if most of them had not been – no individual nor collective can change the inertia of events. Things just keep on happening. For instance, Waffen SS were denounced as a “criminal organization” & its members deprived of military honors (ca. 900,000 men, 500,000 out of them Germans). I call it baloney. You don’t have 900,000 “war criminals”. This is simply a nonsense.

    I am not saying that collectives do not share peculiar characteristics (for instance, you can’t have anything seriously done with Gypsies), but any political-social-historical movement is too complex to be reduced to moralistic sermonizing.

    • Replies: @Alden
  59. @Brabantian

    Yes, all wars are bankers war. That being said, once the first spark is struck, events rapidly spiral out of control. What I find with these older and even newer versions of revisionist history is Stalin and Soviet Russia very rarely ever assigned any blame in the starting of the whole mess which I find absurd. A great example of this is story of Rudolf Hess and how he was betrayed by everyone.

    [MORE]

    Was Hess aware at the time of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin “Non-Aggression” Pact of Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov, which stated “in event of any war,” Russia would be assigned”spheres of influence” in eastern Poland (40% of the country); .the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a freehand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet actions after Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol’s terms. On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.

    “Stalin was able, in conference with Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present these actions as “defensive” against the Nazi threat. But the
    Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs on Europe.”

    “Obviously, if Stalin were shown to be guilty of plotting with Hitler-to wage aggressive war, then the question arose: What were the Soviets doing as judges with the French,
    British, and Americans on the Nuremberg tribunal? The tribunal would have to be reconstituted. Would not Molotov and Stalin have to be tried? They had stood at a map table with Ribbentrop in Moscow, while Ribbentrop consulted with Hitler on the phone from Germany, and the four of them had redrawn the map of Eastern Europe. Stalin and Molotov could be accused of having conspired with Hitler to wage war; shouldn’t they take their
    places in the Nuremberg dock?”

    Source information and a short three page article on The Hess defense at Nuremburg.
    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n36-19870911/eirv14n36-19870911_053-what_moscow_has_to_hide_rudolf_h.pdf

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  60. German_reader says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    That video is pretty questionable imo, because as far as I know the Generalplan Ost plans of the SS don’t exist anymore, at least not in detail. What does exist, is a memorandum drawn up by Dr Wetzel from Rosenberg’s Ostministerium, whose text can be read here:
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf

    The proposals in that document are undoubtedly extremely racist and would have amounted to massive ethnic cleansing programmes, at least against Poles and Czechs. They don’t quite amount to genocide though, in fact the author explicitly states that one can’t physically exterminate Poles like Jews (whose physical destruction is quite openly affirmed in the text), because Germany would then be generally hated by all neighbouring peoples…instead Poles who can’t be Germanized should emigrate to Siberia, or possibly to Brazil. Proposal for Russia is basically to split up the country in various republics and foster regional identities, with Siberia maybe becoming a pan-European economic zone.
    Much attention is devoted to “racially valuable” Slavs who should be sent to the Reich for Germanization (Dr Wetzel is concerned about foreign workers from Italy and the Balkans who could bring Near Eastern and negroid ancestry to Germany; he’d prefer to replace them with “Nordic” types from Belarus). Even the view of Russians isn’t entirely negative…while Wetzel regards most of them as a “dull primitive mass”, he thinks there still are Nordic types in the Russian peasantry and attributes Russia’s industrialization to people of such a background (which makes Russia especially dangerous). So this isn’t exactly the same view as of Jews.
    Of course even the ethnic cleansing schemes proposed in that document could easily have shaded into genocide (in 1940 even top Nazis still thought of just sending the Jews away to Madagascar, not killing them all, so there was a precedent for such radicalisation). And presumably the plans of the SS were more extreme than what Rosenberg’s Ostministerium proposed.
    Still, in any case a German victory in WW2 would certainly have been pretty bad for many of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz’s article, imo it’s not worth bothering with, since it’s so far removed from reality.

  61. @Flint Clint

    I’m sorry, but the truth is that the Jews fomented both world wars, and Hitler’s culpability was secondary. If he himself wasn’t in fact a Zionist agent.

    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
  62. Agent76 says:

    *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

    In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/bankers-hate-peace-all-wars-are-bankers-wars/5438849

    May 26, 2012 Federal Reserve Act – Remedy

    The 1913 Federal Reserve Act has remedy written into it; still in full force and effect today.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  63. Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after ‘surrendering’.

    This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  64. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The puzzle that never will be put together.

    In Anglo-American world–never. Agree with that.

  65. szopen says:
    @Alta

    And what would be excuse for bombing Frampol? Because for Wieluń Germans had at least excuse that before war there was cavalry unit stationed nearby, though indiscriminate bombing still was bad.

    Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects, because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.

  66. Ron

    Your work concentrates on Jewish guilt. There is another side of it that should be considered: Jewish strategy has, at least since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, been good for the Jews.

    The current position of Jews worldwide is highly precarious. The only Jewish state is small and surrounded on all sides by either sea or states that range from hostile to at best neutral. States with nuclear weapons are among its fairly close adversaries. Stability of the area depends on the United States, a Christian power (even yet) that is severely weakened by two decades of war [1]. Jewish populations in the Middle East are gone, and Christian populations in the area have been severely diminished in number.
    Further, the population expansion that has been required to retain control of the Israeli government by equaling the Arab birth rate has resulted in a very large highly religious Jewish population that apparently is supported by welfare and believes so strongly in the power of God that it relies on divine intervention for physical security and won’t join the IDF.
    The only society that tolerates Judaism, Christianity, has been severely weakened worldwide. It is being replaced by societies that in some cases do not tolerate Judaism and in other cases treat Judaism as one of a number of competitors for foreign market dominant minority.
    Jewish casualties since AD 1900 have been appalling. If I remember correctly, worldwide Jewish population has just recovered to AD 1935 levels within the past decade (a bit after 2010). Jewish establishment strategic initiatives, such as replacing governments with socialist regimes (primarily Communism), taking over a Christian country and destroying Christianity (Communism again, USSR), transforming Jewish populations into non-Jewish populations that could survive as other nations do (Zionism), establishing Jewish moral superiority (propaganda effort in the West from WW II to c.a. 1970), replacing Western populations with non-Christian (and presumably more controllable) populations — all have been spectacular failures that have failed, some simply failing in their stated goals, some causing (or in danger of causing) severe mortality in the Jewish population, some merely creating a state of crippling fear in the Jewish population.

    There is some chance that global trade will fail, leading to a world wide population crash from 7.7 billion humans to a notably smaller number [2]. The Jewish population, world wide, is not well positioned for such an event, as it would be associated with several regional wars between opponents armed with nuclear weapons, and Israel is just too small to survive a nuclear war.

    From a highly abstract and disinterested vantage point, this posture of strategic weakness is astonishing for an establishment known for its tactical astuteness and its persistence in impelmenting long range large scale plans.

    I can’t offer advice as to remedial actions, but it would seem that some remedial actions are called for. The actual results of Jewish Establishment strategy is actually embarrassing. As a metaphorical first action, I’d suggest getting shoes without a target painted on their tops.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Rounding to nearest decade and counting from the first Gulf War, AD 1991.

    2] If you listen to the “environmentalist” position, it is saying that globalism can’t continue because of physical limits. It then goes on to blame anybody who has money, and appears to be a simple racket. However, like all rackets, the environmentalist fundamental assertion is true. It would be too bad if something happened to the store, and the earth does have limits. These limits are showing up financially in sovereign state insolvency, and the current global trade system will fail at some point. It actually did fail during the AD 2008 financial panic.

  67. szopen says:
    @Alta

    Because you said so. And, of course, Poles from Zamojszczyzna left their homes voluntarily, and thousands or testimonies about Zamojszczyzna children being separated from families (and most of them never returned) are all propaganda, while you should believe without question all German stories.

  68. @Bardon Kaldian

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    That video is lying through its teeth, as anyone who can read German can check for himself, since the original Generalplan Ost documents have been published in toto. By an old Polish Communist historian, no less (one Dr. Czeslaw Madajczyk), so most likely he hasn’t falsified anything in them in favor of the Germans. His book is called “Vom Generalplan Ost zum Generalsiedlungsplan”.

    In this book, you can read the actual memos of the German planners rather than biased summaries by Ian Kershaw and friends. They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism. The idea that tens of millions were to be “physically eliminated” is literal Soviet Communist propaganda that “Western” liberals have taken up uncritically to demonize Nazi Germany.

    Of course, no one will ever translate these hundreds of documents into English, because then more people would be able to see through the falsehoods Bardon Kaldian’s video and similarly inclined interests routinely peddle.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  69. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alta

    The ghettos, with the exception of Theresienstadt, were all emptied during the war.

  70. Maybe Ron’s best article yet in the Pravda series (save for his unnecessary and out of context digression into American war atrocities against the Japanese; it’s poor form to justify Germany’s retaliatory strikes against British civilian targets and then condemn what was more likely retaliatory brutality by Americans after seeing what Japanese did to their comrades – live castration then stuffing the amputated genitals into the mouth of the still living prisoner and letting him bleed out – and 1945 may as well have been 200 years after 1944; I’ve seen the video footage of Japanese women at Saipan and Okinawa jumping to their deaths, babies in their arms, lest they be captured by American forces. But go ahead and point out all the wars won by the more polite combatant.)

    I would look forward to an Pravda article focusing specifically on the Nuremberg show trials.

  71. sally says:
    @Brabantian

    If I had been Hitler I would have rolled into Prague because over 60% of the people there, the ones being summarily executed were Germans.. He had no choice..

  72. sally says:

    maybe this will answer your concern.??

    Hoggan .. individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany.. PM Neville Chamberlain, [failed] to have them arrested and prosecuted. <=how about the people in other nations funding and teaching and rewarding these deliberate provocateurs?

    Churchill and clique .. [Jewish media denies, isolates and decimates authors, BODs remove people from important position and wealthy clients change accountants, lawyers, and consultants (Bush destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Andersen and millions of local

    [MORE]

    Jews and Christian Zionist work to destroy local accountants, lawyers and realtors who don't measure up to the Jewish propaganda]. Jewish establishments often and endlessly attacked/denounced government leaders in important places <=ex. victim Chamberlain.. by advancing unsubstantiated accusations:<= [publishing as fact that which is false, fake and misleading] German.. military build-up <=aimed against Britain<= Jewish controlled media<=[targeted to disrupt and prevent normal German-British relations. <=an example of the use of containerization[the British People were containerised and their information environment controlled, regulated, and cinematised by propaganda engineers]<=a method often used by Economic Zionism to accomplish local, regional, national and worldwide goals.

    EZ is a pathology that is used to capture the government that is suppose to maintain a monopoly free economic environment for capitalism.. EZ prevents governments referee role and there by destroys capitalism. Capitalism can only exist when the government officiates the "economic space" and keeps that economic space clear and free of monopoly powers. The pathological threat in economic Zionism is in media-government partnership with a few very usually wealthy, very aggressive monopolist, and that partnership leads to anti competitive laws (copyright, patents, and enabling legislation to allow privatisation) and soon only a very few, limited in number, but giant monopolistic enterprises exist (the multi-national, global or whatever corporations and their wealthy owners) do all of the business in the area of their markets and employ all of the people who can do good work. When this conditions advances it denies small law firms, small accounting firms, real estate firms that fail the EZ propaganda adopted and internalized tests. and so on.
    if you analyze history from the viewpoint of monopoly power .. you quickly see how the philosophy and system of economics called economic zionism uses government and religion to rule the world, since before 1176.

  73. @Grandson of a 6th division member

    Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after ‘surrendering’.

    This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.

    American soldiers on the Pacific islands also had habits. One of those was routinely torturing and murdering Japanese servicemen who tried to surrender, and mutilating and defiling their corpses.

    This lead to a lot fewer Japanese surrendering, and to some of them setting off a grenade after “surrendering”.

    In case I have to point it out, I’m not saying this to be anti-American. I think that’s more or less what you can expect to happen when you send these scared young men, forcefed for years on propaganda about the Japanese being subhuman monsters, out to fight them life or death in hellish climates thousands of miles from home. I blame the crooked politicians and the lying media more than the soldiers. But it’s astonishing how, even today, the propaganda narratives about noble Yanks and evil Japs still persist. Even among people who ought to know better.

    If anyone else feels inclined to nod and agree with knee-jerk posts like the one I’m responding to here, please make the effort to at least read the book about the Pacific War our host Mr. Unz is recommending. (I’ve read it. It’s good, and it’s not just mindless America-bashing like some people will no doubt want to think. Dower looks at how both the Americans and the Japanese dehumanized the enemy.) It’s one more tiny but important step along the difficult road toward the vitally necessary goal of attaining a more balanced view of our modern history.

    • Agree: Johnny Smoggins
    • Replies: @A.R.
    , @Wizard of Oz
  74. @Carlton Meyer

    Ah yes, nothing like a truck load of truth in a 13 minute video. David Irving was on fire. Thanks for sharing.

    The Churchill lies remind me of the vaunted saints we Americans worship, one Abe “Stinkin” Lincoln, who laid low America while destroying our most valued possession, states rights.

  75. tagaruda says:
    @Antares

    At Rotterdam, a single flight of tactical bombers, carrying a few hundred kilos of bombs each, were directed to attack a heavily defended barracks. A legitimate wartime target.
    After the flight was dispatched, it was reported the Dutch had initiated surrender negotiations, but the flight missed the recall-order as the lead bomber. the only one with a radio, had already retracted its aerial.
    Several stray bombs damaged housing and destroyed a school, where children were hiding under their desks, since apparently no-one had thought to evacuate them from the vicinity of the conflict.
    Germany immediately apologized and paid reparations.

    The Allies strategic bombing was generally inaccurate and thus indiscriminate by its nature and was directed at civilians by policy; war-crime terror-bombing in effect.
    The Ruhr attacks began days after Rotterdam, and were considered as an invitation for reprisal bombing by the Germans

    “As Churchill said to Ambassador Kennedy in June or July 1940: “You watch, when Adolf Hitler begins bombing London and bombing towns in Britain like Boston and Lincoln, towns with their counterparts in the United States, you Americans will have to come in, won’t you, you can’t just stand aside and watch our suffering.” But he knew from code-breaking, he knew from reading the German air force signals, which were broken on May 26, 1940, that Hitler had given orders that no British town was to be bombed. London was completely embargoed. The German air force was allowed to bomb ports and harbors and dockyards, but not towns as such. Churchill was greatly aggrieved by this. ”

    August 4th 1940. Charles DeGaulle finds Churchill shaking his fist at the sky asking; “why won’t you come” – meaning why would the Germans not begin bombing Britain. Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

    August 9 1940: The Birmingham Blitz began and (along with Hull Blitz) became the basis for the RAF dehousing bombing policy in 1942. (Birmingham and Hull represented legitimate German targets, which focused on military-industry targets which was situated among housing.

    August 24th 1940. A single stick of bombs from a stray German bomber drops within London proper, causes little damage, but provides the pretext for Churchill to order retaliation bombing of Berlin by 100 aircraft. Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Antares
  76. Very comprehensive. James Bacque’s work on American atrocities in post-war Germany was new to me, but Unz seems to be unaware of Thomas Gallagher’s much more recent writing: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N9RDQ3E/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @John Regan
  77. @German_reader

    I am not saying that everything would go as if planned in some document. Those totalitarian regimes possess their own internal dynamic which is hard to stop when they’re set into motion.

    For instance, all atrocities which devoured perhaps 30+ million people (including those who perished in Russian civil war) were contained, in nuce, in Lenin’s works, ideas & positions (I am not talking about good things that came to pass as the result of his actions). Lenin did not write about extermination of whole classes, forced famine, new & more efficient Inquisition etc. But they were somehow logical result of his (and not only his) vision of the future society.

    Hitler’s (mostly) intra-white racism could also have predictable results. His world-view had, basically, two pillars: eastern expansion to somewhere along Urals- Caucasus axis & getting rid of Jews. Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise, more than others (Gypsies excluded), but the real deal would be annihilation of Balto-Slavophone central & eastern European peoples (Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians & most Baltic peoples).

    He would, I guess, have chosen “racially” desirable children for assimilation & off with others. First, they would have worked as slaves; then, they would be simultaneously killed & deported (probably similar to Stalin’s deportation of Chechens & other potentially disloyal peoples. Out of 900,000 of them, perhaps 400,000-500,000 died in the process of deportation). If one tries to annihilate a people- and these are numerous peoples by European standards – you don’t have to shoot or gas them. Just relocate them somewhere in the east of Urals, most of them (you can’t keep so many of them within your sphere of authority because they will rebel, sooner or later). So, I guess tens of millions individuals, from Czechs to Russians, were slated to death from famine, disease & overwork.

    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances. And that state of mind would have resulted in tens of millions of unnatural deaths & Poles, Ukrainians, .. would be now just a footnote in history, similar to Indians in what is now Manhattan.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Wally
  78. lysias says:

    Sigal Mandelker, the Zionist Under Secretary of the Treasury in charge of enforcing sanctions and boycotts, was one of the high-ranking Department of Justice officials who signed off on the nonprosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta’s pay grade?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  79. Che Guava says:
    @zogborg

    Be careful, God-Free Roberts will likely pop up to tell you that the CPC was absolutely correct, at every stage.

  80. @szopen

    And what would be excuse for bombing Frampol?

    It seems it was a mistaken identification. The Germans thought there were ground troops there, and so treated it as a military target. Or at least, that’s what Polish historian Marius Emmerling writes.

    Without having the entire context, I think that sounds reasonable. Mistakes happen even today (with vastly better C3I systems than 80 years ago), and of course the Poles did turn various urban habitats into fortresses, most famously Warsaw.

    Even so, it’s obviously still a tragedy, the people who were unnecessarily killed or injured (as well as the much larger number who weren’t hurt but still had their homes destroyed). But unlike the later British policy of deliberate terror bombing, it wasn’t malice aforethought, killing civilians for its own sake.

    Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects, because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.

    This on the other hand sounds more like the standard wartime atrocity propaganda, and/or people in stressful situations jumping to false (but in the circumstances, perhaps understandable) conclusions. I know of instances where German bombs hit hospitals (during the Warsaw siege, for example), but there’s no apparent reason to think they aimed at them systematically. It’s sort of like how the US accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy in the last Balkans war: a tragic mistake (and also stupid, all the more so nowadays with radar, “smart bombs” and God knows what), yet not a deliberate war crime.

    • Replies: @szopen
  81. @John Regan

    They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism.

    Gee whizz, Hitler had the bright future for Russians somewhere in his heart. Just..he somehow failed to communicate his hidden sympathies to them.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  82. Wally says:
    @historicus

    said:
    “The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of choosing sides in foreign conflicts.”

    That’s only partially correct.
    The main reason is that it is the founding myth of the ridiculous & impossible “holocaust” narrative, aka: The Big Lie.
    While revisionist views on WWII generally will not result in imprisonment, free speech on the “holocaust” scam will.

    Below is where free speech on the truly impossible “holocaust” storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes. In all western countries, persecution, harassment, violent attacks & threats are the order of the day against those who engage in free speech about the impossible claims within it.
    Those are obvious admissions that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    .

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  83. iffen says:
    @szopen

    Matthew 7:6

    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

  84. a truth very widely recognized in political and media circles but almost never publicly voiced

    .

    And who is the responsible for that? The 2% of American Jews who react in the way we know if that kind of truth is voiced publicly… or the other 98%, who react (or don’t react) in the way we know when that kind of truth is voiced publicly?

    Non-Jews know if they voice such things they will be the target of virtue-signaling, social status one-upping played by their coethnics. Whites are the masters at these games. A good, consummate White minds very little, if at all, what people of other races do in and with the nation, parliament, constitution, legal courts: what concerns him/her a lot is pointing their finger to coethnics with disgust, and saying or implying “I am not one like that”.
    This probably has some effect, when you multiply it by millions of people, and tens upon tens of subject issues, or hasn’t it?

  85. @szopen

    Polish witnesses remember

    Such a “testimony” carries no weight. It’s what the “holohoax” was created from. The Germans, beginning with the Polish-German war, had teams of respectable, experienced judges who took depositions under oath from soldiers and others about events and atrocities that were seen and personally experienced. These were gathered into files and covered pretty thoroughly by Alfred de Zayas in his book, “Wehrmacht War Crimes
    Bureau 1939-1945.” There is a chapter on Poland. You can listen to it read here: https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau-1939-1945-part-7

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Anon
  86. Truth3 says:

    As with all issues of our time… IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JEWS.

    Jews have attempted a complete take-over of the World, in a way that requires their coercion of a large part of the planet with the destruction of smaller pockets. First Major Target? Palestine.

    For example…

    The Palestinians were a small pocket and first target… easy to steal the land and destroy the people. But their unfair destruction obviously upsets John Q Public… so it must be propagandized into ‘self defense’… The Palestinians (They are just like the SS! in wanting to kill every Joo!) are Terrorist Jew Haters! Israel Must Defend Itself! (((Even as it steals, tortures, murders))).

    Every bit of Twentieth Century History must likewise be bent to the Joo Boo Hoo version. Jews are only victims, never victimizers.

    Twenty First Century as well… 9/11 Jew False Flag must become (((They Hate Us for Our Freedoms))) bullshit and stuffed down America’s throat.

    The ONLY way to stop the Lying Jew agenda… TRUTH. Massive Truth. Irrefutable Truth. Truth With a Capital T. Truth that stings when it lands. Truth that enrages the population against the Liars.

    Well done, Mr. Unz. The Palestinians should make a Statue of you and place it in East Jerusalem.

  87. tagaruda says:
    @Tom67

    I believe those numbers are grossly exaggerated, like anything that can used to slander Germans and detract from other, and more criminal. parties. My understanding is that Hitler agreed to euthanize a child after the mother wrote to him on behalf of her severely handicapped son, but that euthanasia never caught on in Germany quite as much as it did in America.

    The Model Eugenic Sterilization Law was published in 1922 by Harry Laughlin. The law led to the sterilization of over 20,000 Americans and served as the basis of the Nuremberg laws adopted by the Nazis. The USA applied Eugenics Laws, taught Germany to do it, and then blamed Hitler.

    In 1931, Precott Bush and George Walker hosted the Third International Congress of Eugenics. The purpose of the event was to call for the sterilization of fourteen million Americans.
    The same year, 27 American states had enacted sterilisation laws to allow the compulsory sterilisation of certain categories such as the feebleminded and morons. By 1941, almost 36,000 individuals in the US had been compulsorily sterilised under such laws. The trend spread: within a few years a number of European countries had followed suit with compulsory sterilisation. These included not only Nazi Germany, but also Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.

    In 1932, “Plan for Peace” by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger is published. She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks,” including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
    [The American Birth Control League eventually becomes Planned Parenthood}

    From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated

    August 21-23, 1932, the The British-led Third International Congress on Eugenics elected as its president Dr. Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist who directed the various branches of the Rockefeller-founded/funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, and designated Rudin president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose HEREDITY made them a public burden. A year before Hitler and Roosevelt came to power

    King George V was murdered under the pretext of euthanasia by his own physician Lord Dawson of Penn in 1936.

    In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death. “After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

    The Liverpool Care Pathway was a policy of enforced euthanasia practiced in free and democratic UK until recently, and 21 other countries
    Box-ticking NHS staff turned killing patients into an industry, says top doctor
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179340/How-Mail-killed-death-pathway-Box-ticking-NHS-staff-turned-killing-patients-industry-says-doctor.html

    If, as you say, to be a Jew in Germany amounted to a death sentence, then how did so many survive to claim ‘holocaust’ reparations post war? Why were they not simply all shot with a cheap bullet in the head as Stalin would have done the job? Why did the Germans lavish such care on them as to provide theater, movie, football entertainments, and hospitals, doctors clinics, dentists and midwife facilities for their new-born? Why did Germany have workshops to train them for productive careers? Why did Germany even continue to feed them while German rations were cut?

    • Replies: @Tom67
    , @Tom67
  88. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    – But your “Holocaust Industry” says they went to enormous mass graves and that the alleged human remains of millions upon millions are in known locations … except they are not there.
    Obviously they actually went where Jews are.
    Just one example:

    “After the war, many Jews stayed in Europe and many others scattered throughout the world, settling in nearly sixty countries. So it was that in the late 1990s the teams put in charge by Steven Spielberg of gathering survivors’ testimonies had to go to nearly sixty different countries to record the said testimonies on video
    https://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/03/alleged-holocaust-of-jews-is-proving.html

    much more:
    https://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/?highlight=graf+canard#comment-3389543

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. siamdave says:

    another!! – ‘While Petain’s fully-legitimate French government was negotiating with Germany, a small number of diehards, including Col. Charles de Gaulle, deserted from the army and fled aboard, declaring that…’ – should be ‘fled abroad’. I suspect – if the moderator lets you read it … not quite clear why my comments ‘are awaiting moderation’ …

  90. German_reader says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind

    One can see it like that, but to claim “50-60% of Russians to be physically eliminated” pretends a certainty which doesn’t exist. Such claims of plans for mega-genocide (which aren’t entirely invented, but often weakly substantiated, e.g. the so-called Hungerplan is actually doubted even by many mainstream historians) are bound to create doubts and will be grist to the mill of the “Hitler did nothing wrong” revisionists seen here.
    The reality is bad enough in any case.

    Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise, more than others (Gypsies excluded)

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere. As racist as Nazi views of Slavs certainly often were, there was a lot more ambivalence in that regard.
    I don’t believe the claims about a Europe-wide genocide of gypsies tbh. Nazis probably killed a lot of them, maybe even a majority, in some countries like Poland and parts of Yugoslavia. But many countries with large gypsy populations (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) weren’t under German occupation for most of the war. Given how many gypsies there are today in those countries, Nazi persecution can’t have had that much of an impact.

  91. Skeptikal says:

    I plan to read all of this amazing contribution when I have done my quota on my day job.

    Meanwhile, though, I want to mention (again) the amazing Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich , by Guido Preparata

    Ron: Please read this book.

  92. Zumbuddi says:
    @Flint Clint

    Much to agree with.

    Re Was Hitler a Zionist agent?

    The intricasies of Hitler’s ascent remain to be fully explored.
    At very least Hitler fits Jeff Gate’s definition of an asset — FDR’S friend Putzi Hanfstaengel encouraged & financially supported his writing & publication of Mein Kampf; Alfred Balfour’s niece, Mrs Dugdale, arranged for its translation into English for publication/dissemination in USA, in collaboration with the Jewish Zionists led by US SC Justice [sic] Louis Brandeis.

  93. Jake says:

    Perhaps the most important assertion ever made by Ron Unz: “Ironically enough, German Intelligence learned of this massive bribery of British parliamentarians, and passed the information along to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was horrified to discover the corrupt motives of his fierce political opponents, but apparently remained too much of a gentlemen to have them arrested and prosecuted. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.”

    Winston Churchill was evil, on a level playing field with Stalin and Hitler. FDR was bad enough. but he was a boy compared to Churchill. Even Hitler’s evil was naive compared to Churchill’s evil.

  94. @Bardon Kaldian

    No. He wanted Russia to be a subordinate, essentially colonial dependency for Germany to use as a captive market for its industries, so he would be able to compete with global American capitalism capitalism in economies of scale. He realized that you need a domestic market of hundreds of millions of people (like US, Russia, China) to be an economic superpower.

    Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his “Table Talk” conversations: Just like India was the market for Britain’s textile industries in the 19th century, Russia would be the market for Germany’s modern industries in the 20th. (In those, if you check them, he incidentally also used a lot of hyperbole about wanting the Russian rank and file to be illiterate, though in the official policy documents he wanted a compulsory elementary school for them. Which, of course, makes infinitely better economic sense.)

    Hitler did want meritocracy within his empire: Russians who were of good character and “good race” were to be given German work permits and citizenship if they applied for it, just like Dutchmen, poles and anyone else who was Aryan (that is, “White”). So kind of a H1B option, more like India is for America in the 21st century than it was for Britain in the 19th. I guess you could say he wanted a “bright future” for them. But the big mass of Russians he wanted to stay in Russia, and to be banned from moving to Germany (which he wanted to remain ethnically German, with only a relatively small leavening of bright foreigners).

    However, in order to be good consumers of German exports, the Russians in Russia still had to have their living standards raised over the squalor of Bolshevism. Hitler thought that was absolutely necessary. So in the end, they would benefit, even if they remained subordinate and disprivileged compared to the Germans.

    Of course, these were long-term plans, spanning over decades. Hitler and his planning staff still anticipated that many Russians would die in the war (which of course happened in real life, even though they won it), and weren’t extremely sad about that. But it wasn’t a specific aim of German policy to cause those deaths. In more modern lingo that wasn’t yet used at the time, they were collateral damage from destroying the Communist superstate and establishing a German economic and political sphere of influence.

    Of course, this makes the Nazis sound… well, not exactly nice, but far less evil than Stalin was comfortable with, given potential comparisons to his own record. Which is why he had his propaganda commissars bruit the nonsense that the Nazis wanted to murder all Russians (and/or all “Slavs” for good measure). And incidentally, such a demonic image also fit very well with how certain other powerful vested interests, these ones operating in the “Western” world’s media, academia and assorted institutions, wanted to portray a regime they hated for their own reasons. Though Stalin is long gone, these other ones are still going strong, and still keeping up his good work.

    I again recommend that you read the Madajczyk book I referred to, if you read German. It will add considerably to your understanding of World War II. If you don’t read German, there is another good book by one Dr. Rainer Zitelmann that has been translated and is called “Hitler: The Policies of Seduction” in English. That one is more about Hitler’s general ideology and policy, but touches on these issues also.

    History isn’t binary. You don’t have to think Hitler and the Germans were angels from Heaven, any more than you have to buy that they were demons from Hell. But in this day and age, with so much material available fairly easily (and often even free on the Internet), there are few excuses left for believing the recycled Soviet propaganda your video was promoting.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @PhucQ
  95. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    The bodies, according to the standard history, were cremated, not buried. As for the question, I did not ask where they went after the war, I asked where they were during the war.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Bookish1
  96. @German_reader

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere. As racist as Nazi views of Slavs certainly often were, there was a lot more ambivalence in that regard.

    True, Jews had in Nazi world-view almost mythological significance. But, to be more down to earth … typical Jews (Golda Meir, Kissinger,..) don’t look Euro-white :

    (while all Slavic peoples, from Czechs to Russians are whites).

    But many countries with large gypsy populations (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) weren’t under German occupation for most of the war. Given how many gypsies there are today in those countries, Nazi persecution can’t have had that much of an impact.

    Correct.

    • Replies: @Alden
  97. Wally says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    said:
    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances”

    LOL
    There was no “Generalplan Ost”, that easily debunked lie has shredded here:

    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12639
    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12254
    and:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=Generalplan+Ost+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Replies: @German_reader
  98. Jake says:
    @Germanicus

    Well, Freemasonry is Brit WASP invention. Its purpose was to use male bonding in a social circle, one demanding secrecy, to promote the goals and wealth and powers of the Brit WASP Elite.

    Obviously there were forbears, and analogues, but what the Brit WASPs created took the world by storm. And it always was allied with Jewish money. Its purpose was not merely to expand the Brit Empire, but to expand what the Brit WASP Empire meant and stood for: a global replacement of Christendom.

    You can’t talk about the many awful things done by Masons around the globe, because that will lead people to start asking about the role of WASP Elite culture in forging the hellhole of Modernist cultural polluting and murdering.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  99. @Anonymous

    You’re not going to get a very satisfactory answer from the Nazis dipshits at Unz.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  100. So basically, Lindbergh was right about pretty much everything.

    And I agree, putting a bullet in Churchill’s fat head would have saved the world a great deal of heartache.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Republic
  101. Saggy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    where did the Jews who were deported by the German government during WWII, who were not fit for labor,(i.e., children, eldery, and disabled) go?

    The Nazis were meticulous record keepers, the allies captured the records and hid them. The Russians released the Auschwitz records in 1989, and the stone plaque at the gate to Auschwitz that stated the fantasy that 4 million had been murdered there was replaced by one stating the fantasy that 1.5 million had been murdered there. You can read about the records here … http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/about-the-available-data/death-records/sterbebucher
    Here’s what they look like …

    The records captured by the US/Brits where hidden until recently …. and are still hidden to all but the select in Bad Arolsen Germany, https://booksandideas.net/Opening-the-Nazi-archives-at-Bad.html, https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/winter/iwg.html
    One organization has access to all the records, the ITS, https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/, they have a staff of over 500 (I think) and have been researching the question you ask for 70 years. However, they won’t tell you where the Jews went, as it would invade their privacy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Curmudgeon
  102. @Wally

    The main reason is that it is the founding myth of the ridiculous & impossible “holocaust” narrative, aka: The Big Lie.

    The simple truth is, the big lie serves as founding myth and justification for Israel, despite the Balfour declaration in 1917 and thousands of Jews moving to Palestine way before WWII. Rothschild have been active in Palestine since the 1850ies, the same time the 6 million lie started to appear regularly.

    Without holyhoax, Israel cannot survive, it has become the defacto religion of Jews and brainwashed non jews, just like Democracy, the Big Bang, Relativity and Evolution from apes. All lies serving as a religion. Doubters are treated as heretics burnt on the public media pyre.

    • Agree: Dennis Gannon
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  103. Saggy says: • Website

    A great article … I started with Buchanan’s book maybe a year ago …. and while I learned a lot from this article I think there are 3 references that were not mentioned that are important to understanding what brought Britain into the war, Carroll Quigley (The Anglo-American Establishment), a court historians account of the machinations of The Round Table group, Douglass Reed (‘The Zionist Controvery’) , a well known journalist before the war and a non-person after the war who traces the causes back to the Torah, and Wyndham Lewis, who wrote ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Start a War About Nothing’ three years before the war began …. a few quotes ….

    [MORE]

    As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

    The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

    There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

  104. Bill says:
    @anon

    Was Churchill not a Zionist in your world?

  105. Saggy says: • Website

    The most popular high-school history text in the US is McGraw-Hills’ ‘Traditions and Encounters’, this is the full page pic of Hitler from the book …

    On the facing page the text, headed … ‘The Birth of a Monster’

  106. German_reader says:
    @Wally

    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews:

    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf

    It’s on page 308 (page 28 in the pdf):

    Daß man die Polenfrage nicht in dem Sinne lösen kann, daß man die Polen, wie die Juden, liquidiert, dürfte auf der Hand liegen. Eine derartige Lösung der Polenfrage würde das deutsche Volk bis in die ferne Zukunft belasten und uns überall die Sympathien nehmen, zumal auch die anderen Nachbarvölker damit rechnen müßten, bei gegebener Zeit ähnlich behandelt zu werden.

    also on p. 317 (p. 37 in the pdf):

    Das, was von anderen gefährlichen Rassenbestandteilen in das russische Volk eingedrungen ist, ist zahlenmäßig nicht mehr so bedeutend, zumal die jüdischen Mischlinge ausgemerzt sein werden und die tatarischen Blutsanteile offensichtlich viel stärker in dem zugrundege-gangenen Adel und der zaristischen Intelligenz als im russischen Bauerntum vor-handen gewesen sein dürften.

    Mischlinge of part-Jewish ancestry will have been eliminated within Russia’s population.

    It’s pretty clear in the context of the document that this can only refer to physical destruction, that is mass murder, of Jews.
    But I suppose you’ll claim anyway that it’s just fake.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
    , @John Regan
  107. @Jake

    WASP as in Puritans? The Judaizers?
    No gate keeping please.
    E Michael Jones talks about this in length, but he does not obfuscate the issue with “Wasp”, it’s the Jews and their Sayanim helpers, who have been waging war against Europe and Christendom since 70 AD.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  108. SafeNow says:

    It appears that possessing what I call “the talking gene” is enormously influential. Fluency, combined with a thesaurus located inside the brain, instantly accessible. Professors, pundits, journalists, lawyers, and, governmental advisors. Now, combine that listened-to skill with also possessing the profit gene, and what do you think you get?

  109. @Bardon Kaldian

    Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they’re almost completely guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany’s miseries during 1940s (false).

    Indeed. The meticulous examination of forgotten facts is breathtaking, but then the analysis is made less persuasive by overstatement.

    In 1939, America persuaded Poland not to negotiate with Germany, and persuaded Britain and France to offer Poland a guarantee. It is true that these decisions turned Germany’s repeated expansions into what we now call World War II. But if American leaders believed that war against Germany was inevitable, it was surely in America’s interests to get other countries to do the fighting. In 1939 nobody anticipated that France, still a great military power, would be defeated so rapidly. It was the fall of France, as much as Churchill’s failures, that caused FDR’s plan to fail.

    Of course, war in 1939 would also have been avoided if Hitler had decided not to invade Poland – or at least not to invade Poland yet. It is not easy to cast Hitler as blameless.

    The Suvorov hypothesis is interesting and is very likely correct; but even if it is accepted, it does not mean that Hitler was not also preparing to invade the Soviet Union, and had to bring his plans forward.

    The bombing of cities began by accident. A German bomber returning from a raid on a military target in Britain dropped its unused bombs to lighten its load and shorten its journey time. The pilot believed he was flying over countryside, but in fact he was over London in blackout. Churchill retaliated with his raids on Berlin; Hitler retaliated with his blitz on British cites, and the cycle of retaliation and escalation ended with the terrible and unnecessary destruction of German cities.

  110. @SolontoCroesus

    The same blacklisting has happened to the honest historians who questioned Lincoln’s bloody tyranny in keeping the almighty Union together at the expense of 650,000+ deaths, civilian and military. Per the Constitution, the South had every legal right to peacefully secede from the “Voluntary Republic,” but no young students will ever read about that in our deplorable government schools. How could they when the socialist Pledge they recite at the beginning of every day tells them that the nation is “indivisible?”

    Sorry to digress from Mr. Unz’ excellent scholarship (I’m only part way thru it so far), but, from an American standpoint, I find the blacklisting parallels of dissident scholars of these two needless bloody wars to be worth pointing out.

  111. @German_reader

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere.

    That is the Judeocentric narrative promoted by the ADL and friends. According to them, the evil Nazis were simply superstitious about anti-Semitism: they hated Jews simply for existing. Obviously, no one intelligent could ever support such unreasonable people.

    This is, of course, merely another ahistorical caricature. It has been demolished more times than anyone can hope to keep track of, including by our host Ron Unz in his article on Nazi-Zionist collaboration:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/

    Another very good article on the same topic is this one by Hugh Murray:

    http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaffirmativeaction.htm

    But since most people don’t want to read long essays, I’ll just state the obvious: If the Nazis had really believed Jews were “an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere” as the Judeocentric propaganda claims, they would hardly have spent every year from 1933 to 1940 encouraging hundreds of thousands of them to emigrate away from Germany to America and other places where they would obviously be out of reach from being destroyed.

    The truth of the matter is that the Nazis were anti-Semites, because (rightly or wrongly) they thought the Jews parasitized on their economy and corrupted their culture. They wanted the Jews gone from their country, and preferably from other countries near it also so they couldn’t sneak back in. But what happened to the Jews afterward didn’t matter to them, as long as they just went away and stayed gone.

    In 1940, it became impossible to “export” the Jews to America, since FDR didn’t want them. (Or to be more precise, he didn’t personally mind them, but he knew public opinion in the US didn’t want the country swamped with millions of Jews, so as a politician he kept out most of them.) The Nazis then studied other ideas for how to get rid of them. One that they took over from the old pre-war Polish government (which also felt it had a difficult Jewish problem) was to move them to Madagascar:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

    Only after this, too, failed (the Royal Navy blocked transport of the Jews there) did the Nazis resort to more robust measures. If FDR (or Churchill) had been willing to take the Jews, Hitler would have been glad to let them have them. He said so himself more than once:

    [MORE]

    The peoples of the world will realize within a short time that National Socialist Germany does not desire to elicit the enmity of other peoples.

    Allegations of the aggressive designs entertained by our Volk on other peoples are the products of a deranged, hysterical mind or blatant lies by certain politicians struggling for survival. In certain states, businessmen void of any conscience try to save their financial interests by propagating these lies. Above all, it is international Jewry which seeks thereby to gratify its thirst for vengeance and its insatiable hunger for profit. And this constitutes the greatest libelous claim ever levied against a great and peace-loving Volk.

    After all, German soldiers have never fought on American soil other than for the cause of America’s independence and freedom. Yet American soldiers were shipped to Europe and contributed to the suppression of a great nation struggling to preserve its liberty. It was not Germany that attacked America; it was America that attacked Germany. And it did so, according to the findings of an investigative committee in the American House of Representatives, without any compelling reason, other than perhaps capitalist considerations.

    Nevertheless, let there be no doubt as to one point: all these attempts will not in the least sway Germany from its reckoning with Jewry. I would like to say the following on the Jewish question: it is truly a shameful display when we see today the entire democratic world filled with tears of pity at the plight of the poor, tortured Jewish people, while remaining hardhearted and obstinate in view of what is therefore its obvious duty: to help. All the arguments with which they seek to justify their non-intervention lend only further support to the stance of Germans and Italians in this matter.

    For this is what they say: “We”—that is the democracies—“cannot possibly admit the Jews!” And this those world powers claim who can boast no more than ten persons per square kilometer while we must accommodate and feed 135 persons per square kilometer.

    […]

    Do not reproach me on the grounds of your humanitarian concerns. The German Volk does not wish to be governed by another people; it does not wish others to determine its affairs in its place. France to the French; England to the English; America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans! We are determined to undercut the efforts of a certain foreign people to nest here; a people whose members knew how to capture all leading positions. We will banish this people. We are willing to educate our own Volk to assume these leadership functions. We have hundreds of thousands of the most intelligent children of peasants and workers. We will have them educated, and we are already educating them. We are hoping that one day we can place them in all leading positions within the state along with others from our educated classes.

    No longer shall these be occupied by members of a people alien to us.

    […]

    It is possible that the necessity of resolving this problem sooner or later should bring about agreement in Europe, even between nations which otherwise might not have reconciled themselves as readily with one another. There is more than enough room for settlement on this earth. All we need to do is put an end to the prevailing assumption that the Dear Lord chose the Jewish people to be the beneficiaries of a certain percentage of the productive capacities of other peoples’ bodies and their labors. Either the Jews will have to adjust to constructive, respectable activities, such as other people are already engaged in, or, sooner or later, they will succumb to a crisis of yet inconceivable proportions.

    Source of quote:
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_Address_to_the_Reichstag_(30_January_1939)

    • Replies: @German_reader
  112. During the 1990s, Buchanan had ranked as one of America’s most prominent political figures, having an enormous media footprint in both print and television, and with his remarkably strong insurgent runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996 cementing his national stature.

    This doesn’t make Pat a good historian, much less good military historian. Irving is to military history what I am to Chinese Choreography. In general, there is no WW II history without Eastern Front and what happened there but this is the topic very few in Anglo-American historiography have good command of. Nor have they a good grasp of the military-economic scales involved, nor of the scales of atrocities committed there. In the end, History, especially “diplomatic”, “political” or any other history for that matter is not a precise science, in fact, I would argue it is not the science at all, hence a curse of “range of interpretations” which consistently produce low quality revisionism towards one or another ideological narrative. Exoneration of Nazism primarily in the Anglophone world will continue and it has very little to do with “new” or old “insights” into the nature of German National Socialism (there are none) but primarily tailored to a state modern West finds itself in–a constant and accelerating decline across the board, from economy to intellectual capacity. After all, there is always Frank Ellis to fall back to. Of course, few really make a connection that current decline of the West, to a very large degree, is precipitated, among many other factors, by complete inability to orient itself in historic reality of the XX and XXI centuries.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @L.K
  113. The patriotic work of America First was more successful than is realised.

    The Soviet Union had 20 million war dead, including 9 million combatants. By delaying America’s entry to WWII until after Operation Barbarossa, America First ensured that it was the Soviet Union and not the USA that fought to the death against Germany, and suffered these colossal casualties. America First saved many millions of American lives, and it is invidious that its proponents have now been unpersoned, and the movement itself stigmatised.

    It is also dangerous, because the “never again” crowd wants Americans to unlearn the lesson that early intervention in foreign wars is not always in their best interests. They think nothing of expending millions of American lives in pursuit of their own foreign goals: shouldn’t they be the ones who are unpersoned?

  114. @German_reader

    You take a text written in 1958 as fact? In occupied Germany, that just had experienced the terror of “denazification” and deliberate starvation dubbed “liberation”?

    You got to be joking, IFZ Munich, pfft.
    Isn’t this the “institute” where the Jew Wolfson writes his lies and drivel from?

    My radar has you detected as a IFZ shill or simply a typical BRD shill, who has no clue about anything, but about ideology only. Your comment history suggests it, always ideologically in line with the official narrative.

    • Replies: @Druid
  115. szopen says:
    @tagaruda

    And now defend raising Frampol to the ground. Or maybe subhuman Slavs does not count, as usual when you talk with Nazi apologists.

    • Replies: @tagaruda
    , @Wally
  116. Ron Unz says:
    @David Martin

    Very comprehensive. James Bacque’s work on American atrocities in post-war Germany was new to me, but Unz seems to be unaware of Thomas Gallagher’s much more recent writing:

    Sure, I read Hellstorm’s very gripping book several years ago, and indeed last year made arrangements to include it in my HTML Books section, though I’ve never gotten around to doing so.

    But it’s a secondary work, drawing from the ground-breaking material of Bacque and numerous others, and I chose to mention the John Wear book instead, since it covers a much wider range of issues surrounding World War II. Perhaps I should have mentioned it as well.

  117. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    Yawn.
    You dodged what I posted, pay attention:
    again:

    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12254

    And if your Jews were ‘exterminated”, then why don’t we see the alleged millions upon millions of alleged human remains that those like you claim exist?

    And why can’t you show us the original ‘Generalplan Ost’ documents?
    Becuase they do not exist, that’s why
    Your .pdf is not an original document, only unsubstantiated propaganda of the sort that Ron speaks on in the articlel under discussion.

  118. PeterMX says:

    An excellent article. There are many things I could write to show my agreement with everything Mr. Unz writes. When Mr. Unz comments on the complete lack of any mentioning of Jews being involved in starting the war, it makes me think of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to a Jewish group (still on Youtube) in which he says Jews comprised 80 to 85% of the first USSR government. The National Socialist government agreed, calling the USSR Jewish-Bolshevik. It also reminds me of an excellent 5 part article Dr. Andrew Joyce wrote for The Occidental Observer in which he discusses constant Jewish activity against Germany immediately upon Hitler taking power, including economically boycotting Germany, organizing anti-German rallies around the world within two months of Hitler taking power, and at least two poitical assassinations of German and pro-German politicians in Europe prior to the beginning of the war.

    Despite Jews deep involvement in political activity against Germany prior to the war beginning and then during the war, Jews completely disappear from the history books once the war is over, except as victims. This, and their dominant position in the USSR demonstrates how completely fraudulent the mainstream history narratives are. If you consider Jews leading role in the USSR and Germany’s intense criticism of Jews and communism, you could interpret WW II as essentially a war between German led Europeans and Jewish led communist and capitalist countries (USSR, France and Great Britain and USA). Jews had very strong influence in all four of those countries (communist and capitalist), while volunteers from all over Europe joined the Waffen SS or sent their own volunteers to fight the USSR, as in Spain’s case.

    Jews are without question the most powerful nation in the world today and that is a result of their victory in WW II. I believe this is why Hitler framed the war as a war to defend German and European interests, with Jews and the USA being outsiders. If Germany had won the war, Jews influence in the world would be much, much less than it is today. There would be a lot less Jews in Europe, including many less in leading roles and they would have been relocated to Madagascar or perhaps somewhere else, but they would not be dictating to other world powers as Israel does today. You could say Stalin was wrong when he said the Vatican was powerless because it had no army. The immense power Jews have has nothing to do having a powerful miitary.

    • Replies: @bored of lies
  119. @James N. Kennett

    By delaying America’s entry to WWII until after Operation Barbarossa, America First ensured that it was the Soviet Union and not the USA that fought to the death against Germany, and suffered these colossal casualties. America First saved many millions of American lives, and it is invidious that its proponents have now been unpersoned, and the movement itself stigmatised.

    Oh, goody, and why am I doping this. First, Great Britain had a much larger role than any America First (starting from ABC consultations in March 1941) and further with Britons dominating Western Allied war planning till Tehran Conference in November 1943, making sure that at that time all available US resources would be utilized at the secondary, but important for Britain, theaters of operations. Secondly, American “uprising” against British dominance happened at Casablanca with General Stanley Embik’s memorandum circulated there for American delegation (including FDR) about “primrose path” of British military planning sought only to serve British imperial interests, not fighting Nazi Germany. USSR had 27 million dead.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  120. Malla says:

    James Perloff Hitler vs the Elite Cabal of International Bankers

  121. @PeterMX

    basically this
    one by one the countries of europe fell to the jewish power in the last two centuries and germany was the last stand to reverse the jewish dystopia where were heading.

    hitler was right nearly about everything but we need another tactics if we want to survive.

  122. Whether Hitler wanted a war with Britain or not, he didn’t mind having one. And whether Holocaust skepticism is warranted or not, Hitler and his Nazi cronies thought the Jews, along with the communists, were the key scapegoats to rail against.

    Buchanan, Irving, et. al, are the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” historians, purveyors of the counterfactuals. “Hey, Adolf, we’ll give you the Rhineland, Danzig,and the Sudetenland, and then you’ll just bid your time, leave the Poles alone, and then you can line up the Panzers, dash through Poland and take care of the smallpox ridden Georgian sitting in Kremlin.:”

    Yeah, THAT coulda happened.

    Churchill understood, through all his faults, that Hitler was a totalitarian, and totalitarisns do two things: (1) ashcan parliamentary systems of government, and (2) invade AND conquer other countries.. The first invariably leads to the second, as sure as night follows day

    • Troll: Druid
    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Druid
  123. Bookish1 says:
    @PJ London

    Much of what you say has already happened but now the reverse is starting to happen and the germans are starting to look good.

  124. Wally says:
    @James N. Kennett

    said:
    “A German bomber returning from a raid on a military target in Britain dropped its unused bombs to lighten its load and shorten its journey time. The pilot believed he was flying over countryside, but in fact he was over London in blackout.”

    LOL.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target .

    said:
    “Of course, war in 1939 would also have been avoided if Hitler had decided not to invade Poland – or at least not to invade Poland yet.

    except:
    – Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion.Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.

    – It is also important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.
    more:
    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

  125. @German_reader

    Since you obviously read German quite well, surely you know that actually, you can indeed make the argument that neither “liquidieren” nor “ausmerzen” necessarily refers to physical extermination, even in the context of Wetzel’s memorandum. Though it’s easier to make that case with the second than the first, of course.

    Nonetheless, there is some ambiguity, since Wetzel only refers to the Jews in passing, never specifying what he means. For example, the “liquidation” in view may concern the Jews as a corporate entity, rather than as individuals. If the Jewish entity in question is deprived of all its supporting institutions and cultural constructs, it could be considered liquidated, depending on how one defines such things. This would still be a drastic degree of liquidation much in excess of what Wetzel speculates on for other peoples, and thus fit the context.

    I’m not saying that’s necessarily the correct interpretation, either. Just that it can be made. As those of us who read German can tell, the document in general certainly comes across as remarkably cold-blooded either way, given its topic. No worse than much similar fare on the “Allied” side, one might say, such as the Morgenthau Plan or the preliminary discussions on the Nurembergs Trials, but unpleasant even so. Perhaps, to be fair, we should bear in mind that this was only research and discussion, not policy to be implemented. Yet, as you correctly noted earlier, it’s illustrative of a certain mindset within the bureaucracy.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  126. schrub says:

    General Dwight Eisenhower’s direct involvement in the deaths of the German prisoners of war in the postwar years of 1945-1946 brings up some other questions.

    Such as how did Eisenhower, who had no combat experience (he had sat out World War One in the USA) and who also had virtually no high level organizational experience much above brigade level (because of his meager rank as an officer in the late 1930s ) manage to to jump over almost 200 vastly more experienced and much higher ranked generals to end up commanding troops in
    Europe ?

    Was Eisenhower able to do this because he was the protege of the immensely powerful Bernard Baruch? Ike’s connection to Baruch might have gone as far back as far 1931 when the two apparently first met. The next time I personally came upon a connection was their joint appearance at a seemingly obscure 1935 military conference.

    Just how close were the pair? Plenty close. Follow this link:
    https://www.jta.org/1953/08/20/archive/eisenhower-lauds-baruch-at-dedication-ceremony-in-new-york

    This brings up another question. Just how influential was in fact the very mysterious Bernard Baruch? We just have to look at his influence in the earlier Woodrow Wilson administration for an early example.

    In 1916 Baruch had managed to get himself appointed chairman of the new War Industries Board despite his status as nothing more than a mere stock speculator having absolutely no experience in large scale heavy industrial organization whatsoever. One of Baruch’s major effort’s in this post was apparently to help set up a copper cartel headed by his friend Solomon Guggenheim in order to control the sale of vitally needed wartime copper to the US government. . This cartel then royally fleeced American taxpayers as a result of blatant war profiteering. This fleecing occurred not only with the sale of copper at artificially inflated copper prices before and during the war but afterwards as well when copper prices were artificially depressed in order to allow the cartel the ability to buy back surplus US government copper at significantly lower prices. Henry Ford was apparently well aware of what was going on and was appalled by what the cartel had done. .

    Attempts by the so called Nye Commission in the early 1920s to investigate the wartime copper cartel and its connection to Baruch were ineffective because of negative or outright hostile publicity in the media. The Democrats in congress were also particularly apathetic about the investigation. The investigation simply fizzled out leaving the enormous fraud virtually un-investigated and unknown to this day.

    Another question should be, was Baruch so influential that he could recommend his to “best pal” Franklin Roosevelt Eisenhower’s promotion to head American troops in Europe despite Ike’s meager qualifications .

    Short answer: you bet he was. FDR was so friendly with Baruch that FDR was to later spend a full month in 1944 living at Baruch’s enormous South Caroline estate, apparently gratis. How FDR was able to explain such a huge absence on his part from his duties in wartime Washington DC is still a mystery.

    Baruch, BTW, was an even closer friend of Winston Churchill, that most notorious of all freeloaders who was another key participant along with FDR in what became the Morgenthau Plan, the genocidal plan that it is claimed was never implemented but actually was as regards to German POWs and post war German refugees.

    In addition, both Ike and Churchill had foolishly made themselves blackmail-able and therefore controllable during and after World War Two. Ike as a result of with his wartime relationship with his mistress Kay Summersby and Churchill with his very close relationship with his red headed and much younger (and very good looking) Irish male “friend” Brendan Bracken. You can bet that some interesting photos of both these two men’s extra curricular activities are in the files of both the wartime OSS (and later it successor the CIA) and the Mossad.).

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093439/Was-Winston-secretly-GAY.html

  127. szopen says:
    @John Regan

    The Germans thought there were ground troops there, and so treated it as a military target.

    Aand so they raised to the ground the whole city?!

    Emmerling lives in Germany, BTW, since 1982. Marius is German name, not Polish (Polish would be Mariusz). He speaks Polish, but I do not think you can say he is “Polish” historian. I haven’t read his book, but I’ve read the threads where he argues with Polish amateurs and half-professionals. Yes, there were Polish soldiers nearby; and in Luftwaffe documents it mentions hitting Polish transports. But the fact is Frampol was almost completely destroyed. In the most favourable case it was Luftwaffe hitting everything in the hope Polish units will be hit too, without caring at all about civilians. The same was about Wieluń: before war soldiers were garrisoned in the city, so the Luftwaffe hit the civilian buldings near the market, assuming that… Polish soldiers would be garrisoned inside. Wow. Ok, I can understand someone saying that this was valid military target, even if noe soldiers were killed and all victims were civilian; but I can’t understand when someone was saying that Luftwaffe behaved noble and tried to avoid civilian casualties, when it’s clear they were not.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  128. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    Wise up.
    The “holocaust Industry”, not Revisionists claim that many millions of human remains exist in known locations, but in fact do not.
    Cremated corpses cannot, do not magically disappear.
    You are defending a narrative which you obviously do not know much about.

    “The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”
    – Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87

    Please educate yourself before you try do debate.
    recommended:
    Babi Yar: The alleged Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: https://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    And of course at alleged extermination sites we see claims of those huge mass graves / remains:
    Sobibor ‘monument’ supposedly over the remains of 250,000 Jew, actual remains of the alleged 250,000 cannot be shown.
    Alleged “ash pond” for an alleged 1.1M Jew remains at Auschwitz, however these alleged remains cannot be shown to exist.Alleged location of Treblinka mass graves / remains of 900,000 Jews according to Treblinka officials, no alleged remains exist.
    – photo from ‘Surviving Treblinka’, by Samuel Willenberg.It is captioned: “crane lifting corpses destined for cremation”.
    Does anyone see any “corpses”?

  129. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You have to be kidding me. Polish testimonies are weightless, but German ones are reliable. That’s you whole attitude. As in the previous discussion, when the other guy asked “Why Germany attacked neutral Belgium?” and you answer was surprised more or less “Because it needed to defeat France”. I am no longer shocked by your double standards.

  130. Notice how “War” is being bandied about by the tribe? Somehow, this term will find its way into more articles, while documentaries will resurface to mark some ‘anniversary’ of a significant wartime event. Jews get what they want, and they want the U.S. to attack Iran. Naturally, they’ll be safely barricaded behind that big WALL in Israel.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  131. German_reader says:
    @John Regan

    If the Nazis had really believed Jews were “an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere” as the Judeocentric propaganda claims, they would hardly have spent every year from 1933 to 1940

    I mentioned the Madagascar plan in my first comment in this thread. But imo my assessment stands for the period from June 1941 onwards.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  132. Zionism is the greatest enemy that America faces!

    As far as I can see Zionism is the ONLY enemy the US people face.

  133. @Wally

    LOL.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.

    It was 1940. Pilots navigated by the stars. All British cities were under blackout. There was no streetlighting, and indoor lighting was prohibited unless the building had blackout curtains. Part of the job of air-raid wardens was to enforce these rules.

    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target.

    There could be many reasons for this. Night-time precision bombing of a specific military target was not easy.

    • Replies: @Wally
  134. First of all, I am in broad agreement with this essay. In the last half decade or so, I made a point of revisiting my understanding of World War 2, and drew very largely the same conclusions. Certainly, all this stuff about Hitler being a madman who wanted to conquer the whole world is just a bunch of nonsense.

    But…. (everybody knew a “but” was coming”…) this essay does have one overarching problem. Let’s see…. well…. I see now way of saying this particularly diplomatically:

    Ron, the damned thing is basically unreadable.

    It’s 20,000 words long and, while making some good points, meanders here and there into all sorts of tangential things and… it really needs some serious editorial work, frankly.

    So, Ron, I have an idea for you. A “modest proposal” if you will. Why don’t you engage the services of Linh Dinh to edit this essay (and some others that suffer from the same basic problem) into shape?

    For one thing, Linh, just stylistically, is probably the best writer here. He certainly has the skill set to liven up your prose and, in particular, if he was given a relatively free hand, he could introduce bits of wit and humor that would make these essays far more amenable to readers.

    Also, judging from his recent posts, the man is not going through the best of times. I have no way of knowing for sure, but one would think he would be quite open to doing some paid editorial work. If you went for this idea, obviously, it would be up to you and Linh to come to some arrangement, but I have to think that if you paid him 2x (or heck, 3x) as much as he makes in the recycling business in Vietnam, it would be still quite little money by U.S. standards, especially considering the standard of editorial help he could provide.

    Well, just an idea…

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @Alden
    , @Dan Hayes
    , @Anon
  135. @David Martin

    Goodrich wrote an important and brave book. I have read both “Hellstorm” and the sequel that’s more about Japan, and don’t regret it, even if I disagree with some of his more controversial arguments. His bibliography also offers a good start for readers who want to dig even deeper.

    One of the best books on the occupation tyranny in Germany after World War II was written by a contemporary, Freda Utley, who visited the country and saw it firsthand. “The High Cost of Vengeance” perceptively and fearlessly engages with both the local issues and the bigger global fraud of imperialistic wars waged in the name of ostensible freedom and democracy. Naturally it could be published only by Regnery, and was given the silent treatment by the New York-based media. I believe it’s never been reprinted, but it’s available online in various places, for example here:

    https://archive.org/details/highcostofvengea009824mbp

    Another essential classic, which IIRC “Hellstorm” quotes from, is “The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh” by America’s most famous isolationist. This one is of interest for much more than just what he says on the occupation, in fact I’d say it’s objectively more interesting for giving an insider’s view of “America First” from close to the top. That said, Lindbergh’s calm observations on how the defeated Germans and Japanese were treated are both more illuminating and more infuriating than perhaps anything I’ve read from the Establishment outrage mills denouncing the crimes of the Axis Powers.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @John Regan
  136. @Wally

    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target .

    In fact, it was the Brits who started the indiscrimiate bombing of German towns and cities, with the intend to create a firestorm in the wooden roofed worker quarters, as outlined by jewish Frederick Lindemann. The Brits bombed German towns a half year before Germany retaliated.

    But as you know, Germans were too stupid to commit a proper genocide by using flimsy cellars with wooden doors, while having industrial size gas chambers for trains.
    Apart from the fact, Germany had a considerable amount of nerve agents Sarin, Tabun and Soman in store, but they chose a delousing agent Cyclon B, in pellet form that needs heating to change aggregate state, in a time when energy and fuel was lacking.

  137. @szopen

    I was trying to relate similar sentiments to Mr. Irving, but he was very tired and dispirited after he drove a long way to his presentation locale, then learned his laptop was stolen in San Francisco. (Welcome to California…) 99.99% of everything published about WWII Europe is baloney. The propaganda machine that cranked out crap like Human Soap and Shrunken Heads conducted a relentless campaign that culminated with the so-called “Holocaust”. We are now inundated 24/7/365 with more baloney, as Israel campaigns to embroil our demoralized troops into more conflicts.

    There is a very pertinent factoid relating to war, and that is the first casualty of any conflict is the TRUTH.

  138. PeterMX says:
    @szopen

    That is the correct answer. The German army went thru Belgium because Germany had 3 world pwwers facing them and the only chance they had of winning was a fast strike in which France could be taken out first. They went great lengths to compensate Belgium for any costs and only went thru Belgium because it was the only way. Their tone towarsd Belgium was quite different than when Churchill told the smaller neutral countries he would not let them get in his way of attacking Germany. They would ally with Britain or be run over by Britain.

    As for Poland, is the Auschwitz lie a Poish lie or a Jewish lie, or both. Germany has all the countries saying the most outrageous lies about them, it’s hard to know who to address first. With legends of Jews turned into bars of soap and lampshades, Auschwitz reducing its supposed death toll by 3 million, British talk of Germany taking over the world and FDR saying they planned to take over South America, I think the supposed liar Goebbels and Germany look like angels compared to them, Poland’s allies.

    • Replies: @Wally
  139. Zumbuddi says:
    @Germanicus

    Agree until the last statement, “since 70 AD.”

    Gilad Atzmon chains zionism, which amounts to the insatiable quest for power, to Esther / Mordechai.

    That tale of genocide, celebrated to this very day and a hallmark of Bibi-think, had naught to do with return to sacred dirt — Yehud were not only free to return to “holy zion,” they were financially and politically supported in doing so by the very people that they murdered
    No, Esther’s goal was Power — financial & political control of the Persian people and their government.

    Truman said, “I am Cyrus.”
    Wrong.
    Like Wilson before him, he was more like Mordechai.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  140. The world is better for you being in it, Mr Unz.

  141. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

    I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest producers of Iraqi oil.:

    Didn’t realize that Israel was the principal stockholder in those oil companies named.

    Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack

    Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

    Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

    “Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

    Israel wanted to maintain the momentum it had gotten after their 9/11 False Flag went so well. They wanted their American colony to invade Iraq first, then onto Syria/Iran.
    That we went into Afghanistan first caused much gnashing of teeth in Tel Aviv.

  142. @David Baker

    A war with Iran would be the end of Israel, and also the end of the US empire.
    Iran and Hezbollah would annihilate Israel, Saudi oil fields and US troops present in the middle east.
    Iraq would become a killing field for troops, along with Saudi Arabia. Houthis would move in from the south additionally. This time the Iraqi shia majority would fight US troops.

    The imperial hubris and myth of invincibility will likely ignite this war, and there will be the typical bug whining about those evil Iranians having the audacity to fight back.
    Iran is well armed for an asymmetric conflict with a giant on clay feet.
    US would lose at least one carrier group at sea if they come too close to Iranians shores.

    Hassan Nasrallah recently stated, that Hezbollah alone can wipe out the nerve and industrial center of Israel. The Israeli “iron dome” can’t defend against a saturation of tens of thousands of rockets.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  143. @szopen

    Ok, I can understand someone saying that this was valid military target, even if noe soldiers were killed and all victims were civilian; but I can’t understand when someone was saying that Luftwaffe behaved noble and tried to avoid civilian casualties, when it’s clear they were not.

    My understanding, from what I have read on the topic, is that various attempts were in fact made to limit damage to civilian lives and property throughout the early German air campaigns, including in Poland. For example, the Germans made several attempts to offer the Poles in Warsaw an honorable surrender before they launched the successive waves of air and artillery bombardments that later destroyed substantial parts of the (tenaciously defended) city. Yet, military necessity was considered more important, and judged more broadly then (according to the laws and customs of war at the time) than would be conscionable today.

    What is noble or despicable in these cases is subjective to a large extent, and something I don’t think everyone will agree on even where we have the complete facts. What can be said objectively is, I think, that the German air campaign, although it inflicted great suffering on the Polish people, didn’t break the laws of war as they stood at the time in any systematic way. That doesn’t rule out that individual war crimes were most likely still committed, such as the infamous strafing of civilian refugees, for example (something that was clearly illegal, but all the major powers in the war had many incidents where pilots did it anyway). Still, there’s a difference in kind between even the reckless and perhaps excessive use of force of a case like Frampol and the cold-blooded, systematic policy of deliberately bombing civilian housing to kill civilians as an end in and of itself that the Churchill regime initiated (and everyone else copied later, including the Germans themselves).

    Given that “revisionists” can sometimes be just as bigoted as “Establishment” apologists, if then often in different directions, I should perhaps emphasize that I don’t say any of this to demean the Polish people, or any other people that suffered during the war. I view World War II as an immense tragedy for all the peoples of Europe, and many others besides, who were all victims in one way or another (if not all in equal measure). One reason I believe it’s so important that we try to be as objective and factual as possible about these things is precisely to avoid stoking misguided feelings of petty national chauvinism of any flavor. These quarrels within the family have long since become a luxury that we (as in Europeans and European-descended peoples) can no longer afford, as World War II itself so graphically demonstrated.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Zumbuddi
    , @A.R.
  144. Outis says:

    How does Taylor’s book compare with Victor Davis Hansons? I can get VDH’s in Kindle.

    • Replies: @David Martin
  145. Art says:

    Will history repeat itself? We have no end of questionable characters running governments these days.

    If Trump wins in 2020 – will he go Hitler? Can WWIII become a real possibility. He certainly has the egotistical personality, and the reactive shallow thinking that could lead to a major war.

    What goes around comes around. The negative Jew role in world politics, and in the history of WWI and WWII, has not been assuaged – it has not been mitigated. There is still hell to pay. The JQ grows by the day.

    Egypt may be in play by 2020 – this week protests started against the government dictator. If Egypt goes Islamic – Israel’s back door will be open to attack. It will be surrounded by hate. Could Trump manage to stay out of a Middle East conflagration?

    Hmm?

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @Art
  146. Has Ron been vilified by the ADL or the SPLC yet as a purveyor of hate speech?

    Oh wait. As far back as 2014:

    https://www.adl.org/news/article/ron-unz-controversial-writer-and-funder-of-anti-israel-activists

    and more recently in 2018:

    https://www.adl.org/blog/california-entrepreneur-ron-unz-launches-a-series-of-rhetorical-attacks-on-jews

    What he writes must be true then!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  147. @Andrei Martyanov

    America’s delay was tough on the Soviets, and I don’t mean to make light of their losses.

    When Americans agitated for war before Operation Barbarossa, they were not trying to save the Soviet Union, which at that time had a treaty of non-aggression with Nazi Germany.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we know that that the military cost of defeating Germany included the lives of 9 million combatants; but it would have been obvious even in 1939 that the figure would have been very high. It is surprising that anyone would agitate to join such a war before having a casus belli.

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

  148. @John Regan

    would be conscionable today.

    I beg to differ, Fallujah totally destroyed by US military, Saigon, Pyongyang also destroyed, and the list goes on and eventually ends with the latest, Al Raqqah.
    Nothing has changed, the Brits, Israelis and Americans still cowardly bomb civilians.

  149. Wally says:
    @James N. Kennett

    No dumb ass, they did not pilot by the stars. It was 1940, not 1640 .LOL

    A city the size of London and the pilot would not know he’s over it in spite all the instruments he had and all the other planes in his group? More LOL

    And please gives us the verbatim pilot testimony on your laughable claim.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  150. @Germanicus

    I think what you’re saying is more baloney. The U.S. military can wipe Iran off the map with little effort, but we need to extract our presence from the Middle East, and stop subordinating our troops to the IDF. If the Israelis think it’s necessary to engage Iran in conflict, they should use THEIR troops, THEIR hardware, THEIR funds, and take responsibility for their actions.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
  151. Wally says:
    @PeterMX

    – “Neutral” Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million of it’s soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.
    – France and England were also allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace with impunity for their military aircraft.

    Auschwitz:
    Auschwitz – Forensically Examined, By Cyrus Cox : https://shop.codoh.com/book/494/508

    plus video clip:

    VIDEO: INSIDE AUSCHWITZ, Virtual Tour, What they DON’T tell you.: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12351

  152. @Zumbuddi

    Agree until the last statement, “since 70 AD.”

    What is wrong with it?

    The Jews regard European peoples as successors to the “anti-semitic” Romans, who destroyed their temple in 70 AD. It is the reason, why many Jews walk backwards through the Arc of Titus in Rome, symbolically negating this event. As the Jews say themselves in nauseating repetition “Never again”, you just need to comprehend what these lunatics say there.

    But yes, the Iranians are Aryans too, and yes, the Jews wage war on Amalek, which is nowadays basically all non Jews.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  153. Alfred says:

    I believe the archives of the German Foreign Ministry were confiscated by the victors after WW1 and that they were taken to California and have never been seen since. I think that strongly suggests that these archives would disprove the “German Aggression” story.

    I read about these archives in the book below:

    Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Hardcover – September 1, 2014
    by Gerry Docherty (Author), Jim MacGregor (Author)

    https://amzn.com/1780576307

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  154. @German_reader

    Very well, but I would still argue that’s off the mark. There was a transformation in Germany’s policy regarding the Jews at some point in the second half of 1941 or the first half of 1942 (historians differ on exactly when), and the result was what some bureaucrats called the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem (however we choose to interpret that). However, this still doesn’t imply the Manichean religious mindset your comment described.

    The Nazis wanted to be free of the Jews in their territory, that’s indisputably a fact. Most historians would say they were prepared to do this by killing them, once all other options were exhausted. But they didn’t see this as their sole, overriding or even anything close to their most important task. What they wanted was above all a safe, prosperous and powerful Germany (and by extension, Europe). Getting rid of the Jews was a means to that end, not the other way around. And that meant removing Jewish influence in public life, Jewish power and large concentrations of Jewish population from Europe. Not some pipedream religious crusade of hunting down every single individual with Jewish blood anywhere on the planet. (cf. the relatively “tolerant” treatment of the Mischlinge, which IIRC you’re familiar with.)

    As Albert Speer wrote (and the “Table Talk” seemingly confirms), even Hitler himself didn’t really talk all that much about the Jews privately. They weren’t the main issue on his mind. He spent much more time dreaming about the clean, beautiful cities he wanted to build for his people.

  155. Zumbuddi says:
    @John Regan

    I wish I shared your generous spirit.

    And in one sense I recognize that civilized society demands that some Hero, some Heroic People “take the hit” and refrain from retaliating, in order to break the cycle of act – revenge – revenge.

    Scholars interpret the Courtly epics of medieval literature as attempts to communicate just that ideal: that knightly courage consists in refraining from perpetuating the cycle of revenge..

    In my view, either by force or by virtue, Germany & the German people have upheld that ideal for 3 generations.

    Tragically for the rest of the world and to the irredeemable shame of the Jewish people & their confreres in the destruction of Europe (& Palestine, ME, and USA), Courtly humility has only emboldened its oppressors.

    All bets are off.

    Those who initiated & executed the destruction of Europe are enemies of civilized people.

    Knightly valor demands that they be brought to account and made to stop harming our families and communities.

    • Agree: Bookish1
  156. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.

    Article is filled with quotable bits but this is the one I’m going with.

    I had never heard of Taylor’s book but it’s now on my To Read List.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Wizard of Oz
  157. @James N. Kennett

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

    This series (famous green books by US Army) of a particular help:

    https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/sp1943-44/chapter13.htm

    And, of course, no better description of Allied deliberations leading to D-Day exists than David Eisenhower’s: Eisenhower at War 1943-1945.

    It is a thousand page treatise, riveting in its details of Anglo-American (and Soviet) relation. Even when somewhat biased (understandably) towards Western Allies it provides numerous key insights into what contradicts dramatically the “message” of this discussion. Or, rather, blows it out of the water.

    Obviously, Diplomatic correspondence between Big Three is of prime interest. Sadly, I cannot recommend Russian (immensely rich) archive documents, since they are in Russian.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  158. @David Baker

    Well, you are free to think whatever you want, but I notice, that the truth scares you.

    Good luck intercepting 100.000 rockets raining down on your little area where all the important stuff is located. More sophisticated Iranian missiles would follow.
    You simply don’t have the territorial depth to withstand such an attack.

    Your hubris does not let you see, that a war against Iran is impossible without taking heavy casualties and collapse of the Jewish finance system that runs with oil and intimidation.

    A war with Iran would likely involve Russia and China, dear imperial imp, they have already stated that they will defend their own national interests, and these are apparently in Iran as well.

    Yeah, the Jews eventually fight this war until they spilled the last drop of American blood.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  159. In regard to German atrocities during World War II, I suggest reading Alexander Werth’s “Russia At War: 1941-1945 – A History”. Werth was an English journalist born in St. Petersburg who followed the entire war living in the Soviet Union. He is a fluent Russian speaker, and his writing shows the value of his ability to communicate in Russian. He writes with eye-witness account of German atrocities particularly in the Soviet Union in territory controlled by the Germans. He writes about the official visits of British and American political and military leaders. Also, DeGaulle’s visit. He writes about the various conferences , such as, Yalta and Tehran. And, in strong contrast to what you wrote in regards the American treatment of German soldiers and civilians, he writes of the humanitarian treatment of the Berlin populace after the Soviet army entered Berlin. An excellent writer, Werth gives the perspective of what World War II looked like when viewed from the East. ‘

    t

  160. Wally says:
    @David Baker

    Iran would not just sit back and be wiped off the map.

    They have chemical, biological weapons aplenty and there certainly are a lot of US assets nearby they could target. Not to mention the dumb sitting duck, ‘Israel’.

    However I agree when you say:
    “we need to extract our presence from the Middle East, and stop subordinating our troops to the IDF. If the Israelis think it’s necessary to engage Iran in conflict, they should use THEIR troops, THEIR hardware, THEIR funds, and take responsibility for their actions.”

    Regards

  161. Ron Unz says:
    @John Regan

    One of the best books on the occupation tyranny in Germany after World War II was written by a contemporary, Freda Utley, who visited the country and saw it firsthand.

    Yes, I certainly agree, and I cited it to some extent in his article and much more extensively in a previous one:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

    Also, it’s conveniently available as one of my HTML Books:

    https://www.unz.com/book/freda_utley__the-high-cost-of-vengeance/

    • Replies: @John Regan
  162. German_reader says:
    @John Regan

    However, this still doesn’t imply the Manichean religious mindset your comment described.

    I don’t know, killing all Jews under German control does seem pretty Manichaean to me. Nazis had racist views about Slavs, but they still enlisted Belarussian villagers for militia duty against partisans… which would have been unthinkable for Soviet Jews (who mostly were killed in areas occupied by the Germans in 1941/42). Much of the Soviet population was seen as an inferior, primitive mass whose lives weren’t of much value. But Jews were regarded as an actively malicious element which was responsible for Bolshevism and therefore had to be exterminated completely.
    And imo for Hitler, Himmler and other SS leaders the destruction of as much of European Jewry as possible did actually become an important aim in itself, how else to explain something like the murder of the Hungarian Jews in 1944? At that point Hitler probably already knew that Germany was going to lose the war.

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @John Regan
  163. Ron Unz says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Has Ron been vilified by the ADL or the SPLC yet as a purveyor of hate speech?…and more recently in 2018:

    Actually, I was extremely disappointed that the anonymous 2018 ADL note was so short and rather milquetoast. And even that only came after I’d repeatedly baited and ridiculed them for having gone into hiding:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/has-the-adl-gone-into-hiding/

    Unfortunately, after I strongly responded, they went back into hiding and have remained so for nearly the last year:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    My guess is that they themselves suffer from their own severe “Lord Voldemort Effect” with regard to my own activities, and therefore consider me as “He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned”…

    • Replies: @Truth3
  164. Antares says:
    @tagaruda

    At Rotterdam, a single flight of tactical bombers, carrying a few hundred kilos of bombs each, were directed to attack a heavily defended barracks. A legitimate wartime target.
    After the flight was dispatched, it was reported the Dutch had initiated surrender negotiations, but the flight missed the recall-order as the lead bomber. the only one with a radio, had already retracted its aerial.
    Several stray bombs damaged housing and destroyed a school, where children were hiding under their desks, since apparently no-one had thought to evacuate them from the vicinity of the conflict.
    Germany immediately apologized and paid reparations.

    I had hoped for a more realistic reaction.

  165. Zumbuddi says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Agree that Dihn is a gifted writer, but strenuously disagree that Ron Unz should “Dihn” his wroting, and also disagree that this lengthy essay is “unreadable” and “meanders.”

    The logic of Ron’s essay could scarcely be more obvious: it lists, then explicates the works, arguments, and fate of historians who deviated from the Hollywood – propaganda narrative of the 20th c. wars, and in the process exposed lies & liars and revealed important truths.

    Linh’s style suits his purpose, which is different from Ron’s.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, ChuckOrloski, Hail
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  166. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Taylor’s book has a lot of virtues, but it’s extraordinary that he probably didn’t read Mein Kampf prior to writing it. See his biographer here: https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=%22taylor%27s+failure+to+read+mein+kampf%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIg6qc3ufkAhWBZd8KHdDUDzYQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22taylor’s%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    The book seems to engage in a sleight of hand, in which Taylor, explaining merely the outbreak of war between Britain/France and Germany–specifically in September 1939–implies that the whole conflict, including Operation Barbarossa, was a great accident/improvisation.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  167. @German_reader

    Germans didn’t kill all Jews. Diseases were primarily the cause of death for Jews in Europe. Hitler’s heartless scheme to exploit his hapless war refugees as laborers created the horrible conditions for Concentration Camp inmates to endure as the allies decimated the German Transportation infrastructure. Many of those people were Jews, but you MUST remember that Jews worldwide declared war on Germany. Like our troops discovered, such aggression will not endear a warring nation’s people to your invaders.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Wally
  168. @John Regan

    Rereading Ron Unz’s fine article more carefully, I now see that he already mentions Utley and links to another source for her book. Nonetheless, a repeated “plug” for such an important but largely forgotten (and largely deliberately forgotten) author is not the worst thing, so perhaps my initial error all for the best.

    Apropos Dr. Hoggan, I have something hopefully more original to contribute. Mr. Unz writes:

    Despite its long suppression, under many circumstances such an exhaustive work based upon many years of archival research might constitute the foundational research for subsequent historians, and indeed various recent revisionist authors have relied upon Hoggan in exactly that manner. But unfortunately there are some serious concerns. Just as we might expect, the overwhelming majority of the discussion of Hoggan found on the Internet is hostile and insulting, and for obvious reasons this might normally be dismissed. However, Gary North, himself a prominent revisionist who personally knew Hoggan, has been equally critical, portraying him as biased, factually unreliable, and even dishonest.

    My own sense is that the overwhelming majority of Hoggan’s material is likely correct and accurate, though we might dispute his interpretations. However, given such serious accusations, we should probably treat all his claims with some caution, especially since it would take considerable archival investigation to verify most of his specific research findings. Indeed, since so much of Hoggan’s overall framework of events matches that of Taylor, I think we are far better off generally relying upon the latter.

    Fortunately for us non-historians, with the trouble we might have in estimating Hoggan’s credibility on our own, he has also been subjected to a version of the “Irving Test” which Ron Unz has described elsewhere. Since his thesis was a controversial one, the whole Establishment naturally turned out in force to destroy him, with their historians in Germany as well as the US tearing into his book looking with microscopes for every error. What they managed to find was, in the end, exactly thirty points to quarrel with, compiled in a detailed and much-belabored list by leading German historian Hermann Graml. And not all of those were even errors of fact, some were matters of interpretation or even emphasis. Others were real but exceedingly petty, leading toward the conclusion that the fact-checkers were really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.

    To be fair to Graml and his cohorts, some of Hoggan’s errors were in fact substantial, giving some degree of justification for the criticism against him. Even so, less than thirty errors in an 800-page book doesn’t quite seem enough to throw the whole book on the garbage heap, especially when it covers rare and difficult topics. And thanks to the Graml team’s assiduous labors, we who read Hoggan can now also know exactly which his errors are, leaving us largely free to trust the rest of his facts. (We’re still free, of course, to disagree with his interpretations, if and where as we may want to.)

    The above is based largely on the book by American political scientist Kurt Glaser, another of our memory-holed intellectuals, which he (much like Hoggan himself) seemingly wrote in English but was able to publish only in German, then under the title “Der Zweite Weltkrieg und der Kriegsschuldfrage: Die Hoggan-Kontroverse” (World War II and the War Guilt Question: The Hoggan Controversy”). Glaser goes through the Graml team’s pettifoggery in great detail, noting which of their complaints about Hoggan hold water and which don’t. If there is interest, I can summarize some excerpts with more specifics at a later time.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
    , @Ron Unz
  169. @Germanicus

    It is the reason, why many Jews walk backwards through the Arc of Titus in Rome, symbolically negating this event.

    ? They probably culturally appropriated from “Little Big Man”.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  170. @joekowalski9

    An excellent writer, Werth gives the perspective of what World War II looked like when viewed from the East

    Werth’s book is classic but don’t expect it to be read by most people who post in this thread. As correctly was noted, us, Slavs, we are untermensch, not capable of maintaining combat logs, archiving orders and secret communication, of documenting what was going on say in Voronezh, Salaspils, or Stalingrad. So, it is all nothing, just propaganda by subhumans whose tens of millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles or Belorussians all were killed in….ahem…Stalin’s GULAG, while SS was desperately trying to free them from communist oppression.

  171. @Germanicus

    Without holyhoax, Israel cannot survive, it has become the defacto religion of Jews and brainwashed non jews, just like Democracy, the Big Bang, Relativity and Evolution from apes. All lies serving as a religion.

    You forgot heliocentric system & DNA.

  172. @szopen

    This is not a meaningful, or even adequate, reply to what I wrote. It doesn’t show Polish reliability at all. I pointed to the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau professional operation; what can you point to?

    Thanks to PeterMX for explaining the move through Belgium to you.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @szopen
  173. Truth3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Hello Sir,

    Your effectiveness in dishing out and facilitating Truth drives the ADL crazy.

    They hate you with a burning rage, yet, they want others not to know you exist, so they try to find a little no-man’s land of turf on which to satisfy their blood urges and still keep it dark.

    Good luck with that… ADL.

    Within a few years you will become the best known political and historical truth facilitator extent.

    My compliments.

  174. @Germanicus

    You forgot the Big Stick. Understand that the Iranians know what our military capability is, because they trained at our military bases (I was stationed at one of those bases.) They know we can easily defeat whatever forces they can muster against us. That’s not the point, though. We need to get the HELL OUT of that region. We need to forge our Energy Sovereignty and Independence. We can do this if we cease deploying our massively expensive forces to that region each time the Israelis snap their fingers. Middle East Conflicts will quickly diminish when Israeli leaders realize their own people will be in jeopardy if they start something.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  175. @Ron Unz

    I’m sorry, I read your article a little too quickly at first, and then I got caught up in the commentariat. I can only hope that perhaps my embarrassment may be worthwhile if it results in even slightly greater exposure for Utley’s “lost” works.

    As always, you have my appreciation, both for your own writings and the even greater service of making all of these hard-to-find writings, documents and primary sources new and old available to us amateurs. As well as for the lesser, yet invigorating favor of allowing us to add our own little parts, of such value as they may be, in the comments section.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  176. I have yet to finish this well written article by Ron Unz but I intend on doing so after printing it out in its entirety.

    I did get to the part that describes David Hoggan’s work, “The Forced War”, and was a bit disappointed by Ron’s reaction to this book.

    I read the book and though I found it very difficult and dry reading, it was nonetheless fascinating by the material it covers and its breadth of scope in terms of the diplomatic history of the inter-war period.

    Hoggan in no way places the blame on Halifax for starting WWII (as was suggested in Ron’s piece) but instead demonstrates the deceitful manipulations by this British foreign secretary to goad Poland into provoking a war with Germany. This is now well known and has been corroborated by other historians of the period.

    Relying on what appears to be only anecdotal evidence of Hoggan’s ability to contrive data in the article written by Gary North, it is a bit disingenuous given the enormous amount of detail that Hoggan provides in this book.

    Instead, much of what Hoggan describes in “The Forced War”, has pretty much been corroborated by other authors.

    Udo Walendy in his far easier read, “Who Started World War II”, provides a lot of corroboration to Hoggan’s major thesis as does John Wear’s, “Germany’s War”.

    However, though I enjoyed John Wear’s book very much I did find a discrepancy in his description of the Wehrmacht’s experience with the Soviet partisans on the Eastern Front. Where he describes very severe circumstances for the German soldiers another document written by a good writer (the name of whom I cannot remember) described a very different situation for the German soldiers whereby Soviet partisan warfare against the Germans was not as severe as Wear described.

    After corresponding successfully with John Wear with one question I had for him, I submitted a second asking him to clarify as to why there would be such a divergent point of view regarding the Wehrmacht’s experiences with Soviet partisans. Very surprisingly, he never answered and all I had asked was his point of view on this divergence of experiences.

    If you read enough of the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period as I have done, you come to find that the majority of Hoggan’s writing on this subject appears to bear out. And given that Hoggan was fluent in 6 languages allowing him to read the actual and original documentation from the various archives in their native languages, one would have to go to great lengths to discredit his work in this respect, which I doubt that such critics as Gary North have done.

    In addition, to my knowledge, there has been no book about the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period published that rises to the breadth, detail, and scope of Hoggan’s work on the subject that has refuted his findings.

    Most of David Hoggan’s work on WWII was published in German in Germany where they have all received very good receptions by the readership.

    Finally, Harry Elmer Barnes supported Hoggan’s thesis in his, “The Forced War”. I understand that there were some disagreements over some points that Barnes wanted Hoggan to change before publication but Hoggan refused to do so. To my understanding these disagreements were over somewhat minor points….

  177. @Bardon Kaldian

    If you trolls in the hasbara bunker only had some education. But there is none, zero.

    The Arc of Titus

    [MORE]

    We eventually build a new arc after the fall of Jerusalem.

  178. @Andrei Martyanov

    Communist terrorism it was, perpetrated by jewish commissars.
    How many of the 20 million casualties were actually murdered by your own commissars and apparatchiks, товарищ ?
    These mass graves they still find next to major Russian cities are not victims of German military, but bolshevik terror. No Russian researcher claims this.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @ValMond
  179. Dan Hayes says:
    @joekowalski9

    joekowalski9:

    Did Werth include rape as part of “the humanitarian treatment of the Berlin populace after the Soviet army entered Berlin?

    • Replies: @joekowalski9
  180. @Ron Unz

    I agree with Ron Unz about Hellstorm. Nothing original; when the book came out I had already read about everything elsewhere. But it was promoted as groundbreaking. I’m not a fan of Thomas Goodrich, and he treated me in a dishonest way. Just goes to show, you can’t get away with chutzpah forever.

  181. @John Regan

    Thank you for your comments on David Hoggan…

    I too wrote my own comments on Hoggan’s, “The Forced War”, here in defense of his research. And like you, I read the complete book in utter fascination.

    With only around 30 errors in this huge treatise, I doubt there are any serious ones to the point that this work should be discarded.

    And as I stated in my comments, most of what Hoggan did write has been corrobortaed by other writers.

    Finally, I have also read Taylor’s book noted in this piece and to me, Taylor’s book is in comparison to Hoggan’s work nothing but a pamphlet in comparison…

  182. Art says:
    @Art

    WWIII? As we review the past – should we be zeroing in on the future?

    The US, UK, and Israel are all led by the same type egotistical dolts that got the World Wars going.

    [MORE]

    Egypt may be in play by 2020 – this week protests started against the government dictator. If Egypt goes Islamic – Israel’s back door will be open to attack. It will be surrounded by hate.

    Egypt military calls for Sisi to be ousted

    Officers in Egypt’s military called on citizens to take to the streets and bring an end to President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s regime, Al-Khaleej Online reported yesterday.

    The Egypt Officers Front, which said it is loyal to former chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces Lieutenant General Sami Anan, said it would protect the demonstrators.

    On Facebook, the group said the army would protect the demonstrators exactly as happened on 25 January 2011, when the regime of Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

    It named Dr Mahmoud Refaat as the official spokesman for Sami Anan and called for everyone to contact him for information.

    Refaat approved the reports and said he would release the names of the officers who would protect demonstrators, calling them “the honourable officers of the Egyptian army.”

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190923-egypt-military-calls-for-sisi-to-be-ousted/

    Is an all out war in the offering — US/UK/Israel vs. the rational world?

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

  183. @James N. Kennett

    America’s delay was tough on the Soviets

    Not really, unless you haven’t heard of the Murmansk and Persian Corridors. Without U.S. help, Russia couldn’t have lasted 6 months.

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

    Why do you need a book? Just look at British behavior. After Dunkirk, they refused to fight Germany in Europe. They moved their operations to Africa, where they had a series of well-publicized but ultimately pointless battles with Rommel. Well, maybe not entirely pointless, since it allowed them to protect Egypt and grab Libya & Somalia from Italy. Expanding the empire. Killing Nazis was never Winston’s primary goal.

  184. @Germanicus

    No Russian researcher claims this.

    So, you are telling me that you know “Russian researchers”? I don’t think you do, but never mind, feel free to learn from them.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  185. Art says:

    Unz: At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests…greatly from our official history. Japan had been fighting in China… plan was to “maneuver [Japan] into firing the first shot…

    Roosevelt put sanctions on Japan – it started WWII.

    Trump is putting sanctions on Iran — WWIII to follow??????????????????

    Think Peace — Art

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  186. lysias says:
    @joekowalski9

    If you think that the Red Army treated Berlin humanely, you need to read Marta Hillers’s “Eine Frau in Berlin”.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @joekowalski9
  187. @James N. Kennett

    The story of an accidental bombing by a lost German pilot is exactly that, a story…

    Britain began bombing German civilian centers almost immediately. Adolph Hitler requested that Britain refrain from doing so for over 4 months while he disallowed Luftwaffe pilots from doing the same in Britain.

    Once understanding that Britain would not stand down in their continued bombing of German civilian centers, Hitler gave the order to return the favor to the British…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  188. lysias says:
    @lysias

    Marta Hillers’s “A Woman in Berlin” (“Eine Frau in Berlin”).

  189. @David Baker

    Without nuclear weapons, you can’t defeat Iran. It would quickly escalate in a broader conflict.
    If you use nuclear weapons, the Russians and Chinese will not look the other way, and a nuclear device may find it way over the Caspian sea to Iran, apart form passive and likely active Russian support for Iran. The russians will not sit idly by and watch the Americans destroy their neighbor, knowing the Caspian sea would be militarized with US warships.

    [MORE]

    As said, the imperial hubris does not let you see the obvious. The US is a giant on clay feet, totally vulnerable due the many assets they have across the globe, and additionally, the US homeland is defenseless against advanced missile strikes. Your THAAD and stuff will not work reliably against hypersonic glide vehicles like Russia and China deploy already. It is an illusion peddled by your insane establishment to make the americans feel safe, a precondition to send them to a war and their doom.
    A war with Iran would lead to war and destruction on US soil this time.
    Do you get this?
    Sometimes I think the US urgently need a war they started coming to them. They narrowly escaped it in WWII.

    The 250000 troops Trump was gonna allegedly send would not be enough to invade Iran, you would at least need double the troops, at least. Iran has 80 million population, and numerous powerful allies, and by now is self sufficient producing advanced weaponry. They may have much more in store than many people would imagine.
    They have proven time and time again, they are capable to hack US infrastructure and land sophisticated US drones in Iran to reverse engineer.

  190. @Bragadocious

    Not really, unless you haven’t heard of the Murmansk and Persian Corridors. Without U.S. help, Russia couldn’t have lasted 6 months.

    You obviously haven’t heard of them either but that is expected from the consumers of this propaganda here. If you want to tell me that people in US Military Academy at West Point are Putin’s Agents and wrote this in the course of history taught there this:

    [MORE]

    I have to say, man, those pesky Russians are really good at infiltrating and brainwashing those US military academicians.

    • Agree: Cortes
  191. @Andrei Martyanov

    They [Iranians] have chemical, biological weapons aplenty

    Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. [Pravda WWII / Unz]

    When Ahmadinejad was Iran’s leader, he was vilified as “Hitler.”
    Like “Hitler,” when, in the course of its war with Iraq Iran was attacked with chemical weapons (facilitated by USA), Iran’s military leaders urged government to retaliate in kind, using its stockpile of chemical weapons, but Ayatollah Khomeini sternly forbid the use of chemical weapons, even though tens of thousands of Iranian civilians as well as warriors were killed or permanently harmed by the gassing.
    Iran had protested to the United Nations that the use of chemical weapons was forbidden — had been since WWI, the use against Iran the first such action taken since that war that introduced chemical warfare to such devastating results. United Nations refused to acknowledge Iran’s protest and took no action to enforce restrictions on CBW.

    When the Ayatollah Said No to Nukes – Foreign Policy
    https://foreignpolicy.com › 2014/10/16 › when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-n…

    On the other hand, by 1938 FDR had ordered that US military acquire land in the Utah desert to develop chemical weapons, and where, by 1942, US Air Force, Eric Mendelsohn “The Jewish Architect,” Hollywood set designers and Standard Oil planned and rehearsed the best methods of starting fires to incinerate German (and Japanese) civilians.

    Fancy that.
    The neocons were correct in comparing the Iranians to “Hitler.”

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  192. @simple_pseudonymic_handle

    It’s important to remember that Churchill was a Dual Citizen

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  193. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…Polish witnesses remember

    Such a “testimony” carries no weight. It’s what the “holohoax” was created from. The Germans, beginning with the Polish-German war, had teams of respectable, experienced judges who took depositions under oath from soldiers and others about events and atrocities that were seen and personally experienced…”

    You suggest that Polish witnesses were unreliable because they had an interest to lie, as if the German witnesses (under “oath” or not) didn’t have an interest lie. You consider the German organization “respectable” because it was “official”. Well the Polish Government is also “official” but it tells a different story about the war, but I don’t think you trust that.

    What it boils down to is simple ethnic prejudice : Poles lie because they are Poles. Germans speak the truth because they are Germans.

    But you are not even consistent in your prejudices. I remember in your article about the Einsatzgruppen you said that the reports of the killing of civilians that they send back to the homefront were lies. They lied about it to impress their superiors. So suddenly the always honest Germans became consumate liars when that suits you. Talk about “adaptive prejudices”.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  194. @Andrei Martyanov

    I actually do, and I also speak and read Russian, red comrade.
    I also witnessed Soviet occupation, and how they treated their own soldiers in their garrisons, including executions and brutal beatings.

    It was the Soviets who refused to sign the Geneva convention, and fought outside this established norm that had been kept since the peace of Westphalia.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  195. @Andrei Martyanov

    You’re being sarcastic, of course, but the completely serious claim can be made that the Soviet Communist authorities were responsible for the greater portion of Soviet civilian deaths during World War II. The “scorched earth” policy of destroying industry, infrastructure and agriculture wholesale as the Red Army retreated while leaving tens of millions of helpless citizens behind in a wasteland and expecting the Germans to care for them was rather conducive to such a result, even if the Party’s primary aim was not killing them as such (that being rather to disrupt and sabotage the Germans as much as possible, using the ethnic Russians, Ukrainians and etc as human shields and cannon fodder while the Communist commissars fled). Naturally, under such conditions there was starvation, disease and unrest where the Germans set up their administration. But were they solely to blame for it?

    Here is an article on the topic by a far right revisionist who looks at primary sources in some depth. To stave off tangential discussions, I don’t necessarily endorse everything he writes, but he does offer considerably more substance than the snarkings of the usual suspects:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p-91_Sanning.html

    To this, we should add the bands of terrorists known as the Communist partisans, who slaughtered untold thousands of ethnic Ukrainians, Belorussians and others in the most cruel manners imaginable for the crime of trying to live normal lives under German occupation. And then we aren’t even touching on what happened to the populations of the Baltic states, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe when the Communist Red Army invaded and conquered them in 1944-45 (an event known as “Liberation” in Communist Newspeak).

    Of course, outside of the strawmen peddled by interested parties (and perhaps a few trolls and hasbarists pretending to be on the other side), no serious revisionist or dissident historian today pretends the Germans were perfect saints and could do no wrong. Equally obviously, no one worth taking seriously calls the Eastern European peoples subhuman today, or blames all Russians (or Ukrainians, Belorussians or other Soviet peoples) collectively for the crimes of the Communist regime and its executioners. As noted by such an acute and sensitive observer as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the first and greatest victim of Communism was the Russian people itself. Perhaps the greatest trick the real culprits ever pulled was convincing the American people during the Cold War that “Russians” as a collective were behind these evils, while almost entirely successfully passing themselves off as ever the innocent victims.

    Naturally, this in turn then makes it all the sadder to see when ethnic Russians occasionally become apologists for Communism out of ironically similar, misguided false nationalism that likewise equals Soviet with Russian and Communists with Russians. Or perhaps they are honest nationalists, honestly convinced that everyone hates them no matter what, and lashing out for that reason. God knows, given what you probably see of “our” media here in the West, it’s hard to blame you for that if so. Still, it’s something everyone on all sides must work harder to overcome. In this day and age, Russians who care about Russia and Westerners who care about the West have far too many more important enemies to spend their limited strength fighting each other.

    • Agree: A.R.
  196. @David Baker

    “Germans didn’t kill all Jews.”
    No Shit, Sherlock.

    The countries of the West were full of millions of screeching “Holocaust Survivors” for decades.

    • Replies: @Wally
  197. iffen says:
    @szopen

    Keep casting.

    • Replies: @szopen
  198. Ron Unz says:
    @John Regan

    Fortunately for us non-historians, with the trouble we might have in estimating Hoggan’s credibility on our own, he has also been subjected to a version of the “Irving Test” which Ron Unz has described elsewhere. Since his thesis was a controversial one, the whole Establishment naturally turned out in force to destroy him, with their historians in Germany as well as the US tearing into his book looking with microscopes for every error. What they managed to find was, in the end, exactly thirty points to quarrel with, compiled in a detailed and much-belabored list by leading German historian Hermann Graml….The above is based largely on the book by American political scientist Kurt Glaser, another of our memory-holed intellectuals, which he (much like Hoggan himself) seemingly wrote in English but was able to publish only in German

    Thanks, that’s very useful information. Unfortunately, it supports my impression that virtually all of the serious discussion of Hoggan’s book was in German, a language I don’t read, making it very difficult to evaluate Hoggan’s reliability. My own guess is that 99+% of his facts are correct, but under the circumstances I just can’t be sure enough to rely upon them.

    However, I have made the gigantic work (ex. footnotes) available in convenient HTML form, so people can read it and decide for themselves:

    https://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/

  199. Alden says:
    @Miggle

    The Berlin police should have murdered the communist spy agitator and revolutionary years before they did what was necessary and killed her. If Luxemburg had her way, there would have been a communist revolution and takeover in Germany 1919-1920. Good thing the Berlin police killed her and spared the whole of Germany going Jew dominated communist after WW1.

    Police, Freicorps non communist militia, whoever killed Rosa Luxemburg are heroes in my opinion.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  200. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Thanks for pointing me to it, and I probably should have done so, along with some of the other contemporaneous reviews. Meanwhile, someone else brought to my attention an exceptionally long and absolutely outstanding review by Murray Rothbard, perhaps the leading libertarian intellectual also having a great knowledge of history:

    https://mises.org/library/review-origins-second-world-war

    Running over 7,500 words, I think it may be the next best thing to reading the entire Taylor book itself.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Wizard of Oz
  201. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Hitler wasn’t elected to anything. Hindenburg was elected President. Sometime later Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor. Chancellor was an appointed not elective office at the time. .

    • Replies: @lysias
  202. Alden says:

    Another great post from Ron UNZ. Thanks for the article and the site.

  203. @Ron Unz

    If you would have use for it, I could perhaps write up a précis of what Glaser has to say at some future time, the better to let your readers make better use of Hoggan’s flawed, but still valuable mastodon of a book. I imagine it would be a boon for scholars to have at least some of this publicly available in English. On the other hand, it might be too technical for general audiences. I also can’t promise just when I’d be able to get to it, since my schedule is both busy and quite irregular, and likely to remain such in the foreseeable future.

    In any case, I’m glad I could be of any little bit of help to the endeavor that is the Unz Review. Keep up the good work.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  204. @Carlton Meyer

    Thank you Carlton Meyer that video is the best!

  205. @Germanicus

    I also witnessed Soviet occupation,

    How old are U?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  206. Wally says:
    @John Regan

    said:
    “Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his “Table Talk” conversations … ”

    – Beware of that source. No doubt there were conversations at dinners, but what has been added, mistranslated, invented within them is the issue.
    recommended:
    The Faking of Hitler’s “Last Testament”: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html
    Table Talk, Picker: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html
    Genoud, Heim & Picker’s Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal:
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
    Rauschning debunked: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Rauschning
    And then there’s the bogus Table Talk claims here:
    How Historian Rees Falsifies and Invents : https://codoh.com/library/document/4917/?lang=en
    and:
    http://carolynyeager.net/our-hitlers-table-talk-series-now-available-cds
    Our “Hitler’s Table Talk” series now available on CD’s
    A two-disc CD set containing all 56 of the newly-edited, discussing Hitler’s Table Talk, spanning 1941 to 1944.

    recommended:
    https://carolynyeager.net/

    • Agree: Germanicus
  207. @Ron Unz

    a language I don’t read

    This is very unfortunate, as it would help you tremendously in your quest for truth, if you were able to read the speeches given in their original language along with German documents such as the Foreign office whitebooks, without mistranslations and tampering.

    It is all too often, some ridiculous claim has been made in english, but there is no primary source to back it up, just “copies” ie the alleged Wannsee protocol. There is no original.

    • Replies: @Wally
  208. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Here is a brief description:

    “This book traces the history of Germany from before WWI, between WWI and WWII and WWII with an eye on the behind the scenes of the financing and re-armament of Germany. The treaty of Versailles and the Dawes plan are also covered. The author, Guido Giacomo Preparata does a skillful job at following the money trail to the Anglo-American oligarchy who use the worlds banking system (he calls it the ‘Grid’) to create wars and mold future events for their liking, basically “Perfidious Albion” using balance of power and divide & conquer to continue the ‘hidden’ British Empire.”

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  209. @Skeptikal

    I’ve not read Conjuring Hitler, but I have listened to Preparata speak about his work and about his assessment of the state of Italy since WWII — Italy is ‘owned’ by USA, it has no identity of its own.

    Also learned a bit from Andrew Buchanan’s research / writing on the Italian Campaign
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii# , which suggests Bernard Baruch’s (tangential) involvement in FDR’s goal of displacing the British and gaining control of the Mediterranean and its trade routes to both the Levant and North Africa, by occupying Rome / Italy and pissing off Churchill by shutting the British out of any influence on the succeeding government of Italy;
    as well as a (very few) essays on the influence of Margharita Sarfati, Mussolini’s Jewish Mistress (the one who was not hanged with Il Duce, having fortuitously fled to South America for the duration and returned to Italy to finish out her career) https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/uncategorized/2014/11/debating-mussolinis-jewish-mistress/ ,

    But overall, there is really not that much information about what Fascism really meant to Italians / Italy in Mussolini’s time, for all that “fascism” is used as an all-purpose but largely meaningless epithet.

    If someone like Ron Unz were to do a Pravda: The Zionists and Italy, dirty little secrets like Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “Roman soul” and his great admiration for Mussolini’s “muscular militarism;” and FDR’s sinister agenda of acquiring control over Italian government, thereby, control of the Mediterranean, perhaps goaded by zionists; perhaps Sarfatti was an Esther who used Mussolini to achieve zionist purposes; perhaps OSS infiltrated or exploited Italian partisans to kill Mussolini; perhaps Churchill and Benito had financial dealings —
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    Not least because MY parents and grandparents were directly impacted by Mussolini and the war.

    Guido Preparata does not answer those questions: in interviews, he concedes that he has little knowledge or interest in zionism.
    In my view, no history of WWI or WWII is complete without thorough discussion of zionism, the instigator and winner of those conflicts.

  210. Wally says:
    @David Baker

    said:
    “Germans didn’t kill all Jews.”

    So which Jews do you think Hitler did “kill” and how?

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    – so called “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg

    • Replies: @David Baker
  211. Wally says:
    @Bill Jones

    said:
    “The countries of the West were full of millions of screeching “Holocaust Survivors” for decades.”

    And they still are ” full of millions of screeching “Holocaust $urvivors” ”

    Which simply debunks the claim by “The Holocaust Industry” that ‘the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands’.

  212. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Gilda Meir and Kissinger look very standard N West European.

    They are just a thousand times uglier than the average ugly N West European. It’s not so much that they are Jewish. It’s that half the Europeans are average attractive 25% pretty to beautiful 25% unattractive through average ugly to totally hideous as are Meir and Kissinger. They’re on the lowest section of the ugly side of the bell curve.

    Except E European women, not men . 100% are average pretty to drop dead beautiful.

  213. @Flint Clint

    Miles Mathis has also researched David Irving and found the usual common trait.

    http://mileswmathis.com/irving.pdf [First published December 3, 2015]

    Irving’s alleged “anti-semitism” and “holocaust denial” was a blackwash job.

    The 20th century was manufactured and managed by the usual Producers.

    Nothing has changed, as we moved into the 21st century with the Global War on Terror and Regime Change.

  214. anon[337] • Disclaimer says:

    @Tom Welsh if you read the comments here you’ll find a similar subtle undermining of Irving and Unz in the posts of @Tom67 and @4891 (and that’s from only reading a handful of comments).

    Notice how Tom67 makes a claim of the number of children and adults killed by the Nazi’s yet provides no sources?

    “That is severely physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed.”

    Of course “gassings” is meant to point us to the myth of Zyklon_B being used as a means of mass executions. Typical jewish tricks.

  215. Skeptikal says:

    Re ” the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, ”

    Where is teh index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  216. @Dan Hayes

    Werth discusses rape by Soviet soldiers. Suggest reading the book.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  217. @Andrei Martyanov

    Old enough to remember what I saw when peeking over the fence of the Soviet garrison, and my mom had to treat the officer wives, who usually paid in gold.

    Why so meek now?

    So back to my question, how many of the 20 million were actually victims of the jewish commissars? Wouldn’t be the first time the Soviets blamed atrocities on the Germans, eg Katyn. The Soviet occupation regime ruthlessly arrested anyone who doubted the German guilt of Katyn. Nowadays, it is an established fact, that about 20000 Poles were murdered in the Katyn forest and other places that haven’t gotten this Katyn attention.
    Why do you think the Poles hate the Soviets and Russians so much, that the US exploit it to advance their NATO towards you?

    And the other question would be, can you name one current Russian researcher who claims these mass graves they still find are victims of Germans. These people are identifed and matched against Soviet documentation of the Great Terror Stalin started. The Soviets meticulously documented how many people the deported, how many had been killed in quotas and so on, with order numbers, signed and commanded by the polit bureau and Communist party apparatchiks.
    Something German documentation lacks, because there were no kill quotas on the German side.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  218. @Ron Unz

    virtually all of the serious discussion of Hoggan’s book was in German, a language I don’t read,

    Out of curiosity, are there any languages, besides English, that you do read?

  219. lysias says:
    @Alden

    Hitler was elected, as a member of the Reichstag.

    When he succeeded Hindenburg as head of state, that was approved by a referendum.

    • Replies: @Alden
  220. Republic says:
    @Bragadocious

    Lindbergh’s September 11, 1941 speech in Des Moines, Iowa is available to watch on you tube.

    He said that FDR, the British and the Jews were trying to get the US into the war in Europe.

    He was speaking at an American First meeting

  221. @Andrei Martyanov

    I searched for Embick’s paper, and found the key passage from Eisenhower at War – on your own blog!

    https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/03/fulton-speech.html

    The blog post itself raises other interesting questions.

    It would be later that both Churchill’s daughter and his personal dentist Lord Moran would describe a heavy feeling of jealousy Churchill experienced towards relations FDR and Stalin had.

    Anyone who reads the Unz Review will have discovered that Churchill is overrated, if he did not know this already.

    Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He was not joking. His notion that Britain had “pivotal” importance both in WWII and afterwards is nowadays embarrassing.

    If Churchill felt jealous of the leaders of the US and USSR, he was not alone. One of the factors that led to the creation of the EEC was that European politicians would reach the top of the political hierarchy in their own country, only to find that they were not the equals of their US or Soviet counterparts. Creating a larger union was the only way to attempt to achieve personal parity with the leaders of the superpowers.

    In fact the founding myths of the EEC/EC/EU are almost entirely false. We are told that it keeps the peace by bringing together the countries that fought in WWII – but the principal conflict of WWII in Europe was obviously between Germany and the USSR, and the latter was never a member of the EEC. Now we have an EU with territorial ambitions towards Ukraine – just like Germany in both world wars.

    I find this particularly sad. Europeans are told that we are learning from history, and that our new political institutions have this learning built in, but the “learning” is simply an opportunity for another generation of self-aggrandising politicians to achieve their ambitions.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  222. @lysias

    Werth describes acts of revenge by Soviet soldiers. But, in Berlin, military discipline was held tightly. The Soviet military understood that a successful occupation cannot be realized without getting some semblance of German approval. Suggest reading the book.
    As Andrei Martyanov has commented, one has to read the war from the eastern prospective. All German military forces committed atrocities against military and civilians. Slavs and Jews. Read in the book about the German death camps in Soviet zones including gas chambers and crematoria. The bestiality of the German troops is likely;y the worst in military history. Genghis Khan was a saint compared to the German army. In addition, whenever the Germans retreated, as they did after Stalingrad, they left everything as a desert. Buildings were blown up including churches. Farms were destroyed. Factories were destroyed. Livestock was sent to Germany.
    Another point, during the German offensives, as they entered a city, town, or village, the young people were rounded up and sent to Germany as slave labor and in Germany they were treated inhumanely.
    A common statement that was voiced by the German army was that they’re invoking the Untermenschen policy. The Slavs and the Jews were, in their opinion, sub-human. As a Slav, I have strong emotions against the use of that term. As a Slav, I see the German behavior as sub-human.This was the umbrella which the Germans used to justify their atrocities.
    Please notice that I use the term “Germans” and not “Nazis”. This is for a particular reason: All Germans were committing these atrocities.
    Germans are condemned by history for their bestiality. Germans are not (and never were) a civilized ethnic group.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Wally
  223. @Zumbuddi

    strenuously disagree that Ron Unz should “Dihn” his wroting

    Well, it’s not a question of adopting Linh Dinh’s rather unique personal style. It’s simply that, if Ron is too busy to write a shorter article, then he could get somebody like Linh to help him tighten up the writing.

    [MORE]

    Actually, I had significant editing help from Linh on my second-last piece that appeared here. I took most (but not all) of his editorial suggestions and the piece is better for it. However, I think based on writing style anybody would see it was written by me, not by him.

    Actually, just before I sent the final version of that article to Unz, Linh told me that the piece could be edited down quite a bit further. As I recall, he reckoned that we could cut it down by 3 or even 4%. Well, that gives one an idea of how perfectionist Linh is on writing. I figured he was probably right but I was just tired and sent it in the state it was in.

    Now, by that point, that essay had already been through quite a bit of revision and IMHO was (and is) fairly polished. I have to think that this 20,000 word piece here could be cut down by quite a lot more than 3 or 4%!

    disagree that this lengthy essay is “unreadable” and “meanders.”

    (Shrug.)

    Well, okay, it is “readable” in the absolutely literal sense that it “can be read”. As for it not meandering, well… you mean that Ron just gets straight to the point. Well, whatever…

    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  224. @Germanicus

    Old enough to remember what I saw when peeking over the fence of the Soviet garrison, and my mom had to treat the officer wives, who usually paid in gold.

    Ok, I see. Because both me and you know that you are full’o..t. Because your age would establish immediately that you have no idea about what documents regulated ГСВГ and what would it entail, f.e. to have “beating” in garrison. Just FYI, you are talking to former Soviet officer, and among my friends were many officers who served in ГСВГ who have, as do I, very good idea about personnel policies for service in Warsaw Pact countries.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  225. Saggy says: • Website
    @Tom67

    there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.

    Watch this vid of Dina Babbitt, who taught kindergarten at Auschwitz ……


  226. Skeptikal says:

    Re ” the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, ”

    Where is the index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

  227. @Andrei Martyanov

    And you are talking to a German who experienced first hand Soviet occupation, and whose family member had to medically treat Soviet officer wives, you red brick head fool, and these wives talked, but were pretty fearful of repercussions. The hospital was directly adjacent to the massive Soviet garrison in neighboring town, and from the upper floor, one could have a look over the fence and walls. Executions and beatings took place in the garrison yard.
    GSVG? Haha, you sound like a political commissar they had embedded, who kept your troops in line with your ideology, if necessary with violence. Putin was also in dresden, but he actually learned to speak a quite good German, and has drawn the lessons from the Anschluß in regard to Crimea, he simply did wahat Hitler did as well, a plebiscite.

    I wonder why many Soviets cried when they had to leave, and sold tons of equipment on the blackmarket to have a new start in Soviet land? They had a paradise in GDR compared to the Soviet shithole.

    But go on and attempt to amuse me.

  228. @SolontoCroesus

    Haha. If any Neoconservative monitoring-specialists are assigned to track comments to Ron’s article, SolontoCroesus spun some heads by saying: “The neocons were correct in comparing the Iranians to “Hitler.”

    Great job, S2C! Ideally, your comment got to the deposed John Bolton’s new desk and he buckled when seeing such strange & unwanted truth here. 👍!

    At any rate, the Jerusalem Post reported how President James Carter knew about Israel’s nuke test during 1970’s, but as he was running for a 2nd term, he clammed up. Haha. Little did Jimmy know how the Reagan campaign was dealing with Iran on coordianting a hostage release-delay until after the 1980 election. 😈Haha, (Zigh).

    Full disclosure: As a young man, I figured the Carter administration was unique and not quite Zionized. Now I know better, SolontoCroesus. Please refer to Jerusalem Post article, linked below?

    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Carter-administration-knew-of-Israeli-nuclear-test-turned-a-blind-eye-602485

    P.S.: To perhaps > 98% fact, the last American president, uncontrolled by Zionists, was JFK. Thanks, and uh, “Fancy that.”

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  229. Alden says:
    @lysias

    Hitler wasn’t elected to anything. The referendum came a year after Hitler was appointed, not elected chancellor Hitler’s chancellor office soon took over everything No one elected Hitler. He didn’t become chancellor because of an election or referendum. He became chancellor because one man, President Hindenburg appointed him

    You’re just repeating Jewish propaganda that the evil anti semite Germans elected Hitler to kill all the Jews.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  230. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I started to read the article this morning, got halfway through and stopped. Hours later when I had the time and inclination to read a long intense article full of scholarly information I finally read it.

    It’s not one of Linh’s or Isteve’s entertaining articles. It takes concentration.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  231. @Germanicus

    And you are talking to a German who experienced first hand Soviet occupation, and whose family member had to medically treat Soviet officer wives, you red brick head fool, and these wives talked, but were pretty fearful of repercussions. The hospital was directly adjacent to the massive Soviet garrison in neighboring town, and from the upper floor, one could have a look over the fence and walls. Executions and beatings took place in the garrison yard.

    Wow. It is clear that you are some German middle-aged (maybe teenage) cuck who makes shit up as he goes, most of it based on some urban legends and outright BS. Are you typing from your mama’s basement? Again, you lie so crudely that basically there is nothing to talk about. You have no idea about personnel requirements for ГСВГ nor you a have a clue about Soviet Armed Forces. Have a nice life.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @ploni almoni
  232. Theodore says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is debunked propaganda

    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12639

  233. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    His NSDAP party won much of the vote:

    How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12669

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
  234. Theodore says:
    @Ron Unz

    Keep in mind the English translation from the IHR is flawed. Many parts missing, apparently, and rewritten a bit. This is discussed here:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7265&start=15

  235. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hi Jon!

    Am disappointed but not surprised.

    In the past, you were headhunting for Linh Dinh’s scalp, and now you are serving as a headhunter for him to get hired by Ron Unz.🙄

    Cordially, will give you odds that Ron Unz and Linh Dinh are not “tightening” up to your approach.😏

    Thank you, J.R.!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  236. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    This is the one who, when she isn’t able to follow what the other person is saying/is proven wrong in a debate will come out of it with something like “You complicated things for no reason and said things beside the point, but that’s men for you”.

    If there was a “virtue” the comments sections here lacked representatives for, that was misandry. But that was in the past. Now all “virtues” are represented worthily.

    As for the fact that when people don’t understand a point made (or they understand that it proves their claims wrong) they will say it’s beside the point/means nothing, that was already much too well-represented in the comments here, as well as anywhere else in the Internet.

  237. @James N. Kennett

    In fact the founding myths of the EEC/EC/EU are almost entirely false. We are told that it keeps the peace by bringing together the countries that fought in WWII – but the principal conflict of WWII in Europe was obviously between Germany and the USSR, and the latter was never a member of the EEC. Now we have an EU with territorial ambitions towards Ukraine – just like Germany in both world war

    Correct. Russians have a proverb–every century combined West goes to Russia to have its ass handed to it. US, whose emergence to superpowerdom was primarily a result of it seeing WW II from the sidelines (it is the term Molly Panter Downess uses in her London War Notes when describing British feelings during Battle of Kursk) and getting into the big time only in 1944 when, for all intents and purposes, the issue was settled. It takes nothing from US heroism in Pacific or in Europe, but it was destroyed (utterly) Europe which served as basis for US tremendous recovery from Great Depression and effectively taking the position of hegemon, with the rest of the world in ruins. This fact doesn’t sit well with US and its European vassals “elites”. Some dirty, filthy Slavs, and not them only, beating the greatest military force in history–that hurts, still. As this thread demonstrates so well. The more time passes, the more history will be rewritten in the West. There is the reason they love Solzhenitsyn. As for Germany, it is basically is done being, as well as whole of Europe and US, run by degenerate political and pseudo-intellectual class who don’t know shit from shinola. It is sad, really, but it is what it is. Here is Embik:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @James N. Kennett
  238. Incitatus says:

    One can easily make a case against egregious errors (all sides) 1914-18, 1933-45. Many have done it.

    Wait a second. Author/Host RU never confronts crimes against the German people 1922-33, or 1933-39. It’s RU’s ‘Twilight Zone’.

    Why should I post contrary evidence (once again), when my research becomes the property of a nutty web site?

    Sorry. Believe whatever you please.

    It would be wonderful if author RU included summaries proving the points (Wilhelm II and Hitler were blameless, etc.) for which pet historians were martyred. Is that too much to ask? How about testimony (right or wrong) of those that deposed those sages? How about principle quotes (Hitler et.al)?.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Instead, it’s ‘well, after tending to my software, I just read (re-read)-so-in-so, victim of conspiracy, make no mistake-(no proof offered)’.

    Speech-writer/Op-Ed writer/Failed presidential candidate/Celebrity Buchanan never mentions the 5 Nov 1937 Hoßburg Memorandum in his (‘If only England sucked-up to Nazi Germany they’d still have an Empire’) ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’. He never acknowledges German imperial designs (clearly on record).

    Why?

    Buchanan is not history. Liked his book (bought it cloth-bound). It’s an op-ed, not history. Not even close. He sells books, no doubt! Wakes the somnolent and fuels fringe bigots. Vacuum up those royalties, Pat!. Life (900 words/week) is sweet!

    Celebrity is not history.

    As it is, author/site owner RU, evokes hearsay and unsubstantiated conspiracy against long deposed sources; never discusses/summarizes/champions their salient points; appears willfully ignorant of more recent historians (who, these days write histories with abundant supporting principal quotes and chronology: Beevor, Childers, Longerich, Burleigh, Ulrich, Fest, Kershaw, etc.).

    Why its that?

    Please pass the matzahs and sauerkraut!!

  239. Wally says:
    @Tom67

    said:
    ” I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.”

    – You contradicted yourself and the very narrative you curiously try to defend.

    – If ‘being a Jew in Europe was a death sentence’ then why are there countless “survivors”?

    – And where are the claimed immense human remains of many millions that are said to exist in known locations, but in fact are not there?

    I have personally talked to several people who have witnessed witchcraft & sorcery and there is no doubt in my mind that witchcraft and sorcery are real.

    – And why do people like you want lot’s of Jews to be dead? You should be elated to find out that they were not murdered.

    – And why have Jews been claiming 6,000,000 dead Jews since at least 1823?

  240. Richard B says:
    @Wolfgang Otto

    Agreed. Though I often disagree with Mr. Unz I enjoy reading his articles.

    Including what I’ve read of this one so far.

    I look forward to reading the rest. But this caught my eye and inspired a quick response.

    denouncing as “unpatriotic”—and perhaps “anti-Semitic”—a very long list of conservative, liberal, and libertarian war critics

    Putting those two words together like that says a lot. If not everything.

  241. @Incitatus

    Beevor

    Ahh, Bevor–great graduate of Sandhurst with mathematical abilities of a middle school C student is “historian”? The “student” of late Sir Keegan, who left us a “rich” heritage of “military history” which is entirely useless.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  242. skopros says:

    Another big, fat shining gold bar of precious historical revisionism deposited in the vault of truth-to-power. You have tirelessly set more records straight by your inspired compiling and cross-referencing than any scholar I have read in 80 years (and I’ve read a lot of Irving, etc.).

    Mountains of work, mountains of words–Everests towering over the molehills of contemporary academia, journalism, “mainstream” history. I shed a tear for my misspent, brainwashed youth and student days and early newspapering. We owe you a lot, Unz. One hell of a repository of history, archived & preserved from wipe-out, I trust. I hope it’s active when my grand-kids hit real reading age !

  243. The “Greatest Generation”…

    1.) Forced to attack their ancestral homeland and kill people that did not want a war with them (Germans)
    2.) Returned home and sexually mutilated their sons in the Jewish style (at birth), becoming the first generation in American history to practice widespread cock cutting.
    3.) Ushered in the tattoo degeneracy by getting some ink overseas. Thus, many years later, every hipster dummy validates his/her tattoo because war heroes used to get them.

    It was a complete and total Jewish victory, and the “greatest generation” were the donkeys that did the heavy lifting.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Anon
    , @Bookish1
  244. @Wolfgang Otto

    Try some real reading. Oh, OK, Hitler in Ami Propaganda “has a micro-penis” – er, look at the loads of photos and videos which show he was hung like a horse (! look at the photos!). Hitler “shunned being touched” when he in fact shook thousands of hands and gave hugs and kisses. Hitler had a long list of girlfriends who were crazy about him. @ Wolfgang Otto – please dump the post-war propaganda already. We are 75 years beyond that.

  245. aandrews says:

    How Jewish Terrorists Fire-Bombed the Institute for Historical Review

    Institute for Historical Review
    May 2013

    “As a physical entity, the Institute for Historical Review has virtually ceased to exist. Ninety percent of our book and tape inventory — the largest collection of revisionist historical literature to be found anywhere — has been wiped out. Every last piece of office equipment and machinery — including desks, chairs, files and shelves — lay in charred heaps of useless, twisted scrap. Manuscripts, documents, artwork, galleys and film negatives — products of more than six long years of a tough, dedicated effort to bring suppressed historical data to people the world over — no longer exist. Tens of thousands of books … estimated at over $300,000 in value, are gone … More than 2,500 square feet of space that was once the world’s most controversial publisher lies blackened in chaos and total ruin.”

    Later it was learned that the Torrance Police Department had determined after an investigation of the attack against the IHR that the Jewish Defense League was responsible for the crime. That was the conclusion of a ten-page 1984 report on the Department’s investigation. (A redacted copy of the report was obtained by the Institute in January 2003.)

  246. Dan Hayes says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan Revusky:

    I respectfully disagree with your friendly critique of Ron’s writing style. On the contrary, I’m a big fan of his “Look what I’ve discovered and let me share that with you!” format. I find that this narrative style makes for a very palatable and free-flowing 20 thousand word essay!

  247. @ChuckOrloski

    In the past, you were headhunting for Linh Dinh’s scalp

    Well, I have no idea what Linh might have told you. I was always quite generous with him… paid for his travels and stuff… Well, I thought I had a good relationship with Linh for a while, but then certain things happened and something dawned on me…

    The guy is a friggin’ whack job!

    [MORE]

    Okay, I said it, but note that I never said that the mofo can’t write! You’ll never hear me say that!

    And so… since Ron frankly can’t write for shit, and Linh is rather underemployed there in the trash recycling business, I figured it would make sense for Ron to avail himself of Linh’s services.

    Total win-win situation, no?

    Well, yeah…. but… you see, that kind of argument would tend to work better with rational people…

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  248. @Incitatus

    Haha. From his whitewashed “research” tomb, thus went a shit piece of Zion property, InZitatus, to his contrary matzah self: “Why should I post contrary evidence (once again), when my research becomes the property of a nutty web site?”

    Uh…, for research protection, haha, keep your day vacuum salesman-job, kid. (Zigh) Hasbarity is cheap uptown celebrity!

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  249. @Alden

    …I finally read it.

    But how is that possible? It hasn’t been released in comic book format yet.

    It takes concentration masochism.

    • Replies: @Alden
  250. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saggy

    Destroying or hiding records would still leave plenty of Germans remembering where the Jews would sent. It seems they have all decided to keep quiet.

  251. Alden says:
    @Theodore

    Hitler’s nazi party won some reichstag members & provincial and city elections before 1932. But Hitler was not elected. He was appointed chancellor a year after Hindenburg was elected President. A year after that, 1934 there was a referendum that just approved the status quo of Hitler ruling as chancellor and President Hindenburg losing whatever power he had.

    As for elections after 1934, Germany was a dictatorship. As in all dictatorships the dictators party would win.

    And Hitler was appointed chancellor soon became dictator in 1933. Nothing to do with 1934-1938 elections supervised by the Nazi party.

    I know Hitler’s your hero, but you and the rest can’t deny Hitler was appointed not elected.

  252. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Just because you can’t read at an adult level

    • Replies: @Anon
  253. See this report on todays henrymakow.com; Insider Bared Bankers Conspiracy in KGB interrogation, [ 1938 ].

  254. tagaruda says:
    @szopen

    I seriously doubt if Frampol was raised to the ground, though I suppose it’s possible a few incendiary bombs landed there and destroyed the town, if the buildings were wooden and there was no fire brigade

    Certainly the details of the claim on the wikipage page are highly dubious.

    ” 125 bombers dropped 700 tons of explosives during bombing, which lasted for several hours. ”

    At that stage of the war, for Germany, for 125 planes to drop 700 tons, or 5.6 tons each, is preposterous. Germany had no heavy bombers, the heaviest, the Heinkel 111D with a payload of just 1600kg had only just gone into production. The more numerous Dornier 217 had a payload of just 1000kg at most.

    Germany had a critical shortage of both bombs and planes during the Polish campaign, so bad was the shortage of bombers that crews had to resort to kicking small bombs out of transporter planes doors, and besides, targets were strictly selected by Luftwaffe Command according to their military importance. so the reason given at wikipedia that, the Germans were practicing destroying towns using Frampol, a town with zero military importance, simply because there was no anti-aircraft guns there; is perfectly ridiculous.

    For 125 Dornier’s to each make 5 or 6 sorties, re-fuelling and re-arming, in order to drop 700 tons on some obscure Polish hovels “because the layout of the streets looked like a bullseye” is so absurd that only an utter fool could believe it.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
    , @Anon
  255. Skeptikal says:

    Well, Irving was right about the Soviet Union.

    But I wonder how far into the future he was able to imagine developments in the successor state.

    He does point out the the Russians think in terms of centuries, not the next election cycle.

    At any rate it is interesting to hear an opposite, basically racists, p.o.v. concerning what would be the best political development for SA and its people.

  256. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, Irving was right about the Soviet Union.

    But I wonder how far into the future he was able to imagine developments in the successor state.

    He does point out the the Russians think in terms of centuries, not the next election cycle.

    At any rate it is interesting to hear an opposite, basically racists, p.o.v. concerning what would be the best political development for SA and its people.

  257. @Counterinsurgency

    The failure of the Jewish establishment to reach its strategic goals, and the high casualties consequent to that failure (and largely caused by the failure) strongly suggest that the strategic goals of the Jewish community cannot be achieved. The fairly obvious corner into which the Jewish establishment has painted itself supports this conclusion.

    The Jewish Establishment appears to be trying to immanentize its eschaton, which seems no more likely that the Christian or Islamic or even Buddhist establishments immanentizing their eschaton. Eschatons are great for the end of time; I’d propose that we all just wait for it and let the eschatons grow of themselves.

    Won’t happen, though.

    Counterinsurgency

  258. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    the index of Beaty’s volume…Where is teh index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

    Since my HTML Books are fully text-searchable, there’s no need for including an Index, which anyway would be irrelevant since there aren’t any numbered pages.

    However, you can just look at the PDF version at Archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/BeatyJohnTheIronCurtainOverAmerica1.o/page/n133

    However, you might want to look quickly. The previous PDF at Archive.org mysteriously disappeared, and presumably this new one will eventually suffer the same fate.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  259. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, Learn German.

    To realize your American Pravda ambitions, in particular WW2 and the role of Jews as central factors, you gotta be able to read German.

    I have spent some time on this blog excoriating commenters who bloviate about German history without even being able to read the German version of Wikipedia. They don’t the depth of their ignorance. There is simply too much that is not available in English. Or if it is, it is unreliable.

    Of course you are not a bloviator! But, I will say that to be taken seriously as an analyst in this area of revisionism I think you do need to read German. To understand what happened to German civilians in WW2 you have to understand the survivors’ stories. I am not aware of many translations. the few I have seen were poorly translated, e.g., Frauen: Women in the Third Reich.

    • Agree: Germanicus
    • Replies: @JoeFour
    , @aandrews
  260. @Wolfgang Otto

    Good article and the 20,000 words well stated. However, the main theme of this article should be this: If the Jews want War…the Jews get War. They will lie, bribe, manipulate, control the dialogue, and destroy anyone who disagrees with them with charges of antisemitism. They then destroy the history of what they did with the same techniques.

    And what are they doing today? History of the Jews just continues to repeat itself and if you say anything like Buchanan has they try to destroy how you make a living.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  261. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey Jon!

    Will share a short Linh Dinh parable with you.

    Upon Linh’s visiting my family’s humble Taylor Borough apartment, a very wealthy friend, of my ex wife😒, her name is Sylvia met him. Immediately, chemistry, and Sylvia became charmed by Linh Dinh’s distinctness including affable personality.

    Enthusiastic, Sylvia began to insistingly offer Linh (& me!) to stay at her beautiful lakeside cottage, located in northern Pocono Mountains. As said in the NBA, a full-court press 💃 was upon the Postcard Man!

    A gentleman, Linh offered sincere appreciation, but we had lesser but more adventurous things-to-do. Afterward, we walked the streets of my hometown, shared a lot about one another until 3 am or so. No wonderful lakefront in Taylor Borough,🤔 but Linh told me all about how he and Linky settled down in the Italian Market, concrete jungle.

    Parable meaning: Linh Dinh ain’t ready for a “normal” (comfortable?) lifestyle as affluent Ron’s editor.

    Thanks for not getting abusive toward me, Jon, especially because I remember how Linh treated me to a meal, on your generous money. And such was appreciated!

    P.S.: Trust I won’t get the Moderator’s off-topic gong? Haha.

    • Replies: @Willem
  262. Incitatus says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    “thus went a shit piece of Zion property, InZitatus, to his contrary matzah self”

    Getting lonely in CIA-maven Phil Giraldi’s weekly Jews are ultimate evil epistle?

    Don’t blame you, Chuckles. Ask Milt Kapner (Brother Nat, bless all God). Maybe he has answers?

    Sent him (and Phil Giraldi) more money. 501c3s need encouragement. The more the better.

    All the best, Chuckles.

  263. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    said:
    “It is all too often, some ridiculous claim has been made in english, but there is no primary source to back it up, just “copies” ie the alleged Wannsee protocol. There is no original.

    Precisely.

    ex.: On the Nuremberg Show Trials “documents” we see English translations of Russian translations of Polish copies of an alleged German original which cannot be found.

    recommended:
    NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG, The German Defense Case: http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  264. @ChuckOrloski

    Made me smile.
    Thanks, ChuckOrloski.
    I needed that smile, because thinking about what was done to the Germans, and what is the fevered wet-dream of neocons against Iran, makes me wanna holler.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  265. Truth3 says:
    @Major Styles

    Wow… somebody finally brought up the Brainwashing of the Parents of & Benevolent Bris-ing (performed for a few $ rapidly converted into shekels) of the Boomers.

    A German Panzer Commander told me long ago, that after WW2 the Jews made sure to get the Christian boys in USA to get ‘clipped’ before they left the birthing hospital, so that NEVER AGAIN could a male be positively ID’d as a Jew by the foreskin being… ahem… absent.

  266. Incitatus says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    “Ahh, Bevor–great graduate of Sandhurst with mathematical abilities of a middle school C student is “historian”? The “student” of late Sir Keegan, who left us a “rich” heritage of “military history” which is entirely useless.’

    Wow. Don’t pretend to know any of that (if true).

    If an ‘A’ student, would his work be more true? Please tell us more.

    Be specific. Tell us what history Beevor’s written that is “entirely useless” and please explain why.

    Not holding my breath.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  267. Tusk says:
    @Tom67

    Lothrop Stoddard writes in “Into the Darkness” that:

    It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized. Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin.

    So in his first hand experience the methods for simple sterilization of genetic failures was rigorous and strictly descendent within legal hierachy. It would be bizarre if the execution of ‘children’ as you state (a far harsher thing than sterilization) was carried out with a lesser degree of legality as was displayed within the Eugenics court. Further:

    There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative

    We see that in Stoddard’s opinion the Eugenics court was too lax, acting strictly in regards to the law and the legal process. So once again it seems bizarre that executions of children would go ahead without the strictest application of fairness. You state in another comment (#54) that ‘Of course it wasn´t “official”. Just a letter that so and so died of “heart attack”’. So we can see that even evidence of this fact by your admission is conjecture.

    You also state ‘ I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.’ which makes no logical or coherent sense. To be a Jew was a ‘death sentence’ according to all the Jews who survived such a death sentence, I suppose the martyr Anne Frank who died of typhus shortly before the end of the war was surprised herself that she managed to make it so long and only die of natural diseases, not German actions. Indeed, all the survivors who collected pensions while living in Israel, who were interviewed by Spielberg as another commentator mention, or who profited from their survivor literature are the TRUE testiment to the deadly death sentence forced on the Jews.

    I do not enjoy writing such statements but it seems to me that you are the typical German cuck, who alienated from his own history, who grovels at the feet of his masters while they debase and destroy his people’s heroes, and falls into the typical stockholm syndrome that all those entrapped by masters must to survive.

    Both quotes from Stoddard can be found in Chapter XVI, and the book conviniently located locally at Unz: https://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__into-the-darkness/

  268. Agent76 says:

    April 26th, 2019 Review of The Coming of the American Behemoth: The Origins of Fascism in the United States, 1920–1940 by Michael Joseph Roberto

    Fascism is usually thought of as a quintessentially and almost exclusively European phenomenon, as having begun with Mussolini, culminated with Hitler, and been eradicated in World War II.

    https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/04/the-coming-of-american-fascism-1920-1940/#more-91631

    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  269. JoeFour says:
    @Skeptikal

    “Ron, Learn German.”

    Perhaps much easier said than done if there is any truth to Mark Twain’s observation on that language:

    “If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it. Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  270. @tagaruda

    You are correct.

    Probably most of the descriptions on Wikipedia of events in World War 2 are fakes.

    Have a look at this: http://mileswmathis.com/hitler2.pdf

    Wikipedia’s descriptions of the Battle of Britain are preposterous. And the chronology is also presposterous.

    57 days of bombing and none of Britain’s major infrastructure was majorly damaged. The bombing only started after Britain had completed it’s network of creating bunkers in the underground.

    It’s also apparent that much of Churchill’s biography is fake.

    It’s also unclear how a man how inherited the Jewish Jenneate Jerome fortune, equal to the Vanderbilt fortune, ever could have got into financial difficulties. Except if it was done to turn native preference into mere financial expediency. So instead of saying Churchill behaved as he did because he was Jewish and a Freemason you say he did it purely on quid pro quo. How does a man whose family own a mansion with a 600 person theatre ever get into financial difficulty? A man related to George Washington?

    You must read that piece. It’s extraordinary.

    The degree of deception cannot possibly be underestimated. Unz is a great man because he takes it this far. But there is still further to go.

    • Replies: @Alden
  271. Tusk says:

    To everyone I also recommend those who haven’t done so, or simply do not know of, to read Joel Hayward’s ‘The Fate of Jews in German Hands” which is accessible right here on Unz. It is a remarkably concise text and I believe it offers a unique perspective in that the author is not a ‘nazi’, nor even a historical revisionist, but instead simply a historian who wanted truth.

  272. Seraphim says:
    @Germanicus

    “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” i.e. Soviet archives (and Soviet fiction writers) that only ‘me’ is privy to, or your lying eyes (because it goes without saying that you are a liar, full of Solzhenitsyn s..t and everybody knows that Solzh. was a damned liar and VIP-KGB agent).

  273. Alden says:
    @Flint Clint

    There was no Jerome fortune to inherit.

  274. @Ron

    Can we have the “Next Unread Comment” at the bottom of comments?

    When there is a long comment, I have to scroll back up to click the Next Unread Comment link.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  275. @Wally

    Hitler endeavored to send Jews packing, preferably toward Israel. Some Jews were executed, and many Jews were regarded and treated by the Third Reich as Enemies of the State. As I described, many of those enemies were rounded up and forced into labor camps to supply the German Military with materiel. As the war neared its end, allied bombing and tactical strikes destroyed key transportation systems Germans needed to supply those camps. With rampant disease outbreaks, lack of food and other staples, those hapless people died horribly. This was not a deliberate effort to kill Jews, it was poor planning and an example (Among many..) of Hitler’s megalomania.

  276. Alden says:
    @Theodore

    According to your chart, the Nazis didn’t start winning elections until 10 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor, became dictator and was in a position to coerce the voters and entire electoral process.

    As Alden wrote, Hitler was not elected. He was appointed.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Theodore
  277. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    As usual, reams of verbiage about Ron’s personal voyage of historical discovery, without much enlightenment, but with a great deal of muddy water. For example, Buchanan is said to have assigned to Churchill:

    a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both World Wars

    An assignment we are presumably supposed to accept without question. But in fact, such an assignment of blame, if Buchanan actually made it, is simply silly.

    The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war on Germany following Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium was negotiated by Sir Edward Grey, who persuaded the Cabinet of the necessity of war. Churchill was in full support, but his enthusiasm for war repelled the Liberals in cabinet who opposed war.

    As for Churchill’s responsibility for WWII, he was out of government throughout all the years leading up to Neville Chamberlain’s declaration of war. Churchill returned to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939, the same day that Britain, under PM Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany.

    Then there’s this:

    Until recently, my familiarity with Churchill had been rather cursory, and Irving’s revelations were absolutely eye-opening. Perhaps the most striking single discovery was the remarkable venality and corruption of the man, with Churchill being a huge spendthrift who lived lavishly and often far beyond his financial means, employing an army of dozens of personal servants at his large country estate despite frequently lacking any regular and assured sources of income to maintain them.

    The meaning of the expression “huge spendthrift” is open to interpretation. When, during the entire year of 1935, Winston Churchill spent 515 pounds on booze for consumption at his country residence, Chartwell, and at his London flat, some might call that extravagant, but really it was a triviality relative to the life style of America’s present-day elite.

    Moreover, although it is true that Churchill on several occasions faced financial disaster, he earned by dint of enormous industry a large literary income. He published over 10 million words, won the Nobel Prize for literature, and during the interwar years wrote prolifically for national newspapers.

    As for the “dozens” of personal servants that Churchill employed, a significant number of these were literary aides whose task it was to undertake research for Churchill’s major literary endeavors such as The History of the English Speaking Peoples, a multi-volume work that was serialized in magazines both in Britain and the US.

    Then this:

    during the years leading up to the Second World War, both Churchill and numerous other fellow British MPs were regularly receiving sizable financial stipends—cash bribes—from Jewish and Czech sources in exchange for promoting a policy of extreme hostility toward the German government and actually advocating war.

    This is clearly bullshit. Yes Churchill received financial assistance from various people at various times of his life. That he received money as a “cash bribe” is a completely unsubstantiated and totally absurd contention.

    And so on and on and on. Complete balderdash.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Bragadocious
  278. @yallerdumb

    Tick, tick, tick. Time is running out on Holocaustianity. What are you going to do when the world
    finds out the Jews have spoofed again?

  279. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    As for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz’s article, imo it’s not worth bothering with, since it’s so far removed from reality.

    The problem with historical revisionism is that it starts with moderate fair-minded revisionists (like A.J.P. Taylor) making perfectly valid points. Yes, the Czechs and the Poles were not quite innocent victims. They did behave cynically and foolishly. Yes, it’s undoubtedly true that Hitler did not want war with Britain and France in 1939. Yes, Churchill was a cynical bungler.

    Taylor was not just a trained historian but a brilliant one. He based his arguments on actual evidence and on his sound understanding of historical methods.

    But then the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and the Hitler fanboys and the crazies who see Jewish conspiracies everywhere arrive on the scene. And the people with political axes to grind (like Suvorov). They take those perfectly valid arguments much much further and they don’t have the sound historical training to evaluate actual evidence and they’re not interested in evidence anyway. They base their arguments on their own hobby-horses and their own obsessions.

    Within a short time they have departed completely from reality and have constructed bizarre fantasy scenarios in which Hitler Did Nothing Wrong and it was All The Fault of the Jews (or the Freemasons). They ignore any evidence that conflicts with their fantasy scenarios because it was all a gigantic conspiracy so you can’t trust the evidence so you just go with your prejudices. And they’re not capable of evaluating the evidence anyway. And they go down the rabbit hole and once they do that they can never get out again. They swallow every revisionist theory that comes along no matter how far-fetched it might be as long as it’s consistent with their conspiracy theories.

    So you end up with historical reasoning that goes like this. Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. But Hitler Did Nothing Wrong. Therefore it could not have been Hitler’s fault. So even though the Soviets were the ones who got invaded it must have been their fault. Or the fault of the Jews. Or the bankers. Or the Freemasons. It must have been anyone but Hitler’s fault.

  280. Ron Unz says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Well, I read the dozen or so reviews in my content-archiving system, and the overwhelming majority were quite brief, sometimes just a paragraph or two. For obvious reasons, these didn’t make much impression on me one way or the other, though one of them remarkably on the absolutely uniform praise that Taylor’s book had received in the high-end British press, including The Observer and The Guardian in addition to The New Statesman and The Times Literary Supplement.

    However, quite substantial was the 8,000 word attack by Trevor-Roper in Encounter, though much of it seemed overly rhetorical and emotional to me. We must remember that Encounter was co-founded by Irving Kristol and was the premier “Neocon” publication of that era, much more so than e.g. Commentary (which was still leftist). Barnes points out that Trevor-Roper was actually a specialist in English Stuart history, while Taylor’s expertise was Germany. Frankly, I didn’t find Trevor-Roper very persuasive, but I’ve extracted the PDF, so people can read it for themselves:

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WWII-Encounter.pdf

    For more interesting and persuasive to me was an even longer review by Harry Elmer Barnes, which places the Taylor book in the broader context of the dishonest state of historiography:

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WWII-Barnes.pdf

    And once again, I’d strongly recommend the 7,500 word very favorable review by Murray Rothbard:

    https://mises.org/library/review-origins-second-world-war

    All of these works were written nearly 60 years ago, and obviously enormous quantities of new material has come to light, allowing us to better evaluate them.

    I think by far the most important addition is Irving’s books, which are very comprehensive, and (inadvertently!) proven to be 99.9% accurate by Lipstadt and her $13M research team.

    And if we start by assuming Irving’s material, it all fits very well with Taylor, Barnes, and Rothbard, while it makes Trevor-Roper look rather ridiculous.

    Keep in mind that the “official narrative” of FDR around 1940/41 was that Hitler had already formulated plans to invade and conquer South America and the US, which was why we needed to fight him. Presumably, FDR got the idea from Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast.

    Anyway, read those three contrasting major reviews and decide for yourselves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  281. Leo says:

    “…book … Germany Must Perish!, in which he explicitly proposed the total extermination of the German people”

    the author of that book did NOT propose “extermination” of anyone.

    • Replies: @Fox
  282. Old fogey says:

    Thank God for Ron Unz.

  283. As I am in recovery from Jewish historiography and Jewish social science, I am very grateful for this essay. Thank you Mr. UNz

  284. Miro23 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    It takes nothing from US heroism in Pacific or in Europe, but it was destroyed (utterly) Europe which served as basis for US tremendous recovery from Great Depression and effectively taking the position of hegemon, with the rest of the world in ruins.

    That’s true enough, and the US dominated world finance, manufacturing and commerce in the 1950’s.

    OT, but The ROW (Rest Of the World) was going to come back – with the big surprise being the way the US/Europe handled the 1970’s+ digital/internet revolution. Corporate globalists outsourced everything – destroying their national skills and manufacturing – and we’re feeling the full impact of that now as our “rich country” welfare systems fail apart along with the rest of society.

    It’s the victory of a frontierless, globalist, financialized elite over the people of the US and Europe.

  285. Druid says:
    @Germanicus

    Maybe German Reader is secretly a zio

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  286. Wally says:
    @szopen

    “And now defend raising Frampol to the ground. Or maybe subhuman Slavs does not count, as usual when you talk with Nazi apologists.”

    – Frampol would have been a legit military target. And you cannot show us the alleged remains of the alleged thousands of civilians said to have been killed there.

    – The Nazis never claimed the Slavs were “subhuman”.*

    “Apologizing’ for what?

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    * The “sub-human” lie is used as a ‘holocaust’ narrative gateway.
    It’s a crude form of vote buying by “The Holocaust Industry”.
    It helps the naive to accept the fake claim of “6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 others” while it encourages eastern Europeans to make false claims which allows them to grab hold of the cherished ‘woe is us’ victim status.
    recommended:
    Did Hitler consider Slavs / Eastern Europeans to be “Subhuman” or racially inferior?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12690

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  287. Wally says:
    @dfordoom

    Except that you cannot refute what Revisionist research has proven.
    Here’s your chance, but all we get is your laughable Zionist whining & dodging.
    Simple stuff really.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”
    – Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

  288. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    For example, Buchanan is said to have assigned to Churchill…a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both World Wars…An assignment we are presumably supposed to accept without question. But in fact, such an assignment of blame, if Buchanan actually made it, is simply silly…The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war

    Well, it sounds like you’ve been too lazy to actually read the Buchanan book. According to the author, the British Cabinet was very narrowly divided about declaring war, and Churchill was one of the strongest pro-war voices. Whether or not Buchanan’s analysis is correct, that’s what he says.

    The meaning of the expression “huge spendthrift” is open to interpretation…Yes Churchill received financial assistance from various people at various times of his life. That he received money as a “cash bribe” is a completely unsubstantiated and totally absurd contention.

    However, on this point I think you’re absolutely dead-flat wrong, and you obviously haven’t bothered reading Irving’s books or just even watching his lectures that I linked in my article. Irving’s evidence seems absolutely overwhelming.

    Based on current income-levels, a pound back then was roughly the equivalent of $250 today, and based upon that rough conversion, Jewish activists and the Czechs spent many tens of millions of dollars to pay off Churchill, lots of other British politicians, publishers, and journalists. A whole group of MPs were apparently each getting $500K per year in secret payments from these sources. When Churchill lost all his money playing the American stockmarket in 1938 and was on the verge of bankruptcy, an Austrian Jew eager for war with Germany stepped in and immediately paid off his $4.5M in margin-debts and saved him from total financial ruin.

    Can we believe Irving? Well, as I emphasized, Deborah Lipstadt and her huge team of researchers spent $13M(!!) going through all of Irving’s books line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote looking for errors, and found virtually none. If any of the above claims about these large cash payments were incorrect, why didn’t she mention them in her 2006 book, History on Trial?

    You’ve always struck me as a totally ignorant buffoon, and you’ve certainly reinforced that impression with this silly comment.

  289. @Alden

    According to Theodore’s chart, in July 31, 1932, Hitler’s party, led by him, won over 32% of the vote, the largest number of any party. On Nov. 6, 1932 he won 33%, also the largest amount by far, among the 7 parties running, plus a bunch of “other” smaller parties. To say he didn’t win is clearly wrong. You are just sore losers.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Alden
  290. ValMond says:
    @Germanicus

    Oh, the 20 million communist victims! Russophobes Without Borders have trademarked the number back in the 70s. But where does it come from? No doubt, you haven’t counted them personally, have you? But you know someone who has, right? Or at least someone who knows someone who has read Soljenitsyne. The question is how did he come with that number?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Germanicus
  291. @Carolyn Yeager

    I should add, before I hear back from you, that I’m not saying he was elected as chancellor. I know he was appointed by Hindenberg, but it was because, in large part anyway, his party was so strong in parliament. He did have the support of a very large segment of the people.

  292. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You’re trying real hard, Franklin, but it’s a lost cause. That you’re reduced to defending Szopen in order to support the Poles does not speak well of you. And that you have to “interpret my words” as simply amounting to “ethnic prejudice” puts your flaming dishonesty and your lack of substance on display.

    Are you familiar with the book I named? You show me something equivalent from the “official Polish Government.” Oh, you can’t? Instead you drag this in:

    I remember in your article about the Einsatzgruppen you said that the reports of the killing of civilians that they send back to the homefront were lies. They lied about it to impress their superiors. So suddenly the always honest Germans became consumate liars when that suits you.

    LOL. It was a book review and it was said by Carlo Mattogno, not me. But in any case, it hardly applies here, since I am commenting to Szopen that his saying “Polish witnesses remember …” does not prove a thing! And you know that as well as I do.

    By the way, I’m sure you’re having a hard time commenting on this Unz article since he pretty much explodes all your favorite anti-Hitler themes. If things keep going the way they are, you will have fewer and fewer online allies on this topic. Your favorite Wikipedia pages might even have to be revised!!

    • Replies: @szopen
  293. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I’ve already told you: I see no point in serious discussion with you because I do not consider you are serious person.

    For German crimes I’ve already pointed to the thread on forum.axis, where I showed documents gathered by Polish prosecutor about Bydgoszcz, which I carefully translated and typed (I got no scanner at those times). I got no reply. There are also reports about German crimes gathered during the war by Polish AK Military Intelligence; AFAIK they are all dismissed as propaganda, especially when they allude to the Holocaust and deliberate murdering of Polish Jews (and other Poles). Why I should waste my time by searching the librarierm providing you with links or to translate from Polish, only to get the predictable answer that “well, Pilecki was a hoax; Bartosiewicz was liar; IPN institute is a propaganda institution” (BTW, quite recently we had a scandal in POland where it was revelead that Polish institutions sent 63 000 original documents about Nazi crimes in Poland to Germany to aid German prosecutors; they were never returned). I know that after I will spent few hours on research, you will dismiss everything by saying “Oh, he is not reliable because reasons”.

    About German courts, it’s enough to read https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondergericht_Bromberg (in Polish) to get an idea about how fair were courts in Bydgoszcz (some German lawyers supposedly defending Polish clients were asking for just punishment, and in one case a lawyer asked for a death penalty! – and death penalties were given, for example, for pushing a German from a bicycle, or punishing a women for telling Polish soldiers where a German bakery was). Or killing 50 random PoWs from a unit which was not even near Bydgoszcz, because one (!) German witness testified that this unit participated in “Bloody Sunday”.

    The problem with Peter MX answer is that the Belgium was still keeping neutrality, even though friendly to France; it allowed French troops to defend Belgium, but French rushed into the country only AFTER German invasion. As usual with you Nazi apologists, you think that it’s perfectly OK to invade a country because after invasion French moved into the country. Double standards, hypocrisy and “we dindu noffin wrong” mentality, which I encounter so many times that it’s not even amusing anymore.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Alden
  294. szopen says:
    @iffen

    You are right. Time after time I promise myself I won’t deign anymore to talk to those creatures, but then my temperament kicks in.

    At least I no longer waste time going to public libraries searching for books, or buying document collections. I still have quite a few historic books I bought just for discussions with revisionists. All for nothing. I quoted one document after another, and I was always either ignored, or dismissed with “this is fake” or “this is propaganda”.

    But when you see those people, so eager to find some minor errors in stories about Nazi crimes, while absolutely believing everything from crimes against Germans; when they are ready to accept one Polish document which confirm their biases, while refusing to accept another which does not; you just have to have nerves of steel not to scream at them.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @iffen
  295. Fox says:
    @Leo

    Indeed, he proposes that with the employment of 20000 surgeons to sterilize German men up to the age of 60 the problem of Germany will resolve itself within about a generation. (Quoting from memory). Did Kaufman not use the word “exterminate”? What do you think he might have intended with his proposal to sterilize all German men in the age of procreation?
    This was a demonic, an immensely evil idea, and worthy to be remembered. The evil man lived until the 1980s and seems to never have been held to account or shown any remorse.
    Incidentally, Arthur Topham of Canada altered the evil book by changing “German” to “Israel” and boy, did he get in trouble. Why would that be if the evil Kaufman were just making a harmless jest?

    • Replies: @Leo
    , @Bookish1
  296. @SolontoCroesus

    ‘…Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.’

    But what we have seen is the reverse.

    It is perhaps a misconception that ‘objective’ history can ever be written, or that there will ever be a perfect, freely agreed accord on what that objective truth is. However, in the first forty or so years after World War Two, a great deal of interesting, perceptive history appeared on the war. Views varied widely, and if the various partisans freely denounced each other, they rarely succeeded in completely repressing views they disapproved of.

    Since then, though, things have gotten worse, not better. Most of the more recent books I have read on the Second World War seem to regard it as incumbent to simply recount the standard narrative of the Holocaust at the expense of everything else; the most impressive example of this compulsion would be the third volume of Evans’ trilogy on Hitler’s Germany; The Third Reich at War.

    At the same time, more radically dissident views are determinedly and effectively marginalized. More and more, what we get is a careful orthodoxy.

    You look forward to ‘cool, objective history.’ As time passes, where we’re actually heading seems to be the opposite; a kind of dreary Stalinism, where what matters is not truth or perception, but conformity.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
  297. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Well, duh. That’s what “history is written by the victors” means.

  298. @Andrei Martyanov

    Rant all you want, your damage control is pathetic, and I simply ask my question again.

    How many of the 20 million were killed by your jewish commissars and apparatchiks?

  299. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    From the Rothbard:

    Taylor is very good in deprecating the importance of Hitler’s — shifting — “dreams,” as in Mein Kampf, dreams, even then, which had nothing to do with “world conquest,” or even conquest of Britain.

    Well, that’s a neat trick considering that Taylor hadn’t read Mein Kampf when he wrote the book.

    Relevant point from the Trevor-Roper review:

    I may add (since Mr. Taylor includes me among those who have ascribed to Hitler “preconceived plans” which he never pursued) that I myself read Mein Kamp in the original in 1938, and that I read it under the impact of Munich and of the remarkable prophecies of Sir Robert Ensor, who had read it and who insisted that Hitler meant what he said. By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right. His sole justification of this paradox is that he has accepted as an axiom a characterization of Hider as a “traditional” statesman pursuing limited aims. Mr. Taylor’s Hitler cannot have held such views, and therefore the inconvenient fact that the real Hitler uttered such views with remarkable consistency for twenty years and actually put them into practice, is simply puffed aside. When Hitler, in 1941, finally launched that conquest of Russia which, as he himself said, was “the be-all and end-all of Nazism,” Mr. Taylor easily explains it away. “By 1941,’’ he says, “Hitler had lost his old gift of patience”: he “gratuitously” deviated from his former course; and at the mere thought of such an unaccountable fall from grace, Mr. Taylor promptly ends his book.

    People assumed that Trevor-Roper and Taylor were personal enemies, but they actually got along quite well. Unlike Irving, Taylor didn’t like Hitler or even care about him one way or the other; his contrarian take on WWII was a characteristic exercise in scholarly mischief-making.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  300. @Druid

    Whatever it is, it is a lie peddler, or simply a “reeducated” German Sefton Delmer talked about.
    My bet is on, it is not even German, but just a German reader with poor command of the German language, like almost all of these shills and narrative enforcers.
    This tiresome mistranslation game is something the Jews usually peddle, like claiming “ausmerzen” means extermination. Noting new here, heard it so many times, hence I think it is a professional lie peddler, and his target are the naive and uneducated ignorant mass.

  301. @Carlton Meyer

    In 2000 Iraq changed from selling its oil in petrodollars to euros. The American attack followed as soon as it could. Similarly Libya proposed shifting from petrodollars to gold dinars. With the same result. Iran and Venezuela are both notable for having nationalized their oil resources previously seized by international corporations, mostly British and American. So they too are enemies. Is there a pattern here?

    • Replies: @Miro23
  302. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s interesting that the problem Trevor-Roper anticipates in the first couple of paragraphs (later generations will be cut from “the emotional content” of the rise of fascism and of the whole interwar period) never became a problem. The conventional wisdom of British hawks (Hitler was bent on conquest, an incorrigible maniac) became the conventional wisdom of the future. This is what every schoolchild now thinks. Fascism is “radical evil,” and is therefore incomprehensible. It can’t be reasoned with. It can only be carpet bombed.

    So, although I think Taylor’s book was misconceived and his otherwise delightful urge to troll got the better of him, an instructor who took a coolheaded, Taylor-like approach to the period would benefit undergraduates more than the Trevor-Roper or Timothy Snyder approaches, which go into compelling detail to reach conclusions that students today already believe.

    That said, Taylor’s Hitler isn’t convincing. He was an ordinary German: “Everything which Hitler did against the Jews followed logically from the racial doctrines in which most Germans vaguely believed.” Or, saying a similar thing differently: “in principle and doctrine, Hitler was no more wicked and unscrupulous than many other contemporary statesmen. In wicked acts he outdid them all.” The reason for this disjunction between principles and actions, we are told, is that the driving force in Hitler was a “terrifying literalism.” Yet Taylor also says that historians who have “seen in Hitler a system-maker, deliberately preparing…a great war which would destroy existing civilization” have created such “systems” themselves. Or to the extent that any such preconceived plans existed – such as the ambitious program of Eastern conquest and colonization laid out in Mein Kampf– they are dismissed as mere “day-dreams”: “Hitler always saw himself, in these day-dreams, as master of the world.” In Taylor’s jumbled interpretation, Hitler emerges as a terrifyingly literal-minded statesmen who did not take his abundant discourse on Eastern conquest literally.

    “My only mistake,” Taylor wrote in a preface entitled “Second Thoughts,” added to a later edition, “was not to emphasize more clearly that I was writing about the origins of the minor European conflict which broke out in 1939, not about the origins of the real Second World War.” This gives the game away and concedes defeat to Trevor-Roper, in my view.

  303. @Wally

    Once I found out there are iirc 4 english translations of “Mein Kampf”, with only one being the accurate translation, it opened the door to researching the translation trickery. I have an original Eher Verlag “Mein Kampf” and simply compared the translation to the original. The result was so revealing, sentences had been inserted that were not present in the German original, or sentences had been deliberately mistranslated.

    If I invade some country and capture typesets and stamps etc, I could produce any document I wanted, granted I have proper command of the foreign language.

    The Jews and forgers obviously did not have proper command of German language. The alleged Wannsee protocol is riddled with absolutely improper German. No German bureaucrat writes like this, at no time, it is poor German.

    That said, I miss also un UR a reference to primary sources such as speeches given by the German leadership. I have my suspicion why this does not happen… these speeches crush the official narrative without tertiary sources.

    • Replies: @turtle
  304. Tom67 says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Oh sure Hitler or Germany weren´t alone in that. And it is very doubtful that Germany had started this program of killing “unworthy lives” if the war hadn´t begun.

  305. gregor says:

    Irving’s claims about Churchill are quite explosive. I’ve been trying to verify some of it in other sources. I picked up David Lough’s No More Champagne (a biography specifically focused on Churchill’s finances) and Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship.

    *As noted here, Irving claims that Churchill was part of an informal pressure group called “The Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace.” This was during his “wilderness” period. There is no doubt whatsoever that the group in fact existed since one of the members, Eugen Spier (a wealthy German Jew who’d fled to Britain), actually published a brief history of the group. I read it last week.

    https://archive.org/details/SpierEugenFOCUSAFootnoteToTheHistoryOfTheThirties/page/n1

    1) Spier states in the foreword that he had wanted to publish earlier but that Churchill requested that it be delayed until after his death. He did not seem to want his involvement with it to be known. Hmm. Spier ended up waiting until 1963.

    2) Spier does not address finances aside for the following interesting bit.

    The secretary’ agreed, but asked where the money to defray expenses was to come from. His bald request came like the explosion of a bomb. Expressions of embarrassment appeared on every side, and Churchill himself looked displeased, even angry. For a moment it looked as if the whole effort was about to come to grief. To avert catastrophe I took Richards aside and asked him to announce that all our requirements had been taken care of. The tension was immediately eased. Churchill seemed greatly relieved and the other guests were clearly delighted.

    Irving says that one of the members, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, a very wealthy Jew had raised 50,000 pounds to fund the group (this is sourced from Waley-Cohen’s biography). According to Gilbert, Spier also contributed 9,600 pounds to the group over several years. Lough concedes that the group was funded by Jews but he disputes any direct payments to Churchill, saying “there is no evidence in Churchill’s banks statements of 1936 or 1937 to support any suggestion by historian David Irving that Focus or its leaders may have made undisclosed payments to Churchill.”

    3) Lough corroborates Irving’s claim that Churchill nearly had to sell his Chartwell estate in 1938 to cover his stock market losses before Sir Henry Strakosch bailed him out with a “loan” of 20,000 pounds (over a million dollars today). This one is even on Wikipedia.

    4) Churchill wrote to his son saying that the basis of the group (which he referred to as the “Anti-Nazi League”) “is of course Jewish resentment at their abominable persecution. But we are now taking broader ground rather on the lines of my Paris speech.”

    Churchill is essentially a proto-neocon. As I read through the Spier book, the warmongering rhetoric was eerily reminiscent of more recent neocon. There is repeated, Orwellian references of “freedom and peace,” the need to spread “democracy,” even as they call for war. There’s the imperative to remove “dictators,” etc. Ideologically, the group seemed to condemn both Nazism/Fascism and Communism, but they (including Churchill) had immeasurably greater interest in fighting Nazism. When Lindbergh said the British, the Jews, and Roosevelt were trying to push the USA into the war, he was, if anything, strongly understating the Jewish role, given that the “British” push for war itself was so Jewish.

    *Re: the claim Churchill and Roosevelt were conspiring to get the US into the war. This claim has been around for a while. One wrinkle that Irving adds is that he says this occurred even before Churchill became Prime Minister, behind Chamberlain’s back. Apparently, this was commonly assumed among isolationists, especially during the so-called Tyler Kent affair. Kent was an American cipher clerk who was stealing documents which he intended to use as evidence of collusion. There definitely was correspondence, although it doesn’t seem like Kent actually had anything nearly as explosive as he claimed. Whether they explicitly plotted or not, it’s quite clear they both wanted war and this may have been so obvious that collusion was scarcely necessary.

    *Another point Irving hammers is that Hitler had no desire for war with Britain and was desperate to make a peace offer (and that he concealed these peace offers). It seems clear to me, and this would probably be admitted even by mainstream historians, that Churchill would never have agreed to any sort of peace with Hitler. He was determined to defeat Hitler and put an end to national socialism in Germany, no matter the cost. But I doubt very much if the British public would have shared this priority. Irving attributes this to Churchill being bought and also his personal ego. That is to say, no one gets a big bronze statue in Parliament Square for ending the war in 1940. Personally, I wouldn’t rule out Churchill being a true believer to some extent, again, not unlike the Gentile neocons we have today.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Alden
  306. Tom67 says:
    @tagaruda

    Oh sure Hitler or Germany weren´t alone in that. And it is very doubtful that Germany had started this program of killing “unworthy lives” if the war hadn´t begun.

  307. @Ron Unz

    There seems to have been serious disagreement about the number of victims of the criminal Dresden air raid.
    Wikipedia says, Prof. Lipstadt’s experts were able to show that Mr Irving had inflated the nunbers tenfold by using only one source, claimed to be dubious.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Anon
    , @Ron Unz
  308. @Agent76

    You know, your comment sounds sort of fascist. Strident, authoritarian, stories about vast evil conspiracies, secret tendencies, inborn evil. Fascist.

    Funny thing about that.

    As I’ve commented earlier, Italy and Germany won the war of ideas. Their methods of government and conducting politics have become universal, imitated by a Left without ideas of its own. As in your post. You’ve become your enemy.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Alden
  309. Tom67 says:
    @tagaruda

    Hi Taracuda
    Thanks for the reply. You do indeed know a lot about the American Euthanasia program. As to Germany the numbers killed in Euthanasia are among the best attested of the period. The numbers were relatively small and the records of the insane asylums, church insitutions from were the patients were taken a.s.o and so forth are all well preserved. Even the names of the chief perpetrators are all known. As well as entries in the diary of Goebbels and much more evidence. In fact as you have mentioned euthanasia was in the air in the Thirties and it seemed a no brainer to a large part of the ruling segment of the population that one had to indeed enact it.
    As to survivors of the Holocaust: really only the numbers of western European Jews killed are more or less certain. That is because there are intact archives and population registers. East of todays border between Germany and Poland any number cited is mainly based on the last Polish census of 1931 and estimates of the number of survivors. And indeed there were survivors. I have spent an evening talking with an elderly Jewish lady in Wilnius who recounted how she hid during the war in Ukraine , another one told me how she and her female relatives (the men were all taken as they were circumcized) survived on the scraps of a Wehrmacht kitchen in Minsk and a third returned to Modavia and all her relatives were dead. These were all people I got to know under completely different circumstances and they told me their stories as an elderly person would relate a formating experience to a younger person. (Just as my mother many times told me the horrors of being German in Czechoslavakia after the end of the war)
    And of course there were survivors of Stalins camps as well. I even got to know a man who as a boy had first survived a German camp in Estonia and then a Russian camp near the Arctic ocean. He had a rather interesting explanation of the camps on both sides: if there are to many people – so he told me – and not enough food people will find a reason to exterminate each other. As good an explanation as I could find.
    Finally let me say that I very much appreciate the efforts of Ron Unz to revisit all the supposed certainties of the war and the Holocaust. Even if I don´t agree with all his conclutions.

  310. @4891

    But I’m curious with regards to your blanket dismissal of the accusations against David Irving, specifically of accusations of twisting sources.

    I recently Lying About Hitler by Richard Evans, a historian employed by the defence in the Lipstadt case. Evans describes a number of cases of Irving’s distortion of source material, which I felt were quite damning. However, these cases essentially amounted to attempts to exculpate Hitler personally for various anti-Jewish excesses, and it’s unclear to me that they do any serious damage to the overall thrust of Irving’s position regarding the progression of events which led to war.

  311. Sam says:

    Hoggan was brought up Unz. Here is what Gary North writes about him in another article. He gets right into Hoggan’s unreliability. Hoggan had lied about one of the core contentions of his of his thesis i.e. Halifax

    [MORE]

    HARD-CORE WAR REVISIONISM

    Then there is the other form of revisionist history of World War II, the suggestion that the German government did not kill six million Jews. The historian whose name is quietly associated with this theory is David L Hoggan. He wrote an anonymous book, The Myth of the Six Million. He did not put his name on it. It still is published in the holocaust denial movement. I know that he wrote it because he showed me the original manuscript. My office was next door to his in the summer of 1963. I read it. Years later, I read a printed version of it. It was the same book. It is online here.

    Hoggan was the author of a history of the coming of the war in Europe in September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. The German language edition was published in 1961. In this book, he maintained that Hitler was only attempting to enforce what the Riverside treaty had guaranteed to Germany, namely, access to the North Sea through Poland. Germany was supposed to have access to the free city of Danzig. Poland would not allow this. Hoggan maintained that Hitler made a legitimate demand. The Polish government had no legal case.

    The English language version of the book had a different title: The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. It was published in 1989 by the Holocaust Institute for Historical Review, which is known as the most hard-core of the hard-core World War II revisionist organizations. it is available as a PDF download here.

    Hoggan had written his doctoral dissertation on this topic when he was at Harvard University. He wrote it under William L. Langer, who soon became the dean of the establishment historians on the issue of the war in Europe and America’s entry into it. He had actually been one of the policymakers at the State Department. It was a two-volume defense of what he and his colleagues had engineered to take the United States into the war.

    Langer always maintained that Hoggan revised his Ph.D. thesis in order to make it look as though Hitler was not primarily to blame. He said that in his original dissertation, Hoggan placed blame on the English, the Poles, France, and Hitler. Hoggan denied that this was the case. We spoke about it in the summer of 1963. I took his word for it. That was a mistake.

    In 1971, I went to Boston in order to do research on my Ph.D. dissertation on Puritan colonial history. I went to Harvard and read his dissertation. Harvard has a rule that the only way you can read a Harvard Ph.D. dissertation is with written permission of the author unless you go to Harvard and read the dissertation. I did not get permission. I sat in Harvard’s library and read the dissertation. It was obvious that Langer was telling the truth. It was equally obvious that Hoggan either had lied to me about not making any change in the thesis of his dissertation, or else his nearly photographic memory had failed him on the most important issue of his career. We read this:

    Nothing that the British did in 1939 can give them a primary responsibility for the war that broke out between Germany and Poland. British responsibility here enters only indirectly with the Versailles settlement, and in this instance the British were the least to blame of all the great powers for the Versailles solution of the German-Polish question (p. 398).
    In Hoggan’s 1961 book, the number-one promoter of Polish resistance was Lord Halifax. In chapter after chapter, Hoggan devoted pages to Lord Halifax. For virtually all other modern European historians, Halifax supported Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. Halifax was Foreign Secretary from 1938 until the fall of the Chamberlain government in May 1940. If ever there was a piece of revisionist history, it is Hoggan’s assessment of the role of Lord Halifax. It is completely opposed to what virtually all specialized diplomatic historians of late 1930’s Europe have concluded.

    On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. The two of them agreed to carve up Poland for their respective empires. A week later, Germany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland. There was no declaration of war on the part of the Soviet Union. If this was peaceful revision, I wonder what warlike revision is like.

    Mr. King is taking seriously Prof. Hoggan’s theory of Hitler as a man who sought peace in 1939 over the Polish question. I do not take this thesis seriously. For a long time, I was willing to give Hoggan the benefit of the doubt. I did want his book to be published in English. I corresponded with Harry Elmer Barnes on this issue in the late 1960’s. Barnes also hoped to see it published in English. But my reading of Hoggan’s Ph.D. dissertation in 1970, and then 19 years later, the publication of his book in English, persuaded me that he had switched his assessment of responsibility for the outbreak of the war away from Hitler in the direction of Lord Halifax. Halifax received no comparable degree of attention in the dissertation.

    Elsewhere on this site, I have discussed my brief relationship with Hoggan in 1963. You can read it here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/17455.cfm

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/17454.cfm

  312. JackOH says:

    Amazing tour de force, Ron.

    Is responsible historical revisionism necessary to rectify bad policies of today that seem to be set in stone?

    Probably. My feeling is the over-blackening of Hitler’s Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Wilhelmine Germany, has created a post-1945 safe space for the non-German West to engage in military interventions and domestic policies that are deeply odious, but resist meaningful examination.

    The “we’re-not-Hitler” exculpatory card carried by non-German Western politicians is, in my opinion, something pretty powerful. It’s allowed America to adopt government enforced racist anti-White policies, as but one example, to deal with the occasional “retail” excesses of some Whites directed against Blacks.

  313. Miggle says:
    @Alden

    The Berlin police should have murdered the communist spy agitator and revolutionary years before […]

    That’s not how it works in other than a failed state, which is just what I was saying. Rosa Luxemburg or Maria Butina should be indicted and tried, before a jury or three or more judges, and sentenced. There should be a written judgment sentencing Rosa to death, with right of appeal.

    Good thing the Berlin police killed her and spared the whole of Germany going Jew dominated communist after WW1.

    There is a lot of deluded, prejudiced nonsense on this topic. Yes, she was a Jewess, and a revolutionary Marxist. Yes, the Russian Revolution was driven by Jews, typically ultra-murderous. That doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Learn the difference between Marxism and Bolshevism.

    Marx is forever called a Jew, but he was brought up a Christian and became an atheist in his mid-teens. He was never a Jew. His parents were Jews who converted to Christianity. Rosa was a Marxist Jewess, I think also an atheist, believing, probably correctly, that there is no alternative to revolution.

    But she was not a Bolshevist. She was in prison in Germany when Lenin came to power but is on record as being broken-hearted that Lenin did not immediately call an election. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which she believed in, means the proletariat must vote. Marx was a democrat. So was she. But of the anti-plutocratic kind that wouldn’t have allowed the Jew, Sheldon Adelson, to vote, would only have allowed his workers to vote.

    Police, Freicorps non communist militia, whoever killed Rosa Luxemburg are heroes in my opinion.

    Fiends in my opinion.

  314. @JoeFour

    “Ron, Learn German.”

    Perhaps much easier said than done

    Well, the point of the exercise would not be so much for Ron to actually learn German, but rather, for him to learn humility.

  315. I have read many of the books Ron Unz mentions here, and went to Cincinnati once to hear David Irving on a weekend lecture tour. Mr. Unz has provided us with a real (i.e. revisionist) education, and he is an American treasure. But many people, I have found, do not only not take the opportunity to educate themselves, they actually resist it. I know a Jewish guy who when I offered evidence that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, and asked him if he wasn’t glad to know that the Germans were not the monsters we had been taught to believe,…no, he wanted to believe that the Germans were monsters who had gassed millions of Jews.

    • Replies: @Anon
  316. PeterMX says:

    As the son of Germans, I am considering adding Ron Unz to my list of righteous Jews, which currently has Gilad Atzmon, Paul Eisen, Benjamin Freedman (converted to Christianity, now passed) and Gerard Menuhin on it. But to be clear, Gilad is no longer Jewish, as he has stated. I hope I won’t be arrested for stating this.

  317. FatR says:

    Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries. Moreover, a secret military agreement between Britain and France had been a crucial factor in the unintended escalation, and even so, nearly half the British Cabinet had come close to resigning in opposition to the declaration of war against Germany, a possibility that which would have probably led to a short and limited conflict confined to the Continent.

    As soon as I’ve read this piece of utter nonsense, I’ve realized that the rest of the article has nothing of value, because the author is too ignorant to tell the truth from bullshit on the issues he dares to talk about.

    The issue of origins of WWI has been in fact settled before WWII, by Albertini, to whose foundational work the subsequent authors added relatively little. The basic facts are as follows:

    (1) Shooting war was decided on July 6-7 in Berlin, after that only the question how many countries will get involved remained.

    (2) By the most generous possible interpretation of German government’s motives, they hoped to achieve a diplomatic coup by making Russia back off with naked threats, in full understanding that this can quite probably cause a war, which, thanks to their war plan, to which they had no alternatives, will automatically involve not only Russia, but France and neutral Belgium.

    (3)They did so based on firm conviction that England will remain neutral, therefore all arguments about their “fear of encirclement” by a hostile coaltion are nothing more than post-factum wartime propaganda.

    (4)Nothing that English politicians could realistically have said or done might have prevented the war, particularly as German and Austro-Hungarian governments operated in bad faith, pretending to listen to English proposals for meditation between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, while the war was already decided. They only choice was to indeed keep neutrality, and be left to face the undisputed European hegemon, the situation preventing which was the consistent idea behind English foreign policy since 17th century (the fact that Germany was clearly and unyieldingly intent on challenging English naval dominance did not help), or to join the war.

    • Agree: szopen
    • Replies: @Fox
  318. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    I know Hitler’s your hero, but you and the rest can’t deny Hitler was appointed not elected.

    I don’t consider him my hero, but you also can not deny that Hitler’s NSDAP party most certainly obtained the plurality of votes. You think that if they did not get very many votes, he still would have been appointed chancellor?

    I think it’s odd that you focus on elections after 1934, when quite obviously it can be seen from the image posted (which I assume you do not dispute) that his NSDAP party won the plurality in 1933. Indeed, in the last election from before he was appointed chancellor, his NSDAP party won an entire third of the votes.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  319. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    According to your chart, the Nazis didn’t start winning elections until 10 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor

    In a multi party democracy, you only need a plurality to “win” – I know that may be difficult to understand if you are used to the USA system of 2 parties. But when you get the most votes of any party out of eight, it can be said that you “won” the election. That’s not really a stretch, I believe.

    and was in a position to coerce the voters and entire electoral process.

    Do you have any actual evidence that it was in fact coercion or some other underhanded method he used to acquire these votes, and that if he “played fair” his party wouldn’t have won the majority?

    It would be nice to see that. And do you think the over 99% support of the Anschluss referendum was also similarly ill-gotten? What do you think the actual results should have been in such a case?

    • Replies: @Alden
  320. aandrews says:
    @Skeptikal

    My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. It seems manifest, then, that the latter tongue ought to be trimmed down and repaired. If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it.
    – “That Awful German Language,” Appendix D of A Tramp Abroad

  321. @Incitatus

    Not holding my breath.

    Beevor is behind spreading this BS of “two million German women raped by the Red Army”. Obviously, Beevor makes “the case” on linear extrapolation (even high school kids know why this is pseudo-mathematics) of the numbers of those “victims”. Obviously, this dude failed to get to archives of Soviet/Russian MoD to at least have a go at it, nor did he read reports of Soviet military administrations precisely regarding rape and other felonies (burglary, robbery etc.) by soldiers of the Red Army. Nor did he, as any self-respecting military historian (Beevor is not historian–he is propagandist and ideologue) would, acquaint himself with the works by late Professor Rzhezhevsky specifically dedicated to this issue, where he explains with data why 4100 servicemen of the Red Army were court-martialed for specifically rape, around 800 of them were executed, including at the spot. As for Beevor’s tedious re-narration of the Eastern Front–there are way better and more thorough military historians than him, who did it on the order of magnitude better and, in general, his writings are of little contribution to the field. It shouldn’t be forgotten that it is precisely contemporary British “historiography” of WW II which gave us illiterate hacks such as Conquest and not least Mr. Rezun (aka Suvorov) who complete a long list of British propagandists who, under the circumstances of different ideological demand, wrote and continue to write all kind of crap they present as a “history”.

  322. FatR says:

    Also.

    Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France.

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing (as documented most recently in “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze) with up to 40% of raw resources like steel channeled into military production, which left Germany with the options of actually starting a major war within the next 1-2 years, or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    (2)Why would anyone who is neither completely braindead, nor a disingenious lying shill would talk about “final demand” bullshit either whether or now, given that the entire reason why Britain and France switched from appeasing Germany to firm opposition and refusing any sort of further “reasonable” demands was the fact that Hitler simply could not be trusted any agreement he made, as was proven to the world by annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @John Regan
  323. @Wally

    No, Hitler did not consider Slavs and Eastern Europeans to be “sub-human.” That is a Jewish belief. Read your Talmud.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  324. @dfordoom

    Did you read the article?

    The Soviet Union had amassed a mechanized offensive force superior in kind and number then the rest of the world’s combined.

    Thar force had been dispersed for an offensive onto Europe. Vast numbers of forward airbases for bombers not fighters. And vast staging zones for heavy armour. That’s based on exhaustive evidence from the primary sources.

    Hitler attacked preemptively to avoid annihilation that would have extended through the whole of Europe, not just Germany.

    That completely destroys the argument that Hitler was just engaged in imperialist Lebensraum.

    I’ve read all of Anthony Beevor like Stalingrad and Berlin. He never mentioned Russian dispositions even once.

    I despise people like you who afford to be ‘moderate’. If you weren’t an ingrate, you would understand this. Despite A J P Taylor’s moderation he was still memory holed. Because the ‘conspiracy’ you refer to is real. That’s the entire point.

    The rabbit hole ‘is’ the memory hole. Unz is the most significant intellectual of the day because he is rescuing truth from the memory hole.

    Neither Unz or anyone on this website is taking things too far, at all.

    How dare you degrade the magnificence of what Unz has achieved.

    You are clearly not capable of evaluating evidence. Because like any midwit you don’t understand, clearly, the significance of the existence and suppression of existence in the first place.

    In all courts the admission of evidence is the most important phase.

    You have made no argument. None. Other then to say if a thesis offends your sensibilities it must be wrong.

    There is overwhelming evidence implicating the Jews and the bankers and the Freemasons.

    Who funded the Nazis you absolute moron. Did they obtain credit magically? Arms magically? Raw materials magically?

    Before you comment read the actual articles ingrate.

    You must be a Boomer.

  325. @dfordoom

    While I agree with you in general, this needs to be singled out:

    his sound understanding of historical methods

    In military history, before any methodology can be discussed, what is needed is what could be broadly defined as strong background in military science–this, however, unless “trained” historian has a serious military academic background, is not provided for the “training” of the historians. They simply do not teach them things crucial for military history, among which, apart from fairly easy comparative study of doctrines and strategic views, issues of Operational Research, strategic and operational planning, logistics and other things, requiring at least what would be defined in US the level of Service War College or, in Russia, a much higher level of Academy of General Staff. Just to illustrate–here is an example of a real military history:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-13.html

    It is not enough to speak in general tactical and operational banalities of the warfare of the XIX century, WW II and after completely redefined how military (and military-political) history should be approached. West in general, including through some of it (not all) allegedly leading minds failed to do so and we all observed this failure from the end of XX through XXI centuries. On other points, I totally agree with you–what we have in this thread is a demonstrable rape of not only actual history but of reality, including whitewashing of Nazism–sad.

  326. Dammit. Clumsy wipeout. But I’ll try to recover after expessing my hope of making a modest contribution to your accuracy as I trail far behind in the fascinating course of reading that you began, for me, with putting me on to David Irving’s work. I wondered whether you were entirely fair to CanSpeccy and started yherefore by checking the relatively simple matter of what the 1938 pound was worth in today’s currency. I had done that a few hours ago when reading Irving on the Czech payments to General Edward Spears. Then I had found a surprising figure of £37 but now I find it to be, less surprisingly, £63. That is more like $US 78 than $250.

    My interim conclusion just reading Irving was that, on the crucial wuestion of what motivated Churchill to take his anti Nazi stance (after early flirting with the idea of a common front with Germany against the Soviet Union, outrage over the signs that India was being given up, and with an absurd diversion over Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson) was that the money he needed and got had absolutely nothing to do with the line he took in attempting to get back into power, preferably as PM. He had been consistent for many years when his friend Bernard Baruch’s bad advice and Roosevelt’s 1938 recession and mini crash of the stock market caused him to put Chartwell up for sale and for the Jewish South African mining magnate to pay off his debts. Sure, you can imagine him noting his good fortune that rich Jews liked what he had to say and not at that stage emphasising the dominance of Jews in pre Stalin Bolshevism as he had in 1920.

    Trivial item, but part of my notes… There was no way that Japan was a “crucial” ally of the UK in WW1. That it might have made all the difference if it had been an enemy is a completely different matter.

    Having been at Oxbridge in the days when indeed Taylor’s lecturing at 8.30am so as to keep the numbers down was completely understandable I am also conscious that those were the days when no lectures were compulsory for undergraduates to attend and one’s tutor might well say that he couldn’t really recommend any lectures that term. I am far from convinced from what I have read in your article or Wikipedia that Taylor was “purged” in 1964 for something published in early 1961 and still on your Harvard reading list in 1981 despite the vigorous condemnation by most American historians who commented on his book. I would want to know more about who hired lecturers and what their processes were. As he was regarded as a bit of a media whore (enviously no doubt) I wouldn’t be surprised if there were arguments about what he was to lecture on – “not just advertising your latest book Alan and recruiting unpaid researchers”. As he remained a Fellow of Magdalen College till 1976 I hope I may find my Oxbridge friend and contemporary who was President of Magdalen for 10 years well enough to give me the inside story on Taylor and the university. So…. that’s so far a not-enough-evidence-to-prosecute case unless you know more than you have disclosed.

    You are aware I suppose that Taylor is said not to have read Mein Kampf till after his controversial reappraisal of the origins of WW2 was published. That seems to me significant.

    More quibble, but serious. You rightly said that claims that Hitler was out to conquer the world were absurd (though I don’t remember them being made!) but, with respect, doesn’t it seem absurd for you to say, not for the first time, that Hitler had “made every effort” to avoid war with France and Britain when, even if you ignore his actual invasion of Poland after the guarantee given to it by Britain and France, he had already broken his word to Chamberlain at Munich by invading Czechslovakia. Now that last is indeed “crucial” is it not?

    I am trying to get an electonic copy to post, or send you, of a paper give last November at a centenary conference titled “Known Unto God” by a conservative retired judge of great distinction because he was quite realistic about Churchill, desribing him as semi-alcoholic though I am not sure that it will advance this thread’s conversation much. After all I have known alcoholics who were never drunk and remarkable capable. Also, just on that issue we have always known – not least from Lord Alanbrooke’s diaries – of that big negative about Churchill. It seems that there were indeed times when he had drunk too much and it did matter and cause error though it seems certain thar he was much more manageable than the drugged up Hitler.

    Returning to WW1 would you care to explain how, on top of the open Entente Cordiale there was a secret military agreement between the British and French which was “a crucial factor” in the unintended escalation? Did it cause that massive Russian mobilisation which i habmve always been somewhat bemused to read made everything that followed in August 1914 inevitable?

    Finally, for now, you bring up Churchill’s decision not to rely on the French Admiral Darlan’s assurance about the Germans never getting their hands on the French navy’s ships but to sink those at Mers-el-Kébir if conditions weren’t met and you say, tendentiously (why else?) “not entirely dissimilar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” which couldn’t help but draw attention to the fact that it was scarcely possible for it to be more dissimilar. Also it was not true that the French ships were disarmed and moored helplessly in port. The Strasbourg and several smaller ships escaped to Toulon and the Dunkerque fired about 40 shells. (I acknowledge your word “mostly”l.

    1. British fleet, with just one aircraft carrier (co. Japanese 6) arrives about 5.30 am and gives French Admiral 4 choices. A British officer is received on the French flagship and allows a lot of time consuming negotiation while French commander sends for reinforcements.

    2. British only open fire after about 12 hours.

    3. Admiral Somerville ceases fire to spare unnecessary killing and several French ships escape to Toulon.

    Not much similarity to Pearl Harbor you may agree on reflection.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  327. @ValMond

    Not Russo-phobes but Judeo-phobes. The Communists who murdered millions were Jews, such as, for example, Bela Kun. You know that. What’s the matter with you?

    • Replies: @ValMond
  328. @Theodore

    George Bush wasn’t elected either.

  329. @Ron Unz

    It is probably the footnotes that are the more important. His would not be the first apparently well footnoted work which doesn’t measure up when the footnotes are followed through. Thatbiscespecially so when a colleague who had worked with him described him as unreliable andcgiven to making things up.

  330. @szopen

    They can’t really be reasoned with. I wouldn’t necessarily call them neo-nazis, in the sense that they desire to enact similar policies today (although some, perhaps most, of them surely are), but the righteousness of the nazi cause is something like a religion to them, which means we are in the realm of emotion, not reason.

    I’m glad you post though. It is a tremendous service to people who really are interested in facts and evidence.

  331. @Andrei Martyanov

    So you are, in fact, an insidious troll. Have a nice life.

  332. ww1 and 2 are proof white people are the most cruel barbarians. unfortunately they deem their techno slaughtering as progress and being civilized. now they are sitting on nukes and devising new drones and always thinking how to become more efficient killers. a shame on all humanity.
    hitler wanted to create a german empire in envy of his cousins’ british one. but they would not allow it. poland is mere pretext.
    man is a wolf to man.

  333. @gregor

    You seem to have found something in Irving that I have missed or haven’t yet got to but I don’t detect that you havecfound any reason to believe that the Churchill who, after his India campaigning got nowhere was vigorously anti Nazi and pro rearmament, was induced by Jews to hold those views from 1933 to 1938 when he did need a big bailout to be able to kerp Chartwell because his friend Bernard Baruch’s bad advice and made Roosevelt’s 1938 stock market crash disastrous for him.

  334. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    There was Centrum Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich, which investigated and documented german crimes (and punished Nazi murderers when possible). It is now superseded by IPN, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, which investigated both nazi and communist crimes. Their documents are usually not available in digital forms, and though they publish sometimes the books, they are prohibitively expansive. There are also projects like https://ofiary.ipn.gov.pl/ofi/ofiary-represji-niemiec/6142,Ofiary-represji-niemieckich.html, which gathers information about individual victims: deaths, expulsions, arrests etc, but it started only recently, some three years ago. For example, it has no information about my family, neither about my grandfather (kidnapped from street for a slave labour in the Reich, though to tell the truth he then was allocated to some Bavarian bauer who treat him as a member of the family, in contrast to many his friends who got to northern Germany, many of whom never returned), nor about other family members who I know were expelled to Siberia by Russians, or arrested by Gestapo.

    But, of course, it’s all propaganda. The books summarizing the findings? Propaganda. The trials after the war, which investigated the crimes, heard the witnesses? All propaganda.

  335. szopen says:
    @byrresheim

    If bombing of Wieluń was legitimate because Luftwaffe thought it had Polish army stationed in private buildings near the city centre (including non-existing units, which were only in planning), while in fact Polish cavalry unit was in city, but AFAIK nowhere near the centre – and AFAIK left the city before the bombing – and despite the fact the Luftwaffe made no efforts to limit the civilian losses; then why bombing Dresden was illegitimate?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  336. Tom Walsh says:
    @Miggle

    “the Hitler Youth who were assaulting opposition groups in the streets and schools, but that was the norm”
    Bryant’s book mentioned in the article explains the background to your comment above

  337. @CanSpeccy

    The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war on Germany following Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium was negotiated by Sir Edward Grey, who persuaded the Cabinet of the necessity of war

    I love stuff like this. This is a British schoolboy’s interpretation of WW1.

    The Brits had a signed agreement to go to war if such and such a thing happened. Their hands were tied! It was right there, ON PAPER! Signatures!

    Clearly, you have no idea how people behave in the real world. Some “entente” contract forced Britain to move a million troops into France and Belgium? No, I don’t think so. Britain got into it because it saw opportunity to steal lots of land. Which is precisely what it did.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  338. Unless you can comprehend that Hitler and ALL the nazis were Jews in the employ of the (Crypto)-Jewish Ruling Class families of the ‘West’ (as were ALL the other leaders throughout) and that this is as much a ‘Class’ issue as it is an ‘Ethnic’ issue, then you will understand nothing of what was happening and you will simply repeat one just-so story after another. As you can see from the list of comments here, stepping away from the thick security blanket of deception is harder than most people imagine.
    Let me just remind you that the ‘official’ tale told of those times and the mythical-religious category of ‘Holocaust’ are considered essential for justifying Zionist prophesy.

    Adolf Jacob Hitler’s genealogy:
    http://mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf

    http://mileswmathis.com/putsch.pdf

  339. @Flint Clint

    Your comment about the manipulation of the draft system during WWII is spot on. I can still remember as a youngster, my dad and uncles(WWII vets) talking about: “THE JEWISH NAVY” – the USCG, and how so many of (((those people))) were able to get in when the goyim were being sucked into the Army during Frank the Cripple’s “peacetime draft” of 1940. I fell in line in 1969 with the: “kill a commie for mommie” meme and almost got my ass shot off during the Vietnamese “Police Action.”
    Fortunately, Tricky Dick was winding things down and I ended up a MP at Fort Hood, TX.
    The sad thing about all of this information which Mr. Unz has compiled and documented; and which is being discussed and debated here is that the great Amerikan unwashed could care less. Amerikan society and culture has been dumbed down and corrupted into a morass of shambling, texting, slack-jawed, brain-dead, mouth-breathing, gimme-my-freebies Mall Zombies.
    Maybe one hundred years from now if there are any scholars left, objective and dispassionate men and women will expose and document the truth which can be shared with educated younglings who will pass it on. I will not hold my breath. My focus, at age 72, is going Galt as much as I can in anticipation of the more immediate and horrific events which will be unfolding during the upcoming Roaring Twenties. Bleib ubrig.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
    , @Flint Clint
  340. @Alfred

    As Allied troops got nowhere near Berlin in or at the end of WW1 I find it impossible to see how the archives of the German Foreign Ministry could be “confiscated”. Have you perhaps got your wars muddled?

  341. @Outis

    I read that AJP Taylor classic on the side when I was a graduate student in economics more than a half century ago. I was greatly impressed with it in that it completely changed my thinking about the origins of WW II. But I had a living to make and basically no one to talk to about the book, so it has just been gathering dust on my bookshelf ever since. I’m very gratified now that I have company, and with this plug of the book by Unz, potentially a lot more company in the future. Everyone should read it.

  342. @ValMond

    That’s a pretty funny question, considering the Soviet shill in here came up with 20 million war dead. I simply asked, how many of these were actually killed by the Great Terror and purges that went on in the Soviet empire.

    But since you asked this stupid question, here is an article of a Jew, and he is right, just the numbers are too low.

    Stalin’s Jews
    We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    20 million here, and a monument was built in Israel to honor the terrorist Red Army.

    Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Spot on here, Mr Plocker, we will do that until you finally own up to your evil deeds.

    You see, I like to spank you people with your own sources.

    • Replies: @ValMond
  343. @Bragadocious

    Can you cite a single document to show that British policymakers in 1914 had a war aim or motive of stealing lots of land? To utter such confisent crap you should have your sources at your fingertips and not have to spend hours finding a plausible source.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
  344. Cleburne says:
    @Dweezil the Weasel

    Dweezil, there’s a decent-sized growing body of young men and even some women who see through all of the Empire’s lies, from Lincoln’s war of conquest against the South to its current status as globohomo security guard for Our Greatest Ally. Don’t write off the younger folks yet. And while I’m here, let me also thank Mr Unz for the brilliant American Pravda series, and also to frequent commentators like Wally, Chuck Orloski, Desert Fox and so many others for the thoughts, links, insights and observations.

    Truth will triumph eventually, gentlemen. As General Robert E Lee wrote near the end of his life, “It is history that teaches us to hope.” God bless you all,

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  345. @Wolfgang Otto

    Great article for sure with a lot of great info. I first learned many things stated here, and of the many authors listed here from Jackie Patru’s great website “SWEET LIBERTY”. I recommend her section titled “How Wars Are Made” for a start.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/index.shtml

  346. @ploni almoni

    Wally didn’t say that, he pointed out what you said.

    I can add some substance to it.

    Here is a snippet of a Goebbels speech…

    Terrorist Jewry had 200 million people to serve it in Russia. It cynically used its methods on to create out of the stolid toughness of the Russian people a grave danger for the civilized nations of Europe.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb36.htm

    What Goebbels said there goes counter the jewish myth peddled of “Slavic subhumans”.
    It is in fact an acknowledgement of “stolid tough Russian people”, which is true.

    Could one say the same about the Americans? I have my doubts tbh, considering the Americans still whine like little girls about 3000 dead on 911, which is nothing compared to the misery, death and destruction US troops create where ever they bomb, invade and occupy a country.

    • Replies: @Patricus
  347. iffen says:
    @szopen

    You are right. Time after time I promise myself I won’t deign anymore to talk to those creatures, but then my temperament kicks in.

    No! You are right!

    My comment is more whimsy than anything else.

    I double ditto the following comment from silviosilver.

    I’m glad you post though. It is a tremendous service to people who really are interested in facts and evidence.

    There are more people than me that have an absolute admiration for your efforts.

  348. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    In 1976 I was asked by a graduate student to accompany her to a private party that her thesis advisor was having for her students, staff and co-workers at her home in Warsaw.. Towards the end of the evening when most of the people left the party the topic of conversation turned to the Jews in Poland. I remember she stated that starting with Boleslaw Bierut – Rotenschwanz that between 1944 to 1969 over 2.6 Million Polish Jews changed their names and ethnicty to Polish, The files that were stored in the Polish State Archives that she personally came across while working at the Polish State Records Archives and Statistics. She went on to state that the Jews that changed their names relocated to western part of Poland vacated by the Germans. In the beginning I sort of thought that what she was some what inflating the total figure until now and upon reading the released CIA files from 1954 stating that Jews can not leave Poland as there would be no one to run the country. Also the CIA documents affirm that most of the Jews settled in Wroclaw and the western part of Poland.
    She remarked at the end of the discussion with” just imagine as to what would happen to me if the authorities learned that I am telling to you. I would be tried, shot on the spot or imprisoned or sent to Siberia. That is why to date all of Poland’s Presidents and Prime Ministers just happen to be ethnic Jews. Lech Walesa – Lejba Kohne “BOLEK”, Tadeusz Mazowiecki – Icek Dikman, Aleksander Kwasniewski – Izaak Stoltzman, Jaroslaw i Lech Kaczynski – Kalkstein and etc. Unofficially it is estimated that there over Four Million Jews are presently living in Poland.

    [MORE]

    – –

    – –

    The following is a post by a Polish commentator at a discussion group. We at JTR cannot verify the accuracy of this list, nor the Polish source book for this. But, from our own research, the names we recognize on this list from our own research (Bronislaw Geremek, Jerzy Kosinski, Stanislaw Krajewski, Adam Michnik, Jerzy Urban, Dawid Warshawski) are indeed Jewish. But Lech Walesa?!). ]

    LIST OF NAME CHANGES FOR POLAND’S MOST POWERFUl/INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN OUR MODERN ERA. This was a recent post to Polonian groups … We read:

    Lista osób o zmienionych nazwiskach (Or, “List of persons with name changes”). It continues: Nazwiska autentyczne nizej wymienionych osób zostaly ustalone w oparciu o… (Or, Authentic names of the folks listed below are based upon: (A) Secret catalog data of the people of Poland, according to the Central Bureau’s MSW addresses [Archival numbers are as listed in the Pol. Language]; and (B) Data given by historians in their many publications. ————————————————————————–

    A) Dane tajne kartoteki ludnosci Polski przy Centralnym Biurze. Adresów MSW (nr arch. 1/6526/1 – data archiwacji 9.07.1984, nr rejestracyjny 14750-99 – data rejestracji Wydz. III-2, SUSW Warszawa).

    (B) Dane ujawnione przez historyków w ich licznych publikacjach.

    1. Jerzy Albrecht – Finkelstein

    2. Amsterdamski – Saul Henrykowski

    3. Stanislaw Arski – Apfelbaum

    4. Stefan Arski – Artur Salman

    5. Bronislaw Baczko – Gideon

    6. Leszek Balcerowicz – Aaron Bucholtz

    7. Ryszard Bender – Fajwisch Berenstein

    8. Jan K. Bielecki – Izaak Blumenfeld

    9. Boleslaw Bierut – Rotenschwanz

    10. Alef Bolkowiak – Alef Gutman

    11. Michal Boni – Jakub Bauer

    12. Jerzy Borejsza – Beniamin Goldberg

    13. Wiktor Borowicki – Aaron Berman

    14. Marek Borowski – Szymon Berman

    15. Stefan Bratkowski – Blumstejn

    16. Stanislaw Brodzki – Bronstejn

    17. Jan Brzechwa – Jan Worobiec

    18. Ryszard Bugaj – Izaak Blumfeld

    19. Zbigniew Bujak – lewy syn rabina Malachowskiego

    20. August Chelkowski – Dawid Cnajbaum

    21. red. Kamila Chilinska – Halpern

    22. Wieslaw Chrzanowski – Szymon Knopfstejn

    23. Adam Cichocki – Aaron Zigenbaum

    24. Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz – Dawid Goldstein

    25. Bernard Cukier – Kolski

    26. Józef Cyrankiewicz – Izaak Cukerman

    27. Marek Czekalski (prezydent Lodzi) – Wachter

    28. Tadeusz Daniszewski – Dawid Kirschbaum

    29. Ostap Dluski – Adolf Langer

    30. Jan Dobraczynski (pisarz) – Gutmacher

    31. Ludwik Dorn – Dornbaum

    32. Andrzej Drzycimski – Abraham Engel

    33. Lech Falandysz – Aaron Fleischman

    34. Arkady Fidler – Efroim Trusker

    35. Pawel Finder – Pinkus

    36. Aleksander Ford – Liwczyc

    37. Wladyslaw Frasyniuk – Rotenschwanz

    38. Jerzy Frydberg – Izrael Frydberg

    39. Bronislaw Geremek – Berele Lewartow

    40. Zofia Gomulkowa – Liwa Szoken

    41. Henryk Goryszewski – Jakub Glikman

    42. Jan Górecki – Muhlrad, dyr. gen. Min. Finansów

    43. Wiktor Górecki – Muhlrad, “komandos” z 1968

    44. Maria Górowska (sedzia) – Sand lub Berger

    45. Halina Górska – Sara Kugelschwanz

    46. Alina Grabowska – Sara Rotenfisch

    47. Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz – Hajka Grundbaum

    48. Ryszard Marek Gronski – Goldberger

    49. Wiktor Grosz – Izaak Medres

    50. Jacek Groszkowski – Hersz Herszkowicz

    51. Leon Halban – Blumenstok, prof. KUL-u

    52. Aleksander Hall – Miron Hurman

    53. Marian Hemar – jan Marian Herscheles

    54. Józefa Hennelowa – Zyta Goldmond

    55. Szymon Hirszowski – Szymon Hirsz

    56. Józef Hubner – Dawid Szwarc

    57. Piotr Ikonowicz – Dawid Goldsmith

    58. Henryk Jablonski – Apfelbaum

    59. Jerzy Jakubowski – Miszkatenblit

    60. Ludwika Jankowska – Luba Kowienska

    61. Andrzej Jaroszewicz – Aron Samet

    62. Piotr Jasienica – Lech Benar

    63. Jerzy Jaskiernia – Aaron Aksman

    64. Mieczyslaw Jastrun – Agatstein

    65. Tomasz Jastrun s. Mieczyslawa – Agatstein

    66. Kalina Jedrusik – Makusfeld

    67. Roman Jurys – Chaim Szacht

    68. Jaroslaw i Lech Kaczynscy – Kalkstein

    69. Ida Kaminska – Rachel, dyr. Teatru Zyd. w W-wie

    70. Jan Karski (kurier AK) – J. Kozielewski-?

    71. Andrzej Kern – Dawid Ginsberg

    72. Jan Kobuszewski – Weisleder

    73. adm. Piotr Kolodziejczyk – Robert Cajmer

    74. Grzegorz Kolodko – Samuel Hanerman

    75. Maria Komar (generalowa) – Riwa Zukerman

    76. Janusz Korczak – Henryk Goldszmit

    77. Janusz Korwin-Mikke – Ozjasz Goldberg

    78. Jerzy Kosinski – Josek Lewinkopf

    79. Janina Kotarbinska – Dina Steinberg, z. prof. Kotarbinskiego

    80. Mikolaj Kozakiewicz – Jakub Kleinman

    81. Helena Kozlowska – Bela Frisch

    82. Stanislaw Krajewski – Abel Kaimer

    83. Hanna Krall – Hajka Rejchgold

    84. Krzysztof Król – Aaron Rosenbaum

    85. Marian Krzaklewski – Dawid Zimmerman

    86. Lucyna Krzemieniecka – Wiera Zeidenberg

    87. Edward Krzemien (dziennikarz GW) – Wolf

    88. Kunicki – Goldfinger

    89. Kazimierz Kuratowski – Kuratow

    90. Zofia Kuratowska-Jaszunska – Goldman

    91. Jacek Kuron – Icek Kordblum

    92. Aleksander Kwasniewski – Izaak Stoltzman

    93. Jolanta Kwasniewska -Konty – Kohn

    94. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec – Letz de Tusch

    95. Janusz Lewandowski – Aaron Langman

    96. Olga Lipinska – Fajga Lippman

    97. Teresa Liszcz – Sara Lankamer

    98. Jan Litynski – Jakub Leman

    99. Lubiejski – Zygielman

    100. Lozowski – Salomon Abramowicz

    101. Aleksander Luczak – Dawid Lachman

    102. Helena Luczywo – Chaber (ojciec), Guter (matka)

    103. Antoni Macierewicz – Izaak Singer

    104. Aleksander Malachowski – Jakub Goldsmith

    105. Marek Markiewicz – Samuel Moritz

    106. Tadeusz Mazowiecki – Icek Dikman

    107. Jacek Merkel – Samuel Nelken

    108. Adam Michnik – Aaron Szechter

    109. Andrzej Milczanowski – Aaron Edelman

    110. Jerzy Milewski – Dawid Machonbaum

    111. Leszek Moczulski – Robert Berman

    112. Karol Modzelewski – Samuel Mendel

    113. Zygmunt Modzelewski – Fischer

    114. Jerzy Morawski – Izaak Szloma

    115. Stanislaw Nadzin – Gutman

    116. Stefan Niesiolowski – Aaron Nusselbaum

    117. Jerzy Robert Nowak (prof.) – Moritz Neuman

    118. Piotr Nowina-Konopka – Haim Kromer

    119. Róza Ochabowa – Grunbaum

    120. Andrzej Olechowski – Mosze Brandwein

    121. Józef Oleksy – Szymon Buchwio (Lemek)

    122. Jan Olszewski – Izaak Oksner

    123. Janusz Onyszkiewicz – Jojne Grynberg

    124. Jerzy Osiatynski – Szymon Weinbach

    125. Janina Paradowska – Rachela Busch

    126. Jan Parys – Haim Pufahl

    127. Aleksander Paszynski – Finkelstein

    128. Miroslawa Pazynska – Srula Kundelman

    129. Leslaw Podkanski – Izaak Freinkel

    130. Ezdra Podlaski – Rotenschwanz

    131. Kazimierz Pomian – Furman lub Rotenschwanz

    132. Radkiewiczowa, zona min. – Ruta Teitsch

    133. Helena Radlinska, prof.- Rajchman, Akad.Organ.Sl. Spol.

    134. Mieczyslaw Rakowski – Mojzesz Rak

    135. Jan Regula – Josek Mützenmacher

    136. Jan Maria Rokita – Izaak Goldwicht

    137. Andrzej Rosiewicz – A. Jarosiewicz

    138. Adolf Rudnicki (pisarz) – Schneider

    139. Jan Rulewski – Fikelman

    140. Rutkowski – Botwin

    141. Hanka Sawicka – Szapiro

    142. Ryszard Setnik – Szymon Bauman

    143. Izabela Sierakowska – Rebeka Sommer

    144. Janusz Sitynski – Jakub Leman

    145. Ernest Skalski – Wilker lub Nimen

    146. Skrzeszewski – Fokenman

    147. Krzysztof Skubiszewski – Szymon Schimel

    148. Wladyslaw Slawny – Rosenberg

    149. Antoni Slonimski – Stomma

    150. Zenon Smolarek – Izaak Zimmerman

    151. Ewa Spychalska – Salome Stein

    152. Marian Starownik – Symeon Steinman

    153. Stefan Starzewski – Gustaw Szusterman

    154. Stanislaw Stomma – Szaja Sommer

    155. Michal Strak – Baruch Steinberg

    156. Julian Stryjkowski (pisarz) – Pesah Stark

    157. Jerzy Stuhr (aktor) – Josek Feingold

    158. Hanna Suchocka – Hajka Silberstein

    159. Boleslaw Sulik – Jakub Steinberg

    160. Kalman Sultanik – Chaim Studniberg

    161. Irena Szewinska (sportowiec) – I. Kirszenstein

    162. Stefan Szwedowicz (brat Michnika) – Szechter

    163. Roman Szydlowski – Szancer

    164. Wieslawa Szymborska – Rottermund

    165. Pawel Spiewak – Stinger

    166. Boleslaw Tejkowski – Benio Tejkower

    167. Jerzy Turowicz – Jakow Turnau

    168. Stanislaw Tuszewski – Salomon Hardnik

    169. Magda Umer (piosenkarka) – Humer

    (córka zbrodniarza UB)

    170. Jerzy Urban – Josek Urbach

    171. Mieczyslaw Wachowski – Jakub Windman

    172. Henryk Walczak – Zukerman

    173. Lech Walesa – Lejba Kohne

    174. Dawid Warszawski – Konstanty Gebert

    175. Adam Wazyk (poeta) – Wagman

    176. Andrzej Werblan – Aaron Werblicht

    177. Andrzej Wieczorkiewicz – Hirsz Gelpern

    178. Aleksander Wirpsza – Leszek Szaruga

    179. Dariusz Wójcik – Dawid Wisental

    180. Andrzej Wróblewski – Andrzej Ibislauer

    181. Ludmila Wujec – Okrent

    182. Jan Wyka – Leopold Wessman

    183. Roman Zambrowski – Rubin Nusbaum

    184. Janusz Zaorski – Jakub Bauman

    185. Andrzej Zoll – Rojeschwanz, b. prezes Tryb. Konst.

    186. Janusz Ziólkowski – Izaak Zemler Wojskowi (Army)

    187. gen. Edward Braniewski – Brandsteter

    188. gen. Jan Drzewiecki – Holzer

    189. gen. Marian Graniewski – Gutaker

    190. gen. Wiktor Grosz – Izaak Medres

    191. gen. Artur Jastrzebski – Artur Ritter (Niemiec)

    192. gen. Grzegorz Korczynski – Kalinowski

    193. gen. Leszek Krzemien – Maksymilian Wolf

    194. gen. Matejewski – Kugelschwanz

    195. gen. Marian Naszkowski – Wasser

    196. gen. St. Poplawski – Siergiej Grochow (Rosjanin)

    197. gen. Karol Swierczewski – Walter Goltz lub Tenenbaum

    198. gen. Leon Turski – Tennenbaum

    199. gen. Mieczyslaw Wagrowski – Izaak Pustelman

    200. gen. Tadeusz Wilecki – Wallach

    201. gen. Zarako-Zarakowski – Zarako, Nacz. Prok. WP

    202. gen. Janusz Zarzycki – Neugebauer

    203. plk Michal Bron – Bronstein, prac. MSZ

    204. plk dr Charbicz – Marek Heberman, kom.Szpit.Woj.,Warszawa

    205. plk Otto Finski – Finkenstein, szef sztabu “Sluzba Polsce”

    206. plk Garbowski – Caber lub Gruber, d-ca dyw.

    207. plk Gradlewski – Goldberg, GZP WP

    208. plk Mieczyslaw Kowalski – Kohn

    209. plk Anatol Liniewski – Liberman, prac. ASG

    210. plk Rosinski – Rosenberg, DOW

    211. plk Rotowski – Rotholtz, szef Zarz. Sl. Techn. WP

    212. plk St. Sokolowski – Szabat, prac. WAP

    213. plk Pawel Solski – Pinkus, szef Sl. Samoch. WP

    214. plk Szulczynski – Szulcynger, d-ca pulku

    215. plk Wl. Tykocinski – Tikotiner, attache wojsk.

    216. plk Wadlewski – Waldman, dyr. Dep. Wojsk. w Min. Zdrowia

    217. plk Zarski – Silberstein, prac. WAP

    218. pplk Jerzy Bryn – Izrael Alter, prac. MSZ

    219. pplk Jan Dolanowski – Dollinger, DOW

    220. pplk Adam Laski – Gutbrot, prac. ASG

    221. pplk Henryk Zieman – Zysman, DOW

    222. mjr Roman Domanski – Rosenstand, DOW

    223. mjr Marcel Kot – Abram Sterenzys

    224. mjr Józef Sliwinski – Flaumenbaum, szef Wyd. “Sluzba Polsce”

    225. mjr Henryk Uminski – Keff

    226. Filip Berski – Badner, prokurator wojskowy

    227. Kazimierz Golczewski – Bauman, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    228. sedzia Franciszek Kapczuk – Natanel Frau, Sad Wojsk. Wroclaw

    229. Maksymilian Litinski – Lifszyc, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    230. Lubiejski – Zygielman, II Zarzad

    231. Jakub Lubowski – Chase Smen, prok. Dep. Sl. Spraw.

    232. Jan Orlinski – Unterweiser, Prok. Wojsk.

    233. Henryk Podlaski – Fink, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    234. Rajski – Rajgrodzki, II Zarzad

    235. Roman Rawicz – Vogel, Najw. Sad Wojsk.

    236. Henryk Trojan – Adler, II Zarzad

    237. Henryk Walczak – Zukerman

    238. Zagórski – Winter, II Zarzad

    239. Arnold Zaleski – Zalkind, prac. Prok. Wojsk. Pracownicy MSW

    240. gen. Józef Hübner – Dawid Szwarc

    241. gen. Matejewski – Kugelschwanc

    242. gen. Miecz. Moczar – Mykola Demko (Ukrainiec)

    243. Gen. Julian Polan – Harasim, morderca sadowy

    244. gen. Roman Romkowski – Natan Grinspan-Kikiel

    245. gen. Józef Maria Rózanski – Rosenzweig

    246. plk Leon Andrzejewski – Ajzen Lejb-Wolff, dyr. Gabin. Ministra

    247. plk Bielecki – Moniek Buchman, szef WUBP Kraków

    248. plk Julia Brystiger – Prajs

    249. plk Górecki – Goldberg, dyr. Depart. IX

    250. plk Mieczyslaw Mietkowski – Mojzesz Borowicki, doradca MSW

    251. plk Orlowski – Kugelschwanz

    252. plk Marian Reniak – Marian Struzynski

    253. plk Józef Rózanski – Josek Goldberg, dyr. dep. MBP

    254. plk Sienkiewicz – Lewi, dyr. depart.

    255. plk Szerynski – Szhnkman, prac. MBP

    256. plk Józef Swiatlo – Izaak Fleischfarb, z-ca dyr. depart. X

    257. pplk Helena Wolinska-Brus – Ochsmann

    258. mjr Adam Kornecki – Dawid Kornhendler, szef WUBP Kielce

    259. Antoni Alster – Nauman, v-ce szef MBP

    260. Barbara Giller – Basze Lea, prac. MBP Duchowni (Religion)

    261. kard. Franciszek Macharski – Finkelstein

    262. ks. prof. Józef Tischner – Blumstein

    263. ks. prof. Romuald Weksler-Waszkinel – Jakub Weksler

    bp Jan Chrapek, bp Bronislaw Dembowski,bp S. Gadecki,bp gen. Slawoj L. Glódz, abp Henryk Muszynski, bp Tadeusz Pieronek, bp Tadeusz Rakoczy, abp Ziólek, abp Józef Zycinski, ks. Adam Bijak, ks. Adam Boniecki, ks. Michal Czajkowski, o.

  349. Fox says:
    @FatR

    For heavens sake, now you are pulling out the Crown Council meeting again. Not only was it never held, it was invented by the American ambassador to Turkey, Morgenthau.
    If, instead of Albertini, an Italian, you read accounts of Morel or Nielson (two Englishmen who were opposing the war and its proponents in England – one of them the indefatigable Churchill, by the way), then you not call the dissension within the English government “nonsense”.
    In reality, it was the German government which waited until the very end to proclaim Mobilization while everywhere else millions of men had been called to arms already. Mobilization was considered the imminence and intent of war. Kaiser Wilhelm made two appeals at the very end of July to Czar Nicholas to recall the Mobilization order, prior to German mobilization.
    The only substantial criticism of Germany that can be maintained is the unconditional declaration of loyalty to Austria after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and its belated attempts of constraining Austria’s course of action towards a punitive action against Serbia. In Germany the overall danger that had arisen through the secret system of ententes and alliances was recognized.
    Germany had no war aims in case of a conflict, other than defense, while England, Franc and Russia were all expansionist and intent of breaking German power in Europe. That Germany is the largest, most populous, industrious and productive country in Europe has not been accepted then, and it is not being accepted now, and wholesale destruction of everything is and was preferred to a positive cooperation with Germany and accepting the reality of a big German presence in Europe and the world.
    There is a large volume of literature from the Entente countries after War, the appalling results of the conflict for narrow-minded goals (such as France’s “recovery” of the German provinces Elsaß and Lothringen) needed justification by the war proponents. Hence, Poincare and Grey were suddenly “overwhelmed” by the events, they somehow “happened”, and were not prepared and worked for by these men and their followers. Albertini as an Italian has likewise a motivation to make it all Germany’s fault, as Italy was promised in a secret pact in 1915 the German provinces to the South-primarily Südtirol- for its change of sides from the Triple Alliance to the Entente. I am using the German names of these provinces I mentioned to not leave the impression that the consequent naming of them in Allied countries with their French or Italian appellations.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  350. @Wizard of Oz

    LOL, I don’t need a document. I have something better: Winston Churchill and Kitchener.

    Britain was in a near-constant state of war in the 15 years before WW1. All of it involving invasion, conquest and land theft.

    I mean, are you daft enough to think the Brits would produce a document admitting their real aims?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  351. Patricus says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The “truth” about WW II might never become widely known. Our American Civil War narrative is a caricature. As for more ancient history, who knows what really happenned.

    Thanks Mr. Unz for this comprehensive summary. I might have died of old age without learning about the fraud of accepted WW II history if I hadn’t accidentally picked up a few revisionist books and read web pages like the Unz Review. As it is I have lived most of my adult life as a historically ignorant person.

  352. Emslander says:

    Be forrewarned: Germany will rise again!

  353. Patricus says:
    @Germanicus

    If you think Americans are reluctant to shed blood read about the Civil War.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  354. @szopen

    The problem with Peter MX answer is that the Belgium was still keeping neutrality, even though friendly to France; it allowed French troops to defend Belgium, but French rushed into the country only AFTER German invasion.

    You clearly have only half knowledge, and you even proudly show your miseducation and fanaticism.

    The reason why German troops went through Belgium was the heavily fortified Maginot line along the German-French border, where the french had amassed 80 infantry divisions in August 1939. So, the Wehrmacht tried the WWI Schlieffen Plan again, and this time with success, the french fortifications were circumvented, and the french aggressor was destroyed without taking too many casualties.

    Simple military considerations and planning, no big harm was done to the Belgian,Dutch or French civilians. The french even enjoyed taking a bath in the Atlantic with German troops, who behaved excellently, as opposed to the drunk Americans who raped french women.

    Btw, where is your outrage of British invasion of Norway, the British bombing of french towns and sinking of the french fleet by the Brits? Or British plans to use chemical weapons in Italy? Your selective hypocritical artificial outrage is pathetic and ideologically driven.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
  355. @Patricus

    I don’t doubt Americans shed foreign blood, but they cry like babies if they lose their own, in wars and conflicts they instigated.
    Yeah, I know Israel did 911, the point is, the American population only support one war after the other because they haven’t had a real war on their soil, I mean real war, like aerial carpet bombing of US cities, where every town above 50000 pop was destroyed by firestorms, and where the firefighters are bombed and strafed with cannons as well, followed by foreign occupation, starvation and terror. People cooking a soup from leaves and chew a piece of leather to fight the hunger for almost 5 years.

    • LOL: Adûnâi
  356. Sparkon says:
    @FatR

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing… or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    Why then in 1929 did Stalin initiate his first Five Year Plan, fully four years before Hitler was appointed Chancellor?

    You’re alarmed about German militarization in 1938, but what about Stalin’s cruel and rapid industrialization and militarization in 1929, a plan that resulted in the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens? Stalin’s second Five Year Plan followed in 1934.

    Hitler was not appointed Chancellor until 1933, and Germany did not go to full war footing until 1943, which was the first instance where German civilian consumer goods were impacted by the war.

    But by 1929, if not earlier, Stalin was preparing for war at great cost to millions of Soviet citizens, but against whom, and for what reasons?

  357. bjondo says:
    @lysias

    Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta’s pay grade?

    Good question. Good discovery.

    Her parents holocaust survivors per jewpedia.
    Could account for her hate-filled, revenge-seeking brain.

    So many survived.
    Who died?

  358. @FatR

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing (as documented most recently in “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze) with up to 40% of raw resources like steel channeled into military production, which left Germany with the options of actually starting a major war within the next 1-2 years, or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    Tooze didn’t prove that crisis was coming so much as he asserted it. At 1939 level armaments spending, Britain would go broke long before Germany did. Here is what economic historian Richard Overy (Tooze’s old master) wrote on that matter, summarizing his conclusions:

    It was in the western powers that the problems of rearmament, fiancne and domestic politics were most acute. Fears of financial crisis and political unrest held Britain and France back from a substantial effort of rearmament until 1938, and encouraged both governments to explore the possibility of a settlement rather than run the risks of a collapse at home. […] By 1938-39 economic crisis appeared a very real possibility and the political dangers greater than ever. The high levels of arms spending could be sustained for only a short time, while the last unemployed resources were used up and before the balance of payments became critical. This fact pushed both governments towards the conclusion that it would be better to take decisive action, even war, sooner rather than later. German preparations pointed to a war in the mid-1940s. For Britain and France the decisive year was 1939.

    Source of quote: Richard Overy, “The Origins of the Second World War”

    In fact, Britain had more economic reason for war in 1939 than Germany. Hitler meant for Germany’s war preparations to be ready only by 1943.

    About that time was also when Stalin’s war economy would be in full swing and the Red Army fully modernized with modern tanks, self-propelled artillery and etc. A coincidence? In any case, it was well known that the Soviet Union had by far the largest army in Europe, and was a hostile neighbor planning world revolution. Under those circumstances, the fact that Hitler was beefing up Germany’s defenses at breakneck speed didn’t by itself mean he was planning a war with Britain and France.

    (2)Why would anyone who is neither completely braindead, nor a disingenious lying shill would talk about “final demand” bullshit either whether or now, given that the entire reason why Britain and France switched from appeasing Germany to firm opposition and refusing any sort of further “reasonable” demands was the fact that Hitler simply could not be trusted any agreement he made, as was proven to the world by annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

    Nonsense. Or rather, globalist propaganda. Chamberlain didn’t care about Czechoslovakia. In his very first comments after the proclamation of the German protectorate, he acknowledged that Germany had not broken the Munich Agreement (since Czechoslovakia had not been attacked, but rather collapsed internally). He wanted further cooperation with Germany for peace in Europe and against Soviet Communism. Conclusion to his speech in Parliament, March 15 1939 on this topic:

    But do not let us on that account be deflected from our course. Let us remember that the desire of all the peoples of the world still remains concentrated on the hopes of peace and a return to the atmosphere of understanding and good will which has so often been disturbed. The aim of this Government is now, as it has always been, to promote that desire and to substitute the method of discussion for the method of force in the settlement of differences. Though we may have to suffer checks and disappointments, from time to time, the object that we have in mind is of too great significance to the happiness of mankind for us lightly to give it up or set it on one side.

    Source of quote: UK Parliamentary protocols, easily available online with a search.

    So what actually happened? As has been explained in earlier articles here at the Unz Review, FDR and other powers in the US put pressure on Chamberlain to cancel his policy of conciliation and cooperation, because they wanted to start a World War to destroy Nazi Germany (seemingly because they considered it anti-Semitic, a capital crime in these circles then as now). Due to this pressure, he did so. According to US Ambassador in London Joseph Kennedy,

    ….Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England […] neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. […] Chamberlain, he said, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.

    Source of quote: “The Forrestal Diaries”, edited by Walter Millis

    Link to article by Unz Review writer John Wear, with further references:
    https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    If you had read our host Ron Unz’s article that you’re commenting on, and checked his links, you would know this and not call other people “completely braindead” or “disingenuous lying shills” for exposing your rather ham-fisted efforts at Establishment apologism and propaganda. For surely you realize that ridicule used as a weapon works only from a position of superior authority.

  359. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    You’ve always struck me as a totally ignorant buffoon, and you’ve certainly reinforced that impression with this silly comment.

    LOL. I must have hit a nerve. Good, if it prompts you to the realization that broad statements unsupported by logic or evidence are no basis for useful historical analysis.

    Well, it sounds like you’ve been too lazy to actually read the Buchanan book. According to the author, the British Cabinet was very narrowly divided about declaring war, and Churchill was one of the strongest pro-war voices. Whether or not Buchanan’s analysis is correct, that’s what he says.

    Certainly there are many relevant books I could cite that you have been “too lazy” to read, “actually” or otherwise. Such books including at least a dozen by Churchill. Indeed your ignorance of Churchill’s work is remarkable, since he was at the center of affairs of one of the great powers — at the beginning of the 20th Century, the world’s greatest power — for over 50 years. 

    As for Churchill arguing for war in 1914, how could a rational member of the government reasonably argue otherwise? Britain was bound to go to war both under the terms of  the Triple Entente with France and Russia (1907), and by the Treaty of London(1839) to preserve Belgian neutrality, which was signed by all the European powers including Germany.

    Those in Asquith’s cabinet who argued for war were simply dealing with the reality of the situation. Had Britain opted out of her treaty obligations, allowing France to fall to the German invasion, her own position in the world would have been totally undermined. The German Navy would have been moored on the opposite bank of the Channel and there would have been a German Empire dominating the whole of Europe, thus defeating Britain’s 500-year old balance-of-power policy and destroying Britain’s great power standing in the world. Abandonment of Britain’s treaty obligations in 1914 would have meant imperial suicide. And Churchill was an imperialist as was everyone else in the British government of the day.

    To say that in arguing these points Churchill was responsible for the war, or that he was a warmonger, is simply silly. These were the geopolitical realities and the entire British cabinet ultimately agreed.

    Your notion that Churchill was a warmonger is simple-minded. Churchill was an enthusiast for war, which is a different thing. War was Churchill’s business. He was a graduate of Britain’s officers training school, Sandhurst. Churchill participated in war in the Caribbean, on India’s North-West frontier, in South Africa where he became a prisoner of war and a prison camp escapee, and during WW1, as the commander of British force sent to aid in the defense of Antwerp, and for six months in the trenches on the Western Front. For Churchill, war provided a stage upon which he must have hoped to emulate the greatness of his remote ancestor, John Churchill, the first Duke of Malborough, who defeated the armies of the Sun King, Louis 14th, never losing an engagement. But Churchill understood war as an instrument of policy and, as an advocate of war, was guided by considerations of statecraft.

    As for my being “absolutely dead-flat wrong” in denying that Churchill was a huge spendthrift by virtue of his expenditure on liquor, how do you think he should have entertained Parliamentary colleagues and foreign dignitaries, for example Hitler’s foreign minister, Joachim Ribbentrop, when they visited Chartwell — the country estate he bought with his literary income? As the grandson of a Duke on his father’s side, and the grandson of a big-time Wall-Streeter and owner of the New York Times on his mother’s side, was he to offer them brown ale and cheap plonk. Get real.

    But what demonstrates your complete lack of journalistic integrity is in asserting, without the slightest evidence, that Churchill was a bribe-taker.

    Yes, Churchill accepted money from people with political interests to promote. But has it never occurred to you that they supported Churchill not so that he would corruptly adopt policies that served their interest, but to aid him in the policies that he had for some years been openly pursuing.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  360. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    To utter such confisent crap you should have your sources at your fingertips and not have to spend hours finding a plausible source.

    Crap, certainly, confisent or otherwise. But uttering crap without anything to back it is a feature of the Unz school of history.

    But it is true that the Brits had long been in the business of stealing land. But that was not their aim at the outbreak of WW1. Their objective on that occasion was to uphold the 500-year-old British policy of maintaining a balance of power in Europe, leaving Britain a free hand to pursue its imperial ambitions elsewhere.

    And it is also true that the Brits did acquire land during WW1. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Over a million square miles in the ME, which just happened to be the location of the world’s greatest energy reserves.

  361. @Ron Unz

    David Irving also uncovered the fascinating detail that the two largest German financial donors to the Nazis during their rise to power were both Jewish bankers, one of them being the country’s most prominent Zionist leader, though the motives involved were not entirely clear.

    Why don’t you supply the names of these two German donors? I don’t want to have to search through David Irving’s writings to find them.

    The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.

    You’re such a David Irving fan, it’s hard to believe you haven’t read his revelations on Milch [found on his website]: that his real father was his white German mother’s uncle, meaning he wasn’t Jewish at all. I found Irving’s evidence more convincing than not – you didn’t? Milch also doesn’t look even the least little bit Jewish. Von Manstein, on the other hand, who was 1/2 Jewish did show a resemblance, especially the nose.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  362. Jews get populations into wars, civil strife, economic debacles and international entanglements. I posted in an earlier thread that something “9/11-ish” would occur to compel Trump to attack Iran. Our country needs to cease dealing with any entity in the Middle East, particularly Israel. These wars are not in our interest. Instead, we’re further creating enmity against our country. We are fortunate to have everything we need to sustain our economy within our borders (What’s left of them…) That should be the focus of our elected officials.

  363. German_reader says:
    @szopen

    then why bombing Dresden was illegitimate?

    British bombing policy from 1942 onwards aimed at the destruction of entire cities; one can argue whether that strategy was justified or not, but in any case it was different in quality from the Luftwaffe’s mostly tactical bombing. And that’s not even a “revisionist” assessment, just read a mainstream historian like Richard Overy (The bombing war) about it. Luftwaffe was never declared a criminal organization by the allies, because it was clear to anybody in 1945 that Britain’s conduct of the air war had been more extreme.
    I don’t know why you and other Poles go on so much about Luftwaffe bombing in September 1939 where your case is pretty weak, the actual conduct of military operations by German armed forces in 1939 wasn’t especially criminal (Wehrmacht units committed some mass shootings and other atrocities, but it wasn’t a general policy and there even were some prosecutions about it before military courts, in marked contrast to what happened later in the war against the Soviet Union). What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities. That’s what really set the German attack apart from a “normal” war.

    • Agree: iffen, utu
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  364. DrDog says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Yes, true. But you fail to mention an important fact. Who is the largest holder of oil contracts from the producers??? Would you not think that important? It happens to be the Chinese.

    Blood for oil? That should actually be chumps for oil if one is an American.

  365. What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities. That’s what really set the German attack apart from a “normal” war.

    Here he goes again, after basically telling some truth, and resembling indeed reason, the last paragraph is just like in the jewish Press, it contains the main message to be propagated, the fall back to the official narrative.

    You will not get away with this, and your dirt throwing on the German people.

    Einsatzgruppen, Wally, please rip this nonsense apart.

    • Replies: @Wally
  366. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Why don’t you supply the names of these two German donors? I don’t want to have to search through David Irving’s writings to find them.

    Unfortunately, the names of the donors aren’t known. Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article. You really should watch them.

    You’re such a David Irving fan, it’s hard to believe you haven’t read his revelations on Milch [found on his website]: that his real father was his white German mother’s uncle, meaning he wasn’t Jewish at all

    As I emphasized, until very recently I’d only read a couple of Irving’s shorter books, now joined by Churchill Vol. One. Given his gigantic output, I’d guess that only amounts to something like 15% of the total. The 2002 Rigg book I referenced discussed the matter at some length, and I found it pretty persuasive. But it’s perfectly possible that Irving has uncovered as good or better evidence on the other side.

  367. c matt says:

    for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me

    Unless your name is Clinton.

  368. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    doesn’t it seem absurd for you to say, not for the first time, that Hitler had “made every effort” to avoid war with France and Britain

    WWII resulted from the fact that the two most powerful nations in Europe sought expansion:

    The Soviet Union was openly committed to, and actively pursuing, world revolution, i.e., a global Communist empire.

    The Germans, stabbed in the back after WW1 and subjected to grotesquely unreasonable terms by the Treaty of Versailles were intent on Eastward expansion. Naturally, therefore, Hitler would have sought peace at his back, i.e., with France and Britain – for the time being.

    For the Western block, the UK, France and the US, the best outcome was for Russia and Germany to bleed one another to death, which with the encouragement of Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s architect of appeasement policy, they obligingly did.

    The only problem for the Western block was that the victor of the Russo-German struggle would, once the struggle in the East had been decided, surely roll Westward to the Atlantic coast.

    What to do? The Allied invasion of Europe in time to Bring the Russians or the Germans as the case might be to a standstill before they passed Germany’s Western border.

    Thus, until the D-day landings, Churchill the warmonger in Unz’s fevered mind, mostly just buggered about on the periphery of Europe keeping Britain’s Indian, African and ME empire intact.

    Thus, far from being a warmonger, Churchill’s greatest service to his country was to keep Britain’s WWII sacrifice to a minimum.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @ploni almoni
  369. @Mulegino1

    No more bullshit from the Hitler- I mean the History Channel- please.

    I think you mean the anti-Hitler/Bullshit Channel.

    On another note, it is ironic that A.J.P. Taylor’s career was deep-sixed. He was decidedly anti-Hitler.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  370. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom67

    there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence

    .

    What do you make of the many thousand Jews who fought in the German troops (usually holding non-low hierarchical positions)?

    Are you sure it was handicapped people, and not irrecoverable bottom-level outlaws who were eliminated? (It would still be highly objectionable, yet a different order of thing)?

    • Replies: @Tom67
  371. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    How that changes anything? Belgium was still neutral country which was invaded, just because Germany “needed” to defeat France.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  372. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @byrresheim

    Wikipedia.

    L-O-L.

  373. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    just reading Irving … on the crucial question of what motivated Churchill to take his anti Nazi stance (after early flirting with the idea of a common front with Germany against the Soviet Union..) was that the money he needed and got had absolutely nothing to do with the line he took in attempting to get back into power, preferably as PM. He had been consistent for many years when … Roosevelt’s 1938 recession and mini crash of the stock market caused him to put Chartwell up for sale and for the Jewish South African mining magnate to pay off his debts.

    Glad that someone not “too lazy” to read Irving concludes as I have, that Churchill’s financial backers backed him so that he would continue to do what he was doing of his own accord, not to corruptly do what he did not chose of his own free will.

    The idea that Churchill was blackmailable is also highly questionable. As he wrote somewhere, I forget now where, had he been open to charges of adultery (or presumably other forms of sexual impropriety) his political opponents would have simply destroyed him. That’s to say that every aspect of Churchill’s private life was open to public view, merely that evidence of sexual impropriety was not available to his opponents.

  374. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    BTW, I am not outraged by invasion of Belgium. I am outraged by mindset of nazi apologists, who think that whatever is done to Germany, is bad, and whatever is dne by Germany, is justified. So, for example, when allies created (not really true; allies jsut recognised the reality and adjusted borders) states, that was BAD THING. But Germany wanted to created vassal states in territories acquired from Russia; hard to say what were exactly their plans (probably they didn’t know themselves) but Hindenburg in his own books mention independent Baltic state, where German veterans would be settled and would receive free land. Annexing land from Germany: bad! But plans for annexing “border belt” (and remember, at least one government planner proposed expelling all Poles and Jews from there) would be good, because that would ensure safety of German borders. Germans living under Poles: tyranny! But other solution would be Poles living under Germans, and we all know (or at least, we should know) how bad and continously worse was becoming situation of Poles in Germany (or maybe you don’t know. I other thread one guy was surprised to find out that Polish children were deprived of right to even one lesson in Polish).

    In short, this is the attitude I am disgusted with. “Ze Germans dindu noffin. It’s all Jews, Poles and freemasons fault”.

  375. @Curmudgeon

    They (Jewish Media) do dwell unceasingly on Nazis and WWII, particularly when they desire to embroil the U.S. in another conflict.

  376. @Saggy

    In Ernst Zundel’s “Holocaust denial” trial in the 1980s. He subpoenaed the Red Cross reports of visits to the “concentration camps”. This included private interviews with inmates. Their records show an estimate of 275, 000 dead, and there were no reports of homicidal gas chambers.

    The minutes of the Wannasee Conference are on-line in English.
    http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html
    I cannot vouch for the veracity of the translation, but offer the following observations:
    – the estimated number of Jews is broken down into areas of German control, and areas not in control; – the number in control is approximately 4.25 million;
    – there is a continual reference to emigration and evacuation to the East;
    – there is reference to the “danger” of transporting emigrants in war time;

    While there are undoubtedly drastic actions proposed, none involve death. Why propose sterilization if you plan to kill someone?

    The German government claims 4.8 million Jews applied for reparations post war. As I understand it, Jews in the Eastern Bloc (Soviet occupied) did not claim reparations. Assuming the 4.8 million were actually all Russians, and assuming the magic 6 is true, that would mean every Jew in Europe outside the USSR was killed, including the ones in Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Ireland, and Spain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  377. @szopen

    Wars, despite the notion that some miraculous elements of civility and restraint are imposed upon the combatants, degenerate into conquests, pogroms and wholesale despotism. Trying to ‘apologize’ for or rationalize the actions of some nabob whose thirst for power and other population’s real estate and resources is fruitless. Remember the phrase: “All is fair in love and war”. Of course, what’s “Fair” will be defined by the victors.

  378. @Andrei Martyanov

    every century combined West goes to Russia to have its ass handed to it

    True in the 19th and 20th centuries. We’d better not fight in this century or it will be the end of the world.

    US, whose emergence to superpowerdom was primarily a result of it seeing WW II from the sidelines … getting into the big time only in 1944 when, for all intents and purposes, the issue was settled.

    The question of whether Operation Overlord was intended to defeat Hitler, or to prevent Stalin from conquering the entire European continent, is an obvious one.

    Some dirty, filthy Slavs, and not them only, beating the greatest military force in history–that hurts, still.

    Your attempts to read the Western mind are off-target. Anyone who has read a little history will know that it was chiefly the USSR that beat Nazi Germany. However, postwar films tended to continue wartime propaganda. The Americans think they were the victors. The British think they played the decisive role. Even the French insisted on being treated as victors. But I have yet to meet anyone who was hurt by learning the historical truth.

    The issue Westerners had was not a belief in poor hygiene of Slavs, but a well-justified fear of Stalin. The man was a tyrant who had killed many millions of his own people.

    Stalin had made peace with Hitler and cynically divided the independent countries of Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR. Now, if the Suvorov Hypothesis is correct, and if Stalin had successfully launched an invasion before Hitler did, then the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty would have been forgiven and Stalin would have earned a lot more respect in the West. Events did not unfold that way, and Stalin’s crimes leave Westerners thinking that he was nearly as bad a monster as Hitler himself.

    In 1939 the Americans manoeuvred the Poles, British and French so that the latter two would declare war on Hitler. They hoped that, by doing so, America itself would not have to fight. They also hoped to end the British Empire as a geopolitical rival to the USA. This is how countries behave towards each other when they are friendly rivals – they pursue their own interests, or as Henry Kissinger put it, “The USA has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

    The USSR under Stalin was not a friendly rival but a country that, rightly or wrongly, other countries feared. If the USA was keen that the war should cut the UK down to size, would it not be even more likely to do the same to the USSR? I realise it is awful, but the British and Americans had no responsibility to share in the battlefield casualties. It is no comfort that Stalin’s attitude towards rival countries was even more callous and disgusting than that of the British and Americans. Consider the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, or the halting of the advance of the Red Army so that the Germans could crush the Warsaw Uprising. Polish fear of Russia continues to this day, with adverse consequences for relations in Europe.

    Nevertheless, the British and Americans were not as cynical as they might have been. They did help the USSR with supplies to win the war.

    There is the reason they love Solzhenitsyn.

    Solzhenitsyn was popular in the West during the Cold War because of his anti-communism; but he was also a Russian patriot, and he lost favour in the USA as long ago as 1978 when his speech at Harvard made his Russian patriotism clear. His final work, “200 Years Together” has never been published in English.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  379. @Ron Unz

    In 1935 rumours began to circulate that his father was a Jew. The Gestapo began an investigation which was halted by Göring who produced an affidavit by Milch’s mother that his true father was her uncle Karl Brauer. Milch was then issued with a German Blood Certificate[2]. This would mean that his mother Clara admitted not only to adultery but also incest. David Irving in his book The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. The Life of Field Marshal Erhard Milch, says that Milch asked him not to reveal the real truth about his parentage, so although Irving states that it was not Anton Milch and concentrates on his wealthy great-uncle Karl Brauer who died in 1906, he does not actually name him as his father.[3] However, Irving, who had access to the Field Marshal’s private diary and papers, says the rumours began in the autumn of 1933, and that Erhard personally obtained a signed statement by Anton Milch that he was not the father of Clara’s children. Furthermore, Irving says that Clara Milch had already written to her son in law Fritz Herrmann in March 1933 explaining the circumstances of her marriage and that Göring had initiated his own investigation that identified his real father. Milch was again questioned about his alleged Jewish father and Göring’s role in this matter by Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg in 1946.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch

    The search/navigation at Irving’s website seems to have been disabled. I don’t trust David Irving, or think him very honorable if there’s a conflict with his own prestige, reputation or $income$. However I do believe what he told about Milch (because it fits what you can see with your own eyes and know about Germans), the complete story of which is not in his book about him. You should incorporate this information into your historical account.

    I’m not very impressed with Rigg’s book, which it seems never underwent much scrutiny.

  380. Ron: Many thanks for this seminal essay. Substantively it was intriguing, and the style format was engaging too.

    In the Fog of War, Robert McNamara openly admits that had the US lost the war, he and Curtis LeMay would have justifiably faced war crimes charges over their intentional destruction of Japanese cities.

    McNamara responds to a squadron leader who lost his wing man over Tokyo (mostly timber-based housing), in a low flight raid , that his own (US-centric) cost/benefit analysis justified it:” you lost a wing-man , but we burned half of Tokyo….”

    Imagine how it would sound if a German said that…..

  381. @James N. Kennett

    You ignore that Poland declared jurisdiction over, and had sent occupation troops to, the Free State of Danzig, which was under international control, had voted to join Germany.
    The German offer of settlement on the Danzig Corridor, was virtually identical to the one preferred by Marshal Piłsudski, with whom Germany had signed a non-aggression pact in 1934. While Piłsudski did not completely trust Hitler (Poles have never trusted Germans) he had advised his successor, Rydz-Śmigły of the necessity of peace with Germany, as the Soviets were a greater threat. Rydz-Śmigły’s response to German offers of settlement was mobilization of their armed forces.

    All wars are economic wars. Germany had thumbed its nose at the bankers by issuing Labour Certificates to fund its reconstruction projects, which provided employment, and by trading commodity for commodity avoiding currency exchanges. In short, bankers were being shut out of their “traditional” money-making scams. That could not be allowed to continue.

    Churchill and Roosevelt were banker’s agents. Both should have been hanged for treason.

  382. jsigur says:
    @Mulegino1

    It seems like Germany has always been in the cross-eyes- Germany lost 1/3rd of its ppl during the Protestant Reformation (or what was to be Germany)

  383. @Ron Unz

    Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article.

    Very likely Churchill “was persuaded not to” publish it in his book because it was Bruning bullshit. Why do you believe everything David Irving says? Granted he’s done some impressive work, but his ego is the size of a football stadium–much larger than his sense of integrity. It was exactly in his lectures that he went over the line so often. Just a friendly warning.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  384. @szopen

    Many of us now subscribe to the theory Hitler was just another Jewish agent. So everything he did was by extension the fault of the Jews and the Freemasons. That’s the thesis of Miles Mathis. And it’s very convincing. He examined the geneologies if the major Nazis and looked at the Beer Hall Putsch so called. It was a false flag event.

    But no one here says Hitler did nothing wrong.

    Nazi victory would have led to a different set of pathologies.

    But we have the ones we have, and they’re pretty bad, and many stem from the year zero team falsifying history to inculcate false guilts.

    And Vichy France looked a lot nicer then Afro France.

    • LOL: James N. Kennett
    • Replies: @Germanicus
  385. @szopen

    Your ridiculous moralization of war is, well, ridiculous, war is war, you try to minimize your own casualties, unless your are the Soviets, who sent unarmed infantry towards a machine gun position.

    So what do you say to the British invasion of neutral Norway? No outrage here?
    The Soviet invasion of Finland? No outrage?
    The Polish ridiculous invasion plans to take Berlin, toally overestimating the polish strength?
    I could go on and on with invasions, but your selective fanaticism will simply dodge these.

    • Replies: @szopen
  386. chris says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Great video, except for the whopper about Iran having used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq! This is patently wrong, especially as Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, something Iran never did!

    I mean, if Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, why would Iran not respond with chemical weapons on the battle field, where it would do them the most good, but use them against a third party in the war that could be a potential ally.

    This slight of hand in this presentation is very indicative of someone passing off a big lie wrapped in lots of secondary truths. And quoting an “ex-“CIA agent as saying this, is not exactly a stellar argument.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
  387. @Flint Clint

    That’s the thesis of Miles Mathis

    This BS is not the thesis of an unknown Miles Mathis, but the lies of the German Social Democrats of the 1920ies rehashed.

    Werner Maser has long put these jewish lie to rest in his Hitler biography, which includes his family tree. He also is biographer of Hindenburg and Kohl(Kohn).

    Hitler was not jewish, the National Socialists shut down Rothschild operations, and had effectively remove interest and usury from currency.

    Howdoes this fit your ridiculous claim? Trying to square the circle like the masons?

    • Replies: @Chmmr
  388. Today’s American Neocons are just as heavily Jewish as were the Bolsheviks of a hundred years ago, and they have greatly benefited from the political immunity provided by this totally bizarre inversion of historical reality. Partly as a consequence of their media-fabricated victimhood status, they have managed to seize control over much of our political system, especially our foreign policy, and have spent the last few years doing their utmost to foment an absolutely insane war with nuclear-armed Russia. If they do manage to achieve that unfortunate goal, they will surely outdo the very impressive human body-count racked up by their ethnic ancestors, perhaps even by an order-of-magnitude or more.

    A lot more. Africa and India and China will starve, as will most major urban areas. I can see why Ron Unz is worried. Neocons don’t really need to go to war with Russia to cause the casualties mentioned by R. Unz above. Simply paralyzing US response to such things as the emergence of drone air forces (which they have done for about a decade now) will reduce global trade through regional wars, bringing about the starvation mentioned above.

    And, of course, Neocons aren’t the only members of the Democratic coalition. The coalition is supported by urban populations who rely on tax money and on intellectual elites (or thugs, hard to say which describes better) who depend on detecting sins (such as not supporting monetary support of urban areas and their populations) and destroying sinners for their power. Take away the Neocons, and the remnant would still be formidable.

    The thing is, _massive_ damage has been incurred. The Federal bureaucracies really are staffed by low cognitive ability people who are adept only at protecting their jobs. Representative Branch, Judicial Branch, and the Executive Agencies have all been diverted from their formal missions [1] to supplying /protecting income and patronage jobs to urban areas. They have all lost their core competence, and are _unable_ to perform their formal duties.

    Countries like that need a thorough reorganization to restore function. While doing that, they are usually unable to do much else. In other words, reorganization paralyzes the US as global peace enforcer.

    Best case is that Trump defeats the Neocons and the NYC/Yankee coalition, emerges as a kind of second Augustus, with the power and organization to conduct a massive and very unpleasant reorganization, and restores some barely adequate US functionality, enough to keep the US Navy protecting freedom of trade on the high seas.
    Second best case is that Trump disorganizes the opposition (as did C. J. Caesar) and somebody in the next generation (Ocatvian analog) manages to stop the slide. That might be just barely possible, and that only because Octavian/Augustus did something very similar, as did Diocletian and even Hadrian.
    Both cases would likely lead to long term decline of the US and the world, but that might be considered better than the chaos and mass casualties of the available alternatives.

    Point: Hey, guys, you’re living through a pivotal point in history! Trump is probably everybody’s last chance (or close to it) of preserving a world wide industrial civilization / trade network. This next stretch of history looks like it will be messy, try not to get hit by the splatter.

    And next time you hear the environmentalists say that we have only 12 years or so to “save the earth”, think of the situation described above, and remember that environmentalists believe that ending world trade and greatly reducing world polpulation would be considered as “saving the earth”. They aren’t really on the side of stability.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Representative Branch: making laws,
    Judicial Branch carrying out the laws in cooperation with law enforcement,
    Executive Agencies: executing Congressionally assigned missions under guidance from the President).

  389. chris says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you, Ron!

    This article is a fantastic summary of many of the salient facts about the onset and prosecution of WWII. It not only matches all the information I’ve picked up over the years from my own historical studies and those passed on through family stories, but it ties all the loose ends of this tragic history together.

    It also manifests a logical consistency which none of the popular histories can contain. This, for the obvious reason that the popular histories set out to tell a morality tale making great efforts to obfuscate the actual historical contexts of most of the events they cover.

    For once, I have to say that I know of no other important facts or angles which are not covered in this summary.

  390. Emslander says:
    @CanSpeccy

    This particular comment grossly exaggerates Churchill’s virtues, which are derived primarily from his own prolific career as a writer. Not many government figures get to publish multi-volume histories of the periods in which they serve.

    Your assumption that WWI was inevitable because of the alliances that had formed is incorrrect. Any assertion by any one of the eventual participants that the Sarajevo terror was an insufficient reason for war would have headed it off. Once it was stopped, there would have been significant adjustments in the manner of mobilization. WWI was not only avoidable, it began as the result of summer inattention, especially in the British Foreign Office.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  391. The putrid stench of tribe is behind most of the evil for at least the past 100 years!

  392. iffen says:
    @szopen

    “Ze Germans dindu noffin.

    LOL

  393. iffen says:

    Ron: Many thanks for this seminal essay.

    All this talk (and thinking) about Unz’s seminal work has caused me to end up with a wet spot in my panties.

    • Replies: @chris
  394. Sab says:
    @Alta

    Hungary was torn apart by Czechs and Romanians and Serbians in the first place. Migrants that should never have been let in the country.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  395. Ron Unz says:
    @byrresheim

    There seems to have been serious disagreement about the number of victims of the criminal Dresden air raid.
    Wikipedia says, Prof. Lipstadt’s experts were able to show that Mr Irving had inflated the nunbers tenfold by using only one source, claimed to be dubious.

    Sure. After Lipstadt and her $13 million army went over Irving’s massive writings line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote, Dresden was (as I recall) just about the only major dispute she could point to in her book denouncing Irving. However, I didn’t find her arguments particularly compelling, and here’s a recent John Wear article making a pretty strong case on the other side:

    https://www.unz.com/article/how-many-germans-died-under-raf-bombs-at-dresden-in-1945/

    The point is that by her silence, Lipstadt is tacitly admitting that 99.9% of Irving’s material was not subject to reasonable challenge, and that includes all the “astonishing” things I mentioned in my article above.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  396. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Very likely Churchill “was persuaded not to” publish it in his book because it was Bruning bullshit.

    That’s silly. How in the world would Churchill know who was funding the early Nazis during their rise? By contrast, Bruning was running Germany at the time and since the Nazis were a threat, his political police were certainly spying on them. So he surely would have known, and Irving says the suppressed Bruning document is genuine.

    Now it’s certainly possible that Bruning was lying for some unknown reason. But unless there’s strong reason to believe that or solid contradictory evidence, I think the reasonable position is to accept that Bruning’s secret document is correct.

    Personally, I can think of all sorts of perfectly plausible reasons why leading Jewish bankers would have been donating to the Nazis. These include (1) hedging their political bets/gaining protection and (2) fears that otherwise the Communists might take over and expropriate them.

    If a legitimate document says something that’s reasonably plausible, we should accept it unless there’s some powerful reason not to do so.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @refl
  397. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    said:
    “What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities.”

    Really? And what supposed “mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen” are you referring to?

    The fraudulent ‘holocau$t’ Industry claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, the enormous mass graves & human remains are claimed to exist in specifically known places.
    So, is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    recomended:
    Babi Yar: The [alleged] Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: https://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    ‘The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791
    The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Genesis, Missions and Actions: https://codoh.com/news/3424/Jewish Virtual Library’s laughable Babi Yar “aftermath” photo is ‘proof’: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12147

    • Replies: @szopen
  398. Wally says:
    @szopen

    Except that Belgium was not “neutral” at all.

    Your laughably “neutral” Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million if it’s soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.

    Facts matter.

    • Replies: @szopen
  399. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Emslander

    This particular comment grossly exaggerates Churchill’s virtues, which are derived primarily from his own prolific career as a writer.

    I wonder what that even means. How can a virtue derive from a prolific career as anything? And anyway, I did not speak of anyone’s virtues. So how can I have exaggerated them? If there is a specific point that you disagree with, why not state it and the reason for your opinion. Then we would know whether you are capable of a useful contribution to the discussion.

    Not many government figures get to publish multi-volume histories of the periods in which they serve.

    Why is that do you suppose? Is there a law against it? Or are you simply acknowledging what is a fact; namely, that Churchill is among the few Western political figures with the mental energy and literary talent not only to write a multi-volume history of the period during which he served in government (actually, he wrote two: The World Crisis, an account of WW1, and the Second World War, an account, obviously, of WW2), but to write it so well that the royalties made him a wealthy man.

    Your assumption that WWI was inevitable because of the alliances that had formed is incorrrect.

    Great powers that fail to live by their international agreements generally run into trouble. For example, Germany, which failed to live up to its commitment to the London Treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality immediately faced war with France, Britain and Russia who were committed to the treaty.

    Any assertion by any one of the eventual participants that the Sarajevo terror was an insufficient reason for war would have headed it off.

    But Austria did not agree and mobilized for war against Serbia. Russia, promptly mobilized for war against Austria, the Tsar having the previous winter promised the King of Serbia that “Russia will do everything for Serbia.” At that point, Germany had no alternative but to mobilize, Germany’s battle plan depending on Germany’s ability to mobilize faster than either France or Russia, thereby gaining the chance of knocking one or both out of the war before they were organized to fight. Britain, as I’ve explained pursued its centuries-old balance of power policy.

    WWI was not only avoidable, it began as the result of summer inattention, especially in the British Foreign Office.

    Oh yeah, blame the Brits. But why not all the others. There was no particular reason why the Kaiser or the Tsar or the King of Serbia should not have embarked on a shuttle diplomacy mission. Fact is, though, it never occurred to anyone to do that. Moreover, no one at the time understood that the war that everyone was expecting would bog down into a process of industrial scale slaughter. There had never been such a war, although the American war of independence gave a clue as to what would happen when millions of defenders dug in and brought to bear on the attacker a wall of lead.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @lysias
  400. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    “Einsatzgruppen, Wally, please rip this nonsense apart.”

    My pleasure, done.

  401. ValMond says:
    @Germanicus

    There is a such thing as quantitative evidence in historiography. Are you familiar with the concept? The “at least 20 million” is an ideological drivel. As meaningless as the imaginary, undying “6 million” holocaust deaths, we are incessantly bullied with. But all of you excitable russophobes can’t help yourselves throwing these “millions” around, as if they were some Parti confetti. In fact, you shower in them, since your resentment needs sustenance.

    A quantified account of Stalin era repressions do exist. The “gulag census” (if you wish to call it that) took an enormous amount of work, data mining and number crunching over several decades. Someone as Victor Zemskov (one of the historians who delved into the actual numbers) and his team spent years and years buried in the archives of the Soviet penitentiary system. In order to get a realistic idea, they plunged into the judicial registries and scrutinized thoroughly the ministry of interior records and the NKVD/KGB’s statistics – broke down by year, camp, prison, type of reported crime etc. Many of those sources were unclassified only recently.
    A summary of their research was published in: “К вопросу о масштабах репрессий в СССР” (В. Н. Земсков in Социологические исследования-1995. № 9. С. 118-127). The numbers Zemsky came with, will be a huge disappointment to you.
    But you are unable to process them for at least 2 reasons:
    1) language – the research is in Russian
    2) you sanity depends on the die-hard stereotypes you’ve been fen your entire life and around which you’ve built you empty, hateful existence. And BTW, I’m not jewish.

  402. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Daniel Ellsberg offers what seems a plausible rationale for bombing cities. The clash of mass armies during WW1 had resulted in the unproductive mass slaughter of soldiers. Why not then, instead of attacking the enemy’s army, attack the civilian population that keeps the army in the field by supplying it with boots, bayonets and all the rest. Civilians, in other words, because they supported the army in the field, we deemed legitimate targets and hence were slaughtered en mass during WW2. The Brits and Americans were more successful at it that their enemies. But the Germans did their best, and might have made a real impact had they been able to manufacture enough (V2) ballistic missiles. The Japs didn’t accomplish too much in the way of mass civilian slaughter, although they targeted economic assets, sending incendiary devices carried by balloon to set the forests of Western Canada alight.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @Wizard of Oz
  403. lysias says:

    “Hidden History” by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor in my opinion demonstrates that the primary blame for World War One belongs to a secret elite cabal in Britain which very much included Churchill.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  404. ValMond says:
    @ploni almoni

    My problem is the propagandist fantasy of 20 million victims (at least) of communism. It’s a persistent lie spread by ideologues. Jews did play a major role in Stalin’s repressions apparatus but that’s OT. How many people have died as a result of those repressions is a different subject from that of the identity of their executioners.

  405. @Bragadocious

    Kindly expose your memory to testing by others by specifying those (near constant) wars of 1899-1914 after the Boer War ended in 1902.

    As to your last paragraph please cease childish evasion and acknowledge that there are vast troves of diaries, letters, minutes of Cabinet discussions etc. which would provide the materials to test your hyperbole.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @Anonymous
  406. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @lysias

    Very honest of you, and thanks for keeping your profound thoughts short, but it does raise the question whether you have read any other books.

    Perhaps an extension to the thesis underlying the neex for Ron’s American Pravda series should be one which emphasises the influence of the very few books most people read.

    • Replies: @lysias
  407. @Mulegino1

    A very interesting article that does do its best to try and vindicate Hitler, rightly or wrong. But you can’t deny the atrocities that Hitler provoked especially in the outlying EU nations that Germany managed to take.
    He enabled alt-right groups to go after minorities. It happened in Italy and especially in and around Balkic regions where far-right groups united with the invading germans to murder and torture minorities.
    I don’t deny the speculation around those who should not be named and their centuries of scheming. Its amazing how well organized they are despite being in fewer numbers than the rest, an amazing feat in and of itself still.
    But lets not try to cancel out some of the portraits we have of De Fuhrer. He was responsible for a lot of war crimes in and around the EU.
    If minorities had been accommodated during the invasions of surrounding EU nations and far/alt-right groups hasn’t been allowed to run riot had been curtailed, then maybe the author of the article would have a point. But as it stands Hitler and his entourage were no better than Churchill, FDR and elite Jewry.

    • Replies: @Wally
  408. lysias says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Chinese civilian deaths in the war with Japan amounted to some 18 million, and many of those occurred in what one can only call mass slaughters.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  409. @Ron Unz

    Now it’s certainly possible that Bruning was lying for some unknown reason.

    Unknown? Bruning had been chancellor and his party was ousted by the National Socialists. Adolf Hitler was already and for a long time being attacked with gutter-level claims by people just like Bruning – that was and is politics. Since Hitler was a known antisemite, this was just the thing that his enemies would like. Why did Bruning withhold their names?

    I don’t know how well-versed you are on the Austrian chancellor’s attempts to blacken Hitler (for political reasons) with lies about his family origins and his participation in trying to overthrow the Austrian government in the July Putsch of 1934. Hitler got this treatment from the very beginning of his political career.

    You say the names of the donors aren’t known.

    Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article.

    If Bruning was such a plausible witness, why was Churchill persuaded not to pass on the information? You’re not curious to know why? Because these people all hold high-level positions in their governments they should therefore be believed?

    The reasons you give for these Jewish bankers to donate to Hitler are the very same reasons all wealthy businessmen had for donating to Hitler. So why is it “fascinating” that Irving said it? Why are the names withheld? Please tell me which video of the two has this story in it because I want to see for myself what he says. I’ve watched a lot of Irving videos already and don’t want to have to watch both of them. I’ll look into it as well as I can. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  410. lysias says:
    @ValMond

    For those of us who have trouble reading Russian and have no idea how to access Zemskov’s summary, can you please give us his numbers.

    • Replies: @ValMond
  411. @CanSpeccy

    You draw my attention to a couple of points I had meant to make, prompted in part by the nonsense that Hitler wouldn’t have started bombing British cities deliberately if he hadn’t been provoked by the raid on Berlin after some bombs had accidentally landed on London. Total war started in the 20th century not later than the German shellung of Scarborough in November 1914, plus Zeppelins bombing London in 1917. Guernica had made clear what principles Hitler was likely to feel bound by. Starving people by blockades was tried by both sides in both wars. The mostly inaccurate bombing of city targets in WW2 was almost entirely consistent with the aim of discouraging civilians from supporting the war effort by manufacture of munitions etc and not incompatible with their moving out of industrial cities (as many did in Britain) to avoid the danger. Even the bombing of Dresden wasn’t sheer irrational bastardry.

    Also…. the Soviet Union received enormous support from the US and UK long before Operation Overlord beyond all the convoys bringing tanks and other war supplies. Not just the diversion of resources to North Africa and Italy but the even greater diversion of resources to air defence of Germany and the reduction of output.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  412. lysias says:
    @Anonymous

    I have read many books on the origins of World War One, but in my opinion the best book on the subject is the one that I mentioned, “Hidden History” by Docherty and Macgregor.

  413. @CanSpeccy

    Two quibbles. It was, you would obviously agree, not the American war of independence that gave a foretaste of WW1 slaughter but the civil war.

    Also you perhaps underestimate the immense assistance Churchill had in writing his war memoirs, not just in research but in providing drafts. Not surprising that young scholars would give their time and talents to such a heroic and facinating figure for little material reward.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  414. Anon[182] • Disclaimer says:

    But lets not try to cancel out some of the portraits we have of De Fuhrer. He was responsible for a lot of war crimes in and around the EU.
    If minorities had been accommodated during the invasions of surrounding EU nations and far/alt-right groups hasn’t been allowed to run riot had been curtailed, then maybe the author of the article would have a point. But as it stands Hitler and his entourage were no better than Churchill, FDR and elite Jewry.

    A moot point by the fact that minorities are inherently anti-national (because by definition they have unique group political interests from the larger group) and thus shouldn’t exist in foreign (majority) nations.

    Every minority group should have their own nation, and if they do that is exactly where they should be (and have been) with no excuses.

    That type of world would at least neutralize most internal sociopolitical strife: the type that the National Socialists formed to assert themselves within.

    If everyone had their own nation and went there, international conflict could be regulated as best as possible by an international alliance or a future ai. When minorities attempt to assert themselves in foreign lands, even if transported there by a wayward majority itself, they de facto attempt to create a nation within a nation. Which leads to inevitable slow-boiling conflict, the kind that is about to again plunge the world into widespread civil war, and an inevitable attempt to correct the fatal situation as the national socialists did.

    Again, this can all be mostly avoided, now and in the future, by neutralizing minority opportunism in foreign lands. The Nation State was a good idea. Modern disrespect of its essential concepts and the lessons that led to it is not.

  415. @Ron Unz

    Serial stuff up. #335 is a reply to this. And I add another quibble.

    Far from the 150,000 Mischlingen part Jews in the German armed forces being mostly combat officers [sic] a better guess would be about 10 per cent.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  416. @Ron Unz

    Neat,you were a student if E.O, Wilson,almost as good as having been a student of Richard Evans Schultes .Hee Hee.
    I actually still have a copy of Wilson’s ‘Genes,Mind and Culture’ here in Guatemala from around the time I was into things like Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene’ and his newly coined term ‘meme’.I met a UC Santa Cruz psychobiology professor named Raph Berger during that era and was creating my own terms like the ‘psychomolecular code’,(a meme is to the psychomolecular code,what a gene is to the genetic code), because if we had discovered a molecular genetic code there was every reason to believe we were close to discovering a molecular basis for human and animal memory as well.So why have a field called psychobiology and not have a ‘psychomolecular code’ ?

    [MORE]

    A book by Arthur Koestler titled,’The Case of the Midwife Toad’ introduced me to the Swede Holger Hyden who in my opinion was foremost in proving a molecular basis for memory in the 1950’s by blocking RNA or protein synthesis in neurons of animals and simultaneously blocking memory formation.
    Gregory Bateson whose father was a nemesis to the Austrian professor Kamerer in Koestler’s Mid Wife Toad was a professor at UC Santa Cruz and I never met him but came to dislike his pretentiousness as an authority of the ‘mind’.The publisher’s of Whole Earth Catalog,Stewart Brand et.al. who later went on to publish Co-Evolution Quarterly which had a cult following in me and some of my friends as well as Governor Jerry Brown were almost themselves cult followers of Gregory Bateson. In his last book he wrote approximately that ‘the mind is not located in space or time but instead is related to entropy and neg entropy rather than to energy’.This pissed me off because in fact the only way we know ‘entropy’ or ‘negative entropy’ is by the direction and movement of energy through space.In my rhyme ‘Ode To The Psychomelecular Code’ I mention that the toxic synthetic molecules causing problems for state employees in the Sacramento Bateson Building are from the ‘very ‘time-space’ of the human mind or neural coding Dr.Bateson denied’ the existence of.
    In fact our brain-mind depends not only on plants concentrating solar radiation from the sun but in concentrating minerals such as the limited phosphates from the soil.And our brain’s ‘mind’ is thus at present at the expense of increased entropy of the soil that is needed for the agricultural plants to fix more solar radiation and CO2 from the atmosphere.So when we flush a toilet we are on a psycho-physical level literally throwing our dreams, or former parts of our brain, away and in this Late Classic Industrial era are dependent upon mining more phosphates such as those being depleted in Florida to maintain ourselves and the phophate suppy of the phospates and other minerals that sustain us.

    Before agriculture a monkey or chimpanzee grabbed a fruit or nut or leaf from a tree and ate it and excreted the soil elements back directly to the forest floor.But humans with their brains and hands cut the forest or natural garden not only increasing erosion but also removing the soil in the form of agricultural plants that were then consumed and exreted away from the source of plant growth.

    So our agriculture was always anti-biospheric and with the discovery of atoms in life that overthrew Aristotle’s and the Catholic Church’e four elements or ‘earth,air,water and fire’ and the formulation of Justis Von Liebig’s Law of the Minimum of N,P,K needed for plant growth in the 19th century we paved the way to mining the elements of life from ancient bio-geological deposits,otherwise the Reverend Malthus as much as I agree with the poet Percy Shelley that he was detestable in his
    delusions of British self righteousness and superiority to the French,was indeed correct about population growth and agriculture and would have been proven so as early as the 19th century had fertlizer mining and later just before WWI the invention of the Haber.Bosch process to synthesize nitrogen from the air for explosives and later for fertilizer,the world human population would never have reached 7 billion plus before soil and population collapse.

    About 20% of the phosphate we consume and excrete is used to maintain the human brain so every time we flush a toilet, on the psycho physical level, we are throwing our dreams away.

  417. Seraphim says:
    @Sab

    Czechs (actually Slovaks), Romanians and Serbians were in ‘Hungary’ before the Hungarians came. Hungarians were the migrants who shouldn’t have been allowed in those countries.

  418. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    If Bruning was such a plausible witness, why was Churchill persuaded not to pass on the information?…Why are the names withheld? Please tell me which video of the two has this story in it because I want to see for myself what he says.

    I think Irving indicates that Churchill’s publishers found it terribly “embarrassing.” Obviously, Jewish groups would be horrified if word got around that Jewish bankers had been the crucial funders for Hitler and the Nazis.

    I’m not 100% sure the names were withheld. Irving didn’t mention them, but it’s possible they were named in the letter he found.

    I think it was in the first Irving video I linked. Since this seems like one of the most popular ones, I’m really quite surprised that you haven’t already watched it.

    All I know about the matter comes from that brief mention in the lecture, but I do think it’s poor historical practice to just disregard plausible and authentic documents by just saying the writer must be lying.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  419. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Far from the 150,000 Mischlingen part Jews in the German armed forces being mostly combat officers [sic] a better guess would be about 10 per cent.

    Well, take it up with Prof. Rigg, since I’m pretty sure that’s what he said in his 400 pp book based upon years of archival research and praised by all sorts of eminent scholars.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  420. @ValMond

    Why would you believe the numbers Zemskov comes up with? This is contrary to what well informed Soviets were saying since the 30s. If millions of everyday people still alive in the former USSR kept a bag ready to be sent off to the gulag unexpectedly, why would not the number of those dead because of Communist oppression be in the millions? And what is your hidden agenda in belittling Solzhenitsyn?

    • Replies: @ValMond
  421. Alden says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Truth hurts doesn’t it? Hitler was appointed not elected and 32 percent is not a majority under the then existing German parliamentary system.

    Look at the red lines. Didn’t lengthen till Hitler had been in power for years.

  422. Alden says:
    @Theodore

    I’m very familiar with the European parliamentary system and that the President or sovereign is a formal figure head of state and the Prime Minister or in Germany chancellor is the person who has all the power and does the real work of running the country.

    The other parties constituted 68% of the vote in the election. There were numerous caucuses but the Reichstag. 68% non Nazi there was never any agreement as to whom would be chancellor It took 11 months after Hindenburg became president to appoint Hitler chancellor on his own without consent or vote by the Reichstag.

    Obviously there was intense for and anti Hitler pressure on Hindenburg during those 11 months. He appointed Hitler. Hitler was appointed not elected. It doesn’t matter how many Nazis were elected small town mayors council men or Reichstag members before Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Doesn’t matter what you and Carolyn claim.

    Hitler was appointed not elected.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @ploni almoni
  423. @Counterinsurgency

    What is “good for the Jews” has been fatally bad for humanity. Instead of more of the same, why don’t you recommend that Jews renounce being chosen and above the law. It is not possible, of course, but it would be the right thing to do. Otherwise they will inevitably destroy themselves. And blame everyone else, of course.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  424. @Art

    Sanctions seem to be a typically Jewish approach to human relations.

  425. Alden says:
    @szopen

    The problem with people like Carolyn and Theodore is their claims that the German people voted Hitler into office as Chancellor. He was not elected chancellor. In fact, CHANCELLOR WAS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICE according to the parliamentary constitution of Germany at the time.

    People looking for neutral objective discussions about WW2 tend to become anti Hitler, anti Nazi and anti German when reading these totally absolutely false claims that Hitler was elected.

    Churchill was more despicable in his private and financial life than Hitler, but that doesn’t make Hitler admirable.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  426. CanSpeccy says:
    @lysias

    WWI was not only avoidable, it began as the result of summer inattention, especially in the British Foreign Office.

    Yes, an important point.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  427. Alden says:
    @gregor

    Thinking of Chartwell, it’s interesting that Churchill wasn’t able to buy it till he was almost 50, and had 4 children.

    Then suddenly as cabinet minister for colonies, he pushed for the British administration in Palestine to allow more and more Zionist confiscation of Palestinian land and an entire Zionist parallel separate government in Palestine.

    As soon as Churchill achieved that, suddenly he had the money to buy Chartwell for cash and an equal sum for modern water sewage plumbing heat telephone electricity other repairs and remodeling and of course splendid furniture and decor.

    Churchill was a Supreme example like Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. The Zionist method is simple. Find some young and hungry for power King Duke Prince or modern politician and give them wealth and power. They’ll do what they are told. At least the Roosevelt’s were sincere communists. Churchill was just a jealous poor relation with no money of his own and an extravagant lifestyle he couldn’t pay for

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  428. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    you would obviously agree, not the American war of independence that gave a foretaste of WW1 slaughter but the civil war

    I was thinking of the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, when Andrew Jackson’s forces defended New Orleans from a British invasion force.

    Jackson’s total of 4,732 men had prepared defensive earthworks against which the British marched over open ground. The result: over 2000 British soldiers killed, wounded or taken prisoner in the space of 25 minutes, versus only 13 of the entrenched Americans killed, 30 wounded, and 19 missing or captured.

    Among the British killed was the commander, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, who was returned to England for burial preserved, so it was intended, in a barrel of rum. However, when the ship carrying his remains reached Britain it was found that the sailors had breached the barrel and drunk the rum.

    Based on this experience, the trench warfare deadlock of 1914-18, and the horrendous casualties resulting from every effort to advance might have been anticipated, but apparently were not. It was to avoid being bogged down in a re-run of WW! that is said to have been the basis for Churchill’s extreme reluctance to launch the invasion of Europe until massive American backing was in place.

  429. @Alden

    As to who is more despicable, YOU are because I never said anywhere that Hitler was voted into office. When you have to lie outright, and put your own words in people’s mouths, as those who set out to defend the Poles usually do, you look pretty bad.

  430. @Ron Unz

    You relied on memory and I on general knowledge of the military and deep scepticism that Jews’ special gifts would make them so different from other Germans. I had already Googled for “how many Jews and part Jews served as officers in the German armed forces in World War 2” and found nothing useful. Now, on repeating my search, I find, for instance,

    https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1638-1.html

    but neither that nor any other of the 6 or 7 links I tried, provided anything about combat officers, though, on the perphery of relevance, there was mention of there being Jewish senior officers and also of the Jews and Mischlinge being “drafted”.

  431. For a definitive scholarly well-documented discussion of German Jewry under Hitler see Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question,’ (Princeton University Press, 1984). In 1930 there were under 600,000 Jews in Germany. By 1939 half had emigrated. In 1945 above 200,000 survived, mostly not imprisoned. The Jews who suffered the lethal brunt of the Nazi regime were mostly in the eastern war zone — what is now Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States, the Czech and Slovak states, and western Russia — a fate which they shared, in severity and in numbers, with Poles, Russians, and others.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Wally
  432. ValMond says:
    @lysias

    According to Zemskov, for the period between 1921 and 1953 (corresponding to the Stalin’s reign) the USSR had a total penitentiary population of 4,060,306.
    Of them 3,777,380 were jailed on political charges. The remaining 282,926 served sentences for various crimes they have been found guilty of. For the same period, there were approximately 800,000 executions from which ~ 680,000 took place between 1937-38. Those are the real numbers. The rest is hearsay, speculations, lies, and fantasies. Here is a link to another summary Zemskov wrote (you may try a browser translation):
    https://www.politpros.com/journal/read/?ID=783&journal=96

  433. lysias says:

    I don’t believe I quoted that. I certainly did not say it.

    Any inattention in the British Foreign Office to the Serbian matter in July 1914 I believe was not careless, but deliberate. Edward Grey and Eyre Crowe were in on the conspiracy.

  434. lysias says:
    @CanSpeccy

    There were those who expected the war to be long and hard. Lord Kitchener said so to the British cabinet in the first week of war. Before the war started, German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg said entry into the war amounted to a “leap in the dark” (“Sprung ins Dunkle”).

  435. @German_reader

    … but in any case it was different in quality from the Luftwaffe’s mostly tactical bombing.

    In quality? How so? 40,000 Brits died in the Blitz. Germany just didn’t have the means to inflict the damage that the Anglo-Americans could.

    Seems to be purely a matter of quantity.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Fox
  436. @Steve Naidamast

    I have read Gary North’s articles (two, actually) on Hoggan and in my judgment — and I imagine in the judgment of any informed fair-minded reader — they are disreputable on the face of it. That Hoggan wound up with mental problems after a decade of persecution and gas-lighting by his putative academic colleagues is almost to his credit. North’s straight-faced citation of Hoggan’s Harvard supervisor Langer’s criticism of Hoggan amounts to bad faith, since Langer was the dean of World War Two official history and himself deeply implicated in American “intelligence” and in its (successful) efforts — described by Barnes — to enforce an official history. I give Unz the benefit of the doubt in imagining that he is not aware of Langer’s position.

    The point and use of Hoggan’s lengthy preliminary excursus on Poland is that Poland became the ground of the ostensible causa belli. Hoggan’s discussion shows that Poland between 1920-1939 was a brutal dictatorship that persecuted its large German minority along with all others and was rankly anti-Semitic and militarily aggressive — it seized an area of Russia half the size of California until Stalin took it back in 1939. All this is significant in view of the light in which it places Britain’s guarantee to protect a state rivaling Nazi Germany in obnoxiousness. The most significant point in which Poland differed from Nazi Germany was its willing participation in the dominant arrangements of international usury finance championed by Britain and France (Poland was massively indebted to the latter).

  437. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    Hitler was appointed not elected.

    I never argued otherwise, I was just pointing out that his party won the plurality of votes.

    You can repeat this over and over and over again if you want. I’m starting to think you enjoy it, for some odd reason.

    YES or NO – Do you think Hitler would have been appointed if his party had not won the plurality of votes in the most recent election?

    The other parties constituted 68% of the vote in the election. There were numerous caucuses but the Reichstag. 68% non Nazi there was never any agreement as to whom would be chancellor

    Why would someone from a party with significantly fewer votes be elected chancellor? Doesn’t seem very democratic to me

  438. Apropos of poison gas in war it is germane to remark here that Winston Churchill was reponsible for using poison gas against native targets in the middle east when Britain was taking up its mandates there after the First World War and that Zionist leader and first president of Israel Chaim Weizmann was an industrial chemist who made his mark in the formulation of poison gas for warfare.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  439. @Alden

    I have followed up on your reference to Churchill’s time as Secretary of State for the Colonies so as to have his dates as 13 February 1921 to 19 October 1922 but I would be pleased to have your help in understanding your reference to his pushing for an entire Zionist parallel government and, in particular “Zionist confiscation of Palestinian land”. It appears to be the case that there was very little freehold land under the Ottomans so, no doubt then as now, it was probably feasible to pick up leasehold land when leases expired or, less fairly, to give notice to those who held only tenancies at will. Can you spell out what you are referring to, preferably with sources. After all “confiscation” is a strong word.

    As to the financing of Chartwell which he bought in late 1922 can you bring any more to the subject than suspicion? I recall that he was paid remarkably well for his writing and speaking tours and the Brits still seem to go in for that sort of thing. Michael Gove is said to have picked up £150,000 a year for a few op-eds when out of office! Nor can one forget Rupert Murdoch’s handy advances to Newt Gingrich as author. However my searches came across this

    “Getting Out of Debt

    After years of getting heavier into debt, Churchill got his break in 1921. At the age of 46, he was left $5 million from a late relative. At the time, he had a debt of around $3 million and could have been debt-free. However, he used nearly all that money to buy a Rolls Royce, a country house, and went gambling in France.”

    in an article on Churchill’s wealth. Can you provide more detail?

    • Replies: @Alden
  440. @Ron Unz

    Thank you. It was in the first one and right close to the beginning too. I very well may have seen it already but if so, it was long enough ago for me to have basically forgotten it.

    Irving was a lot younger and told this little snippet of a story in a breezy, entertaining manner. After Bruning was out of office 4-5 years, he wrote a letter to Churchill telling him “who put Hitler into power.” The letter is in the Time-Life archives, as I recall, where Irving found it. Later, after the war, Bruning asked Churchill [did he write another letter? It’s not clear] not to publish the letter in the memoirs he was writing because “it was too embarrassing, too painful.” Why? “I don’t want to expose today” that the two largest contributors to the Nazi’s were “the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks,” both of the Jewish faith. Irving had his audience laughing at this.

    I can accept not wanting to reveal Jewish involvement as a motive for Bruning, but I can also believe that it might not be true. We were only told of one letter from Bruning to Churchill. Were there more? Irving says Churchill “bowed to Bruning’s wishes,” deducing this from the fact it didn’t appear in Churchill’s memoirs anywhere. Irving seems to be inventing motives and “reasons” in order to fill in the blanks. Bruning adds that “the #1 leader of Zionism in Germany was one of the bankers, and that much of the money received by the Nazis came from French Intelligence sources, French arms factories, and American arms manufacturers.” If Irving knew who the bankers were, why didn’t he reveal their identity to his audience? Wasn’t it in Bruning’s letter to Churchill?

    Now, to you Ron, I would not so readily believe all this from a man selling books on a speaking circuit, or speak of “plausible and authentic documents” based on watching a video. Is this letter reproduced in Irving’s book(s)? Who has seen it? Certainly not I. You obviously don’t know that David Irving is known to make things up, to add things, pad things to make his tales more entertaining and/or interesting. As he’s telling this to his lecture audience, he’s not being careful and precise, but just the opposite, sort of like a cross between a history instructor for a freshman introductory course and a stand-up comedian.

    My objection was that Bruning (not Irving) may have been lying because the Austrian chancellors Dollfuss and Schuschnigg had circulated phony documents and lies about A.H., trying to quell the popularity of Hitler in Austria; and Hitler & German Nazis even today are held responsible for the July 1934 Putsch in Vienna (and the death of Dollfuss) when they had nothing to do with it.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  441. @John Regan

    The Nazi plan after the conquest of Poland was to create a Jewish state in east Poland, comparable to Gaza, and settle Jews there — this is attested by various reliable contemporaneous witnesses (e.g. Oswald Garrison Villard’s Inside Germany, 1940) — and started shipping Jews east for that purpose. However, it turned out to be beyond their ability to follow through with this plan as the war with Russia commenced and intensified and their capacity to take care of the new inhabitants of this Jewish Gaza Strip collapsed. How many deaths resulted from the ruinous conditions of the war zone and how many from deliberate murder is an open question. As John Stuart Mill comments (On Liberty), “the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions.” Since it is illegal to discuss these questions in Europe they will probably remain unsettled for the indefinite future.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @David Baker
  442. @chris

    Iran used chemical weapons, that is not in dispute. It was widely accepted that the gassing of Kurds was an accident of war, and it was Iranian gas. This was undisputed for years after, as the link I included at the bottom of that video explains.

    Stephen C. Pelletiere’s Jan 31, 2003 New York Times OpEd on the evidence that Iran was responsible for the gassing of 5000 Kurds at Halabja, not Iraq:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/a-war-crime-or-an-act-of-war.html

    The author notes:

    “I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.”

    After President Bush declared 15 years later that evil Saddam was responsible, and after no WMDs were found, evidence that Iraq was a fault appeared based on new investigations over 16 years later. There is much hard evidence that the administration of Bush I helped Iraq produce chemical weapons, and the means of delivery, like selling 155mm WP rounds knowing the WP could be easily be replaced by poison gas.

    • Replies: @chris
  443. Fox says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You don’t even realize that it was Churchill who initiated city bombing as a terror strategy, and you don’t realize that it was Churchill who laughed at the German Chancellor’s offers to end the conflict at various stages of the war, you don’t realize that Churchill was strongly urging England into the war, into the Norway adventure, the expansion of the war by opening the door to the Americans to come into Europe and its affairs, his alliance with Stalin, betrayal of the Poles as former “allies”, and of course his whole-hearted assent from an early time on to sanction the Polish-Czech elimination of 15 million Germans from the German territories they lived in.
    This man is bearing the heavy burden of caused Europe’s downfall and probably bringing to an end its fabulous trajectory of creative accomplishments.
    I may add that Churchill had an active part in bringing about the outbreak of the First War in his position as First Sealord of the Admiralty, as well as fomenting the Russian Civil War, the War against the Colonial Subjects in Iraq, and to add to the whole, he wholeheartedly endorsed the development of the Cold War, with the potential for yet another, even bigger war, in which he, Churchill would stir the pot.
    War was his pleasure, and it is certain that without this sociopath and psychopath, this drunkard and lover of luxury there would have been no Second World War, and the Polish-German war would have ended instead of a general catastrophe with an agreement between Germany and Poland about a reasonable border policy that was free of tensions.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  444. Anonymous[881] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curmudgeon

    The source cited does not show 4.25 million, it shows considerably more.

  445. German_reader says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    From the start of the 2nd chapter of Overy’s Bombing war:

    Yet neither Hitler’s prediction to Gafencu nor his promise to the German public can be taken at face value. Both were clearly designed for political effect and the threats rhetorical. In the confines of his headquarters Hitler took a more modest view of air power, whose development he had influenced to only a small degree. The air force that was turned against Britain in 1940 had not been designed to carry out a long-range ‘strategic’ campaign and when ordered to do so that autumn there was no directive to carry out obliteration bombing, though the effects on the ground were often construed as such by the victims. Though the popular view in the West has always been that German bombing was ‘terror bombing’, almost by definition, Hitler for once held back. In the first years of the war, until British area bombing called for retaliation in kind, Hitler refused to sanction ‘terror bombing’ and rejected requests from the German Air Staff to initiate it. Not until the onset of the VWeapon attacks in June 1944 did he endorse the entirely indiscriminate assault of British targets

    I don’t have time to discuss the issue in greater detail (don’t want to tbh, it’s mostly pointless), if you want to know more, read Overy’s book yourself. As bad as Germany’s bombing of Britain in 1940 undoubtedly was, in intent it wasn’t as radical and indiscriminate as Britain’s bombing campaign of 1942-1945 (where destruction of urban areas and killing large numbers of civilians weren’t just a side effect of the bombing of other targets, but actually the aim of the campaign).

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  446. Fox says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It was not German strategy to wage war by terrorizing women and children in their homes; hence, a bomber fleet for such purposes was neither conceived nor built. You could only count the bombardment with the V2 into the category of Britsih-American “strategic bombing”, very late in the war and on a very modest scale, and in response to the bone-headed insistence on the English-American side to continue with this dead-end destruction.
    The German military pursued a different strategy, and hence any conjecture that they “would have, if” is just a meaningless and, perhaps for you, comforting conjecture.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  447. toronunz says:

    “Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population. ”

    On the contrary, Putin knows very well where the power in the world resides: Jewry.
    He is very accommodating to them.
    I don’t have time to list sources, but for starters consider this:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-middle-east-strategy-balance-vs-betrayal/5690056

  448. @Skeptikal

    Preparata’s book suffers from his desire to tie everything together in one big neat package but it is crammed with useful suppressed facts. He shows the extent of British as well as American financial involvement in Germany both before and during the Nazi regime. He contends that the German Depression of 1919-23 was caused by the German elite’s exporting of capital and by the German government’s continuing to pay interest on and buy back German war bonds, which Versailles left in place, in the hands of the German elite. When German Finance Minister Erzenberger tried to tax capital to pay these charges, he was assassinated; thereafter the government paid by printing money. This payment to the elites, coupled with their exporting of capital, precipitated the Depression of 1919-23. Exported capital was converted to other currencies and then brought back into Germany to buy up assets at fire-sale prices. The major recipient of transferred capital was Holland, but also Britain, US, France, Belgium. He does not discuss what role Jewish finance played in this but certainly many Germans at the time thought it was large.

    Thereafter, the German recovery and rearmament (in cooperation with the USSR) was funded by Britain and the US. He shows that British and American investments in Germany in the 20s and 30s were widespread, concerted, pervasive, with the idea being to build up a bulwark against Russian Communism. He shows that the Nazi economic miracle was generated by the government loaning funds to local projects (and national) for infrastructure building (e.g. the autobahn) and rearmament (to a lesser extent — German rearmament before 1940 is grossly exaggerated — the European power that was engaged in a vast arms buildup was USSR and American corporations engineered it in its entirety. When Harry Hopkins, FDR’s emissary, visited USSR in 1942 Stalin told him that 90% of the Soviet industrial plant was built by Americans — Lindbergh said the same after touring their aircraft industry in the late 30s). Nazi state finance compelling the German financial elites to underwrite their infrastructure loans — i.e. they did not generate their own fiat money but worked with — or dragooned — the German elements of international finance. This was the “socialist” element in National Socialism. This, in my view, was the main reason the elites of international usury finance targeted Nazi Germany.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  449. This article is a one-stop WWII Revisionism course. Could political changes some day make it possible to teach such a course at an actual American university?

    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @Germanicus
  450. Adrian says:

    One of my earliest memories, I was four at the time, is that of the German bombardment of Rotterdam. It took place about seven kilometers from our house and I remember being lifted up to see the flames, through the windows at our topfloor.

    The date was 14th May 1940. Holland had been invaded by German troops on the 10th of May and its hope to remain neutral in this conflict between its bigger neighbours (as it had been in the First World War) turned out to be vain. The official German promise that its neutrality would be respected, made in August 1939 through the German ambassador, was either a deliberate lie or made undone by a change of plans – probably the former.

    Though Rotterdam was still partly a defended city the bombardment targeted no military objectives but the historical center which was destroyed by saturation bombing in about a quarter of an hour. Eighty thousand people were made homeless and an estimated 600 to 900 were killed,

    Apparently the bombardment was ordered because German plans had counted on a speedier destruction of the Dutch defense than actually happened. The threat was that other historical cities, such as Utrecht. would share the same fate if capitulation was not forthcoming. The mere threat of this was enough to force the surrender of Rotterdam even before its bombardment took place. Through a misunderstanding this was not conveyed to the German squadrons that were on their way to destroy the city.

    Wikipedia claims that the original allied decision to confine bombing exclusively to military targets was given up immediately after this bombardment. I don’t know how true this is.

    What further about the war for Holland? Five miserable years that ended with the socalled “hunger winter” followed. When it was all over a Dutch poet wrote “None of the unborn will ever realize thus intensely what freedom means”.

    • Replies: @Hamlet's Ghost
    , @Wally
    , @Fox
  451. @Dweezil the Weasel

    Don’t underestimate younger people.

    The left are morons, but they are going to repudiate Jews because they see them as privileged whites oppressing poor benighted vibrant and superior brown folk (Palestinians and Muslims).

    Dianne Feinstein has already been refused endorsement in California. The identarian left is going to remove Jews from all positions of power in the public sector. What Jews are assuming is that they will be able to control people like Ilhan Omar and Rashia Tlaib elected by the identarian left. And they are wrong. They won’t be able to do so.

    On the other hand you now have millions of young men with a burgeoning sense of counter-semitism. They may not be able to substantiate it. But they understand the links between the problems around them in terms of diversity and sexual consciousness and prolifacy, the uniparty, internet censorship, and the Jews.

    I think they have miscalculated. Jewish power in the United States is going to be removed by China at the very least. They are not going to be able to compete with another high performance low trust ethnicity adopting all of their techniques for societal domination.

    And whites are going to become a much more aggressive if much smaller minority.

    • Replies: @Alden
  452. Hail says: • Website

    the number in control is approximately 4.25 million;

    The source cited does not show 4.25 million, it shows considerably more.

    Curmudgeon is right: The number the report concludes as “in control” is exactly 4,536,500‬, and this includes 700,000 in “unoccupied territory,” whatever that refers to.

    These being the countries listed in section A; the countries Germany occupied militarily at that, their [early 1942] high-point in the war effort against the USSR.

    Here is the list:

    [MORE]

    Country Number

    A.
    Germany proper 131,800
    Austria 43,700
    Eastern territories 420,000
    General Government 2,284,000
    Bialystok 400,000
    Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia 74,200
    Estonia – free of Jews –
    Latvia 3,500
    Lithuania 34,000
    Belgium 43,000
    Denmark 5,600
    France / occupied territory 165,000
    unoccupied territory 700,000
    Greece 69,600
    Netherlands 160,800
    Norway 1,300

    B.
    Bulgaria 48,000
    England 330,000
    Finland 2,300
    Ireland 4,000
    Italy including Sardinia 58,000
    Albania 200
    Croatia 40,000
    Portugal 3,000
    Rumania including Bessarabia 342,000
    Sweden 8,000
    Switzerland 18,000
    Serbia 10,000
    Slovakia 88,000
    Spain 6,000
    Turkey (European portion) 55,500
    Hungary 742,800
    USSR 5,000,000
    Ukraine 2,994,684
    White Russia excluding Bialystok 446,484

    Total over 11,000,000

    [….]

    The handling of the problem in the individual countries will meet with difficulties due to the attitude and outlook of the people there, especially in Hungary and Rumania. Thus, for example, even today the Jew can buy documents in Rumania that will officially prove his foreign citizenship.

    The influence of the Jews in all walks of life in the USSR is well known. Approximately five million Jews live in the European part of the USSR, in the Asian part scarcely 1/4 million.

    From the second-to-last paragraph quoted, we see that countries listed in section “B” were assumed by the senior German planning staff as having Jews they could not readily deport, in some cases because they were unoccupied (England, Ireland, Turkey) or because they were sovereign allies who would not agree to deport their Jews (named specifically are Hungary and Romania. Also applies to Finland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and maybe a few others).

  453. Theodore Beale pointed out that Unz is essentially a one man monastery, engaged in the preservation of the record against the Barbarians of his own accord.

    It’s incredible how people who read haven’t heard of someone like John T Flynn. It demonstrates yet again how badly has been our subversion. We take it for granted once it’s presented, but this is simply an incredible work.

    Mr Unz is a hero, and I refer every young aquaintance I have to this website.

    • Replies: @JoeFour
  454. @Brabantian

    World War II I think really started, when Adolf Hitler inexcusably rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939, Adolf Hitler beginning to rule over non-German-speakers against their will … there is no explaining this away

    On my first trip to Europe, c. 1972, I was in Salzburg and got into discussion with the friendly proprietors of the modest hotel where I stayed. We enjoyed a few glasses of the local wein together and, thanks to my loosened tongue and youthful indiscretion, I asked how Austrians had received the Nazis.

    My host couple (who could remember that historic period) weren’t embarrassed by my awkward question. They answered, more or less, “To us they weren’t ‘Nazis.’ They were Germans, they were our neighbors, spoke our language (a little differently, it’s true). Germany was prosperous and Austria wasn’t. We welcomed the Germans as people who might help us achieve some of what they had done economically.”

    If that was indeed the general attitude, the starry-eyed Austrians of 1938 were regrettably innocent. But nothing I’ve read since convinces me that they were victims of German aggression. Czechoslovakia was a more complicated situation, but while the Czechs had a longstanding grudge against the pre-World War I rule from Vienna, that may not have made them anti-German. Many Czechs were ethnically German. I don’t know how many Slavic Czechs were dead set against German rule.

  455. Hail says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Valid points, but IMO leans very close to reckless strawmanning.

    And this:

    “Reevaluating any politically-important idea is ultimately dangerous because of the possibility of ‘overshoot.’”

  456. @Ron Unz

    Edgar Ansel Mowrer, Triumph and Turmoil INY, 1968) recounts attending a dinner in Germany with a Jewish banker Arnholt in 1932 at which he was the only goy present and in which several bragged of their backing of Hitler. Included was James Warburg (son of the Federal Reserve founder? or a “German” cousin?). (p. 212) Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception, wites that Mowrer was a British intelligence agent, which puts his veracity in question. But that’s what he says.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Zumbuddi
  457. Leo says:
    @Fox

    oh please. as if you don’t see what’s going on here.

    when discussing this book, Ron consistently – in at least two articles – replaces the word “sterilization” with “extermination”. isn’t it a bit too cheap for someone who claims to fight for the truth?

    i obviously don’t care for this stupid book and it’s not my point to defend its ideas. i just find the sensationalism of the author of this article to be cringeworthy.

    in addition, the book was written in 1941. sterilization was a common practice back then. tens of thousands of people were sterilized in both United States and Germany as part of the eugenics philosophy. it was supported by governments, courts, and scientists – and was a pretty much routine thing.

    talking about this book without providing historical context is ridiculous – and dishonest.

  458. @James N. Kennett

    What killed Solzhenitsyn’s reputation with Official American Thought was 200 Years Together. Period.

  459. @Adrian

    A quick look at the respective dates will answer your last question. Churchill assumed office on May 10, and he immediately ordered the policy of attacking German cities. Rotterdam was attacked on the 14th, so it couldn’t have been used as an excuse by the Allies to abandon their hands-off policy on bombing cities.

    • Replies: @Adrian
  460. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    After Bruning was out of office 4-5 years, he wrote a letter to Churchill telling him “who put Hitler into power.” The letter is in the Time-Life archives, as I recall, where Irving found it.

    Actually, I think that enormously increases the likelihood the story is true. I just checked, and the story—including the exact Bruning quote—is on pp. 124-5 of Churchill Vol. One. I’m absolutely certain that Lipstadt’s Army checked the archives and confirmed it, since they would have loved to have caught Irving in that sort of gigantic lie.

    So it’s certainly that Bruning made the claim, and should be accepted as accurate until proven otherwise.

    Moreover, a downthread comment just cited a book in which a journalist visiting Germany in 1932 was at a dinner with a bunch of prominent Jewish bankers, several of whom were bragging that they were funding Hitler. I really do think that fully settles the issue.

  461. CanSpeccy says:
    @Fox

    You don’t even realize that it was Churchill who initiated city bombing as a terror strategy

    Not so according to Wikipedia:

    The first bombing of a city was on the night of 24–25 August 1914, when eight bombs were dropped from a German airship onto the Belgian city of Antwerp.

    The first aerial bombardment of English civilians was on January 19, 1915, when two German Zeppelins dropped 24 fifty-kilogram (110 pound) high-explosive bombs and ineffective three-kilogram incendiaries on the Eastern England towns of Great Yarmouth, Sheringham, King’s Lynn, and the surrounding villages.

    Britain had no airships and was thus unable to retaliate in kind.

    In 1915 there were 19 more raids, in which 37 tons of bombs were dropped, killing 181 people and injuring 455. Raids continued in 1916. London was accidentally bombed in May, and in July the Kaiser allowed directed raids against urban centers. There were 23 airship raids in 1916, in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293 people and injuring 691.

    By the end of the war, 51 raids had been undertaken, in which 5,806 bombs were dropped, killing 557 people and injuring 1,358. The late Zeppelin raids were complemented by the Gotha bomber, which was the first[19][20] heavier-than-air bomber to be used for strategic bombing.

    Yes, during the interwar years, the Brits did use aerial bombardment in colonial policing missions, in Iraq, Yemen, etc.

    However,

    RAF forces took great care when striking at targets. RAF directives stressed:

    In these attacks, endeavour should be made to spare the women and children as far as possible, and for this purpose a warning should be given, whenever practicable.

    During the Spanish Civil War, the bombing of Guernica by German aviators including the Condor Legion, under Nationalist command, resulted in the near destruction of that Spanish town, and casualties estimated to be between 500 and 1500 people.

    During WWII,

    the Luftwaffe had been attacking both civilian and military targets from the very first day of the war, when Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. A strategic-bombing campaign was launched by the Germans as a precursor to the invasion of the United Kingdom to force the RAF to engage the Luftwaffe and so be destroyed either on the ground or in the air.

    One could go on to demolish your other crazy assertions, but the above should give you some pause for thought.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
    , @Wizard of Oz
  462. ValMond says:
    @ploni almoni

    Why would you believe the numbers Zemskov comes up with?

    Zemskov is one of the most serious and trustworthy experts on the subject, with most extensive access to primary sources. Certainly the most cited one in the scientific literature-at least in Russia.

    This is contrary to what well informed Soviets were saying since the 30s

    Like whom? And what does “well informed” mean? What or who “informed” them about the exact number of Stalin’s victims? Show me their papers and methodology then we can talk. Even Khrushchev and his politburo ghouls knew very little specifics about the gulags and the labor camps. Studying the period became possible only after some KGB’s archives were opened in the 90s and in the 2000s.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @ploni almoni
  463. CanSpeccy says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Actually, I meant you made an important point about Chinese casualties in the Sino-Japanese war, casulaties that I did not refer to because the Sino Japanese war seems unrelated to the European struggle that was the trigger for WW2.

    The remark about WW1 being avoidable was not yours but Emslanders. Sorry for my confusion.

  464. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    For a definitive scholarly well-documented discussion of German Jewry under Hitler see Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question,’

    By an astonishing coincidence, I just this afternoon finished reading exactly that book…

    It did seen quite comprehensive and scholarly, though *exceedingly* dull, with all sorts of tables regarding German perceptions of Jews, stratified in all sorts of ways, that didn’t strike me as particularly enlightening. I’m pretty sure it began life as a doctoral dissertation or something like that.

    The first short chapter seemed to have the most interesting information, very early stating that “The reader may be surprised to learn” that Jews were only 1% of the population.

    A few pages later, she notes that in 1923 Jews controlled 93%(!!!) of all the private banks in Berlin, 41% of all the iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses, and were 85%(!!) of the brokers on the Berlin stock exchange.

    In 1931, 50% of all the theater directors were Jews (80% in Berlin), while 75% of all the plays produced were written by that same group. She also indicates they were “very influential” as journalists and editors, while delicately avoiding providing any exact figures.

    For me, Chapter One was really the only useful part of the book. The rest mostly focused on the somewhat mysterious causes of “paranoid German anti-Semitism”…without ever much connecting it with the statistics provided in Chapter One….

  465. @Ron Unz

    I’m grateful that someone from the tribe acknowledges this letter. You folks have to dismount from your “Holocaust” High Horse and understand how Zionists orchestrated Hitler’s rise to power. (You might also reference Time Magazine canonizing Der Fuhrer with their “Man of the Year” accolade.) I am trying diligently to introduce this topic among established revisionists. It’s a cinch your Professor of Propaganda won’t accede to Irving’s views.

    • Replies: @utu
  466. Willem says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    You have let the beggar, Linh Dinh, pay for your own meal and felt happy about it?

  467. utu says:
    @David Baker

    “I am trying diligently to introduce this topic among established revisionists.” – And you won’t succeed. Most of them are enamored with Hitler that he was a real deal rather than a dupe.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  468. “Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.”

    American’s just don’t understand the price of Jewish oligarchy. It’s only starting to be realised now.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p13_Michaels.html

    “Ordinary Russians have suffered, on average, a 75 percent drop in living standards since 1991, according to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, a former assistant Secretary of Defense. That’s almost twice the decline in the income of Americans during the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

    That is simply extraordinary. But you can can now see the beginnings of sth similar in the United States with the collapse of the middle-class and the burgeoning homelessness phenomena, the ‘pod-living’ and the generational collapse in capital ownership.

    That kind of unfathomable drop in the common-people’s standard of living and the absolute monopolisation of money, power and capital can only arise from a point of view of racial emnity and racial hostility and racial supremacy. Why the Russians didn’t perform a counter-revolution is strange.

    Read this: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p21_Michaels.html

    The saga of Boris Berezhovsky using corruption to acquire some of Russia’s most important strategic assets and being appointed as head of their equivalent security council having just obtained Israeli citizenship is like reading about the United States. It truly is. Dual citizenship, dual loyalties, illicit aquisition of capital – just like the Jews in California and Chicago.

    I would argue that the Jewish dominance of Russia post Soviet Union is actually less then in the United States. In the United States it’s total control of vastly larger institutions and economic units. It doesn’t matter how much you dig – it’s obvious at every level.

    It’s going to be interesting to see if posterity Americans in particular, are going to be willing to accept the kind of drop in standards of living the Russians suffered between 1991 and Putin’s appointment. Very interesting indeed. The Russians were disarmed.

  469. @CanSpeccy

    Wikipedia is a joke.

    If you read Churchill’s own work on the second world war, he admits to bombing Berlin to coincide with a meeting between Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov and Ribbentrop in Berlin.

    In fact, if you read the material from Vice Air Marshal Keith Park, the RAF deliberately instigated the German switch to civilian bombing to preseve their airfields. We are told that just before the London campaign began, Biggin Hill, the RAF’s largest airfield, was almost out of commission.

    The German tactical bombing of military targets was proving effective, and Churchill himself said the switch to bombing civilian targets came just in time.

    Of course, this assumes that any of it is correct, as Miles Mathis now has me doubting the veracity of much of World War 2’s common narrative.

    The actual damage to England was so incredibly low, it seemed as if the German’s were avoiding bombing their anglo-Zionist funders for example.

    In a war of annhiliation, practically no British landmark of any importance suffered a scratch, and the Germans bombed more then 2 thirds of their bombs in the countryside for no reason.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  470. Adrian says:
    @Hamlet's Ghost

    So according to you one of Churchill’s first deeds after he had assumed office was to order the bombing of German civilian targets. Have you got a (reliable) source for this? According to Wikipedia this type of bombing started on the 15th of May. If this is correct (a big if) it thus took place directly after the destruction of Rotterdam’s historical center. It could be of course that the British had waited for an event such as this to start what they had planned to do in the first place.

    I attach a picture of Zadkine’s statue symbolising the city with its heart torn out.:

    • Replies: @Hamlet's Ghost
    , @Fox
  471. @Ron Unz

    So it’s certainly that Bruning made the claim, and should be accepted as accurate until proven otherwise.

    Not to be difficult here, but the second part doesn’t follow the first. Yes, Bruning made the claim but why does it have to be considered accurate … because he made it?

    Are you really believing that “the Jews put Hitler into power?” Hitler would have known where the money was coming from. I don’t doubt Bruning made the claim. I’m sure I didn’t ever say I doubted that. No doubt some Jews gave money to the party. But how big was their role? I think Bruning may have exaggerated that, along with the armaments manufacturers. I don’t think Jews were ever his major funders because he had too many others.

    So what is the exact Bruning quote on pp. 124-5? It seems to me that if Irving thought this was as big a deal as “Hitler was working for the Jews” believers would want to make of it, he would have made more out of it himself. Does he just see it as: Zionists wanted Hitler to come into power so he would push the Jews out of Germany to Palestine? I found this: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html

    [MORE]

    The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won’t even find them published in Churchill’s own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

    For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

    Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”

    Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn’t give permission to Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill’s memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, “The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies.” This is the way Churchill put it.

  472. Ron Unz says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    Relying on what appears to be only anecdotal evidence of Hoggan’s ability to contrive data in the article written by Gary North, it is a bit disingenuous given the enormous amount of detail that Hoggan provides in this book.

    As it happens, I received emails today from two individuals who seem to have known Hoggan reasonably well, and traveled in similar “controversial” circles.

    One of them described him as clearly “afflicted with mental illness.”

    The other, who said he’d known Hoggan for twenty years, seemed somewhat less harsh, but said he was “the most unusual person” he’d ever known.

    Given that virtually all the discussion of Hoggan’s WWII book was written in German, and supposedly all the mainstream German historians ferociously denounced and attacked it, I think my position of treating his work with considerable “caution” was a quite reasonable decision.

    Incidentally, the lengthy and excellent 1962 Rothbard review of the Taylor book I linked upthread, closes with the hope that Hoggan’s book may soon offer a much more definitive account of the same topic. Instead, the Hoggan book only appeared 27 years later…

    • Replies: @soitgoes
  473. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    The Polish ridiculous invasion plans to take Berlin, toally overestimating the polish strength?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

    Please now cite the relevant Polish HQ military plans. Oh, you can’t? Because there were no invasion plans in 1939? What a pity. Yes, there was propaganda, sometimes ridiculous, but no military plans. The Polish military plan for 1939 was strictly defensive, except for going into Gdańsk/Danzig in case Germany would want to take it by force. Otherwise, the plan was to defend and withdraw, waiting for French offensive.

    But, as usual with your kind, you probably don’t even know it.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  474. szopen says:
    @Wally

    He refers to the Einsatzgruppen activities in Poland, 1939: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen_w_Polsce

    Killing mostly Polish intelligentsia and other “dangerous elements”. Operation Tannenberg and killing about 20.000 Poles.

    • Replies: @Wally
  475. szopen says:
    @Wally

    Indeed, they do matter. French had not positioned 2 million soldiers in Belgium; they were allowed to get in there in case of invasion only. French armies waited patiently on the border, waiting until Belgium would call for help. In other words, you think that by calling for French help IN CASE of invasion, Belgium breached neutrality – astonishing.

  476. Wally says:
    @Adrian

    – Rotterdam was indeed a legit military target .

    – Per the Hague conventions the bombing of cities IF they were under military occupation (ie “defended”), which was the case with Rotterdam & Warsaw.

    – There was no Dutch neutrality as they allowed Britain and France use of it’s airspace for military purposes against Germany.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Adrian
  477. Miro23 says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    In 2000 Iraq changed from selling its oil in petrodollars to euros. The American attack followed as soon as it could. Similarly Libya proposed shifting from petrodollars to gold dinars. With the same result. Iran and Venezuela are both notable for having nationalized their oil resources previously seized by international corporations, mostly British and American. So they too are enemies. Is there a pattern here?

    There certainly is. And it’s a very useful one. If the Russian and China are serious about gaining independence from the US, one way would be to organize a parallel world payments settlement system and denominate their trade in Euros.

    Europe and the ROW would be fine with that because 1) the US dollar would already be fast losing value 2) the new settlement system would already be in place.

    And the US would have to decide what to do with their trillions of dollars backed by nothing that no one wants.

  478. @Ron Unz

    Moreover, a downthread comment just cited a book in which a journalist visiting Germany in 1932 was at a dinner with a bunch of prominent Jewish bankers,

    The “journalist” was described in an excellent book “Desperate Deception” as a British intelligence agent. Which changes the whole believableness of the story. We do need to take into consideration the layers of deceit surrounding all matters to do with WWII. We’re left with our gut instincts to guide us in large part.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  479. Wally says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    said:
    “The Jews who suffered the lethal brunt of the Nazi regime were mostly in the eastern war zone — what is now Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States, the Czech and Slovak states, and western Russia — a fate which they shared, in severity and in numbers, with Poles, Russians, and others.”

    – So what was that “lethal brunt” that you claim?
    – How was it supposedly done?
    – Exactly where was it supposedly done?
    – Why is there no proof?

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  480. Wally says:
    @Raj Tattle

    said:
    “But you can’t deny the atrocities that Hitler provoked especially in the outlying EU nations that Germany managed to take.”

    What atrocities? Where exactly? How many? How? Proof?

    again:

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.
    – so called “holocaust historian”, Raul Hilberg

    • Replies: @Raj Tattle
  481. Tom67 says:
    @Anon

    Here please my reply: regarding Jews in the Wehrmacht. You probably read the book by Ricks just as I did. There he specifically writes that pure Jews were the very rare exception. Most of the “Jews” were half or quarter Jews. Or else Jews who managed to hide their Jewishness.
    By the way: one of my relatives was one of the most highly decorated officers of the Wehrmacht. He even has his own Wikipedia entry. His brother was married to a Jewess. She was send to a concentration camp and if not for her relative the war hero she would not have survived. (They managed to get her transferred to Theresienstadt a concentration camp where conditions were much better as it was used to showcase the presumed humanitarianism of Nazi Germany). I found the whole story in the diary of yet another brother (a well known historian) which I am editing at the moment.
    As to the handicapped: I am absolutely sure that they were eliminated. In the village where I grew up in the sxities there was a woman that was mentally disturbed and prone to sudden strange outbursts. She was tolerated and excused as it was well known that they had taken her only son (down syndrom) to have him “cured”. Instead he had been killed.

  482. @Ron Unz

     that Jews were only 1% of the population.

    A few pages later, she notes that in 1923 Jews controlled 93%(!!!) of all the private banks in Berlin, 41% of all the iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses, and were 85%(!!) of the brokers on the Berlin stock exchange.

    In 1931, 50% of all the theater directors were Jews (80% in Berlin), while 75% of all the plays produced were written by that same group. 

    I have a sneaking suspicion that if it were somehow possible to ban Jews from finance, their control of other industries would quickly evaporate as well.

  483. @Ron Unz

    Yes, Gordon’s book is dry as dust but it is full of essential facts — as your citations indicate — and extremely well documented, and in depth. Two other facts you don’t cite — and I don’t remember the exact numbers — show that Jews were dominant owners of Berlin real estate and in retail real estate and businesses. In 1933 when a Jewish “congress” in New York City declared a world wide boycott of German goods the Nazis responded with a one day boycott of Jewish retail businesses in Germany, with Brown Shirts stationed outside Jewish businesses to notify prospective shoppers. Numerous observers, German and foreign, comment on their astonishment at how pervasive Jewish ownership of retail establishments was — ever store on whole blocks of business districts. Etc.

    The next book to read on this subject, which I suspect you will find more absorbing, not so dry, and much wider ranging in its reference, is Stephen H. Roberts, The House That Hitler Built (London, Methuen, 10 editions between 1937 and 1939, the later the better). Roberts was an Australian academic –a sociologist or historian, I think — who spent 18 months in Germany and wrote about what he saw and learned. This is an EXTREMELY instructive book by an insightful, balanced, inquistive, unbiased witness. HIGHLY recommended, and not nearly so dry as Gordon.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  484. @Carolyn Yeager

    You misconstrue the argument, which is not that “the Jews put Hitler in power” but that Jewish finance in German helped put the Nazis into power, along with German goy finance. The key element isn’t Jews or goyim, it’s big finance, international usury finance. The reason they did this is that they saw the Nazis as a force to keep Germany from going communist, which would, as they saw it anyways, wreck their whole game. What they didn’t understand was that Nazi “National Socialist” financial policies meant to dragoon business and finance in the interests of the the State and the Folk as much as the rest of Germany. And once they found out, Germany ceased to be their darling. Although, curiously, Hitler was still good for Time’s Man of the Year in 1938 — because of the ‘financial miracle’ he worked. Meanwhile, FDR’s withdrawal of federal funds from works projects after they had won him the 1936 election plunged America into a second Depression — and the 1938 trough was as deep as in 1931-35 and only ended with the war — that was FDR’s solution.

  485. @Carolyn Yeager

    You misconstrue the argument, which is not that “the Jews put Hitler in power” but that Jewish finance in Germany helped put the Nazis into power, along with German goy finance. The key element isn’t Jews or goyim, it’s big finance, international usury finance. The reason they did this is that they saw the Nazis as a force to keep Germany from going communist, which would, as they saw it anyways, wreck their whole game. What they didn’t understand was that Nazi “National Socialist” financial policies meant to dragoon business and finance in the interests of the the State and the Folk as much as the rest of Germany. And once they found out, Germany ceased to be their darling.

    A major sticking point in efforts to negotiate Jewish emigration from Germany was German capital controls which prohibited people — Jews and goyim alike — from taking out of Germany the riches they had extracted from it. This is attested in the diaries and letters of both American Ambassadors to Berlin — Dodd and Kennedy — and elsewhere, but it is, like many salient facts, omitted from the Official Version propagated by the Official Sources today.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  486. @Ron Unz

    Between you and Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire there important numbers touchinh history and demography should all be identified and evaluated on UR. Set aside the still threatening fertility of Africa and Muslim Asia (not to.mention the subreplacement levels amongst the civilised and the bad joke of the Ultra Orthodox in Israel) and attention should be given to the huge 20th century changes from the days when 2 million Germans and 5 million Russians were born in 1913, even Britain could still provide canon fodder (I worked with a man who was the last survivor of 12 sons who served in WW1) and Jews were still compounding their problems in Eastern Europe by high fertility. Of at least equal importance is the increase in life expectancy even before the latest three decade surge with all elements counted: not only reduced infant mortality but the radical shift to elderly populatiins.

    Specifically I draw attention to the changes in attitudes, both thr likely and the evident, and how that affects culture, politics and general behaviour. One of my greatgrandfathers had 8 sons and 5 daughters of whom three sons and three daughters survived to adulthood and marriage, two sons dying in their teens of typhoid. He doesn’t seem to have been particularly religious and no doubt just had to suffer the sadness of his children’s deaths and get on with his vogorous and successful life as self made manufacturer and family man. I simply mention him in an effort to stimulate imagination about then and now, and changes in attitudes.

    Still, in the 50s, Americans were having quite large families. Should we connect that fact to the difference between givernments surviving 55,000 killed in Vietnam and being very wary in the years of the latest Iraq war of a death toll of less than 5000 even though none of those were conscripts?

    A few other figures come to mind as worth having a look at. Weizmann is said to have remarked in 1912 that Germsny had reached its tolerable limit of 1 per cent of Jews. Yet I see nowhere in the discussions you have generated any attempt to resolve the question whether, in 1933, Jewish numbers in Germany were bumping up against that 1 per cent, but below, or whether there were several million Pst Juden also in Germany then. Other figures that matter are the estimate or report (was that Arthur Byant?) that Jews owned one third of German real estate in 1938. If true very significant as would be the decline from whatever the peak was. (Let’s toss in here the literacy levels in Germany for Jews and ethnic Germans 1815 to 1939).

    One barely related matter is the alleged financing of the Nazi Party by Jewish bankers/bank executives. It seems to me a total anachronism, as well as a failure to understand banker or general human nature, to regard it as virtually impossible. Can’t you imagine a 1928 conversation “I see you had that little shit Hitler in the front row of the Grand Tier for your Lulu Herr Berg – and now you want me not to take a well secured mortgage over their new offices in Berlin!! When they come to power don’t we want friends?”.

    • Replies: @Alden
  487. @Kevin Barrett

    Considering the UN demand the Palestinians to add “holocaust” to their curriculum, which the refuse naturally, chances are slim, given the state of mind of the US population.
    The UN circumvent it and brainwash Palestinian children in UN schools they established. The generous UN offer is “help in exchange for holocaust indoctrination”

    Besides the Jews, US, UK and Russia are the main enforcers of “holocaust” indoctrination, and the criminal entity EU.

  488. @ValMond

    1930; Beginning of February – end of September: Mass arrests of “1st category Kulaks”

    During this period, 284,000 persons were arrested as “1st category kulaks,” five times the original estimate. This was in part due to unexpected opposition to collectivization on behalf of farmers as well as non-farmers. Only 44% of those arrested were farmers; others were members of the clergy, tradesmen, former Czarist civil servants, former landowners, teachers or other representatives of the “rural intelligentsia,” who had been close to the Socialist-Revolutionary party in the past (Danilov & Berelowitch, eds, 2003, vol III/1). These contingents were sent to Gulag labor camps. The OGPU troika sentenced approximately 20,000 persons to death in 1930 (GARF 9401/1/4157/201).

    1933-1935: Deportations of “socially harmful elements” and “people of the past” from a number of Soviet cities

    1935-1937: Deportations of ethnic minorities in view of “cleansing” the border regions of the USSR

    August 1937-November 1938: Mass arrests and executions during the “Great Terror”

    Deportations and mass executions in territories annexed by the USSR after the Soviet-German Pact of August 23, 1939

    Total ethnic deportations of “punished peoples” during the “Great Patriotic War”

    On and on it goes…
    https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/node/2653

    Your numbers you present do not add up. You are just one more Soviet apologist, probably a sock puppet account, who is whitewashing this evil, just like the UN do.

    Solshenizyn was a KGB mole? That is a ridiculous claim.
    “200 years together. The Jews in the Soviet Union” is still not available in english. The jewish publishers in the US/UK refuse to publish it in english.

  489. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    Mobilization does not necessarily mean intent of war. It can be preventive and defensive which was the case of Russia facing the aggressive intents of Germany and KuK.
    Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. On the same day “Bethmann Hollweg had offered Turkey definitive terms for an alliance guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity vis-a-vis Russia if Turkey would place her army under German military command in case of war and would further bind herself to take Germany’s side if Russia entered the war as a belligerent”… On July 30 the negotiations were resumed more intensively with the aim of making Turkey the base for a war of revolution in the grand style against Britain. The results of this turn of policy were the surprisingly quick conclusion of a German-Turkish alliance on August 2 and the despatch of the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau to Constantinople. On July 30 and 31 preparations began to stir up revolt in the Caucasus and especially Poland, and thus to initiate the revolution against the conservative imperial power of the Romanovs which ended in the revolutionising of east-central Europe” (at Fritz Fischer, Germany’s aims p.83). Russian mobilization was known on 30 July.
    Declaration of war means intent of war. Germany declared war against Russia. Germany was eagerly awaiting the “coming life and death struggle of the Teutons against Gauls and Slavs” (and with an eye on Russian petrol).

  490. HoekomSA says:

    Below are a number of articles and references to backing up what is written about Zionist support for Hitler

    [MORE]

    1938: Zionist admits Jews financed the Nazis

    Rabbi Edward L. Israel was a Harvard educated American Zionist. He wrote the article below, about Jews financing Hitler and the Nazis in 1938.
    The Pittsburgh Press – Nov 20, 1938

    He wasn’t the first influential American Zionist to state this. In 1933 Samuel Untermyer, who had help draft the Federal Reserve Act (so he knew about
    banking), stated Jewish bankers were financing Hitler’s government.
    details
    The New York Times – August 7th, 1933
    Samuel Untermeyer also helped create the Scofield bible.

    After WW2 former German chancellor Henrich Brüning, stated that from 1928, the two largest contributors to the Nazis were Jewish bankers

    Financial support for Hitler including Jewish support
    “Who Financed Hitler” by James Poole;

    The Zionist financing of the Nazis allowed the Zionist to further the re-creation of Israel

    The alliance between Nazis and Zionists was celebrated by the Nazis with a special medal

    In Nazi Germany, all Jews had to wear a star of David on their clothes. It was the Zionists that insisted this happen and not the Nazi’s. Also, in Germany the Zionist flag openly hung at official events alongside the German flag.
    The Nazi-Zionist alliance forced Jews from Germany to emigrate to Palestine. Part of the emigrants money was given involuntarily to the Zionist movement by the Nazis.

    An even stranger link is the Chabads and the Nazis
    A Jewish source links The Nazis with Chabad. The Nazis recued the Chabad leader from Russia and sent him to America to ensure his safety.
    http://www.chabad-mafia.com/holocaust.php

    The idea of using opposing forces to achieve political ends goes back a long way

    the leading Zionist wrote how anti Semites could be used for Zionist ends
    “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1, edited by Raphael Patai, translated by Harry Zohn, page 83-84). see https://www.truetorahjews.org/herzl

    Or even further back
    Don Isaac Abravanel, Statesman & Philosopher, written by Mr Netanyahu’s father outlines using war between Christians and Muslims to further Zionism.

    Or even further back the Talmud talks about being “so drunk that you cant tell the difference between Mordechai and Haman” . Which during Purim leads to a lot of drunken Jews, But is more about having the destructive power that you control opposing forces to your own ends.

    Which is mirrored in Nahum Sokolow “Hitlerism allows us to convert all Jews to Zionism” Jewish Telegraphic Agency ,September 3 1933

  491. @J. Alfred Powell

    Iirc, Sutton came up with James Warburg, he did not exist. James Warbug is a fiction.
    The name was picked so the gullible would think it is a relative of the Warburg Bankers.

    Typical Jew tactic, associate the opponent with the bad reputation of the Jew.
    They do similar nowadays.

  492. refl says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Exoneration of Nazism primarily in the Anglophone world will continue and it has very little to do with “new” or old “insights” into the nature of German National Socialism (there are none) but primarily tailored to a state modern West finds itself in–a constant and accelerating decline across the board, from economy to intellectual capacity.

    I do not see that exoneration of Nazism is much the issue in the western world – unless you count certain features of politics regarding Ukraine in recent years. But there, the obvious Nazi connection is being denied. To this day, denouncing any non-western political leader who does not toe the line as the new Hitler is the favorite insult for any right thinking person.
    Maybe, I am especially naiv, but in decades of studying and teaching modern history, the term “Geopolitics” never was an issue. What would it be like, if historical writers would start their discussion of WWII with a statement of the simple fact that the era of the World Wars was first of all the time when Europe was subdued to the sea powers? If they would state the obvious that pre WWI sovereign states yielded real power to at least some extend each, and that post WWII the sovereignity of states has become a farce except for a chosen few?
    Maybe, Russian writers can be that bold, but the West would fall apart if such thought became common knowledge.
    In fact, the West IS falling apart and I think, I know why. The story of the World Wars is the Lebenslüge of the western International Community, as it calls itself.
    And you certainly are right that the whole issue looks differently from the east then from the west. It has always appeared mindboggling to me that the savage destruction of German cities by Angloamerican fire bombing is being justified with Nazi atrocities, when these atrocities happened in the east, where the high handed western leaders who ordered the bombing could not care less.

  493. szopen says:

    There is one thing which also is needed to be explained by people thinking Hitler honestly still wanted peace in 1939. We should believe he sincerely offered last final peace offer at August the 31, 1939, and we should not believe Henderson who in his own memoires considered the manner the proposal was delivered to be unreasonable and dishonest.

    The problem is the Jabłonowska incident: attack of German diversants under the command of Hans Albrecht-Henzner (later he got Iron cross), who attacked Polish railway station near the Jabłonowska pass and tried to take over the tunnel. The attack was at morning 26th; why? Because it was the initial date of invasion. However, after Polish-British alliance was announced, Hitler postponed the invasion, but the group was already on its way and had not got the change of the orders. They took the prisoners and waited for incoming German army, and finally they found out the invasion was postponed, released the prisoners and withdrew. After Poles demanded explanation, Germans explained this was action of mentally unstable people and no Wehrmacht soldiers were involved. The other group attacked tunnel in Łupków, but they only opened fire and withdrew.

    It’s quite clear that – unless you believe all documents are faked, and people who came from Germany, were armed, shot, and then withdrew to Germany were really some random unstable guys with no involvement with German authorities at all, which mean you are really naive – everything which happened after 26th had not mattered and Hitler’s proposals after 26th could not be considered to be made in a good faith.

  494. anon[816] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Who ended up with Germany’s Pacific and African possessions, dumbarse?
    Penguins?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  495. Miggle says:
    @Miggle

    I said “frog-marchers” but I meant goose-steppers. Judaism as nothing but a system of ritual with control over every step, with victimhood as a device to generate hatred of anyone whose steps are not under the same precise control.

  496. The Soviets had no plans to attack Europe first and this has been corroborated by many people and no plans were ever found. BUT Zukov’s war games showed that to fight in other countries were preferable than to fight a defensive war. Even Putin has said this.. If there is going to be war, strike first.. So the excuse hitler only attacked because he would be attacked is not an excuse, we know they were not going to attack unless attacked. Especially when they had no resources to win a 2 front war. The soviet doctrine was RIGHT.. They would not have lost 30 Million people if they had completed their rearmaments and been in positions. Also remember, Zukov was side lined in the first 6 months of the start. He also could not have done better since they were not in position, but the plan was on an attack to cut off the main forces and move into the attackers territory and finish off the resupply and reinforcements and destroy the encircled main force later on.

  497. soitgoes says:
    @Ron Unz

    “[…]and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close.”

    Considering this jab (and the many preceding ones) at the Jews, have you ever wondered how it is that you still can continue?
    You were puzzled by the lack of reaction from the ADL and the like.
    Since you publicly pronounced that wonderment, can you publicly hypothesize on it?
    Is it the lack of traction in hoi polloi?
    Would it be that an increase popularity of your — and contributors’ – views might prompt the curtain fall?!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  498. @Alden

    So what? Elections are bunk. George Bush was not elected either.

    • Replies: @Wally
  499. @Bill Jones

    Of which countries? How so? And so what?

    William Joyce – Lord Haw Haw – was a citizen of Eire I think, but it didn’t save him from being hanged by the Brits.

  500. @ValMond

    By “well informed” I mean eye witnesses. Your assertion about Zemskov is nothing but your opinion. “Show me” “prove to me” is the sign of a typical, deceitful Sophist. You are protecting murderers.

  501. Pduggs says:

    As an amateur historian, I must say this is one of the best columns I have ever read on the subject of WWII. I would guess 99% of Americans know little of the facts outlined in this excellent column.

    Thank you

  502. @Steve Naidamast

    Sources please for this interesting information. Mind you it is largelyirrelevant to anything because, apart from the logic of total war extending not only to dtiving civilians out of munitions factories by bombing cities and starving populations by blockades ans U boat attaacks, the reality of it was evident from the shelling of Scarborough in late 1914, Zepellin attacks in 1917 and the destruction of Guernica, all by Germany. Moreover Hitler’s bombers in 1940 were not the kind of heavy bombers that later proved goodat destroying industrial cities so there may have doubly good judgment wen he first concentrated on RAF airfields.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  503. @CanSpeccy

    Note to the Father of Lies: Churchill’s “service to his country” and the world was the death of millions. He served his masters. He said he “had always been a Zionist”. Those were the masters he served. Very thoughtful of you to be concerned about keeping the sacrifices of others to a minimum. Your people are real humanitarians.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  504. A.R. says:
    @John Regan

    I find myself very often agreeing with your thoughtful comments. My compliments.

  505. “From Weimar’s broken humiliation

    Noble Germany had arisen

    Like a captive lion remembering

    [MORE]

    His strength and made of the circus ring

    A reckoning for his spirit’s sake.

    For his pride the Enemy vowed to make

    Him cower, and marshaling all his proxies

    Bled him, beat him down in democracy’s

    Name. But in their rise and furious going down,

    Germany’s sons like Leonidas had shown

    A bold Aryan few, unbowed, unbought,

    Could by true inspiration be wrought

    Into lightning and his nemesis.

    They reminded him of sacred justice,

    And for this between the jaws of his vise

    Of hate-blind armies in his service

    He seized their fatherland. From the air

    He razed their cities with satanic fire

    And burned their homes and loved ones alive

    While in the sky and fields and streets they gave

    Their last. His fictions assured his minions

    Their cause was just, his orders starving millions,

    His occupiers defiling mothers and daughters

    In marathons of lust and hate. With laughter

    They vandalized anything beautiful.

    Monuments, churches, museums full

    Of statuary they made rubble,

    Become in victory his lawless rabble.

    In the desolation they called peace

    He determined never, never to release

    Any Aryan soul from the affliction

    Of his reckless hate and its direction

    To the end of demoralization.”

    http://forthesonsofthewest.home.blog

  506. Bolteric says:

    He has done it again. Mr. Unz synthesis & style are second to none in this genre.

    A few questions or points: Buchanan obviously is a politician and needs votes and/or media approval. So for him to restrain himself by not mentioning Irving is understandable if not forgivable.

    I watched the Irving videos again and clearly he is on a different plane, one that may not be replicated any time soon. At the same time, he also has a video from a decade ago – after his Austrian “stay” – where backs off and affirms parts of the official the Holocaust hypothesis. I found it weird, but he must have have received additional threats during his stay.

    This is a good of a time to ask as any: What is Ron Unz’ motivation for these articles? Is it to uncover the truth in a way similar to Irving? (Noting that Mr. Unz is not a primary source historian.) Other than receiving an unfavorable review by the ADL and Wikipedia, he has not endured the wrath of the system the way Mr. Irving has. Hopefully, Mr. Unz can avoid the unfortunate outcomes of many similar writers in this genre.

    I wish him the best.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  507. @German_reader

    Fair enough, probably not the optimal place to discuss this, but would like to address some points. I am aware that pre-war German air power doctrine was more focused on tactical/operational considerations, as opposed to strategic. However, in practice – and adjusting for scale – I would argue that the distinction ended up irrelevant. German bombing with two-engined bombers in the low hundreds over slightly less than a year killed 40,000 Brits. A reminder that the Blitz involved night bombing of London, which cannot have had any valid military reasons given targeting technology of the time. Anglo-American bombing with four-engined bombers with quadruple the He 111’s payload in the high hundreds to somewhat over a thousand killed 600,000 Germans over three years. I would also note that the American bombing campaign was far “cleaner” than either the German or the British one. Furthermore, in mitigation of the Brits, they were by now (1) responding to a country that had already engaged in indiscriminate bombing of its own civilians, so can be viewed as revenge (which is bad, not nowhere near as bad as first use); (2) the Brits did also strike legitimate targets, most notably during the Battle of the Ruhr in 1943 which stalled the increase in German war production for half a year (in retrospect, it was a pity that they stopped doing that, not having realized how effective that campaign was).

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  508. @Fox

    1. You libel Hitler. He did want a large heavy bomber fleet, but Germany’s limited industrial resources (it wasn’t the US) and need to focus on air support in its forthcoming land wars meant that it was reasonable to postpone its development until Germany achieved hegemony over Europe. It was the correct decision.
    2. Anglo-American bombing was effective, not least in diverting German productive resources into manufacturing AA guns, radars, searchlights, etc. (as opposed to more tanks, U-Boats, etc). So nothing particularly bone-headed about it. The V2 bombing was indeed “small-scale” and rather ineffective – more slaves died manufacturing the V2s than were actually killed by them – but not due to any kind-heartedness on the part of Hitler, whom you strangely insist on calumnying so much.

    • Replies: @Fox
  509. @simple_pseudonymic_handle

    I think in quoting and approving Ron’s

    “I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.”

    you have got caught up in one of Ron’s jeux d’esprit. After the terover of others for laziness couldn’t possibly have left himself without the knowledge that treason, unless you are yourself levying war against the state or seeking to kill the head of state requires your country to have an enemy which you are serving.

    Here is what Googling for “what is treason in the United States” gets you

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and .

    ***

    The UK doesn’t seem ever to have got beyond

    Levying war against the king in his realm, or adhering to the king’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere

    which is one of the privisions of the Treason Act 1351

    *** *** ***

    And of course he doesn’t give you the slightest reason to believe in the idea of Churchill doing the bidding of foreigners for huge secret [or any] payments so you shouldn’t start your own local revisionist chapter just yet.

    Now the suggestion that knocking off Churchill in 1938 or 39 might have led to the saving of millions of lives leads to completely different speculations. Maybe just a different few millions?

  510. @J. Alfred Powell

    No, relying on memory, as you obviously are, they never got round to using gas in the ME after WW1 despite WSC’s speculative remarks or suggestions.

  511. @szopen

    As usual with your kind of liars and hypocrites, you know actually very little.

    You know this guy?

    That’s the man who started WWII, his name is Edward Rydz-Śmigły, a criminal fool and tool of the Jews and warmongers.
    He also did a radio speech in 1939 proclaiming to take Berlin, and he is responsible for the Bromberg massacre. This idiot thought in 1939 that a war against Germany would be quickly over. The Poles paid the price for this lunacy.

    The Poles will probably pay again for the lunacy of their leadership, they are once again the tool of warmongers, this time the target is Russia, and they moronically can’t get enough US troops in.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
  512. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    How far back does one want to go in assessing responsibility for total war – without including the massacres Jahweh apparently approved or those genocidal raids by hungry German (or palaeolithic) tribes recent archaeology has discovered? What about the shelling of Scarborough by cruisers of the Kriegsmarine in 1914? Zeppelin attacks on London 1917? Guernica? Many English civilians moved to the country or across the Atlantic, especially children. No doubt Germans did the same.

  513. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    What is “(international) usury [sic] finance”?

    Should one infer that you see no need to reward people for postponing consumption so that the means can be aggregated for major future oriented capital investments?

    Or would it be OK if you used one of the Muslim workarounds that achoeve th same effect as modern Western banking?

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  514. @anon

    A single sentence should be the limit for one so stupid. Can you really not tell the difference between an original intent and a final result? According to what might be mistaken for your cerebral activity Japan, the US, Australia and maybe New Zealand and France must have started WW1 for the purpose of land theft.

  515. Denveer says:

    World War II birthed a self destructive religion that has taken over the west.

    The holocaust = the crucifixion
    Jews = the persecuted Christians

    Hitler = satan
    White supremacy = the evil

    Those who oppose whiteness are therefore defined in this schema as good, and all who do not immediately revere the sanctity of the holocaust as the worst crime ever committed are the evil.

    This religion of holocaustianity has gained steam and is now beginning to destroy its host because it is not a religion of peace but ultimately of self poison and destruction

  516. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    Stop believing in lunacies. Where he said in speech in 1939 that he plans to take Berlin (because you said about PLANS, not about something “if Germany attacks us, it would be defeated”)? Which speech? A date? A link to source in Polish would be nice. Because already in the other thread other guy has quoted a fake quote, and another linked to wikipedia which has wrong and outlandish summary for Rydz speech.

    You can’t just say “he said that in a speech”. I speak Polish, you know, I can check your fake claims and made-up quotes.

    And how he is responsible for ununiformed German sabotage criminals who attacked Polish withdrawing armies in Bromberg, which had then unfortunate result of some innocent Germans killed too?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Germanicus
  517. Psalm 2 (KJV) 1. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. 10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

    Thank you for the interesting article Ron. And over 500 comments, many of those were interesting. So Patton was right, we fought the wrong enemy. History has vindicated Patton. Stalin was exposed for murdering 20 to 30 million, then the post WW2 suffering of Eastern Europe really gave Patton the “I told you so”. Hitler was also vindicated, the USSR was worse than anyone claimed the Nazis were. So, yes, the so called “Jews” were behind some of the players and benefited, temporarily, they got their country, Israel, as planned by the Zionists. All of them are pawns. The countries that are pagan suffer the most, the countries that are Christian suffer less, all per Psalms 2.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
  518. @Ron Unz

    With your proleptic absolution for lazily putting off reading Taylor’s book between dawn and breakfast and substituting Rothbard’s review for the moment I have enjoyed making some notes that I thought I should begin to share.

    *** *** ***

    The Evelyn Waugh opening might be,

    Copper: so, Salter, I see you have had your eyes opened to the truth by reading Rothbard.

    Salter: Up to a point Lord Copper

    *** *** ***

    Here is one sample:

    “In style, the Taylor volume is typical of Taylor’s works: well-written, witty, abounding in facile generalizations that are grounded in speculation about various motives, and often too skimpily grounded in the documentary sources**. The latter skimpiness is, as a matter of fact, all too typical of current British historical scholarship.”
    **Shsh, did someone mention that Taylor hadn’t read Mein Kampf?

    Another sample after which I shall resist temptation in favour of sleep.

    “Eastern Europe, as I have indicated above, is a land of many teeming nationalities, almost all small and divided. The reality of Eastern Europe is that it is always fated to be dominated by either Germany or Russia, or both. If East European politicians are to be rational, they must realize this and understand their fated subservience to one or both of these two Power; and, if there is to be peace in Eastern Europe, both Germany and Russia must be friends.”

  519. Fox says:
    @Adrian

    I believe that Holland had itself made un-neutral by allowing the RAF to fly over is territory and making joint military preparations. Rotterdam was to be attacked in its citadel, and the the destruction caused was to the largest degree through spreading fires. That it also occurred through the failure to recall the bombers is incidental, but there was no intent at terror bombing, i.e., impress little children and women with throwing bombs at them.

  520. Fox says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Oh dear, Germany “had a massive armament program”, and “Germany didn’t have the resources”, well, which one is it? Could I call this the “flexibility of strategic prating” or in other instances “tactical canting”?
    The fact remains that Germany concentrated on militarily sensible armaments and not on the wholesale destructive weapons such as armageddon bomber fleets, germ warfare or the atom bomb, all of which is held to be by some to show military prowess, when it really is only primitive smasching and killing to achieve victory over a smoldering rubble heap.

  521. It’s surprising how much relevant stuff has remained unmentioned on this thread and even in links praising appeasement and damning the Brits (and those influenced by them) as irrational. One huge item is the British assessment of the strength and effectiveness of the French army and air force. Can anyone say that it was predictable that France would be defended so incompetently and collapse so quickly, or even collapse at all?

  522. Nodwink says:
    @Dennis Gannon

    Stalin most definitely did not “kill 20 to 30 million.” Put down the bible, and read another book.

  523. German_reader says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    the Blitz involved night bombing of London, which cannot have had any valid military reasons

    The goal was to destroy port facilities and assist Germany’s blockade of Britain (again, read Overy’s book, it covers all bombing campaigns in Europe during WW2 in detail, including the Soviet Union), with high civilian casualties being seen as acceptable/unavoidable. There was however no deliberate strategy to destroy urban housing and kill large numbers of civilian workers, as was the case with the later British campaign. You may think that’s an academic distinction, fine, but it’s one made in the historical literature, not something I’ve just made up.

    somewhat over a thousand killed 600,000 Germans

    It probably was much less (somewhere between 300 000 and 350 000), number of bombing victims during the last months of the war for which there are no full records has probably been overestimated.

    would also note that the American bombing campaign was far “cleaner” than either the German or the British one.

    I didn’t dispute that in my previous comments (though obviously one has to limit it to American bombing in Europe, it was very different in regards to Japan).

    responding to a country that had already engaged in indiscriminate bombing of its own civilians

    I didn’t dispute that either, it’s certainly understandable that there was a desire for retaliation in the British public after 1940/41 and that the experience of German bombing removed moral scruples. I also made no explicit value judgement at all about the morality or immorality of bombing in WW2. It’s a debate I grew tired of years ago.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @utu
  524. Donald says:

    Very good. I read David Irving’s Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War and Goebbels and you are spot on. I will click on your various links and references.

  525. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Flint Clint

    Wikipedia is a joke.

    Maybe so, but not so much of a joke as the clutz I was responding to who insisted that Churchill was the only person who ever bombed anyone. To derail such nonsense, Trikipedia conveys an adequate measure of information.

    You say:

    if you read the material from Vice Air Marshal Keith Park, the RAF deliberately instigated the German switch to civilian bombing to preseve their airfields. We are told that just before the London campaign began, Biggin Hill, the RAF’s largest airfield, was almost out of commission.

    Which proves that (a) the Germans were intent on the conquest of Britain and (b) that the Churchill government psyched the Germans into abandoning what would have been a winning strategy.

    As I have argued above, Churchill, for all the mistakes and misadventures of his earlier days, handled Britain’s role in WW2 brilliantly — from a British perspective. He got the Americans in while keeping the Brits largely out and the British Empire intact (for which India and other parts of the empire should be truly grateful, unless they would have preferred to live under the German or Japanese heel). But it was an accomplishment entirely at odds with the idiotic Churchill-was-the-worlds-greatest-warmonger-and-monster-war-criminal meme that so many here are determined to spread.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  526. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    Just to make myself clear, Rydz-Śmigły was always adamant that Poland was not afraid of war and will not yield to any demands; for example, in one speech he said that if Germany would invade Danzig, then Poland would react. In his only ever authorized foreign interview with Mary Heaton Vorse in July 1939, he said (translation mine, from Polish here: https://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/wywiad-z-marszalkiem-edwardem-smiglym-rydzem-lipiec-1939-r)

    We will exhaust all methods of solving Danzig question in a peaceful way, but if Germans will insist on their Anschluss plan, Poland will take up the fight, even if she would had to fight alone and without allies. All nation is in agreement about that. It is ready to fight for Polish sovereignty to the last man and last women, because when we say that we will fight about Danzig, we mean by that, that we will fight for our independence. Danzig is necessary for Poland. Who controls Danzig, controls our economic life. Our trade goes through Danzig and Gdynia. Who controls Danzig, controls Gdynia. We had only small access to sea: 140 km

    In Polish: Wyczerpiemy wszystkie metody załatwienia kwestii Gdańska w sposób pokojowy, ale o ile Niemcy trwać będą przy swoich planach anschlussu, Polska podejmie walkę, nawet gdyby miała się bić sama i bez sojuszników. Cały naród jest zgodny co do tego. Jest on gotów walczyć o niezawisłość Polski do ostatniego mężczyzny i do ostatniej kobiety, bo gdy mówimy, że będziemy się bić o Gdańsk, rozumiemy przez to, że będziemy walczyć o naszą niepodległość. Gdańsk jest konieczny dla Polski. Kto kontroluje Gdańsk, kontroluje nasze życie ekonomiczne. Nasz handel płynie przez Gdańsk i Gdynię. Kto kontroluje Gdańsk, kontroluje Gdynię. Posiadamy tylko małe ujście do morza – 140 km.

    Taking Danzig by Germany would be an act resembling to us the partitions of Poland. That’s why I ordered mobilisation four months ago, when chancellor Hitler repeated his demands towards Danzig and Pomorze. Believe me, that mobilisation was not just a demonstration. At that time we were ready, if it would be necessary, for a war.

    Zajęcie Gdańska przez Niemcy byłoby aktem przypominającym nam rozbiór Polski. Z tego powodu zarządziłem przed 4 miesiącami mobilizację, gdy kanclerz Hitler ponowił swe żądania, dotyczące Gdańska i Pomorza. Proszę mi wierzyć, że mobilizacja ta nie była tylko demonstracją. Wówczas byliśmy gotowi, gdyby to było konieczne na wojnę

    We have a calmness of a nation who decided that we would raise up to the war, if it would be forced to that. We came to that conclusion based on our former sufferings. In Poland there is not a single men in the age of 40, who would not remember what it means not to have independence


    Posiadamy spokój narodu, który powziął decyzję, że wystąpi do wojny, o ile zostanie do tego zmuszony. Doszliśmy do tej konkluzji na podstawie naszych dawnych cierpień. W Polsce nie ma ani jednego człowieka w wieku lat 40, który nie pamiętałby co to znaczy nie posiadać niepodległości. Tym tłumaczy się niezłomne stanowisko całego naszego narodu bez wyjątku.

    When it’s about our army, while it’s not as big, as German, it is a good army nevertheless. In case of war every man and every women would be soldiers.

    Jeśli chodzi o naszą armię, to nie będąc tak wielką, jak niemiecka, jest jednak dobrą armią. W wypadku wojny każdy mężczyzna bez względu na wiek i każda kobieta będą żołnierzami

    … as for us, we will fight to keep our independence in every case even without allies.


    o ile o nas chodzi, walczyć będziemy o zachowanie naszej własnej niepodległości w każdym wypadku nawet bez sojuszników”

    End of my translation. I could not find the English version or any more fragments.

    In short, as you can see, Rydz asserted that Poland will fight IF ATTACKED. If Germany would attack and annex Danzig, Poland would not hesitate to fight. Attacking Danzig would be considered the same as attacking Poland. This is a clearly stated position: only a complete nut and someone absolutely blinded could interpret that as plans for invasion or plans for starting the war.

    (And, BTW, this really should end this all speculation that Poland fought because of British guarantees … and ignoring Poland had military alliance with France. First Beck, now Rydz-Śmigły quotes clearly stating we would fight alone, no matter the British guarantees)

  527. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    I also made no explicit value judgement at all about the morality or immorality of bombing in WW2. It’s a debate I grew tired of years ago.

    Would you untire a bit? I’d like to hear what you have to say. I confess that I never gave the bombing of cities by the Allies a second thought until I saw the subject mentioned here in TUR comments a few years ago.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  528. CanSpeccy says:
    @ploni almoni

    Churchill’s “service to his country” and the world was the death of millions. He served his masters. He said he “had always been a Zionist”. Those were the masters he served. Very thoughtful of you to be concerned about keeping the sacrifices of others to a minimum. Your people are real humanitarians.

    Another Unz obsessed anti-Zionist ranter. In fact, it is possible and indeed normal for a Zionist to be a civilized and even decent human being. But perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the world “Zionist.” Try looking it up in a dictionary sometime. You will then understand that Zionist is not a slave to Jewry.

    As for my convictions, why would you assume (a) that because I have stated that Churchill was a effective British leader during WW2 that I am (a) a Zionist, (b) a servant of Zionism, or (c) one of “your people”, i.e., a Jew?

    • Replies: @Anon
  529. szopen says:

    I found quote a nice short (291 pages) English description of Beck relations with Rydz-Śmigły. I read only chapters three to six and while it’s opinionated and rather dissaproving of Polish policy, I consider it to be quite well written and considerate of Polish perspective. I would recommend to read it, especially to Ron Unz – you asked for a book from a Polish perspective and I think this is the closest neutral history piece I find until now:

    https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/anna-kostus(7d68f38a-e197-4dfc-a2be-5b49be9d8e13)/theses.html

  530. @CanSpeccy

    He got the Americans in while keeping the Brits largely out and the British Empire intact (for which India and other parts of the empire should be truly grateful, …

    Speccy, I don’t know how much traveling you have done, but if you have done much, you might have noticed that, across a broad swathe of the globe, they celebrate a National Day, or a National Independence Day or whatever, and what that day commemorates is that glorious day (from their POV obviously) when they finally got the English out.

    Now, whether they should celebrate that or should be, in your terms “truly grateful”, I am not expressing a view, mind you. I am just reporting the facts on the ground.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  531. Mr. Unz is correct, the David Irving videos have disappeared from YouTube. Must be some temporary technical glitch.

    Winston Churchill was a uniquely evil and morally weak person. physiognomy is real. If you look at his images, you can actually see this.

    I’m not sure that any of us are better off knowing the truth of that war or having some understanding of the forces arrayed against humanity today. Certainly has not made me happier, healthier or more productive. As I age I am increasingly appreciating the truth of that warning; be careful what you wish for.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
  532. Sparkon says:
    @szopen

    Because already in the other thread other guy has quoted a fake quote, and another linked to wikipedia which has wrong and outlandish summary for Rydz speech.

    So far, no one has produced the Daily Mail account of Edward Rydz-Śmigły’s speech in Krakow on Aug. 6, 1939, only the objection that the Daily Mail didn’t publish on Sunday. In any event, it seems likely that a speech given in Krakow on Aug. 6 would been covered in articles appearing on Aug. 7 in the Daily Mail, or perhaps even on some later date. Until we have a look at what the Daily Mail actually reported about Edward Rydz’s speech in Krakow on Aug. 6, the matter hangs in limbo.

    Is it possible that Poland’s “Second Man in the State after the President” gave more than one speech on Aug. 6, 1939?

    You produced an account of the speech published in a Lithuanian paper the following weekend. This would be the same Lithuania that was forced to re-establish diplomatic relations with Poland in 1938, and thereby renounce claims to its own capital Vilnius, which incidentally is where that newspaper account was published.

    Rydz-Śmigły’s Wikipedia article mentions the speech only under a photograph of him giving a speech in Krakow with the caption

    Rydz-Śmigły declaring Hitler an enemy of the state, Kraków, 6 August 1939

    If this statement is fabricated from whole cloth, why is it still standing at Wikipedia?

    Edward Rydz the Śmigły’s pompous and strutting bellicosity is well known, making him something of a Polish Mussolini. As Tomato Bubble’s Mike King put it:

    Smigly-Rydz: always decorated like a Christmas tree and talking big.

    EDWARD RYDZ SMIGLY: THE MAN WHO STARTED WORLD WAR II

    • Replies: @szopen
  533. utu says:
    @German_reader

    “responding to a country that had already engaged in indiscriminate bombing of its own civilians”

    What does this sentence mean? “its” ?

    Besides Germany was not bombing cities but airports and harbors. Only after several raids by RAF on German cities Germany eventually (after about 2 weeks) responded with bombing cities what British later called the Blitz.

  534. @German_reader

    I suppose “Manichean” could be to some extent a matter of definition. It’s certainly true that the Nazi policy against the Jews in the USSR was very brutal. Of course, the fact that the Jews were the core of the Communist partisan movement in Belorussia and Ukraine (or Terrorists, as they would be called in modern American English) was a big part of this too. It seems Himmler asked Hitler’s permission to treat the Soviet Jews in general as terrorists because so many of them were. There’s a note in his published Dienstkalendar to this effect for December 18, 1941: “Judenfrage – als Partisanen auszurotten.” Likewise, the published reports from the German anti-terrorism task forces (Einsatzgruppen) indicate that very large numbers of Jews were among the terrorists who were executed even before that date.

    On the other hand, the Jewish Hospital in Berlin remained open throughout the war, with hundreds of patients ready to be “liberated” in 1945 when the Red Army rolled in. Which absolutely and beyond any possible doubt proves that the Nazis never had any intention to exterminate every single Jew they could get their hands on, even when it was obvious to the most fanatic SS man that the war was well and truly lost.

  535. turtle says:
    @Germanicus

    I might add that Americans have, in modern times (post WWII) been actively discouraged from learning the German language. Make of that what you will.

  536. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Best to ignore the troll

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  537. szopen says:
    @Sparkon

    No idea why it was summarized like that; but you should already know wikipedia is not always reliable.

    I provided the whole speech from the local Polish paper, because it was first I’ve found, but you can easily google other papers. You can find the summaries in English. The fact is that there is no proof that Rydz-Śmigły ever uttered that quote; the only existence of this quote is sourced to the non-existent issue of Daily Mail, and only quoted by revisionists; even if there was a typo in attribution, then it would not be a proof he said anything as reported there and, given that all Polish papers contain speeches in which Rydz-Śmigły talks about him wanting the peace, but willing to fight if forced – that quote would be oddly out of pattern and contrary to his speech, for which actually we have even short audio fragments, and complete text of which appeared in press.

    If he said that quote, then it should be easy to find more than one source; indeed, it would be easy to find a source with at least a correct date.

    Think about this that way: revisionists are keen to doubt the reports about Hitler revealing his plans (e.g. Hossbach memo, or this speech: http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1546), giving a lot of reasons (in fact, sometimes not unreasonable reasons) why they are fakes – but there is no question that actually the documents, even if faked by American lawyers or whatever, exist. Yet here you have only one reference, a non-existent Daily Mail issue; completely different in tone to a speech day earlier Rydz-Śmigły gave stern speech, in which he basically said “we want peace, but if necessary, we will fight”. And you choose to believe it?

  538. @Wally

    “… Per the Hague conventions the bombing of cities IF they were under military occupation (ie “defended”), which was the case with Rotterdam & Warsaw…”

    So you don’t complain about the Allied bombing of German cities either, because they too were “legit military targets”. No “Hell Storm”, just “Legit Storm”.

  539. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Revusky, I thought you were smarter than your comment suggests.

    I said that subjects of the Britain’s imperial possessions should have been glad that Britain preserved the empire since the alternative would have been to come under the German or Japanese heel.

    In India, by far the most populous and important component of the British Empire at that time, Mohandas Gandhi, the most prominent leader of the Indian independence movement, agreed, and indeed urged Indians to serve in the Imperial armed forces.

  540. Unz has given us another gift, besides crumbling the presented narratives of history used to indoctrinate and control all of us. Ron is uploading and presenting all this information for free without any intellectual property restrictions. This is the real Easter Egg.

    The forfeiture of copyright is almost as important as the content provided openly here.

  541. @J. Alfred Powell

    You misconstrue the argument, which is not that “the Jews put Hitler in power” but that Jewish finance in Germany helped put the Nazis into power, along with German goy finance. The key element isn’t Jews or goyim, it’s big finance, international usury finance.

    No, I don’t misconstrue the argument. You want to change the subject to Jewish usury-finance. WE are talking about who were the major donors to Adolf Hitler over the years and David Irving’s input of the Bruning letter. You should take your discussion choice somewhere else! I have no interest in focusing on Jewish emigration from Germany at this time.

    The subject of funding Hitler has been looked into quite thoroughly and it’s been shown that he was sufficiently funded by German Christian industrialists and large employers, and the party members with small donations — the Folk. See “Who Financed Hitler” by James and Suzanne Pool. Now this letter to Churchill arises and we can ask: How important is it? How credible is it?
    1. The names of the claimed “two largest regular contributors” are never given. They are said to be “the general managers of two of the largest Jewish banks in Berlin.” General managers? Were they private donations or company donations? I find this too vague to be accepted without further confirmation.
    2. Bruning himself was a two-year, unsuccessful, unpopular chancellor who was bitter about his downfall. His Wikipedia page (read it- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Br%C3%BCning) says: “He was relieved of his office by Hindenburg” and “vigorously campaigned against the new government [of AH] in the March 1933 elections.” I do not understand why Ron Unz says that Bruning therefore knew the secret (?) donors to Hitler’s campaigns, except that David Irving says that “Bruning knew” so that his find of the Bruning letter carried the desired weight.
    3. Bruning’s memoirs are considered highly controversial; some “parts are considered unreliable, not based on historical records, and a self-justification for his politics during the Weimar Republic.”

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  542. Rurik says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    We do need to take into consideration the layers of deceit surrounding all matters to do with WWII. We’re left with our gut instincts to guide us in large part.

    Yep, our gut instincts, based in large part on what we see happening in front of our very eyes today, right now, as I’m typing this.

    Endless wars based on obvious, if relentless lies.

    Serial financial chicanery.

    Corruption writ large across the entire spectrum of the (dying) Western world.

    Cultural rot and depravity force-injected into an alienated and spiritually lost youth.

    And all of it, emanating out of the exact, same fount of global hatred and strife that has menaced and beleaguered the Western World ever since they imposed Rothschild’s fractional reserve banking on an enslaved civilization.

    Putin has showed us the way. He freed Russia from their Satanic tentacles, and told them ‘enough!’, at the borders of Damascus.

    Putin is the West’s de facto spiritual leader, as the Vatican oozes moral putrescence and unholy pestilence.

    Where to, Western man?

    • Replies: @annamaria
  543. Ron Unz says:
    @Bolteric

    Other than receiving an unfavorable review by the ADL and Wikipedia, he has not endured the wrath of the system the way Mr. Irving has. Hopefully, Mr. Unz can avoid the unfortunate outcomes of many similar writers in this genre.

    Actually, unlike almost everyone else, I’d never expected that the ADL or its allies would cause me much trouble, despite my absolute best efforts to lure them into such a foolish attack. Even the very mild anonymous tut-tutting they did in a short post was probably a mistake on their part since it gave me an excellent opening to strike back ten-fold:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    The reason is very simple. Suppose you were the ADL leadership in a national strategy meeting. Would you *really* want more people to become aware of my articles??!!

    I’ve been doing this sort of thing since the early 1990s now, and I think I understand how things work pretty well. For example, during the “English Wars” two decades ago I annihilated the bilinguals, a group so ferocious even the dreaded Neocons feared to face them. I remember when Bill Kristol went on his Sunday TV program and said with some astonishment how I’d single-handedly crushed the bilinguals in twelve months after three decades of their total national invincibility.

    Incidentally, a couple of years ago I set down my own analysis of the dynamics of the political world, along with an outline of the strategies I’ve generally employed:

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-left-has-already-won-the-2016-election/#comment-987039

  544. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/17/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/

    The U.K.’s imprisonment of Julian Assange sets an example for authoritarian regimes to follow in their treatment of dissidents worldwide

    • Replies: @Rurik
  545. @utu

    Hitler’s “Real Deal” entailed the purification of Germany from undesirables. Jews were among those undesirables. Zionists realized the value of promoting Hitler’s scheme to compel their tribe to leave (Nay, escape..) Europe, a campaign which met with much reluctance from European Jews, who weren’t buying the articles about “Six Million Jews” being starved, exterminated, hated and bothered, published dozens of times prior to WWII–even prior to Hitler’s administration.

  546. @Wizard of Oz

    Guernica, Guernica, Guernica. Well known fake. The Communists planted bombs under manholes. Communists are, as J. Edgar said: MASTERS of DECEIT. And who are the Communists?

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Wally
  547. @turtle

    I might add that Americans have, in modern times (post WWII) been actively discouraged from learning the German language. Make of that what you will.

    Well, so few Americans learn any foreign language to any serious level that, as a practical matter…

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @anon
  548. stevecel says:
    @zogborg

    Modern Communist China was created by the Zionists to serve as the counterpart to their golem, the US. To state that the weak and nonexistent Chinese state defeated Imperial Japan is, however, entirely false, that was again the US who destroyed the Japanese Navy after having provoked the hardliners in Tokyo into the impetuousness that is typical of Asiatic warfare. The Soviets were again defeated by the US. The Xi Empire will likely also be defeated by the US. Such is life.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  549. @Ron Unz

    Would you *really* want more people to become aware of my articles??!!

    Frankly, I doubt it matters that much. The readership for this sort of 20,000 word article is almost entirely people who are already in the WW2 revisionist camp.

    The average person who has been weaned on the standard History Channel sort of material is not going to slog through an article like this.

    • Replies: @iffen
  550. Truth3 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    killed 600,000 Germans over three years

    600k? More like 3 million+… because of secondary effects alone. The fact that Dresden alone suffered a very likely quarter million deaths makes the 600k figure laughable whether from the woefully uninformed or the wickedly malicious (((Jewish sophists))).

    Bomber Command and the ‘Mighty Eighth’ alone dropped nearly 3 million tons of bombs on Germany.

    Estimates of destruction levels of German cities hovered around 50% overall. 50%. Imagine NYC 50% destroyed. In most cases the Bombers were bombing rubble.

    So-called ‘collateral damage’ was the norm. ‘Precision’ bombsights meant nothing. Civilians were the real target, destroting morale and stopping civilians from working was the goal. In Modern War their is no such thing as collateral damage.

    It was the largest and best disguised War Crime of all time.

    • Replies: @Reality Cheque
  551. JMcG says:
    @Wally

    They did in fact navigate by the stars, at least partially. Probably the planes in question used ded reckoning. In other words, compass, airspeed, and watch.
    What do you propose they used? INS? GPS? It was 1940, not 1991.
    You don’t know what you’re talking about here, it makes the rest of your comments seem weaker.

    • Replies: @Wally
  552. @Ron Unz

    Jews cause trouble, no matter what sheep’s clothing they attire their people in. The ACLU/ADL merely betray the tribe’s wanton hypocrisy, as they campaign to separate “Church and State” while enlisting our Law Enforcement agencies to protect them from “Hate”, invoking statutes legislated specifically to advantage Jews.

    It’s no wonder why we hear endlessly about Germany from your media, while the tribe’s activities in Russia (Where similar laws were enforced with the Death Penalty) somehow disappear down the Memory Hole.

  553. German_reader says:
    @iffen

    Would you untire a bit? I’d like to hear what you have to say.

    imo Bomber Command’s campaign against German cities will always be a morally ambiguous issue. There are no simple answers here. I understand the British “patriotic” view, my father is English and has always defended Bomber Command. And it would certainly be misguided to denigrate RAF aircrew – many of whom sacrificed their lives (50 000 killed, almost half of Bomber Command) – as callous war criminals, or to forget that there was a quite sincere belief among many in Britain that extreme measures like area bombing were the only effective way of preventing a victory of Nazi tyranny. It’s also quite possible that the RAF’s bombing did shorten the war (though there’s also the argument that other less indiscriminate uses of air power – like what the 8th air force did to some extent – might have done so as well or even been more effective).
    On the other hand, I simply can’t regard something like the bombing of Pforzheim in February 1945 (where the British attack killed around 18 000 people, a quarter of the town’s population) positively, let alone celebrate it as some people do (see below). If such a transgressive way of warfare raises no moral questions at all, what exactly would? Is anything allowed in service of a good cause?

    But usually the debate about those issues runs along pretty simple, predictable lines, and isn’t really so much about WW2 bombing itself as a historical phenomenon, technology, way of war etc., but about something else: the question of German collective guilt. That’s why two camps are prominent in it: On the one side one has got various anti-Germans, both Brits and other nationalities with historical grievances against Germany, and German anti-nationalist lefties (“Thanks, Bomber Harris” is a popular slogan among Antifa activists, also “Bomber Harris, do it again!” in regards to regions where people vote for the “wrong” party). These people are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of area bombing as a collective punishment for German crimes, no moral issues or any doubts at all. On the other side are aggrieved German nationalists (and the kind of “revisionists” posting here) who would like to establish a cult of German victimhood about WW2 bombing, using casualty numbers which are in all probability exaggerated (those hundreds of thousands supposedly killed at Dresden) and who can get quite hysterical if one questions their articles of faith. Both groups get on my nerves (though I’ll admit I have somewhat more sympathy for the latter group than for the former). That’s why I’ve decided that in general this debate isn’t for me.

    • Replies: @iffen
  554. @stevecel

    Communism was an invention of Jews, containing their religious elements emphasizing the supplication of goyim, but it can be implemented by any tyrant who understands that the doctrine vests omnipotent powers to the government. One means to insinuate communistic ideologies among ignorant populations involves women’s suffrage. A woman’s innate empathy and instinctive drive to impose their notions of “Fairness” compels females to formulate such a governmental entity.

  555. turtle says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Point taken.
    I once knew a Dutch woman, who told me that proficiency in three languages is required for graduation from H.S. in the Netherlands, or was when she went to school. Dutch, obviously, English either required or strongly recommended, and one more, selected from the languages of adjacent countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, etc.)

    But, what does it tell you when a so-called “elite” H.S. in the U.S., intended to prepare students for a career in the natural sciences, offers only English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese? Not even French(!) (the “language of diplomacy”) let alone German or Russian, which are very important scientific languages. Heisenberg, Pauli, Schroedinger, et. al. in quantum mechanics. Einstein, obviously, and all those 19th century German chemists, as well as the Russians who published in German, because it was the (or at least “a”) recognized scientific language of the day.

    We are told that “German is too hard for Americans.”
    Are the Germans that much smarter than we are?
    Inquiring minds want to know…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  556. @Adrian

    Here’s a quick Google reference. You can also look for yourself for what Churchill called “The Splendid Decision”.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=MX97APhQhQwC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=churchill+may+10+bombing+order+splendid&source=bl&ots=ICFB71Tx2e&sig=ACfU3U0_qGfiDRKc5_Mw6P3Qpq-ei4R3Ww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjR7r-f1ezkAhUNnawKHXdkAjoQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=splendid&f=false

    Chruchill was not only a fan of bombing civilians, he favored the use of poison gas against Iraqi tribesmen who failed to see the wondrous benefits of living under British rule.

    • Replies: @Adrian
  557. L.K says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    For a CHEAP Soviet/Stalinist propagandist, you sure as hell have a LOT of nerve to even dare speak about “raping” history.
    I suppose that “real” history to you is when the RT clowns go on about how the Soviet Union “liberated” Poland, the Baltic states, etc.

    More pathetic still is the fact that a Soviet/Stalin propagandist true believer and Team Russia chauvinist such as yourself chose, after the collapse of the USSR, to go live in the USA of all places!

    Irving is to military history what I am to Chinese Choreography, blah, blah, blah

    The above is so very typical of the kind of TROLLING that you produce around here…

    As a matter of fact, when one cites Russian historians saying things you don’t approve of, we see the exact same kind of pathetic ad hominem against them from you.

    Anyway, once the Soviet archives were open and Russian historians could do research more or less freely, after the fall of the Soviet Union, more and more evidence came up ruining the national myth that is the ‘Great Patriotic War’.
    The answer by the Russian government has been to close most of the archives and even pass laws punishing historians.
    The fear of a ‘great patriotic war implosion’, this being recognized as the key national myth of the post-Soviet new Russia – but already in the S. Union as well – has even forced the Russian government not only to keep 100s of thousands of secret documents sealed but also to enact a “Memory Law” recently(2014), with fines & prison terms for “infringements on historical memory with regard to the events of WW2.”

    In the 2018 book ‘Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History’, chapter 14( Defending Stalinism by Means of Criminal Law ), Russian historian Nikolay Koposov writes:

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Germanicus
    , @refl
  558. @turtle

    No surprise there.

    Another example is the Baltic states. Many there still speak German, they refuse to speak Russian, and the EUSSR introduced as their first language(!) English, with the declared intent to wipe out German language there, NATO flags flying around.
    The Soviets destroyed many of the old Hanse cities and with it not only German heritage and culture. They have become a test lab for the “e-person”, ie 100% surveillance, a US colony foreshadowing what they want all over EUSSR.

  559. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    How many times should we hear this lie ? This lie that the oil was a motive for war was created by the Jews media and by the Jews conspirators who schemed and made this war possible.

    • Agree: utu
  560. @Steve Naidamast

    I can hardly even guess at what John Wear’s explanation might have been of the divergence of view about partisan activity in your very small sample of German veterans but may I suggest that the distance between Leningrad and Stalingrad (1690km today by road according to Google Maps) is enough explanation.

  561. Wally says:
    @JMcG

    It is you does who not know what he’s talking about.

    – The Luftwaffe had the Lorenz and X-Gerät systems.

    – There was also the “Knickebein” Navigation System and the Curvature of the Earth

    – and much more:
    https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell.htm

    Now insert other foot, Bozo.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    , @JMcG
  562. Wally says:
    @ploni almoni

    The Guernica lie has been thoroughly debunked, for starters, here:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=guernica&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally
    example:

    [MORE]

    The communist created Guernica propaganda doesn’t stand up to inquiry.

    On April 26, 1937, nine German planes – three flights of three Junkers 52’s – attacked the Basque town of Guernica to cut the road junction northwest of the town. “We badly need a success against the enemy personnel and equipment,” Colonel von Richthofen, commanding the air-force contingent, wrote in his diary. “Vigón [the Spanish ground commander] agrees to push his troops forward to all roads south of Guernica. If we pull this off, we’ll have the enemy in the bag.” Tiny though the bomb load was – the planes carried only nine bombs of 250 kilos and 114 of fifty kilos – the little town was wrecked. “As our first Junkers arrived,” wrote Richthofen in some puzzlement, “there was smoke everywhere…. nobody could see any roads or bridges or targets in the outskirts, so they just dumped their bombs on the center.” Afterward, the mystery was partially explained, when townspeople showed him evidence that fleeing Asturian miners had liberally dynamited entire streets of buildings to halt the Nationalist advance. “The Reds,” Richthofen recorded after touring the damaged town, “torched ministries, public buildings, and private houses simply by tossing gasoline cans into the ground floors.” Most of Guernica’s five thousand inhabitants had already left, but, the Luftwaffe colonel learned, “a few were killed.” This author (David Irving) carried out investigations in the town records that revealed that some ninety people had been killed, most of them in two incidents as bombs hit a primitive shelter and a mental hospital. The Communists’ own newspaper published a list of the injured, totaling thirty-two names. Since “Guernica” – symbolized by the Pablo Picasso painting – would ever after be chalked up as an atrocity against Göring’s name, these figures are worth reporting.

    Note: Picasso’s art notebooks show that he had begun sketches for the painting – depicting in fact a bullfight – months before the air raid.

    Source: Göring, a biography (by David Irving)

    And much more:
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Guernica/index.html

  563. annamaria says:

    Time for Palestinians to start filling in the forms en masse: “International Center for Holocaust Reparations” https://www.centerforreparations.org/

  564. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Perhaps at #560, with his proud crushing of the bilinguals, you have the answer to whether Mr. Unz speaks any foreign language, and why it would be so difficult for him to learn German. Would be curious if he knows Spanish, after all.

  565. utu says:
    @L.K

    “a LOT of nerve” – we have several sovoks like him (AnonFromTN) over here. Unfortunately this is not limited to sovoks only. It became an official Russia’s historical policy to protect and whitewash Soviet misdeeds and crimes. Just like any critique of Israel and Zionism through recent efforts of Jews became anti-Semitism now in Russia any critique of USSR is perceived as a sign of Russophobia. See this from Russia Today:

    EU resolution equating Communism & Nazism is tawdry piece of Russophobia
    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/469601-eu-resolution-stalin-hitler-ww2/

    • Replies: @Rurik
  566. refl says:
    @Ron Unz

    Now it’s certainly possible that Bruning was lying for some unknown reason.

    When I was studying my professor told the story that he once attended a lecture by the elderly Heinrich Brünning who stated that his political goal had been to restore the monarchy – I think, that is also what he writes in his memoirs. The take away from the story was that my professor believed that Brünning was not reliable. In the end, he had (as was of course rather clear only after the war) crashed the country and would be grasping for anything that might defend him.

    That argument would not aply straight away to what Brünning wrote to Churchill much earlier, but he might have been a bit out of his mind.
    On the other hand, there is the famous book by the Sidney Warburg character “Hitler’s secret backers”, that is used by Anthony Sutton. Brünning would have known it and the money from American banks might well have been directed through jewish supporters.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  567. @L.K

    The RT clowns coincidentally always have their front page riddled with at least one “Nazi evil Soviet good” article, when Ron Unz publishes some truth. Kind of strange, isn’t it?
    Today there are even two jewish “commemoration efforts” by the gate-keeping RT clowns.
    Additionally, they give air to the disabled swedish Antifa child, a Soros tool, who looks like a demon in her eyes. “Question more, oy veh! if you dare”

  568. Rurik says:
    @annamaria

    The U.K.’s imprisonment of Julian Assange sets an example for authoritarian regimes to follow in their treatment of dissidents worldwide

    He wasn’t the first, Annamaria

    I remember the chilling account of how Ernst Zundel was arrested on a bullshit visa violation, so he could be renditioned to a gulag in Canada for telling the truth about the Holocaust.

    ‘First they came for Zundel..’

    But then actually there was also the American poet Ezra Pound, who was imprisoned in an outdoor cage for weeks, for simply for telling the truth about World War II.

    They did a Winston Smith to him, and he lost his mind.

    >><<

    Grace Before Song

    Ezra Pound

    Lord God of heaven that with mercy dight
    Th'alternate prayer wheel of the night and light
    Eternal hath to thee, and in whose sight
    Our days as rain drops in the sea surge fall,
    As bright white drops upon a leaden sea
    Grant so my songs to this grey folk may be:
    As drops that dream and gleam and falling catch the sun
    Evan'scent mirrors every opal one
    Of such his splendor as their compass is,
    So, bold My Songs, seek ye such death as this.

  569. @szopen

    Stop believing in lunacies.

    I leave the belief in lunacies to you, because I know the truth.
    Belief in lunacies is the official narrative, it is pure belief and evil intend.

    • Replies: @szopen
  570. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    two decades ago I annihilated the bilinguals

    So what’s up with bilingual in California these days?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  571. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Who are you and what have you done with that shit-eater, JR?

  572. refl says:
    @L.K

    That memory law is certainly quite depressing, but it is no different from what is valid in Western countries. The “facts” established by the Nuremberg Tribunal are sacrosanct, as if the statement of article 19 that the Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence in itself did not lead the whole affair ad absurdum from the very beginning.
    However, I understand it to some extend, as it is commonly accepted in the West to blame the Soviet Union for anything it did during the war, while it is indefinitely harder to speak out about the criminality of the British and Americans. Denouncing the Soviet side is the one accepted inroad for revisionism and has always been since the Cold War.

    I would have liked Mr Martyanov to have said a little word about Eisenhowers decision to starve an indefinite number of Wehrmacht soldiers to death, when he recommended that US military green book on that character. It would have given him a chance to make some positive distinction for his “team” as you call it.

    I have always known and was always told about the brutal fate of German POWs in the Soviet Union and learned about the extend of Soviet POWs suffering under German imprisonment only much later. And yes, I get it, that the Germans saw those prisoners as something subhuman and it had the most lethal consequences.
    But when I first heard about the fate of German POWs in American camps I honestly did not even understand for quite some time, so much have we all been brainwashed on any negative features that might be there about our Western liberators.

  573. @refl

    On the other hand, there is the famous book by the Sidney Warburg character “Hitler’s secret backers”, that is used by Anthony Sutton. Brünning would have known it and the money from American banks might well have been directed through jewish supporters.

    If you people look for treason and finance in National Socialist Germany, you need to research the Strasser brothers, Gregor and Otto.
    As previously said, Sydney Warburg is a fiction, did not exist.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  574. lysias says:

    If the most important Zionist in Germany was one of the most important financers of the Nazi Party, perhaps that helps explain the Transfer Agreement of 1933 between the Zionists and the Nazi government, an agreement that helped the Nazi government to survive and the Jewish settlement in Palestine to grow.

  575. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    Thanks for the reply. I have the bombing policy of the Allies on a back burner for further exploration and understanding.

  576. Anon[593] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Zionist is what again ?
    Churchill as written in Churchill and the Jews by a Jewish historian was financially beholden mortgaged and loaned to the Jews by Churchill himself . His dependence was so severe that Churchill forbade his mother to include certain unkind remarks about certain bad experinces regarding the Jews in her book .

    Jews love for Churchill is matched by Jews hatred of Hitler . But others don’t have to fall for that . Both were Zionist also .

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  577. Miggle says:
    @turtle

    Please tell us more. Actively discouraged from learning German? What actions? Who performs those actions? Is there official policy? Rules in the schools? Something laid down in law? How does one (in the USA) sense the active discouragement?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  578. Rurik says:
    @utu

    we have several sovoks like him (AnonFromTN) over here. Unfortunately this is not limited to sovoks only. It became an official Russia’s historical policy to protect and whitewash Soviet misdeeds and crimes. Just like any critique of Israel and Zionism through recent efforts of Jews became anti-Semitism

    I for one am glad they are here.

    I hope that Unz commentary reaches to the far corners of the globe, and especially in places like Russia, where undoubtedly there is a wide chasm between what we two people’s from the West and Russia- understand about each other.

    Yes, Russian vanity clings to the ludicrous notion that the Red Army were ‘liberators’.

    They’ve seen how Germany has been humiliated for generations, and the Russians (and Poles and others), are understandably loath to step into that particular trap.

    But as Russia is increasingly menaced by the same fiend that drags Germany though the mud endlessly, eventually they’re going to have to see the obvious, that we have a common enemy.

    RT prints PCR articles, and so they must have a glimmering of what and whom are behind the endless sabre rattling at Russia.

    Just about every day I hear something about Russia’s “aggressions’, and how NATO must stay strong to prevent other nations from being invaded and occupied like Crimea today. That was just a few hours ago, with NPR speaking to the head of NATO.

    The lies they tell about Putin, are the same lies they tell about Trump and Brexit (I heard a NPR “journalist” say that Brexit should be null and void because it was clearly an act of Russian meddling in England’s elections that caused the tainted referendum. I shit you not!)

    So the forces of evil that murdered off millions of Russians in the last century, and enslaved half of Europe for generations, is the exact same evil that is destroying nations like Libya and Syria, with Russia obviously in their sights.

    It is wwaaaayyyyyyy past time for Russia and Germany and Hungary and France and North America and Australia and basically the entire Western world, (including obviously Russia and the Baltic states), to make common cause against the fiend, who would if it could, OBVIOUSLY love nothing more on this planet, than to see Russia and NATO fight a massive conventional war that wipes them all out- once and for all. Duh.

    So as these misunderstandings are hashed out, and PCR is making tones of sense, and we finally are beginning to understand that we all face a far more dire threat to our nations and peoples than anything the Russian have against the Germans or Poles against the Ukrainians or other provincial, parochial rivalries, I hope that one day we’ll see that what we all have in common, is a thousand times more salient and sanguinary than anything that divides us.

    Once the banksters are put to rest, and the forces of darkness that engulfs our planet are sent to hell, then we can all get back to killing each other.

    • Replies: @utu
  579. @Wally

    The “lethal brunt” was being an “enemy population” in a war zone — just like the Poles, White Russians, Ukrainians, Russians, et al. I am assuming that there is some basis in fact in the conclusions put forward in Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (NY, Basic Books, 2010). I may be mistaken to put trust in this text, but that’s what I’m doing in this context.

    There is abundant contemporaneous evidence from reliable eyewitnesses and documentary evidence — that the Germans were, by policy, relocating Jews to their planned Jewish Gaza in east Poland and that this became increasingly hazardous to the relocatees as conditions deteriorated on the eastern front. As far as I know there are no reliable body-counts in this context, but I’m not expert in this field by any means, and of course the discussion is vexed from all sides by partisan agendas.

  580. @Anon

    Yes, you should conclude that I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle and Bishop Berkeley and numerous others that usury is a toxic fraud. You should also conclude that I have total contempt for the “argument” that usury rewards deferred consumption. As Tolstoy put it, “how much land does a man need”? The number of falsehoods buried in this line of misreasoning are manifold. You could start with the lie that banks loan depositors money. Or the lie that billionaires defer consumption to earn their interest income. Or whatever. But anyone who buys into stuff like that is beyond reason, beyond facts, beyond truth. In my opinion.

  581. @ValMond

    This is always hilarious.

    Holocaust goy. 6 gorrillion. If you even think about questioning it, you go to prison.

    But actually there was no Holodomor – see, check our Jewish government records!

    I found an article in English purportedly by Victor Zemtsov that was called “Political Repressions in USSRL 1917 -1991/

    “Died of 1933 starvation are often included in the amount of repressions victims. With no doubts, government fiscal policy of these times appeared to be an incredible crime against millions of peasants. But its inclusion in “repressions victims” is not rightful.”

    >Not rightful…. okay, into the trash this moron goes.

    “That is the victims of state economic policy (its analog are millions of victims after shock reforms by radical democrats in 1990s). In dry weather regions (Ukraine, North Caucasus, Volga region, Kazakhstan, some other regions) level of mandatory product supplies was not lowered by the state, so the whole thin crop up to the last seed was taken from peasants, dooming them for starvation death. The exact number of died is not still defined. Usually books include digits from 6 to 10 million, and only in Ukraine it differs from 3-4 to 6-7 million. But birth and death rate statistics for 1932-1933 shows overestimations of these numbers. According to the data of Central administration for accounting in national economy of State Planning Committee of the USSR, 782 000 were born and 668 000 died in Ukraine in 1932, in 1933 – 359 000 and 1 309 000 correspondingly [14].”

    So people who died due to government appropriations of their food shouldn’t ‘rightfully’ be included in ‘repression’ statistics. Well that’s retarded. But okay.

    So we’re told that less then 2 million Ukrainians died from famine. According to government records that regard famine as a conspiracy theory. Just like any kind of critique of Jewish policy today is ‘conspiracy theory’.

    That’s hilariously stupid – and the man says that also includes the natural rate of death from old age and illness. Why does he not refer to the simple before and after numbers? We get births versus deaths. What of the numbers in the Ukraine in 1931 and not there anymore in 1933?

    http://mythdetector.ge/en/myth/three-lies-about-holodomor-ukraine

    Lol so in 1926 the Ukrainian population was 29million, then, in 1937 it was still 29million. And imbeciles actually use this as an argument ‘against’ the famine? The Soviet Union per Comrade Stalins impeccable records, was meant to be growing 3 million per year. The Ukraine was like a third of the total land area. So where was the Ukraine’s share in the 33million new people?

    “Historians-amateurs include all human losses in the Civil war in the amount of obvious victims of Soviet regime. From the autumn 1917 to the beginning of 1922 population of the country decreased for 12 741 300 men, including white emigration with unknown exact number (about 1.5-2 million) [27]. But only one side (Red Army) is declared as responsible for Civil war and all victims (including its own).”

    Of couse the civil war is the fault of the Bolshevik Jews. They fomented the war, they caused the revolution, they sought to destroy Russia. Not including the Civil war is just bonkers.

    “How many ‘revelations’ about ‘sealed carriages’, ‘bolshevist intrigues’ etc. were published in the recent years? Uncountable. It was often claimed that there would be no revolution, red movement, civil war without Lenin, Trotsky and other bolshevist leaders (with the same success you can claim that there would be no white movement without Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, Wrangel). That’s absurd. Events of 1917-1920 in Russia were the most powerful social burst in the history and were predefined with all preceding history events and were caused by a complex situation of tough social, class, national, regional and other contradictions. There were no right ones or guilty ones. If you want to blame something, than you should blame the whole fatal course of history, faced our nation with hardest challenge in 1917-1920.”

    This statement is just nonsense. It’s nonsense.

    “There were no right ones or guilty ones”

    The Russian revolution was fomented by a very specific international clique of Jewish Bolsheviks funded by Jewish Zionists and industrialists. Without those Jews, there would have been no Russian revolution. This is risible.

    Your man is presumably Jewish himself, and engaged in Jewish false apologetics. No one in the west blames the Russian people for being victimised by the Jews.

    He also says that political prisoners can’t include prisoners under standard criminal articles. I would disagree with that. Anthony Beevor, who is a proud Holocaustian with no motivation to make the Jewish Bolsheviks look bad, for example recorded that just in the course of the Stalingrad battle, approximately 40,000 Red Army soldiers were shot by the NKVD Commissars for crimes like “cowardice” etc. Given the small numbers supposedly involved here, that’s a large number – and I would put that solely down to Soviet influence. In western theatres, men weren’t shot in such savagely high numbers out of hand for shell – shock.

    Then we get this gem from Zemtsov:

    “Let’s make some updates. Decrease of USSR population in 1941-1945 was equal to 27 million, not 44 (it includes not only died, but also second wave of emigration). R.A. Medvedev suggests that up to 1946 NKVD bodies repressed 2-3 million men on the USSR territory, which was under Nazi occupation[11].

    In fact there were overall 321 651 convicted for political crimes in USSR in 1944-1946, where 10 177 were sentenced to extreme penalty. It seems realistic that majority of sentenced from the occupied territory were rightfully convicted for treasonable practice”

    What bullshit.

    10 177 people only executed in 1944-1946? And every single one of them for valid treason, no less, LOL.

    This is just bullshit. Stalin, according to his Jewish handlers, as even a Holocaustian like Beevor has outlined, had a policy of imprisonment or execution for every Red Army soldier who was captured by the Nazis and recaptured on the basis that it must have due to treason.

    What about the Shtraf battalions, when men sharing a rife were simply ran in MG42 fields of fire? They were common criminals as well. But he doesn’t include common-criminals in his numbers.

    The German 6th army alone had tens of thousands of ‘Hiwis’ serving in it – Soviet citizens forced to fight in the Wehrmacht. Just the number of Hiwis executed when captured by the Soviets is larger then 10 177. Why is this not included?

    So I don’t trust this Zemtsov, and if he isn’t Jewish, he is very suspicious.

    How does this reconcile with ‘Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin’? – his figure for the Ukrainian famine alone is 3.3 million – not way under 2 million, and possibly even less since that apparently includes non-starvation related deaths. And he got the David Irving treatment as well, because he apparently dared to equate Jew deaths with goyim cattle deaths, as if they were the same, which they are.

    Revisionism doesn’t mean relinquishing sanity. People oppose the fake Holocaust because the evidence is bullshit. The evidence on the other hand for Soviet repression is not.

    I’ll take the 37million number that Theodore Beale uses. Not 60million necessarily, but 37 million is about right.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  582. @Carolyn Yeager

    In comment #467 above I cited Mowrer’s account of dining in 1932 with German Jewish financiers who bragged about backing Hilter. I should note that Mowrer does not mention James Warburg by name on page 212 but elsewhere in his text, and then makes it clear enough that Warburg numbered among his dinner companions. This discretion is intriguing but does not impugn his comments otherwise.

    I’m addressing your claims about Hitler’s backers. Bruning is not the only pertinent witness and your apparent insistence that he is, is silly. I’m also asserting the obvious and clearly attested fact that Hitler’s wealthy backers were motivated by the usual motives of their element and, in this case, by the idea that the Nazis would save them from the Commies.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  583. @Bragadocious

    Protecting Egypt was vital, because Britain depended on oil supplied via the Suez Canal.

    The poor morale of British troops, and the superiority of Rommel’s command despite a dearth of supplies, prolonged the North African campaign. The campaign was highly publicised in Britain, because there was no other good news to report.

    Montgomery finally beat Rommel at El Alamein – only 100 miles from Cairo, while Rommel’s supply lines stretched across the Mediterranean and were usually broken because the British could read the German codes. El Alamein was a victory for the British, but with the odds stacked so much in their favour, and with so many earlier defeats, that sadly the North African campaign showed the shortcomings of the British Army. In Britain, Rommel is still respected to this day.

    After Dunkirk, they refused to fight Germany in Europe.

    Churchill knew perfectly well that Britain alone could not fight a second front in Europe. I would guess also that he feared losses and failure similar to those of his disastrous campaign at Gallipoli.

    grab Libya & Somalia from Italy. Expanding the empire.

    The prime real estate of Libya and Somalia. Coveted by all the European empires.

    Killing Nazis was never Winston’s primary goal.

    Britain had a powerful Navy and Air Force, but its Army was no match for the Wehrmacht. Churchill had to work with the forces at his disposal.

  584. anaccount says:

    Judeo-Christian hoax believers are still waiting for the apocalypse but as I have discovered (with Ron’s help), the apocalypse already happened. It was a real apocalypse.

    We are living in the afterglow of Western Civilization, we were born in it. Molded by it.

  585. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon

    Jews love for Churchill is matched by Jews hatred of Hitler. But others don’t have to fall for that. Both were Zionist also .

    Who gives a damn about Churchill’s Zionism. It meant simply that he was in accord with British Imperial policy which was to settle Jews in Palestine. Judged by today’s standards, that was bad policy. But at the time of the Balfour Declaration, which is to say in the age of near universal empire, stealing land and settling it with aliens was standard practice. In accepting such a policy in the case of Palestine, Churchill was simply an adherent of the common view.

    That Churchill was preferred by Jews to Hitler is hardly surprising. Whereas Churchill did note that Hitler was giving the Jews in Germany a hard time, Hitler was, well, giving the Jews in Germany a hard time, although both Churchill and Hitler favored settling Jews in Palestine.

    But what has all that to do with the causes of WW2? None whatever, it seems.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  586. archive.org link to Iron Curtain over America:

    This item is no longer available.

    Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use.

    … right on queue!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  587. Wally says:
    @szopen

    So what?
    Again: Where are the alleged human remains that are claimed to be in known locations?

    There was no Operation Tannenberg as you claimed.
    There was the slaughter of 20,0000 Poles at Katyn by the Soviets.

    LOL. Zionist Wikipedia is hardly proof of anything related to Jews & WWII.
    I see nothing in the article which proves your claim.
    That’s your best shot?

    • Replies: @szopen
  588. Seraphim says:
    @Germanicus

    As per Wikipedia:
    “Sydney Warburg (1880-1947) is the pen name of an author or group of authors who remained anonymous and who published a book about funding of the Nazi Party by American bankers between 1929 and 1933. The book’s Dutch title De geldbronnen van het Nationaal-Socialisme: drie gesprekken met Hitler refers to three conversations Warburg said Sydney would have had with Adolf Hitler. The original states that the text was “Door Sydney Warburg, vertaald door J.G. Schoup” (By Sydney Warburg, translated by J.G. Schoup)… The book that has been published under the pseudonym Sydney Warburg, De Geldbronnen van het nationaal Socialisme: drie gesprekken met Hitler (Funding of National Socialism: Three Conversations with Hitler), published by Van Holkema & Warendorf’s Uitg.-Mij. NV disappeared almost immediately from bookstores. This book dealt with funding received by the Nazi Party in 1929, 1931 and 1933″.

    [MORE]

    ‘Sydney’ Warburg did not exist. It might have been a fabrication of the enemies of Hitler (the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, representatives of the ‘national-bolshevist’ wing of ‘national-socialism’). That it was a fake might be indicated by the question attributed to Hitler whether Warburg was Jewish, an implausible thing because the Warburgs were a most prominent Jewish family in Germany and played a major role in the financial (transparent as well as opaque) history of the 20th century. The Warburg bank was older than Rothschild.
    The brothers Paul and Felix Warburg emigrated to America in 1902 and Paul was “the chief architect of the Federal Reserve Board”. The role of the Warburgs in advancing money to Lenin and Trotsky is undeniable.
    Less known is the fact that their elder brother Max remained in Germany at the helm of the family bank M.M.Warburg & CO until 1938!
    (Wiki again): “As head of that firm, he advised Kaiser Wilhelm II prior to World War I [some ascribe him the role of Chief of the German Intelligence, which is bunkum].
    In the 1930s, despite the rise of the Nazi Party, Warburg felt there was hope for the future in Germany and tried to wait out the Nazi crisis. From 1933, he served on the board of the German Reichsbank under governor Hjalmar Schacht. He sold the bank because the 1935 Nuremberg laws set the framework and campaign of Aryanization. He then emigrated to the United States in 1938…
    During the Weimar Republic, Max Warburg served on the board (‘Generalrat’) of the Reichsbank from 1924 to 1933, under two successive chairmen, Hjalmar Schacht, (until 1930), and Hans Luther (1930-1933); until 1934, he was also on the Board of the Bankenverband… In the 1920s and 1930s, until the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, Max Warburg also served on several Supervisory Boards (“Aufsichtsrat”) in industry, notably HAPAG, Blohm &Voss, Beiersdorf, and, until his resignation in 1932, as a member of the Supervisory Board (“Aufsichtsrat”) of the German conglomerate/ chemical firm known as I.G. Farben (Interessen Gemeinschaft Farben). His brother Paul Warburg, who died in January 1932 – a year before Hitler was elected Chancellor – also served on numerous Supervisory Boards (“Aufsichtsrat”) including allegedly that of an I.G. Farben wholly owned US subsidiary”.
    At the Peace Conference of Versailles Max acted as advisor of the German representatives on financial matters and was accused in 1926 by “Deputy Theodor Fritsch, the 71-year old anti-Semitic leader in Leipzig” of acting in cahoots with his brothers, Paul and Felix Warburg, to betray Germany to the Allies! That led to a defamation trial won by Warburg.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  589. @Just another serf

    Is there anywhere where the David Irving Videos are still available, like on Bitchute for example

  590. @Flint Clint

    An intriguing aspect of the story of the Ukraine “famine” of 1933-35 is the failure to follow the money. On the order of 4-5 million Ukraine farmers died because the Soviet government seized their grain crop whole. So, what happened to the grain? It must have been sold on international commodity markets, and international commodity dealers and their financial “backers” must have made quite a killing handling the deal. And where did the money go? Well, probably in the main it went to pay the American corporations that engineered, built, and stocked with machinery the Soviet industrial plant (which Stalin told Harry Hopkins was mostly American built — I forget the figure, was it 75% or 90%?). That is, the money wound up on Wall Street and environs.

    Similarly, Wall Street completely controlled and raked off the cream of the Southern slave economy from 1800 or earlier until the middle of the Civil War, and wrote mortgages with slaves as collateral — a service without which the slave economy could not have functioned. But I have never seen these facts, and their implications for the “responsibility” for American slavery stated anywhere at all, although the facts are unquestionable. Everybody is keen on toppling statues of Confederate generals but as far as I know, no one has proposed doing the same with statues of August Belmont. Why is that, I wonder?

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Skeptikal
  591. @James N. Kennett

    A primary focus of British troop movements from 1939 forward was taking control of the oil fields of the Middle East from Syria to Iran and Saudi Arabia. This objective was pursued with far more promptitude, troops and materiel than were any attacks on the ostensible enemies on the European peninsula. There is no doubt whatsoever about these facts, and they are telling. Which is why they tend to go unmentioned in “official accounts.”

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  592. Remarkable work.
    The talented and courageous Ron Unz ups his game—- again.
    Thank you Ron Unz.

  593. @Miggle

    The courses in the German language simply don’t exist. “German” is not on offer. We are told there are no teachers to be found or, most often, there is not enough demand for it. This has been going on for many years, like around 70.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Cleburne
    , @turtle
  594. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @turtle

    (post WWII) – ??????

    At my public schools in the 1960’s, we had Latin, French, German and Russian. I don’t remember if there was Spanish. Maybe not.

    • Replies: @turtle
  595. @J. Alfred Powell

    You are asserting nothing of value and are only here to stir sh-t and confuse the discussion. Mowrer was a German-american intelligence agent under cover as a journalist stationed in Germany, later Japan and France. The Nazis had to kick him out of their country – he didn’t want to go. Interestingly, according to Wiki he was born in the same midwestern town I was born in — my high school chemistry teacher was Mr. Mowrer, very possibly a relative of his. As I’ve already stated, nothing Mowrer writes is worth anything.

    James Warburg, son of Paul of the Federal Reserve, was a globalist Jew, member of the CFR and the one who said: “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”

    Bruning is not the only pertinent witness and your apparent insistence that he is, is silly.

    I never insisted any such thing. I have no interest at all in your views on Hitler or anything else. I don’t waste my time with people like you once I recognize what you are. If other people want to, I can’t stop them.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  596. utu says:
    @Rurik

    “I for one am glad they [sovoks] are here.” – You seem to underestimate the lies of NKVD/KGB/FSB provenance and you are not really curious what is their provenance and who is their masters. Are you really sure they are enemies [*] of your enemies? Anyway, watch out: “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.”

    [*] https://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-middle-east-strategy-balance-vs-betrayal/5690056

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Rurik
  597. CanSpeccy says:

    Anyone wondering what this article is about, may know little more when they have finished reading it than before they began. We learn much about the ins and outs of the author’s quest for enlightenment, with many diversions and divagations on sundry topics without gaining much in the way of “understanding of WW2.” However, from the image that heads the article, namely, the cover of AJP Taylor’s Origins of World War II and the discussion of Taylor’s expulsion from Oxford University, it may be inferred that the article is to explain: first, Taylor’s theory as to the origin of the war; and second, the reason that Taylor’s exposition of that theory led to his Oxford Ouster. Unfortunately, the author expounds neither Taylor’s theory, nor the reason it could have resulted in Taylor being forced to continue in the enjoyment of free speech at University College, London rather than in the city of dreaming spires. Here, therefore, for the benefit of anyone who might be interested, is the seemingly essential difference between Taylor’s view as to the origins of WW2 and the more generally held establishment view, and how this difference might be presumed to have mattered to the powers that be in Britain, back in the early 60’s. 

    Contrary to the view held by Hugh Trevor Roper, the then Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University, and sundry other scholarly contemporaries, Taylor argued that Hitler, far from being a man with a maniacal racist plan for world empire — its achievement dependent on the destruction of Russia and the Jews — was merely an opportunist, adapting his policy according as circumstances allowed for German advantage.

    That such an interpretation should result in Taylor’s banishment from Oxford seems unlikely. Rather, I should think that Taylor, a typically arrogant, self-centered, bohemian, son-of-a-bitch academic, outwore his welcome at Oxford, his fellow dons thus giving him the boot. It is true, however, that Taylor’s view of Hitler tended to draw attention to the possibility that Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s PM at the outset of WW2, was not the dupe of Hitler, but in fact a master manipulator who took advantage of Hitler’s opportunism, first by opening the way to German conquest of Czechoslovakia (and the acquisition of that country’s massive concentration of tanks and other military hardware), and then encouraging Polish obduracy over the Danzig corridor, thereby encouraging Hitler to embark on a further Eastward movement, which might have been expected to result in a hoped for, mutually-annihilating clash, with the feared and hated Bolshevik Russia. 

    It seems likely, in fact, that far from blundering by the Western powers giving rise to WW2, WW2 was induced by Britain with full deliberation. If so, every effort would naturally have been made to conceal such a Machiavellian scheme, and Taylor’s account of the war would not have been considered helpful, though as noted, I doubt if that had much to do with the loss of his Oxford University Lectureship. Only if his book had been suppressed, as happened for example with Carroll Quigley’s great work outlining the still operational Rhodes-Milner plan for global empire and the role in that plan of the Council on Foreign Relations and the great banking corporations, would it seem reasonable to suppose that anyone other than another historian gave a damn about Taylor’s book.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  598. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Or that it is “too hard ” for Americans (even those of us of German heritage).
    Sure.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  599. Ron Unz says:
    @iffen

    two decades ago I annihilated the bilinguals

    So what’s up with bilingual in California these days?

    Pretty much nothing since it’s been dead and gone for nearly 20 years. And since California had been its national center, once I killed it there, it soon much shriveled up almost everywhere else, with a little help from me. By a wide margin, it’s the most important thing I’ve ever done.

    Those so interested can take a look at the many thousands of MSM articles about the issue and my various campaigns on an old website of mine:

    http://www.onenation.org/

    In 1999 The New Republic also did a very nice cover story about my success:

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    And here’s a piece of mine from a couple of years ago updating things:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/bilingualism-vs-bilingual-education-3/

    • Replies: @turtle
  600. Ron Unz says:
    @just a comment

    archive.org link to Iron Curtain over America:

    This item is no longer available.

    Yes, it mysteriously “disappeared” from Archive.org earlier this year. But someone uploaded a new copy:

    https://archive.org/details/BeatyJohnTheIronCurtainOverAmerica1.o/page/n1

    Also, it’s in my HTML Books system:

    https://www.unz.com/book/john_beaty__the-iron-curtain-over-america/

  601. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    That such an interpretation should result in Taylor’s banishment from Oxford seems unlikely. Rather, I should think that Taylor, a typically arrogant, self-centered, bohemian, son-of-a-bitch academic, outwore his welcome at Oxford, his fellow dons thus giving him the boot.

    Well, according to Taylor’s Wikipedia entry, he was fired from Oxford after teaching there for 25 years and despite his enormous popularity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor#Oxford_years

    The entry notes his sudden defenestration came in the immediate wake of the huge controversy surrounding his WWII book, strongly suggesting that as the cause. But you say it was just a “coincidence.” So I guess that makes you what some people call a “coincidence theorist.” Or as I already put it upthread, “an ignorant buffoon”…

    • Agree: L.K
  602. turtle says:
    @anon

    You were fortunate.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  603. Adrian says:
    @Hamlet's Ghost

    Yes thanks for that. I could, however, not get any bibliographic reference out of it – and “the splendid decision” referred to the British destruction of the French fleet.

    If Irving is right about Churchill he doesn’t seem to have been very different from his “illustrious forebear”, John Churchill, the later first Duke of Marlborough whose biography he wrote. That Churchill’s treachery and avidity gave Dutch William, the “King/Stadtholder” William III, a lot of headaches. He was conspiring with William’s main enemy, France, to reinstall James II while ostensibly serving as a general for William. This Dutch prince chose to ignore it though he could have had him executed for treason. He only made it clear that he didn’t want to see him at court anymore, at least for a while. He didn’t have much choice. Except for a few and his faithful Dutch friends he was surrounded by a nest of serpents that had been created at the dysfunctional courts of the last two Stuarts (the details are all in Macaulay).

    Winston Churchill too faced execution at one stage. He has told the story himself. During the Second Boer War he was, sometime in 1899, as newspaper correspondent a passenger on an armored British train that was held up by a Boer patrol under the command of Louis Botha, no less (that is at any case what Churchill said – but there are other claimants to that arrest). This incident could have changed world history because Churchill was armed and thus could have been executed as a “franc tireur”, as he acknowledges himself. The Boers chose to keep him as a possibly valuable exchange object. They didn’t guard him properly though and Churchill escaped. The story of that escape gave him his first fame.

  604. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    Sooo all you have is some BS read on revisionist sites and you have no proof of any Rydz-Śmigły radio speech in 1939. But you know THE TRUTH. Typical.

  605. turtle says:
    @Ron Unz

    140 languages spoken by California schoolchildren

    Aye, there’s the rub.
    How many “ethnic” languages were actually taught, other than Spanish?
    I’ll wager the answer is “close to zero.”
    Tagalog? Cambodian (in Long Beach)? Korean (in Garden Grove)? German (in Anaheim)?
    Armenian (in Glendale)? Japanese (anywhere)?
    Not on your life.
    IOW, this was nothing but “Hispano-chauvinists” attempting to push their “culture” down our throats.
    Good on you for standing up to them, Ron.
    BTW, I take issue with your assertion that 2nd gen speak primarily the language of their parents.
    In my experience, the kids tend to be perfectly bilingual. i.e. fluent in two languages, which they do not mix. A real advantage, in today’s world.
    First gen as well. I have a friend and colleague who migrated to the U.S. from Japan at age 13, not knowing a word of English. By HS graduation, he was proficient enough to be admitted to UCLA, where he earned two degrees, engineering and business. So, it is possible, for those who are motivated.

    IMO, standards should be raised, so that all are required to be fluent in at least one language of their choosing other than English. “Of their choosing,” not mandatory Spanish.
    JMO.

    • Replies: @anon
  606. @Seraphim

    As per Wikipedia:

    Good joke. Wikipedia is worth nothing.

    Sydney Warburg is a fiction, even wikipedia admits it, “pen name” of who? Anonymous author or group of authors, such as foreign intelligence?

    I do not see, how Max Warburg connects to a fiction “pen name” of unknown.

    The Strassers are one of the reason Hitler had planned to dissolve the NSDAP after the war.

    • Replies: @refl
  607. szopen says:
    @Wally

    You fucking ignorant liar. You didn’t even know that Einsatzgruppen were in POland in 1939, murdering ethnic Poles, did you? Otherwise why you would start speaking nonsense about Babi Yar…

    There was operation Tannenberg. There are lists of people known from name, who were killed by Nazis in that operation – you will know go to their families and tell them their relatives were not killed? One such list, from just one county, is here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjv87n-5e3kAhXkwqYKHT46DW8QFjACegQIBRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.borchmann.pl%2Fgenealogia%2FPia%25C5%259Bnica%2520-%2520powiat%2520morski.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3YlpRPAPzW1gojVvhrELyF (note that those are only the victims KNOWN by name, from ONE county); another list of victims known by name, this time from Gdynia, shot in execution in November 1939 here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjv87n-5e3kAhXkwqYKHT46DW8QFjAFegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2F2wojna.gdynia.pl%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F17_lista_piasnicka.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Ic5McoAkCG0pmzoyXHwUY. There were killing fields in Piaśnica (https://youtu.be/RbvT3P6lrsM?t=155), for example, where 26 mass graves were discovered already in 1946, and then more in 1962 – AFAIK there is a list of one thousand people known by name who died in that particular place, despite Nazis doing everything to hide their crimes (only in two mass graves full bodies were found, 305 in total, 55 were identified by name; other graves contain only human bone fragments).

    Or maybe you will now claim that, for example, professors in Lwów also were not murdered by Nazis?

  608. @Anatoly Karlin

    Overy raises a number of points.

    British cities were different from German cities, in that British workers’ quarters were usually closer to the factories than in Germany. This meant that residential and industrial areas were mixed up to a far larger extent, resulting in higher (inadvertent) civilian losses.

    The Germans pioneered technologies to aim even at night, for example triangulating radio waves from Norway and Germany.

    The Germans also used huge targets like the London port area. It’s theoretically pretty easy to hit even at night. The idea was to help the blockade.

    The big difference might have been that had the Germans been winning, they certainly wouldn’t have destroyed British cities with no military significance like the already mentioned Pforzheim.

    • Replies: @iffen
  609. @CanSpeccy

    It meant simply that he was in accord with British Imperial policy which was to settle Jews in Palestine.

    The British soon experienced Buyer’s Remorse, as Arabs rebelled against Jewish incursions, to which British responded by attempting to enforce the Balfour clause that purported to protect Arabs, while Jews reacted with violence and by moving the goal posts — arguing that rights to Jews were greater than the Balfour declaration implied.

    The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 (…sometimes referred to as “British Policy in Palestine”.
    1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

    While maintaining Britain’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on suffrance.

    Followed in 1930 by the harsher and hotly-contested
    Passfield White Paper
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passfield_white_paper

    The paper’s tone was decidedly anti-Zionist since several of its institutions were severely criticized, including the Histadrut (General Federation of Labor) and the Jewish Agency, which both promoted Jewish employment of only Jewish labor, thereby supporting the ejection of Arabs from purchased land, most who previously worked under a tenant farming system. Like the Hope-Simpson Report, the Passfield White Paper found this Zionist policy damaging to the economic development of the Arab population. It concluded that Jewish immigration to Palestine was taking land from the Arab fellahs; sales of land to Jewish settlers should in future be restricted, and Arab unemployment levels should be a factor in considering permitted levels of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Furthermore, a legislative council should be formed which would represent the (Arab) majority of its population. . . .

    Zionists claimed it backtracked from what they felt were commitments in the Balfour Declaration and, if implemented, would limit Jewish immigration to Palestine.

    Contrary to these claims, the White Paper states that the development of a Jewish National Home in Palestine is a consideration, which would enjoy continued support, but it was not central to mandate governance. The paper states that the British intend to fulfill their mandate obligations to both Arabs and Jews, and they would resolve any conflicts that might surface as a result of their respective needs.

    —-
    re other issues you raised, and

    But what has all that to do with the causes of WW2? None whatever, it seems.

    Zionism has everything to do with the causes of WW2. Churchill & the British had their own reasons for seeking the destruction of Germany, but zionist Jews in USA and Britain forced the issue, both in WW1 & WW2, with the goal of achieving removal of Jews from Russia / Germany and of acquiring a state of their own. THAT was a key underlying purpose of the wars.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @gregor
  610. anon[124] • Disclaimer says:

    “That the Euthanasia program of the Nazis killed what was deemed “unworthy” life is so well known in Germany that nobody will dispute it.”

    Lol, they can’t. It’s illegal.

    • Agree: Rurik
  611. A very important work about WW2 is this paper by Ingo Bading, a German anthropologist and historian:

    https://www.academia.edu/352574/Wie_kam_Stalin_in_die_Mitte_Europas_-_Kriegsziele_der_westlichen_Demokratien_seit_1941

    (How Did Stalin End Up In the Center of Europe – War Goals of the Western Democracies since 1941)

    It basically shows that the Western powers wanted the USSR to occupy half of Europe so German influence there would be diminished forever. Stalin would have stopped at the Polish-Soviet border, apparently. The reasons for mass bombing was to decimate the number of Germans (too many Germans compared to Frenchmen and Brits)

  612. A.R. says:
    @John Regan

    Gyan Books Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi, , India) has the book ( print on demand ) for US dollars 13.68 with free worldwide delivery.

  613. A.R. says:
    @John Regan

    I believe there are many here, myself included, who would be very grateful were you to supply us with a translated summary of Glaser`s opinion.

  614. @Carolyn Yeager

    Comment #467 cites Mowrer’s text with a caveat offering reason to distrust his witness, from a source (Mahl) of another order of credibility than wikipedia.

    You don’t get to define “the discussion”, its terms or its boundaries, or censure violations of your fiat.

  615. @Ron Unz

    Style favors the “ignorant baffoon” hypothesis — “a typically arrogant, self-centered, bohemian, son-of-a-bitch academic” for instance.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  616. But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.

    Where did McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apology for some of Hitler’s decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?

    Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.

    It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN for the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens’ assessment of the book. The problem was not Buchanan’s contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn’t have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler’s moves. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler’s moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire.
    Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing Poland against Germany. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterward, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.

    I don’t think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he’s always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy’s anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of “Is it good for Jews?”, and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he’s half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.

    Buchanan’s formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan’s point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco’s Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some ‘black’ blood, and Slavs had some ‘Asiatic’ blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco’s Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.

    Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less challenge than China. People didn’t take him seriously because back then the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was a mostly agrarian land of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn’t have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn’t have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made many people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.

    [MORE]

    Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.

    Germany didn’t fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn’t have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, “two’s company but three’s a crowd.” UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, the UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in just a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany’s place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, and vain. Difficult man to work with.

    However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell… Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.

    If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn’t have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but having gained much with earlier bluffs went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn’t call his bluff early on, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to the major outbreak of war. But wouldn’t giving-Hitler-what-he-wants made him even more aggressive and reckless?
    On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is right that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a ‘color revolution’ in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland in half. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it’s true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.

    The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    ‘Conquer the world’ has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don’t literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it’s fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn’t want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it.
    Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn’t have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn’t much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of ‘alliance’ with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the ‘alliance’ of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might cause problems. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm’s length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn’t want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to the only major powers that might change Hitler’s mind.
    At any rate, what is the true worth of ‘friendliness’ in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi but it wasn’t. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles saw the big stick. While it’s true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It’s like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial disputes in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was ‘artistic’ than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao because of differences in personality. In contrast, Putin and Xi get along because both are more sober and temperate.

    Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain… he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations…
    But… Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue… Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.

    But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill’s vanity, wasn’t the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked out in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe could not be united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don’t. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.

    …Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and… Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.

    But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler’s illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.

    Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.

    He was a bastard, but let’s not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.

    …late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.

    I read V-1 rockets weren’t particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and hatred take over. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.

    Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.

    I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn’t plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren’t satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel’s hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and ‘lazy, dumb, and drunk’ Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies.
    Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.

    On the eve of World War I, so many people all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the hellishness of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.

    But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn’t want war. Even Germans didn’t want it despite Hitler’s popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn’t want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate with Germany, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor’s sense of limits and keen calculation.

    We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if he suspected foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation.
    Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don’t see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.

    From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.

    FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured against European(and Japanese) imperialists as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn’t create it.

    But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn’t invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn’t Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it’s possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan’s economy, thus forcing it into war. We’ll never know.

    Polish Confidential Report:

    Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible… At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world… It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.

    I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since then. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the same old barbarians, or even the ‘Huns’. There was something ‘brute’ and ‘Teutonic’ about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined and ‘ironic’, and such ‘honesty’ threatened Anglo conceits of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and even culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it… before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.

    But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German ‘Teutonism’, leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism’s appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a ‘pornography of power’. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the ‘Aryans’. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much. As racial ideology, it was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch.

    Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to with realpolitik. It’s like the US was warmer toward Mao’s China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world’s troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn’t so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.

    During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.

    While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn’t have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them under German pressure.

    Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn’t stop Stalin’s mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin’s USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana since then.
    Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing that Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn’t a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.

    Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that’s that; then, UK would have to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this makes no sense. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn’t Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail against Stalin?
    But from a psychological point of view, it makes sense because of Hitler’s different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow ‘Aryans’ would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and ‘lesser whites’ of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn’t enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.

    In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.

    But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, ‘antisemitism’ wasn’t as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish issues. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. ‘Antisemitism’ was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn’t prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn’t persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders had mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK was constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden.
    At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified ‘antisemitism’ as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren’t so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.

    Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.

    While we may find parallels between the fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein’s Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein’s regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous.
    That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can’t beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler’s invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it’s ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.

    Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.

    This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn’t been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny spectacle, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to ‘hand over your Jews’.

    Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.

    Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it’s not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It’s like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).

    Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.

    I don’t really think this means anything. Nazis weren’t purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as ‘Aryan’. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn’t negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.

    Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.

    While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not… until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.

    And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.

    Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn’t informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It’s like it doesn’t matter if Mao wasn’t fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn’t order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can’t excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.

    While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn’t surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn’t surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to take out the violence on easy scapegoats.
    That said, it’s foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn’t take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it’s likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.

    By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.

    When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions.
    Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan was worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches.
    As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly ‘existential’ war that decided the fate of entire nations.

    Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.

    Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of ‘justice’ that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don’t think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.

    The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.

    There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn’t go face to face against an army. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all sorts of places, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia.
    In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.

    By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.

    American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.

    Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.

    The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.

    There is one key difference and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn’t harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, “Let’s kill all Japs” their was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR.
    In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And even after the war, had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren’t so vicious to all groups as the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn’t resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It’s all there in Hitler’s Table Talk.

    For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.

    But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.

  617. Taylor’s removal enacted an Oxford tradition of some antiquity. In 1868 Regius Professor (the first) political economist Thorold Rogers, a founder of the discipline, published a statistical study demonstrating that the wages of labor in England fell 83% (sixfold) from Tudor (1500) to Victorian times. He was dismissed the following year (Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations).

  618. @Ron Unz

    “Would you *really* want more people to become aware of my articles??!!”

    That’s what @soitgoes says above, when he/she queries whether the increase in your site’s popularity will be the end of you!
    Have you missed it?

    I also think that this is the case.
    To tag on their question, do you care what ADL may be doing to you later?

  619. Adrian says:
    @Wally

    Wally wrote:
    “– Rotterdam was indeed a legit military target .
    – Per the Hague conventions the bombing of cities IF they were under military occupation (ie “defended”), which was the case with Rotterdam & Warsaw.
    – There was no Dutch neutrality as they allowed Britain and France use of it’s airspace for military purposes against Germany.”

    The bombing had a military aim (to break Dutch resistance) but used a civilian target to achieve that. Hitler was a co-signatory to the agreement, reached under the aegis of the League of Nations, not to bomb civilian targets.

    And what are we talking about? The invasion of a neutral country that hadn’t shown any sign of belligerence was in itself a war crime. There is no evidence I know of that the Dutch willingly allowed foreign airforces to use their airspace. In the following summary of a Dutch Ph.D.thesis (University of Amsterdam , 2009) about the Dutch pre-war policy of neutrality (a policy they succesfully followed throughhout World War I) there is talk of violation of airspace (with no culprit mentioned) but the very word “violation” indicates that it did not happen with the connivance of the Dutch.

    The Ph.D. thesis is online and has the title;

    •van Gent, T. (2009). Het falen van de Nederlandse gewapende van neutraliteit, september 1939 – mei 1940. (“The failure of Dutch armed neutrality, September 1939 – May 1940”
    ).

    It has a very lengthy English language summary of which I have tried to pick out the essential points.The most essential point is this:

    [MORE]

    “That the Netherlands had to be occupied in any case was to prevent Dutch soil from being used at any time by the Allies for ground and air attack on the Ruhr Area, which was crucial for the German war industry. In contrast to 1914, in 1939-1940 the German commanders doubted the sincerity of Dutch foreign policy as well as the power of the Dutch defences. According to Hitler, sooner or later the Netherlands would succumb to Allied military, diplomatic and eco-nomic pressure and would abandon its ‘opportunistic’ neutrality. The risk of an Allied attack from the Dutch flank on the Ruhr Area, even for a gambler like Hitler, was too dangerous to contemplate.”

    So it was not an actual breach of neuitrality but a feared one that led to the decision to occupy Holland. The Venlo incident in whch two English secret agents were captured was actually a violation of Dutch sovereignty because an SS detachment had transgressed the border to get those agents (a great catch because they revealed a lot about British espionage activities on the continent, prersumably under torture in which the Gestapo were experts). Hitler made out afterwards that the Dutch had violated their neutrality policy because there was a Dutch officer involved, who died during the attack. I don’t know whether he was there on his own initiative or not.

    Summary


    When World War II broke out on 1 September 1939, nothing definite with regard to the Netherlands had been decided by the Germans, nor by the Allies. Neither party had any detailed battle plans for the Western front. Only in the winter of 1939-1940 were operational plans developed by the German and Allied military leaders in which the position of the Netherlands was reviewed a number of times …

    Before the outbreak of the Second World War German high command had not made concrete plans for an attack on the Netherlands. Hitler and the German air force command did recognise the strategic importance of the Netherlands in a possible war of Germany against France and the United Kingdom.

    In September 1939 the Germans were highly apprehensive of an Allied offensive on the Western front. While the majority of German forces were fighting in Poland, German defences of the western borders were vulnerable.

    In the autumn of 1939 the German army leaders expressed serious objections against the offensive against Western Europe ordered by Hitler, but he broke their resistance against the plans. The conflict did result in a serinous breach of trust between the General Staff (OKH) and the German leader, so much so that in November 1939 Hitler openly accused the German High Command of sabotage.

    The first German plan of attack on Western Europe (Fall Gelb) of 19 October 1939 was an unimaginative improvisation, which, if it had been carried out, would have had a slim chance of success. The German army leaders had slight confidence in the operation, which envisaged a main attack through Belgium and the Dutch province of Limburg. The Armee Abteilung N was to occupy the Dutch northern and eastern provinces up to the Grebbelinie. In the second German plan of operations of 29 October 1939, the Netherlands occupied a fundamentally different position. If the German offensive as desired by Hitler in early November 1939 had been carried out, only the south of Limburg would have been involved in the conflict as an area to be marched through. The rest of the Netherlands would have been left undisturbed by Germany. By the Holland Weisung of 15 November 1939 the conquest of the Netherlands up to the Grebbelinie again became part of the German plan of attack. The German offensive on Western Europe was postponed time and again, however. German doubts about the sincerity of Dutch neutrality were growing, also because of the Venlo incident, when two English secret agents operating in the Netherlands were captured by the Germans,

    From the entire planning of the German offensive on Western Europe it becomes clear that the occupation of the Netherlands was not to be taken for granted. The position of the Netherlands in the German plan of attack between September 1939 and March 1940 was subject to substantial changes. The conclusion can be drawn that Hitler’s decision to involve the Netherlands in the German plan of attack for Western Europe was not motivated by a wish to exploit the Dutch economy, nor by the exigencies of military operations. That Germany did take great interest in the occupation of the Netherlands is shown by the fact that the German army command deployed a substantial part (around 10%) of all available forces against the Netherlands. In view of the power relations between the German and Allied armed forces these were units which were urgently needed elsewhere on the Western front. That the Netherlands had to be occupied in any case was to prevent Dutch soil from being used at any time by the Allies for ground and air attack on the Ruhr Area, which was crucial for the German war industry. In contrast to 1914, in 1939-1940 the German commanders doubted the sincerity of Dutch foreign policy as well as the power of the Dutch defences. According to Hitler, sooner or later the Netherlands would succumb to Allied military, diplomatic and eco-nomic pressure and would abandon its ‘opportunistic’ neutrality. The risk of an Allied attack from the Dutch flank on the Ruhr Area, even for a gambler like Hitler, was too dangerous to contemplate.

    The United Kingdom had an outspoken opinion with regard to the Netherlands. Already in late January 1939 the Allies had been informed that any German attack on the Netherlands would be regarded as a casus belli. The Netherlands was strategically placed between the United Kingdom and Germany. It was of great concern to the British that the Germans might want to use Dutch navy and air force bases for attacking the United Kingdom. With regard to British policy in the case of the Netherlands in 1939-1940, there is evidence to show that there was an enormous discrepancy between the major political and strategic importance ascribed to the maintenance of Dutch independence on the one hand, and on the other the extremely meagre military contribution the British were prepared to make in support of the Netherlands in case of a German invasion. Eventually, the Netherlands were abandoned and British military ope-rations were limited to an attempt at destroying Dutch navy and air force bases and strategic oil reserves. At the same time the British had no qualms about putting pressure on the Dutch government to consult with the Allies on military issues, and to persuade the French to under- take military action in aid of the Netherlands, all in violation of neutrality. With regard to the French allies, the United Kingdom clearly used a policy of ‘passing the buck’.


    The fact that neutrality was at the basis of Dutch foreign policy could count on broad political and societal support during the period of mobilisation. Neutrality was both aim and means,
    and it determined Dutch actions on the international stage. The choice for a policy of neutrality had a pragmatic (it served Dutch national interest), and an idealistic (it served European interests) justification. The foreign governments, however, only had an eye for the pragmatic not to say opportunistic side of Dutch foreign policy. Indeed, they were not convinced of the sincerity of Dutch intentions of maintaining neutrality. The Germans regarded Dutch neutrality as insecure, in view of the country’s dependent relationship with the United Kingdom. The Allies were afraid that, under heavy German pressure, the Netherlands could decide for the Danish option, where a part or even all of its territory would be ceded to Germany without further ado. The way in which the warring great powers dealt with Dutch neutrality may at best be regarded as expedient, in view of the great pressure on Dutch trade, espionage activities and violations of airspace.

    The dilemma for the Dutch government, however, was that the military and diplomatic measures which, because of strict neutrality, had to be taken entirely independently, would never be sufficient for resisting a German attack. The question is whether the very accurate indications by Sas and others constituted sufficient justification for a radical breach of Dutch neutrality policies, let alone that openly siding with the Allies even before 10 May 1940 could have prevented the German invasion and subsequent occupation. More probably Dutch collaboration with the Allies would have given the suspicious Germans a certain reason for starting an invasion. Under the circumstances, maintaining neutrality was the only chance, although a slim one, of staying out of the war. The policy of neutrality was a product of pragmatic considerations, rather than idealistic ones. In fact, it was not a well-considered choice but a continuation of a tradition deeply rooted in politics and society. For the Netherlands in its strategic position, and because of its military weakness, there was no acceptable alternative to neutrality.

  620. @joekowalski9

    Russia At War: 1941-1945 – A History

    “Alexander Werth…was a British journalist. He was a war correspondent in Russia for the Sunday Times and the Guardian and a commentator for the BBC from 1941 to 1948”

    Well, if you trust a journalist employed by the BBC, by all means read the book.

  621. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient WWII Fact of the Day

    France Declared War On, and Invaded Germany, not the other way around.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

    • Replies: @szopen
  622. @turtle

    Well, I’ve long held that, for the typical monolingual American, if they intend to attack a foreign language, the obvious choice is surely Spanish. Just for starters, they’d typically get a lot more opportunities to practice Spanish than practically any other language. Both within the U.S. and traveling.

    [MORE]

    Of course, one could have some specific reason to learn German, like being in some very specific business or technical field where German companies dominate. French too, but there is a long tradition of studying French based on the notion of it being the language of culture and refinement and all that dating back to the 18th century or so. But I think that’s getting a bit anachronistic. Well, French also has the fact that it is the lingua franca in much of Africa, which could be useful for some people.

    But in the general case, I think most English speakers would do best starting with Spanish.

    So, my point was just that, if hardly any Americans are even getting anywhere with Spanish, then to talk about them learning German, much less Russian or Chinese, say, seems kind of beside the point, no?

    We are told that “German is too hard for Americans.”
    Are the Germans that much smarter than we are?

    Well, c’mon… It’s not just the smarter Germans who know German. Even the proverbial “village idiot” in Germany knows German! Everybody knows their first language.

    But it’s true that far more Germans are bilingual (or multilingual) than English speakers. But then again, far more Dutch are multilingual than Germans.

    Some of it is just that the smaller the country, the more obvious it is that one must know foreign languages. So they have much better language education (though, admittedly they have better education generally!) and far more emphasis on languages. In most of the anglosphere, being able to speak another a language was just never considered something that important. A bit of optional icing on the cake in one’s overall education, but not central.

  623. @Wizard of Oz

    Guernica had made clear what principles Hitler was likely to feel bound by

    Guernica LOL

  624. @CanSpeccy

    I said that subjects of the Britain’s imperial possessions should have been glad that Britain preserved the empire since the alternative would have been to come under the German or Japanese heel.

    Well, this is based on multiple degrees of conjecture really.

    Okay, it’s true that the Indian nationalists would have no particular interest in trading one colonial master for another. Obviously what they wanted was independence. However, the notion that they considered British rule so preferable to German rule, say, seems speculative.
    I think this is a case of you projecting your own assumptions on them.

    In any case, is there any reason to believe that ruling over the Indian subcontinent was ever part of Germany’s war aims — even at their most maximalist? I never heard of any such thing. One just hears about acquiring “Lebensraum” in the East, which is mostly Ukraine and such.

    As for Imperial Japan, as I recall, they were occupying Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and a huge swathe of China. (I might have left out a place or two…) It strikes me as unlikely that they were seriously contemplating running India. At least I never heard about that either.

    Mohandas Gandhi, the most prominent leader of the Indian independence movement, agreed, and indeed urged Indians to serve in the Imperial armed forces.

    I looked this up and I am pretty sure you are confusing Gandhi’s stance during WW1 with WW2. You might want to check that.

  625. @turtle

    Or that it is “too hard ” for Americans (even those of us of German heritage).

    I don’t think that, in the overall spectrum of languages out there, German is especially hard for English speakers — certainly compared to Russian, Chinese, Arabic… However, my sense is that Spanish is significantly easier than German.

    OTOH, I’m not so sure that French is easier than German for an English speaker. It might be a toss-up. French is more gnarly than Spanish and I think it’s harder for English speakers to get their mouths around the phonetics.

    Well, whatever… my main point would be that it’s not so much that Americans aren’t learning German specifically. They aren’t learning any language! By and large, they aren’t…

    • Replies: @turtle
  626. @Ron Unz

    …two decades ago I annihilated the bilinguals, a group so ferocious…

    Wow. That is quite something. But still, the important question is: who owns the movie rights?

  627. @Bardon Kaldian

    Typical Unzian goulash

    … marinated in salty Wehraboo tears.

  628. @Truth3

    Estimates of destruction levels of German cities hovered around 50% overall. 50%

    AKA Blitzkriegbümerangkarma is a bitch.

    • Replies: @Anon
  629. szopen says:
    @Truth3

    Another inconvienent fact: France was military ally of Poland (since WW1!) and Germany knew that; French opnely declared that if Germany would attack French ally, France would declare war. It’s like big Hans would want to beat some kid Janek for any reason, who is friend with big boy Jean. Jean says to Hans: if you would beat my friend Janek, I will hit you. I really really really mean it. Then Hans hits Janek and when Jean hits Hans, Hans is screaming “YOU STARTED!” and complains that if only Jean would break his promises given to Janek, then he could safely beat Janek without fear of any retaliation.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  630. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Zionism has everything to do with the causes of WW2. Churchill & the British had their own reasons for seeking the destruction of Germany, but zionist Jews in USA and Britain forced the issue, both in WW1 & WW2, with the goal of achieving removal of Jews from Russia / Germany and of acquiring a state of their own. THAT was a key underlying purpose of the wars.

    Indeed.

    Scores of millions of Christians horrifically slaughtered.

    Eastern Europe enslaved to Jewish Bolshevism.

    Germany utterly annihilated. It’s men dead or enslaved in the East (and the West). And its women raped wholesale.

    (America also enslaved Germans after the war was “over”. )

    Civilians aged 14–65 in the U.S. occupation zone of Germany were also registered for compulsory labor, under threat of prison and withdrawal of ration cards.[30]

    This was after the war was *over*, and the *good* guys had won. A nation raped and enslaved and brutalized.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

    And what was the global consequence of all this slaughter and horror with Europe’s cities burnt to the ground?

    Out of the ashes of Europa – Israel rises. Just three short years after the complete destruction of Germany and beyond.

    The lesson of Nuremburg? ~ It’s OK to commit genocide, slavery, aggressive wars, wholesale rape, land theft, racial supremacism, organ harvesting, collective punishment and anything else you wish, so long as it’s being done *by* Jewish supremacists *to* Gentiles. And especially if those Gentiles are Germans or Palestinians.

    And this has been the global metric ever since that war was “won”.

    Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation for generations. England’s empire dead and gone, reversed in fact, with its former colonies now colonizing England proper.

    The Western world in its death throes.

    As Israel is triumphant.

    All an accident of fate?

    All a coincidence?

    Or a direct consequence of Woodrow Wilson handing the keys of the US Treasury over to the world’s most sinister Zionist, Jewish supremacists?

    Only a complete idiot could ignore that America and the West are controlled in absolute terms by Zionist, Jewish supremacist$, as the Eternal Wars for Israel rage on, and any resistance to the ((unilateral power)) in the world today is crushed mercilessly by the drooling ZUS golem menacing the planet.

    9/11 was nothing more than ((their)) pretext to make the 21st century look like the last one: a fiend’s fest of slaughter and wars and misery.

    The Jewish supremacists calling card.

  631. szopen says:
    @Pedro Gomez IV

    Very nice comment, though I would recommend remembering that while Poles, Germans etc had their state, Jews had not; so while they could be Jewish organisations or individuals striving for particular goals, there was no organized World Jewry. Heck, in Poland you had Jewish organisations with widely different goals and sometimes at each other throats. And, as you said yourself, Polish Jews were despised by German and French Jews.

    Also, I recommend you to read the Phd thesis about Beck-Rydz Śmigły relations I linked above. It really adds to the understanding of the Polish-German relations. The thesis author claims Beck up to mid 1939 thought Hitler was reasonable guy, who could be trusted; because of that, military kept on planning defensive war against Russia, ignoring German danger; plan “Z” (defense against Germany) was not really finished even in September 1939.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Jon Baptist
  632. Rurik says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Style favors the “ignorant baffoon” hypothesis — “a typically arrogant, self-centered, bohemian, son-of-a-bitch academic” for instance.

    How so?

    When being an ‘arrogant, self-centered, bohemian son-of-a-bitch academic’ is the de rigueur qualification for becoming a tenured professor at any ivory tower den of intellectual and moral cowardice?

    Suggesting that such a professor would come under the dour scrutiny of his peers, is like suggesting that a politician might be ostracized by his fellows for being a venal liar and self-serving panderer.

    The only thing that gets an academic ostracized, is telling the truth.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html

  633. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    Overy raises a number of points.

    I’m going to get this for my Kindle. The question nagging me is whether or not I am missing some moral compass point that some people seem to have and I don’t. I can’t come up with any reason to be opposed to total war.

  634. szopen says:

    Damn, I started corrected the typos in my comment and then augmented it by a long paragraph and it timed out 😀

    Anyways, sometimes I wonder what’s in Ron Unz’ mind when he is publishing articles like that, and why he does not react to the various vicious, sometimes bordering on insanity, comments here. BY reacting I do not mean removal or something like that (I am for freedom of speech and I hate censorship; I think everyone, even total idiots, should have right to speak and write what they think), but simply replying. After all, I consider it not just a probability, but absolute certainty that a good part of commenters here, obsessing about Jewish this and Jewish that, would be more than happy if something sinister would happened to Jews, including Ron, no matter how hard they would protest now that absolutely, never, how dare I suggest that.

  635. turtle says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    They aren’t learning any language! By and large, they aren’t…

    No argument there. And, as I may have implied previously, I believe Americans should be learning other languages. The world is a very small place, these days.

    One counterexample is the Mormons. Their immersion learning program really works, from what I have seen, and is mandatory for all the young men doing their “mission,” as they call it. I once worked with a Mormon fellow who told me he learned Chinese that way. I was suitably impressed. Asked him, “Wasn’t that difficult?” He replied, “No, not really.”

  636. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    THAT was a key underlying purpose of the wars.

    LOL. Great to have the complex of competing national, racial, religious and business interests boiled down to one factor: those pesky Jews.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  637. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    would be more than happy if something sinister would happened to Jews, including Ron,

    yep,

    All those anti-Semitic Palestinians whining and grumbling about “the Jews this!’, the Jews that!’, blah, blah, blah… are nothing more than hate-filled racists insane with irrational anti-Semitism..

    .. huh szopen?

    You tell em!

    Hezbollah doesn’t aim weapons at Israel out of “defensive” reasons, but because they’re hate-filled, irrational anti-Semites and congenital terrorists!

    Tell them szopen!

    Assad opposes Israel’s god-given right to steal the Golan Heights out of an irrational hatred for all Jews, and it you gave Assad (or all Syrians or Iranians) the chance, they’d gas all the Jews (including Ron) because their hatred of Zionists has nothing to do with Israeli dropping bombs on their lands and murdering their citizens, but is rather a direct consequence of their congenitally evil and irrational anti-Semitism, huh?

    A Palestinian may say he’s mad about his slaughtered family, but in truth, it’s just an excuse to unleash his vile anti-Semitism and give it an outlet.

    A German lawyer or British historian may say they have a right to free speech, and to question historical narratives, but as soon as you give them an opportunity.. what do they do?!

    They question the Holocaust! and prove that they’re nothing more than anti-Semites, and so they belong in jail!

    You tell em szopen!

    I too am tired of all this Jew-hatred and lies. We need to set the record straight!

    ANY talk of Jewish crimes or treachery or the USS Liberty or 9/11, is all just veiled hatred by people who would, if they could, push Ann Frank into an oven and make soap and lampshades out of her skin!

    Anyone who says anything about dual citizens in places to foment wars, are just hate-filled anti-Semites who want to kill Ron Unz, and all his relatives, and kill Jesus (again) because He too was a Jew!

    • Replies: @szopen
  638. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Well, according to Taylor’s Wikipedia entry, he was fired from Oxford after teaching there for 25 years and despite his enormous popularity

    Actually, he wasn’t fired. He retained his college fellowship. As for his popularity, however enormous, must certainly not have been universal. He was an abrasive, and to many surely an obnoxious, person. I watched him in a live television debate with Cambridge history professor Hugh Trevor Roper in a debate about the Origins of WW2 on BBC television in 1961. At one point, during the discussion Taylor coolly remarked: “The trouble with you, Hugh, is you just don’t know your facts.”

    Roper was a pompous ass, but that kind of put-down, which seemed to be the common coin of Taylor’s discourse, is generally resented and long remembered. I suspect that folks at Oxford just got pissed off with Taylor and decided to take him take him down a notch.

    But in any case, what was your argument, intended though apparently unstated? In what way did Taylor’s book affect anything of any importance to anyone?

  639. @J. Alfred Powell

    A primary focus of British troop movements from 1939 forward was taking control of the oil fields of the Middle East from Syria to Iran and Saudi Arabia. This objective was pursued with far more promptitude, troops and materiel than were any attacks on the ostensible enemies on the European peninsula. There is no doubt whatsoever about these facts, and they are telling. Which is why they tend to go unmentioned in “official accounts.”

    If the oil supplies had been cut off, it would have been the end of the war for Britain. And then which country would have been used as the launchpad for the second front? A neutral country such as Ireland or Spain?

    British use of ground forces in Europe, without American and Canadian support and long preparations, would have amounted to a futile gesture, a noble failure.

    • Replies: @Fox
  640. Sparkon says:
    @szopen

    there was no organized World Jewry.

    Really?


    Daily Express, March 24, 1933

    The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.

    The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.

    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html

    • Replies: @szopen
  641. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    So is not Ron Unz responsible for fate of Palestinians? Wow. And what when, say, you would discover that you are 1/4 Jewish, would you suddenly scream at yourself for things done to Palestinians by some Israeli politicians?

    There is nothing wrong with pointing something bad done by people belonging to any ethnicity, religion or whatever. There are bad and good people in every nation; including mine (and Jewish). Me pointing to Germans’ behaviour is not anti-German. If, however, I would continue to gab about how evil Germans are and how world Germans conspired to start WW2 (in contrast to talk about individual Germans, or just using “Germans” as a shortcut for “German state in 1939”), how Germans dictate their interpretation of history to the west and so on – that would be weird behavior. There were a lot of Jews in Polish communist apparatus of oppression immedietely post war; but it does not mean that Jews, collectively, are guilty of that, or that this was result of some massive Jewish conspiracy. Similarly, in bolshevik apparatus there were a lot of Poles (until there were cleared from Czeka by Stalin during “Polish operation”). In fact, Dzierżyński was ethnic Pole. If someone, however, would start to scream about how evil Poles are because they helped installing bolshevism in Russia and every time he would go about how Poles are bad because of that, I would consider he has a serious problem.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  642. @Wally

    Knickebein was used when large groups of bombers attacked a city. It was less suitable in the early stages of the war when bombers attacked individual military targets.

    And please gives us the verbatim pilot testimony on your laughable claim.

    The raid that bombed London is mentioned by Norman Stone in his book “WWII – A Short History”. I do not have a copy of the book, so you will have to chase down the pilot’s testimony yourself.

    When there is a difference of testimony between Norman Stone and Wally, I am more likely to believe the former.

  643. @szopen

    no organized World Jewry

    Courtesy from the Library of Congress.
    “Bnai Brith International The Global Voice of the Jewish Community”
    https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00093328/

    • Replies: @szopen
  644. szopen says:
    @Sparkon

    Sometimes something happens which would spur Polish organisations to declare a boycott on someone and maybe many POles woudl follow; but the fact that many people independently do the same is not a proof that there is some shadowy organisation and there is “organized Polishry”.

  645. @Wizard of Oz

    I’m not going to do your research for you. You look it up. The record is clear.

    As for “childish,” you fit the bill. You’re either one of these thin-skinned moronic Brits who even today defend the empire, or some neocon shill who worships the fat drunk Churchill.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  646. szopen says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Wow, so you found an organization CLAIMING to represent all Jews and this is a proof that some organized World Jewry exist, which can be then blamed for WW2, communism, usury and flood in Bangladesh too.

    There is Polish congress in USA, which claims to represent interests of American citizens of Polish descendants. And guess what, vast majority of American Poles ignore that congress and it has abysmal membership. If that congress would support, say, Hillary, it would not mean “American Poles are supporting Hillary”. Can you get the distinction? I.e. imagine some IT nerds would create several IT nerd organisations, who would all start pursuing some progressive, leftist goals. You would be right to blam that organisations; but it would be insane to go around and start talking about how nerds are responsible for latest leftist craziness, not to mention to start inserting “nerd are bad” into every conversation (i.e. just look at the dr Thompson latest article about IQ testing where some idiot just HAD TO insert some variant of “Jews are bad” idiocy, despite there was nothing in the article or the discussion until this point until this comment).

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  647. Truth3 says:
    @szopen

    Fact… France & Britain did not need to declare war on Germany… but THEY DID.

    Fact… Polish leaders used the supposed “Britain & France to the rescue” card, STUPIDLY.

    Fact… Britain & France did NOT DECLARE WAR on the USSR, that also invaded Poland.

    What I learned from this…

    Brits are hypocrites and controlled by the Jews.

    France was arrogant and listened to and followed the Brits (((and Jews))).

    Poland was Stupid beyond belief.

    Enjoy your day.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @JMcG
  648. szopen says:
    @Truth3

    Sooo you are saying that French is responsible for keeping her word and standing by the side of her ally? How dare they! After all, Germans were absolutely reasonable to invade Poland and expect that French will abandon their ally and that they will break their own promise to join the war! Because if Hitler does not get what he wants, that’s a cosmic injustice!

    BTW, how it’s possible you don’t know that the reason Britain had not declared war on USSR was because guarantees were against Germany only and it was written in a secret addendum to the Polish-British military alliance pact?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

    By the expression “a European Power” employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  649. @James N. Kennett

    Churchill knew perfectly well that Britain alone could not fight a second front in Europe.

    How was Britain alone? Lots of people were fighting Germany in 1941 — Russia (as of June), the Serbs, Polish partisans, the entire British Commonwealth. America was delivering tanks, planes and bombs. Of course, “Britain fighting alone” is a big part of British national myth, allowing Brits to wallow in a combination of self-pity and pride when in reality, they should feel shame for not doing more. But thanks for agreeing with me that Churchill was much more interested in land acquisition.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  650. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    So is not Ron Unz responsible for fate of Palestinians? Wow. And what when, say, you would discover that you are 1/4 Jewish, would you suddenly scream at yourself for things done to Palestinians by some Israeli politicians?

    imbecile..

    My whole point is that no one that I’m aware of has ever hated Jews simply for being Jews.

    No one.

    Rather, what they criticize (likely sometimes hate) are the evils that some Jews perpetrate on others- like the Palestinians, (or Iranians or Libyans or Syrians or Lebanese or Germans or Swedes- who don’t want to be multicultural).

    But apparently you’re too stupid to understand even the simplest of concepts.

    Me pointing to Germans’ behaviour is not anti-German. If, however, I would continue to gab about how evil Germans are … …– that would be weird behavior.

    A day doesn’t go by when Germans aren’t somehow being maligned in the (((media))).

    There were a lot of Jews in Polish communist apparatus of oppression immedietely post war; but it does not mean that Jews, collectively, are guilty of that, or that this was result of some massive Jewish conspiracy.

    No, it doesn’t. You’re right about that.

    But the murderous, sadistic fiend- Salomon Morel, was coddled by the Jewish (supremacist) state, and implied that Poland’s attempts to bring him to justice was just more rank ‘anti-Semitism’.

    If John Wayne Gacy was Welsh, and fled to Wales, following a trial that convicted him of his beyond heinous crimes, and Wales told the US to fuck off, and that Gacy would be protected because the US was just anti-Welsh, then that might be cause to wonder about the Welsh mentality, no?

    Why would they protect a monster like that? Unless they too were monsters?

    Dzierżyński was ethnic Pole. If someone, however, would start to scream about how evil Poles are because they helped installing bolshevism in Russia and every time he would go about how Poles are bad because of that, I would consider he has a serious problem.

    No one that I’m aware of is going around screaming about ‘how evil Jews are’.

    No one.

    Rather, what people are exasperated by, is Jewish supremacism. And the treachery and malignancy of Zionism in the world today.

    No one that I’m aware of hates Goldie Hawn or Jerry Seinfeld. Even the Alt-right is enamored of Stephan Miller.

    But I myself am against the Eternal Wars for Israel. I’m against the squandered American lives, and the squandered trillions, and the unforgivable evils of slaughtering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children- all across the Middle East in slavish servility to Zionist, Jewish supremacists, OK?

    I’m against that. You could even say that on some level i ‘hate’ that.

    But guess what? As soon as I say that, some Jewish supremacist asshole will screech that any criticism of Zionism is de facto anti-Semitism.

    Did you know that?

    So what those assholes are trying to do, is imply that criticizing Salomon Morel – is the same as condemning all the world’s Jews.

    That is the metric that these Jewish supremacists assholes have set up, so that they could equate any criticism of Zionism to = wanting to push all Jews into ovens.

    Criticize the cowardly attack on the USS Liberty = means such a person wants to kill Ron Unz,

    huh?

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Germanicus
  651. German_reader says:
    @szopen

    and why he does not react to the various vicious, sometimes bordering on insanity, comments here

    That’s a weird question. I think it’s pretty clear that Ron Unz agrees on the main points with the “revisionists”, so why would he criticize them ?

  652. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    no one that I’m aware of has ever hated Jews simply for being Jews.

    There is no difference in hating Jews for being Jews, and hating Jews for some made-up excuses. And given this thread, where there are plethora of comments about Jews in general, world Jewry; and the thread about intelligence, where some moron suggested genetic reasons for Jews being evil; I think you are either blind, fooling yourself, or being deceitful. For example, amongst bolsheviks were a lot of Jews; but given that Dzierżyński was ethnic Pole and Stalin was a Georgian, someone like you who unironically writes about “Jewish bolshevism” is, simply put, a complete, insane moron with an unhealthy obsession. For example, Jews were overrepresented but not a majority in all newly established communist offices in territories conquered from Poland in 1939; but if they were also overrepresented amongst the victims. In Katyń amongst murdered officers were at least 438 Jews (e.g. the chief Rabbi of Polish army, Baruch Steinberg). When you then write lengthy comment like this one above, it just comes looking funny. You don’t hate all Jews! You like Ron Unz! It’s just you say “Jewish bolshevism” about a nightmarish regime, where Jews were overrepresented, but which was ruled by Georgian, and which employed hundreds of thousands of Russians, Poles, Latvians etc.

    Indeed, if Anatoli Karlin is right, you could put a lot of blame for bolshevism rise to power in Russia on Latvians and other foreigners too. Maybe you should scream about “Latvian bolshevism”!

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @tac
  653. @Pedro Gomez IV

    An impressive collection of balanced insights.

  654. @Rurik

    Pomówmy o ‚szlachcicu’ Dzierżynskim. Są materiały zaprzeczające jego szlachectwu. Feliks Dzierżyński ma to nazwisko od majątku Dzierżynowo w obwodzie mińskim. Posiadłość tę nabył ojciec Feliksa o nazwisku Rufin (Rubin)

    https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/feliks-dzierzynski-znow-patronuje-specnazowcom/

    Let’s talk about the “noble” Dzierżynski, There are materials rejecting his nobility.
    Feliks Dzierżyński got his name from the manor Dzierżynowo in the Minsk region.
    The manor was bought by Felix’ father Rufin(Rubin).

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
  655. Truth3 says:
    @szopen

    Nice try at the Straw Man approach… better brush up on your tactics, they aren’t effective against an intelligent opponent.

    What a blind spot you have. Obviously you don’t understand the nature of hypocrisy even though you probably could be the Poster Boy for Chutzpah, Inc.

    Bu the way… Are you uniquely a Polish practicioner of Sophistry, or are you simply a Polish Jew?

    In any case… Nice how you dodge Truth. Told me all I need to know about YOU.

    Forget the having a nice day sentiment.

  656. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    There is no difference in hating Jews for being Jews, and hating Jews for some made-up excuses.

    “Made up”?

    Was the Nakba made up?

    Was the Holodomor made up?

    Was the attack on the Liberty, made up?

    someone like you who unironically writes about “Jewish bolshevism” is, simply put, a complete, insane moron with an unhealthy obsession

    It was none other than Winston Churchill, who ruminated thus:

    This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)… this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

    I think you are either blind, fooling yourself, or being deceitful.

    Hmm..

    Maybe you should scream about “Latvian bolshevism”!

    I’m not screaming about anything.

    And I’ll unhappily concede that the worst of the scum in the world today, are the Gentile stooges of Jewish supremacists, slithering around in the halls of British Parliament and the ZUS congress.

    Bibi is a saint compared to John McCain. [RIH]

    Sure, there are a lot of goyim scum, and a lot of Jewish scum.

    What a reasonable person does- is judge one another on their behavior, not on their ethnicity.

    But it would be rather silly for Palestinians to pretend that they aren’t collectively being persecuted because they’re Arabs- by Jewish supremacists, acting as Jewish supremacists.

    If a Palestinian says ‘those Jewish supremacists (Zionists) who have murdered my relatives and stolen my lands so that they could create a Jewish supremacist state on the sacred land of my ancestors’, I certainly wouldn’t begrudge them their characterization of ‘Jews’ as such, would you?

    But if a Jew were to go to Palestine, and sincerely demand that the Palestinian people deserve justice and human rights, then do you think any Palestinian on the earth would want to harm such a Jew? Simply because they’re a Jew?

    Ron Unz wrote a very interesting piece on Leo Frank. Many dishonest and deceitful Jewish supremacists wanted to characterize the lynching of Frank as an act of irrational anti-Semitism.

    What Mr. Unz fleshed out, was that the charge was absurd, and that Frank was lynched for what he did, not for what he was.

    But that doesn’t stop the ADL from lying about it, does it?

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @szopen
    , @chris
  657. @szopen

    You would be right to blam that organisations; but it would be insane to go around and start talking about how nerds are responsible for latest leftist craziness.

    Email and protest the ADL/B’nai B’rith, CFR Leadership, Chabad, the Sanhedrin and the Knesset if you firmly believe what you are saying. I would be very proud to stand with you if you commit to that. Until then, your comments define you as a proxy of Jewish supremacy. You and your defense of individuals with a “chosenite” mentality are the problem.

    What is “insane” is that supposed “anti-hate” Jews are more interested in defending war-criminal Jews and destroying their “Amalek” critics. What is insane is organized Jewry collecting reparations for “crimes” and holding guilt on entire populations in countries such as Poland and Lithuania. What is insane is that many Jews hold “hate” as a virtue. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate

    Double standards aside, if specific Jews and Jewish organizations, under the banner of representing all Jews in general, can attack entirely innocent generations of Poles and Lithuanians of WWII abuses and collect on their hard-earned wages then Israel and its Diaspora are accountable for the mass murders committed by the Bolsheviks, Communists and Neo-Cons. Let’s also throw in there the responsibility of the cultural destruction throughout the world caused by the Jewish promotion of usury, sexual deviancy, abortion and weaponized migration.

    You have waved off the political power of organized Jewry regardless of the volumes of research and analysis uploaded here on Unz. Instead of supporting Ron Unz, Gilad Atzmon, Jeff Blankfort, Henry Herskovitz, Gerard Menuhin, and many others that tirelessly work on exposing the truth, you have thrown yourself in with the Hasbara that attack them endlessly.

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/pro-israel-neocons-abound-in-washington-and-theyre-calling-the-shots/

  658. Truth3 says:
    @Rurik

    Sure, there are a lot of goyim scum, and a lot of Jewish scum.

    Point is… the Goy scum are scum because of the Jews.

    So there.

    Chew on it @szopen.

  659. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    Great example of people with obsession. Someone is communist and he is undoubtly Polish. But he is a communist! Hence, he must be Jewish! And soon some fake materials would appear. The same is happening even in this thread, when one completely deluded idiot claims that Wałęsa was Jewish, Kaczyńscy were Jewish, and we have 4 million Jews in Poland.

    There is no doubt Dzierżyński was Polish. His father was Edmund Dzierżyński, his grandfather was Józef Dzierżyński. Dzierżynowo originally was called Oziembłowo and this was their family estate, and it were Dzierżyński’s father who decided to change the name of the estate INTO Dzierżynowo. The idiot who propagates this fake had not even bothered to check this fact.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  660. JMcG says:
    @Truth3

    Why didn’t Britain and France lift a finger when the Soviets invaded Finland?

  661. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    What a reasonable person does- is judge one another on their behavior, not on their ethnicity.

    Exactly! So why you keep using “Jewish bolshevism” to describe a regime in which Jews were overrepresented, but which in chief position had people from many different nationalities, and from two initial henchmen, Stalin was non-Jewish, and Lenin was quarter Jewish (his grandfather was Jewish who converted to orthodox christianity)?

    Jewish bolshevism: look at the Czeka, GPU, NKVD leaders. Dzierżyński, Polish. Mienżynski – Polish, though one (ONE) Polish historian claims, without proof, that he was Jewish (despite his mother was Russian and father was Polish noble). Jagoda – Jewish, shot on the order of Stalin in 1938. Jeżow – half Russian, half Lithuanian. Shot on order of Stalin in 1940. Biełoborodow – ethnic Russian, shot in 1938. Tołmaczow – no idea, seems to me ethnic Russian, shot in 1938. On order of Stalin. And finally, Beria, ethnic Georgian.

    According to Polish wikipedia, on chief positions in Soviet security, before the Great Purge, Jews were 38%, 32% Russians, 7% Latvians, 5% Poles. Now you would say: wow, you see, they were everywhere! But hey, then Stalin orders a purge, and after a purge Jews are 3,5% – the rest are often shot or put in Gulag. Wow, some Jewish bolshevism.

    It’s like calling Ottoman “Slavic regime” because Ottomans kidnapped kids from Slavic regions and raised them to be Janissaries, and many got to very high position in Ottoman court.

    If you, on the other hand, think there is something inherently “Jewish” in bolshevism regardless of whether it is ruled by Georgian who could purge his janissaries at any moment at a whim, then this denies your claim that you judge people on behviour; because here you would attribute an ethnic label to a whole political movement, ie. attribute some inherent ethnic traits to an ideology.

    And if so, then why don’t you use phrase “Jewish libertarianism”, too? Rothbard, Friedman, Ayn Rand… All Jewish, too. I would say it would be even more legit.

    Do you get what I am saying, even? Because you claim you understand it and it’s obvious, but then you use phrase “Jewish bolshevism”… One thing is point to historical facts: that many communists were ethnically non-Russian: Poles, Jewish, Latvians. Another thing is to then conclude that the whole movement is “Jewish” and then to tie that to Isreal misdeeds toward the Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  662. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pedro Gomez IV

    You offer an interesting and well-informed perspective that I will study at length. But I would like to suggest that the notion of WWII as an unnecessary war makes little sense given that in 1939 the Soviet Union was (a) by far the world’s largest empire of contiguous territory, (b) a slave state with more than 7% of the world’s population, (c) a state that had been committed for almost a decade to industrialization and militarization at break-neck speed, massively aided by the import of Western technology paid for by grain exports resulting in the the death of millions of Russians and Ukrainians, and (d) committed to global revolution.

    Does that look like a situation in which war against the Soviet Union would be “unnecessary”?

    Now consider the actions, not the motives, of the Western powers. They tolerated the Ansluss, or Germany’s armed takeover of Austria, which was in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, and they facilitated Germany’s Eastward expansion into Czechoslovakia and Poland.

    Why? Stupidity, feebleness, or guile?

    The outcome of Western policy was German aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland, which demonstrated the capacity of the German armed forces for highly effective action and, moreover, it brought German forces right up to the Russian border in confrontation with Russia vast but recently decapitated military of questionable reliability and competence under the overall command of a tyrant who Hitler stated must have “a disease of the brain.”

    What must Hitler have then thought?

    Here, he must have seen, was a chance to win Germany’s great Eastern empire of which Otto von Bismarck could only dream.

    But having brought Germany to the brink of war with Russia, what did the Western nations do?

    Why, they backed Russia with massive quantities of arms and ammunition, trucks, planes, tanks, ships, whatever.

    The result?

    Near deadlock and a bleeding to death of both Russian and German forces.

    Does that look like mission accomplished for the Western powers, or what?

    But the danger remained. The ultimate winner of the battle in the East could still, by gathering up the vast resources of a gigantic territory, turn West and clean up the rest, the rest of Europe, that is.

    What to do?

    Obviously, prepare a backstop, namely, Operation Overlord, or the D-Day landings in Normandy, which cleaned up the exhausted German forces in Europe and confronted the exhausted Russian army before it had passed the Western border of Germany with fresh, massively well equipped, Western forces.

    At that point Stalin, having already lost over ten percent of his population in the war, decided not to push his luck.

    So no, it was not an unnecessary war. It was a war engineered by the Western powers, in which both Hitler and Stalin gambled to obtain a vast enlargement of territory, if not global dominance, but which left both dictatorships badly damaged and the Western powers dominant upon the World stage.

    This of course is a totally heretical view here. The idea that the Western powers were anything but bribed incompetents blundering around causing world chaos for no measurable gain is apparently inconceivable. But it might, nevertheless, be true.

  663. @Pedro Gomez IV

    No matter how Der Fuhrer is analyzed, no one should ‘glorify’ his heartless disregard of human rights, national security, international relations and flagrant bellicosity. Germany suffered an economic debacle after WWI. Its citizens were living hand-to-mouth (Jews excepted..) pushing wheelbarrows full of worthless currency into markets to purchase scant staple supplies, very much like Venezuelans are doing today. Zionists aided Hitler’s campaign to restore Germany to her former glory, employing the same old pitch about how the ‘right kind’ of government can solve all economic and social issues. This ruse was developed to appeal to a newly hatched electorate (Women and minorities) who viewed their leaders as incompetent, elitists, authoritarian and greedy.

    So, what else is new?

    The people of Germany learned the hard way that Socialism in any form subordinates citizens to an expanding, increasingly dictatorial regime. If we see fit to canonize Hitler, we should hoist him up as an example of the vagaries of Socialism, and reactionary governments.

  664. @szopen

    Seriously, you come across as an Abe Foxmann clone, hysterically whining and screaming.

    Dzerzhinsky was one of the most ruthless and sadistic Bolsheviks, and a mass murderer..
    It has a reason, why his name was and is used for the most important special units in Soviet empire and even modern Russia.
    Given the Bolsheviks were up to 90% jewish, what are the chances they honor one of their elite units with a non jew?

    There is nothing more effective than a bullet in the head to shut people up.

    wrote Dzerzhinsky in May 1918 to a subordinate.

    The Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment (German: Wachregiment “Feliks E. Dzierzynski”) was the paramilitary wing of the Ministry for State Security (Stasi), the security service of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).

    The Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment was an elite motorized infantry regiment under the command of the Stasi to protect buildings and personnel of the GDR government and the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The regiment was composed of experienced and ideologically reliable men separate from the National People’s Army that could be deployed to suppress rebellion and unrest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky_Guards_Regiment

    Stasi was run by Markus Wolf, a Jew, who also helped building the Dep. of Homeland Security in US.

    I bet you see it like him, if you were able to, you’d do that to all the commentators you disagree with.

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @szopen
    , @szopen
  665. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    BTW, “Rufin” is not “Ruben”. Feliks’ father had two names: Edmund Rufin Dzierżyński. Rufin is a christian name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufino_(given_name) in Polish: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufin

    Here you have a forum, where some descendants of Dzierżyński’s appeared, correcting the initial thread author (that their coat of arms was Samsung, not Sulima). Brother of Dzierżyński, profesor Władysław (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Dzier%C5%BCy%C5%84ski), was murdered by gestapo during the occupation, in 1942, in a public execution (shoting hundred Poles in retaliation for two Germans killed). Another brother, Kazimierz, was shot together with his wife, when she refused to sign a document making her a Reichsdeutsch (even threatened by death, she insisted she is Polish source: https://kresy24.pl/iwonna-kasta-lucja-i-kazimierz-dzierzynscy-z-iwienca/).

    That’s the most disgusting form of antisemitism: someone is scum, so you invent some fake stories to prove he is Jewish.

  666. @Germanicus

    People make their own cultural beds. These leaders who institute pogroms do not arrive aboard war wagons to conduct coups and assassinations, they introduce elements of Socialism to appeal to the masses, signifying a “Change” (Sound familiar?) of leadership which will provide for constituents, taxing the rich and fostering “Equality” (Sound familiar) of races, genders, incomes, etc. Only after the majority electorate has been conditioned to reflexively defend all actions of their regime do those beneficent nabobs disrobe from their sheep’s clothing, and commence their tyrannical agendas.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  667. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    You are insane.

    No, Jews were not 90% of bolsheviks, unless you use your revolutionary method as “he was sadistic mass-murdered, therefore he was Jewish!”. Dzierżyński was an ethnic Pole. I wonder when you will start to claim Beria and Stalin were Jewish, too.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  668. @CanSpeccy

    But I would like to suggest that the notion of WWII as an unnecessary war makes little sense given that in 1939 the Soviet Union was (a) by far the world’s largest empire of contiguous territory, (b) a slave state with more than 7% of the world’s population, (c) a state that had been committed for almost a decade to industrialization and militarization at break-neck speed, massively aided by the import of Western technology paid for by grain exports resulting in the the death of millions of Russians and Ukrainians, and (d) committed to global revolution.

    1. Much of Russia/USSR is like Canada. Useless territory with more icebergs than people. On the map, USSR looked impressive, but most of the land was unsettled and frozen. It’s like ‘red’ areas on the US map seem far more numerous than ‘blue’ areas, but many ‘red’ areas are rural and have more cows than people. Sure, Russia with its vast resources has great potential, and the Soviet Union did exploit its great resources to its advantage. But Stalin focused mainly on national communism. As for Trotsky, he had such low opinion of lazy stupid Russians that he thought communism could only succeed if it was exported to Germany with its industry and industrious folks. Stalin built up Russia mainly for defense. He knew that the Reds almost lost to the Whites(who even had support of foreign powers). He knew why Russia lost to Germany in WWI. His means were criminal and inhuman, but it did pay off dividends in WWII when Russia was able to absorb the blows and then push back.

    2. While Stalin was a genuine communist, he was too paranoid and egotistical to bring about world communist revolution. For example, he had trepidation about Mao, especially after Mao out-maneuvered Wang Ming who was trained in USSR.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Ming

    Some historians think Stalin would have preferred Chiang over Mao as Mao had an independent streak and a communist China might rival Soviet authority. In the case of Spain, Stalin exerted more energy in ordering communists to fight Trotskites and Anarchists than Franco. Stalin was a real communist, but he didn’t tolerate heresies, which was any form of communism that wasn’t under his direct control. Finally, Stalin preferred to deal with rightists and anti-communists than heretical/independent communists who defied or deviated from the Moscow Line. As such, Stalin was a poor promote of world revolution.

    3. As John Lukacs has often remarked, communism simply had no chance of winning outside Russia where it succeeded only because of chaos unleashed by WWI. Communist putsch failed in Germany and Hungary. On eve of WWII, nearly all European nations were either liberal bourgeois capitalist or right-wing(Greece, Hungary, Romania, Poland, etc.) Franco won in Spain, and Mussolini was revered by Italians. Also, Stalin’s brutality turned many off to communism. Even though many Western intellectuals had romantic notions about Russia, the Catholic Church and rightists did an effective job of spreading anti-communist fears. Lukacs notes that not a single European nation freely chose communism outside Russia. Communism spread throughout Eastern Europe ONLY BECAUSE Hitler’s War on Russia failed, and then Russians steamrolled into areas that had been allied with Germany. And when the people were given the freedom to choose in 1989, all Eastern Europeans said NO MORE to communism.

    4. During the Cold War, the communist nations were in defensive mode. They weren’t preparing to invade the West with tanks but erecting barriers to Western consumer culture that had such worldwide appeal. In that sense, East German government feared blue jeans more than West German government feared communist tanks.

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @CanSpeccy
  669. That’s the most disgusting form of antisemitism

    I am not against Arabs or Palestinians.

    Why are you so disgustingly anti-gentile?

  670. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    I bet you see it like him, if you were able to, you’d do that to all the commentators you disagree with.

    You are double insane. I am anticommunist, and I am all for freedom of speech for everyone, even for lunatics like you, who think that Dzierżyński is Jewish, because there was a communist unit named after him. And communists, you claim, were 90% Jews, and Jews, you claim, are unable to honor non-Jew.

    Go to hell. You will meet all your idols there, Hitler, Himmler and all other murderous, criminal scum.

  671. @Priss Factor

    What makes a war ‘necessary’? You can cite economic factors, international aggression, avenging hapless populations from their tyrants or natural resource exploitation (The Middle East, for example. Africa, too.) Wars don’t have to be justified, glorified or ‘necessary’. Unless your person or property are adversely affected, you’ll be on the sidelines trying to make sense of conflicts and the assholes who start them.

  672. chris says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Thank you Carlton for providing the CIA talking points on this topic! I especially like the recitation of the credentials of the author:

    “I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.”

    I certainly am willing to believe that he may well have “been privy to … classified material,” but notice, he’s not saying that he is actually transmitting that information in his article; only that he has seen it. And it’s not like it would be inconceivable for the CIA to be cooking the books a bit in preparation for the next war, would it now?

    I’m just bustin you Carlton, these points certainly do not constitute the complete proofs of my contention that Iran is not known to have used chemical weapons, but you citing CIA cypher against all other sources is a very far cry from debunking logic and the current popular knowledge on the subject also.

  673. @szopen

    You are really not the brightest candle in the menorah.

    No, Jews were not 90% of bolsheviks

    Would you please write to Mr Putin’s office and ask for withdrawal of his statement, when he told the Chabad rebbes, that 80-85% of the Bolsheviks were Jews?

    The entire Soviet system was riddled with Jews in key position, such as the vast Gulag system, intelligence, military and secret police. Statistics just show Jews were overrepresented in the councils and other Soviet organizations, political directorate, up to 90%.

    I wonder when you will start to claim Beria and Stalin were Jewish, too.

    I posted earlier an article from Israeli YNet titled, “Stalin’s Jews”, and I respect the author of this article for telling some truth, that has been long overdue.

    Don’t be more silly than you are already, Beria was a Georgian, and most probably murdered Stalin by poison. The ethnic roots of Stalin are contested, I think he was Georgian, but he had jewish women and was surrounded by Jews, as even YNet pointed out.

    You seem pretty desperate, Abe.

    • Replies: @chris
    , @szopen
  674. chris says:
    @Rurik

    Thanks Prospero for trying to beat some sense into Caliban (szopen), but I’m afraid, like in the story, it won’t stick. Keep up the great work Rurik !

    • Replies: @Rurik
  675. @David Baker

    Sure, you got a socialist system in the US as well, it is global, euphemistically called “globalism” nowadays, a pity the Americans don’t get it. They helped to installe it by waging war on Germany with their Soviet allies.
    It slowly but steadily bites them in the bum these days, and if they don’t wake up, they gonna have death penalty for “anti-semitism” just like in Soviet Union. Trump said something along these lines.
    I could sarcastically call it “blow back”.

    I often refer to Social Democracy, it is masonic international Socialism(Communism) light, but entry point to ever more “we know better than you what is good for you, and if you resist our red nanny, we will take you out” kind of thing.

    The communist empire was officially recognized by the West as democratic, and they all sit together in the useless war alliance UN, which promotes communism, social democracy and other sickness. Latest, climate panic by abusing a disabled child.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  676. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Stop digging chum. Your bluff has been well and truly called. It’s you that should be learning something from all those diaries and letters you hadn’t even thought of. You should be apologising to UR readers either for presuming to comment when you are grossly ignorant or for a slip when you ere being inattentive and were just blustering.

    Should we take your moniker as sufficient warning?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  677. @CanSpeccy

    The idea that the Western powers were anything but bribed incompetents blundering around causing world chaos for no measurable gain is apparently inconceivable. But it might, nevertheless, be true.

    This scenario sounds quite plausible: Western elites manipulated, exploited and profited from conflict between Hitler and Stalin, Germany and the Soviet Union, Nazis and Communists.

    This is rather elementary political chess.

    One might also also entertain the possibility that Western elites have been manipulating, exploiting and profiting from conflict between Zionists and anti-Zionists and Jews and anti-Semites for the entire life of Israel through the present.

    How many billions of dollars has the military-industrial complex handily pocketed from Mideast conflicts over the last seven decades? Between Iraq and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?

    Looking forward, one might wonder what impact advanced and classified AI systems will have on the game of global political chess. Those in possession of the better algorithms are likely to win.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  678. Fox says:
    @James N. Kennett

    “Noble failure” – preventing any agreement amongst the countries concerned, making sure that a war breaks out, expanding it from a local conflict to a world conflagration and then cloak it all in the famous British cant with words such as “noble”, it is verily amazing how such a bankrupt and disastrous policy as pursued, such a course of action as enforced by England can have any adherents. It left a world in ruins, a permanently destroyed Europe with no future, the demonization of its inhabitants and the establishment of a satanic cult of damnation, death and of victimhood. Or is the failure of England’s will put in action so extreme that it just has to have a reason stalwart defenders of England’s (I could even say the major Allies’) expectionality in world affairs want to believe in, in order not to become crazy? The choice is indeed not a pretty one, either justify wholesale destruction or go officially over the edge. I think that reality has made a choice and installed the crazy crew of “democratic” politicians who are making sure that all of Europe’s offspring is marked for death, the sneaking realization of the ill-conceived choice of total war and self-emasculation as put in action on September 3, 1939.

  679. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @joekowalski9

    Your anal pain is informing your beliefs and is causing you to speak retardedly. If 90% of guys here can agree on one thing, it is that there were no “good” or “bad” guys except the (((elites))), and atrocities were committed by all sides in many forms.
    It has been explained several times that the Nazi belief that Slavs were “unter” is an exagerated myth and Hitler himself was positively inclined towards Russians/other Slavs of good stock and intelligence.
    Finally the mass rape by Russian soldiers in Germany is common knowledge.
    Put some anal ointment on your battered anus and try to relax.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  680. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    I know that Sidney Warburg is a pen name. The question is, how much reality is there to what he wrote. In my reply to Ron Unz about Brünning I made the allusion in the first place, because Brünning certainly knew the story (in fact, having been a leading politician in the decisive period, he certainly knew much more, at least by hints). That could have been the background when he wrote to Churchill that Hitlers most important backers were jewish.

    Anthony Sutton makes the point, that Hitlers German backers are known, because the documents were found and exposed in the Nuremberg trials, while any foreign backers would have done everything to cover up their part in the rise of the Nazis. In fact, the fate of the Warburg book proofs, that there was quite a lot to cover up.

  681. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bragadocious

    #693 was meant for you but misfired owing to careful checking of what you were blowing off about. Not likely to happen to you.

  682. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Oops! a reply to the well named bliffer Bragadocious #662

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  683. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @tagaruda

    WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE. Are you trying to tell me Wikipedia is not a neutral online encyclopedia but actually a (((biased))) snakepit of leftist propaganda?
    NO WAY
    😀

  684. You might get away with Trump like rhetoric before an audience of half wits but you can’t really get away with “a permanently destroyed Europe with no future” attributed to 1930s decisions (or at all unless you are donning the robes of prophet). Try checking the flow before turning on the rubbish tap.

    • Replies: @Fox
  685. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    I don’t disagree with the points you make. Nevertheless, the Western powers were concerned, indeed obsessed, by the Soviet menace. Bertrand Russell, the grandson of a British Prime Minister, going so far as to advocate a nuclear first strike on Russia in the immediate aftermath of WW2. And it was the case that the Communist International (Commintern) was heavily funded by the Soviets and engaged in widespread subversion in the Western world, funding unions, newspapers, and spies.

    And indeed, the Brits, certainly, had good reason to fear a Communist takeover in view of the power of Britain’s labor unions and the Labour Party (many members of which were crypto-Communists) that represented them in Parliament. And a socialist takeover is what they had under the post-war Atlee government, although Atlee (who remarkably, was raised by the same woman, Mrs. Everest, as Winston Churchill) was a democratic socialist, and therefore did not make the transition to socialism permanent.

    Nevertheless, the socialists in Britain, through the wrecking actions of Moscow-controlled, or Trotskyite unionists, were largely responsible for the abysmal performance of the post-war British economy. What’s more, the socialists are still powerful in Britain under the leadership of the dismal Corbyn. I would say, therefore, that the Western powers were correct to see Communist subversion, backed by Russia, as huge threat.

    And though Stalin may have had serious failings as a leader, he nevertheless demonstrated the enormous power of the Soviet Union, driving it to ultimate victory, albeit with Western aid, against the superbly disciplined German military.

  686. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fool's Paradise

    Of course he did. As has been said often, the Holocaust is the modern Jewish religion and without it and the Ebul Natsees, their entire system collapses.

    • Replies: @turtle
  687. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sean McBride

    How many billions of dollars has the military-industrial complex handily pocketed from Mideast conflicts over the last seven decades?

    I would guess that you should have said “how many trillions of dollars” not “billions”.

    Yes, as you say, the next war may be settled by a piece of code, or the lack thereof.

    Perhaps national security will come to depend on a global agreement to treat computers like the smallpox virus and eradicate them entirely. Either that, or the computers are likely to eradicate us.

  688. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @turtle

    Okay, I believe that you (and Ron, also?) are making a common error about generations.

    — Persons born abroad who naturalize as citizens are immigrants. That includes your friend who came from Japan at age 13.

    — Children born here from immigrant parents are 1st generation.

    IDK what Ron could mean by 2nd generation. That would obviously depend on whether the 1st gen [born here] married to a same foreign language speaker, or made a big effort to stay connected to the 2nd gen.’s grandparents, etc.

    I’m a 1st gen. of parents who immigrated from different countries and only spoke English to each other. Grandparents dead and gone. My loss. And neither of their languages was taught in schools here. But I’ve known people (in Europe) who work at this, like a couple who speak separate languages to their children (German and French) and English to each other. So the kids know all 3.

    • Replies: @turtle
  689. @refl

    Anthony Sutton makes the point, that Hitlers German backers are known, because the documents were found and exposed in the Nuremberg trials

    Full stop here, Nuremberg “trials” were a continuation of allied war efforts, as outlined clearly in its statutes. It states exactly that. Same for the Tokio show trials. You should read these.
    These “trials” “established” a lot of “facts”, forged documents etc… and they desperately cling to this day on this shameful mockery of justice.

    But please answer the following.
    Why would the Jews put Hitler in power, when they already took over Germany in 1919?
    The Weimar Republic was called the Judenrepublic(Jew republic) by the German people.
    This masonic democratic jewish corrupt and inapt regime imprisoned Hitler in Landsberg.

    After Hitler came to power, he shut down Rothschild operations, had Luis de Rothschild arrested, and deported two Rothschilds, who died from Typhus in a camp, Minna and Pauline Rothschild.
    The Jews lost control of the money creation they had inWeimar, the jewish controlled Reichsbank by mason Schacht was circumvented by the Rentenmark, currency tied to labor.
    Schacht was btw not touched in the IMT show trials.

    The Jews already financed and controlled the Soviets, the UK, France, and the US, but they lost control over Germany they had from 1919 until 1933, It simply enraged them that WWI was for nothing, so they repeated it in part 2.
    Additionally, Judea declared war on Germany one day after the “Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich” which the enemy propaganda called “enabling act”, Germany was starving caused by the corrupt, unstable and traitorous inapt democratic Weimar regime.

    Why would the Jews finance Hitler and NS Germany with the declared goal to abolish interest slavery as outlined by Gottlieb Feder in “manifesto on breaking the shackles of interest” published in 1919 and “The Fight against high finance” published in 1933?

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @refl
  690. Fox says:
    @Germanicus

    I read recently Montgomery Belgion’s Epitaph to Nuremberg, published in 1946. It discusses in the form of a dialogue between two people purpose, origin and perhaps portent of this continuation of the war by legaloid procedures.

  691. Wally says:
    @refl

    said:
    “Anthony Sutton makes the point, that Hitlers German backers are known, because the documents were found and exposed in the Nuremberg trials …”

    And what alleged “documents” were these?

    • Replies: @refl
  692. @Anonymous

    So you’re too stupid to reply to the correct poster and you’re calling me out for some perceived shortcoming? Piss off you plank.

  693. @Fox

    Go Fox!!!! I think you meant in line 9 to use “exceptionality in world affairs” rather than expectionality. Please explain if I am wrong. I know you’re not a native English speaker by some of your sentence peculiarities, but you do get your point across! Yes, the offspring of those who brought us WWII are ready to take the whole European race down rather than to admit how wrong they were.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Seraphim
  694. @refl

    You have told me that you are a German of the younger generation living in the FRG, but if so, how would you be spelling Brüning’s name with two n’s, as you’re doing. And why would you put faith in Anthony Sutton? Please do a better job of explaining what the “fate of the Warburg book” proves to you.

    • Replies: @refl
  695. turtle says:
    @anon

    OK.
    Clarification of terminology is fine by me.
    My admittedly limited experience is that 1st gen native born (children of naturalized immigrants) learn to speak perfectly fluent, unaccented English. They also retain perfect, unaccented language of their parents (Mexican Spanish, in this case). They may speak both languages at home, but do not mix the two ( no Spanglish). The parents, though reasonably fluent in English, occasionally reach for words (awkward constructs, “how do your say?”, etc.) , and retain their “foreign” accents forever.
    No offense to any of them. If they are decent, law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes and contribute to society (as most are), I wish them all well.

    So the kids know all 3.

    I’ve heard of that also, which I think is terrific.

    • Replies: @anon
  696. @Zumbuddi

    Mowrer’s book presents interesting observations on many subjects. How much they should be trusted, one by one, is, one by one, a difficult question.

    Mahl’s book is much more important — it is key, in fact, on its subject — and much more trustworthy and highly recommended.

  697. turtle says:
    @Anon

    Ebul Natsees

    Nha-Tsis.
    Native American people, indigenous to the great American Southwest.
    Originally from Tibet, by way of the Bering Strait.
    Famous for the swastikas on their turquoise and silver jewelry.
    True Aryans all, and mostly vote Republican.
    cf. “Yah-ta-hey”

  698. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you for pointing this out, I did indeed mean “exceptionality in world affairs”.

    Typing errors escape my attention more easily on the screen than in print.

  699. @Fox

    Well, it is certainly interesting to see all the adverse consequences of WWII blamed on Britain, both for declaring war on the Germans and also for not waging that war effectively!

    Britain and France gave in to pressure, some of it from the USA, to give Poland a guarantee. It is arguable that this was a bad choice. Even if they were determined to fight the Germans, it would have been better for Britain and France to wait until the Germans were in a weaker position. When Germany declared war on the USA, it would have been much easier to open a second front in the West if France and Benelux had not been occupied.

    If I remember correctly, British forces formed about 25% of the western allies fighting after Operation Overlord. I do not believe it would have been possible to sustain the Western Front with only 25% of the forces that actually took part, and this is the main reason why Churchill did not try.

    • Replies: @Fox
  700. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    The next book to read on this subject, which I suspect you will find more absorbing, not so dry, and much wider ranging in its reference, is Stephen H. Roberts, The House That Hitler Built (London, Methuen, 10 editions between 1937 and 1939, the later the better). Roberts was an Australian academic –a sociologist or historian, I think — who spent 18 months in Germany and wrote about what he saw and learned.

    Thanks. I actually had the Roberts book around somewhere, so dug it out and read it. As you say, it wasn’t nearly as dull as the Gordon book and did have some interesting material. But I still think the Lothrop Stoddard and Arthur Bryant books were far more interesting, though it’s possible that’s partly just because I read them first. But overall, all four books seem to provide a reasonably consistent picture.

  701. @Bragadocious

    Of course, “Britain fighting alone” is a big part of British national myth, allowing Brits to wallow in a combination of self-pity and pride

    Yes, Churchill himself promoted this myth, but Britain was alone only from the fall of France until Operation Barbarossa.

    when in reality, they should feel shame for not doing more.

    What do you think Britain should have done?

  702. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What exactly is the ‘European race’?

  703. @Germanicus

    I’m well aware how far along the U.S. has advanced toward communism. Socialism is the current craze. Useful idiots are lapping up the dictates of bureaucratic fanatics fronting climate change, open borders and equality schemes as justifications to exceed their authority and, particularly, their crusade to disarm Americans. That agenda alone should pique the ears of anyone who’s remotely privy to the 2nd Amendment, and how Americans were supposed to be able to remove tyrants–oneth by votes, twoeth by force. If those aforementioned morons could only discern the nefarious agendas which will precede the wholesale repealing of our Bill of Rights, they would toss their copies of “It Takes a Village” into the Potomac.

    Better yet, they should toss them into Boston Harbor.

  704. Bolteric says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks Mr. Unz.

    It’s a good analogy with “mana”. I don’t know if I’d personally be able to pull it off. Incidentally, Mr. Giraldi just wrote on what we can do – harassing our local representatives. It’s hard to be on the hot seat.

    Without giving away any trade secrets, what is readership at these days? Commenters are a different breed, of course.

    I’d have to say the article that most caught me by surprise was the JFK one. But it proves the level of ignorance most of us dwell in, assuming the Piper hypothesis is true – likely, as it’s the best conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard. Thanks for putting that book online here, I’m a third the way through.

    Back to WWII. It is most important of all discussions and perhaps political positions. I say this as the ME has been laid to considerable waste over the last three decades. While I have considerable German heritage 40-50%, I know of no surviving relatives on the old continent. I think a few met my grandparents at one point, but they were not well received – not surprisingly given the thesis here. I may make a few friends though if I start also referring to Churchill as “The Drunken Bum”.

    Irving has struck me as very human from all the videos and from the pieces of writing I have read < 100 pages. His position of what is truly tragic is the loss of innocent life is as heartfelt as any person I know. He is without a doubt one of the bravest men alive. Of course, there is so much we don’t know or can’t know. I wonder what areas or questions remain that still might be effectively researched. Do we know many individuals doing that at present?

    Israel today. Is the any way to work with her? People like Bill Kristol – are they at all reasonable with these issues? How does the US avoid being the next Germany?

    • Replies: @lysias
  705. Ron Unz says:
    @soitgoes

    You were puzzled by the lack of reaction from the ADL and the like.
    Since you publicly pronounced that wonderment, can you publicly hypothesize on it?
    Is it the lack of traction in hoi polloi?
    Would it be that an increase popularity of your — and contributors’ – views might prompt the curtain fall?!

    I’d already somewhat responded to your question upthread:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#comment-3468582

    But I’d tend to doubt the ADL and its circle will decide to start bothering me now, given that they seem to have spent the last year or two in hiding. However, I’d certainly be very pleased if they would, so maybe some of the more energetic commenters here can start spamming them on Twitter or whatever, making fun of them, baiting them, accusing them of cowardice, that sort of thing.

    One thing to keep in mind is that a very substantial number of mostly-mainstream academics and journalists have been on my regular distribution list for years, many of them reasonably prominent. So I’d guess that the vast majority of them have been fully aware of my “controversial” writings over the last year or more. Yet not a single word seems to have appeared in print anywhere, even on the sort of webzines that would normally love to publish something “scandalous and exciting.”

    Presumably, some of these people have gotten in touch with the ADL-types and asked for their perspective. I can only guess that they’ve been urged in the strongest possible terms to keep totally silent and avoid creating any public “controversy.” So I think it’s not just that the ADL has avoided attacking me, but they’ve very actively been discouraging anyone else from attacking me.

    Now if the ADL and all its friends are indeed utterly terrified, not so much of me but of my more recent articles, which total around 200,000 words, then that has clear consequences. They obviously can’t attack me or the website, but I think it also largely prevents them from (publicly) attacking anyone who cites or promotes any of my articles or the website, at least if doing so would require them to specifically reference the article or the website. Basically, there may be a (partial) zone of invulnerability preventing anyone who writes controversial things on this website from being (publicly) attacked.

    So people might really want to start considering challenging this strategy. Perhaps if there’s enough such harassment of the ADL, they’ll be foolish enough to come out of hiding and challenge me.

    Obviously, that might be a little more difficult for them now since people would naturally ask “Why have you been in hiding for the last 16 months??!!” Their exceptionally timorous behavior hardly suggests that they have been able to find significant flaws in any of the many, many dozens of “controversial” claims that I’ve made.

  706. tac says:

    I’ve posted Ezra Pound’s WWII speeches here (albeit after a few attempts to the moderators). More material is here:

    [MORE]

    This war was not caused by any caprice on
    Mussolini’s part, nor on Hitler’s. This war is
    part of the secular war between usurers and
    peasants, between the usurocracy and
    whomever does an honest day’s work with
    his own brain or hands.

    […]
    If you can understand the cause, or causes, of one war, you will understand the cause or causes
    of several—perhaps of all. But the fundamental causes of war have received little publicity.
    Schoolbooks do not disclose the inner workings of banks.
    The mystery of economics has been
    more jealously guarded than were ever the mysteries of Eleusis. And the Central Bank of
    Greece was at Delphi.
    In the nineteenth century the public more or less believed that political economy had been
    invented by Adam Smith. Regius Professorships were founded to falsify history and teach
    Whiggery. And even the Tudor monarchs used to talk about “tuning the pulpits.”
    The cardinal fact of the American Revolution of 1776 was the suppression, in 1750, of the
    paper-money issue in Pennsylvania and other colonies, but history as taught in the U.S.A.
    speaks of more picturesque matters, such as the Boston Tea Party.
    Ethics arise with agriculture. The ethics of the nomad do not go beyond the distinction between
    my sheep and your sheep. If the study of Aristotle and Demosthenes has not actually been
    suppressed, it has at least been soft-pedalled for perfectly deliberate and definite reasons.
    Certain classical authors speak too frankly for the tastes of the Grand Seigneurs of Usury.
    […]
    I quote these apparently unconnected facts to indicate that certain high crimes are not due to any
    negligence on the part of a handful of scholars, and cannot be attributed to the ignorance of the
    whole of humanity, but that they can only happen on account of the ignorance of the great
    majority.
    What the sages understood was recorded, but inscriptions disappear, books decay, while
    usurocratic publicity floods the public’s mind like a muddy tide, and the same greed, the same
    iniquities and monopolies rise up again subjecting the world to their foul dominion.

    https://ia800200.us.archive.org/14/items/AmericaRooseveltAndTheCausesOfThePresentWar/AmericaRooseveltAndTheCausesOfThePresentWar.pdf

  707. Wally says:
    @joekowalski9

    LOL You might get away with such silly claims at sites where free speech is censored, but not here.

    – You simply have no proof for the laughable Zionist propaganda you recite.
    – Do let us know when you can show us the alleged human remains of the alleged many millions which those like you say exist in known locations.
    – And also let us know how the scientifically impossible ‘gas chambers’ supposedly worked.
    – Everything you hilariously allege has been debunked at the site you are at, we notice you don’t dare to try and refute any of it.

    Go ahead gaseous wind bag, read these below, and the accompanying comments, then take your best shot. This will be good.

    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    “The Holocaust” Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame: https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/the-holocaust-is-a-myth-that-conceals-our-shame/
    Babi Yar: The [alleged}Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: https://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    Teaching Holocaust, Don’t know much about history
    by Philip Girald: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/teaching-holocaust/
    The Lies About World War II, Paul Craig Roberts
    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

    http://www.codoh.com

  708. @Seraphim

    What some people call the White race.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  709. Cleburne says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    When and where is this? There was a German department in the small private college in the South I attended in the 80s. I took three semesters of German. Requirement for my major. Many such cases.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  710. Wally says:
    @ploni almoni

    In 1992 Bill Clinton won the US presidency with just 42% of the votes.

    In 1996 Bill Clinton won the US presidency with just 49% of the votes.

    Of course the leftists said nothing then.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  711. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    And what exactly is the ‘White race’? I was once told that the Serbs are racially different from the ‘Nordics’.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Rurik
  712. chris says:
    @Germanicus

    You are really not the brightest candle in the menorah.

    Too freaking funny.

    Yeah, our buddy here is like the latest incarnation of his tribesmen who peddle bullshit, focus critique on minor or irrelevant points, and who always try to obfuscate discussions they cannot refute.

    • Replies: @szopen
  713. tac says:
    @szopen

    (((szopen)))

    Jestes Zydem. A z Polaków, nikt ci nie wierzy! Od pierdol sie!

    Morze troche rozumiesz ….. jestes zdrajcom dla nas. Na pewno wiesz co czeka na ciebie?

    • Replies: @szopen
  714. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    You seem pretty desperate

    In your dreams. I feel like a doctor who is trying to talk some sense to mentally ill patient. I had exactly the same impression when talking to some SJWs.

  715. szopen says:
    @tac

    [Non-English comments are much less likely to be published.]

    Chrzań się debilu. Ty na pewno nie jesteś Polakiem; nie dość, że nie potrafisz używać polskich znaków diakrytycznych, to jeszcze w tak krótkim tekście popełniłeś trzy błędy gramatyczne.

    Powiem więcej – moi przodkowie byli szlachtą, a twoi zapewne chamstwem z czworaków.

    O ile mi wiadomo, wśród moich antenatów nie było ani jednego Żyda, chociaż trafiła mi się Niemka-prababka. Gdyby jednak, jakimś cudem, okazało się że miałem jakiegoś starozakonnego za przodka, nie uznawałbym to za powód do wstydu i nic by to nie zmieniło: jestem Polakiem, bo mając możliwość emigracji, zostałem w Polsce i pracuję dla mojego kraju; bo moja rodzina walczyła w powstaniach o wolność mojej ojczyzny.

    • Replies: @Dube
    , @tac
    , @tac
  716. szopen says:
    @chris

    Yeah, sure. I debunk the fake about Dzierżyński being Jewish (a stupid fake by someone who didn’t even know the basic fact that Dzierżynów was renamed AFTER Feliks was born) and the irrefutable answer is “Dzierżyński was Jewish because bolsheviks liked him and bolsheviks were Jewish, and bolsheviks were Jewish because Putin said so! HAHAHA!” And it’s the same. “Rydz-Śmigły wanted to invade Berlin! He said so in his radio speech!” Which radio speech? When? “He just said so, you cannot refute that! HAHAHA!”. Because the fact that there was no such radio speech is just minor detail, and pointing it out is obfuscation of the discussion.

    I really should follow the advice that “don’t discuss with morons. They will bring you down to their level and defeat you with experience”. That’s why years ago I stopped discussions with revisionists, because it always goes down to the “irrefutable facts” such like “nonexistent radio speech by Rydz-Śmigły” for which you have no references, no original Polish text, which is invented out of thin air. It’s like talking to someone saying he was kidnapped by UFO, and world is governed by reptilians, and a proof is that Trump said that in his speech that he is surrounded by reptilians, and in speech Kennedy’s brother said his brother was killed by reptilians. You ask politely for sources, debunk some idiotism, and in reply you got “hahaha but Kennedy was murdered by reptilians! You can’t refute that!”

    I give up on you guys. You can congratulate yourself and continue to search for reptilian conspiracy ruling the world.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @David Baker
  717. @Wally

    It goes on to this day, this continuation of the allied war efforts, the allied corporation FRG is a tool of such.
    Hence Germany is enemy state to this day as still defined in the present UN charter.

    The moment the foreign occupation is removed, will be the moment WWI & WWII are reevaluated and revised, going along with a peace treaty.
    We had this attempt in the early 90ies, when FRG morons still thought they had become sovereign, but reality of ongoing occupation and treason sank in quickly, and these attempts were silenced and stopped mid 1990ies.

    I highly recommend readers the German proclamation of 22 June 1941 regarding the Soviet Union. It is a very factual explanation for German actions, and the funny thing is, most of the points Hitler made are confirmed by a lot of honest researchers who discovered the facts.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler4.htm

    English speakers never have heard the German side, they only know the allied side of the story. Powerful speeches, timeless, where one can draw parallels to present day, because all these wars after 1945 followed the same pattern of lies. The aggressor becomes somehow the victim, and the victim somehow the aggressor.

    First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack-in the approved manner of an old Freemason

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/1941-12-11b.html

    So true, so true. Iraq and the Bush speech come to mind.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  718. @Anon

    “…It has been explained several times that the Nazi belief that Slavs were “unter” is an exagerated myth and Hitler himself was positively inclined towards Russians/other Slavs of good stock and intelligence…”

    But what about Slavs who were not “of good stock and intelligence”? What had the Führer with his infinite wisdom and deep humanity in stock for them?

    • Replies: @anon
  719. Adrian says:

    The “Irving affair” has a minor New Zealand chapter.

    In 1991 a student at Canterbury University (Christchurch, NZ) undertook an M.A.thesis that ultimately received the title “The Fate of Jews in German hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism”.

    Hayward’s interest in the topic was not fortuitous. At one stage he had discovered that he had a Jewish grandmother. That apparently fascinated him. He changed his first name from Stuart to Joel, started to learn Hebrew and visited Israel. He also became co-founder of a local group whose main activity seemed to be sniffing out cases of supposed anti-semitism. But he left it because of a personal conflict.

    The thesis received praise from both his local and two external examiners and was rewarded with an A+. Hayward’s Wiki (clearly composed by himself) states:

    “Hayward’s M.A. in History with First Class Honours was conferred on 7 May 1993.[12] His thesis was judged the best history thesis of his year and it won him the Sir James Hight Memorial Prize, awarded for “excellence”,[19] and the honour of wearing the Philip Ross May Gown at the graduation ceremony.”

    Yet immediately afterwards Hayward requested the university library to put an embargo on it. Why so?

    The answer is to be found in the local Christchurch paper, The Press, of 2oth May 2000:

    [MORE]

    Apparently Hayward was invited for an afternoon chat with supposed old mates at the organisation against anti-semitism he had helped to set up:

    “Dr Hayward says he went along on January 30, 1992, to what he thought
    was an ordinary afternoon tea with friends. As they talked about his
    half-completed masters thesis a video camera hidden behind a hollowed
    out book recorded the entire conversation.

    Dr Hayward says a selective 13-minute transcript was made of the
    three-hour conversation by the OAS. “They only included statements that
    cast me in the worst possible light.”

    The group sent Canterbury University registrar Alan Hayward (no
    relation) parts of the transcript with a letter detailing concerns about
    Joel Hayward’s views on the Holocaust.
    The transcript includes the following statements by Dr Hayward:

    ….
    “In my thesis, I argue that Hitler didn’t order the genocide of the
    Jews.”

    “I’m also saying that there is not one shred of documentary evidence
    showing that there was a plan to kill the Jews.”

    “I mean up until today, not one piece of paper has been found, not one
    German document, French document, any document — apart from Allied
    propaganda documents.”

    “Not six million. I personally don’t think the Nazis ever got their
    hands on six million Jews.”

    Dr Hayward did not find out about the video until two months after it
    was made. He considers the taping dishonest and unfair and says he
    nearly had a breakdown as a result.”

    So Hayward expected trouble if the thesis became freely available. When the embargo period had finished he asked the University, according to the account in The Press, to remove the thesis from its library altogether.

    The Press again:

    “The university refused, but allowed him to write an addendum in which he
    casts doubt on several of his key conclusions and the strength of his
    own scholarship.

    He concludes: “My thesis represents an honest attempt on my part to make
    sense of events I wanted to understand better.

    “Yet I now regret working on such a complex topic without sufficient
    knowledge and preparation, and hope this brief addendum will prevent my
    work causing distress to the Jewish community here in New Zealand and
    elsewhere, or being misused by individuals or groups with malevolent
    motives.”

    Dr Hayward now says of his thesis: “I simply see the evidence very
    differently now to the way I did then as an inexperienced student
    straight out of a BA.””

    But this volte face did not protect him against the wrath of his opponents. The New Zealand Jewish community is only very small – not even a quarter percent of an already very smallish population – but what it lacks in size it makes up for in militancy.

    The New Zealand Jewish Council demanded that Hayward (who had meanwhile done a Ph.D.on quite an unrelated subject and was employed at a New Zealand University as a Senior Lecturer) should be stripped of his M.A. degree and that his thesis should be withdrawn. One of the arguments was that if this would be allowed to stand any Jew, anywhere, would be endangered.

    What happened then?

    Under pressure the University appointed a working party consisting of a retired high court judge and two senior academics.

    The complainants also organised themselves. They recruited the Cambridge historian Richard Evans, fresh from his role as an expert witness in the Lipstad versus Irving trial, to scrutinize Hayward’s thesis.

    The New Zealand Herald of 24th July 2003 reported:

    “Their (that is the Univerity working party’s A.) lengthy report concluded that the thesis was seriously flawed, and that Hayward should not have essayed a judgment in such a controversial area. The report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the university and did not agree with the allegations that Hayward’s argument was racist or motivated by malice.”

    While the opinion that the thesis did not deserve the high marks it received was widely publicised in the media, no fewer than six serving or retired members of the history department persisted in their own judgment that it was a first-class effort.”

    The 71 page report submitted by Professor Richard Evans was duly considered but not greatly admired. The New Zealand Herald again:

    “Evans submitted a 71-page report trenchantly condemning the thesis. Professor Gerald Orchard, one of New Zealand’s most highly regarded lawyers, in turn denounced this report to the working party as adversarial, not objective and could not be relied on.
    The working party acknowledged that Evans appeared to diminish the objectivity required of an expert witness, submitted unwarranted allegations, and was highly antagonistic.The committee professed to have made every effort to discount Professor Evans’ tendency to intemperate expression but accepted the report as authoritative and seems not to have been influenced markedly by the sustained responses to Evans’ report in the dossier for the defence.”

    Notwithstanding the apparent finality of the report and its qualified exoneration of Hayward, during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds of pieces of hate mail, abusive telephone calls, threats against himself, his wife and small children, harassment at Massey University and continued negative media attention.”

    Hayward found that a book on New Zealand airmen he had written and was on the verge of being published was suddenly withdrawn by the publisher – no reason being given.

    His colleagues at Massey university started to avoid him. He got a nervolus breakdown, had to receive medical treatment for two years and left the university – completely disillusioned. But his attempt to find outside employment originally came to nought as well. A job in communications with some New Zealand firm was terminated before it had even started.

    The history department at Canterbury University was also shaken up by the affair. One American academic, a specialist in medieval history, particularly witchcraft and heresy trials, probably recognised a pattern here. He wrote a critical article that was originally published in a departmental history journal. When the University leadership and the Head of the Department discovered this they got into a panic, organised its cancellation and the destruction of the five hundred copies that had already been printed.

    This academic cowardice was for some academics just a bit too much. They organised a petition that was originally signed by 65 academics and others and for which, according to the organiser, at least another hundred had volunteered when it had already appeared.

    The main points touched in the petition were these:

    “ First, we accept that a University has both the right and the obligation to revoke any thesis on the grounds of proven dishonesty. However, in the event of it not revoking a thesis on those grounds, we believe that it is totally inappropriate for any university administrator or sponsored body to issue negative public judgements about it, or to apologise to anyone who may be offended by it. No student should be subject to a de facto second round of assessment as to the quality (as opposed to the honesty) of their thesis, particularly after having just been exonerated of the charge of dishonesty.

    We further consider that the effect of the University’s actions has been to send a clear signal to potential students and other researchers at the University as to the acceptable conclusions to be reached in a particular area of enquiry, and this is antithetical to the proper function of any university. Furthermore, the effect of the University’s actions is likely to have contributed to the general climate of hostility towards Dr Hayward, and therefore to his subsequent resignation from Massey University.
    These University actions are improper, and place an obligation upon the University of Canterbury to acknowledge its errors and to offer appropriate remedies to Dr Hayward.”

    I think most signatories to this petition had forgotten this whole affair, including this petition, but the editors of the New Zealand Jewish community’s journal “Shalom Kiwi” had apparently not forgotten or forgiven. It published a few years ago an article on the film “Denial”regarding the Irving trial in which Deborah Lipstadt is the heroine and Richard Evans one of the heroes. The article has this to say about the petition : “ A group of 63 Hayward supporters … agreed with the Canterbury Working Party decision to award Hayward a degree for Holocaust denial”

    Evans is quoted here as saying of the film “Denial” that it “shows that there is such a thing as truth”. Well perhaps, but it can’t be found in this article.

    Some of the signatories of the petition found not only that the text to which they had put their name had been misrepresenrted here but also that, through some trick, the appearance was created that they were themselves the author of this piece of journalistic malfeasance. Somebody who googles on their name will find it in the relevant entry in fat letters above this article, with no other name being mentioned. That this trick has been performed with some other signatories’ names does not detract from its effectiveness. The innocent inquirer does not know this.

    People might wonder what happened to Dr.Hayward. Well he has converted to Islam, has made the pilgrimage to Mecca and is a full Professor at a Middle Eastern University. But in his Wiki he still says that he erred in his Master’s thesis without , however,forgetting to mention that it received an A+ and the Sir James Hight Memorial Prize, whatever that is.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  720. Seraphim says:
    @Adrian

    Do you remember (if it happens to know) the case of Prof. Ariel Toaff, the author of “Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders” (Pasque di sangue. Ebrei d’Europa e omicidi rituali)? Ariel Toaff was professor at Bar Ilan University in Israel, whose work has focused on Jews and their history in Italy and the son of Elio Toaff Chief Rabbi of Rome from 1951 to 2002. He was forced under death threats to pull his book from circulation and to publicly deny all his research.
    By a strange coincidence (or not) I was just watching ‘Denial’!

    • Replies: @Adrian
  721. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @turtle

    If they are decent, law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes and contribute to society…

    That’s pretty subjective, lol. For heavy accents, I always think of Kissinger. I’d be pleased to have the vocabulary and command of any foreign language that he has in English.

    There’s a saying that to know a second language is to have another soul. Once, I took a train out of Prague. Everyone in our car was speaking Czech, until one man told a joke in German. When I asked why the switch, well, it was a German joke. Quite. Humor often doesn’t translate well.

  722. @Germanicus

    This comment was originally going @Fox’s #708 comment, but the cloud protection gave a time out, it was miraculously posted nonetheless.

  723. @szopen

    I give up on you guys.

    Hooray and good riddance, thank you.
    There is no way the truth genie is going back in the bottle, Dr Voronoff.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Voronoff

  724. @Alden

    Hitler was elected overwhelmingly in the Austrian anschluss. You can’t get around the fact that he was an extremely popular leader, and for good reasons too. The life of the average German-speaker got enormously better from 1933-39.

  725. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient WWII Fact of the Day

    It takes 30+ kg of Coking Coal to cremate a body… 2188 tonnes of Coking Coal was delivered to Auschwitz – Birkenau (for all uses). 2188 x 1000 / 30 = ~ 73,000. If all the coal was used simply for cremation purposes, roughly 70k to 80k bodies were cremated. This corresponds closely to the 69k deaths reported in the Auschwitz Death Books.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  726. annamaria says:
    @utu

    Would you have any comments for the following? https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/26/what-isnt-mentioned-about-the-trump-ukraine-scandal-the-routine-corruption-of-us-foreign-policy/

    We know from the leaked, early 2014 telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, that then Vice President Biden played a role in “midwifing” the U.S.-backed overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government soon after that conversation.

    That’s the biggest crime in this story that isn’t being told. The illegal overthrow of a sovereign government.

    As booty from the coup, the sitting vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, soon got a seat on the board of Ukraine’s biggest gas producer, Burisma Holdings. … A family friend of then Secretary of State John Kerry also joined Burisma’s board. U.S. agricultural giant Monsanto got a Ukrainian contract soon after the overthrow. And the first, post-coup Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen, a former State Department official, who was given Ukrainian citizenship the day before she took up the post.

  727. annamaria says:
    @szopen

    “…various vicious, sometimes bordering on insanity, comments here.”

    — You have the freedom to correct all incorrect statements on this forum. If you believe that the commenters are too harsh towards zionists (and ziocons), present your fact-grounded arguments.

    Currently, the Jewish Lobby in the US/UK is the greatest threat to the freedom of information with regard to WWII. See people becoming unemployed, abused by zionist thugs, and even imprisoned for honest research in WWII — when this research does not agree with dogmas promoted by people of Elie Wiesel and Ehrenburg sort. https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-admits-his-true-stories-never-happened/

    Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.

    You want to present yourself as a reasonable and righteous person. That’s fine. Just hold on to truth: https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1zxsjkw.6?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

  728. Anon[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim

    And, what is more, what are the “white values”?
    The values with which to build a community, a civilization?
    It’s an empty category.

    A man who defines himself as “white” and claims a white identity is being played by wilier masters.

  729. @Cleburne

    I didn’t consider we were talking about college, but high school and below. This also includes adult education programs. As you indicate, in college/university it is necessary for some majors, and that can be oriented along more technical lines, rather than, say, reading Goethe or including German culture/history, etc. Was your experience different?

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  730. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient Adolf Hitler Fact of the Day

    Hitler’s popularity in Austria at the time of the Anschluss (Re-unification with Austria) was so immense, that in the popular referendum on the Anschluss, “Ya!” votes (Yes) received a 99.7% level of support.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  731. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Imagine someone setting a house on fire with a family inside, surround with armed thugs, watch what happens and come back 50 years later to see how this family has recovered from the several dead, crippled, traumatized and the rest left to re-start a life within ruins.
    The arsonist cheerleaders would be people like Winston Churchill.

    You may well think of yourself as a Wizard, yet from people like you I wouldn’t expect any decisions or opinions with a thought of that which would follow in the sequence of events then set in motion. Therefore, you can only preen yourself in the mirror that reflects everything in the light of justification of this disastrous war. One of the consequences of it is that the victors have installed in power in Germany the dregs of character and society; do you really need a nuanced character assessment of someone like Willi Brandt (leftist, former Communist, then fled Germany for an assault on an SA man and therefore with the golden badge of “anti-nazi”), writing a book titled “Of Germans and Other Criminals” and then becoming chancellor of West Germany, in order to come to the conclusion that what we experience today is a catastrophic long-term effect of setting in motion a world conflagration over the expressed will of the population of the German city of Danzig to becoming part of Germany again?

    That’s what I fault people like Churchill for, or Poincare or Clemenceau for the First War, and Roosevelt along with Churchill. They were clever, but lacking intelligence. If you can’t imagine, as the saying goes, that actions have consequences, then all of the hot blood flowing through your veins in indignation is wasted on the wrong passion.

  732. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    But what about Slavs who were not “of good stock and intelligence”? What had the Führer with his infinite wisdom and deep humanity in stock for them?

    not much different from a dozen or so articles on Unz forum.

    the point of differentiation is not “Slavs” but “not “of good stock and intelligence”

    perhaps you believe that Ilya Ehrenberg incited Stalin’s best genetic carriers to rape German women?
    Or more likely those Russians “not “of good stock and intelligence”.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  733. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    You’re welcome.

    Thank you. Have a nice day.

  734. @Seraphim

    And what exactly is the ‘White race’?

    It is whatever the person using the term thinks it is. In academic circles it is whatever is not included in the Black and Yellow races, which is the reason I don’t like to use the term. I prefer European, which is a further-defined classification from “White.”

    Yes, Serbs are not Nordics. Their behavior and cultural history is quite different, along with their physiognomy. Equally, Serbs are not Germans and don’t belong in Germany, marrying the dumber and more damaged German women in order to obtain a German passport. These marriages seldom work out well. Germans and Slavs are different ‘races’ and should not interbreed, even though a great deal of interbreeding has already been done. My DNA test showed me with 2.2% Balkan, for whatever that’s worth. Of course, not all the Balkan area is Slavic. https://carolynyeager.net/german-races

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  735. lysias says:
    @Bolteric

    We already are the next Germany. And our 1945 is fast approaching.

  736. There are still people who purvey the party line that Hitler intended to use chemical weapons against Britain:

    World Yawns as U.S. Accuses Syria of Another Chemical Attack on Civilians

    Of course, that didn’t stop Hitler, who fully intended to use chemical weapons in his bombing of London. But Churchill delivered a stern warning and Hitler’s hand was stayed.

    I believe that to be a lie based on what I have read.

  737. @Fox

    You multiply the words but only ot seems to multiply instances of your cavalier way with facts. For example, “victors have installed in power in Germany the dregs of character and society” but at the stage where the approval of Western Allies’ approval mattered it was Konrad Adenauer who was “installed”. Whatever you think of Willi Brandt he wasn’t installed by anyone but German voters. By 1969 when he became Chancellor the German Wirtschaftswunder had made any idea of the Americans or Brits telling Germans what to do ridiculous. As you seem to be an irresponsible fantasist I am not surprised that several searches have turned up no book by Willy Brandt with anything like to title you quote.

    And can you cite the poll which justifies your words “the expressed will of the population of the German city of Danzig to becoming part of Germany again”. Actions, as you say, have consequences. So do words have meanings, and I challenge you to back up your “expressed will of the population”. Or, on second thoughts, give it a rest a just stop digging.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
    , @refl
  738. JMcG says:
    @Wally

    Wally,
    It pains me to say this, but you are absolutely correct. I had thought that the battle of the beams was later in the war.
    My apologies for my earlier comment.

  739. German_reader says:
    @Fox

    like Willi Brandt (leftist, former Communist, then fled Germany for an assault on an SA man and therefore with the golden badge of “anti-nazi”), writing a book titled “Of Germans and Other Criminals”

    The book was actually called “Criminals and other Germans” (Forbrytere og andre tyskere in the Norwegian original published in 1946), which already indicates it was skeptical of the claims of collective guilt.

    • Replies: @Fox
  740. Alden says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Supposedly the seized grain was used to feed the Russian cities. Not sold on the international market.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  741. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    So why you keep using “Jewish bolshevism” to describe a regime in which Jews were overrepresented, but which in chief position had people from many different nationalities, and from two initial henchmen, Stalin was non-Jewish

    Neither is Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton, but look at how these goyim traitors betray their nations on behalf of Jewish supremacists. War after war after war.. (including both world wars)

    UN vetoes followed by more UN vetoes.

    Slavish servility to Zion so embarrassing it’s mocked from every corner of the planet.

    If CNN hires a Gentle as a ‘news’ anchor, does that mean the cable network stops being Jewish?

    If Hollywood or Wall Street have a Gentle or two at the helm somewhere, does that mean those two pillars of ZUS culture and finance stop functioning for the obvious benefit of the Jews who control them?

    Does Harvard serve the interests of Gentiles, or Jewish supremacists, regardless of who’s at the helm?

    I remember once having a conversation with a Jewish fellow, and he was gloating about how all the banks and theaters and newspapers of Germany during the ((Weimar regime)) were mostly all owned by Jews. He obvious took pleasure in this fact, because his point was that this was all due to the Jews inherent superiority over the Germans.

    What do you think?

    Do you suppose CNN is controlled by Jews because Jews are congenitally better at running a news channel than Gentiles are? Is Andrea Mitchell the NBC News’ chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports’ because she just happens to be the best news anchor they could find, or is it because she’s a loyal Jewish supremacist, that can be counted on to tell lies all day long, so long as those lies are ‘good for the Jews’?

    Were the Jews (and a few token Russians) that gobbled up Russia during Yeltsin’s drunken fiasco so far superior to all the Russian people that they deserved all that wealth?

    Or was it just another case of rank tribalism and Jewish supremacist nepotism/crony capitalism?

    The point is that it doesn’t really matter that Stalin wasn’t Jewish, any more than it matters if Churchill or FDR or Obama or Trump aren’t Jewish. They still slavishly abase themselves to Jewish supremacist wars and horrors writ large, all because Jews control the Central Banks, and therefor control everything else of consequence, on a macro scale.

    Our job is to figure out how to end the Fed, so that sanity and probity can be restored to the planet, before psychotic Jewish supremacists blow it all to hell.

    • Agree: annamaria
  742. Rurik says:
    @Seraphim

    And what exactly is the ‘White race’?

    anyone who can be officially and legally discriminated against for housing, jobs, promotions, university slots, and just about everything else in the good ol’ ZUS of A.

    Black only dorms? = No problem

    White only dorms? = Gas chambers, lampshades and soap.

    • Replies: @Wally
  743. Rurik says:
    @chris

    Thanks Chris,

    But alas, Caliban is under a far more obdurate thrall, than anything I would conjure.

    Twas ever thus..

    (even if not coined by the Bard)

  744. @Seraphim

    What’s this race crap? Unless you’re Jewish (They’re supposedly at the leading edge of evolutionary advancement….) we’re all in the same boat. What you’re actually defining are cultural differences, and/or nationality specifics. Human beings have brains which can be applied toward learning. The emphasis of populations gaining knowledge as a required aspect of their cultural development determines the viability of their people to participate in commerce, science, religion, transportation industries and other trades. If a nation’s leaders or cultural icons don’t instill this drive to better their nation with educated workers, then they’re going to have huge segments of ignorant and (As we’re noticing in the U.S.) government dependent, unemployed, disenfranchised citizens. This has nothing to do with race.

  745. Rurik says:
    @utu

    NKVD/KGB/FSB

    the ((NKVD)) is not the same as the KGB/FSB

    you are not really curious what is their provenance and who is their masters.

    You’re wrong.

    I am indeed curious as to such things, only I don’t harbor any animosity against Russia or Poland or Germany or Ukraine or Belarus or Georgia (now that Saakashvili is gone ; ), or the Baltic states or Finland or Greece or Itally or even England.

    I am a shameless proponent of all things Western civ., with hostility towards none, (except those enemies of Western civ. ; )

    Yes, I’m well aware of Putin’s glad-handing of Bibi and the crew. As your link suggests, this is pure “cold, hard interests in full alignment with the Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations”.

    I’m also aware of all the lingering hostilities due to the ghosts of WWII, including the legacy of generations of occupation and population transfers, and other things.

    But I’m trying to be a macro-type of guy here, and see things from the Big Picture angle, perhaps especially because, as I said, I have no personal grudges, no doubt in large part, due to being an American.

    I see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as uniquely tragic, (and indeed, chose my screen name specifically because he was a figure poised between those two stalwart peoples. A mollifier of sorts, which is what I’ve strove to be.

    Some people might like the idea of a hot war between Russia and Ukraine or Poland, and lick their lips with gleeful anticipation, but for myself, I’d be horrified. Just as I’d be horrified if a hot war broke out between Pakistan and India, but not horrified if a hot war broke out between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Now there’s two nations I’d like to see have a slug out fest like no other!

    Which shows my bias, but sadly, that’s not going to happen, rather what’s far more likely is a war between Russia and Ukraine or Estonia or some 0ther hapless saps, driven to mutual slaughter by the ((forces that be)).

    You may hate the Russians, and I’ve certainly seen a lot of your ‘sovoks’ who seem to harbor an unhinged hatred for all things Ukrainian.

    It’s sad and tragic, and provincial and parochial.

    Reminds me of the opening scene for one of my favorite movies.

  746. @Rurik

    Was Putin a guest on the “Lolita Express”?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  747. @szopen

    Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. On St. Patrick’s Day, we’re all supposed to be Irish. The Jews have many holidays marking their traditions and struggles, but the one day that will define whether someone is Jewish is their Bar/Bat Mitzvah. That day signifies a Jewish child coming of age. If you want to piss those Maranos off, ask the males what event occurred on their 13th birthday, or the 12th/13th birthday of the female variety. Believe me, you’ll never witness a more polished demonstration of the Alinsky Method as they seek to dodge that question.

  748. Rurik says:
    @David Baker

    Was Putin a guest on the “Lolita Express”?

    My personal impression of Putin is that if he were inadvertently to find himself upon that plane, or on the island, perhaps with Epstein and Bubba and Dershowitz and Prince Andrew…

    and watching how they conduct themselves with children..

    that he’d likely kill every one of them with his bare hands.

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @JoeFour
  749. @anon

    The Nazis kidnapped children from Slavic peoples whom the thought were “of good stock”*). These children were to be “Germanized” by being adopted into SS families. The rest of the Slavs were considerd to be “inferior”, only good to be literally “slaves” of the German Herrenvolk. To be good slaves, they would be refused education and medical care. You can read about such plans in Hitler’s Table Talk.

    _____________
    *) See : Wikipedia, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany.
    https://en.wikipedia.org>wiki>Kidnapping_of_childr&#8230;

  750. @Wizard of Oz

    at the stage where the approval of Western Allies’ approval mattered it was Konrad Adenauer who was “installed”

    Konrad Adenauer did everything the Western Allies asked him to do.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  751. @Rurik

    It just galls me that our entire leadership is required to genuflect to the Knesset. We need to extract our country from the Middle East, and reverse these “Globalist” campaigns which entail dissolving our borders and subordinating our citizens and governing bodies to un-elected nabobs in foreign countries.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  752. Rurik says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    To be good slaves, they would be refused education and medical care

    No education would be better than the sewage injected into America’s children’s minds and souls by way of the government schools and ((pop culture)).

    What was it Madeleine Albright said of non-Jewish children..

    that if half a million died due to deliberately denying them clean water and medicine, that such a trifle would be “worth it” (if it’s ‘good for the Jews’).

    I don’t think I ever read of Hitler (or any Nazis) saying such a thing about any children.

  753. Rurik says:
    @David Baker

    It just galls me that our entire leadership is required to genuflect to the Knesset.

    This is the price the Western world is paying for Woodrow Wilson’s singular treachery and betrayal.

    Our Founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, et al), were willing to sacrifice their wealth and their lands and their lives and even their families, rather than be slaves to the British banks.

    Andrew Jackson was willing to die to free America from debt slavery to the Central Banks.

    But Wilson simply handed them the keys to our Treasury, and overnight turned us all into debt slaves to (((Central Banksters))).

    That he was remorseful for this epic treason, is little comfort to us all now.

    Today, when Rothschild says ‘kneel’, the leaders of the (dying) Western world slavishly obey.

    https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/hidden-history-according-to-benjamin-franklin-the-real-reason-for-the-revolutionary-war-has-been-hid-from-you/

    Indeed, That is the True origin of the Second World War, And the ‘War on Terror’.

    Just do a little reading about Gadhafi’s Gold Dinar.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @David Baker
  754. @Rurik

    Just do a little reading about Gadhafi’s Gold Dinar.

    The IMF statutes explicitly forbid gold currency.

    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/index.htm

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  755. @Germanicus

    Art. 4/2b

    (b) Under an international monetary system of the kind prevailing on January 1, 1976, exchange arrangements may include (i) the maintenance by a member of a value for its currency in terms of the special drawing right or another denominator, other than gold, selected by the member, or (ii) cooperative arrangements by which members maintain the value of their currencies in relation to the value of the currency or currencies of other members, or (iii) other exchange arrangements of a member’s choice.

    Research SDRs. Huge scam.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  756. Truth3 says:

    Hypocritical Zionist Quote of the Day

    Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  757. Adrian says:
    @Seraphim

    Yes I remember that case. Israel Shamir wrote about it and was promptly treated by some as if he had come up with this thesis himself.

    Shamir pointed to the fact that similar practices could be found among other groups and invited the Jews to join the human race, warts and all. But that is the last thing most of them have in mind.

    I also remember that Toaff said that he would stick to his thesis even if it cost him his life, or some such heroics. But he caved in.

    Ah yes, they have their ways and means. Look at Judge Goldstone.

  758. refl says:
    @Wally

    I do not understand. Are you insinuating that there were no backers? I have little doubt that in this case as in any other, the documents at Nuremberg might have been tampered with. Maybe you have something on that.

    What I want to point out is this:

    Three board members of American I.G. Farben were found guilty at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials: Max Ilgner, F. Ter Meer, and Hermann Schmitz. As we have noted, the American board members — Edsel Ford, C. E. Mitchell, Walter Teagle, and Paul Warburg — were not placed on trial at Nuremburg, and so far as the records are concerned, it appears that they were not even questioned about their knowledge of the 1933 Hitler fund.

    German industry and German finance was closely interlinked with the US and this helped the Nazis to come to power and it helped just as much to prepare Germany for the war effort. This part of the story how the Nazis rose to power was skipped in the Nuremberg (show) trials.
    If it had been exposed it would have been plain that the Nazis were a set up to prepare the enemy of the Angloamerican Empire for his final and utter destruction.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
  759. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    OMG, maybe I know a Brüning personally? If it is Brüning, Brünning, Breuning or wtf I do not care. Is this relevant? Hitler once wrote his name with a double “tt” because he probably found it more stylish.

    The book by the definitely fictious Sidney Warburg describes, how Hitler was financed since the mid 20s by New York bankers.
    The book disappeared within days. The story is so crazy that it might be true.

    [MORE]

    EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
    The book you are about to read is one of the most extraordinary historical documents of the 20th century.
    Where did Hitler get the funds and the backing to achieve power in 1933 Germany? Did these funds come only from prominent German bankers and industrialists or did funds also come from American bankers and industrialists?
    Prominent Nazi Franz von Papen wrote in his MEMOIRS (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc. 1953) p. 229, “… the most documented account of the National Socialists’ sudden acquisition of funds was contained in a book published in Holland in 1933, by the old established Amsterdam publishing house of Van Holkema & Warendorf, called DE GELDBRONNEN VAN HET NATIONAAL SOCIALISME (DRIE GESPREKKEN MET HITLER) under the name ‘Sidney Warburg.’
    The book cited by von Papen is the one you are about to read and was indeed published in 1933 in Holland, but remained on the book stalls only a few days. The book was purged. Every copy — except three accidental survivors — was taken out of the bookstores and off the shelves. The book and its story were silenced — almost.
    One of the three surviving copies found its way to England, translated into English and deposited in the British Museum. This copy and the translation were later withdrawn from circulation, and are presently “unavailable” for research. The second Dutch language copy was acquired by Chancellor Schussnigg of Austria. Nothing is known of its present whereabouts. The third Dutch survivor found its way to Switzerland and in 1947 was translated into German. This German translation was in turn found some years ago by this editor in the Schweizerischeft Sozialarchiv in Zurich, along with an affidavit by the three Dutch-to-German translators and a critique of the book. This editor made copies of the German text and commissioned an English translation. It is this translation that you will read here. Even allowing for the double translation from Dutch to German and German to English, the original lively style is essentially retained. The book is not by any means dull reading.
    The original book FINANCIAL ORIGINS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM was branded a forgery. However, since 1933 numerous pre-war German government files have become public information, including the captured German Foreign Ministry files and the Nuremburg Trial documents. These confirm the story at key points.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Adrian
  760. Miro23 says:
    @Pedro Gomez IV

    In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And even after the war, had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren’t so vicious to all groups as the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn’t resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It’s all there in Hitler’s Table Talk.

    It sure is. There’s no question that Hitler wanted an Eastern Empire built on the harshest German racial supremacism. His attitude to Slavs was entirely different to his attitude towards the British.

    Altogether a superb commentary.

  761. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    But please answer the following.
    Why would the Jews put Hitler in power, when they already took over Germany in 1919?
    The Weimar Republic was called the Judenrepublic(Jew republic) by the German people.
    This masonic democratic jewish corrupt and inapt regime imprisoned Hitler in Landsberg.

    First: We are dealing here not with “the Jews”, but with a very certain Zionist elite, who needed the disaster of WWII to get there faltering project in the middle east started. Jews were above all an unhappy lot, whom the Zionists needed as (1) victims and (2) to staff their project

    Second:

    Germany was being gradually , but steadily, rearmed, in keeping with the dictates of Versailles. Since 1924, the Anglo-Americans equipped what would become Hitler’s war machine through well over 150 foreign long-term loans contracted in less then seven years: the more thorough and elaborate the fitting, the more devastating the German army, the bloodier the war, the more resounding the foregone victory of the Allies (and the defeat of the Germans, who were being set up), and the more sweeping and permanent the Anglo-American conquest.

    Guido Preparata, “Conjuring Hitler”

    Add (as Preparata sensibly does not): only the second turn made it possible to scare the Jews out of Europe and prepare the Western mind for the Six Million Folly.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  762. @refl

    From the language you use, you are still deep asleep, very deep.

    “Nazi” is a slur, why do you call the Germans “nazis”? Why? I see no reason, no one is calling the British “britzis”, the Jews “jewzis” or US americans “democrazis” or “repubzis”. You get the point? Your language is biased. Are you a CDUzi or Sozi or Grünzi?

    Why didn’t you answer my question?
    For example Opel was bought in Weimar times by GM, in 1929, four years before NSDAP came to power. Weimar was a sell out to Wall Street and City of London.

    Why do you people always try to separate WWI and Weimar aftermath from WWII? Why?
    You will always be asleep if you do that and will never comprehend what really went on.
    These were one big war, with intermediate economical warfare against Germany.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @refl
  763. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    My initial question was ‘what the “European race” is’ and you answered that is the ‘White race’ with the tacit assumption that it means “the uncommonly gifted mentally, outstanding in truthfulness and energy, and power of judgment”‘Phallic’ Nordic/Germanic Phalic ‘race’.
    So, do Serbs (and other ‘Balkaniks’) belong to the ‘European race’, if they do not belong to the ‘Nordic/German’ race?
    Probably the question must be enlarged: ‘What exactly is “Europe”‘?

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  764. Wally says:
    @Rurik

    “Black only dorms? = No problem

    White only dorms? = Gas chambers, lampshades and soap.”

    Boom! Nailed it.

  765. @Alden

    “supposedly”. According to whom? On the basis of what evidence? And how did Stalin pay Wall Street for building the Soviet industrial plant, then? There is no question about Wall Street’s intimate and dominant relationship with the South’s slave economy, the facts are in and have been available for a century and more. Probably the facts about where the Ukraine’s grain went in 1933-35 will never be known on the basis of solid evidence. I wonder why.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  766. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks.
    It is still there, but text is way too small to read. I could not make out a single word, despite trying to enlarge the image. It stopped at 300%, and that was still unreadable. And I have a normal size monitor screen, not a mobile device, etc.
    IMO a searchable text does not obviate the value of an index.
    As is clear from your original comment regarding what can be inferred about the book from the index.
    This is not the same thing as doing a search for the word “Jew” in the searchable text.
    A book’s index is an “independent” document, the creation of the person who wrote it—a creative product in its own right. .
    An index provides very valuable insights into and overview of a text. Again, that is the point of your comment.
    Its function is to be kind of an essence of the text.
    Reading an index can provide motivation to read the actual text, or particular sections of it.
    Furthermore, an index is to a searchable text as a genuine card catalogue is to an online catalogue: That is, in the latter one searches for what one already knows and thus is limitned by what one already knows. With a traditional card catalogue, and this is also true of an index, one encounters items, ideas, and relationships among ideas that one didn’t already know.
    Hence, even in the page numbers in the index are no longer the wayfinders, it still might be worthwhile to create a document available (and *readable*! unlike the archived item linked) to be accessible in the UR archive of books.
    Regards, KS

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  767. Wally says:
    @refl

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, but I never said there were no “backers”.
    Why the strawman?

    My comment was, again:

    said:
    “Anthony Sutton makes the point, that Hitlers German backers are known, because the documents were found and exposed in the Nuremberg trials …”

    And what alleged “documents” were these?

    Of course there were “backers”, aka: investors.
    Of course people invested in Germany? Germany did and still does make great products for which returns could be made upon investments.

    There certainly was nothing sinister in investing in Germany during that period.
    As is said:

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    For the goods on the IG Farben Trial, see:
    The I. G. Farben Trial, John Wear, J.: https://codoh.com/library/document/6355/?lang=en
    and more at:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=IG+Farben+Trial

  768. turtle says:
    @Germanicus

    These were one big war

    Interesting perspective.

    economical warfare

    No doubt you intend “economic.”
    “Economical” would imply inexpensive (which may or may not have been the case).
    Worth keeping in mind that in the U.S., the 1920s were known as the “Roaring 20s,” a time of great (if somewhat “fake”) prosperity, which ended with the stock market crash in 1929. As we know, Germans had a much different experience of that decade.
    Thus, when Roosevelt came to power in 1932, Americans had experienced economic hard times for only three years, whereas Germany had “been down so long it looked like up to them” (to borrow a phrase from the late Richard Fariña).
    No doubt you are familiar with the exploits of Union Banking Corp. (Fritz Thyssen’s U.S. banker) and one Prescott Walker Bush. If not, the info is readily available.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  769. Skeptikal says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thanks for the overview of Preparata’s text.
    It is now quite awhile ago that I read a large portion of the book, and your precis accords with what I recall.

    In addition—and this may be a weakness from your pov—Preparata spends quite a lot of time discussing and documenting the role of a few secret societies—maybe one was the Thule Society?—in “discovering” Hitler, introducing him to influential individuals and groups, and generally pushed him forward.

    One may not agree with Preparata’s conclusions, but one must grant that his documentation is *formidable.* For that reason alone I think serious analysts, esp. of the revisionist persuasion, really should read Preparata, or at least his notes.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  770. @refl

    This does not answer anything.
    You cite an American spin doctor as authority, and you dodge any Weimar question.

    The Jews as a group exist, and at the time, the vast majority of Jews were communist.
    So it is absolutely valid to do away with the politically correct “Zionist” for Jews. It won’t help you anyway, the Jews regard it “anti-semitic” as well if you criticize zionists.

    The NSDAP had a working agreement with the zionist Jews to transfer the Jews to Palestine.
    Additionally, countless offers were made to grant the Jews free passage to their desired country to emigrate, no country wanted them, neither the Americans nor any other country.

    Again, why would the Jews finance Hitler if the entire economic system of Germany aimed at putting the usurers out of business and shutdown Rothschild, the main owners of the FED and BoE?
    Wars are always for economic reasons, and the British long had established facts on the ground in Palestine with the Balfour declaration of 1917. 20000 Jews moved to Palestine in the years after Balfour. These Jews soon started terrorist activities against the British in Palestine.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @refl
  771. Skeptikal says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    ” But I have never seen these facts, and their implications for the “responsibility” for American slavery stated anywhere at all, although the facts are unquestionable. Everybody is keen on toppling statues of Confederate generals but as far as I know, no one has proposed doing the same with statues of August Belmont. Why is that, I wonder?”

    Some have written of the integration of the southern slave economy with northern financial interests, but unfortunately I cannot recall exactly where! It may have been John K. Thornton, in A Cultural History of the Atlantic World, a brilliant and hugely readable book, BTW.

    However, what I do recall reading is that Philadelphia was the in effect the financial capital of the south. Many Phil families had financial and also family connections with southern families and enterprises.

    Many people also do forget that slaves were held in *all* of the colonies/states.
    Not just the South.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  772. utu says:
    @Rurik

    I am not disagreeing with you. I share your sentiments but I suggest more caution when it comes to Russia.

    In recent UR article on worship of Israel by white nationalists

    Israel Worship Is White Nationalism for Boomers Too Cowardly to Demand Their Own Ethnostate
    https://www.unz.com/article/israel-worship-is-white-nationalism-for-boomers-too-cowardly-to-demand-their-own-ethnostate/

    in comments “silviosilver” pointed out to the phenomenon of “Russia-cucking”:

    https://www.unz.com/article/israel-worship-is-white-nationalism-for-boomers-too-cowardly-to-demand-their-own-ethnostate/#comment-3469759
    A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being pro-Israel, but it’s nationalism by proxy all the same.

    One must resist our basic psychological need to be consoled that sets us up to be very vulnerable to be exploited by operatives who are much more skillful and much more experienced in this sort of things than most people are.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @annamaria
  773. Seraphim says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Interestingly, the plan of a Jewish state under German supervision in the former ‘Pale of Setlement’ was proposed in 1914 by Max Bodenheimer, the first president of the Zionist Federation of Germany and one of the founders of the Jewish National Fund, and given serious consideration by the German High Command as a mean of destroying Russia. It met with serious opposition from the Poles who were promised the revival of Poland and eventually abandoned. Attempts to revive it as a Soviet Jewish Republic in Ukraine and Crimea also failed under Stalin who created instead the Birobidzhan Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

  774. gregor says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Zionism has everything to do with the causes of WW2. Churchill & the British had their own reasons for seeking the destruction of Germany, but zionist Jews in USA and Britain forced the issue, both in WW1 & WW2, with the goal of achieving removal of Jews from Russia / Germany and of acquiring a state of their own. THAT was a key underlying purpose of the wars.

    Regarding the Zionist angle to WWI (which gets far less attention), here is an interesting viewpoint from apostate Jew/whistleblower Benjamin Freedman.

    [MORE]

    Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.

    At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

    Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    Court historians will of course dismiss all of this out of hand. But surely it is no coincidence that the Balfour Declaration came about in 1917.

    The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

    Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

    Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

    Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

    It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass.

    Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

    Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. “We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  775. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yeah. Wikipedia is such a trustworthy source!

  776. Well, I’m certainly no historian, I haven’t read D Irvings books, I’ve listened to many of his speeches on youtube. But from everything I’ve read over the past few years, I think that there was a substantial number of “Nazis” who were just puppets of the CIA/OSS. I don’t know about Hitler himself. But there seems to be lots of evidence that the Nazis were being used by America’s capitalists to further their own agenda. Lots of Nazi funding came from American banks and oligarchs. I think there may have been disagreement between FDR and the Big business/banks here over which way to go, hence the attempted coup and assassination attempt.

    I think it was like a proxy war by Americas “Nazis” OSS/CIA and Big business/banks using the Germans against the Soviets. Similar to what we’ve seen them doing recently using Ukraine’s “Nazis” or the Mujaheddin, Al Qaeda, ISIS. Same thing different names… I guess there was ultimately a falling out after they figured out that the Germans couldn’t defeat the Soviets. I think they were worried that the Soviets would defeat Hitler and take over Europe. Like I said, I think there was a lot of disagreement between FDR and the “deep state” as to how the whole thing played out.

    I think the fact that the CIA/OSS ended up helping all those prominent Nazis escape to America, Argentina, as well as other places to be used in the future is good evidence of this. Hitler himself probably made it to Argentina I believe. There probably was some sort of plot by the Nazis as well to “invade” S America, as that is where most of them ended up. The Zionists have a big presence there as well.

    As for Da Jews, the Zionist wing and upper class were partners with the Nazis, as well as the American Nazis OSS/CIA. The commie wing and lower classes got the shitty end of the stick, they ended up in the camps, used as pawns by the Zionists to use as a victim narrative for the next million years, lots of evidence of this. The Zionists, the Nazis, fascists, American banks/corporations, CIA, Military Industrial Complex, Mossad, THE CAPITALISTS, they’re all one in the same, same goal, monopolize the worlds resources into private hands, monopolize the media, one world totalitarian govt. monopoly on everything including our food and water…. I thinks JFK’s assassination and 9/11 were just more moves by this “cabal” to cement their power and chip away at our rights a little more.

    I find it ironic that many here insist that FDR started US participation in WW2 by his actions on Japan, sanctions/blockade. WHile at the same time saying that Trump hasn’t “started any new wars” knowing that Trump is sanctioning half the world, and ignoring the fact that sanctions are an act of war, siege warfare, that kills just as many as dropping bombs. 40,000 dead in Venezuela alone. Who knows how many in Syria and Iran.

    Mr. Unz always gives the American and Nazi perspective but never seems to use any Soviet/commie sources. They seem to be pretty hard to come by in the english language. I don’t think you can find the whole truth about it all without reading from all sides propaganda and drawing your conclusion from there. Heres a 21 part series from a Soviet writer that some here may be interested in reading.

    https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/us-prepared-hitler-for-war-with-ussr-4/

    Mr. Unz being Russian/Ukrainian should try and find some books by these Soviet/commie authors and add them to his archive. Apparently these authors wrote a lot about the Nazi-Zionist collaboration in WW2 and pissed a lot of Jews off when they released them. I’ve looked, but haven’t had much success in finding them in English or even Russian. I list the names of author and some off the titles of the books.

    Trofim Kichko – Judaism without Embellishments – Judaism and Zionism – Judaism Unmasked – Judaism in its True Colours – The Jewish Religion, its Origins and Character

    Yuri Ivanov – What Is Zionism? – Beware: Zionism – Caution: Zionism! one of the leading Soviet anti-Zionist writers, took his clue from age-old tropes of Jewish conspiracy and influence: he presented Zionism as a centrally-controlled international system that gripped the entirety of global politics, finance and the media, had unlimited resources, and sought to establish monopolistic control over the entire world.

    Yuri Selzkine – The Jewish century

    Yevgeny Yevseyev – Fascism under a Blue Star – De-Zionization – Zionism and Apartheid

    Lev Korneev – On the Course of Aggression and Fascism, The Class Essence of Zionism

    Korneyev – Merchants of Death

    Yuri Kolesnikov – The Promised Land – alleges that the liquidation of six million Jews during World War II was part of an arrangement between the Zionists and the-Nazis. The author alleges that the pact called for the Nazis to send young, healthy Jews to Palestine while the Zionists refused to allow others to come. The author claims the Zionists rejected a proposal by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to admit one million Jews to the U.S., that Mussolini and Eichmann were Zionist agents, and that the Reich’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels acted as an intermediary between Hitler and the Zionists.

    Novosti Publishing House titles include – Soviet Jews: Fact and Fiction – The Deceived Testify: Concerning the Plight of Immigrants in Israel – Deceived by Zionism

    Novosti English-language propaganda brochures: Zionism: Instrument of Imperialist Reaction – Soviet Opinion on Events in the Middle East – Adventures of International Zionism – Anti-Sovietism, Profession of Zionists – Zionism Counts on Terror

    Just muh opinion of course!

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  777. @gregor

    thanks.

    Freedman’s comments mesh with activities of Louis Brandeis & Felix Frankfurter.

    https://www.unz.com/article/israel-worship-is-white-nationalism-for-boomers-too-cowardly-to-demand-their-own-ethnostate/#comment-3471609


    There’s not a simple answer to Germanicus’s question/argument, that Hitler could not have been financed by Jews —
    There are far more parts to the history than we are aware of so far; pieces are missing.

    One piece of the puzzle; rather, one subsystem of the machine, is that there was a Jewish civil war playing out at the same time: Russian / Eastern Jews vs German Jews vs American Jews being pushed & pulled to take one side or the other; Zionist Jews — a decided minority in the early 20th century, trying to persuade non-zionist and anti-zionist Jews.

    Inasmuch as the people who led those factions within the Jewish world controlled vast wealth and had influence over the highest levels of government in Weimar Germany (as Germanicus says); in Britain, in Russia and in USA, it seems to me reasonable to view Jewish influence-makers/decision shapers as the controlling system of the overall machine.

    Brandeis
    Frankfurter
    Rabbi Wise
    Sam. Untermeyer (partner & relative in the Guggenheim law firm, iirc. Someone mentioned that Guggenheims cheated / war profiteered on copper sales in a war)
    Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

    they are who I am looking at recently, especially Brandeis & Frankfurter.

  778. @Seraphim

    What exactly is “Europe?”

    Audi, Bentley, BMW, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Maserati, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Rolls-Royce.

    The need for speed, power, innovation, excellence, elegance, etc. Hurtling into the future full throttle. Infinite desire.

    Often baffling or scary for Third World cultures and mindsets.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  779. Video from 1973 Soviet Union about Zionism some may be interested in. Was banned from youtube

    SOVIET ZIONOLOGY SECRET AND EXPLICIT GOALS AND DEEDS OF THE ZIONISTS. 1973 BANNED KGB DOCUMENTARY


    • Replies: @Germanicus
  780. Fox says:
    @German_reader

    Indeed, I remembered the title incorrectly, and it is in the original as you are writing.
    Nonetheless, his actions speak another language than your belief that Brandt was anything but a repulsive traitor and German hater. Hence, when he was still Chancellor, he refused -“with a literally amazing speediness”- the republication of his “Germans and other Criminals” and “Guerilla Warfare” (this book written during his stay in Norway and an invitation to fight from the shadows against his former German fellow countrymen. (“Former”, because he was depraved of his German citizenship due to his behavior). When he was handed a passport of the FRG is not known to me, for all I know, he might have been the stateless person as a Chancellor as he was ever since he was expelled from the community of the German People.
    The proposal of republishing his writings was made by Waldemar Schütz, diector of the National-Verlag, the information stems from “Willy Brandt – Schein und Wirklichkeit” by Erich Kern (“Willy Brandt – Pretense and Reality”). The fact that he didn’t want his past revisited, along with the other fact that his “Germans and other Criminals” was systematically removed from circulation.
    He considered 99 % of the Germans responsible for the actions of the National Socialist state, and, in the same “Quick” interview in 1962 (“Quick” was a German magazine) he also wants his “Criminals and other Germans” to be translated as ” Criminals and the other Germany”.
    I suggest to any non-German readers to think about how they would conceive of a book titled as, e.g.:
    ‘”Criminals and other Americans”
    or
    “Criminals and other Poles” (that’s for szopen)
    or
    “Criminals and other Je…”

    Should such non-German readers feel insulted by such a book title applied to their home country, I will totally sympathize. On the other hand, German reader seems to think of it as totally harmless when used by a red icon to characterize the country he was born in.

    German Reader, you are a died-in the-wool FRG creature, and are therefore on a journey towards a dead end.

    But this is leading away from the original point, namely that arsonists set the house of Europe deliberately ablaze and now celebrate the fire bug Churchill and his confederates as heroes. Brandt is just one of the unsavory figures who have been installed by the arsonists by destroying the German bastion. Merkel and her minions are but the continuation of the things set in motion through unconditional surrender. Intelligent people would have thought first and acted then, but this was not Churchill’s leaning, and he must be held most responsible as the leader of the destructive forces brought onto the battle field.

  781. Seraphim says:
    @Sean McBride

    Ach so!
    You forgot Conchita Wurst, the face of Europe’s vision of the future towards which is hurtling full throttle.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  782. Fox says:
    @Adrian

    See the re-print of Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (available from Ostara Publications). The splendid decision to begin city bombing was taken on May 11, 1940 according Spaight, an official in the British Air Ministry.
    “Bombing Vindicated” was published during the war and has an undertone of triumphalism and arrogance, hence indicating the full conscientousness with which the decision for unrestricted bombardment was taken.

  783. @Seraphim

    What exactly is “Europe?”

    Another take:

    Beatles, Black Sabbath, Cure, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Motörhead, Muse, Pink Floyd, Police, Rammstein, Rolling Stones, Smiths, U2, Who, Yardbirds.

    You dig?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Anon
  784. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Perhaps the expressed will of the German population of Danzig is reflected in the elected Senate and government of that city? That was in the majority National Socialist, and hence I conclude pro-Reich. Perhaps you interpret this differently, but I am not a Wizard, so I can’t do magic.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  785. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @redmudhooch

    Yuri Kolesnikov – The Promised Land – alleges that the liquidation of six million Jews during World War II was part of an arrangement between the Zionists and the-Nazis. The author alleges that the pact called for the Nazis to send young, healthy Jews to Palestine while the Zionists refused to allow others to come.

    Lenni Brenner, in Zionism in the Age of Dictators, offers a good deal in support of this interpretation of events. Moreover, he states that, after the spilling of so much European blood, the Zionist leadership believed that their cause would receive little sympathy after the war, unless Jews too could claim to have suffered horribly.

  786. Fox says:
    @James N. Kennett

    I think one can reduce the question of ultimate responsibility to the apparent will to go to war in London in 1939. The Danzig and Korridor problem was the last trouble spot to be taken care of. Even Curchill thought that this area would spark the next war if not eliminated, yet it was ultimately he who agitated behind the scenes most vigorously for not dealing with it. The problems were not made or caused by Hitler, but he was working energetically to solve one after another.
    Had England (i.e., the English leadership) urged the Poles to come to grips with its neighbor Germany through sensible agreements-such as recognizing that Danzig was not Polish, but German, didn’t want to be governed by Poland, but wanted to become part of Germany again, and that a peaceable solution needed to be found for the existence of Germans as a minority in Poland, no conflict would have arisen. Empty promises were made to the Poles and then not kept, as the purpose appears to have been to get the war started. The English leadership had not come to grips with the fact that the Middle Ages and their immediate aftermath had passed into history and that the English policy of Balance of Power was outdated. Hence, mingling in affairs not England’s business could only have evil consequences.
    Since the decision of war or peace was made in London, the ultimate responsibility must be placed in the hands of the people who made the decision, and these were Chamberlain and through his powerful influence Churchill as the main protagonists.
    A bad decision also places the responsibility for all bad consequences on the party having made it. Europe has been only the shadow of itself since the end of the war. An entity as “Angela Merkel” would not have been conceivable in a normal flow of historic events, but the chaos of the war and its ill-conceived conclusion through the elimination of the entire German leadership and the wholesale plundering and violation of that country, all ultimately caused by England’s decision to go to war over anon-issue. The current dissolution and decomposition process in Europe is only a later manifestation of the destruction caused by the willful triggering of the war.

  787. @Rurik

    Interesting point. Also remember seeing a video clip on Twitter of a young German child, a girl of no more than 10 years old. She was giving a Nazi salute as the Fuhrer approached. He literally bent the over and gently put her arm down as if to say: Do not worshipfully acknowledge me in that forceful way – you are an innocent child.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  788. turtle says:

    The English leadership had not come to grips with the fact that the Middle Ages and their immediate aftermath had passed into history

    There you go.
    Along with “the white man’s burden” and, in due course yet to come, “Britannia rules the waves.”
    Who’s sorry now?

  789. @refl

    If it is Brüning, Brünning, Breuning or wtf I do not care. Is this relevant?

    Yes, it is relevant. If you are a German educated in Germany, who reads a lot & studies history, you don’t spell the name of a key German chancellor incorrectly several times, especially a one-n name with two n’s. And then say, ‘I do not care.’ You just don’t. If you’re a punk who is pretending to be German, you would.

    Hitler once wrote his name with a double “tt”

    That has nothing to do with your spelling Brüning wrong, with or without the umlaut.

    The story is so crazy that it might be true.

    Is that what you base your recommendation on? From the Introduction you copy here, von Papen is quoted beginning in mid-sentence: “… the most documented account of the National Socialists’ sudden acquisition of funds was contained in a book published in Holland in 1933, by the old established Amsterdam publishing house of Van Holkema & Warendorf, called DE GELDBRONNEN VAN HET NATIONAAL SOCIALISME (DRIE GESPREKKEN MET HITLER) under the name ‘Sidney Warburg.’

    Note there is no end-quote anywhere. So what did von Papen say? “(Unknown) the most documented account of the National Socialists’ sudden acquisition of funds was contained in a book (blah, blah) … ” That’s all. “Most documented.” So what? We have to see what the documents are. Maybe all made up, yes? This book has been determined to be worthless garbage, but people with no better argument continue to try to use it. You’re in very poor company.

    • Troll: refl
    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  790. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “I think one can reduce the question of ultimate responsibility to the apparent will to go to war in London in 1939. The Danzig and Korridor problem was the last trouble spot to be taken care of.”

    Really?
    Could have sworn that was:

    “This [Sudetenland] is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe, but it is a demand on which I will not yield.”
    – Adolf Hitler, Berlin 26 Sep 1938

    After Munich ceded the Sudetenland [30 Sep 1939] Hitler’s pledge was met. Tell us why Hitler invaded rump Czechoslovakia six months later.

    Take your time.

    “Since the decision of war or peace was made in London”

    London? Really? Did London or Paris order German Landsers into Poland? Don’t think so.

    Most think that decision was made ±4:30 am 1 Sep 1939 when, without declaration of war, knowing English and French guaranties in place, the German Luftwaffe attacked the un-military, undefended Polish cities of Wielun (16,000 souls), Dzialoszyn and Kamiensk. The German Wehrmacht was close behind.

    13 days later Frampol, a Polish town of 4000 lacking military assets, personnel, and anti-aircraft defenses; the towns distinctive town hall, market square and grid plan make it suitable for testing bombing effectiveness; 125 bombers drop 700 tons of explosives in an attack lasting several hours, while fighter planes strafe refugees fleeing the town; 90% of Frampol is destroyed, up to 1500 civilians die and another 500 are wounded;

    “Danzig and Korridor problem”

    What bullshit! Get a life, little Fox!

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wally
    , @Fox
  791. @Franklin Ryckaert

    The rest of the Slavs were considerd to be “inferior”, only good to be literally “slaves” of the German Herrenvolk. To be good slaves, they would be refused education and medical care. You can read about such plans in Hitler’s Table Talk.

    You are such a liar, Franklin. In maybe two passages of casual table talk, it was said the Poles (whom had caused the German nation exceeding trouble and expense with their intrigue and stubborn resistance) would not receive special German education and health care (such as expensive vaccinations). They would have only the same health care from their own doctors they were used to, and no German-provided education above basic levels. Naturally, whatever Poles could provide for their own people they were free to do.

    This was talk between Hitler-Himmler, speculating on how to proceed in the General-Government. I don’t know that any actual policy was ever put in place.

    • Replies: @szopen
  792. Dube says:
    @szopen

    As far as I know, there was not a single Jew among my ancestors, although I found a great-grandmother who was German. However, if by some miracle it turned out that I had some ancient religious ancestor, I would not consider it a shame and nothing would change: I am Polish, because having the opportunity to emigrate, I stayed in Poland and work for my country; because my family fought in uprisings for the freedom of my homeland.

    Thank you for your interpositions and testimony. Now perhaps a chance to rest and water the horses, the pennants again to be raised.

  793. @redmudhooch

    That’s correct, the Soviet narrative was until the Soviet collapse, that Israel was in imperialist, expansionist state.
    The reason, Israel was competing with Stalin’s creation of the autonomous jewish Oblast of Birobidjan, which still exists, the yiddish radio station is still on air.

    Regarding what you think about OSS, the precursor of the CIA. These guys were staunch anti-German, but the American population was still quite pro-German, 1/5 had German roots, the jewish media have poisoned and clouded their minds to this day.

    It is absurd trying to connect the OSS to allegedly helping Germany.

    There is much more evidence for a deep collaboration between the US and Soviet Union, the Roosevelt administration was riddled with communists, and the “trading with the enemy act” just confirms it, ie economic warfare, preventing and criminalizing American business to do business with Germany.
    I could talk about the occult aspects of the US-SU mirroring, and both having the 5 pointed star as insignia, but not now and here.

    Stupid wikipedia states:

    The Empire of Germany was first sanctioned in 1917 for its role WW1. Germany remained sanctioned until a U.S.-German peace treaty was ratified in 1921. Nazi Germany was sanctioned again in 1941 for its role in starting WW2.[15][14] Sanctions were lifted in 1946.[16] As Germany was judged to have a primary role in starting both world wars, the United States policy was to confiscate and sell off German assets that Germans acquired before 1946.

    Russian Empire property was frozen in the event the property was from the areas the invading Central Powers occupied during WW1 to prevent the Central powers from using Russian assets. If the area was not occupied, the assets were not frozen. Because of this policy, once central power occupation ended the sanctions were effectively lifted.[13]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_of_1917#Germany

    Seriously guys, sometimes I wonder if you are able to do a simple 1+1=2, because you arrive at 1+1=3.

  794. @Skeptikal

    I found Preparata better in parts than whole. I summarized one topic — the causes of the German depression of the early 20s — where I found him especially useful; there are others — the Russian Revolution and Civil War, the Weimar Republic, international gold finance. But his book also does suffer, in my view, from a desire to tie everything together in one big neat package.

  795. @Carolyn Yeager

    So what? Are you going to be the first to positively assert that Adenauer – and Ludwig Erhard – were the dregs of society and in character? That would be relevant to my point, however brave and foolish.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  796. @Fox

    On that you do have a point, though it suggests you should know better than to slander the character of Adenauer, Erhard et al.

  797. @Skeptikal

    These texts discuss Wall Street’s implication in the Southern slave economy and its consequences both before and after the Civil War:

    C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston, Little, Brown, 1951) p. 12-13, 35 & 24 & esp. p. 237-240.

    B.B. Kendrick, “The Colonial Status of the South,” Journal of Southern History vol. 8 no. 1 (Feb. 1942) 3-22. Kendrick, then president of the Southern Historical Association, shows that the South’s status vis-a-vis New England and New York City was, from before the Revolution up until the present day, colonial, subject, exploited: “At present finance capitalism and imperialism hold the region in so firm a grip that no escape from the colonial status appears possible short of some catastrophic collapse of the whole imperialistic system.” (p. 4). It’s heartening to see that at that time American academics were not yet all gelded, muzzled, brought to heel, bought.

    Philip S. Foner, Business & Slavery: The New York Merchants & the Irrepressible Conflict (Univesity of North Carolina Press, 1941).

  798. Yeah, yeah, those Brits must have known Hitler couldn’t help himself and couldn’t wait a year or two or more to negotiate a peaceful solution. Still, if you think you know about important things brush up a bit on the balance of power politics and recall that the Middle Ages had nothing to do with it. (Hint: the Middle Ages for England was better characterised as a period when the Plantagenets sought to use as much as they could of English resources to conquer and hold on to a lot of France).

  799. @Fox

    My reply is at present #813

  800. @turtle

    No doubt you are familiar with the exploits of Union Banking Corp. (Fritz Thyssen’s U.S. banker) and one Prescott Walker Bush. If not, the info is readily available.

    Yes, but so what? What is the big fuzz about German-US business relations the “trading with the enemy act” criminalized and punished?

    I just don’t get it, the US has been run by millionaires for over a century, money determines everything there, huge social injustice, and yet there is this crazy moral high ground taking, for which there is no justified reason whatsoever. “Exceptionalism”.

    I would recommend a pretty enlightening speech, yet again.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_Speech_to_the_Workers_of_Berlin_(10_December_1940)

    It gives you a good insight about the problems Germany faced, and these were primarily social problems, 7 million unemployed, constant “class struggle” by the marxists against the business lobby, street thugs and violence like the modern Antifa still do.

    Try to find this Siemesstadt election campaign speech translated in english, 10. November 1933.

    It is a small rootless clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. It is the people who are at home nowhere and everywhere, who do not have a home soil on which they have grown up, who today might live in Berlin, in Brussels tomorrow, and in Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague or Vienna or London and who feel home everywhere.
    the audience: Jews!

    Remarkable, considering the Eurocrats of EUSSR.

    http://gleichberechtigung.sluhoo.com/rhgf08.html


    • Replies: @turtle
  801. Adrian says:
    @refl

    I don’t think the book is all that rare. A second-hand Dutch language copy (allegedly in good condition ) is presently for sale at the Dutch distributor bol.com for Euro 21,95

  802. Reagarding the starving of German POWs in American prisoner camps at the end of WWII, I can contribute the following confirmation: I lived the end of WWII as a 10 year old boy. The son of a family living in our house served in the German Luftwaffe as a radio operator. He was less than 20 years old. A few weeks after the end of the war, his parents received the message that he had starved in an American prisoner camp somewhere in the Western part of the country, not more than 200 km from home.

    • Agree: Alexandros
  803. Adrian says:

    I must confess that I can’t follow the reasoning of those who seem to argue that, since England started bombing Germany on the 11 of May or decided to do so, Germany was somehow entitled to destroy the old center of Rotterdam three days later. Holland was not a party in that conflict. Holland had never been at war with Germany, Holland sheltered its emperor after he fled from Germany and had to withstand considerable international pressure to resist the “Hang the Kaiser” movement. I quote from the Erasmus Law Review:

    Art. 227 of the Versailles Treaty could not be misunderstood:

    The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.
    A special tribunal will be constituted to try the accused, thereby assuring him the guarantees essential to the right of defence. It will be composed of five judges, one appointed by each of the following Powers: namely, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.
    In its decision the tribunal will be guided by the highest motives of international policy, with a view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the validity of international morality. It will be its duty to fix the punishment which it considers should be imposed.
    The Allied and Associated Powers will address a request to the Government of the Netherlands for the surrender to them of the ex-Emperor in order that he may be put on trial.

    A request to the Dutch government for Wilhelms’ surrender had been made necessary by his flight; on 10 November 1918 the – soon former1 – Kaiser had crossed the Dutch borders. It seems that the French prime minister, Clemenceau, acting on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers (hereafter Allied Powers), shortly after conclusion of the Treaty, on 28 June 1919, for the first time requested the extradition of the Kaiser – a request that, however, was politely refused.2
    ….

    A second request (also signed by Clemenceau) followed on 15 Jan. 1920 and was refused on 21 Jan. 1920, and a last request (signed by Lloyd George) was made on 14 Feb. 1920, refused on 2 March 1920 (texts in French in Weekblad van het Recht, no. 10511 and 10529, German translation in Sebastian Haffner a.o., Der Vertrag von Versailles (1988), at 392-98. It seems that Lloyd George in a final note of 30 March 1920 made the Dutch Government responsible for all the consequences that might follow from the presence of the ex-Kaiser in the Netherlands”.

  804. @Fox

    Hillsdale College’s president, Larry Arn, worked closely on Churchill papers in London and came away madly in love with Winston. He conveys that unconditional love to students at Hillsdale.

    Erstwhile historian Victor Davis Hanson has taught at Hillsdale for a number of years, at Arn’s invitation.
    The opening comments of this recent talk of VDH’s about the importance of WWII is stunning: it appears adulation of Churchill is so total that VDH does not even hear himself saying that it was Churchill that caused the dumpster-fire of Danzig to become a continent-wide conflagration.

    VDH’s words [emphases added]:

    “Germany invaded Poland, with the Soviet Union; 28 days, the war was over.
    Germany invaded Denmark, one day, about six weeks, in April it was over.
    Germany invaded the Netherlands, Luxumburg, Belgium, and France: nobody believed that could be possible. — they took all that area, western democracies in 7 weeks. . . . —- in all that period, German only lost 100,000 soldiers. The war was over. Hitler had achieved what nobody else had done, not Napoleon, not Caesar: he had combined what was basically the European Union. Any country that opposed him were pro Nazi anyway — Switzerland, the Iberians — Portugal and Spain, Swedes were selling him iron ore with free transit and credit; he’d achieved it, the war was over.

    There was a problem in Britain ONLY because there was this problem called Winston Churchill.

    Halifax would have cut a deal.
    The former king, Edward, would have cut a deal.
    There was one man who came to be prime minister on the day of the invasion, he would not yield.
    But that was the only one: we were isolationist, the rest were collaborationist.

  805. Cleburne says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I took for the purpose of a philosophy major. ot that I was ever able to read Hegel or Kant in the original, or had any interest for that matter. It was fun wrestling with Nietzsche tho, not that I ever cared for him as a “thinker.”

    All that said, just for the hell of it I looked at a couple of the high schools in the largish Southern city where I live. Three of four offered German. there’s also a German/English dual language school and no shortage of adult education programs in German language, culture etc. And come to think of it, there’s a well-known German restaurant with a polka band every Wednesday and Thursday. So if there is some sort of conspiracy against the teaching of German language or culture, it’s not here.

  806. Miro23 says:

    This idea that Hitler was defending the West against Bolshevism, and that somehow the West was fighting on the wrong side is truly false.

    Hitler hated the Bolsheviks and the Communists. They were as totalitarian as he was, and he had already fought and defeated them in Germany. However, that in no way means that he was planning to liberate the people of Russia from Bolshevism and introduce them to Western Democracy.

    His writing and conversations make it 100% clear that the German drive to the East was an Imperial and racial supremacist project aimed at conquering and subjugating the Slavs.

    Stalin was well aware of the dynamic, and liquidated the Bolshevik Jews while he rearmed Russia. He knew a war was coming, and that the Russians would never make the titanic effort that they did on behalf of Bolshevik Jewish Internationalists – but they would do it for “Mother Russia” in what became known as the Great Patriotic War.

    The question then becomes, Would Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine have been better off under German “colonialism” or under Soviet Communism (the actual outcome)? Judging by Hitler’s planning and demonic ruminations in Table Talk and elsewhere, the Slavs were far better off under Communism.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  807. Truth3 says:

    Prescient Adolf Hitler Quote of the Day

    “It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish State in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university of budding crooks.”

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  808. @Wizard of Oz

    Your character is showing in that you turn the original comment into something else, mouthing only attempted cleverness, not ever sincerity. Did I say anything about “dregs of society?” You said in contrast to Willi Brandt, the western Allies “installed” Konrad Adenauer, as though he was a beacon of German freedom. I replied, correctly, he still did whatever the Allies wanted. He “belonged” to and represented the Allies, not true German aspirations. It’s not debatable, especially with you. End of discussion.

  809. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    “125 bombers drop 700 tons of explosives”– 125 German bombers in 1939 could not carry 700 tons of explosives.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  810. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are such an uneducated liar, Carolin. In the thread from axis forum above you can find plenty of derogatory remarks about Poles. As for “actual policies” just go and read anything about German occupation in Poland: public executions, banning higher education (from where would “our own” Polish doctors come if the universities were closed? from Mars?), death penalties for helping Jews, for economic speculation, for not joining forced job batallions, for failing to fulfill food requisition plans…

    “the Führer must emphasize once again that for Poles there is only one master and he is a German, there can be no two masters beside each other and there is no consent to such, hence all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia are to be killed”

    But, hey, I remember. It’s all propaganda and fakes. Intelligenzaktions had not happened. Public executions, kidnappings from the streets, ‘nur für deutsche” trams, shops and restaurants, expulsions – all that had not happened.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @annamaria
  811. szopen says:

    For the interested, here are Himmler’s thoughts about German policies in General Gouvernment (i.e. towards Poles).

    https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/untermenschen/himmler-fremdvolk.php

    My German is too poor to translate this, so I use google translation for the relevant fragment:

    A fundamental question in the solution of all these problems is the school question and thus the question of the sighting and screening of youth. For the non-German population of the East, there should be no higher school than the four-grade elementary school. The goal of this elementary school has only to be:

    Simple calculation up to a maximum of 500, writing the name, a doctrine that it is a divine command to be obedient to the Germans and to be honest, hardworking, and good. I do not think reading is necessary.

    Apart from this school there should not be any schools in the East at all. Parents who want to provide their children from the outset a better education both in the elementary school and later at a secondary school, have to submit an application to the Higher SS and police leaders. The application will be decided in the first place on whether the child is racially faultless and according to our conditions. If we recognize such a child as our blood, the parents are informed that the child is coming to a school in Germany and stays in Germany for a long time.

    THere is nothing about “Poles being free to provide themselves education”. Indeed, in GG only grammar schools were left, professors were sent to concentration camps (in case of Lwów university, executed); in intelligenzaktions, thousands of members of Polish intelligentsia were killed. Stating that “They would have only the same health care from their own doctors they were used to, and no German-provided education above basic levels. Naturally, whatever Poles could provide for their own people they were free to do. ” as Carolyn Yaeger writes above is a blatant lie, stated with the hope that people in the west had no access to the Polish sources and are ignorant of the German occupation in Poland. It’s a lie because both real policy in GG, and intentions stated by Frank, Himmler and others showed that there would be no independent Polish state and no Polish administration; that Poles would have no medical schools of their own; hence, it would be no “from their own doctors as they used to”, because there would be no Polish doctors anymore, maybe some shamans tolerated by German masters.

    I can’t even understand how anyone can hope such a blatant lie would go unchecked. I guess revisionists just got used to the situation where Poles were shut down behind the iron curtain, which is why even now you can’t have Polish history books translated into English.

    (39% of Polish doctors died in WW2)

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  812. Wally says:
    @szopen

    You talk a lot, but never produce proof.

    ‘Woe is us, we’re such victims. Have pity on us.’

    Is that a Polish thing?

    You said:

    “It’s all propaganda and fakes”.

    Well, you did get something right.

    • Replies: @szopen
  813. Truth3 says:

    Truth About How Jews Control the Discourse Link of the Day

    Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups… link here… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  814. Wally says:
    @Incitatus

    “After Munich ceded the Sudetenland [30 Sep 1939] Hitler’s pledge was met. Tell us why Hitler invaded rump Czechoslovakia six months later.”

    – Hacha asked for German assistance. Catch up.

    “13 days later Frampol, a Polish town of 4000 lacking military assets, personnel, and anti-aircraft defenses”

    – Another lie. Frampol was filled with Polish troops. Per Geneva law it was a legit military target.

    The Polish cities of Wielun, Dzialoszyn and Kamiensk were also military targets and you have no proof they weren’t.

    Polish historian Jerzy B. Cynk, author of The Polish Air Force at War. The official history 1939-1943, wrote about the events: “Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavalry and troop concentrations at Wielun.”[9]

    At 13:00 a German dive bomber wing, I./StG 2 led by Major Oskar Dinort via Nieder-Ellguth, were directed against this unit, followed a few hours later by Schwarzkopff with sixty Ju 87 Stukas of I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 77[8] Weather conditions were unfavourable during the day, with a visibility of only one kilometre and a practically closed layer of fog at 50 metres altitude.[10] Fog, mist and poor visibility thwarted many of the Luftwaffe’s sorties planned for the morning of the first day of the invasion.[10] The dive bombers, facing intense anti aircraft fire, inflicted heavy losses on the Polish cavalry, and the advance was turned into a rout by 90 Stukas.[8] On their return home, four of the German Junkers Ju 87 bombers were shot down by the Polish 36 Academic Legion Infantry Regiment stationed nearby.[8] Three waves of attacks were carried out during the day.[8] The town was captured by the German Army on the first day of the invasion.[8]

    recommended:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  815. turtle says:
    @Germanicus

    yet there is this crazy moral high ground taking,

    Yes, exactly.
    Ultimate hypocrisy, all for public consumption.
    Notice that “trading with the enemy” did not adversely affect the political prospects of the Bush family.
    It’s just business. The public “hand wringing” is only to pacify the rubes.

    Thanks for the link.
    I shall read it.

  816. Rurik says:
    @Clear_Conscience

    the Fuhrer approached. He literally bent the over and gently put her arm down as if to say: Do not worshipfully acknowledge me in that forceful way – you are an innocent child.

    look at this monster imposing gender and ethnic pride on those poor children!

    This is how to raise boys in an enlightened, progressive Z-America!

    It turns out that these boys were not even being raped!

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-allegations/index.html

    Just imagine the kind of horror it would have been for these racist bitches to have grown to adults without ever being gang raped by Red Army rapists or American GIs!

    If it weren’t for the heroic efforts of America and British bombers, women like that would not even have been burnt alive by the hundreds of thousands!

    Or died of exposure or raped literally to death.

    Thank God we saved them from Hitler!

  817. Truth3 says:

    Sick Twisted Jewish Ritual of the Day

    Kapparot (on Yom Kippur) is a custom in which the sins of a Jew are symbolically transferred to a Rooster, by swinging the live Rooster over the Jew’s head three times while chanting a Yiddish incantation. The Rooster with Jewish sins is then given to some poor Goy to eat. The Goy eats the Jew’s sins, and the Jew is free of the just punishments for those sins. What happens to the Goy is not a concern for the Jew.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  818. @utu

    That sounds right so maybe it can be elaborated (or corrected) , perhaps by saying how many sorties there were.

  819. szopen says:
    @Wally

    Except this cavalry unit was NOT in Wieluń, but outside Wieluń. The cavalry left Wieluń August the 30th. Polish infantry units marched through Wieluń also this day and took position south-west from the city.

    As for Jerzy B. Cynk, I will write about it more, because this is great example of lies and manipulations used by revisionists like Wally:

    https://epdf.pub/queue/polskie-lotnictwo-mysliwskie-w-boju-wrzesniowym.html

    typos are mine; the pdf is jpg and my tool cannot select text, so I have to type it. You can check it however yourself.

    The page numbers must be different, because in Polish Wieluń is mentioned on page 115, where Cynk states that Luftwaffe attacked Polish units concentrated near the border, and THEN “wkrótce potem nurkowce I./St.G 76 przypuściły atak na Wieluń” (soon after that the dive bombers attacked Wieluń”.

    Next, on page 120, Cynk writes: “I/St.G 76 and I./St.G. 2 atakowały kilkakrotnie zgrupowania kawalerii polskiej w rejonie Wielunia, Działoszyna oraz Zduńskiej Woli i zapisały się w pamięci Polaków zupełnym zniszczeniem miasta Wieluń” (“…attacked few times concentrations of Polish cavalry in neighbourhood of Wieluń, Działoszyn and Zduńska Wola and were written in Polish memory with complete destruction of city of Wieluń”). On the same page he states that Wieluń was a drastic example of attacking cities with no military value.

    I have no access to English version of the book, but you can check the Polish original yourself – and see that Wally manipulates the quotes (instead of “neighbourhood of Wieluń” he writes “in Wieluń”) and completely omits the another sentence from the very same page, where Cynk clearly states he thinks attack on Wieluń was with no military value.The most favourable version is that the English translator completely mistranslated the original and removed the later sentence in which CYnk says Wieluń had no military value.

    • Replies: @Wally
  820. Rurik says:
    @Germanicus

    Research SDRs. Huge scam.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sdr.asp

    Rothschild:

    “It (Central Bank ) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class… The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests.”

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  821. szopen says:
    @Wally

    What is a proof? I’ve linked a document produced by Himmler, which you can find in several places on the internet. Do you want me to go to German archives, find the document, scan it, got graphologists check it, carbon-date it or what? Given that you yourself was just exposed in using fake quote (or, at least, wrongly translated from original by Jerzy B. Cynk), I would say that it’s unreasonable demand.

    (Especially when one remembers that the only cavalry unit nearby was Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii, which, as you can easily check, was just fortifying the positions near Mokra, so it could repell the attacks starting at 6:30. There were no other cavalry units which could be attacked, and an idea that bombing Wieluń could cause losses to a cavlary units entrenched 50 km or so from Wieluń is laughable. You can defend Luftwaffe attack by saying they thought military units were in Wieluń, so they bombed the city just in case, destroying hospital, church and a lot of civilian infrastructure believing Polish soldiers would hide in civilians houses and in church – criminal negligence. But insisting that calvary unit WAS in Wieluń is just stupid and destroys any credence you have.).

    • Replies: @szopen
  822. Rurik says:
    @utu

    Israel Worship Is White Nationalism for Boomers Too Cowardly to Demand Their Own Ethnostate

    I see a lot of truth in that.

    White American conservatives who have seen through Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being pro-Israel, but it’s nationalism by proxy all the same.

    I wouldn’t characterize it as pro-Russia, but rather Putin-envy.

    IOW envious of Russia for having a leader like Putin, who puts Russia first, rather than putting Israel first, including (((Globohomo))).

    In fact I suspect that for all of Trump’s abased fealty to Zion, it’s his straight, White man’s swagger, that has the Globohomo Hive so triggered.

    Insofar as Trump conducts himself like a Putin, (lip service to Heritage America, conservative judges and Justices), is what accounts for his tenacious popularity among his base.

    American men with their manhood intact, don’t cuck themselves to Russia, but simply pine for a shred of hope that sanity might one day be returned to the Republic.

    (It won’t)

    Things are going to get unimaginably worse before it ever gets better, and the smart bet is to get your passport on order.

  823. @szopen

    1. This was Himmler, not Hitler giving this speech. This was forward-looking thinking meant to contain the rampant Polish non-cooperation which was serving the ends of Germany’s enemies. If Polish people had ever settled down, and those Poles who wanted to cooperate with Germany became numerous enough and in charge, German policy toward Poles would have been far more benign. It was the Polish attitudes and actions that made such strict policies necessary. They were never used against Czechs, were they?

    2. You want Germans to be as dumb as Poles, and just play into their enemies hands — to treat the Poles like friends and comrades when they had and were still seeking the total destruction of Germany. Get real! All your sympathy-pandering does nothing but turn people off.

    3. You conveniently forget that Poles continued to resist German occupation with sabotage and every kind of secret cooperation with anti-German forces, yet you expect Germans should educate Poles and bring them into German inner-circles in order to help them do that more effectively!!

    4. When the time came that Poland was sufficiently subdued, they would be treated very differently. Unfortunately, that time never came. Those who wanted to become German citizens could do that, right from the start, though they had to earn it and show they deserved it. This is how it always is, like it or not – Germany had to do it after their great defeat. No one feels sorry for the Germans on that account.

    5. Considering all the above, you are a low-life sniveling creature who does not make your Polish race look good. What you call facts or truth is nothing but Polish chauvinism.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @szopen
  824. Rurik says:
    @Miro23

    This idea that Hitler was defending the West against Bolshevism, and that somehow the West was fighting on the wrong side is truly false.

    This is the question, isn’t it?

    My reasons for giving it credence, is due to what I see unfolding today, right in front of my eyes.

    Jewish supremacists are frantic in their *obvious* genocidal hatred for the West.

    They’re unhinged in their demands that every white nation commit suicide, right now! Before it’s too late.

    It’s the crazed and psychotic hatred of today’s Jewish supremacists that have convinced me that what we’ve been told about the Nazis was likely lies.

    Just consider all the lies we’ve been told, as exposed by this thunderous article by Ron Unz.

    Lies upon lies upon lies. And all of it force-injected by a media and academia under absolute domination by Jewish supremacists.

    . However, that in no way means that he was planning to liberate the people of Russia from Bolshevism and introduce them to Western Democracy.

    How many millions of Russians and Poles and other Slavs donned the German uniform to fight against the Bolshevik fiend?

    Not to mention the millions of Ukrainians and Estonians and Latvians and Norwegians who hated the Nazis for being on their sacred soil, but who also understood the dire threat of Bolshevism, and so held their noses and fought for the Nazis.

    If the Nazis had won, would there be millions of Africans and Muslims and others in Norway and Sweden and France (and so many other dying Western nations) today?

    The United States is currently undergoing a massive and transformational sea change in demographics, that will permanently transform its politics and its destiny into something that will be even more overtly anti-White than it is today.

    Enoch Powell was right about this. The West is engaged in piling up its own funeral pyre.

    Just look at Zimbabwe or South Africa for a glimpse of our future.

    It’s all blatant and obvious for anyone with the courage to simply open their eyes.

    The world’s Jewish supremacist are determined to genocide us all off the face of the planet for all eternity. Duh, man!

    Seeing what’s unfolding right in front of us all, how can we look back on those times and not draw some obvious conclusions. We’ve been told so many lies that I think it’s hard to think straight anymore.

    German drive to the East was an Imperial and racial supremacist project aimed at conquering and subjugating the Slavs.

    From everything I’ve glimmered, I don’t think he hated Slavs. I think he hated Bolshevik, Jewish supremacists, and considered them an existential threat to Germany in particular, and Western civilization in general. Was he wrong about that?

    >>><<<

    Stalin was well aware of the dynamic, and liquidated the Bolshevik Jews while he rearmed Russia

    From what I understand he never took any actual action against ‘the Jews’ until long after the war was over.

    The question then becomes, Would Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine have been better off under German “colonialism” or under Soviet Communism (the actual outcome)? Judging by Hitler’s planning and demonic ruminations in Table Talk and elsewhere, the Slavs were far better off under Communism

    Well, that is a hell of a question, and may be *the* question in certain circles.

    I think of Operation Keelhaul, and those Russian men who were betrayed at Yalta.

    Were they any less Slav than the Russians who fought for Stalin?

    I think of Aleksandr Solzhenitsynm, was he not there? At the time?

    And perhaps most of all, I think of all the nations and people who were enslaved by the commies after the war was “over”.

    It sort of proves that Hitler was right all along. And that Soviet Bolshevism was at heart, imperialistic, genocidal, cruel, and murderous.

    IOW, exactly what Orwell was describing in his seminal work; 1984.

    And the hatred that is engulfing the planet today, only under a different name. Instead of (global, genocidal) Bolshevism, today it’s morphed into (global, genocidal) Zionism, and wars and more wars and more wars and horrors and slaughter, all to sate an insatiable imperative for death and misery and genocide.

    And all of it orchestrated by Jewish supremacist banksters holed up in London and NYC.

    All the nations of the West must bow to their domination, and worship the Holocaust as their legally enforced state religion, and set about committing ethno-suicide with all due haste.

    What, one wonders.. would Russia look like today, under the Rothschild oligarchs- had not Putin wrested Russia’s destiny away from those fiends?

    It’s wealth (everything not nailed down) would have been all transferred out of Russia proper and into London and Israel and NY. The Russian people would be as the Rust Belt Americans, dying by vodka and opioid abuse epidemics when not committing suicide outright. Russian children would be trafficed all over the globe to amuse British and other serial pedophiles.

    All to the gloating of their J-supremacist masters.

    All that’s necessary is to open our eyes to what’s unfolding right now, as I type this.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  825. @Wally

    “…Hacha asked for German assistance. Catch up…”

    Right, this is how Hacha “asked for German assistance” :

    “…In the evening of 14 March 1939, Hitler summoned President Hácha to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.[1] Hitler deliberately kept him waiting for hours, while Hitler watched a film.[6] Wilhelm Keitel in his memoirs recalled that when Hácha arrived Hitler said that “he was going to let the old gentleman rest and recover for two hours” which was incomprehensible to Keitel.[7] Finally, at 1:30 a.m., on 15 March 1939, Hitler saw the President. He told Hácha that as they were speaking, the German army was about to invade Czechoslovakia.[1] All of Czechoslovakia’s defences were now under German control following the Munich Agreement in September of the previous year. The country was virtually surrounded by Germany on three fronts.

    Hitler told Hácha that as they were speaking, the German army was about to invade Czechoslovakia.[1] Hitler then gave the Czech President two options: cooperate with Germany, in which case the “entry of German troops would take place in a tolerable manner” and “permit Czechoslovakia a generous life of her own, autonomy and a degree of national freedom…” or face a scenario in which “resistance would be broken by force of arms, using all means.”[8] Minutes of the conversation noted that for Hácha this was the most difficult decision of his life, but believed that in only a few years this decision would be comprehensible and in 50 years would probably be regarded as a blessing.[9] According to Joachim Fest, Hácha suffered a heart attack induced by Göring’s threat to bomb the capital and by four o’clock he contacted Prague, effectively “signing Czechoslovakia away” to Germany.[10] Göring acknowledged making the threat to the British ambassador to Germany, Neville Henderson, but said that the threat came as a warning because the Czech government, after already agreeing to German occupation, couldn’t guarantee that the Czech army would not fire on the advancing Germans.[11] Göring however doesn’t mention that Hácha had a heart attack because of his threat.

    The French Ambassador Robert Coulondre reported that according to an unnamed, considered a reliable source by Coulondre, by half past four, Hácha was “in a state of total collapse, and kept going only by going only by means of injections.”[12] Coulondre described the scene at the Reich Chancellory:

    The German ministers [Göring and Ribbetrop] were pitiless. They literally hunted Dr. Hácha and M. Chvalkovsky round the table on which the documents were lying, thrusting them continually before them, pushing pens into their hands, incessantly repeating that if they continued in their refusal, half of Prague would lie in ruins from bombing within two hours, and that this would be only the beginning. Hundreds of bombers were waiting the order to take off, and they would, and they would receive that order at six in the morning if the signatures were not forthcoming”… [13]

    Wikipedia, Emil Hácha .

    When will you at last stop with your ridiculous propaganda that Hitler and the Nazis were always innocent? Rogues don’t deserve such treatment.

  826. szopen says:
    @szopen

    I’ve double checked few documents and I came to the following conclusions:

    WOłyńska Brygada Kawalerii actually never was in Wieluń; it was transferred from the east August the 17-19th and was concentrated near Brzeźnica Nowa, 20 km west from Radomsko. Nevertheless, my documents insisted that there was cavalry unit in Wieluń, which left it night August the 29th/30th. So I kept searching and found 1 Pulk of Defense border corps (1 Pułk KOP “Feliks”) which moved to Wieluń about May or so (not important, so I won’t check it for exact date), with HQ in Rusiec, and squadrons garrisoned in villages neraby. I’ve found however information that uhlans were making a defilade in August and that there were dancing with ladies from Wieluń just few days before the war. I read elsewhere, that it was moved out of Wieluń at night and at September the 1st (which is confusing: how it was moved out if it was garrisoned outside?). It’s positions at September the 1st are enumerated here: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Pu%C5%82k_Kawalerii_KOP#Pu%C5%82k_w_kampanii_wrze%C5%9Bniowej_1939_roku

    It is claimed that some cavalry unit was indeed attacked by Luftwaffe some in forest 12 km north from Wieluń. Polish wikipedia states it was “brigade” of cavalry, which is clear nonsense, because the only brigade was Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii, which was nowhere near, and other brigades were even further from the area. It would mean the “brigade” actually was some unit of 1PUłk of KOP, but I can’t find out more.

    For sure however, at September the 1st there were no cavalry units inside Wieluń.

    The 36 pulk of Academic League was 4-5 km south-west from Wieluń, and 28 infantry division were also stationed outside the city. WIeluń had no anti-aircraft weapons and was not defended.

    Another thing is that German Luftwaffe do mention attacking Polish units. However, given that they often mention also fog and that they claim to attack large Polish units when there were no military units there, one would have take those reports to be clear fantasies. Plus, of course, German intelligence mentioned HQ of Polish non-existent units, which existed only in plans but where never created.

    As I wrote above, you can defend Wieluń bombing by mistake: Luftwaffe thought Wieluń was defended, it thought there were units there (including brigade of cavalry; as I have written above, no cavalry brigade ever was in Wieluń). However, still the bombardment was rather reckless: the goal of attack was city centre, during fog, bombing indiscriminately many buldings, without any sign of any effort to avoid civilian casualties. Quite contrary, it seems that in the best case, Luftwaffe bombed Wieluń in hope that they would hit something of military value.

    I go dig in my library; I remember I had a book about cavalry units in 1939 hidden somewhere. Maybe I will find more info there.

    • Replies: @szopen
  827. @Carolyn Yeager

    1) “…This was Himmler, not Hitler giving this speech…”

    Ideas of one top Nazi are the policy of the Nazi top.

    2) “…You want Germans to be as dumb as Poles, and just play into their enemies hands — to treat the Poles like friends and comrades when they had and were still seeking the total destruction of Germany…”

    They were not seeking the “total destructrion of Germany”, they were seeking the liberation of their fatherland from German occupation, as all true patriots should under such circumstances.

    3) “… You conveniently forget that Poles continued to resist German occupation with sabotage and every kind of secret cooperation with anti-German forces, yet you expect Germans should educate Poles and bring them into German inner-circles in order to help them do that more effectively!!”

    The plan to withhold higher education to Poles was not inspired by short term considerations but by long term ones : as “inferior” Slavs they should lack the intellectual means to rebel against their slave status. The same policy was targeted to the Russians.

    4) “…When the time came that Poland was sufficiently subdued, they would be treated very differently…”

    Yes, as Slavic “Uncle Toms”. Incomprehensible to you, even Slavs have such a thing as ethnic pride.

    5) “…What you call facts or truth is nothing but Polish chauvinism…”

    Nothing wrong with Polish chauvinism, especially when it is based on facts.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  828. @Rurik

    Woodrow Wilson’s only “Treachery” was his womanizing; a foible which rendered him susceptible to ‘influence’ by Jews. You’ll notice please that the D.C. concubine who cavorted with Clinton was Jewish? (As was the previous model, who turned up dead.) Epstein was among those Jews who knew what salacious (And other…) buttons to push in order to influence our leadership. ‘Funny thing is, this trait of the tribe was depicted in “The Ten Commandments” .

  829. Numinous says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Mohandas Gandhi, the most prominent leader of the Indian independence movement, agreed, and indeed urged Indians to serve in the Imperial armed forces.

    Wrong about World War 2. Gandhi did this during World War 1, expecting that Britain would give Indians a better deal and some sort of autonomy in government. The British became even more repressive after the end of he war, turning Gandhi into a complete nationalist demanding independence. By the time WW2 came about, when the British governor (called Viceroy) declared that India was going to war on the side of the Allies, Gandhi urged a boycott and civil disobedience.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  830. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are saying because there were Poles opposing the occupation, it’s OK to close medical schools? Or maybe because Poles didn’t like Germans, it was OK to shut down all education except grammar schools, and arrest university professors? Does that mean that, because Germans didn’t exactly like Poles and Russians in 1945, it would be OK for us to close all German universities and middle schools (while shooting German farmers if they would fail to bring enough food to fulfill confiscation quotas)?

    You want Germans to be as dumb as Poles, and just play into their enemies hands — to treat the Poles like friends and comrades when they had and were still seeking the total destruction of Germany.

    Soooo Poles were dumb and played into their enemies hands, and treated Germans as friends (Beck up to the mid of 1939 thought Hitler is reasonable and can be trusted, and all problems could be solved), while Hitler was seeking total destruction of Poland?

    Probably not what you want to say, but it would be the only valid conclusion from the Polish-German pre-1939 relations.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  831. @J. Alfred Powell

    Madagascar was similarly explored, and would have settled many issues addressed by Jews and gentiles: The isolation of the tribe from “Hate” (This sentiment magically arises wherever they congregate..) less antipathy from the indigenous population (Palestine was a terrible idea.) and the difficulty the tribe would experience as they tried to extend their operations from a remote island. Jews would have established the equivalent of Las Vegas on Madagascar,, but it would have been competing with their U.S. domestic schemes.

  832. szopen says:
    @szopen

    I’ve found that at least part of the 1Pułk KOP (4th squadron) was 30 and 31 taking position in a village Bolesławiec. This is based on the memories of one of the uhlans from this memory collection: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_geujmPTkAhXMwosKHYdeDDEQFjABegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fboleslawiec.rojek.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2F21%2520Pierwszy%2520dzien.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2lw1joD1deKUor2nMfZ2RK

    This memory also have few other interesting memories, which would be probably called by Wally “fantasies” and “fakes”, about the behaviour of the German army inside the village.

    At the other forum, in the discussion between Polish-born, German historian Marius Emmerling and Polish amateurs, I’ve found a claim that Polish cavalry actually never was in Wieluń at all, which would confirm the OoB I’ve found, and contradict the info about cavlary unit leaving the city in the 30th. The author claimed that the source of confusion was a defilade in the middle of August, with many officers participating then in civil event(s?); the German intelligence then informed that there is a HQ of “Wieluń cavalry brigade” (a unit which never existed) and that there is a Polish division “C” in the neighbourhood of Wieluń, with HQ inside the city (such division also never existed). One of participants also claims that 1KOP stationed in city until August the 30th, other participants correct him that they were in city only during the celebrations, and were garrisoned in villages nearby – he probably mistaken them with batallions of national defense, which left the city 30th, going to their defensive positions outside the city.

    Marius Emmerling gives info about bombing cavalry unit 12km from Wieluń; since he is historian keen on justifying Luftwaffe bombardment, I presume he is right, but I still don’t know which cavalry unit was attacked there (still, 12 km from Wieluń is not Wieluń).

    The thread is very interesting for those speaking Polish. Marius is presenting German documents which are then thoroughly criticised by Polish amateurs; for example, the goals for German pilots were very imprecise (to paraphrase, they were just hit the centre); reconneissance never reached Wieluń; pilots mention fog and low visibility. It has also links to a document with two aerial photos of Wieluń after the bombardment: http://www.historiawielunia.uni.lodz.pl/cel_zniszczony.pdf

    ANother interesting argument one participant gives is that Wieluń was not defended, had no anti-aircraft, no military units, but because war was not declared, Poles simply had no chance to declare a city an open city.

    The thread starts here (in Polish):

    https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=129856&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=Wielu%C5%84

    Once again, you have to decide yourself whether this attack was legitimate or criminal. Based on unchecked information Luftwaffe decides to attack city. In order to destroy the nonexistent HQ and nonexistent units, Luftwaffe does not get precise attacks, just to hit the city centre. They attack without reconeissance, most likely in poor visibility conditions (a fog is likely). Basically “hmmm our guys told us something might be there. Some military might be somewhere there. So let’s hit everything, in hope this military target would be hit too”. Legit, or not?

  833. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    Now do the Boer War, using for example Pakenham’s “The Boer War” as starting point. He pretty much never says the “J” word, just lays out the history, which is very much like the political and media history of the 2003 Iraq war, and apparently also WWI and wwII.

    The same people have been using the same techniques for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    Weber’s analysis below is completely consistent with Pakenham and my other readings on the topic.

    Weber:
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/02/the-boer-war-remembered/

    Pakenham:
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/830238.The_Boer_War

  834. szopen says:

    One of the unexpected findings from the discussion about Wieluń:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Freiburg_on_10_May_1940

  835. @Rurik

    SDR was effectively what the Americans fought for alongside the Sovierts and British.
    They also fought for world government, degeneration and destruction of the nation state.

    [MORE]

    Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, {England}, declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans'{Jews} around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label.”

    British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, Stourbridge, 16 March 1984 (AP)

    The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.

    The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939

    Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.

    Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937

    The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…

    Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934

    The German revolution is the achievement of the Jews; the Liberal Democratic parties have a great number of Jews as their leaders, and the Jews play a predominant role in the high government offices.

    The Jewish Tribune, July 5, 1920

    The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world is filled with Jewish teachings in a universal brotherhood of nations, in a greater Judaism,all different races and religion will disappear.

    Jewish World, February 9, 1933

    The League of Nations is a Jewish idea. We have created it after 25 years of fighting. Jerusalem will one day become the capital of world peace.

    Nahum Sokolow, Zionist Congress Carlsbad, 1922

    We consider that the United Nations’ ideal is a Jewish ideal.

    David Ben-Gurion, “The Watchman” in TIME magazine, 16 August 1948

    The Second World War is fought to defend the essential principles of Judaism.

    Jewish magazine “The Sentinel”, 8 October 1942, Chicago

    Now the 6 million oy veh key question.

    Why would the Jews support and finance Hitler?
    What are these essential principles of Judaism?

  836. @Germanicus

    Their media sure as Hell promotes “World Government”. Since that sector is the lair of Big Jews, we can extrapolate where such an agenda would focus the power of its leaders. Any time we hear about “Global” issues, we should research who proposes the dissolving of sovereign borders as their solution. By the way, this 16 year old girl who now personifies their Climate Change campaign smacks of the resurrection of Anne Frank.

    The later version would be Hana Brady.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  837. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Numinous

    Wrong about World War 2.

    Right.

    According to Trikipedia:

    The Indian National Congress, led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Maulana Azad, denounced Nazi Germany but would not fight it or anyone else until India was independent.

    Thank you for the correction.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  838. MrTea says:

    I scanned the article for any references to the historical works of Antony Sutton who I found out about decades ago only by way of publications of the John Birch Society. Sutton wrote a scholarly 3-part study of technology transfer from the western “capitalists” to the Soviet “communists” that went on from the first Bolshevik regime right up to the 70s (when Sutton first published). US food aid also rescued the Bolsheviks from mass starvation, the revolution would probably have collapsed otherwise (the aid program managed by Herbert Hoover in the early 1920s was the subject of a PBS “American Experience” program around 2005 or so).

    Sutton was dismissed from his position at the Hoover Institution for being “too conservative” i.e. daring to speak of the astonishing (unreported) duplicity of US corporate interests with the communists. He went on to write another 3-part series “Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution” “Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler” and “Wall St. and FDR”. This material should be foundational to any assessment of the 20th Century they shunned by those who rule “higher education” which is starting to display all the trappings of the Soviet regime itself, if not Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

    Sutton’s final book was on the Skull and Bones.

    One other item of post-war note was Operation Keelhaul where US allies forced Eastern Europeans left on the allied side of the divide between the allies and the Red Army, onto trains back across the line to be either executed on the spot or shipped to the Gulag. This was coincident with the horrific conditions German conscripts and civilians were subjected to often left inside razor wire to die.

    Take away the investment bankers facilitation of the industrial rise of both the Bolshevik and Nazi regimes and WW2 would not have happened. This went on throughout the Cold War, to the point where Soviet bloc nations lined up at Haiphong harbor during the Vietnam war were in part subsidized by US “trade assistance” policy through entities like the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank.

    The Birchers were right. That’s why they were smeared with forged document attacks in the 1960s (THERE was some “election interference”) by none other than the KGB. See “The Sword and the Shield” by Christopher Andrew. This book was part of a parade of similar scholarship that C-Span featured in the post-Soviet years but it was stonewalled by US academia. This was documented in a book called “In Denial” by Haynes and Klehr.

  839. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You should quit because you’re reduced to espousing nonsense. Your heart is not in it.

    1) Sorry but you have no knowledge of this at all.

    2) Wrong, they wanted to conquer Berlin, Germany’s capital city, and take over a large section of Eastern Germany that they considered “greater Polska.” Szopen denies this but nevertheless it’s real.

    3) You do not know what any “plan” was inspired by. You’re talking out of your backside. Does anybody educate people to fight against them?

    4) Let Slavs speak for themselves. Since you are not Slavic (you say) you’re expropriating their right/responsibility to act on their own behalf. Don’t you have any cause of your own?

    5) Another pathetic non-answer.

    • Replies: @Adrian
  840. @szopen

    This is too stupid to answer. I know you’re trying, but you’re not the best spokesman for your cause. Ryckaert knows that so he tries to help, but he’s actually just as stupid. Give up – it’s really too painful.

    • Replies: @szopen
  841. @Germanicus

    Plenty of evidence that Jews demanded the complete destruction of Germany, but no one has satisfactorily answered, WHY? ( in 1933, not post-fauxolocaust)

    In Feb. 1933 Louis Brandeis, king of the zionists, said, “Germans have not respected Jews; let them suffer the fate of Spain.”

    Is that it?
    Destroy Germany because they did not “respect” Jews?
    Same as, “The Egyptians knew not Joseph?”

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  842. @David Baker

    By the way, this 16 year old girl who now personifies their Climate Change campaign smacks of the resurrection of Anne Frank.

    I think she looks more like the girl from the Addams family, but the entire CO2 nonsense doesn’t deserve the attention it gets. It should be laughed off.
    The detail on their “climate models” is pretty interesting, because it is based on pure probability, game theory, involving the Dwave black cubes, ie it is jewish “science”, voodoo.

    [MORE]

    This world government thing, you got two jewish factions. The one being the (messianic) UN/EU communist model, the other is the messianic 3rd temple Jerusalem Sanhedrin world capital model, which has a requirement of Armageddon built in their fantasies they try to become real.
    Consequently, the Israelis whine about the UN being “anti-semitic”, despite the fact, that the UN is a jewish idea, as Gurion pointed out.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  843. Dube says:

    Who’s the lady at the door with the shiny red apple? I’d thought her scripted by the Brothers Grimm, but now I’d guess Mel Brooks.

  844. @SolontoCroesus

    Destroy Germany because they did not “respect” Jews?

    Yes, it is that simple, the Jews with their “tikkun olam” are messianic nutcases, no matter they are communist or zionist, who seriously think they are something special, “chosen by god”, and all others have to be subservient to them or be killed if they resist the jewish world domination plans.
    The very same reasons apply why they want to destroy Iran, or why the samson option exists.

    The OT already has it in there, most people focus on the Talmud only, but the OT gave them this crazy idea they follow, because it is a war and genocide manual.
    Hence you see “atheist” Jews, usually in some shade of Marxism, who reason the existence of Israel with the Torah. It is an obvious contradiction for a non Jew, but it is perfectly reasonable for a Jew.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  845. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    According to John Wear, Hacha asked to be received by Hitler, was received with full state honors, his daughter received flowers and chocolates and – would confirm after the war that the reception in Berlin by Hitler was in all aspects correct.
    I have read the same elsewhere.
    It is apparently quite easy to find on the internet version of the events which nicely support the after-war narrative, even if direct participants of them had different memories. I have not read Keitel’s memoirs, can therefore not comment on it.

    The Czech crisis was neither caused by Hitler, nor was it solved by methods unknown to the “Democracies”. The Czech state was to be treated as a protectorate for the time being, but was otherwise kept out of the war and survived it very neatly indeed. The Czech military did not resist the arrival of German troops, as it had been agreed upon and signed by Hacha. A crisis was caused by sending Heydrich’s assassins from London, and I am quite certain that a crisis in London or Washington would have equally arisen had Germany sent assassins to these cities, and had they been successful even after May 8, 1945.

    The mistake of creating an airplane carrier in the shape of an artificial country for Allied threats and intimidation had failed from internal dissension. Chamberlain had made no objections as after the secession of Slovakia and Ruthenia the object of the Munich agreement had ceased to exist.

  846. @Germanicus

    [Leaving mostly off-topic comments is bad behavior and may get all your future comments trashed.]

  847. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    But despite the refusal of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to support Britain during WW2, over two million Indians volunteered for service in the Indian Army and served the British Empire in many campaigns, costing over 87,000 Indian servicemen’s lives, with 34,354 wounded, and 67,340 taken prisoner. Members of the Indian Army won 4,000 decorations for valor, including 18 Victoria or George Crosses. Winston Churchill paid tribute to “The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers.”

    Gandhi was a wily politician who backed Britain during WWI, presumably in the conviction, at least at the outset of that war, that Britain, the world’s then sole super-power, would win. At the outset of WW2, things looked very different, and Gandhi had written Hitler several times prior to the war “as a friend,” notwithstanding that Hitler had urged the British to shoot Gandhi.

    Presumably the thought that Hitler might soon be the ruler of India damped any enthusiasm members of the Indian National Congress may have had for the British cause, knowing as they must that a British defeat would likely mean all of them being taken out and shot. Indeed, some INC members served in support of the Axis powers.

  848. Truth3 says:

    World War. It’s a bitch. But it’s getting far scarier every day.

    Christian Leaders need to re-educate Christians on some very serious issues.

    (Depending on how you read it…) The Old Testament lays the groundwork for Jewish Tribal justifications of their evil ways. The Talmud outdoes the Torah by an order of magnitude.

    The Christian Leaders do not do a sufficient job of educating Christians of this evil… because, you know (wink wink) there’s this whole Judeo-Christianity false linkage that must be respected.

    If you are going to make the Old Testament part of the Bible (a mistake in my opinion), you need to educate even MORE so about the Talmud, which is THEIR fulfillment of the OT.

    Weak Christian Leaders (both the Cyrus Schofield indoctrinated Zio-Protestant fools and the post Vatican II Nostra Aetate can’t we all just get along Catholic ostriches) have set the planet up for a real hot WWIII.

    Why? Well, if you don’t understand the Samson Option, you should read Seymour Hersh more.

    Time for the Ministers, Priests, and Bishops… as well as a legit Pope (we wish there was one) come right out and say it…

    THE DEVIL IS USING THE SLUR OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO COVER UP THE GROUNDWORK LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF ANTI-CHRIST & WWIII.

    See? Mel Gibson was right all along.

  849. Adrian says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I think it is pretty clear that Himmler’s ideas on depriving the Poles of any form of education above fourth year primary school were in accord with those of Hitler. In fact Hitler’s were worse because he didn’t even want them to have reading skills. Cp tabletalk:

    “Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to
    educate the masses there. It is to our interest that the people
    should know just enough to recognise the signs on the roads.
    At present they can’t read, and they ought to stay like that. ”

    This was at a time that the great colonising nations Britain, France, the Netherlands etc. had all made strenuous efforts to put up institutions of higher education. Britain had done so for almost a century. Spain much longer. The University of Santo Tomas in Manila dates from 1611 and is in fact older than Harvard. The national hero of the Philippines, Jose Rizal, was one of the most highly educated men of his time.

    I am much in favor of Ron Unz’s attempt to go behind the propaganda we have all been submitted to but I think you are not very helpful in this because of your strident tone and your continuous resort to ad hominem.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  850. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    It is still there, but text is way too small to read. I could not make out a single word, despite trying to enlarge the image.

    Just download it to your PC as a PDF. Then you should be able to read it properly.

  851. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    The Jews as a group exist, and at the time, the vast majority of Jews were communist.
    So it is absolutely valid to do away with the politically correct “Zionist” for Jews. It won’t help you anyway, the Jews regard it “anti-semitic” as well if you criticize zionists.

    I am happy never to sink to that level – And I fear that the whole Hitler buisness was a set up from the start. The quote by Preparata makes this quite clear. If he is correct, I do not know. But I think he points in the direction to look further.
    Anyone, who has ever studied the rise of Hitler from the even most Mainstream viewpoint must have wondered how the ties that had been put on the Weimar republic fell the moment he came to power.
    And please, Hitler cannot have been a great leader. Just imagine, how he explained to the German people, when he attacked the USSR: ‘I had to lie to you for the past years and now finally, I can speak openly. ‘(That is more or less what he said in that speach). Or how the minister of war, the chief of the general staff and the foreign minister were fired in set up scandals the moment he got his war policy going. Would you seriously want to be led by a character like that?

    Germany was fucked up the moment, the victors of WWI got their hands on its finance. The world wars and the interim were one war, fought with different means in the course of the grand siege of Europe.
    You should let go of the Nazis as an ideal. The point is not that they were violent the communists probably were worse. People did place their hopes in them, simply because they were desperate. They should at some point have said that enough is enough and taken their cyancali pills, instead of waiting until the house really has burned down.

  852. @J. Alfred Powell

    You say things are certain facts that you have never seen stated including events to do with the Holomodor. So, why do you believe them? Please help us with reliable soiurces.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  853. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian

    Doesn’t this call into question the true motives of such adamant apologists? They discredit any real attempt at thoughtful scholarship. But one may also wonder if Mr. Unz’ purpose is inviting this.

    • Replies: @szopen
  854. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    “Nazi” is a slur, why do you call the Germans “nazis”?

    You have a basical sense of logic, don’t you? I was dealing with the question, when the Nazis came to power, slur or not. From this, it should be clear, that I see a difference between Germans as a people and Nazis as a group who pretended to represent that people.

    Do we really have to deal with history in that way?
    Hitler was a hoax, a fake, inflicted on a desperate people. When he came to power, things had been prepared for the take over and the subsequent destruction. I think, the quote that I gave you is clear enough.
    And for everyone here: Revisionism is not about absolving the Nazis and claiming that they were the good guys, but it is about putting those people in the dock who created them.
    The powers to be have a huge tool kit, and it is being constantly modernized. At the moment they are trying their tools out on the BRICS. And they are inventive.

  855. @Adrian

    You think. You can think what you want.

    I have no patience with people who come on to play games, or just to defend their own ideology no matter what the facts or evidence says. These people have a responsibility too, to be truthful and to have constructive intent. What they do is jump from one thing to something else, pretending it’s all the same.

    You quote from Table Talk: “At present they can’t read, and they ought to stay like that.” Hitler was speaking about the Russian peasants, not the Poles, almost all of whom could read and write. So this is your and Szopen’s error, and it’s tiresome to have to point it out.

    As to colonising, Germans were the very best colonizers of all – their ‘natives’ loved them. But the war with the Soviet Union was not a colonizing adventure, it was a desperate, brutal, exceedingly dangerous job for the vulnerable German troops. For you or anyone to expect loving kindness from those executing this war, or responsible for the welfare of their troops, is ridiculous on your part. But in fact, the Wehrmacht had very positive programs with the Russian people where it was possible. The Poles posed a greater problem; they always have throughout history and they still do today. I could relay to you things said by Polish leaders and Polish priests, etc. of how they would like to treat all Germans that are far worse than anything Hitler or Himmler ever said. The difference is the Poles could not gain the opportunity to do so by beating the Germans. But whenever they did have the upper hand, like on Bloody Sunday, it was vicious to the point of inhuman.

    You clearly are in denial. If you look at all my comments, you’ll see there is no problem with my “tone”. But I mean business.

  856. @Wizard of Oz

    Not exactly. The facts are well attested — I construe them. I put the pieces together, but the pieces are already on the table.

    Circa 33-35 the Soviet government siezed the Ukraine harvests and starved 4-5 million people.

    Where did the harvests go?

    We have Stalin for witness that American industrial engineers and corporate industry built the Soviet industrial plant. How was this paid for?

    The likeliest answer is plain. Did you expect Stalin would announce it to the world? On the contrary, the international community of power (including FDR’s ambassador and the mainstream press) conspired to conceal the genocidal famine. Their united efforts at concealment advertise whose guilty secret is being hidden.

    It might be possible to further evidence the hypothesis with reference to statistics of the international grain trade for the period, or another way, but its high probability is inescapable anyways.

    It is asserted above that the seized harvests went to feed Soviet cities. Where is this documented? And what caused the sudden need to appropriate these harvests? And if so, how did the cost of industrialization figure into the equation?

    It has been claimed that Ukraine peasant farmers were starved in order to collectivise (sic) their farms, or because they resisted collectivisation. Perhaps, but that doesn’t explain where the harvests went. Or how the Soviets did pay for their brand new state of the art industrial plant manufactured by America, Inc.?

  857. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…the war with the Soviet Union was not a colonizing adventure, it was a desperate, brutal, exceedingly dangerous job for the vulnerable German troops…”

    That may have been the case because Stalin planned an attack on Germany and the rest of Europe (according to the Suvorov thesis), but Hitler had planned the colonization of Russia anyway. He had written that in his Mein Kampf (which Stalin had read), and he spoke openly about it in his Table Talks. I will not search for the relevant passages here again, but on several occasions he spoke of all the resources he would take from Russia once it was conquered, how he would settle German farmers in the land, how the Crimea would become a vacation resort for the Germans, and how the local population would denied medical care and education. He hoped that the German colonizers would eventually become the majority. It is striking that nowhere in his Table Talks he speaks about the “betrayal” of Stalin in planning an attack on Germany. All his interest was in the colonizing project. To try to depict Hitler as “innocent”, “only wanting to defend Germany” is an impossible undertaking. The Allies may have been criminal, the Poles may have been foolish, but that doesn’t make Hitler and his Nazis innocent.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  858. @refl

    I see a difference between Germans as a people and Nazis as a group who pretended to represent that people.

    Were you there then? Can you speak for those Germans? No, you’re too young. You are clearly not a German, but are here pretending to speak for the German people. Hitler and his National Socialist party did represent the great majority of Germans, even outside of the national boundaries. My grandfather in Illinois supported Hitler; thought he was doing the right thing for Germany. Hitler was not “a hoax or a fake.” Absolutely he had the genuine support of the people, which means that you are either lying or just don’t know anything about it. You support Guido Preparata, a complete fraud! In all you say, you are a Jim Condit-style conspiracy nut. He thinks exactly as you do. You seem to be parroting him.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @refl
    , @Seraphim
  859. Wally says:
    @refl

    said:
    “And for everyone here: Revisionism is not about absolving the Nazis and claiming that they were the good guys, but it is about putting those people in the dock who created them.”

    Except there is nothing to ‘put them in the’ dock for.

    Hitler & NS Germany did not do what is alleged, therefore those who supposedly “created” them are guilty of nothing.

    Your illogical argument is just more ‘garbage in, garbage out.’

    • Replies: @refl
  860. Wally says:
    @szopen

    Get out of here.

    This “speech” is not an original document, it is merely words typed in German by who knows who and then ‘translated’.

    Why can’t we see the original document?

    Recall the faked / altered & now thoroughly debunked ‘Posen speech’ laughably said to be Himmler’s own words.

    Really your honor, we know this is authentic, we typed it in German ourselves and have kindly translated it. There is an original which we can’t show you, but you must trust us, we’re Zionists.

  861. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…As to colonising, Germans were the very best colonizers of all – their ‘natives’ loved them…”

    I am afraid the people of Namibia have a different opinion :

    See : Wikipedia, Herero and Namaqua genocide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org>wiki>Herero_and_Namaqua&#8230;

    Colonial Governor of Namibia was no other than Heinrich Ernst Göring, father of Hermann Göring.

    And then there is this :

    “…Germany has handed back the human remains of indigenous people killed during a genocide in colonial Namibia more than 100 years ago.

    A Namibian government delegation received the skulls at a church service in the capital, Berlin.

    The bones had been sent to Germany for now-discredited research to prove the racial superiority of white Europeans…”

    Source : Germany returns skulls of Namibian genocide victims. BBC News, 29 August 2018.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk>news>world-africa-45342586

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  862. Seraphim says:
    @Sean McBride

    Not much ‘elegance’ (let alone ‘excellence’). But actually how ‘european’ are those British bands? Britain wants out of Europe (it never considered itself ‘European’).

  863. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…As to colonising, Germans were the very best colonizers of all – their ‘natives’ loved them…”

    I am afraid the people of Namibia have a different opinion :

    See : Wikipedia, Herero and Namaqua genocide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org>wiki>Herero_and_Namaqua&#8230;

    Colonial Governor of Namibia was no other than Heinrich Ernst Göring, father of Hermann Göring.

    And then there is this :

    “…Germany has handed back the human remains of indigenous people killed during a genocide in colonial Namibia more than 100 years ago.

    A Namibian government delegation received the skulls at a church service in the capital, Berlin.

    The bones had been sent to Germany for now-discredited research to prove the racial superiority of white Europeans…”

    Source : Germany returns skulls of Namibian genocide victims. BBC News, 29 August 2018.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk>news>world-africa-45342586

    • Replies: @Fox
  864. Wally says:
    @szopen

    IOW, you don’t like what I posted, which are not my words, but can’t prove me wrong.

    I also note that you dodged the link I posted which is filled with information which debunks your silly nonsense.

    Still waiting for you to show us the alleged mass human remains which are said to exist in known locations.

    This is szopen:

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
    , @szopen
  865. tac says:
    @szopen

    Znam kilka jenzykow. Moje serce zostalo w Polsce. Ty, i nikt z twojej “drurzyny” Zydow ktorzy, w chwili obecnej, prowadza Polske, nie zmienia mojege zdania. Czy ty dalej myszlisz ze “na pewno nie jestez Polakiem”? Hahaha! Idiota! Mysl co chcesz!

  866. @Carolyn Yeager

    German colonists in the Australian (British) colonies were good news but how do you defend the German behaviour in Africa? Namibia (German SW Africa) remains notorious for its genocidal massacres, and I seem to remember something similar in what is now Tanganyika.

  867. Miro23 says:
    @Rurik

    German drive to the East was an Imperial and racial supremacist project aimed at conquering and subjugating the Slavs.

    From everything I’ve glimmered, I don’t think he hated Slavs. I think he hated Bolshevik, Jewish supremacists, and considered them an existential threat to Germany in particular, and Western civilization. Was he wrong about that?

    No question that Hitler hated Bolshevik Jewish supremacists, and considered them an existential threat to Germany and Western civilization. But, the key word here is “Western”. It’s difficult to imagine today, but listening to Hitler (Table Talk), his mind was dominated by the idea of (German) racial destiny, with the various races having a ranking gradient of worth relative to Germans. For example:

    FLEMISH – (241) “…. we have the magnificent conduct of the Flemish on the Eastern front. The Flamands have indeed shown themselves on the Eastern front to be more pro-German and more ruthless than the Dutch legionaries. This is certainly due to the fact that the Flemish have for centuries been oppressed by the Walloons. The lack of harmony between the Flamands and the Walloons has not escaped the attention of the Duce. When he speaks of the Europe of the future, he is wont to group the Flemish and the Dutch on one side, and the Walloons and the French on the other.”

    DUTCH – (313) “What a fine race the Dutch are! The girls are splendid and very much to my taste.”

    AMERICANS & BRITISH – (302) “The Americans are a completely unpredictable crowd. In a tight corner, the British are infinitely more courageous than they are – there’s no comparison! How they have the nerve to cast aspersions on the British passes my comprehension.” (99) “I don’t see much future for the Americans. In my view it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent. That’s why, in spite of everything, I like an Englishman a thousand times better than an American.”

    JEWS – (145) “Just like the throne and the altar in former times so now the Jews and the political profiteers form a silent association for the common exploitation of the democratic milch cow.” (180) “Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries with the rope already around their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly. What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918.” (63) “Simply the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine.” (119) “For my part I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. … but if they refuse to go voluntarily , I see no other solution but extermination.”

    RUSSIANS – (1) “In the eyes of the Russian, the principle support of civilization is vodka. His ideal consists of never doing anything except the indispensable.”

    POLES – (119) “As regards the Pole it’s lucky for us that he’s idle stupid and vain.”

    SLAVS – (281) “As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pigsties; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”

    He saw the destiny of ethnic Germans being the domination of Slavonic “untermenschen” (non-Aryan inferior people) in the East, with a vision of a Germanic land Empire in alliance with the British maritime world Empire. However, Hitler was an Imperialist of the worst kind, completely lacking the British concept of “trusteeship”:

    [MORE]

    MIGHT IS RIGHT – (130) “According to the laws of nature, the soil belongs to he who conquers it. The fact of having children who want to live, the fact that our people is bursting out of its cramped frontiers – these justify all of our claims to the Eastern spaces.”

    EASTERN EMPIRE -.(25) “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.” (53) “To exploit the Ukraine properly – that new Indian Empire – I need only peace in the West.”

    SUBJECT PEOPLES – (20) “We’ll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans – this is essential – will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.” (11) “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.”

    GERMAN COLONISTS – (17) “The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the administrative services, we shall gradually organize all that is indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of living. All around the city to a depth of thirty to forty kilometers we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them.”

    ++++++++++++++

    Stalin was well aware of the dynamic, and liquidated the Bolshevik Jews while he rearmed Russia

    From what I understand he never took any actual action against ‘the Jews’ until long after the war was over.

    The people we’re talking about here are:

    Lazar Kaganovich (aided by Genrik Yagoda and mostly Jewish NKVD officers). Probably the Nº1 ethnic Jewish mass murderer in history, given that he organized the Ukrainian death famine in the winter of 1931/32.

    The all Jewish designers and heads of the of the Soviet Gulag work/death camp system with an equally enormous death toll: Lazar Kogan (Head of Gulag 1931-32), Matvei Berman (Head of Gulag 1932-37), Genrik Yagoda and Yakov Agranov (Head and deputy head of the NKVD 1934-36), Semyon Firin, Yakov Rapoport and Naftaly Frenkel.

    The early Bolshevik revolutionary leaders. After Lenin’s death his “Testament” appointed Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum) and Kamenev (Rozenfeld) as the leaders of Bolshevism, and they in turn put Stalin in charge of Party Organization, having a lot of fun ridiculing the person they referred to as their “Donkey Bureaucrat”.

    Yagoda and Agranov were executed in 1938 at the start of Stalin’s Great Terror. Berman and Kogan were executed in 1939 with Kaganovitch and Frenkel surviving until 1991 and 1960 respectively to die of natural causes. Kaganovitch was known to be totally subservient to Stalin in every way which perhaps accounted for his survival.

    Stalin sent Zinoviev and Kamenev through Show Trial confessions (Moscow 1938) in return for their lives, but immediately executed them anyway, and eventually succeeded in his long term aim of murdering Trotsky (assassinated in Mexico in 1940).

    Source: A reliable account, closely based on Russian archival records is Khlevniuk’s “Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle” https://www.amazon.com/Master-House-Yale-Hoover-Authoritarian-Regimes/dp/0300110669/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1493671428&sr=8-6&keywords=khlevniuk

    ++++++++++++++

    The question then becomes, Would Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine have been better off under German “colonialism” or under Soviet Communism (the actual outcome)? Judging by Hitler’s planning and demonic ruminations in Table Talk and elsewhere, the Slavs were far better off under Communism

    Well, that is a hell of a question, and may be *the* question in certain circles.
    I think of Operation Keelhaul, and those Russian men who were betrayed at Yalta.
    Were they any less Slav than the Russians who fought for Stalin?

    Slavs in general were in a bad situation. Hitler and Stalin were both evil, but in different ways.

    Hitler regarded Slavs as racially inferior, supposedly giving Germans a natural right to dominate, exploit or kill them as they wished. For his part, Stalin was an entirely ethics-free gangster, concerned to augment and protect his personal fiefdom. Hitler tried to grab Stalin’s property and was himself destroyed in the ensuing war.

    Stalin on the record: “We’ll knock your teeth in…..”, “Go f… your mother”, “You’re next”, He enjoyed reading torture confessions (for weeks on end), fabricating evidence, crying victimization and spectacularly betrayed his colleagues and followers.

    ++++++++++++++

    What, one wonders.. would Russia look like today, under the Rothschild oligarchs- had not Putin wrested Russia’s destiny away from those fiends?

    It’s wealth (everything not nailed down) would have been all transferred out of Russia proper and into London and Israel and NY. The Russian people would be as the Rust Belt Americans, dying by vodka and opioid abuse epidemics when not committing suicide outright.

    To Putin’s credit he defended Russia, and extracted it from the nightmare grip of Yeltsin/Jewish oligarch looting.

    Americans are currently going through the same process, but so far haven’t worked out how to defend themselves.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  868. tac says:
    @szopen

    [Those compelled to write non-English comments should do so on a different website.]

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  869. Adrian says:

    If you “mean business” you stick to businesslike arguments and refrain from abusing your opponents.

    I have been much preoccupied with colonial history but this is the first time that I am being told that

    “ Germans were the very best colonizers of all – their ‘natives’ loved them.”

    I assume you read German. Have a look at this article in the German quality weekly “Die Zeit”:

    https://www.zeit.de/zeit-geschichte/2010/04/Kolonialismus/komplettansicht

    It deals with the genocide of the Herero in German SouthWestAfrica..

    I have translated its final paragraph:

    “Whether the origins of Nazi rule are to be found in the racist bureaucracies of the colonial administrations, the philosopher Hannah Arendt asked this question decades ago. The historian Jürgen Zimmerer has taken it up again in recent years and answered yes: The “Lebensraum” and racist thinking of the National Socialists was deeply rooted in the experiences of colonial violence. Colonialism has spawned a culture of exploitation and destruction. From mass murder to deliberate neglect in concentration camps, numerous parallels could be found that identified the crime in German Southwest as a “colonial precursor to the Holocaust”: “There is a path that connects Windhoek or Waterberg with Auschwitz.” “

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  870. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are pathetically trying to get to ad hominem, because deep in your heart you must now that your case is built on lies and cherrypicking: taking some propaganda poster or incoherent verbiage from some organisation as a proof that Polish government planned a war, while at the same time denying that Himmler’s views, a person actually IN German government, had any influence on post-war Germany. This is quite amusing; double standards and hypocrisy, so typical for you and your kind.

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  871. @Adrian

    You are citing from a US military government licensed press.

    All press after 1945 is licensed by the US, ie mouthpieces peddling the official narrative. The truth would get them in jail and shut down.

    Go and have a look for these US military documents outlining how the US restructured and imposed a new system, hard to find these days, but I do have a local copies.

  872. szopen says:
    @Wally

    Many times you have posted how you dismiss information from wikipedia or from internet because they are not sourced, not original, fake and so on. Yet here you have, at best, posted a source without checking the original. That expouses your ulterior motives: you do not care about standards of proof, because if you would, you would actually apply them both sides.

    It’s not “I don’t like what you’ve posted”. It’s I’ve shown that your quote is either fake or mistranslated. In the thread you’ve linked there is nothing more about Wieluń except what you have posted; indeed, you even seem to be unable to grasp that the same unit can carry few sorties the same day. In a thread I’ve linked, it’s shown for example, that indeed the bombers attacked cavalry unit LATER THE SAME DAY, and that this cavalry unit was located in a forest 12 km from Wieluń. Once again, this is very typical of revisionists: in the first quote, the best interpretation is that you linked a quote without checking the source, where Cynk stated Wieluń had no military value and that units bombed units in neighbourhood (“in region of”, “in area of”) of Wieluń. The second paragraph you linked is about another mission, not about bombing Wieluń.

    But you are so keen on debunking, asking “prove me” “Show me the proof”. So show me your standard of proof. I have quite modest demand: prove that there was cavalry unit INSIDE Wieluń during the first air raid in the morning; we will then see what you accept as a standard of proof. Exactly, what cavalry unit was in Wieluń? It couldn’t be Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii; and it couldn’t be 1Pułk KOP, as both were already in another positions.

    Then I will know what you accept as standards of proof and I will know, what to use in discussions with you. Right now your standard seems to me “random quotes from the internet, taken out of context and ignoring the source are OK as long as they fit my agenda”.

  873. @refl

    Do we really have to deal with history in that way?

    Yes, logic and reason is base of research, chronologic order of event, not emotional drivel and how you feel and perceive, only facts count.
    It is not task of historical research to moralize like you guys do constantly.

    Hitler was a hoax, a fake, inflicted on a desperate people.

    You got to be joking after asking the above question.

    Hitler and NSDAP had a huge support by the German people, more votes than all modern FRG parties combined, who btw don’t even have altogether 50% majority, because 50% of Germans do not participate in these “elections” and keep their voice for whatever reasons.

    But as it is, political parties attract opportunists, who serve any regime with dedication, and will denounce their previous master just to keep a position. these are scum.

    How the red apparatchiks infested the FRG post 1990 should be a good example, eg Jew Gysi, the tons of Stasi IM, and former SED, and block parties members, who simply changed the party.

    You did not answer any question, you dodged them, are you a Grünzi?

    • Replies: @refl
  874. szopen says:
    @Wally

    To make it easier, from the thread I linked, where POlish-born, German historian Marius Emmerling is trying to prove Wieluń was legit military target here:

    https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=129856&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75

    He posted the following German report:

    [MORE]

    Ziel: Kav.Brig. im Walde NO Wielun. (Spitze voraussichtl 4 km NO W.)
    Erfolg: Kav.Brig. im Waldstück zersprengt. Truppenansammlungen Gutshof südl. W. vernichtend angegriffen mit Bomben und M.G. Schützengräben am Waldrand und an den Strassen NO Wielun mit SC 50 kg u. MG mit Erfolg angegriffen. Volltreffer in Löschmannschaften am Markt. Löschversuche eingestellt.
    RL 8/197, s. 3.

    He comments that “in other places it was specified the cavalry unit were 12 km north-east from Wieluń”.

    Similarly, at https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=129856&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=350 he posts two reports from German pilots:

    05:06-06:06: Suedteil der Stadt Wielum
    13:25-14:40: Kavaleriediv. im Wald NO Wielum

    and other pilot:

    05:15-06:15: Bomben auf Wielum 05:45
    13:50-14:35: Bomben in Wald E Wielum 14:00

    It’s clear that bombing of Wieluń in the morning, and striking some unidentified cavalry unit in forest outside Wieluń are two different events. Yet Wally links a thread, where a fact that at 13:00 bombers attacked some unit outside Wieluń, supposedly is a proof that some 7 or 8 hours later there was cavalry unit in Wieluń. That’s the quality of CODOH threads; that’s the quality of all revisionist “debunkments”.

    Note (if you can read Polish; or just use google translate) Mark is not trying to prove cavalry unit WAS in Wieluń. Later also you have large discussion about visibility conditions and reliability of Dinort’s relations in a propaganda book, where word in word repeats report of his subordinates reporting attack few hours later. Note that later in the thread pilots report seeing soldiers in Wieluń, to which is pointed that (a) for most of them probably it was first military flight (b) same reports talk about poor visibility and fog (c) the pilots had only few seconds to observe anything (d) it was market day in Wieluń, so many peasants probably were gathering for a market and, finally, (e) in Polish documents there is not a single trace of any cavalry unit inside Wieluń.

    If you would accept pilots reports that they, during rapid descent, seen cavalry units despite poor visibility, I guess you would have to also accept Polish military reports from September where in their diaries they report about being shot at by German ununiformed diversants; but I already know that Wally considers such reports unreliable and is of opinion there were no German saboteurs and diversants in 1939.

    BTW, the same thread contains also interesting discussion about border incidents, where the very same events are reported completely differently in Polish and German reports, e.g. Jamielno, where Polish side reports Germans attacked the border guard station, so guards in retaliation throw grenades at German border guard station – while German report talk about unprovoked Polish attack.

    Once again, IMO it’s reasonable to claim Germans thought there were military units in Wieluń, which is why they strike the city, destroying buildings, church and hospital; a criminal negligence in my opinion, something which set new low standards of war; but Wally is doing something else.

    To summarize:

    (1) Wally claims he debunks “my silly nonsense” by linking to a thread on CODOH, supposedly full of valuable information. In this thread, there is one (ONE!) post about Wieluń, with two paragraps:

    (a) first is from book by Cynk; I do not have access to the English version, but I linked above Polish version, where Cynk writes about attacks on cavalry units in neighbourhood (“w rejonie”) of Wieluń and states that Wieluń had no military value. This means this quote can’t be taken to support presumption that cavalry unit was IN Wieluń during the Luftwaffe strike

    (b) second is about strike at 13:00 (many hours after the first strike!!!), where cavalry unit was attacked; but from the German reports (which are somehow omitted by the CODOH participants) that cavalry unit was 12 km from Wieluń

    That’s it. That’s the quality of “debunking” at the CODOH site. That’s the standard of proof Wally accepts when it supports his agenda. Is anyone wondering why I stopped to discuss with guys of his kind? They are full of air, but their method of discussion is quite simple:

    (1) Wikipedia is not reliable source. Polish history books are not reliable source. They demand original documents, but whatever document you will provide, they claim it’s fake, created by Jews, or “it’s on internet, where are the originals?”

    (2) However, when they talk about something which fits their agenda, they accept sentences taken out of context, accept references without actually checking the source, manipulate the quotes and accept that if a unit was 12km outside Wieluń at 13:00, then it’s a proof that it was inside Wieluń at 4:30 (or 5:30; there is a confusion about when exactly morning attack took place).

    That’s revisionism for you.

  875. szopen says:
    @anon

    Note that she thinks Himmler’s quotes are his personal opinions, while she thinks that posting some quotes from POlish priest or maybe opposition leader would be a proof of what POLISH GOVERNMENT plans were. Those people have really amazing way of thinking; in Polish we have a saying “morality of Kali”, from “Kali”, an African boy from popular book, who thought that “bad thing is when someone steals a cow from Kali, good thing is when Kali steals a cow from somebody”. That’s their morality. Germans are poor victims who never did nothing wrong; whatever Germans did, was justified and understandable; and everyone standing in the way of Germany was evil.

    Note that I am not saying about Germans in general, only about this particular subset of them.

  876. @Carolyn Yeager

    In all you say, you are a Jim Condit-style conspiracy nut. He thinks exactly as you do. You seem to be parroting him.

    Bingo, it is the “alternative”(media) official narrative, always used if the “official official” narrative is destroyed.

    We made a monster of Hitler, a devil, that is why (therefore) we could not say otherwise after the war.
    We had personally mobilized the masses nevertheless against the devil. Thus, we have been forced after the war to play along this devil’s scenario.
    We could not have possibly made it clear to our people, that the war was only a preventative economic measure

    James Baker, Der Spiegel, 13/1992

    They are still stuck with the devil scenario, and constantly require new lies to cover up the old lies. Kind of Ouroboros of lies.

  877. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient Fact of Wehrmacht War Crime Convictions…

    Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Kleist, renowned Commander of the First Panzer Group (Panzergruppe Kleist) was in 1948 extradited to the Soviet Union, where he was charged with in addition to war crimes, “alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union”.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  878. @tac

    Indeed. Only justified if accompanying an English version so those who want to can arrange to check the teanslation – or do it themselves.

  879. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient Fact of the supposed Treblinka Body Disposal by Funeral Pyres…

    The traditional funeral pyre requires around 500-600 kg of firewood, three litres of kerosene, and 300-400 cowdung cakes per dead body.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  880. @J. Alfred Powell

    With one significant exception I see no reason for the police or District Attorney’s office to reject your logically connected speculations out of hand but I don’t see you as having got over the threshold where other people’s time or money should be invested in following up your hints and clues. The trouble is you show yourself to be uite cavalier in dealing with facts you intend to support your case. You refer to “Circa 33-35” but the simplest search produces

    “The causes of the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), the name of the famine that ravaged Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933 whose estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million and 10 million, are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some historians theorize that the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.”

    Really, your ipse dixit is not enough, even on this forum for the excessively certain.

  881. Truth3 says:

    Inconvenient Fact of the supposed Maidanek Body Disposal by Cremation Pyres…

    The supposed location for the Cremation Pyres at Maidanek was adjacent to the Camp Commander’s House.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  882. Truth3 says:

    Absurd Shoah Justification Feasibility Calculation of the Day…

    It would take all 21,000 soldiers of the SS Totenkopf Panzergrenadier Division nearly three years to cut down, age, and split into firewood the 600,000+ trees required, collect the 300,000,000+ cowdung patties required, and give up 3,000,000+ litres of their fuel, to facilitate the burning on open air pyres the supposed 800,000+ bodies at Treblinka…. not counting what it would take to sustain the Totenkopf Division in the process.

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  883. @J. Alfred Powell

    Given that you appear to be speculating with few constraints I am surprised that you haven’t got with the JP theme so popular on UR and seen it as obvious, even certain, that Jewish financiers would have had a hand in financing the Soviet Union’s industrialisation.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  884. @Carolyn Yeager

    We have to see what the documents are. Maybe all made up, yes? This book has been determined to be worthless garbage, but people with no better argument continue to try to use it.

    Since there seems to be some controversy or disagreement on this long thread about the general credibility of the book Hitler’s Secret Backers, I looked at the reviews of the English version at Amazon and noted the following quote, in a review by Pamela K. Johnson, more than ten years ago:

    Quote from Amazon Book Reviews of Hitler’s Secret Backers

    There the author mentions a conversation with a Jewish banker who was supportive of Hitler. The banker went on to say “By Jews, Hitler means Galician Jews who polluted Germany after the war. He recognizes Jews of pure German origin as equal to other Germans, and when the time comes, he will not bother us in any way. Also you must not forget that Jews control both the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party.

    Bearing in mind that most people’s viewpoints do not tend to be consistent over time, based on their acquisition of new information that causes them to modify their opinions, this account, purportedly from an exchange that occurred in October 1931, appears to be very plausible, definitely not extraordinary under the circumstances at the time.

    So often on this thread I have read the term “the Jews” (appear at least 120 times), as if they were all a monolithic group during that period, who had no disagreements among themselves, or different political objectives, based on social status.

    Yet even now, within the Jewish world, there appears to be a sort of ethnic hierarchy, with German and British Jews (who settled upon moving north from the Roman Empire) believing themselves to be at the top, and eastern Jews (“Ostjuden“) significantly farther beneath them in the geographical context of Central Europe (the ones that Theodor Herzl found to be so repulsive and embarrassing to his sensibilities), then the Dutch and Portuguese Jews (Sephardi), then, within the Israeli context, the Separdic Jews from Morocco and India, next the Jews from the Middle East (Mizrahi), and at the very bottom the Jews from eastern Africa (Falasha); I have likely omitted some intermediate rungs since I am not a specialist on such internal matters.

    The “Galician Jews” alluded to above are obviously not from the Galicia of northwestern Spain but would have been the specific types that Hitler encountered personally during his life in Vienna (as did Herzl), where he spent considerable time hanging out at cafés during the late period of the monarchy, presumably many of them came from the region around Lemberg, the largest city in Polish Galicia (now L’viv, in western Ukraine).

    Quote from Wikipedia – Galician Jews (History)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician_Jews

    Under Habsburg rule, Galicia’s Jewish population increased sixfold, from 144,000 in 1776 to 872,000 in 1910, due to a high birth rate and a steady stream of refugees fleeing pogroms in the neighboring Russian Empire.

    So essentially, in the quote by the unnamed banker above, Hitler most certainly actually meant “Ostjuden“, surely many of them also from nearby Vilnius, and elsewhere, including those who eventually settled in Berlin and New York. During that period there was also a schism between these Jewish cultural groups in the US East Coast; the primarily German groups set up the Jewish Committee (1906), the Eastern Jews, many speaking Yiddish, set up the Jewish Congress (1918).

    Though we don’t know the identities of these Jewish Wall Street bankers who purportedly helped finance Hitler prior to 1933, one does not need to have specific documentation to accept that this was indeed a likely circumstance – no need for outrage – while also accepting that a significant portion of his funding did not come from Jews. For instance Walter and Ida Eichorn, who had helped fund him early on in his political career, and with whom he allegedly stayed with after he had purportedly made his escape to Argentina by submarine in 1945, were among the latter group.

  885. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Were you there then? Can you speak for those Germans? No, you’re too young.

    You are to young.

    My grandfather in Illinois supported Hitler

    You needn’t have said that, I sensed that very well.

    thought he was doing the right thing for Germany

    So did all of my four NSDAP grand parents – as I said, they were desperate. My mothers parents suffered for it for a lifetime – until their last breath and beyond.

    Hitler was not “a hoax or a fake.

    That is indeed hard to come to terms with. I sense your cognitive dissonance – only in a direction previously unheard of.

    You are a (?) conspiracy nut.

    That is why I am reading this site, and this is why I feel bad littering Ron Unz’s great article with insult trading. I just adore the comments that point me to literature hat I would not come across ever in any other way.

    I would therefore recommend to anyone comment #800 by redmuchhoch with a number of hints towards russian/soviet authors.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  886. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    It’s a candid admission that this was what the ‘German people’ wanted: “Drang nach Osten”and Hitler only expressed clearly that wish, to clearly for his own good (and of the German people) eventually.
    “ If the Urals with their incalculable wealth of raw materials, the rich forests of Siberia, and the unending cornfields of the Ukraine lay within Germany, under National Socialist leadership the country would swim in plenty. We would produce, and every single German would have enough to live on ”, he told representatives of the Arbeitsfront on September 12 1936 at the Nurnberg Parteifest (quote from ‘Brest Litovsk, The Forgotten Peace, by John Wheeler-Bennett, 1938, p. XVIII).

  887. refl says:
    @Wally

    Except there is nothing to ‘put them in the’ dock for.

    The destruction of European is something to put them in the dock for – and right, Hitler & NS Germany were not the only ones, but rather a creation. The question is, What really happened and who brewed this whole thing.

  888. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    Grünzi?

    You certainly have no idea, how deep a truth you have spoken out in that neologism of yours.
    The Grünzis are indeed an American creation. CIA, Soros, – you name it. Just look at the biographies of their founders and at their love for pedophilia.
    Do you really think, that in Cold War federal Germany an anti-establishment party would have risen without thorough control of the American deep state?

    I really love the lot of fans that I have attrackted here – Now lets sing together: HITLER WAS A FRAUD!

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  889. ” WWII has now pretty much emerged.

    The Nazis were –never– supposed to win.

    The Soviets were to be made the heroes.

    Basically, WWII was just research and development –disguised– as war. ”

    Jay WEIDNER
    Informed Radio
    Youtube
    2015

    And, in 2019, KOREA, and not the long gone world wars, has now emerged
    as the —defining— conflict of the 20th century viz a viz the 21st.

    TAKE HEED

  890. What unravelled in Germany after the Great War was the life of the Weimar Republic, the puppet regime of the West, which incubated Nazism in three stages: a period of chaos ending with the hyperinflation and the appearance of Hitler (1918–23, dealt with in Chapter 3); a period of artificial prosperity during which the Nazis were quiet and the future war machine of Germany was in process of being assembled with American loans 1924–29); and a period of disintegration (1930–32) paced by the financial mastermind of the twentieth century: Montagu NORMAN, the Governor of the Bank of England (Chapter 4

    ).

    After the incubation was completed and the Hitlerites obtained with the aid of Anglo-American financial capital the chancellorship of the Reich (January 1933), the formidable recovery of Germany began under the Nazi wing, British loans, and the financial artistry of Germany’s central banker: Hjalmar SCHACHT, Montagu Norman’s protégé. There followed the unbelievable ‘dance’ of Britain and Nazi Germany (1933–43), led by the former to push the latter to go to war against Russia. And Russia, too, acting in sync with London, appeased the Nazis in order to lure them into the trap of the Eastern Front.

    England put out a mesmerizing show by feigning before the world that her ruling class was divided between pro-Nazis and anti-Nazis, and that such a scission accounted for the apparent lack of commitment to fight Hitler on the Western Front after the invasion of Poland had triggered World War II.

    The truth was quite different: a bargain was being transacted behind the scenes; Britain calculatingly prevented the Americans from opening a western front for three years so as to allow the Nazis to penetrate and devastate Russia undisturbed in exchange for the prompt evacuation of German forces from the Mediterranean basin, which was one of Britain’s zones of vital interest.
    In the end, after this spectacular feat of dissimulation, Britain dropped the mask and closed in on the duped Nazis, who would be crushed on two fronts by the colluded Soviet and Anglo-American forces (Chapter 5). To annihilate the German threat, the British ruling elites had gambled for high stakes

    For over 30 years (1914–45) they had woven a web of financial machinations, international complicities, intelligence conspiracies, diplomatic devilry, military savvy, and inhuman mendacity, and they finally succeeded. This game for Anglo-American supremacy came at the cost of approximately 70 million lives (two world wars): a holocaust whose nature is beyond words.

    Both conflicts were willed and set off by Britain. In the first one, it was political incapacity that lost Germany, in the second there was no longer a Germany worth speaking of: all we see is a benumbed population harnessed to a native automaton fitted, armed and wound up by the British (and the Soviets).

    So the West has to think again – to think, in fact, that there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims…

    https://guidopreparata.com/conjuring-hitler/ ( another “forbidden” book …)

    • Replies: @refl
  891. @John Regan

    Like the Morgenthau Plan. Same style, same mode of thinking. Every single document relating to genocide and extermination in the Nuremberg trials lacks an original. They are all “verified copies” and “sworn depositions” made by the Psychological Warfare Division and the NKVD, whose primary function was to manufacture lies to break the will of the enemy. When it was suggested after the war that the propaganda should now cease and start working towards peaceful cooperation, the PWD replied, “On the contrary. Not only will we continue the propaganda, we will increase it to the point the German is so addled he doesn’t know what he’s doing.”

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  892. Truth3 says:

    Two Inconvenient Zyklon B Facts and one curious question of the Day…

    Fact #1… 23.8 tons of Zyklon B was delivered to Auschwitz – Birkenau during WWII. Each can was 200g, therefor, roughly 119,000 cans were delivered.

    Fact #2… The real de-lousing fumigation facilities there (via clothing disinfectant) required hot ventilation (heating and positive pressure) to release the HCN (Hydrogen Cyanide) absorbed liquid from the carrier material and convert it to a circulated gas (it’s boiling point was ~79* F), so that it might kill the vermin. Fumigation time is 24 hours, ventilation time is roughly 10 hours.

    Curious Question?… If Zyklon B was only used as an extermination weapon against people, and the stories of 2,000 persons being gassed at a time in an underground bunker without heating and ventilation (via a single door, not gas-tight) by a Sergeant(s) dropping a can(s) thru the roof, into perforated tubes, without any provision for properly circulating the minute gas quantities (that may somehow ‘boil off’ because of what heat?) are to be believed, especially in the cold of Winter… why did they need 119,000 cans?

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

  893. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Only a fool or a scoundrel treats Wikipedia as a reliable resource.

  894. Truth3 says:

    Chosenite Quote of the Day…

    https://entityart.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/zionism-and-hitlers-germany/tim-wise-white-genocide-q.jpg

    You may now return to your scheduled programming.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  895. @szopen

    Your usual pile of nothing. Zero information and your own ad hominems. The classic pot calling the kettle black. You also always copy cat my words back to me. No originality.

    • Replies: @szopen
  896. geokat62 says:
    @Truth3

    Chosenite Quote of the Day…

    Deserves to be seen in its full and original glory:

    • Replies: @Miggle
  897. PhucQ says:
    @John Regan

    Both my parents fought in WWII – my mother was a radio operator in the Navy since 1942, my father spent the war in the artillery unit in the Far East but he missed fighting the Japanese in 1945 as the Kwantung Army was crushed by regular troops redeployed from the German front. Both died at 58. War has a price to pay by each.

    What you fail to see is that Russians were fighting on their soil, that they were attacked and invaded, and since every family had at least one member on the front, the second and third generations after the war have first-hand knowledge about the atrocities by the Germans. Stories differ, one of my friends relates her mother’s story (then a 12-yo girl) of a middle-aged German soldier who shared a bar of chocolate with the children in the house he stayed at in the Kalinin Region, however, the Germans did not stay there long, just a couple of months. And it is indeed the only story of a “good German” I am aware of.

    What has an academic interest for you is a deeply personal matter for practically every Russian, my humble self included. Just google the “Immortal regiment” pictures, you will see a grass-root movement when people march down the streets of their cities, towns and villages with the photos of their family members who fought or died during the war. And this is a recent phenomenon, it appeared a few years ago and spread across the country like a wildfire. Broken hearts do not heal.

    My father-in-law’s sister, a medical nurse, was captured and taken to Germany as a slave to work for a Bauer and nearly starved to death as her masters apparently thought she should feed off the pig fodder which she never did. She was later taken to work as a nurse in a hospital for POWs (the French and some English, no Russians since Soviet POWs were never treated, they were either killed or starved to death). She also did not have any single kind word for the Germans she saw during those years.
    What greatly bewilders me is that Russians do not feel hatred towards Germans. Despite devastation, starvation, ruin, deaths and maiming. Practically none. They bemoan their friends and relatives, they march with the photos of the deceased but they do not clench their fists at the mention of Germans. Must be all-forgiving Buddhists at heart. Honestly, I am bewildered.

    In fact, since Nazis had the whole of Europe at their disposal, and the Czech and the French were making tanks and planes to fight in Russia while almost each European country had their share of troops on the Soviet front (Hungarians actually outdid Germans in their atrocities, Spaniards also were bloody guys who were also crooks and thieves, and there were also Italians, Romanians etc.), we now are inclined to see WWII as the first war the European Union waged against our country. And the EU is steadily being prepared for the next assault on us judging by the perpetual “Russian threat” mantra.
    Re the material discussed, I have my two pence. The Soviet city of Odessa had a great share of Jews among its residents. During the occupation Odessa was controlled by Romanian troops and was not known for mass shootings unlike other cities. Was it also a pre-planned arrangement to save the pocket of Jewish population by having the city occupied by Romanians, not Germans? Another issue is that Germany pays compensation to the victims of the Siege of Leningrad but only Jewsih persons are entitled. This is not publicized in Russia as it sucks and stinks so bad.

  898. @refl

    You are a troll, and your sock puppet account peddles the same source of nonsense, Pandora.

    No shit, everything FRG is a US creation.

    Have you even bothered to do your own research, Pandora?

    Please try to fit in comment #859 in your absurd thesis.
    I know, inconvenient, but try, just click “more”.

    You are one of those red brain dead repeaters, who fanatically can’t accept the obvious, and peddle therefore crazy conspiracy theories.

    Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.

    Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937

    • Disagree: refl
  899. Rurik says:
    @Miro23

    listening to Hitler (Table Talk), his mind was dominated by the idea of (German) racial destiny, with the various races having a ranking gradient of worth relative to Germans.

    There was a time in America when it was more or less taken for granted that some, (Indians, Negros, others..) were not equal in every way to whites. Now we all know they’re all better people than (racist, sexist) whites, but back then, the ignorance was pretty much all-pervasive.

    Seriously tho, I’ve always lamented the Nazi knee-jerk uber-ethnocentrism. I feel it was their downfall, and having lost so spectacularly to International Jewry, that folly has pretty much doomed us all.

    DUTCH – (313) “What a fine race the Dutch are! The girls are splendid and very much to my taste.”

    Some of the things he said ring true.

    Hitler was an Imperialist of the worst kind, completely lacking the British concept of “trusteeship”:

    “To exploit the Ukraine properly –

    And the Jews who won that war, are any less imperialist?

    Look at Palestine, or Ukraine for evidence of rank, imperious genocide and depraved exploitation, respectively.

    The people we’re talking about here are:

    Lazar Kaganovich (aided by Genrik Yagoda and mostly Jewish NKVD officers). Probably the Nº1 ethnic Jewish mass murderer in history, given that he organized the Ukrainian death famine in the winter of 1931/32.

    …with Kaganovitch… … surviving until 1991

    Stalin was utterly ruthless, to be sure. And killed Jews when it suited him. But I suspect those were the ones he suspected of potential disloyalty, not the ones guilty of genocide or mass terror, which were things he approved of.

    Slavs in general were in a bad situation. Hitler and Stalin were both evil, but in different ways.

    Agree.

    Hitler tried to grab Stalin’s property and was himself destroyed in the ensuing war.

    I suspect it’s more complicated than that, involving International Jewish Central Banksters, Zionism, and Global Jewish supremacism. Which has become the undisputed ruler of the (dying) Western world.

    To Putin’s credit he defended Russia, and extracted it from the nightmare grip of Yeltsin/Jewish oligarch looting.

    Americans are currently going through the same process, but so far haven’t worked out how to defend themselves.

    Add to Americans all the Five Eyes, and France and Germany and Belgium and Sweden and most of the (dying) Western world.

    So that which Hitler considered an existential threat, I agree with him on that point.

    I also believe that what was done to the Kulaks and victims at Katyn, would have surely have been the fate of most Germans of ability, when their time came, as it eventually did.

    Which is all the more reason why I lament Hitler’s ugly racism, since it created an understandable hatred for the Nazis (in particular, and Germans in general) to the East. Which led in part to WWII, and the horrors unleashed, which we’re still dealing with today.

    I’ll try to boil this down.

    Yes, the Nazis were racialists to a fault and terrible folly- and it all led to their demise. And we’re all paying the price for that, since the destiny of the planet has by default fallen to a people who’re a thousand times more racialist, with delusions of superiority that would make Hitler look like Mother Theresa.

    Talmudic, genocidal, hatred-consumed, Jewish supremacists.

    So the way I sort of look at it, is which would be worse for Russia and Slavs in general.

    Some people have pondered what it would be like under Chinese rule, vs. Jewish supremacist rule in the good ol’ ZUS of A.

    Something tells me that the Chinese, while perhaps holding a grudge for slights real or imagined, over the last century or so, still could not possibly muster the kind of visceral, Old Testament, genocidal hatred that Jewish supremacist harbor for White Christians.

    Since Jewish supremacist control our media in absolute terms, we’re able to get a glimpse of their id by the way they report the news, (and by the tone of their viciously anti-White movies and advertisements).

    But just looking at the news, and how it’s so skewed, is how I glimmer their motivating principle.

    They love wars. (duh)

    They love their ascendancy, and mock their victims regularly.

    But to truly understand them at their most basic, I look at how they report (or specifically don’t) on racial crimes.

    When crimes like the Wichita massacre, or the Knoxville horror happen, you can tell a lot about our PTB, by the way they report on these crimes.

    And it speaks volumes about the nature of our (((ruling class))).

    They screech to high heaven about crimes that didn’t happen, (Travon, Michael Brown, Duke “rape” case, etc…), but when crimes that curdle the blood, happen to whites by sub-human orcs, it’s all crickets. (like Rotherham, for instance).

    And this speaks volumes, tomes!

    You can always cypher more by the crickets, than you ever can by the lies they tell.

    So, what this tells me is how much the ((ruling elite)) hate my straight, White guts with a netherworld passion. Because when they don’t report on some crimes, it’s because they approve of those crimes, and want more of them to happen. Duh.

    And it is by this metric, that I glimmer the nature of peoples and tribes and global forces.

    And getting to the point, (I know, I know.. ; )

    what I always do, is look at the world today, to glimmer how things might have been yesterday.

    And looking at the media, and crimes, and demographic shifts, what all this tells me is just how much the Jewish supremacists dominating our world, hate my people with a psychotic insanity.

    And would *like* to see my daughter get the Channon Christian treatment, because that’s what an anti-Semitic white bitch, (who refuses to act as their slave- as their pig god demands) deserves!

    So I wonder, for all his racial talk, and for all the Nazi arrogance, would it be possible in a billion years, for a Nazi of the very worst stripe, to ever hate a Slav like a Jewish supremacist hates White folks?

    Would Hitler, or Himmler, or any Nazi you’ve ever read about, want to see your average Slavic girl get the ‘Channon Christian treatment’?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    But I’m absolutely convinced 100%, that by their radical skewing of the news, (and all media really), that they absolutely LOVE it, when Gentile girls are butchered in that way. (not because they hate the girls that much, but because they DO hate their fathers and brothers and husbands that much). And knowing how tortured such a (anti-Semitic) father would be, gives them quiet orgasmic thrills up their supremacist egos.

    For all of the German arrogance at the time, somehow I can’t imagine Hitler or any Nazi wishing for Slavic women to be gang raped by orcs.

    Sandra Bernhard of Sara Palin: “gang-raped by my big black brothers!”

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @anon
  900. @refl

    You are avoiding everything you can’t answer with what you hope comes across as amused nonchalance.
    I repeat, you do not live in Germany and are not a German. You have not said I was wrong about that.
    You do not have four NSDAP grandparents who were “desperate.” Give some information on your family as I have revealed my entire ancestry on my website. No, you’re a hidden identity pretending to speak with authority as a German who loves Germany when in reality you’re just a Jim Condit-type who likes anti-Hitler conspiratorial books and treatises and wants to blame those he holds responsible for hurting his true master, the Catholic Church. I’m not saying that’s your reason; I don’t know your reasons but I know you and I are far apart. And since you’re completely dishonest, there’s no point in me trying to “reason things out” with you.

    You pretend that you sense my “cognitive dissonance” and that you don’t want to “trade insults” as the reason you don’t answer my charges. You’re taken aback that I could have figured you out. You can’t spell – your constant spelling errors are those of a high-school dropout or just a low-intelligence person – not because English is not your first language. So you “recommend reading redmuchhoch” (redmudhooch) for an explanation of the “russian/soviet” point of view you favor.

    As to the book “Hitler’s Secret Backers” you’re pushing, there was another version named “Hitler’s Secret Bankers.” Really. Did you know that? Both are pure CIA-style propaganda, as is “Conjuring Hitler” and several others in the same genre. Now you’re trying to pass yourself off as someone who’s just eager to learn whereas before you were the expert. But no matter what you’re selling at the moment, your objective is to discredit Adolf Hitler. Sorry, you won’t do it. Your smallness is too exaggerated in the face of his bigness.

    • Agree: Alexandros
    • Replies: @refl
  901. Miro23 says:
    @Rurik

    What I always do, is look at the world today, to glimmer how things might have been yesterday.
    And looking at the media, and crimes, and demographic shifts, what all this tells me is just how much the Jewish supremacists dominating our world, hate my people with a psychotic insanity.

    Russia was also raped by the oligarchs under puppet Yeltsin. But something went wrong. Replacement Putin went off script and turned on them. Admittedly he was a good friend of the FSB (KGB) and probably had a deal.

    In some respects, Trump is also an unsatisfactory puppet and I’m not sure how far he’ll go with it. There are tweet storms and fast changes of direction but still no Iran war.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  902. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What words I copycated? I repeated the same words for few weeks, and even earlier. If any, it’s you who are copying my words.

    Plus, I’ve just pointed your double standards. Himmler’s quote is not good enough, because he was not Hitler. But didn’t you say you are ready to post some quote by random priests to prove Polish intentions toward Germany? That’s ridiculous and pathetic.

    (BTW, while looking for one Rydz-Śmigły quotes, I found it also on your site. As typical for revanchist, it was edited and interpreted in absurd way. All qualifications “We will seek first peaceful solutions, but if Germany will continue, we are ready to war, for real” were removed, and instead only “we are ready to war” was left. Typical and disgusting. Lies and obfuscations, as usual with Nazi apologists)

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  903. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I see, when Germans try to suppress a revolt, it is becoming a “genocide”, if others do it -e.g., the English (India, Sudan, or starting a downright war as in Boer Wars), the French (let’s say, the Algerian War), the Italians (war in Ethiopia), the Americans in the Philippines, then it is just “keeping order”.
    As far as I understand the situation, the natives of Namibia were retreating from German troops being pursued into the desert, where they suffered losses due to the harshness of the desert climate. Is that “genocide”? How many natives perished in the desert is not known, but we can be certain that the numbers are adjusted to make sure that they are large to maintain the Maximum Demonization Index for Germany. We know how the game is played.

    Naturally, it would have been better for Germany to never have acquired colonial possessions, but it was in the times when England, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Portugal were keeping huge colonial holdings around the globe, so it is not without reason that Germany thought that it should have some also. Namibia in particular was a desert than as it is now, and was therefore disregarded for its low value by the other colonial powers who were after high-value colonies where they could carry off treasure without much ado.

  904. Rurik says:
    @Miro23

    but still no Iran war.

    I was just talking to a fellow who asked me about Trump, and the election.

    I said as long as there’s no war with Iran, and no further escalations in Syria or elsewhere, then I’ll prefer him to any of the top tier Demorats.

    But if he starts a war in Iran, or escalates the war in Ukraine, or anywhere else, then I’d support Tulsi.

    It sort of all boils down to Iran and the Eternal Wars (for Israel).

  905. szopen says:
    @Wally

    Still waiting for you to show us the alleged mass human remains which are said to exist in known locations.

    Because we were talking about intelligenzaktion and I mentioned Piaśnica, I presume you are still talking about this. I don’t know why you ignored the movie I linked before, with testimonies of witnesses present during the exhumation, mentioning how family members recognised the victims and so on.

    I am also more than sure that you will again claim anything I will post is fake and then proudly proclaim, as usual, that you debunked my claims. Nevertheless, I had some time and found some links , which maybe others will find useful. Unfortunately, everything is in Polish (which is what you revisionist take advantage of).

    The Piaśnica first exhumation was in 1946, 7-22.X to be exact. I couldn’t find the original documents from the exhumation, they are only referred to works by several historians. 26 of the 30 mass graves were examined, only two mass graves contained the bodies which were more or less intact, with 305 bodies, of which only 55 were then recognised by victim families – for your convenience, once again I link here the youtube video, linked to a fragment with photos from exhumation https://youtu.be/RbvT3P6lrsM?t=155) (source: for example https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiFt-Tuh_bkAhUvtYsKHea0Bj0Qjhx6BAgBEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbibliotekacyfrowa.eu%2FContent%2F55055%2F61046.pdf&psig=AOvVaw1_6aKKGEDKkhJzXwwWYLjM&ust=1569847354293597 – page 37 acc to the numeration which is 39 within pdf, you can also find several photos, by of poor quality). One better quality photo from the exhumation is here, but without any bodies:

    [MORE]
    https://www.rp.pl/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/RP/20150417/KRAJ/304179819/AR/0/AR-304179819.jpg?imageversion=Artykul&lastModified=
    Another photo you can find here:and here(from the foto collection here https://kujawsko-pomorskie.pl/32376-materialy-do-pobrania – you can find also photos from exhumation in Wysoka there)

    Based on remaining graves sizes, it’s estimated that total count of victims would be around ten thousands, though not all of them were Polish: there are relations that Nazis also brought patients from the asylums in Germany in order to be murdered here.

    Now, if you do not think this is insufficient proof that there was mass grave in Piaśnica (i.e. you think exhumation either had not happened, the photos above are fakes, witnesses from the movie I linked lie etc), then what kind of proof expect from me? I surely won’t go to the IPN ask for the originals from archives, and they are not available in digital form. On the other hand, elsewhere you have accepted as a proof random quote from an internet; why the double standard, then?

    If there was no intelligenzaktion, you have to explain what was this book: https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/edition/24330?id=24330
    and why most of people from this book had not survived the war.

    That’s all. For completeness, so I do not have to search those links again and to have them all easily available in one place, I continue with a list of other places of Nazi crimes. All the following links are in Polish. Simply, I couldn’t find the sources in English, and – anyway – I fully expect Wally will say that the graves are probably fakse too and there is no proof people mentioned there were actually shot by Germans in 1939 in mass execution…. Anyways. What about mass shootings in 1939, for example in Śrem (http://www.sredzkiearchiwalia.pl/20-pazdziernika-1939-w-srodzie/), Kórnik (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDhdirkvbkAhXmwsQBHYjRC4UQFjALegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbc.poznan.pl%2FContent%2F378446&usg=AOvVaw2UwHFdsjgw31o1mU0YUQy7), and other listed there (with victims listed by name for each execution: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierwsze_masowe_egzekucje_w_ramach_operacji_Tannenberg_(Wielkopolska))

    Piaśnica is only one mass execution place. In addition to Wysoka, Paterka, Barborka mentioned in links above, you have also Szpęgawsk Forest (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbrodnia_w_Lesie_Szp%C4%99gawskim), Tryszczyn (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbrodnia_w_Tryszczynie), Chojnice (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egzekucje_w_chojnickiej_%E2%80%9EDolinie_%C5%9Amierci%E2%80%9D), Bydgoszcz (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egzekucje_w_fordo%C5%84skiej_%E2%80%9EDolinie_%C5%9Amierci%E2%80%9D), Mniszek (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbrodnia_w_Mniszku) and many, many others.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  906. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    Inciter:
    You would do well to think more before you type. I will just point out two things.
    1. German troops did never occupy “Rump Czechoslovakia”. It was the Czech region of the former Czecho-Slovakia which was occupied and made a protectorate for the time being. Czecho-Slovakia had ended its existence with the secession of Slovakia and Ruthenia in early March of 1939.
    (I point this out because it is emblematic for the superficial, outrage-fueled reading that stands behind statements of your kind).
    2. Is it a demand in your opinion if one points out problems and makes suggestions to resolve them? Danzig was a German city with a population desiring to become part of the German state again, at the same time strongly disliking the Polish intrusions and arrogant attitudes towards it. There was in toto a huge number of Germans who had come under Polish rule as a consequence of the forced situation created at Versailles in 1919.
    Hitler did not create these problems, he inherited the and was desiring to solve them. Is it your opinion then that they should have been ignored and the Poles should have continued in their anti-German policies (e.g. not allowing German as language used in dealings with administrations, closing German schools, disallowing bequeathing German property to Germans, forbidding church services in German, not recognizing German diplomas and degrees, restrictions in German publications).
    Why did England not lean on the Poles to treat the several millions of Germans in Poland with good sense? Or why did the League of Nations find no problems with that? Why do you find no problems with that? (The same pertained to Czecho-Slovakia where the Germans wanted to secede only after the Czechs showed total unwillingness to accommodate their policies to the realities of thei multi-ethnic state)
    In any case: Hitler made no demands, he worked out sixteen points for opening discussions with Poland. They were ignored, not even their receipt was acknowledged (that was in August of 1939).
    Although Danzig was not nominally under Polish rule, Hitler wanted to come to an agreement with Poland over this city in which they had invested a lot of ambitious plans and given some rights by the League of Nations. It would actually have been a matter of the League of Nations to suggest a course of action, but Hitler wanted to come to an amicable agreement with Germany’s next-door neighbor in the first place.
    Anyway, what is your suggested solution?
    Shoot all the Germans who were unhappy under Polish rule?

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Incitatus
  907. @szopen

    while looking for one Rydz-Śmigły quotes, I found it also on your site. As typical for revanchist, it was edited and interpreted in absurd way.

    You are too ridiculous, and too easy. You don’t even give a link to what you’re referring to on my site, and it is the easiest thing in the world to do. If it didn’t occur to you, then what can I say? Maybe you’re making it up?

    it’s you who are copying my words.

    You just copied me right there! This is what I’m talking about. Whatever I say to you, you say it back to me. LOL

    • Replies: @szopen
  908. @Wally

    Well you had the fascists in Italy allying with the invading German army and terrorizing minority groups. The same occurred in Serbia at the hands of far/alt-right extremists Croatian Ustasa. Eastern Europe and the Balkan fell to far-alt-right majorities who usurped the German invasions for their own ends and dealt with minorities quite despicably.

    I’m not against the main opinion of this article as far as the “jewish problem” is concerned, the evidence for their scheming for centuries is obvious to anyone who’s read up on the matter. But its no good saying they are the secret bad guy hiding in the shadows and playing all sides off of each other. Churchill, FDR as well as the Russian tyrants all deserve as much scorn as has been attributed to Hitler as does International Elite Jewry; not sure about poor &middleclass jewry – if such a thing exists; but its never a good thing to cleanse a poor downtrodden minority class unless you have evidence that they are being a nuisance.

    Anyways its pretty amazing concerning the people who are composed of the jewish bloodline; they seem to have this innate ability to identify each other and are well united amongst each other managing to enter into all walks of life. But despite how disparate their disciplines are they pretty-much come together to successfully (almost) dominate all other races. I was speaking to a Christian on this matter who mentioned that they are obsessed with their bloodline, their religion is in their bloodline and their bloodline is in their religion; this seems to make sense because irrespective of whether they are secular, orthodox, westernized, non-religious jews etc. these differences do not get in the way of their preservation. Even some of the religious jews that I’ve spoken tobelieve that there is no afterlife and that their success (world-domination) in this life means that future offspring will “inherit” the earth and the ones who die will cease to exist, simply fading from existence and no immortality in any sense. So all the godly talk must simply be paying homage to divine utterances. Just amazing how long all this has lasted despite how diluted the bloodline must be now over the centuries of breeding.

  909. szopen says:
    @Fox

    not allowing German as language used in dealings with administrations, closing German schools

    Was Polish allowed to be used in dealings with administration in Germany? How many Polish schools were in Germany (remember not to count Bytom gymnasium more than once)? What was happening to the parents who were sending children to Polish schools in Germany? What happened to the school children and teachers from Bytom school after Septembet 1939?

    Or, what was policy in imperial Prussia towards Polish minority before WW1? What about Polish minority in Germany treatment in Germany post-WW1? If Versailles was so bad, what do you think should be done about areas where Poles lived, forming majority, and who were subjected to very harsh laws (and harsher every year)? Do you think Ludendorf was important person and had a say in German government pre war? What do you think about Ludendorf’s fantasies about annexing “border belt” and creating new, independent states from Russia, so independent that he could settle thousands of German veterans in Courland?

    disallowing bequeathing German property to Germans, forbidding church services in German

    Please source from a non-revisionist sites (because revisionist sites often manipulate or made up things).

    : Hitler made no demands, he worked out sixteen points for opening discussions with Poland

    Why then he demanded that a diplomat would appear to discuss them with full powers, why he said this is final proposal, why Henderson reports he was not handed the points and had to hear them in fast German and hence couldn’t even communicate them to the Polish side? Why the order to invade was made few days earlier and only postponed because of English-Polish military alliance being announced? Why he refused to talk to Lipski after asking only one question (“do you have full powers?”)?

    Why Polish-German minority commission was shut down?

    Why Hitler just two years before was saying he has no problems with Poland?

    • Replies: @Fox
  910. @Fox

    Thank you Fox, for taking this on. I didn’t want to have to look it all up, but I knew it was something like this.

  911. Ron Unz says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    See : Wikipedia, Herero and Namaqua genocide…Source : Germany returns skulls of Namibian genocide victims. BBC News, 29 August 2018.

    Well, my impression is that nobody had ever heard of the 1904-1908 German “genocide” of the Hereros until the story was widely circulated in the English-language media during WWI, along with the similar and more heavily-emphasized stories of the Germans bayoneting Belgian babies and rendering corpses into soap.

    Since the latter turned out to be war-propaganda hoaxes, I’m deeply suspicious that the former probably were as well.

    Can anyone find a solid article published about the supposedly horrific “genocide” prior to 1914?…

    • Replies: @German_reader
  912. @Rurik

    How bright are you, Rurik? Tulsi is not going to be on any ballot for such an office.

    It looks like Trump.

  913. German_reader says:
    @Ron Unz

    Can anyone find a solid article published about the supposedly horrific “genocide” prior to 1914?…

    It was debated in the German Reichstag at the time, with delegates from the Social Democrats and Centre party expressing severe disapproval.
    It’s true that the sources for the Herero uprising and its aftermath are partly derived from a British booklet published during WW1, which was meant to cast German colonial rule in a negative light. It’s also controversial whether German actions were really that much worse than what other colonial powers did, as is the claim of a continuity from Windhoek to Auschwitz (for a sceptical take by mainstram historians see e.g. Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski, Hannah Arendt’s ghosts: Reflections on the disputable path from Windhoek to Auschwitz, in: Central European History 42 (2009), p. 279-300).
    On the other hand, there can’t really be any doubt imo that German forces crushed the Herero rising in a brutal manner and caused the death of a very substantial part of the Herero population.

    Btw, the “Belgian atrocities” during WW1 weren’t wholly invented either (though there were many lurid embellishments and exaggerations), German forces really did kill a few thousand Belgian civilians in reprisals against (real or imagined) irregular attacks. Here again, the argument imo isn’t so much about whether significant violence happened, but whether it was as exceptional as is often claimed (British historian Alexander Watson has recently argued that Russian forces behaved in a not entirely dissimilar manner during their abortive invasion of East Prussia in 1914).

    • Replies: @German_reader
  914. @PhucQ

    we now are inclined to see WWII as the first war the European Union waged against our country. And the EU is steadily being prepared for the next assault on us judging by the perpetual “Russian threat” mantra.

    No LOL from me. With the UK so eager to leave the EU, I was thinking it there may not be something else going on far below the surface that we are not aware of, some re-positioning for the future WWIII. I know most of the anti-Russian rhetoric is coming from USA and the UK but still, they could just be acting as shills. Even before WWII there was massive anti Soviet propaganda in those same countries, and in fact the Soviets cooperated closely with Nazi Germany, yet things played out the way they did. Some may say no way, but even after WWI many didn’t want another mass slaughter in Europe and still it happened. The US and UK could be quite capable of provoking conflicts, like say in the Ukraine or Balkans, and letting them grown into a Europe wide conflagration only to later turn and join the other side. Of course we know who would really be behind it all and looking to gain the most from it. I hope not but little things can grow into bigger things, little wars precede the big ones.

  915. German_reader says:
    @German_reader

    It was debated in the German Reichstag at the time

    e.g. here is the protocol for what August Bebel (SPD leader) said on March 17 1904:

    http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00002809/images/index.html?id=00002809&groesser=&fip=eayayztsewqeayaxssdasyztsqrseayaxs&no=&seite=129

    He cites letters from German soldiers in the colony who write things like “We’re not allowed to take any prisoners”, “We’re shooting and hanging insurgents every day”, “Everything that is alive and black, is shot” etc. and says this all sounds like there’s indiscriminate killing not just of men, but also of women and children.
    So at the very least there was contemporary debate about the methods used to crush the Herero uprising, not just in rival powers like Britain, but actually in Germany herself.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  916. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    To try to depict Hitler as “innocent” …. is an impossible undertaking.

    As is portraying Israel as a righteous democracy. Is C. Yeager in that camp, or just a parallel traveler?

    • Replies: @turtle
  917. Ron Unz says:
    @German_reader

    He cites letters from German soldiers in the colony who write things like “We’re not allowed to take any prisoners”, “We’re shooting and hanging insurgents every day”,

    Sure, I certainly don’t doubt that the German colonial forces were massacring lots of rebel African tribesmen. But is there any evidence that what they were doing was any different than what all the other European colonial forces did in suppressing their own rebel African tribesmen?

    And since the other European powers controlled maybe 20x as much of Africa and other non-European parts of the world, and had done so for far longer, I’d guess that they’d massacred at least 20x as many rebel Africans. And I’d bet that the Africans themselves massacred 500x as many other African tribesmen.

    The whole use of the world “genocide” has gotten totally ridiculous these days. For example, I remember reading a book on Greek history a few months ago by that silly Neocon Victor Davis Hanson. He mentioned that when the Athenians captured a Corinthian fort, they “genocided” the 120 Corinthian troops they captured…

  918. German_reader says:
    @Ron Unz

    But is there any evidence that what they were doing was any different than what all the other European colonial forces did in suppressing their own rebel African tribesmen?

    Well, as I wrote above that’s disputed even among mainstream historians. Robert Gerwarth (in the article I cited) thinks German repression in South-west Africa wasn’t that different in principle from other colonial atrocities, e.g. the American war in the Philippines. Other historians claim it was worse…I can’t really judge the matter in detail.
    I agree that the term “genocide” is over-used nowadays. And in any case there was no decision taken in Berlin to exterminate the Herero, the orders which are seen as genocidal were given by the local military commander von Trotha and eventually rescinded.
    I don’t think there’s much room for doubt though that the repression of the Herero rising featured a lot of excessive violence.

    • Replies: @refl
  919. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Ewww. Sandra Bernhard is an abomination. Shame on you for hitting us with her picture. 🙁

    • Replies: @Rurik
  920. Fox says:
    @szopen

    szopen:
    I don’t know Bytom gymnasium? What is it? A sports club?
    There were but few Poles living in Germany, and millions of Germans in Poland. These Germans were also living in good measure in contiguous areas, i.e., areas which were purely German, as they had been up to the point when Poland decided to occupy them. Poland also signed on to Minority Protection, i.e., respecting and not interfering with the affairs of the minorities it had forced inside its then borders.
    I know that the Poles had deputies in the German Reichstag up to 1918, they were not driven from their land or prevented from being Poles and acting as Poles, speaking Polish, further Polish culture and customs and so on. Furthermore, the new Polish state was proclaimed in November of 1916 through a German initiative, i.e., for Poland, there would have been plenty of reasons to behave with good grace towards the German neighbor.
    Back to August of 1939, Lipski, instead of playing dumb and deaf, as by instructions by Beck, could have just picked up the German proposals himself. The proposals were read to Henderson, so that the English side at least could be informed about their substance. It was certainly hoped that the Polish government would be informed. Why they were only read to Henderson is not clear to me at that time, but it is certain that this was not done to keep the info concealed from the Poles, since they could have picked it up themselves.
    Do you really need proof from a non-revisionist source to understand that a German city does not want to be under the rule of a foreign power, and all the more so of a hostile one such as Poland presented itself (and I imagine that your self-representation is not unlike the Polish self-representation 80 years ago)?

    Even so, the Poles could have agreed t recognize that there were tensions between the Germans and Poles. These tensions existed not because Germany had just occupied swaths of Polish territory and fantasized about exerting sovereign right over a Polish city, but because of the opposite.
    You may well bring up the old Polish belief that where Danzig is, a thousand years ago a Polish fishing hamlet had stood, and the present day Danzig (in 1939) was therefore Polish. Come up with something better.
    I think Hitler was expecting a competent Polish representative to appear to bring a solution of the Korridor and Danzig problem closer. As you know, the Poles brought instead their military to full fighting readiness (general mobilization), and also increased their actions to a point of shelling German border towns and firing at German airplanes even flying over the waters off the Baltic coast.
    I have no sympathy for so much foolishness in attitude, in actions and in stoking tensions in support of foreign powers. No thought was wasted on the future, no foresight, no forethought, you prove with the tone of your comments that there is also no insight.

    • Replies: @szopen
  921. refl says:
    @Pandora 19

    Thank you for that quote from Preparata – as I mentioned earlier on, I do not know, if he is right, but he certainly points in the right direction.
    Preparata in your above quotes gives a perfect example of the Voldemort effect. In just a few sentences he pays tribute to the standard Holocaust story, though with his understanding of the events it is unbelievable that he shouldn’t know better.

    It won’t help him from being crucified as a Nazi apologist nonetheless, but at least he does not scare off the audience right away.
    One thing I would add is that the Soviet part in the game is still not clear. They worked in sync with the British empire, but I do not see what their gamble was and how the Stalinist purges fit into the picture.

  922. refl says:
    @PhucQ

    When I say that Hitler was a hoax, I have to stress that the devastation in the Soviet Union certainly was not a hoax.
    Recently, I have dealt with the arming of the German troops for the war in the East and I was simply shocked how poorly equiped they were. Producing disaster, yes, but there was never the slightest chance to reach any serious military or political objektive. So what were they up to? – if we discount World conquest which is a caricature.

    There simply cannot have been any long term planning – positive or negative – in what they did.

  923. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “You would do well to think more before you type.”

    Indeed, good advice for all! Many thanks!

    “I will just point out two things.
    1. German troops did never occupy “Rump Czechoslovakia”…

    Are you sure? German troops didn’t invade Czechoslovakia 15 Mar 1939, after Hitler/Göring induced Hácha’s late night/morning heart attack and forced him (on pain of destroying Prague) to order troops to stand down? Really? You’re on thin ice, Fox.

    “2. Is it a demand in your opinion if one points out problems and makes suggestions to resolve them? Danzig was a German city with a population desiring to become part of the German state again…”

    Spare the heart-warming NSDAP talking points. Is it a problem if one intentionally incites a minority population [Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig] to sedition? A lever calling for capitulation of the majority [Poland] to neighbor [Nazi Germany] sponsored conquest? Most would say so, but I’m no expert.

    “Although Danzig was not nominally under Polish rule, Hitler wanted to come to an agreement with Poland over this city in which they had invested a lot of ambitious plans and given some rights by the League of Nations. It would actually have been a matter of the League of Nations to suggest a course of action, but Hitler wanted to come to an amicable agreement with Germany’s next-door neighbor in the first place.”

    If Danzig wasn’t under “Polish rule”, what was the problem? “League of Nations”? Hitler withdrew 14 Oct 1933. He entered the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact 26 Jan 1934. What was the problem? Just another case of faithless pacts Hitler entered and violated (e.g. Munich 1938, Molotov-Ribbentrop 1939)?

    “Anyway, what is your suggested solution [Danzig]? Shoot all the Germans who were unhappy under Polish rule?”

    You haven’t really proved there was a problem, since “Danzig was not nominally under Polish rule”. Did we miss something? The “corridor” [how wide, how policed, who controls, etc.] bit? Why would the ‘corridor’ be any different from the Sudetenland/rump Czechoslovakia ‘solution’?

    Because Mr. Big promised otherwise?

    All know what that was worth.

    Here’s what he told his staff:

    “[We failed to achieve the] big solution [(the total break-up of Czechoslovakia) but] we must first digest what we’ve won. When the time is right, we’ll soften up Poland using the tried and tested methods.”
    -Adolf Hitler 1 Oct 1938 (1 day after winning the Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement) [Gerhard Engle ‘Heeresadjutant bei Hitler’ p.40]

    Here’s what he told his generals prior to invading Poland:

    “Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!…Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all signs of compassion! …[I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy…I have put my Death’s Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly.”
    -Adolf Hitler address to military commanders prior to Case White 21 Aug 1939 [Shirer: ‘Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ p.532; Evans: ‘The Third Reich at War’ p.11; Wittman & Kinney: ‘The Devil’s Diary’ p.246]

    “I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn’t matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth.”
    -Adolf Hitler 22 Aug 1939 to Generals on Fall Weiß, the invasion of Poland [Wirtz, Godson ‘Twenty-First Century Challenge’ p.100; Lightbody ‘Second World War’ p.39]

    And now, Fox, you lamely attempt to cover flagrant criminality with the same lame nonsense?

    Do you see yourself in a mirror, or are you true Nosferatu?

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Fox
    , @szopen
    , @John Regan
  924. @Ron Unz

    I think the German cas is complicated by the fact that, well into the 20th century the process of unifying Germany was in many respects at least generations behind France, and, particularly, Britain. The civilised Hanoverians I stayed with in Marburg before university would have been horrified to know that a recent ancestor had behaved like von Trotha in SW Africa.

    By contrast, as early as the 1788 First Settlement in Port Jackson (Sydny) under Governor Arthur Phillip there was a notable tendency amongst typically evangelical officers to protect the Aboriginal natives from the less civilised settlers and ex convicts. Even Tsmania had a Protector of Aborigines.

    My point is that many Germans would have led the way equally with those Brits but that there were a lot more untamed Germans left, including amongst the officer class and the well educated. The Belgian Congo however! What does that say about King Leopold’s people? And no, I haven’t forgotten that some unattractive behaviour occurred in the days of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya but I proffer the tentative response that noblesse is mych easier for the rich and powerful….

  925. Adrian says:

    About the Herero affair.

    There is, among other things, on the internet a considerable fragment of a book edited by the historians Gerrit Jan Abbink, Mirjam de Bruijn and Klaas van Walraven , Rethinking Resistance: Revolt and Violence in African History, Leiden, 2004.

    It has entries from the diary of the Army major who had the task to drive the Herero to their death (and very much hated it). The German General von Trotha was indeed bent on total extermination. After the main battle the survivors were driven into a waterless desert with all escape routes being cordoned off. First their cattle (on which they were dependent) died, then they themselves.

    Apparently the Reichstag cancelled Von Trotha’s extermination order and the pitiful remnant was placed in concentration camps (of which the British had pioneered the use in the Boer War) where they were starved.

    It would indeed be dishonest to claim that this colonial violence was limited to the Germans. But my original letter was a reaction to one contributor’s claim that the colonised “loved” the German colonisers.

    About other contemporary colonial violence:

    [MORE]

    Some time before all this the now almost forgotten Filipino -American war between the first Filipino Republic and the US (1899-1902, with guerilla action unil 1913) took place.

    This war too was full of horrors.

    One story still cited by Filipino historians is that of a Filipino machete (“bolo”) attack on agroup of breakfasting American soldiers. The commanding American general, a Jacob Smith, declared that in revenge he would turn Samar into a “howling wilderness”.

    Wikipedia quotes:

    “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States,” General Jacob H. Smith said.

    Since it was a popular belief among the Americans serving in the Philippines that native males were born with bolos (machetes A.) in their hands, Major Littleton “Tony” Waller asked, “I would like to know the limit of age to respect, sir.”
    “Ten years”, Smith said.

    “Persons of ten years and older are those designated as being capable of bearing arms?”

    “Yes.” Smith confirmed his instructions a second time.” “

    This ultimately came up in Smith’s court martial where he got away with being forced to retire (but he was due to retire anyway)

    The Filipino side regarded this war as a matter of gross betrayal. The Americans had come in there ostensibly as allies of the Filipinos in their war against Spain. Gore Vidal gives the specifics in his very readable book “Empire”. If I remember correctly Vidal claims that US President McKinley spent the night before the decision to annex the Philippines in prayer but then decided that he had to save his “little brown brothers” for Christ. Somebody pointed out that the Filipinos were catholics already. “Exactly” McKinley is supposed to have answered.

    Se Non è Vero è Ben Trovato.

    My edition of the Encyclopedia Americana is, in its entry on the Philippines, discreetly silent about the number of victims in this war. So is the Encyclopedia Britannica though it remarks that there are “unfortunate similarities” with the American involvement in Vietnam.

    According to Wikipedia however the “war resulted in the deaths of at least 200,000 Filipino civilians, mostly due to famine and disease. Some estimates for total civilian dead reach up to a million”[ on a total population then of just under 8 million A.)
    But these figures are quite unreliable. Elsewhere Wikipedia mentions 50,000.

    The Dutch too were fighting a colonial war then against the Achehnese in a conflict that lasted several generations (1870 – 1910). Plenty of horrors took place but no Dutch general ever claimed that he wanted to totally wipe out the Achehnese. Neither did Jacob Smith but that would have been an impossible task anyway.

    As to Ron Unz’s feeling that the Germans are the victims of allied propaganda here again I think it is now beyond dispute that Von Trotha was indeed intending to totally exterminate the Herero (thus intending genocide). O.K. he didn’t quite manage (the Herero are still there and now in greater numbers) but that was not for lack of trying.

    Was Von Trotha ever court martialled. I hardly think so. My edition of Der Grosse Brockhaus (yes I used to collect encyclopedias) only mentions an Admiral Von Trotha and is remarkably succinct about the Herero war.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  926. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    But no matter what you’re selling at the moment, your objective is to discredit Adolf Hitler. Sorry, you won’t do it. Your smallness is too exaggerated in the face of his bigness.

    I recommend that one as the Unz Review comment of the decade!
    My sincerest Thanks to the host for keeping up with all of this.

  927. Wally says:
    @szopen

    Hilarious.
    Szopen posts images of piles of cloth which the Communists claim are dead bodies.
    Just look at them & see.
    He then desperately shows tombstones of people who died. I’m shocked, who knew that people die? LOL

    Still no mass human remains that would necessarily exist if silly szopen’s tall tales were factual.
    Poor szopen, has painted himself into a corner.

    These types of fakes are common, here’s some more:

    [MORE]

    – Auschwitz with smoke

    – Auschwitz no smoke

    Notice the drawn in smoke is coming out of a fence post. LOL

    Piles of clothes and smoke exiting a fence post. That’s the “holocaust” in a nutshell.

    • Replies: @szopen
  928. refl says:
    @German_reader

    I suppose the Reichstag debate of 1904 should be seen in the context of the Belgian atrocities in the Kongo that were exposed in those years – it started a debate about crimes by colonial powers in general and the German socialists were at the forfront in that discussion. A decade later the British turned it against the Germans – they had been the avant garde in dealing with their failures as a colonial power and that was taken advantage of.

  929. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    ‘What was it Madeleine Albright said of non-Jewish children.. that if half a million died due to deliberately denying them clean water and medicine, that such a trifle would be “worth it” (if it’s ‘good for the Jews’).

    — This is true. Madeleine Albright (Korbelova) is a shameless murderous zionist. Not surprisingly, she is a daughter of a dirty thieving diplomat Josef Korbel: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985273/posts

    Albright’s father, Josef Korbel, a former Czech foreign ministry official who was Jewish, stole millions of dollars’ worth of art and furniture from them [Nebrich family], then fled with it and his family to America at the end of the war.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Rurik
  930. Ron Unz says:
    @Adrian

    About the Herero affair…It has entries from the diary of the Army major who had the task to drive the Herero to their death (and very much hated it).

    Well, Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable about controversial things, but I took a look anyway:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

    Apparently some scholarly book published in 1989 estimates that 24K Hereros died during 1904-1908 while some more recent “reparations” book puts the total at 100K, so I’d guess that the former figure is far more likely. If so, we’re talking about Germany causing the deaths of 5,000 Africans per year during a war, a figure so microscopic you’d need a magnifying glass to find it in the history books.

    Meanwhile, there’ some quote from that von Trotha fellow saying that he plans to kill or drive away all the Hereros, which hardly sounds like “genocide” to me. Throughout history, groups have often killed or driven away their enemies, and I’m sure the Hereros had done the same thing to enemy tribes. So how many “genocides” did the Apaches or Comanches or Zulus commit?

    If we look at the Wikipedia article for the Belgian Congo, it seems like the best estimate is that something like 10M Africans probably died roughly during roughly that same era, a figure around 400x larger.

    Since the Germans had invaded Belgium during WWI and everyone knew about the really horrible things that the Belgians had done in the Congo, I’d guess that the previously-unknown “Herero genocide” was basically manufactured as propaganda so that everyone would forget about the 400-times-larger death toll inflicted by the Belgians.

    I’d really be very, very curious if anyone had ever mentioned anything in the English media about the Hereros prior to WWI…

  931. @Rurik

    How many millions of Russians and Poles and other Slavs donned the German uniform to fight against the Bolshevik fiend?

    Millions??! No Poles except those who were already German citizens for a long time. What other Slavs? No Czechs or Slovaks, no Serbs, Croatians say they are not Slavic, and Romanians and Hungarians for sure are not.

    Not to mention the millions of Ukrainians and Estonians and Latvians and Norwegians who hated the Nazis for being on their sacred soil, but who … held their noses and fought for the Nazis.

    Again, not hardly millions, not at all. You have an overly romanticized view of this history.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  932. annamaria says:
    @utu

    “One must resist our basic psychological need to be consoled that sets us up to be very vulnerable to be exploited by operatives who are much more skillful and much more experienced in this sort of things than most people are.”

    — You mean, this mistress of anti-Russia vaccination is correct? https://www.rt.com/op-ed/469854-ukraine-disinformation-war-wapo/ Nina Jankowicz has been using disinformation and lies to “protect” Americans from the facts. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/nina_jankowicz_senatejudiciarytestimony_june12_18.pdf She is a committed presstitute in service of ziocons. According to your standards, Nina Jankowicz works hard to make us “resist our basic psychological need to be consoled that sets us up to be very vulnerable to be exploited” et cetera. You see, Nina Jankowicz is very cautious “when it comes to Russia.”

    There are also Dm. Alperovitch, Michael Weiss, Anne Applebaum and similar “protectors” of the “very vulnerable.” The protectors have been caught again and again on using all kind of means to overcome the alleged “more skillful and much more experienced in this sort of things than most people are.”

    Here is the home base of Anne Applebaum, a faux historian: https://larouchepac.com/20190110/part-ii-integrity-initiatives-foreign-agents-influence-invade-united-states

    …a group calling itself “Anonymous” posted actual documents from the Integrity Initiative, a rapid-response black-propaganda information-warfare operation targeting Russia, China, Western Europe, and the United States. … These documents reveal the “boots on the ground” so to speak, for the cyberspace and black propaganda policies…

    A look at the “clusters” for the United States and Britain reveal them to be dominated by individuals from the Atlantic Council, the rabidly anti-Russian and anti-Chinese Jamestown Foundation, the Center for European Policy Analysis, and similar National Endowment for Democracy spinoffs.

    The Atlantic Council is the home of the Digital Research Lab which housed Dmitri Alperovitch, the guy who also leads CrowdStrike, the company which manufactured the fake story about Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta.

    The UK cluster includes Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post…Bill Browder and Vadim Kleiner from Browder’s operations…

    What a company! Alperovitch, Applebaum, Browder — all-star team.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  933. annamaria says:
    @szopen

    FORGOTTEN SECRET HISTORY OF WORLD WAR II: BEFORE HITLER INVADED POLAND — POLAND INVADED CZECHOSLOVAKIA http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  934. annamaria says:
    @Truth3

    “a Jewish State in Palestine … a central organisation for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university of budding crooks.”

    — Correct.

  935. turtle says:
    @annamaria

    Josef Korbel, a former Czech foreign ministry official who was Jewish, stole millions of dollars’ worth of art

    Part of which was donated to found a “School of International Studies” bearing his name:
    https://korbel.du.edu
    One illustrious graduate of which is:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Javad_Zarif
    Strange loops….

    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
    T.S. Eliot

  936. turtle says:
    @anon

    To try to depict Hitler as “innocent” …. is an impossible undertaking.

    Speaking as a complete novice on this topic, I have to believe that AH believed his own bullshit.
    He sounded so sincere, y’know? Impossible to fake that posture for the long run, IMO.

  937. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler had planned the colonization of Russia anyway. He had written that in his Mein Kampf (which Stalin had read), and he spoke openly about it in his Table Talks. I will not search for the relevant passages here again, but on several occasions he spoke of all the resources he would take from Russia once it was conquered, how he would settle German farmers in the land, how the Crimea would become a vacation resort for the Germans …

    In Thomas Dalton’s new book “Hitler on the Jews”, on page 23 he writes

    Jews succeed much more easily in a racially diverse society. […] thus [they] promoted, historically, colonialism–not only because of the profit motive but also because it inevitably led to an influx of the dark-skinned colonized people. This, for Hitler, is the ‘original sin’ of colonialism, and explains in large part why he never promoted it.”

    This explains why Hitler thought expanding to the east was the best solution for Germany’s agricultural and raw materials needs. These needs were real … and pressing. He also knew (believed) the Germans improved things wherever they went, and they had gone all around the world doing so. Therefore, everyone would benefit because he knew that the peasants within Russia and also in the Ukraine lived a miserable animal-like existence. Even though he envisaged the benefits to the German homeland, he didn’t fail to mention how it would also benefit the Russians and their lives would improve over what they had ever been.

    You always portray it as slavery and in the worst possible light. That was what they currently had! You also say the local population would be denied medical care and education. Well, they didn’t have it then! What he said was Germans should follow the British example, and leave the people to their own ways, traditions and habits–not try to change them or remake them in the image of Germans. But he did always say they would be better off and have more material goods than they did now!!

    And that brings us to the difference between “colonizing” other Whites and colonizing Blacks and Asians that Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc were doing on a large scale. It always results in racial mixing, darkening the Aryan race. You call yourself a White Nationalist but spend a lot of time defending Jews who want to darken and pollute our race. Hitler didn’t want to do that, and you hate him for it. You use the excuse of befriending the Poles and other Slavs, but these Poles and Slavs would have preferred the presence of Germans over the colonizing Dutch and French with all their Jews and Blacks and race mixing.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  938. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    I don’t have the inclination now to expend much time I might use otherwise; however, you did show that you are indeed typing before thinking.
    I.e., I wrote that Hitler had never occupied “Rump Czecho-Slovakia”; and that’s the case. German forces occupied the Czech region of “Rumo Czecho-Slovakia”. Czecho-Slovakia bore that name because it was to appear as union of Slovakia and Czechia. When German forces occupied Prague, Slovakia had already seceded from Czecho-Slovakia, and Slovakia was going its own way and not occupied. The same is true for Ruthenia. Czechia became the Protectorate. Whether you like it or not, whether you approve of it or not, every step was following rules of legality, including the occupation which was made on request by Hacha. Czechia had found itself abandoned and deprived of the support it had had when it was a strategic asset as the leader of the artificial construct “Czecho-Slovakia” for London and Paris. This was due to the chauvinistic and dismissive behavior of the Czech leadership under Benes.
    The leadership following Benes found itself in isolation, surrounded by Germany with which it now had to come to an understanding, without the Slovaks and not useful for French or English ambitions. Hacha had little choice, but he acted as the head of the Czech governmemt.
    I am not arguing that the occupation of the Czech part of the former Czecho-Slovakia was good, but the situation came about through the remarkable short-sightedness of the Versailles crowd. Perhaps you have a bright solution for the situation.

    And be careful with citing people like Shirer or Evans.

    Again, think before you type, keep your hot blood on ice.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  939. Wally says:
    @Ron Unz

    recommended:

    Hererocaust, “Holocaust” through the B(l)ackdoor: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8099
    exc:
    “That type of atrocity propaganda was a typical British tactic at that time. The British propagandists had done the same thing in Congo when they wanted to seize the rich Katanga area for themselves. Atrocity propaganda – exclusively based on a report full of ‘testimonies’ – towards the Belgian King administering Congo at that time. The British propagandists even claimed the Belgian King had killed 10 million Congolese people…even if the 1st census in Congo took place more than 20 years later, in 1924.”
    and:

    [MORE]

    Germany’s other allged “genocide”: Namibia’s Herero:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10612
    Claims about the Herero debunked here:

    and:
    WWI atrocity propaganda: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8497

  940. Miro23 says:
    @annamaria

    Here is the home base of Anne Applebaum, a faux historian: https://larouchepac.com/20190110/part-ii-integrity-initiatives-foreign-agents-influence-invade-united-states

    Faux historian she certainly is. In for example her, “Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps” Applebaum writes with an agenda and systematically blanks out the central Jewish role in Bolshevism and the Gulag.

    She does however mention one or two selfless Jewish inmates helping everyone out where they can.

  941. szopen says:
    @Fox

    I don’t know Bytom gymnasium? What is it? A sports club?

    One of TWO Polish schools in Germany above the grammar level. Bytom the first one, the second one was in Kwidzyń, opened after years of petitions in 1937, closed in August 1939. Teachers were then sent to concentration camps, students were interned, but surprisingly, there was happy ending (of kind) for students: after few months the younger were released, the older were forced to join Wehrmacht. Both were private schools. In contrast, there were 2 public and 13 private state secondary schools teaching in German in Poland. For elementary schools, there were 199 and 13 private schools teaching in German in POland, while there were 6 public and 59 private grammar schools teaching in Polish in Germany.

    Look at the 28 for this brochure (edited during the war) http://pbc.gda.pl/dlibra/plain-content?id=42871

    There were but few Poles living in Germany, and millions of Germans in Poland.

    The Germany census of mid 1920s showed 200 thousand Poles in Germany; I think the number is way underestimated, though Polish estimates of 1.3 million Poles in Germany are probably way over the top. The Union of Poles in Germany had 32.000 members, and it’s unreasonable to say that all Poles in Germany (who also lived in contigous areas, e.g. in Opole) were members of the union, and not even all members’ families were mebers too, so I would say that number would have to be multiplied by at least 3; two schools for 100-200 thousands is not much; plus the parents were threatened to lose their job if they would sent their children to those schools, and schools were often harassed and attacked, especially in 1939 – with broken glasses, painted walls etc.

    There were not “millions” of Germans of Poland, but between 700 to 900 thousand.

    I know that the Poles had deputies in the German Reichstag up to 1918, they were not driven from their land or prevented from being Poles and acting as Poles, speaking Polish, further Polish culture and customs and so on

    Wrong. Poles in Germany had no schools of their own; Polish was forbidden to speak in schools, in fact. Meetings (of Poles!) had to be spoken in German. Polish recruits were sent to serve in army away from home. Numerous regulations were passed to prevent Poles to build new houses or to renovate old ones. Just before the war a regulation was passed which allowed confiscation of Polish properties near the border – only four were confiscated, but most likely because war started. Moreover, there was special settlement commission which brought German colonizers and settled them in Greater Poland and Pomorze, bringing tens of thousands of them, in order to change the ethnic balance of the area. Local German activists advocated more drastic measures, with some of them arguing for the need of expelling Poles and Jews.

    Do you really need proof from a non-revisionist source to understand that a German city does not want to be under the rule of a foreign power

    I asked for the source that German service was forbidden in churches.

    As you know, the Poles brought instead their military to full fighting readiness (general mobilization), and also increased their actions to a point of shelling German border towns and firing at German airplanes even flying over the waters off the Baltic coast.

    As YOU know, German started by increasing the numbers of time aircrafts were violating Polish air space (not over Baltic, but incursions into Polish territory) and by attacks on Polish borders, even burning buildings on the Polish side of the border. As YOU should know, Polish mobilisation was delayed, under pressure from British, in order not to enrage Hitler. A grave mistake, because the delayed mobilisation meant some units were still not fully organized when Germany stroke.As YOU should know, Belgium declared mobilisation few days before Poland, just as Netherlands (probably they were about to invade Germany too?) As YOU should know, full mobilisation was then finally at August 30th – wait, when was German mobilisation? Ah, at August 26th, right? The result was that 1/3 of Polish divisions were either partially mobilized, or in transport to their final positions, while Germans had fully mobilised and ready army – in fact, mobilised and ready many days before September the 1st.

    You might bring March mobilisation, but march mobilisation was about 4 infantry divisions and some smaller units.

    • Replies: @Fox
  942. Adrian says:
    @Ron Unz

    Though it is likely that the fact of Von Lothar’s extermination drive got highlighted during and after the First World War for allied propaganda purposes this doesn’t make it less true. It still was an attempt to murder a whole people – an attempt at genocide. And it doesn’t help to speak casually of “some quote from that von Trotha fellow”. The German Reichstag was not just rescinding a”quote”.

    The horrors in Congo, though they probably caused far more victims (accurate figures are lacking – ten million is a wild guess and it was certainly not over the same period) are of a different character. They were not meant to exterminate a people but to get more products out of them. Leopold II, whose private project Congo was, has been blamed for them. But the main culprits were local agents that he didn’t adequately keep track of. He himself apparently never set a foot in Congo.



  943. szopen says:
    @Wally

    I’ve posted about Piaśnica mass graves you dummkopf. But as I suspected: you think random quotes taken from internet are ok if they support your agenda, but a movie with witnesses talking about exhumation and recognising their close, photos from exhumations (if you took a look at the photo collection you would see also skeletons and human remains), lists by names of people murdered… noooo that’s not a proof for Wally, nossir. Your double standards are now clear for anyone to see. You have no credibility at all – and that’s why no one treats revisionists seriously.

    I still wait to see your standard of proof, and wait for you to prove the presence of cavalry unit in Wieluń. But, of course, because you are fake and a liar, you won’t bring any.

  944. szopen says:
    @Incitatus

    There is also question of Kłajpeda in March 1939. “My last territorial demand!” and then taking Czechs and Kłajpeda… Yeah, everyone in 1939 surely thought Hitler could be trusted.

    • Replies: @Fox
  945. Nodwink says:
    @Ron Unz

    If one group should be aware of the ‘Streisand Effect’, it’s the ADL.

  946. @Carolyn Yeager

    I am glad that you have the honesty to admit that firstly Hitler’s Table Talk is genuine and secondly that Hitler wanted to colonize the Slavic East. Persons like Wally deny both.

    However, if a country needs agricultural goods and raw materials, there is a descent way to obtain them. It is called “buying”. That is what Germany does today, and that is what Japan does today. Both countries went to war to obtain their goods the wrong way, and lost. Are they now the poorer for it? On the contrary, both belong to the most wealthy countries of the world without colonies. There was no real need for Germany to colonize the East. It could obtain agricultural goods from the Ukraine by exchanging it for industrial products. It did that already with Argentine in order to circumvent intermediary international (read: Jewish) banking.

    What Hitler presented as economic “need” was in reality ethnic ambition. He wanted to create a Great Germanic Reich, and he needed space for that. His true ambition can be better discerned in his megalomaniac architectual designs for Berlin (which would be called “Germania”) than in his arguments.

    The threat of a Russian attack on Germany was perhaps not a surprise to Hitler, but it came too early. He wanted to attack Russia anyway, and Stalin knew that. Bot men cheated each other. The whole second World War was in fact a conflict of rogues and not one of “good guys” against “bad guys”.

  947. refl says:
    @PhucQ

    Re the material discussed, I have my two pence. The Soviet city of Odessa had a great share of Jews among its residents. During the occupation Odessa was controlled by Romanian troops and was not known for mass shootings unlike other cities.

    Unwittingly, you have given a hint that the Holocaust did not take place at least in the commonly propagated form. You also reveal that in Russian you get other information then in the literature generally received in the West – and your version might be closer to the truth.
    In the commonly held version, Odessa had the LARGEST Holocaust mass murder of all. Victims run up to 100000, and German Einsatzgruppen and Romanians are supposed to have perpetrated the atrocities together. Just go to war english Wikipedia entry on the 1941 Odessa massacre.
    The background would be that following the occupation of Odessa, bombs went off killing German and Romanian officers. This is supposed to have been the pretext to call in the Einsatzgruppen for mass murder of the Jews – pretty much the same story as with Kiew and Babi jar.
    Now, we can assume that the bombing against the occupiers did take place, and that Jews might have been among the perpetrators, as Jews were overrepresented among the NKWD and among the more dedicated suporters of bolshevism. The Germans would have retaliated with mass shootings, quite possibly in the hundreds. All this follows the logic of war, the Germans being the invaders and being held to account later on.
    Enter the Zionists with their plan to justify there project and enter the post war victors justice and the number of Jewish victims increases by the factor of 1000. Enter Stalin with his desire to subdue his own people after the war and the non jewish portion of the victims vanishes. And then comes the Israel loving antirussian Western mind of today and this is where we are.

  948. Garliv says:
    @niteranger

    I now find myself persuaded that truly Jews, especially wealthy ones, are nefarious at the core. There is sufficient literature based on indisputable facts that persons of Jewish ancestry are/were behind wars that consumed millions, that they have perfected propaganda through mass media, that they lobby for destruction of others while they plead victimhood among others. But do they, as a tribe, meet and plan these events or it’s coincidence? For example warmongering US Neocons are Jewish or swear loyalty to Jews/Israel; How does it happen?

  949. Stalin would’ve had to be a remarkable military ignoramus to have invaded Germany in 1941, when the Red Army was still dependent on horse drawn transport and the air force (VVS) still depended on obsolete SB2 bombers (making up over 90% of the bomber force) and even more obsolete I 15 biplane and I 16 monoplane fighters. So obsolete were the latter that they were most effectively used in ramming attacks on German bombers, the only way they might hope to take down one. Besides, while the KV and T 34 tanks were better than what the Germans had, the great majority of the Soviet “tank park” in 1941 were still light (and outclassed) BT 7 and T 26 tanks. Even the KV and early model (and very teething-troubled) T 34s were not employed in armoured divisions or armies, but dispersed among infantry formations for infantry support. They didn’t even have armour piercing ammunition or radios, communicating with signal flags and carrying high explosive ammunition to deter enemy attacks. In other words it was a defensive army, and had occupied formerly Soviet east Poland in order to create a defensive belt against an inevitable German attack. The USSR was still at least two years away from creating an offensive army in 1941. Anyone who has any actual knowledge of the Red Army will know that. Anyone with half a brain will know better than to take a defector at his word.

    As for Churchill, no word about his deliberate starving to death of 4 million Indians in the Great Bengal Famine of 1943-44? Wonder why? Because Indians aren’t white or Japanese, in other words not worth taking into consideration?

    Even if one accepts every single thing in Unz’s article as fact, which of course I don’t, one notes that the end product was the destruction of Europe and the beginning of the forced decolonisation of 1947-67. It would not have happened without WWII. Both the destruction of Europe and the elimination of European colonialism are Very Good Things, and I see no reason to mourn that.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @David Baker
  950. Rurik says:
    @anon

    Mea culpa

    That was egregious.

  951. Truth3 says:
    @Garliv

    I now find myself persuaded that truly Jews, especially wealthy ones, are nefarious at the core.

    One down, 300,000,000 to go.

  952. Rurik says:
    @annamaria

    — This is true. Madeleine Albright (Korbelova) is a shameless murderous zionist.

    I’ve heard it said that Jewish supremacists are known to blame their victims for the crimes they commit.

    Consider the case of genocide.

    Mr. Unz recently mused on what this word even means. He’s not the only one.

    …a group called the Genocide Prevention Task Force published some helpful guidelines for the president-elect. It is a serious group, led by Madeleine Albright (a former secretary of state) and William Cohen (a former defence secretary). And its report is steeped in good sense.

    What, after all, is genocide? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is hopelessly vague, talking of “inflicting on [a] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Read literally, that could include almost any atrocity. …

    Ms Albright and Mr Cohen sidestep this muddle by using the word “genocide” colloquially, as shorthand for the deliberate mass-murder of civilians. They then suggest ways to prevent it.

    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2008/12/11/preventing-genocide

    Isn’t that quaint?

    Ms. Albright co-founded a task force for the prevention of genocide.

    For $250 million a year, “-less than a dollar for every American each year-“! (under vague language for how it would be spent), Ms. Albright assures us that her group can prevent genocides.

    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20081205-genocide-prevention-task-force-brochure.pdf

    It even includes luminaries on its task force like Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former special envoy for the United States to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

    Now I agree with Mr. Unz that the word genocide is far too vague;

    Here’s the United Nations General Assembly definition:

    [MORE]

    Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

    … any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[4]

    Now if you consider just (c), would not deliberately causing the death of half a million children, not qualify for that dubious distinction?

    But more to the point, if genocide means anything, I would suggest that what’s been going on in Palestine for the last 60+ years, qualifies, if anything does.

    What, if not genocide- is the calculated and systematic mass-slaughter of a people in order to terrorize them out of their lands and homes, so that you can steal it all for your own fellow genetic tribal members?

    A mass genetic transfer of territory from one people to another, by means of murder, terror, theft and rapine. With ongoing cases of depraved collective punishment, murder of children, organ harvesting, destruction of homes, denial of any human rights, and overt calls for

    “a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

    …in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

    And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government/

    Well Mr. Unz, would you say that qualifies?

    https://www.ibtimes.com/when-genocide-permissible-article-taken-down-times-israel-yochanan-gordons-post-sparks-1646490

    And yet the curious myopia of Ms. Albright when it comes to some genocides.

    Isn’t that odd?

  953. szopen says:

    Since I still have a bit of free time, I spent some time searching for the source of the often repeated nonsense, that “Polish govenment thought it could reach Berlin”. I know also that some revisionists are taking some sentences from speeches by Rydz-Śmigły, leaving everything which would put them in a different light. SO I decided that maybe I should post here one relevant part of his speech. I’ve already talked about this speech and I linked to the text in one newspaper. You can hear part of the speech here, but be prepared, it’s in Polish and Rydz-Śmigły simply cannot speak. He has awful manner of speech.

    [MORE]

    In addition to a newspaper I linked before. If you still doubt its authenticity, you can find the text in the following newspapers, digitalized here: http://mbc.cyfrowemazowsze.pl/dlibra/plain-content?id=37163 (very slow, only fragments in a catholic Polish press), http://www.sbc.org.pl/Content/243066/iv4422-1939-216-0001.pdf (fast download, nice quality, “Polska Zachodnia” from Katowice), http://obc.opole.pl/Content/11435 (“Wiarus”) , http://kpbc.umk.pl/Content/186356/publikacja39180.pdf (“Dziennik bydgoski”). As a side note, when you peruse those newspapers, you will not find any call for war or hatred towards Germany.

    Here is first speech in Polish, only fragment relevant to Polish-German relationship (earlier he talked about Piłsudski, lessons for Poland etc):

    August the 6th, 1939

    A gdy w czasach dzisiejszych słowa POKÓJ I WOJNA na przemian są na ustach świata – to my
    stwierdzamy: cenimy i szanujemy pokój tak jak inne narody, ale nie ma takiej mocy, która by nas przekonała, że pokój, to jest takie słowo które dla jednych oznacza BRAĆ, a dla drugich DAWAĆ.

    Nie żywimy w stosunku do nikogo agresywnych zamiarów, co jest chyba jasne i nie ulega wątpliwości, tak samo jak nie ulega żadnej wątpliwości, że PRZECIWSTAWIMY SIĘ wszystkimi środkami bez reszty każdej próbie bezpośredniego lub pośredniego naruszenia interesów, praw i godności naszego państwa.

    Uważam za swój miły obowiązek stwierdzić z głębokim odczuciem i żołnierską wzajemnością, że Polska ma wśród narodów szczerych przyjaciół którzy rozumieją sedno sprawy i którzy określili swój stosunek do nas.

    Stanowisko w sprawie Gdańska w ciągu stuleci związanego z Polską i stanowiącego płuco jej organizmu gospodarczego Polska zdefiniowała niedwuznacznie.

    Nie myśmy zaczęli proces gdański, nie my wycofujemy się z zobowiązań i nasze postępowanie będzie dostosowane do postępowania strony drugiej.

    I niech nikt nie sądzi, że nasza miłość ojczyzny ma mniejsze prawa, lub mniejsze nakłada obowiązki, aniżeli jego miłość ojczyzny.

    PRZED TĄ POMYŁKĄ OSTRZEGAMY.

    Now English trnslation, translate.google and then corrected by me:

    And when in today’s times the words PEACE AND WAR are alternately on the lips of the world – we say: we value and respect peace like other nations, but there is no power that would convince us that peace is a word that for some means TAKE, and GIVE for others.

    We do not have aggressive intentions towards anyone, which is probably clear and beyond doubt, just as there is no doubt that WE WILL RESIST using all means all attempts at direct or indirect violation of our country’s interests, rights and dignity.

    I consider it a nice duty to say with profound feeling and a military reciprocity that Poland has honest friends among nations who understand the heart of the matter and who have defined their attitude towards us.

    Poland’s position on Gdańsk – tied to to Poland for centuries and constituting the lung of its economic organism – was clearly defined by Poland.

    We did not start the Gdańsk process, it is not we who withdraw from our obligations and our behavior will be adapted to the behavior of the other party.

    And let no one think that our love of the homeland has fewer rights or imposes less obligations than his love of the homeland.

    BEWARE THIS MISTAKE.

    So… does that sound as a speech of a warmonger, who yearns for a war with Germany? I do not think so. Rydz, old fool he was, states merely that he is not affraid of war; that he prefers peace, but won’t be scared by threats.

    In contrast to all other quotes which appeared here, which couldn’t be sourced or traced (including one bold fellow claiming “Rydz Śmigły said he would take Berlin in his radio speech”, and then being unable to give ANY detail to confirm his assertion), this speech is well sourced. In fact, you can find also summaries of this speech in foreign press, which I leave as an exercise for a reader.

    There is also another quote from Rydz-Śmigły, widely quoted in Poland by people mocking Rydz. It’s also sourced differently, sometimes to this speech from August the 6th, sometimes to August the 7th, but I couldn’t find the speech anywhere, except for quotes from different publicists and journalists (including wikipedia), but without any references. In fact, no speech from the August the 7th 1939 is anywhere on the net, and the only one I’ve found is from the August the 7th 1937, but it was about the need to work for the fatherland, how Poland is still primitive and how people must strive to change it.

    But, unsourced as it is, it’s still a popular quote, so here it is:

    Jeśli ktoś w kraju liczy na jakieś chwile słabości, to jeszcze raz nieudolnie się przeliczył. A jeśli ktoś z zewnątrz na taką okazję kalkuluje, to niech wie, że my po cudze rąk nie wyciągamy, ale swego nie damy. Nie tylko nie damy całej sukni, ale nawet guzika nie damy od niej

    If someone in the country is counting on some moments of weakness, he once again indolently miscalculated. And if someone from the outside waits for such an occasion, let them know that we do not stretch out our hands to grab strangers’ property, but we will not give ours. Not only will we not give the whole dress, but we will not give a single button from it

    Again, while bombastic and standing in a comical contrast to what happened in September 1939, once again there is no trace of Rydz being warmonger. He only clearly states Poland will stand against any aggression and declares overconfidently that Poland will be able to DEFEND herself.

    Another Rydz quote I gave in my comment 540 in this thread. It is from his interview given to American journalist. I’ve read in one article that it was the only time Rydz ever gave an authorized interview to a foreign press. Once again, no war mongering there, the same sentiment: we want peace, we are ready to talks, but we are not affraid of war and we will fight. Note that he is not saying “we will reach Berlin!” there, only that “Polish army is not as big as German army, but still it’s a good army”.

    The most interesting thing about this interview is that it’s actually also in Carolyn Yaeger’s site.

    Here is version from her site:

    If the Germans continue to insist on their plans of annexation, Poland will take up the fight, even if it should strike alone and without allies … That is why four months ago I ordered the mobilization … Believe me please, that the mobilization was not just a demonstration. At that time we were ready for war, if that was necessary

    And here is the full version, with most interesting sentences omitted from her site bolded:

    We will exhaust all methods of solving Danzig question in a peaceful way, but if Germans will insist on their Anschluss plan, Poland will take up the fight, even if she would had to fight alone and without allies. All nation is in agreement about that. It is ready to fight for Polish sovereignty to the last man and last women, because when we say that we will fight about Danzig, we mean by that, that we will fight for our independence. Danzig is necessary for Poland. Who controls Danzig, controls our economic life. Our trade goes through Danzig and Gdynia. Who controls Danzig, controls Gdynia. We had only small access to sea: 140 km. (…) Taking Danzig by Germany would be an act resembling to us the partitions of Poland. That’s why I ordered mobilisation four months ago, when chancellor Hitler repeated his demands towards Danzig and Pomorze. Believe me, that mobilisation was not just a demonstration. At that time we were ready, if it would be necessary, for a war. (…)We have a calmness of a nation who decided that we would raise up to the war, if it would be forced to that. We came to that conclusion based on our former sufferings. In Poland there is not a single men in the age of 40, who would not remember what it means not to have independence

    Note that on Carolyn Yaeger’s site it’s summarized as ” Rydz-Smigly was ready to invade Germany in March 1939″ – a speech where Rydz says he wants peace, but is not affraid of war, is taken as intention of invasion. That’s not all! The same article claims that Beck said “We do not need peace!” – when in fact Beck said:

    http://polishfreedom.pl/en/document/przemowienie-ministra-spraw-zagranicznych-rp-jozefa-becka-w-sejmie

    Peace is certainly the object of the difficult and intensive work of Polish diplomacy. Two conditions are necessary for this word to be of real value: (1) peaceful intentions, (2) peaceful methods of procedure. If the Government of the Reich is really guided by those two pre-conditions in relation to this country, then all conversations, provided, of course, that they respect the principles I have already enumerated, are possible.

    If such conversations took place, the Polish Government will, according to their custom, approach the problem objectively, having regard to the experience of recent times, but without withholding their utmost goodwill.

    Peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, which has shed its blood in several wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not recognize the conception of “peace at any price”. There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and States which is without price, and that is honour

    There are more lies in that article on her page, but I concentrated only on those two, because those are the easiest to debunk.

    But let’s go back to the point. From where came this nonsense that Rydz thought about tkaing Berlin on his own? I think I traced down this idiocy. In book about Lipski he mentions some guy called Dahlerus, who supposedly testified, and here is a quote from Lipski (source: Lipski, Józef, a diplomat in Berlin:

    When I was left alone with Forbes I told him of my dissatisfaction
    with his bringing to me an unknown individual who put forward pro-
    posals infringing the territorial integrity of the Polish state. I warned him
    against the discussion of Poland’s territorial problems, as it would bring
    about moral breakdown and military collapse in Poland. I insisted that
    the only course to be followed was the maintaining of a united front by
    England, France, and PoIand, and I added that PoIand would deferid
    itself in any case.

    Dahlerus handed me the typewritten text, and our conversation came
    to an end.

    My meeting with Dahlerus, described in his book, had been an item
    vividly discussed at the Nuremberg trial. The defense made use of a
    passage from Dahlerus’ account, according to which I was alleged to
    have said to Forbes, when we were left alone, that I was not interested
    in German proposals, since I was convinced that riots would break out
    in the event of war and the victorious Polish Army would march into
    Berlin.

    Lipski’s account is also quite clear about how dishonest German proposals were. The book can be easily found on the net, it’s in English. I recommend reding the fragments about August 30-31 in full.

    Beck added also that the Polish government consented to enter into discussions with the Reich
    under the condition that both parties would be on an equal footing and that Poland would not be faced with faits accomplis before the discussions ended. The instructions from Warsaw reached me at 12:40 P.M. I immediately asked for an interview with Ribbentrop, but it did not take place until 6: 30 P.M

    Shortly afterward the door opened and for the last time I had occasion to speak with Ribbentrop. I handed him the communication of the Polish government, which ran as follows:

    “Last night the Polish government was informed by the British government of an exchange of views with the Reich government as to the possibility of direct negotiations between the Polish and German gov-
    ernments. The Polish government is favorably considering the British government’s suggestion and will make a formal reply on the subject within the next few hours.” The interview was short. Ribbentrop’s manner was At 9 P.M. the sixteen proposals were broadcast by Berlin Radio Station, with the addition that they had been rejected by Poland. It is known that these proposals had never been communicated to the Polish government

    https://archive.org/stream/LipskiJozef1968DiplomatInBerlin19331939/Lipski%2C+J%C3%B3zef+1968+-+Diplomat+in+Berlin+1933+-+1939_djvu.txt

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Fox
  954. @Ron Unz

    My impression is that, despite there being many exemplary educated liberal 19th century Germans, there were enough of their rapidly multiplying compatriots who were no more gentle and civilised than Kaiser Wilhelm ll to justify saying that they were a generation or two behind the English in moving towards our contemporary standards. I think if you finished reading that linked Wikipedia article and added the one on the Herero Wars
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars?wprov=sfla1
    you would not think the 1904 -1908 cmpaign aginst Namibia’s indigenes so inconsequential, or ignored by English owned press at the time

    e.g. from your link

    [MORE]

    During the war, a number of people from the Cape (in modern-day South Africa) sought employment as transport riders for German troops in Namibia. Upon their return to the Cape, some of these people recounted their stories, including those of the imprisonment and genocide of the Herero and Nama people. 

    *** ***

    More to the point the *German* press didn’t ignore the story as the cartoon reproduced in the article you link shows. And you may think this passage suggests that a WW1 beat up by the British was not critical to the story of the reduction of the Herero population by 80 per cent being taken seriously well before the UN took it up:

    “Having no authority over the military, Chancellor Bülow could only advise Emperor Wilhelm II that Trotha’s actions were “contrary to Christian and humanitarian principle, economically devastating and damaging to Germany’s international reputation”.:606 Upon the arrival of new orders at the end of 1904, prisoners were herded into concentration camps, where they were given to private companies as slave labourers or exploited as human guinea pigs in medical experiments.”

    *** ***

    https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/herero-revolt-1904-1907n 16 August 2004, is also worth a look and it includes a passage which suggests that some German colonists might have said the indigenes whose land they were stealing started the no prisoners savagery.

    From the Herero Wars article:

    ” 100 years after the war, the German government officially apologized for the atrocities. “We Germans accept our historic and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time,” said Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany’s development aid minister. In addition, she admitted that the massacres were equivalent to genocide.

    Not until 2015 did the German government admit that the massacres were equivalent to genocide and again apologized in 2016. The Herero are suing the German government in a class action lawsuit.”

    Where else can one see 20th century barbarism by Western Europeans? Acting Brigadier Reginal Dyer’s 1919 Amritsar Massacre – which cost him his career – only counts as equivalent to recent Israeli shootings of Palestinian civilians protesting near the Gaza border. Perhaps the Dutch massacre of 1000 on Bali in 1906 should rate a mention.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Incitatus
  955. Rurik says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    millions of Russians and Poles and other Slavs donned the German uniform to fight against the Bolshevik fiend?

    Millions??! No Poles except those who were already German citizens for a long time.

    https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_Wehrmacht

    What other Slavs?

    Operation Keelhaul was a secret military operation agreed to a the Yalta Conference that forcibly returned 2 million Russians captured during World War II back to the communist Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin would punish them for being “traitors” to communism.
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Operation_Keelhaul

    When I say millions, I mean collectively. Obviously there weren’t millions of Poles, but there were millions of Slavs who heroically fought the Bolshevik menace, (only to be betrayed to death or worse by Perfidious Albion and the ZUSA).

    Please consider:

    “You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.” -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    No Czechs or Slovaks, no Serbs, Croatians say they are not Slavic, and Romanians and Hungarians for sure are not.


    Among the approximately one million foreign volunteers and conscripts who served in the Wehrmacht during World War II were ethnic Germans, Belgians, Czechs, Dutch, Finns, French, Hungarians, Norwegians, Poles,[1] Portuguese, Swedes,[2] and British, along with people from the Baltic states and the Balkans.

    [my emphasis with all bold text]

    Not to mention the millions of Ukrainians and Estonians and Latvians and Norwegians who hated the Nazis for being on their sacred soil, but who … held their noses and fought for the Nazis.

    Again, not hardly millions, not at all.

    Then you tell me/us.. how many non-German men of all ethnicities and nationalities fought against the Bolshevik menace?

    You have an overly romanticized view of this history.

    I certainly wouldn’t describe me in those terms.

    Rather, what I am is cynical, and suspect that I’ve been lied to relentlessly, especially about everything surrounding that particular conflict. So what you perceive as ‘romanticized’, I would characterize as the pendulum swinging a bit in the other direction- from the avalanche of agenda-driven lies I’ve been told. (much as this article suggests)

    Here it suggests that up to “…1,400,000 Soviets (Russians and non-Russians) joined the Wehrmacht…”

    https://www.conservapedia.com/Operation_Keelhaul

    Above you’ll note that millions of Russians were forcibly returned to Stalin after the war was over (to certain death or worse).

    I don’t think my numbers are too far off. Certainly not to the point of a ‘romanticized’ view.

    Just imagine you’re a young Pole whose father and uncle have been abducted at night by sub-human thugs in Soviet uniforms, and taken to a ditch in the forest with their hands bound behind them and executed like dogs, because they were of the best men of Poland.

    ‘the Best of the Gentiles should be killed’

    Now you have one choice, ether fight with the Germans, (you’ve been taught to hate), or languish under the murderous yoke of the (((Bolsheviks))), who had just murdered your father like he was an animal.

    [MORE]

    I know what I would have done.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  956. @szopen

    Well of course they were “not communicated” when the Polish government forbade Lipski from reading them!

    But he probably was in agreement with Smigly when he said this:

    The same from the Polish Ambassador in Berlin, Lipski, on the 31 August
    1939 to the counsellor of legation at the British Embassy in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes:
    He [Lipski] stated that he was convinced that unrest would break out in
    Germany in the event of war and that the Polish army would successfully march
    on Berlin.
    ” 29)

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
    , @szopen
  957. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Konrad Adenauer’s wife was the cousin of the wife of High Commissioner John Mc Cloy. You find that today even in Wikipedia. I learned it a decade ago from a friend who was working on a thesis about German Postwar politics. At that time, he had to dig it up, because not even the mayor Adenauer biographies mentioned this awkward fact. They just installed an inlaw, who had done the bidding of Wall Street from the 1920 on at the least. It was Adenauer, who in the course of the Ruhrkampf thought about separating the Rhineland from the Reich.

    As for Willy Brandt, he emigrated and spent WWII doing antigerman propaganda in Sweden. In the end, he had to survive and was an enemy to the Nazis. He was perfectly boxed in long before he was allowed to take power. When he was ousted, it was a high stakes joint venture of CIA, KGB, Stasi and BND, when they planted a Stasi agent right in his office and detonated him.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Wizard of Oz
  958. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    Except Poles had not volunteered to Wehrmacht. Simply, all Poles who were forced to sign volkslist, were also enlisted into Wehrmacht (and sometimes, they were recognised as Germans collectively,without asking anyone). Mrs Yaeger is right here.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  959. szopen says:
    @Alexandros

    And now go back to my post you are commenting and read it again. Maybe one reading would not be enough, but after some time maybe you will notice that in the very post you are just commenting, I quoted Lipski commenting on this issue and denying he said anything like that, and that in fact he said unrest would break out in Polish army in case Poland would yield to German demands – the allegations was made not by Forbes, but by DAHLERUS, and I’m not even sure Dahlerus was present during Forbes-Lipski’s discussion.

    Also, Polish government had not forbidden Lipski from reading demands; they were, simply never sent to Poland directly. They were read very fast to Henderson, and given in paper only later, with a comment that now it’s too late for negotations. If you say “Poland forbid Lipski” please quote a source document, preferably with a link to a digital archives. It’s not enough to invent events, you know, to make me blindly accept them.

  960. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    – Wikipedia again, the Zionists best friend. Quite desperate.
    – So where did these alleged massacres occur and why haven’t we seen any excavations proving they occurred?
    – Wizard of Oz laughably cites a Marxist German bureaucrat whose salary & benefits depend on perpetuating lies.

    [MORE]

    – The same bureaucrat who believes that the scientifically impossible ‘Nazi gas chambers’ killed millions that are said to have been dumped into enormous mass graves which are claimed to be in known locations, yet there are no such remains there.
    – The same Marxist bureaucrat who promotes the ‘global warming’ scam.
    – The same Marxist bureaucrat who demands unlimited low IQ immigration into every country where Euro whites are a majority.

    Yet the Wizard of OZ thinks she is credible.

    For more see my comment #964 for more on the fake Herero “genocide” & WWI propaganda.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  961. szopen says:
    @Alexandros

    This will be another long comment, but I think it’s important that all people so keen on reading on origin of WW2 should know also how they were described by another actor. So here’s Lipski account of the whole matter – first, a meeting with Forbes (accompanied by Göring’s friend, Dahlerus), this time I will post whole relevant fragment, not just final two paragraphs you missed.

    Note Dahlerus was not neutral; he described himself of Göring’s friend, hence I think his testimony should be given no more weight than testimony by Lipski.

    [MORE]

    In this flood of calls the British Ambassador, having previously warned me on the telephone,
    sent to me the counselor of the Embassy, Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, accompanied by an individual unknown to me, who introduced himself as a friend of Goring and homme de confiance of the British government. He was Dahlerus. I saw him then for the first time, and I had no knowledge whatever of the role of go-between he had played with Berlin and London. In the conversation that followed Dahlerus stated that Göring was opposing the extremists of the Party who wanted to annex to
    Germany the whole part of Poland taken by Prussia after the partition of Poland, and made a proposal limited to Danzig and the Corridor.

    To my astonishment Dahlerus began to read aloud from a handwritten page those famous sixteen articles which had raised such a stom. Pretending that there was no time to lose, Dahlerus urged me to go immediately to Goring, accept his terms and sign them, and then the whole problem would be settled and we would be able to shoot stags together. In order to stop this ghastly business I told him that I could not understand what the matter was about, and asked Dahlerus to dictate the contents of the note to my secretary, Miss Gimzicka.

    When I was left alone with Forbes I told him of my dissatisfaction with his bringing to me an unknown individual who put forward proposals infringing the territorial integrity of the Polish state. I warned him against the discussion of Poland’s territorial problems, as it would bring
    about moral breakdown and military collapse in Poland.
    I insisted that the only course to be followed was the maintaining of a united front by England, France, and Poland, and I added that PoIand would defend itself in any case.

    Dahlerus handed me the typewritten text, and our conversation came
    to an end.

    My meeting with Dahlerus, described in his book, had been an item vividly discussed at the Nuremberg trial. The defense made use of a passage from Dahlerus’ account, according to which I was alleged to have said to Forbes, when we were left alone, that I was not interested in German proposals, since I was convinced that riots would break out in the event of war and the victorious Polish Army would march into Berlin.

    Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, when cross-examining Dahlerus, put to him the following questions, undoubtedly basing himself on Forbes’s account of the conversation with me:

    “And did not Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes tell you that Lipski made his opinion quite clear, that the German offer was a breach of Polish sovereignty, and in his view Poland and France and England must stand firm and show a united front, and that Poland, if left alone, would fight and
    die alone?” Dahlerus’ answer was “Yes.”

    About Hitler’s “reasonable” final demands, Lipski has this to say:

    My contact with the Foreign Office in Warsaw was made more and more difficult by the German authorities. Telephone conversations were often interrupted. The dispatch of telegrams met with obstacles. The wireless station of the Embassy was the only means left for communication with the head office. In view of these circurnstanccs I asked Counselor Lubomirski to go to Warsaw in the early hours, and it was arranged that he would go by road to Poznań, then by plane to Warsaw, and would return as soon as possible . * It ~ had great weight with me that Lubomirski might give Beck the latest news, sound his opinions, and obtain his authorization for the establishment of contact with the Reich government. When I was going to rest in the late hours, Henderson telephoned me, at 2 A.M., asking me to come over. I found him highly excited after a violent discussion with Ribbentrop. The account of this discussion is well known from official British publications and from Henderson’s book.47 It is known that, after presenting the reply of his government to the British note of August 29, Ribbentrop read out in German at top speed the German proposals for the Polish emissary, consisting of sixteen articles. When asked by Henderson for the text, Ribbentrop refused, stating that these prposals no longer existed because the Polish representative had not arrived in Berlin within the prescribed time. Explaining his behavior toward the British Ambassador, Ribbentrop stated as follows:

    “I should like to state here once more under oath that the Fuhrer had expressly forbidden me to let these proposals out of my hands. He told me that I might communicate only the substance of them, if I thought it advisable, to the British Ambassador.”
    Dahlerus informed Goring of the incident with Ribbentrop the same night. Then Goring authorized him to convey by telephone the text of the sixteen points to the counselor of the British Embassy, Forbes [Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes]. At Nuremberg Goring stated the following:

    “To do this was, as I have already said, actually an enormous risk, since the Fiihrer had forbidden that this information should be made public at present.”

    The purpose of this document was manifest. It was not to constitute a basis for normal negotiations with Poland but was to serve as a trump card in the perfidious game of Hitler. The draft was undoubtedly the result of thorough researches by the best experts of the Auswartiges Amt. By no means could it have been dictated by Hitler. A wellinformed student of Polish-German relations could immediately discover the hidden poison dart concealed in the highly polished, glib words of the document, which, should it be put into execution, would strangle Poland with iron claws. If we examine, for instance, the principles on which the plebiscite in Pomerania, presented as Hitler’s magnanimous offer, was to be arranged, we find they were drafted in such a way that the outcome was considered as a foregone conclusion.

    Today it is obvious that Hitler did not take into account any plebiscite at all. But his prudent advisers took their precautions to provide for all contingencies. The Polish forces, police, and administrators should leave the plebiscite area in Pomerania, leaving all power in the hands of a commission composed of representatives of France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia. The poll would take place only a year later. In such a way, during this whole time Poland, whose vital problem of access to the sea was at stake, would have to live in a state of anxious uncertainty, while Nazi propaganda could be freely carried out under the protective wings of its two allies, Soviet Russia and Italy. The right to vote should belong to the Poles as well as Germans born in the plebiscite area before January 1, 1918, or who lived there before that date. Germans who left Pomerania after 1918 were entitled to come back and take part in the poll. Consequently, all Polish inhabitants settled in Pomerania after the Versailles Treaty, as well as all the Polish generation born on this territory after January 1, 1918, would have to stay as passive witnesses of a tragic plebiscite.

    On the memorable night of August 30, Henderson was unable to memorize the text of all these sixteen articles, and even more to understand the far-reaching consequences of this portentous document. In our conversation he was able only to reproduce to me some provisions concerning the plebiscite. Nevertheless the offer, as such, impressed him as being “on the whole not too unreasonable.” For this reason he urged me to approach Ribbentrop, still on the same night, with the request to convey to me the terms with reference to his conversation with the British Ambassador.

    I considered that to approach Ribbentrop in such circumstances would have meant asking him to deliver me an ultimatum, which in view of the well-known attitude of Hitler and Ribbentrop would be understood as our surrender and appropriate use made of the step. Since Ribbentrop was really so eager to reach an understanding with Poland by negotiations, it was completely inexplicable that he should refuse to hand to Henderson the text of the sixteen articles. I put forward an argument to the British Ambassador that I could not act in such an important matter without the knowledge of my government, and promised him to get in touch with Warsaw immediately. I did this as soon as I returned to the Embassy, sending the appropriate telegrams. I succceeded in informing Lubomirski before his departure for Warsaw of my conversation with Henderson.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  962. Fox says:
    @szopen

    I also like the half-completed painting of Rydz-Smygly riding in the pose of a victor through the Brandenburg Gate after all the things he didn’t say and plan had come to pass to fit his smartness like a glove a hand, isn’t that so, szopen?
    Begun in spring of 1939, the artist seems to have been in the process of choosing pigments for achieving a particularly heroic effect when circumstances forced him (unlikely a ‘her’) to change his address.
    It’s worth exhibiting such an expressive picture, making true the saying:

    “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

    • Replies: @szopen
  963. Fox says:
    @refl

    I didn’t know about this close connection between Adenauer and the Occupying Armies. He was even married to the project of subjugation of the German nation to foreign purposes.

    As for Brandt, he spent much time in Scandinavia, crossing the Norwegian-Swedish border at will.
    At that time he also wrote his books about Guerilla Warfare and “Criminals and Other Germans”.
    Both of these he wanted to edit out of his biography after the war, but it is known and will eventually come to haunt the memory of this false icon of postwar virtue.

  964. szopen says:
    @Fox

    Great! I wondered whether to mention that or not, because the claim is so ridiculous I was not sure whether I should embarass you by writing about this. After all, we all have our worse days when we write something stupid. But if you are repeating this claim… Could you please point me to this painting, photo of it maybe? I mean, you talk about it like if you had seen it. You wouldn’t say “I like the painting” if you had not seen it, wouldn’t you? Because you already failed to provided radio speech of Rydz-Śmigły (a speech which would be so at odds with hsi other know speeches, for which one can easily find the source!).

    So please, show me this painting.

    • Replies: @utu
  965. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    Poles had not volunteered to Wehrmacht

    Well, what the NKVD had left, the Red Army took care of..

    Cases of mass rape occurred in major Polish cities taken by the Red Army. In Kraków, Soviet entry into the city was accompanied by the wave of rapes of women and girls, and the widespread theft of personal property.

    In the first six months of 1945, in Dębska Kuźnia 268 rapes were reported. In March 1945 near Racibórz, 30 women captured at a linen factory were locked in a house in Makowo and raped over a period of time under the threat of death. The woman who gave her testimony to the police, was raped by four men. German and Polish women were apprehended on the streets of Katowice, Zabrze and Chorzów and gang raped by drunken soldiers, usually outdoors.[3] According to Naimark, the Red Army servicemen did not differentiate along the ethnic lines, or between victims and occupiers.[8]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland

    not that they weren’t warned..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Studnicki

    Several contemporary Polish historians, such as Jerzy Łojek, Andrzej Piskozub, and Paweł Wieczorkiewicz have stated that Studnicki was right back in the summer of 1939. They all claim that the only solution at that time was to sign an alliance with Germany, in order to avoid wartime destruction and communism. Another historian, Tomasz Gabis wrote in his book Imperial Games (2008) that if, in the summer of 1939. Poland had come to an agreement with Germany, the war would have never taken place, as France and the United Kingdom would have had no reason to declare it on Germany. Instead of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a Central European anti-Soviet bloc would have been created. Another supporter of Studnicki’s views is Piotr Zychowicz in his book Pact Ribbentrop – Beck.
    [my emphasis]

    What the end of the war proved, was that Hitler, (for all his rancid racialism), was right about the character of the Soviet fiend- who didn’t leave Poland after the war was over, but stayed and treated it much like its Red Army orcs treated the Polish women and girls. Only it went on for generations.

    • Replies: @szopen
  966. szopen says:
    @Alexandros

    Just one more thing, and I hope moderator will not kill me for writing three long answers to one post.

    The source of Dahlerus revelations, the exact sentence @Alexandros is mentioning, is Nurnberg trials. You can read the whole interview here:

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-19-46.asp

    Note that:

    [MORE]

    DR. HORN: Is it correct, Witness, as you state in your book, that at the Polish Embassy the Polish Ambassador Lipski told you that in case of war the Polish Army would march to Berlin in triumph?

    DAHLERUS: No, he did not say that to me, but he made remarks to that effect to Forbes.

    DR. HORN: And Forbes transmitted these remarks then to you.

    DAHLERUS: Yes.

    Dahlerus is the sole source for this claim. Lipski denies he ever said that; if you read above, you will see that Lipski was enraged that Brits bring some random, unknown guy and that’s why he cut him short. But I want to write about something else. If you accept Dahlerus as a reliable source, then here is what this source has to say about Hitler:

    The voice [of Hitler] became more indistinct and finally one could not follow him at all. Then he pulled himself together, raised his voice as though addressing a large audience and shrieked – shrieked – “Ich werde Flugzeuge bauen, Flugzeuge bauen, Flugzeuge, Flugzeuge, und ich werde meine Feinde vernichten.”‘

    And you go on to say:

    “Just then he seemed more like a phantom from a story book than a real person. I stared at him in amazement and turned to see how Goering reacted, but he did not turn a hair.”

    Now, would you mind turning on to Page 53? No, just one sentence before the bit I read on Page 47, I just want to get that clear. You say: “His words became blurred and his behavior was that of a completely abnormal person.”

    After more questions, where passages from Dahlerus book are read to him and he confirms them, this is how Dahlerus impressions of Hitler, Ribbentrop and Goring are summarized:

    SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that, of the three principal people in Germany, the Chancellor was abnormal; the Reich Marshal, or the Field Marshal, as he was then, was in a crazy state of intoxication; and, according to the Defendant Goering, the Foreign Minister was a would-be murderer who wanted to sabotage your plane?

    [The witness nodded assent.]

    I cannot fathom how could you think Dahlerus was reliable when relaying the words of Lipski, but doubt his reliability when relaying words of Hitler. Soo.. do you think Hitler was abnormal person, who reacted to the news of British-Polish alliance by SHRIEKING “ich werde flugzeuge bauen, flugzeuge, flugzeuge!” Was Ribbentrop planning to assassinate Dahlerus? Were Hitler and Göring intoxicated by war? Was Dahlerus reliable, or not?

  967. utu says:
    @szopen


    I can’t vouch for it though. It could be satirical.

    • Replies: @szopen
  968. Ron Unz says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Stalin would’ve had to be a remarkable military ignoramus to have invaded Germany in 1941, when the Red Army was still dependent on horse drawn transport and the air force (VVS) still depended on obsolete SB2 bombers (making up over 90% of the bomber force) and even more obsolete I 15 biplane and I 16 monoplane fighters.

    Actually, I think it’s much more likely that you have the historical situation upside-down and backwards.

    From what I’ve read, the *German* army was totally dependent upon horse-drawn transport, and their attack on the Soviets relied upon 700,000(!!) horses.

    Moreover, the Soviet tanks were at least as good in armament, speed, and armor as their German counterparts, which were severely under-gunned. And the Soviet tanks were many, many times more numerous.

    You really might want to read my article from last year, and perhaps some of the books that I reference, and perhaps watch Suvorov’s lecture at the Naval Academy:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    I think it’s fairly likely that you’ve been taken in by a longstanding World War II hoax, and just repeating all the nonsense you’ve been taught your entire life.

  969. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    Well yes, but Studnicki’s views at a time were rather unpopular in Poland. And Zychowicz, ZIemkiewcz and other arguments take into account things which were FUTURE from the point of view of Beck and Rydz-Śmigły. After all, the most reasonable thing for French in 1939 would be to start an offensive; how could they predict that French would do a half-arsed effort, took some villages and then quickly withdrew behind Maginot line? Similarly, the most reasonable thing for Hitler would be to back off; He surely couldn’t expect he would win with France and England, and surely he couldn’t expect British and French wouldn’t come to help their ally, as they solemnly promised and as they warned Hitler. Indeed, if you read the documents I linked once, at least at one point Beck was convinced that Hitler was bluffing and that he would back off if he would face the stern opposition.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  970. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Sorry, I missed that comment.

    Oh come on. I first told you have double standards at September the 4th in the thread here (comment 759)

    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/?display=showcomments#comment-3439255

    Double-standard hypocrites, willing to justify any evil done by your side, to dismiss any evidence, testimony or document if it will put Germans in a bad light, and at the same time believe anything, from anyone, if it only will confirm your view of angelic Germans and evil, subhuman, asiatic Slavs.

    The link i am talking about is here:

    https://carolynyeager.net/time-europe-drop-dishonorable-war-guilt-against-germany

    More about the Rydz quote and about manipulation of Beck’s speech in my comment 979 below.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  971. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    All wars are orchestrated. Whatever happens to foment conflicts is planned carefully to provoke people to send their forces into battle. Iran is a current example. We’re (U.S.) being maneuvered into that conflict, and we’ll not be ‘rewarded’ for our efforts, as far as our national security or economic gains.

  972. szopen says:
    @utu

    “it could be satirical” 😀 😀 😀

    Oh come one. A picture presenting Rydz with stupid face sitting on a wooden horse, while some painter makes a bombastic, heroic painting “could be” satirical. I really hoped Fox would link exactly this picture, because it would make my day!

    Note also the date and signature 😀

  973. utu says:

    “…at one point Beck was convinced that Hitler was bluffing…”

    Everybody believed including Hitler himself that he was bluffing. It was the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and its Secret Protocol that changed everything and made it possible for Hitler’s bluff to become a real action. Brits and Americans knew about the Secret Protocol. Actually what was the role of Americans and Brits in German-Soviet negotiations? Were Soviets somehow induced by Americans to sign the Pact to give Hitler more courage to start the war? Ambassador Bullitt in his talks with ambassadors Potocki still in November 1938 outlined pretty accurate scenario of war and Soviet involvement and the eventual American participation at its end to come and scoop the cream others whipped up.

    The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is the key to the question posed by Ron Unz in the title of his article.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @David Baker
  974. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    British and French wouldn’t come to help their ally

    A lot of good it did them.

    Their poets and officers and clergy and professors, all shot like dogs at the edge of a ditch.

    Their women and girls raped and ravaged by sub-human Red Army orcs.

    And Poland plunged into generations of occupation by a regime that hated merit (and human happiness) above all things.

    Even now Poland tries to deny its guilt and refuses to pay what it owes!

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2019/poland-refuses-to-pay-300-billion-in-holocaust-reparations-to-israel-no-we-wont-be-blackmailed/

  975. utu says:
    @utu

    On Ambassador Bullitt:

    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3418603

    Already in 1938 Ambassador Bullitt in conversation with Ambassador Potocki outlined the probably/desirable unfolding of the war which turned out to be pretty accurate. The following is form Potocki’s cable to Warsaw (21 November 1938):

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’

    How come Bullit was such a good prophet? Because the unfolding of the war was planned and engineered by FDR and people like Bullitt.. In 1945 Herbert Hoover talked with Joseph Kennedy. Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  976. @utu

    You failed to mention “Uncle Joe”, which was a pet nickname for Stalin. The U.S. sent Lend Lease hardware to Russia to aid their forces, and some western soldiers arrived with that equipment to train their pilots and other combatants A never-mentioned aspect of Post WWII Europe was the annexation of the eastern sector by communists. The Berlin Airlift was necessitated by the Russian regime when they schemed to starve the German population–an inhuman atrocity they were already proficient with.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  977. szopen says:

    Just for the record, soon I will stop reading this thread. Those are my last free hours before I will have to start again some more serious work. Please do not be offended if I won’t reply to your comments, starting by tomorrow.

    (1) I found a source for “we won’t give up a single button!” speech. It was in August, but 1935. The same article claims the words were repeated August the 6th, 1939 – but again, I could not find any confirmation for the latter date.

    (2) Just to make you revisionists happy, I found one Polish witness testimony stating that when his father talked “during some official dinner” to gen. Abraham, this general supposedly was declaring that in case of war, he would be with his uhlans in Berlin within ten days. I know that generally people here think all Polish witnesses are dishonest and fake, but something tells me this particular witness will be cherished.

    http://www.vectorpolonii.com/dziennik-macieja-morawskiego-18-lutego-2017-r/

    [MORE]

    I spent a lot of time searching for the any trace of Rydz stating his army would capture Berlin, but this was the closest I found. Instead I found unconfirmed gossip, that in a conversation with Hlond Rydz supposedly in 1938 said Poland would lost the war initially, but allies would eventually win and Poland would be “bloodied but enlarged”. I keep searching, but everything confirms my conviction that Rydz-Śmigły was not affraid of war, overestimated Polish military capabilities, underestimated German capabilities and generally was an idiot, but nothing which would indicate that he would attack first, invade Germany or was ready to provoke war. Rather his attitude seems to be “you threat me with war? Bring it on! We will eventually prevail!” – and remember, Rydz was particularly disliked by pretty much everyone in Poland, not only communist did their best to paint him as stupid, irresponsible clown who denied generous offers of help from USSR, but also right-wingers were eager to do everything to tarnish his reputation. If he really would state his intention to invade Germany and capture Berlin, I bet someone from his opponents would use it.

    Not to mention that if he really thought that, then the military plans that Poland started to prepare in 1938, would assume offensive position, not “showing off will to fight near the borders, then withdraw to defensible positions, and finally withdraw to Romania bridgehead” and “last three weeks until French will start the offensive”

  978. @Truth3

    Also worth noting how the Jews themselves present the ritual to the Goyim:

    In one variant of the practice of Kapparot, the item to be donated to charity is a rooster. In this case, the rooster would be swung overhead while still alive. After the Kapparot ritual is concluded, the rooster would be treated as a normal kosher poultry product, i.e., it would be slaughtered according to the laws of shechita. It would then be given to charity for consumption at the pre-Yom Kippur meal. In modern times, this variant of the ritual is performed with a rooster for men and a hen for women.

    In a second variant of the practice of Kapparot, a bag of money is swung around the head and then given to charity.

  979. @szopen

    This is not an article written by me, as anyone can see. It is something I thought worthy of publishing on my site.

    I question whether you have the same quote used in that article, because they don’t match. You say the quote “I” used was taken from this: “We will seek first peaceful solutions, but if Germany will continue, we are ready to war, for real.”
    But the only thing that in any way matches that in the article on my site is this:

    In July 1939, Rydz-Smigly made a further clear commitment to the intention of war with Germany in an interview with the American journalist Mary Heaton Vorse, which was published on 19 July 1939 in the “News Chronicle”. Among other things, he said in regard to the Danzig question:

    “If the Germans continue to insist on their plans of annexation, Poland will take up the fight, even if it should strike alone and without allies … That is why four months ago I ordered the mobilization … Believe me please, that the mobilization was not just a demonstration. At that time we were ready for war, if that was necessary.

    Are you sure he didn’t say these words to Mary Heaton Vorse in July 1939? Of course you are not! You just have a different quote that you’re trying to say was intended here. How childish.

    You are standing in deep doo-doo, as usual.

    • Replies: @szopen
  980. @ploni almoni

    Instead of more of the same, why don’t you recommend that Jews renounce being chosen and above the law

    Fine by me if they do that, and you’re probably right about ” Otherwise they will inevitably destroy themselves. “. I’ve known quite a few Jewish people, and it seems unlikely to me that they could even understand what you are talking about.

    I’m not alone on this belief. Story I read a few years back, no source: Supposedly a rabbi was within the past decade asked whether the holocaust could happen again. His reply was “Absolutely. The Jews have forgotten nothing and changed nothing.”
    You might say the same thing about the area settled by the Yankees or the urban areas led by NYC. The Yankees are re-tracing their path to a second Civil War on absolute evil (“Whiteness”, this time, just as it was the last time).
    Same for the urban areas, which are resolutely impervious to pain, as long as it is not their own, and are inflicting a good deal of bitterly resented pain on their hinterlands.

    One of the reasons I don’t tend to talk about absolute evil and weakly god-like groups is that quite often one is dealing with emergent properties, and the group “leaders” really are what the Liberals claim everybody is: a social creation, or at least the survivals of a social selection. Nobody is really in charge, leaders just act as if they are (or are selected out).

    Trump, for example. He wasn’t exactly drafted, and wasn’t exactly not drafted, into his current role. He could see severe losses to himself and his relatives on the horizon, and apparently thought that he could be elected President, make a few fixes obvious to a businessman, and and go home. He had done something roughly similar concerning a NYC ices skating rink in Central Park. He was apparently hoping to be something like Marius in the lead-up to the Roman Republic’s failure. When he was elected (no delay, minutes after), he found that his situation was more like Caesar’s just before crossing the Rubicon — Caesar’s opposition was substantial and irreconcilable, and (while claiming to act for the Republic under Mos Maioram [1] law) was in fact absolutely lawless). So was Trump’s opposition.

    Caesar could fight or die. Trump, same situation, same choice. Under those conditions, good and evil take a second place to life and death. Now, of course, good and evil are a major part of who wins, because they affect supporters’ morale and neutrals’ behavior, but good and evil don’t seem to have much effect on the decision as to whether to fight.

    Jewish establishment and Yankee establishment are in the same life/death situation. They are prisoners of who they are, and have fewer choices than one might think. Additionally, they are going broke (which would irretrievably fracture their coalition), and are thus even more constrained than Trump.

    On the bright side, that makes predicting the above parties (and predicting us, for that matter) a lot simpler. And your prediction seems very likely to happen. Tragic flaws, don’t you know.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum

    • Replies: @David Baker
  981. Garliv says:
    @PhucQ

    Really touching and stated simply. Are there authoritative Russian sources available in English language which you can refer one to? Books, websites or articles? Most of WWII history in English speaking world glorify US/UK (Anglo-Saxons) as superheroes who saved the free world from evil Germans(Huns). And French cowardly capitulated and of course Italians were incompetent evil wannabe.
    The Russian view can illuminate this totally one-sided narrative.

    • Replies: @PhucQ
    , @PhucQ
  982. @Rurik

    https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_Wehrmacht

    Another sneaky Slav, I’m sorry to say. To think you can count ethnic Germans who had been trapped inside the 2nd Polish Republic boundaries as Poles fighting with the Germans is preposterous. In addition, they didn’t sign on to fight the Bolsheviks until Germany had fully liberated all “Polish” territory. Thus, they didn’t fight as Poles at all, but as Germans for Germany.

    Your link to Keelhaul proves nothing at all about Slavs/Russians fighting. And so there were a few Czechs and Ukranians. That’s the extent of Slavic participation. Your willingness to make ridiculous non-historical statements based on emotional arguments is beyond the pale. Sorry you’ve been lied to. We all have. It doesn’t give you the right to lie in return.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
  983. @Counterinsurgency

    There was no Holocaust of Jews during, after or before WWII. There was a profusion of propaganda, though, which was flooded into Europe by Zionists and the Allies. War causes death, so when you engage in conflicts, you’re going to decrease your populations. Why don’t you cite the many articles written prior to WWII which featured that “6 Million Jews” figure, along with the various atrocities attributed to their oppressors? If you’re not inclined to do so, at least quote Mr. Glynn’s 1919 article.

    (Clue: He won’t.)

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Counterinsurgency
  984. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You haven’t even read my comment, have you. First, I’ve written “at in Carolyn Yaeger’s site” and “I found it also on your site”, not “written by you”, but that’s a minor quibble. If you are so offended, then hey, I admit, I chose the words badly, I should not write “on your site” but “someone else’s article you put on your site”. Second: “We will seek first peaceful solutions, but if Germany will continue, we are ready to war, for real” is not a quote, by my summary (because I already pasted the quote earlier in this thread!), and the full quote is both in my comment @979, which you haven’t even read, and in comment@540, which you haven’t read either. As I wrote already in my comment 540, I had no access to English quote, only to Polish version, which I translated , but the quotes match, except that in the someone else’s article you put on your site the phrases which I bolded in my comment were omitted. I repeat the same quote for the third time now, hoping that maybe three times will be enough even for Nazi apologist to read this and notice what sentences were omitted and then wonder what was the common pattern behind the decision to cut those sentences out.

    We will exhaust all methods of solving Danzig question in a peaceful way, but if Germans will insist on their Anschluss plan, Poland will take up the fight, even if she would had to fight alone and without allies. All nation is in agreement about that. It is ready to fight for Polish sovereignty to the last man and last women, because when we say that we will fight about Danzig, we mean by that, that we will fight for our independence. Danzig is necessary for Poland. Who controls Danzig, controls our economic life. Our trade goes through Danzig and Gdynia. Who controls Danzig, controls Gdynia. We had only small access to sea: 140 km. (…) Taking Danzig by Germany would be an act resembling to us the partitions of Poland. That’s why I ordered mobilisation four months ago, when chancellor Hitler repeated his demands towards Danzig and Pomorze. Believe me, that mobilisation was not just a demonstration. At that time we were ready, if it would be necessary, for a war. (…)We have a calmness of a nation who decided that we would raise up to the war, if it would be forced to that. We came to that conclusion based on our former sufferings. In Poland there is not a single men in the age of 40, who would not remember what it means not to have independence .

    Note, however, that March mobilisation was about 4 divisions and brigade of cavalry, more or less (I’m just reading Beck who is claiming three divisions of infantry and one cavalry brigade). That’s not the force one amasses for an invasion.

    Anyways, the fact that you have the audacity to ask “Are you sure he didn’t say these words to Mary Heaton Vorse in July 1939” when I clearly wrote before, TWICE, exactly those words, except with the sentences which were cut out in the article on your site… that fact speaks a lot about your ability to discuss. Or even read.

    You might also read, in comment 979, fragments of Beck’s speech (with a link to a full version), which was summarized as supposedly Beck stating “we need no peace!”. You can read the speech yourself; moreover, you can also hear the audio

    to check whether transcript is legit – warning, it’s a compilation of few fragments from TV and radio. You can find separate fragments too, this was the most complete one I found). I hope that even you will see that nothing in that speech indicates enthusiasm, or sentiment “we need no peace”.

    Soon I will stop answering this thread, because I will have no longer as much free time as now. After tomorrow, maybe I will check this thread at the morning the last time, but maybe not. Do not be offended if I won’t reply to any your post and do not feel obliged to answer.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  985. Rurik says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    It doesn’t give you the right to lie in return.

    I never lie.

    If I’ve make a mistake, I’ll own it.

    From what I understand, the Russians (Slavs) that were “Keelhauled’, were done so for fighting against the Bolsheviks. Millions of them. And understandably so, as my Solzhenitsyn quote makes obvious.

    I wasn’t there, so I can’t speak from experience, but we get a glimmer from reading lots of varied accounts from varied sources, don’t we?

    As to your tone and your arrogance, you sound like an irascible bitch.

    When’s the last time you got any?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  986. utu says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thus, they didn’t fight as Poles at all, but as Germans for Germany.

    As usual you engage in primitive simplification. There were 4 levels of DVL – Deutsche Volksliste that chiefly applied to Polish citizens in Silesia, Wielkopolska and Pomerania. Only DVL 1 and 2 were for German minority but 3 and 4 were for non German minorities like Poles, Silesians, Poemeranians or Goralenvolk. In Silesia everybody was pressured to sign 3 or 4 DVL. Otherwise they were threatened to be deported to Generalgouvernement as a part of ethnic cleansing and very frequently males were threatened with Konzentrationslager if they insisted on retaining Polish citizenship. Then however after signing the DVL they become eligible for draft to Wehrmacht. Polish Government (in exile) issued a special order for Polish citizens living in areas annexed by the III Reich (Silesia, Wielkopolska, Pomerania) to give them dispensation for signing the DVL so it did not count as an act of treason. Only this explains large number of Polish citizens who did not consider themselves as Germans in Wehrmacht who once the 2nd front was opened in Italy in 1943 and France in 1944 were en masse deserting to Allies.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  987. utu says:
    @David Baker

    There was no Holocaust of Jews during […] WWII.

    There was mass killing of Jews in mass executions and Jews were starved to death in ghettos created by Germans and Jews were sent to concentration camps where their mortality was higher than any other group. Whether it should be called a holocaust or the Holocaust or by some other name is another issue. But the fact that millions of Jews died as the result of WWII that was started (from legal point) by Germany on territories under German jurisdiction and not as the result of direct fighting of war is unquestionable.

  988. @szopen

    We have both Dahlrus and Ogilvie-Forbes word for it. There is also quite a lot of supporting evidence for the Polish attitude.

    [MORE]

    The deluded confidence of the Polish leadership to be standing in Berlin after just a few days into the war is frequently confirmed: “The national holiday [in Warsaw] was celebrated with a big military parade, and the fanatical masses were hailing each new military unit parading past, chanting in chorus: ‘Let’s go to Danzig!’

    ‘On to Berlin!’

    The speakers at the meetings often declare openly that the German demands for an interconnecting link with East Prussia and the return of Danzig to East Prussia would have to be answered with war. The ridiculous German army made up of the underfed generation of the Versailles Treaty, with their stupid cardboard dummy tanks, would be totally thrashed in Berlin. The German army − so one of the speaker’s play on words goes − would be utterly destroyed in the Berlin Grunwald (green forest), just as the army of the Teutonic Knights (Deutschen Ritterordens) was defeated in 1410 near Grunwald (the Polish name for Tannenberg).” 26) On 15 August 1939 the Polish Ambassador in Paris, Lukasiewicz, declared to the French Foreign Minister Bonnet: “It will be the Polish army that will be invading Germany on the first day of war.” 27) On 26 August 1939 the American Ambassador in Moscow, Joseph E. Davies, wrote: “One of the most prominent officials under Beck, Minister…, stated to me, positively, that his government would not tolerate proposals that Poland and Germany should get together and compose their difficulties over the Corridor and Danzig… He expressed himself as being disgusted with what he called the common exaggeration of Germany’s military power. His government, he said, would show them up to the world; within three weeks after the outbreak of war Polish troops would be in Berlin; the “West Wall” or “Siegfried Line” was nothing but a “cotton line”. Poland did not need Russian aid; they could handle the Germans alone and easily.” 28) The same from the Polish Ambassador in Berlin, Lipski, on the 31 August 1939 to the counsellor of legation at the British Embassy in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes: “He [Lipski] stated that he was convinced that unrest would break out in Germany in the event of war and that the Polish army would successfully march on Berlin.” 29) “…this plan [Hitler’s proposal of 29 August 1939] was a breach of Polish sovereignty and was quite out of the question. He had had many years experience of Germany. He would stake his reputation in his conviction that German morale was breaking and that the present regime would soon crack… This German offer was a trap. It was also a sign of weakness on the part of the Germans which was confirmed by the ambassador’s appreciation of the situation.” 30) Such an attitude – which was maintained by the Poles even after the conclusion of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact – could not fail to have certain consequences, especially since Polish foreign policy was aligned with such illusions.

    “There are several reasons for the achievement of the German victorious campaign [‘the 18-days-campaign’], and nowadays one usually tends to conceal the first reason. This involved the planning by the Polish leadership. The main body of the Polish army was standing by not to defend but rather to attack. True to the slogans of the pre-war weeks: ready for attacking East Prussia. This attack involved the fact that the Polish government was relying on the guarantee promise of the Western Powers and, therefore, was expecting an attack on the western frontiers of Germany to hold down the Reich’s main forces there. But the Western Powers did not attack, and so the German Wehrmacht in almost their entirety could be brought into action against Poland. The other reasons were the totally novel strategy of the German Wehrmacht and the modern weaponry on which this strategy was based.”

    Of course, since August and also September 1938 did Beck have the assurance ‘in the bag’ that Great Britain would support Poland ‘as much as possible’ at Danzig.4) At the same time there was also in evidence, since the end of the year 1938/1939, an unrestricted sympathy for Poland from the American government, whose diplomats “also probably influenced” Poland.5) The rejection of the German negotiation proposal of 26 March 1939 was deliberately provocative, since there was no cause whatsoever for answering this with war-threats, mobilization, aggravated minority policies, with the “awakening of the anti-German mood among the Polish people of every social strata and circle” 6) and, lastly, to underline it with the acceptance of a British carte-blanche. The assertion that Hitler’s entry into Prague on 15 March 1939 was responsible for this response is demonstrably false. The Polish leadership, “the only one not to have issued a formal protest against the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia”,6) did not consider the establishment of the protectorate – done with the approval of the Czech government! – as being a threat to Poland. Indeed, they were the ones who had never believed in the viability of Czecho-Slovakia and, in addition, it was they who were working towards the further partitioning of this State with their claims and ultimata after the Munich conference, and who were defending a common border with Hungary.7) Already on 27 October 1938 the German Ambassador in Warsaw, von Moltke, had informed the Foreign Minister of the Reich: “As I have already stated in report PV 47 of October 14 1938, Poland is trying to induce Slovakia to break away from the political union in which she has been joined until now.” 8) Foreign Minister Beck expressed satisfaction with the eventual independence obtained by Slovakia and announced his recognition of this country under national law already on 15 March 1939.9) Therefore, when adopting her measures against Germany on 26 March 1939, Poland did not even refer to Germany’s actions with regard to Prague; to do so would have meant a realistic assessment of German power, which was not in existence in Poland right up to the outbreak of war.

    Beck started from the assumption that Hitler did not want war, that he could not even afford a war and, for this reason, would swallow provocations of the most evil kind from the “determined” and willing-tofight Poland and still have to dispatch “with all the tokens of friendliness” his Foreign Minister to Warsaw! Britain, having full knowledge of the underlying motives and the balance of power, was lending a helping hand in this undertaking, already many months before the continually intensifying German-Polish tension reached the climax. It represents a singularly unparalleled cynicism to then speak, after the outbreak of war, of “protection of the smaller nations”, of Christianity and of the “obligation of the alliance in fighting the aggressor threatening Europe and the world”. The unceasing British encouragement, already before the guarantee, was even recognized by Polish diplomats as a resolution for war: “It is childishly naive, and at the same time unfair, to propose to a nation which is in such a position as Poland that she should compromise her relations with so powerful a neighbour as Germany and to expose the world to the catastrophe of a new war, only for the gratification of Mr. Chamberlain’s internal policies. It would be still more naive of them to presume that the Polish Government did not understand the real meaning of this manoeuvre and its consequences.” 21) This serious charge was made by the Polish Ambassador in Paris, Lukasiewicz, on 29 March 1939 in a report to his Minister for Foreign Affairs. This statement, which is not the only one,22) is an unmistakable proof that Poland had been encouraged, already before Britain’s carte blanche, to compromise their relations with Germany and to unleash a war. The Polish government quickly became expert at this language. “Straight after the British guarantee-declaration, which was followed immediately by the French guarantee, there began in Poland a malicious anti- German rabble-rousing… Demands for the occupation of the city of Danzig appear in Polish newspapers. So it continues. The Polish army is to march into East Prussia and to annex this part of Germany. Other papers claim even more: the borders of Poland have to be pushed forward to the Oder. At public meetings, there are demands made which border on lunacy. Not the Oder but the Elbe is Poland’s Western border. Berlin is not a German city, but an ancient Slavic one, an ancient Polish settlement! Poland starts off with partial mobilization, large posters appear on the walls of houses: ‘Let’s go to Berlin!’”

    “The outbreak of war on 1 September 1939 is now seen in Poland as a totally undeservedly endured attack by the powerful German neighbour, like a bolt out of the blue, as it were, falling on an unsuspecting land, forgetting completely, however, that since March of that year Poland had been in a state of a continually rising warlike atmosphere, that in the numerous articles and letters from readers appearing in newspapers war was strongly desired, that owing to certain actions, such as the volunteering for a commando unit of ‘human torpedoes’ (after a misunderstood Japanese model) and talks given by Polish officers praising the qualities of the Polish soldiers to the sky while defining the German equipment as inferior, the belief in an assured victory was created, with dreams of a quick march on Berlin.

    From Udo Walendy – Truth for Germany

    • Replies: @szopen
  989. szopen says:

    Before I will leave this thread, few more loose remarks. I am reading “Final Report” by Józef Beck (Written in Bucharest in March 1943. Beck died in 1944). This is very chaotic reading, only roughly following the chronology, jumping sometimes forwards and backwards – it’s clear that Beck had no time to edit it and polish for publication before he died. Here are few interesting bits, which may clarify Beck’s position in German-Polish conflict.

    Page 132 in my edition, first in Polish, then my translation

    [MORE]

    “(a) że jeśli Niemcy podtrzymywac będą nacisk w sprawach tak dla nich drugorzędnych jak Gdańsk i autostrada, to nie można mieć złudzeń, że grozi nam konflikt w wielkim stylu, a te obiekty są tylko pretekstem

    (b) wobec tego chwiejne stanowisko z naszej strony prowadziłoby nas w sposób nieunikniony na równię pochyłą kończącą się utratą niezależności i wasala Niemiec”

    English:

    “(A) … that if Germans will continue to pressure in cases so unimportant to them as Danzig and highway, then one can’t have illusions, we are in danger of conflict in grand style, and those objects are only a pretext

    (b) and, beacuse of that, unsteady position from our side would led us unavoidably on a slippery slope ending with loss of independence and being vassal of Germany”

    The edition I have has a footnote reminding about German demands from 24 X 1938, which included Danzig, highway, forcing Poland to join anti-comintern pact and adding a clause of mandatory consultations to the non-aggression pact.

    Later Beck claims taht Goering told Lipski during a meeting “we don’t really care about Danzig, the stone of offense is your alliance with England”

    He also writes, translating as it goes, because it’s late already:

    “… we were ascribed warmongering attitudes. It must be said that from Polish side some uncareful things were made. Two members of government said not reasonable speeches, treating aggressively our attitude to Germany, probably to appeal to the easily aroused public opinion, especially in western districts. It forced me to issue a written demand to the prime minister with a request that ministers should not talk about foreign policy without consultation with me. (..) On the other side, voivodes, especially Silesian and Poznanian, as they woudl compete with each other to issue ineffective announcements relating to the minority issues in western provinces, giving food for German propaganda. I was, despite my few efforts, quite powerless with regards to them. Those errors however cannot be justifications for the Reich’s behavior, because (1) Polish minority in Germany had it worse, just because of the difference in political regime (2) we always were checking newses given by German press, and German Reich never could give us concrete confirmation of their accusations”

    Later he writes that during English-Polish talks Ironside promised him English will come to help, if necessary, from the side of the Black Sea (!!!!).

    TO everyone, thanks for the discussion. I must say I’ve learned something new during those discussions; I was not aware how cordial Polish-German relationship was in early 1930s and how radical change it was from the earlier Weimar era. One article I found compared the number of anti-Polish and pro-Polish satires in one German satirical journal, and the change in 1933 was radical, with anti-Polish satires going up again only in 1939. It was also surprising to me to find out how gmuch pro-German Beck was and how much he thought Hitler was a reasonable guy who was welcome change after warmongering Stresseman, and how much Beck’s position was in direct opposition to Rydz-Śmigły; and how much Rydz and Beck clashed sometimes (with Rydz trying to circumvent Beck sometimes). I already suspected that Beck and Rydz were lying to each other, but I’ve found more confirmation of that fact, that Beck was lied about military data, while not telling Rydz about Hitler’s proposals. It was also news to me that Beck even started a commission working on feasibility of Hitler’s demands in 1938.

    On the other hand, I’ve also learned that my decision not to discuss with revisionists and only mock them from time to time also was correct 😀

    I will abstain from commenting on unz site for some time now. If I will have time tomorrow, maybe I will check the thread the last time. Thanks one more time.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  990. PhucQ says:
    @Garliv

    The Unknown War – an American documentary series (it was even aired on the Soviet TV) which was accepted by locals, not rejected, unlike most stuff from the West, as it was basically true.

    Then there is an amazing book which was translated into Russian and which I read in my adolescence:

    Russia at War: 1941-1945 by Russia-born Briton Alexander Werth.

    When I was staying at a Canadian university and wanted to recommend some of new local friends something to read so that we could argue and speak on reasonably equal presupmtions, I found this book in the university library’s catalogue, but not on the stacks. There was no use talking to librarians, and I was not really surprised. By that time I had already realised that we in the Soviet Union had a much sober and correct picture of the West while Westerners had been so grossly brainwashed that by the end of my stay across the Atlantic I was actually reluctant to talk to them. I guess so would you on this site if your audience were preschoolers.

    So Alexander Werth’s book, being honest, did not fit the Western brainwashing narrative and it was quietly removed from the libraries, I bet in the US as well.

    P.S. I just saw it offered by Amazon. Wonder if it is really available and if it is not redacted.

  991. szopen says:
    @Alexandros

    And now, you idiot, check what is the source 29) for the Ogilvie-Forbes discussion with Lipski.

    Moron.

  992. @szopen

    No, I don’t read all your comments, especially the “MORE” that the moderator doesn’t think needs to be visible b/c too long and not relevant enough. I should only have to reply to one comment without having to keep in mind 2 or 3 previous comments by you that I did not find worthy of reading, And after looking back to the two comments you mentioned, I don’t find anything that would cause me to give you a different answer.

    You are stuck with a language that very few know or want to know. Your tough luck. But a translation by you, whose English is primitive, is not anything I would put any faith in. I think what Mary Heaton Vorse put in her news story is close enough for the author of the article to draw the conclusions he did. Nothing has changed by all the words you’ve written. It’s totally not worth it to try to figure out what is you and what is Beck and what is Ridz, etc., what is quote, what is summary, what is paraphrase.

    It is good that you say you will no longer participate in this thread. Maybe it can continue, then, with some better discussion. I will not be offended if I don’t hear from you again. Good luck.

  993. PhucQ says:
    @Garliv

    Thank you for your kind words.

    There are volumes of Russian stuff in English on all that but since you are unlikely to trust them, I offered above just two lengthy pieces from the US and UK. I believe they can be relied on.

    I am sorry for Chopin. I am glad he left before someone slapped him with a quote from Churchill (fairly widely publicised in Russia, he had allegedly called Poland “Europe’s Hyena” after it bit off a piece of Czechoslovakia following the Munich collusion.)

  994. @utu

    Their (Jews) WWII ‘mortality’ figures have been adjusted substantially since the original “6 Million” was released. Neither you nor I know how many Jews died during WWII, but when all the Zionist Propaganda dust settles on this Holocaust business, we’ll probably be looking at 500,000 Jewish deaths worldwide during the war, and NONE by gassing, or otherwise conducted under orders from the Third Reich, because there were no orders to exterminate the Jews.

  995. Chmmr says:
    @Germanicus

    Why dont you show us Hitler’s genealogy then

  996. @utu

    Jews were starved to death in ghettos created by Germans

    Name me a ghetto where Jews were starved to death. Of course, you also need real evidence of the starvation policy.

    • Replies: @utu
  997. @utu

    If you think the Wehrmacht wanted Poles who hated Germany to be among their fighting troops, you’re crazy. Possibly some might have been drafted for behind the lines duties with plenty of supervision. But that is not “fighting the Bolsheviks.”

  998. @Wally

    I m not sure where you picked Marxist German bureaucrat out of my comment. Mybe you were replying to something else (after all I quoted from the Wikipedia link that Ron Unz had given us).

    Instead of repeat free kicks on UR why don’t you do something for your credibility by attempting to edit Wikipedia entries you disapprove of and then telling us about the heroic struggles of you and the ghost of Joseph Goebbels against the Jewish controlled Wikipedia?

  999. Incitatus says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Since the Germans had invaded Belgium during WWI and everyone knew about the really horrible things that the Belgians had done in the Congo, I’d guess that the previously-unknown “Herero genocide” was basically manufactured as propaganda so that everyone would forget about the 400-times-larger death toll inflicted by the Belgians.”

    What about the “really horrible things” the Germans did in neutral Belgium? Killing 85,700 Belgian civilians (23,700 reprisal executions plus 62,000 – many expelled from destroyed lodgings -from famine/exposure/disease) 1914-18? Same proportion (1.16% population) as German famine victims (1.18% population). Intentionally burning the priceless 300,000 volume medieval Leuven library 25 Aug 1914 (repeated in WW2)?

    Léopold II roi de Belgique Congo standards are a high bar. Truly despicable in all respects. Hochschild’s ‘King Leopold’s Ghost’ is well worth reading.

    Does that excuse killing less, be you English, French, or German? Please elaborate that reasoning, Mr. Unz. As long as they’re not as nasty at Léopold, it’s OK? As long as it wasn’t mentioned in the “English media prior to WW1” it’s OK?

    Léopold II was the son of Léopold de Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, minor German prince brought in stud to replenish a weak Orléans-Bourbon line. You did know that?

    “Meanwhile, there’ some quote from that von Trotha fellow saying that he plans to kill or drive away all the Hereros, which hardly sounds like “genocide” to me.”

    Kindly tell us where v.Trotha was driving them. Was is desert (no water, no food)? Nature’s genocide?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1000. @Rurik

    Then own the mistake that all you know about Keelhaul is what you’ve read on an inferior Wiki page. The Cossacks who were sent back to the SU from Austria did not amount to 2 million. Nor is there a source for that figure.

    Julius Epstein speaks of 2,749 Cossack returnees. Solzhenitsyn says a Cossack Corps of 90,000 was turned over to the Russians. The Wisconsin Digicoll Library (?) speaks of 399 former Russian soldiers in German uniform captured at Dachau, with 368 being entrained back to Russia. That does not add up to 2 million. And Operation Keelhaul was a one-time event that took place in Austria.

    No wonder you resort to complaining about “tone.”

    • Troll: Rurik
  1001. @Ron Unz

    The “hoax” presumably is that Stalin’s intentions were purely defensive, as were his actions in Poland, Finnland and the Baltic states, and anyway just creating defense in depth against Germany within the former Czarist empireempire???

    But isn’t it strange that such a “hoax” could have survived even a decade or two of Cold War?

    In reality Stalin was almost certainly waiting for Germany to weaken itself in the West – possibly, as I have hypothesised of the British, finding it impossible to believe that the large French army would collapse so quickly. He had already improved security thanks to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and what it enabled. He was thus in a position to remain the ruthless but cautious opportunist he had long been. I would try and bring in his necessary concerns about Japan, China nd even Turkey but haven’t got the dates and details in hand. But yes…. Stalin was very likely to have attacked Germany as soon as he calculated the odds were in his favour.

    I think you may underrate the strength and persistence of Hitler’s early aim for Lebensraum at the Soviet Union’s expense. Irving certainly has Hitler actively planning to attack from late 1940. I would like to explore the reasoning which had Hiler (and Stalin) creating a natural front for the kind of great land battles which ensued in Poland as a result of the R-M Pact.

    Hitler’s aim to rid Germany, and, it seems reasonable to infer, German ruled territory, of Jews seems clear and that, in its earlier manifestations, adds support to the Lebensraum in Russia theme as part of his (flexible in the short term) plans.

    • Replies: @utu
  1002. @Incitatus

    See my long comment above. As a great respecter of the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven to which my ex POW father sent me before university I see its rough edges under the appalling Kaiser Wilhelm ll and note the evidence that not just foreigners but Germans (von Bulow I cite) were horrified at von Trotha’s barbarism.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1003. @refl

    What does any of that to do with my objection to the original wild description of dregs of society which had to include Adenauer and Erhard who presided over, and contributed to, the Wirtschaftswunder? There seems to be something on another subject that you and Fox want to say. Nothing very sagacious I discern from your evidentiary standards and idd views of family relationships and their significance.

  1004. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “I.e., I wrote that Hitler had never occupied “Rump Czecho-Slovakia”; and that’s the case. German forces occupied the Czech region of “Rumo Czecho-Slovakia”. Czecho-Slovakia bore that name because it was to appear as union of Slovakia and Czechia. When German forces occupied Prague, Slovakia had already seceded from Czecho-Slovakia, and Slovakia was going its own way and not occupied.”

    No offense, but what on earth does that mean?

    Did Hitler summon Hácha, to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, leave him waiting for hours, meet him 1:30 am 15 Mar 1939 to inform him German invasion is imminent in a few hours? Did Göring, prime enforcer, not utter:

    “Excellency, please sign. I hate to say it, but my job is not the easiest one. Prague, your capital- I should be terribly sorry if I were compelled to destroy this beautiful city. But I would have to do it, to make the English and French understand that my air force can do all it claims to do. Because they still don’t want to believe this is so, and I should like an opportunity of giving them proof.”
    -Hermann Göring 15 Mar 1939 to Czech President Emile Hàcha [Mosley ‘On Borrowed Time’ p.167]

    Did Hàcha not have a heart attack – was he not revived to sign?

    “And be careful with citing people like Shirer or Evans.”

    Always open for new information. Kindly disprove them. And Kershaw, Ullrich, Beevor, Childers, Burleigh, Bullock, etc.

    “Again, think before you type, keep your hot blood on ice.”

    Bad advice for reptilians like me over sixty, but thanks.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Alexandros
  1005. Your typo Ron –

    you meant to put the roman numeral III, not II.

    right??

  1006. @utu

    Please identify the source of your second passage of quotation (“… put an entirely different …”). I’m not challenging it; Nasaw’s biography of Kennedy says something similar and further confirmation can be found in Amanda Smith’s edition of JP Kennedy’s letters, Hostage To Fortune, as well as in Forrestal. I just want to know your source. Thanks.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
  1007. JoeFour says:
    @Rurik

    “…that he’d likely kill every one of them with his bare hands.”

    Agree!

  1008. Seraphim says:
    @PhucQ

    Why are you bewildered by the forgiving attitude of Russians towards the Germans? There is nothing ‘Buddhist’ in it, but thousand years of Orthodoxy softening their hearts.
    The petrified hearts of the atheistic materialist ‘West’ cannot understand that the ‘Immortal Regiment’ is an immense Panihida. It is a sign of the return of Orthodoxy and it goes hand in hand with the rebuilding of churches. They cannot comprehend why Stalin reopened the churches and appealed to the ineradicable Orthodoxy and patriotism of the Russians, like in 1812. They are the ones bewildered that the war fought by the Russians was not the ‘anti-fascist’ war they were supposed to fight for the benefit of the West.
    In a slightly different order, documents held at Yad Vashem show unambiguously that the ‘immense’ numbers of Jews killed at Odessa (by the Romanians) was up to 8,000!

    • Replies: @refl
  1009. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “In reality Stalin was almost certainly waiting for Germany to weaken itself in the West… He was thus in a position to remain the ruthless but cautious opportunist he had long been…Stalin was very likely to have attacked Germany as soon as he calculated the odds were in his favour.”

    Agree.

    Whatever Stalin’s plans were September 1939, the surprising defeat of France 1940 (surprising to Germany as well) postponed them.

    Germany stood alone on the western continent. And Hitler’s crackpot Lebensraum plans, distributed in complementary copies of ‘Mein Kampf’ at each German marriage post 1933 (Mr. Big became very rich) looked east. Stalin knew that, no doubt.

    Have you read ‘Lost Victories’? Very interesting:

    “I think it would be nearest the truth to describe the Soviet dispositions – to which the occupation of eastern Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltic territories had already contributed very strong forces – as a ‘deployment against every contingency’. On 22nd June 1941, undoubtedly, the Soviet Union’s forces will still strung out in such depth that they could then have been used only in a defensive war.”
    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.181

    “The longer the war with Britain dragged on, the greater the danger threatening the Reich in the east must become.”
    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.170

    There’s much more there, but forgive me for not posting it here, where the 1961 gospel of APG Taylor reigns supreme.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1010. utu says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I think you can find it in Freedom Betrayed by Herbert Hoover

    See also here:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Probably there is more in “German White Book.” Does Ron Unz have it in his library?

  1011. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You didn’t respond to anything I said. You’ve given your little FR speech, the same one you’ve repeated innumerable times already.

    You like to now say WWII was a conflict between bad guys; no good guys in sight. Yet the only bad guy you ever want to (or will) talk about is the German Fuehrer. You won’t even explain why that is. Why not equal time for the other equally bad guys? If someone praises FDR or Churchill, you don’t rush to attack them as you do Hitler, every time. So claiming that is your position is not convincing.

    You mention “the threat of a Russian attack” as a reason for Hitler’s actions only at the end of your comment pretty much as an afterthought. However, how does Hitler just “buy the agricultural goods and raw materials” he needs from Ukraine & the Soviet Union if they decide to cut him off?? Remember the British blockade in 1918 and the million German babies and children who died of starvation and malnutrition? Oh, but if Germany just does whatever the other nations want it to do — submit to globalism, international Jewish banking control, etc., which YOU FRANKLIN are all in favor of — then, no problem. That’s what today’s Germany does, which you approve of. Please don’t say you don’t. It’s clear that you think the FRG is just fine, certainly better than Hitler!

    The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact did lead to a great deal of that exact kind of trade between the German Reich and the Soviet Union. But then Stalin wanted to expand his “spheres of interest”; he annexed the Baltic states and occupied Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. He then wanted to move into the Balkans and Bulgaria, and gain access to the Aegean Sea. So you see, world trade is not guaranteed, and often there are costs far beyond the visible price tag. Adolf Hitler wanted to secure the German Reich and, in all our experience of world history, he had every right to do so! This is where you’re wrong, to say he didn’t. You don’t say that of anyone else!

    On top of this, your cowardly “virtuous” thinking leads to the destruction of the White race, that you accuse Hitler of not valuing but he did more to preserve it than any of your type of misguided thinking. This is the part of my comment to you that you ignored. Your utterances here are entirely empty cant.

  1012. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “In reality Stalin was almost certainly waiting for Germany to weaken itself in the West…”

    More likely he was afraid that France will weaken Germany by being more successful against Hitler so his Ribbentrop-Molotov pact may get cancelled w/o much benefit to him. But once France collapsed and the fear of reprisals from the West (eg: Operation Pike) for his alliance with Hitler vanished he seemed to be much more at ease and proceeded eating up the Baltic states and Bessarabia as he could do it with impunity because the West was defeated. Stalin calculations were driven by his paranoia and lack of understanding of the West. He genuinely believed that the West is his enemy as if his “handlers” forgot to tell him it was just a game and the USSR was a part of it in a “bigger scheme.” He thought that Hitler was much more predictable and less cunning than the West which probably was correct.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1013. http://mileswmathis.com/meuse.pdf

    Anyone thinking about World War 2 must read this Miles Mathis piece on the fall of France.

    Even if you don’t beleive his narrative, it is a very entertaining read.

    When you re-examine the war through the lens of Miles Mathis, the beginning really does look uterrly ridiculous and totally facile and superficial.

    [MORE]

    The French and Belgians had no defence in the Ardennes despite it being used in every preceding conflict since the war of 1870? Including the Schlieffen plan?

    “Instead, we are told Belgium did almost nothing along that border, preferring to talk the Germans down with words of neutrality. Again, that makes no sense. It isn’t credible, and so is just more proof this is all a lie. The very fact that Belgium, Holland, France, and England would leave that border completely open is all the proof you should ever need that this was staged from the first shot.”

    “Hitler was just an actor-front for those running Germany and the war. And who was that? The same family running England, the US, France, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Russia, etc. In other words, the family of King George VI. George was just a front for his family, sort of like Bill Gates or George Bush is for his: they put their dopiest scion forward, to keep you off the scent. But King George VI, unlike Hitler, was taking orders from a close relative. Some aged grandfather, High Admiral of the Phoenician Navy, was running this whole thing from some ivory tower, though I can’t tell you who he was or where the tower was. These things are kept well hidden from those such as you and me. All we know is that he was from the ancient lines of Stuart/Levy/Kohen/Komnene/Stanley/Murray, or whatever respelling or restatement of that name that may exist in the shadows. As such he was some hidden great-uncle or something of King George and Albert Lebrun and Franklin Roosevelt and Victor Emmanuel and Gustav V, etc etc. He was the great spider at the center of this web, spinning all these events for maximum chaos and maximum profit—as his successor still is.”Again, Reynaud’s call to Churchill is highly suspicious, because by May 15, France wasn’t beaten at all. Even if we believe the mainstream story, at that point Germany had only beaten parts of Belgium, so why would France think it was all over? That would be like the US surrendering because the Soviet Union had defeated Canada.

    “Again, Reynaud’s call to Churchill is highly suspicious, because by May 15, France wasn’t beaten at all. Even if we believe the mainstream story, at that point Germany had only beaten parts of Belgium, so why would France think it was all over? That would be like the US surrendering because the Soviet Union had defeated Canada.”

    That’s a pretty good point. The French in World War 1 supposedly endured enormous casualties and loss in property. Why would they surrender so quickly when they actually had the strongest military in the world at the time? 2,500 Heavy Char-B tanks, and a powerful air-force. It’s ludicrous.

    The bit that I find really convincing is the appointment of Petain and the failure of Hitler to utilise the European navies.

    The combined navies of Europe, especially France, plus the supposed superiority of the Luftwaffe would have allowed a successful invasion of Britain.

    The navies were easily within Hitler’s reach. He didn’t take them. Same as he allowed the BEF to escape. I’ve read Churchill’s work on World War 2 – They had to actually import from the United States ancient rifles from World War 1 with 20 or so magazines of bullets each because they didn’t have their own small-arms, we are told.

    “The question of bridges being blown and stopping the German advance is supposed to be answered by the story of Fort Eben-Emael, but this is one of the stupidest of the whole war. Although the Fort was the most modern in the area and was manned by 1,200 Belgian troops, it was supposedly neutralized in a few minutes by 78 Germans in gliders”.

    So true. That’s effing retarded. So a fort that wasn’t even on the axis of advance is supposedly the reason why a few locals didn’t dynamite the bridges across the Meuse that allowed the German tanks to advance 150 miles in 2 freaking days?

    It’s all so ridiculous.

    “Of course the people involved is the other gigantic clue. I have hit Reynaud before in my paper on Obama’s Genealogy. They don’t admit he was Jewish, though he obviously was. His father had made a fortune in the textile industry, so Reynaud was from textile billionaires. After banking, textiles is Jewish trade number two. Reynaud had been preceded as Prime Minister by two other Jews: Edouard Daladier and Leon Blum. At least they admit Blum was Jewish. They tell us Daladier was the son of a baker. That is the usual joke. Just add an “n” and baker becomes. . . banker. Blum came out of the SFIO, the Socialist Party, which tells us all we need
    to know about him. But all these Prime Ministers were basically fronts. They want your eyes on them so that your eyes are not on the real governors. Remember, the President of France remained the same during all these Phoney Prime Ministers: his name was Albert Lebrun. The Phoney historians tell you the President was a weak position in this decade, but that is just to keep your eyes off Lebrun.”

    I adhere to Mr Mathis. We live in a Matrix. Hitler and De Gaulle and Franco and all the others were all relatives and were all actors for true powers that were governing and still govern the world.

    All these supposedly superior famous people we see everywhere are all the continuing descendents of these crypto-nobilities.

    Miles’ most puzzling extract is a set of population figures from the war. Apparently the population of Germay for example, didn’t change during world war 2, even though 10% of it’s population was supposedly killed.

    He also points out that based on all the census figures of Jews in the whole of Europe, you still can’t get 6 million.

    I can’t beleive I’ve never used logic like Miles. But I lacked the awareness and work-ethic and memory to go and do all the family trees that underpin his theory.

    De Gaulle isn’t even French, and he was a nobody.

    “In Belgium, we find one small drop from 1940 to 1941, but that is about it. Belgium had a total drop in population of only 1.9% from 1940 to 1944, and had replaced that loss by 1946. France had a 6.8% drop in the same period, but had already been losing population before the war started. From 1938 to 1940, France saw a 7.6% decline, which couldn’t have been due to the war. Or, it wasn’t due to casualties: it may have been due to people fleeing the upcoming war. Looks like someone knew France was going to lose and didn’t want to stick around. But again, you really need to ask yourself how France lost more people (as a percentage) before the war than during it. That is another smoking gun.”

    That’s totally bizarre. Why has no one reconciled casualty tables before with suppsoed records of population growth during the war? There was not room for interior migration because all these countries were supposedly conquered and occupied in turn.

    “Again, I say none of this makes sense as long as we maintain the belief these countries were independent, run by either elected governments or by local monarchies. The World Wars only make sense once we realize all these countries had been occupied centuries earlier by the Phoenician navy, and that their agents ran all these countries for a few international families. We already know that is true, since they admit all these countries are and always have been run by close cousins. They want you to think the wars are the result of these cousins squabbling for power, but I have shown you that isn’t the case. The wars aren’t about sharing power, they are about consolidating power, and hiding it. The wars are run as a cover for seizing worldwide treasuries and other treasures, including land, minerals, and even art. They are used to clear slums and rebuild cities. They are used to test weaponry and test theories of control. They are used to hide crimes.”

    And these same people are trying to foment race wars, and war with Iran, and war with China, and war with Russia.

    These sanatic pedophile moribund nobilities.

    Given all the revelations around Wikileaks, and the power possession and subversion of vital posts has, this all makes complete sense.

    They serve the father of lies indeed.

    This entire world history is a struggle to escape the noose being tightened around the world’s neck by these people. We are truly in Plato’s cave and they are the world weavers.

    I’ve read screeds on world war 2, and Mathis’ material makes more sense to me then anything else.

    When you combine it with all the other revelations about the mutual funders of the wars, the Chaim Rakover (Christian Rakovsky) material, Wikileaks and all the other primary research listed on this site and elsewhere it makes sense to me.

    I feel very stupid for believing so many lies for so long. Not that I can even hold the mass of detail in my head as I face my day-to-day challenges to survive and given my only mediocre intelligence.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1014. “We also learn on de Gaulle’s page of Roosevelt’s plan to rule France and French Indochina as an occupied territory. He didn’t abandon that plan until late in the war. This tells us much about what was really going on in France. How could anyone think the Allies would takeover France after the war? France had been beaten and occupied by Germany, not by the US or Britain. So on what grounds could the Allies take it as an occupied territory? Does that make any sense at all? Well, apparently it made sense to Roosevelt, since he knew something we don’t. I suggest what he knew is that this was the plan all along. Francewasn’t beaten by Germany, it was sold out and given away by England, the US, and by its own leaders.

    [MORE]

    “I also suggest France was ruled as an occupied territory after the war, and still is. But the hidden governors found they couldn’t do that openly. They couldn’t just waltz in and take over France as a territory of the Allies, in the way England had taken over India, for instance. They had to be very clever about it, or they would have found themselves in possession of a country of 40 million French people in constant revolt. They had to install their man de Gaulle and make everyone thinkFrance was independent again.” – what is ex Rothschild banker Macron? Homosexual fake President.

    “Of course they did a similar thing in Germany, with somewhat less finesse. Germany was more obviously an occupied territory for a long time, dotted with US military bases. But of course it still is. People think that because Germany doesn’t speak English or trade with dollars, and has its own TV programs, it is independent. It isn’t. Neither is Poland or Belgium or Holland or the rest of Europe. Russia was occupied in WWI and didn’t need to be re-occupied. It just needed to be bled a bit more. The US has been occupied since its founding, and England has been occupied since 1066.
    In support of my view of de Gaulle as a puppet of England, we find General Giraud of Algiers thought the same thing. Of course Giraud found he was right when this colonel de Gaulle was allowed to “squeeze him out” of the French Committee of National Liberation, de Gaulle appointing himself sole Chairman.”

    “So when Wikipedia tells us de Gaulle was welcomed in Paris by the Committee of Liberation, they mean he was welcomed by his own reflection. Basically, de Gaulle was created and inserted by the Allies as a local front, meant to convince the French people it was being led by a Frenchman. But the truth was that France was being run by AMGOT [Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories], and the people behind AMGOT (the Phoenician navy). They manufactured some squabbles between de Gaulle and AMGOT for the papers, but that was all theater. De Gaulle even claimed he threw AMGOT out of the country. Right.”

    And of course de Gaulle brought the rich Jews back into the government, including Gaston Palewski, Claude Mauriac, Jacques Soustelle, and a cast of hundreds of fake Socialist intellectuals and circus performers. Palewski was a lover of Nancy Mitford, remember, linking us directly to Hitler. Her two sisters were devotees of Hitler, and her father was the Baron Redesdale. She had previously been engaged to Hamish Erskine, son of the Earl of Rosslyn (related to the FitzRoys, Dukes of Grafton). Her maternal grandfather was Thomas Gibson Bowles, publisher of the magazine Vanity Fair. His first wife had been a Gordon, which name we already saw in de Gaulle’s ancestry. Mitford’s uncle was William Evans-Gordon, a pretend anti-Semite who led that fake opposition in Parliament. They pretty much admit that now, since Wikipedia admits he was a Zionist and friend of Chaim Weizmann. This is because Gordon was Jewish himself, just like his cousin Lord Byron (George Gordon). De Gaulle also brought Jules Jeannenay back into the government, despite the fact that he had, as President of the Senate, voted for Petain and the Vichy government in 1940. So that makes no sense. De Gaulle also brought in Georges Pompidou. His picture tells you everything:

    He had previously been a literary academic—so, another fake Socialist clown—but he later worked as an investment banker at Rothschild.

    So George’s Pompidou was yet another French Rothschild banker politician.

    He was hired by Guy de Rothschild personally. Strangely, Pompidou’s own Wiki page doesn’t mention he joined de Gaulle’s government back in 1944. There we are told he didn’t come in until the 1960s.

    “So, in conclusion. . . we have the Jews fronting themselves in the past century. They hire some kids from the Families to pretend to be Socialists, and they act as fronts for their hidden fascist fathers and grandfathers. Most times they don’t even bother to pick the most Gentile-looking kids anymore, or bother to change the names, or anything. They think so little of your intelligence they present you with a guy named Cohen with a hook nose and tell you he is a poor Catholic whose father was a truck driver and whose mother was possum trapper”.

    You can’t take any history at all at face value. None of it. It’s only when you understand the Phoenecian stream of history that you get any sense of what has actually occurred.

    I think Niall Ferguson is a good example. He of course doesn’t ever touch upon the real truth. But he knows it. He refers to it obliquely in the Ascent of Money (never mentioning the ethnicities of the monied’. And also in his book about Secret Societies. Undoubedly he understands this Phoenecian paradigm of history and it’s truth.

    It’s always the same. In England the rich families prevent Brexit. In the United States the same ancient families ensure that the only thing the fake front government will ever do unanimously is pass laws which outlaw speech they find irksome or give money to Israel the seat of the religious front.

    It’s all so tiresome.

    China aren’t the good guys but they do seem to be more moral in their overall goals. China won’t be making pedophilia legal anytime so. These people will. It seems to amuse them to destroy humanity and reduce their subject populations to crawling mewling animals eating bugs and rutting with infants and learning fake nonsense.

    The only way to solve this problem is to confiscate from them the central banks that are the source of their power. By printing currency they simply can appropriate and control whom and what they please.

    It is too exhausting to have to question all sources of fact, and soon that will be impossible due to both economic hardship and the even more final memory holing and faking of evidence.

  1015. @utu

    But it wasn’t anywhere close to 6million.

    And it wasn’t in gas chambers. Zyklon B was not the agent – when Germany had huge stockpiles of Sarin gas. The gas chambers themselves you see visible were built after the wall.

    In the case of the Holocaust of bullets no mass graves at the supposed locations like Babi Yar can be found. When other mass graves from places like Rwanda and Katyn are and were easily identified.

    And vast numbers of individual testimonies regarding roller coasters, crocodile pits, masturbation machines, music death machines, electrocution floors, walls of knives a la Indian Jones, and everything Elie Wiesel has said are false.

    And many testimonies of survival exist. Where people really did just get communal showers – because that’s what they were.

    And almost everything else about the war we are taught is false, so why would this be true?

    The Holocaust didn’t happen. It didn’t.

    And it’s quite possible a few hundred thousand or even more then a million Jews were killed. But that was by an army that contained hundreds of thousands of Jewish soldiers and many Jewish generals. So it wasn’t a holocaust in the sense of targeting Jews for being Jews was it.

    It’s a myth. That is used to subject non-Jews to domination by victimhood.

    I suspect it’s a myth designed to cover up the real deaths of gentiles, on all sides of the war. At this stage it’s impossible to know the true quantity given the falsity of much of the narrative. But it’s undoubtedly a larger number then the number of Jews killed for being Jews.

    All the Jews in Europe pre-war can’t equate to 6million. So it wasn’t and isn’t 6 million, that is for absolute certain.

    • Agree: Fox
    • Disagree: utu
    • Replies: @David Baker
  1016. utu says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I checked Hogan for his readings of cables by Polish ambassadors and he is rather dismissive of Potocki that he was misreading Jewish influences in America and that strong anti-German position of Roosevelt was based on some personal motives stemming from vanity, I guess, that war was a great adventure and the crippled Roosevelt wanted to have one:

    Potocki incorrectly attributed the belligerent American attitude solely to Jewish influence. He failed to realize that President Roosevelt and his entourage considered World War I to have been a great adventure, and that they were bitter about those Americans who continued to adopt a cynical attitude toward American militarism after President Roosevelt’s quarantine speech in 1937.

    Potocki overestimated the Jewish question because of his own intense prejudices against the Jews, which were shared by the entire Polish leadership. He was highly critical of the American Jews. He believed that Jewish influence on American culture and public opinion, which he regarded as unquestionably preponderant, was producing a rapid decline of intellectual standards in the United States. He reported to Warsaw again and again that American public opinion was merely the product of Jewish machinations.

    Nevertheless we should remember that Lindbergh was brought down by him mentioning Jews in his speech and not the warmongering by the British agents of influence and Roosevelt and his administration. One could be anti-British in 1941 America but being ani-Jewish was already beyond the pale.

    When Thomas J. Dodd wrote a letter to his wife from Nuremberg in Sept 1945 he was concerned of Jewish overpresentation there (“I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish.”)

    “For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again.

    “The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter –it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”

    So every body was afraid of making false ani-Semitic charge that Jews had something to do with the War including as it appears David L. Hoggan.

    But returning to Bullit according to Hogan, Bullitt had exceptionally accurate foresight:

    The Polish Ambassador was informed by William C. Bullitt, the American Ambassador to France who was visiting in the United States, that President Roosevelt was determined to bring America into the next European war. Bullitt explained to Potocki at great length that he enjoyed the special confidence of President Roosevelt. Bullitt predicted that a long war would soon break out in Europe, and “of Germany and her Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, he spoke with extreme vehemence and with bitter hatred.” He suggested that the war might last six years, and he advocated that it should be fought to a point where Germany could never recover.

    Potocki did not share the enthusiasm of Bullitt and Roosevelt for war and destruction.

    Now consider Hitler in late 1939 when the Polish Foreign Ministry documents fell in the hands of Germans in Warsaw. How did Hitler read the cables and what did he think of Bullitt’s predictions that the war would last six years, i.e., till 1945 and that it will end with Germany’s destruction from which “Germany could never recover.” Did Hitler decision to declare the war against the US in December 1941 was to make sure that Bullitt’s prediction turned to be correct?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @J. Alfred Powell
  1017. Ron Unz says:
    @Flint Clint

    Anyone thinking about World War 2 must read this Miles Mathis piece on the fall of France.

    Even if you don’t beleive his narrative, it is a very entertaining read.

    Well, I’ve occasionally seen some mention here and there about that Miles Mathis fellow, but this was the first time I’d ever read any of this stuff. I also glanced at his website and I’m simply appalled.

    As near as I can tell, he spews forth a vast quantity of conspiracy-nonsense seemingly aimed at appealing to the ignorant and the stupid.

    In the last year or two, I became aware of the Moon Hoaxers and the Flat Earthers. My own “conspiracy theory” is that these movements were deliberately promoted as “poison bait” for the conspiratorially-minded, thereby making them look totally ridiculous and discrediting the considerable number of “real conspiracies.”

    The writings of this Miles Mathis fellow give off a very similar odor. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if he’s merely seeking to divert and discredit the growing numbers of individuals who have become suspicious of the “official history” promoted by the MSM. But that’s just my “conspiracy theory.”

    Anyway, I’m a serious person and don’t have time for this sort of nonsense.

    Moon Hoax comments are restricted to Moon Hoax threads, and are otherwise trashed. I think I’ll henceforth arrange for Miles Mathis-related comments to be trashed. Indeed, I’ve half a mind to have all comments linking the Miles Mathis website to automatically be marked as “spam.”

  1018. utu says:

    But that’s just my “conspiracy theory. – I do not see conspiracy there

    “Personally I believe that the schtick that Miles Mathis employs could be easily deconstructed but nobody bothers because he is just an exocentric harmless artist just like Szukalski.”

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/jack-london/?highlight=miles#comment-3474294

    There is a movie by DiCaprio about Szukalski, btw.

  1019. @Flint Clint

    But someone at Babi Yar witnessed “Geysers of Blood” spurting up from the graves; a scene which was preceded by the ground shaking, signalling these eruptions.

  1020. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    I checked Hogan for his readings of cables by Polish ambassadors and he is rather dismissive of Potocki that he was misreading Jewish influences in America and that strong anti-German position of Roosevelt was based on some personal motives stemming from vanity, I guess, that war was a great adventure and the crippled Roosevelt wanted to have one:

    Well, as I emphasized in my article, it’s totally obvious that Hoggan was suffering from the “Lord Voldemort Effect”:

    Even the arch-revisionist David Hoggan seems to have carefully skirted the topic of Jewish influence. His 30 page index lacks any entry on Jews and his 700 pages of text contain only scattered references. Indeed, although he does quote the explicit private statements of both the Polish ambassador and the British Prime Minister emphasizing the enormous Jewish role in promoting the war, he then rather questionably asserts that these confidential statements of individuals with the best understanding of events should simply be disregarded.

    In a very close parallel, everyone knew perfectly well that the Jewish Neocons were the central driving force behind the Iraq War, but 99% of the anti-war protesters were too scared to mention that, and just like Michael Moore, blamed it all on Big Oil.

    By contrast, Prof. Beaty had a central role in American Military Intelligence during the war, and naturally he said that the Jews were responsible, with his 1951 book getting huge sales and being fully endorsed by many of America’s top generals. Prof. Oliver, who also had an important wartime role in Military Intelligence, said exactly the same thing in his memoirs.

    Meanwhile, Hoggan’s book wasn’t even published in English until 1989, and sold such a minuscule number of copies it’s ridiculously expensive to purchase.

    • Agree: utu
  1021. @utu

    You still haven’t said what the source of your quotes in #1001 is. I would appreciate it if you will.

    • Replies: @utu
  1022. @Ron Unz

    I also entertain the hypothesis that Flat Earth and Moon Hoax (also UFOs) “conspiracy” discourses representing a deliberate propaganda of confusion, diversion, and derision

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  1023. Fox says:
    @szopen

    Klaipeda = Memel, the German region occupied by Lithuania in 1923, magnanimously ceded to Lithuania by the League of Nations, without involvement of the German inhabitants of course. They wanted out from Lithuania, and seeing that it was possible for the Sudeten Germans to throw off their fetters, they decided to attempt the same. As with the Sudeten Germans, Hitler was not involved in it, he only reacted to the voice of the Germans who were forcibly cut off their country.

    By the way, your habit of slipping in your Polish-written tidbits sheds a stark light on the workings of your mind.

  1024. Fox says:
    @szopen

    Wow! “Two public and 13 private secondary schools teaching in German in Poland”! And that for more than two million Germans (in 1921)! And then the forced closure of several hundred German schools as soon as the Poles moved into the German regions.
    That doesn’t make me think that Poles are particularly aware of accommodating non-Poles within their borders. In contrast, during the Prussian time, Poles were free to act and speak like Poles, they could have their Polish schools and were not forced to speak German.

    • Replies: @utu
  1025. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    “What does that mean?”
    It means that you are using words the meaning of which is not clear to you. Just as I have heard repeatedly the expression “in Czechoslovakian”, which also gives evidence of the fact that someone saying that is not aware that Czechs and Slovaks speak different languages (Czech and Slovak) and were forced into a single country under Czech domination (7 million Czechs, 4 million Germans 2.5 million Slovaks, 500000 Hungarians, a few hundredthousand Ruthenians and some Poles).

    In other words:
    There is no language “Czechoslovakian”.

    When German troops with the assent of the Czechs occupied Czechia (formerly called Bohemia) Czecho-Slovakia had already ceased to exist due to the secession of the Slovaks and Ruthenians a few days before. At that time, neither England nor France had any objection to it, as the conditions on which Czecho-Slovakia had been guaranteed in the Munich accord had ceased to exist (words of Chamberlain).
    Hence, German troops did not occupy “Rump Czecho-Slovakia”, they did not enter Slovakia or Ruthenia, only Bohemia.

    I don’t know what Göring said, but it seems not unlikely that he might have said something like that, in case an armed conflict should arise. The Czechs have not behaved like decent people in their state, neither against the Germans, until most of them left this forced marriage, then against the Slovacs whose government they had removed by Czech military in March of 1939- incidentally, the trigger for the Slovak secession and appeal for German support. If that’s not the voice of the people speaking, then I don’t know how ever any change could take place, the American revolution was certainly an illegal act also and to be condemned in your opinion, isn’t that so?
    I have no doubt that Hacha was not gladly on this mission and only asked for an interview with Hitler because he saw no way out of the corner the Czechs had painted themselves in, or better, had allowed themselves to be painted in by relying on bad advice from people who did not mean them well, but only wanted to use them as tools in their goal of undermining Germany. Hacha recognized the stark reality that Germany was a neighbor, England and France were not, and that a policy of enmity against Germany was not beneficial for his country or people, but that cooperation was. Czechs and Germans had lived as neighbors for more than a thousand years, and there was a much better case for cooperation and goodneighborly existence than playing the handpuppet of selfish and cynical powers far away. The thousand-year union had existed even just twenty years before the events which cause your blood pressure to go up so high. Did you know that?
    Shirer was journalist in Berlin and, from what I remember of his “Rise and Fall”, apparently usually present even at the most secret government meetings, hence his broad and expansive knowledge. Some are impressed by that, others think that he might not have been in places shielded from prying ears.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1026. utu says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “…real evidence of the starvation policy…” – What about food rations that were 6 times lower for meat, 3 times lower for bread. 10 time lower for sugar and 8 time lower for fat than for Germans? I presume that German accountants and nutritionists could carry out basic arithmetic extrapolation. Furtheremo even if they were so dense that it never occurred to them that their policy would lead to starvation the starvation occurred and there was plenty of evidence of it most ghettos yet no policy was changed. Therefore one can conclude there was premeditation on part of German authorities.

  1027. @Ron Unz

    Well I’d certainly admit to being at times both ignorant and stupid, and I apologise if I’ve aggravated you. You’re one of my heroes, so I’ll refrain in future from referring to Miles Mathis on your website. I was just addressing general readership of the comments, not suggesting you read Mathis. As you say, you are a level or three above Mr Mathis.

    Is it not possible to reconcile both of your contrarian arcs? Theodore Beale who links very often to you and speaks very highly of you as one of the most important intellectuals alive, another person I follow very closely, has spoken positively about the Mathis website – contending that if even a fraction of his conjectures are true then he is a genius polymath of the highest order. Beale just says his lack of Christian formation means he dismisses anything with theological overtones.

    I agree with you regarding Flat Earth and also the Moon Landing narratives. But what’s wrong with examining very closely these narrative arcs? The one benefit of the flat earth psy-op was that it forced a of learning about elementary physics and geometry and geology etc.

    But hopefully without proving my stupidity any further, can I ask what you regard as so obviously and egregiously stupid about Mathis’ analyses?

    I agree with you that there is considerable variation in the quality of what he says. That piece was quite highly speculative, and I probably am quite credulous.

    [MORE]

    But what is wrong with his core method of examining photo evidence for anomalies, tracing geneologies of prominent individuals, sepculating as to logical problems therein, and fisking Wikipedia?

    Even if it is a limited hangout or a controlled burn of some nature (he dismisses the pedophilia we have observed in individuals like Epstein for example) how do you dismiss the geneaologies?

    How do you dismiss the valid observations of discrepancies in the photo evidence? When he talks about Stalin for example the geneologies and the photo evidence looks egregious when you are referred to it.

    What about basic narrative discrepancies?

    How is he wrong when he traces back the Iran rulers for example to the Komnenes?

    Doesn’t his material also seem to reconcile rather well at least in part with for example Fritz Springmeier, Wikileaks, Q, and even yourself?

    If you have proven to my satisfaction that there were tens of thousands of Jewish soldiers in the Nazi military and many of the German generals were Jewish, why is it such a stretch for Hitler to be Jewish?

    The idea of the engineered world wars to mask plundering by these families reconciles well with the material Henry Makow refers to – again, which reconciles well with your own.

    When he points out for example the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the King in Moscow in 1931, that really does seem similar to the destruction of Notre Dame this year – and by Jews or Luciferians, or as your own website observes, the same thing.

    So I have to confess I don’t understand. Compared to you I am no doubt stupid and ignorant, but compared to many others I am decidely not stupid and ignorant.

    Mathis’ material on the stolen century seems particularly effective – given that it links to mainstream media material about the intelligence agencies control of media, which is now reflected in intelligence agencies control of social media.

    Mathis’ material on Physics and culture generally is also very good. And I say that as an English PHD who did a real PHD, not critical theories gar-bage’.

    His stuff for example comparing Bowie’s early lyrics with Leonard Cohen’s is good. As is his geneologies of everyone from Prince to Jennifer Lawrence.

    His stuff on art has reinvigorated my taste for realism and classicism.

    And his stuff on Science seems to fit reasonably well with Beale’s stuff for example on evolution vis a vis DNA mutation timeframes precluding evolution and his material in the Irrational Atheist.

    Mathis himself agrees with you about flat earth – he merely says it’s designed to discredit his science!

    And his scientific stuff fits with the mainstream media material highlighted by Q and also by people like David Wilcock – albeit I reject most of what Wilcock has to say about ayylameos.

    It was his material on the Stolen Century that convinced me, and his linking of all the major authors to the intelligence agencies so successfully.

    If the Deep State are obviously real and are at war against Donald Trump, why wouldn’t they have been at large in the culture as Mathis states?

    All the stuff we’ve learned about John McCain, the Podestas, Epstein, the deep state rabbit holes simply by virtue of relationships to me reinforce his geneologies, which are just a more detailed version of what anons are doing all the time.

    And his stuff about the Hippie movement being faked actually fits very well with all the material I’ve read from PJ O’Rourke who actually was in hippy communes and movements that were infiltrated by the Feds – albeit his material was tongue in cheek.

    So I have to confess I’m not sure I understand your antipathy to the Miles Mathis figure. Obviously this is someone even less mainstream then you, but to me his material is of a high quality.

    I am somewhat of an amateur physicist, with a deep distrust of useless Jew science like relativity, and Mathis’ material about the charge field and the luminitherous ether I’ve found wonderful.

    He’s right about fluoride. He’s right about the existence of chem-trails. He’s right about specific individual artists like Shepherd Fairly. He was right about Trayvon Martin. He was right about Ron Paul. He’s right about Christopher Hitchens, he was right about the Wikipedia gate-keepers – he wrote about ‘the Wiki Mandarins’ as far back as 2007. etc.

    Your work is of a vastly higher quality because you are much more careful and deliberate and moderate in your citations and that’s to your credit. Mathis claims to be a genius and just explicates.

    On political material you are the standard, and he isn’t citing, but connecting in a much less considered manner.

    But his geneologies are compelling. The picture analysis is compelling. I just see it as complementary, not competitive. Yours is the final word.

    I mean his thesis that the Jews have inter-married into all the gentile families of commerce and finance and nobility to me seems trite. They did, and they have, and that’s still evident today in ‘People’ and everywhere you look. And it’s obvious in Hollywood, and it’s obvious everywhere you look. And we’ve had oblique references to this ‘cosmopolitan’ international class down the centuries.

    So anyway it’s your website and I’ll refrain from linking to Mathis – but if you explain the reason he’s persona non grata I’d be willing to be educated. As ever.

    Of course I don’t think he is uniformly right. His Kennedy theory is very much a stretch. As is his dismissal of the mens ‘Game’ movement – which is wrong because that material is highly effective and necessary and congruent.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1028. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The annexation of the Baltic states, Bessarabia and Nth Bukovina was agreed between Ribbentrop and Molotov in the secret protocols of the Pact:

    “In signing the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the undersigned plenipotentiaries of the two sides discussed in strict confidentiality the issue of delimiting the spheres of mutual interest in Eastern Europe. This discussion led to the following result:
    1. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up theBaltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania is simultaneously the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR. The interests of Lithuania with respect to the Vilnius district arerecognized by both sides.
    2. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish Republic, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will run approximately along the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers.The question of whether it is in the (signatories’) mutual interest to preserve the independent Polish State and what the borders of that state will be ascertained conclusively only in the course of future political development.In any event, both governments will resolve this matter through friendly mutual agreement.
    3. Concerning southeastern Europe, the Soviet side emphasizes the interest of the USSR in Bessarabia. The German side declares its COMPLETE POLITICAL DISINTEREST in these areas.
    4. This protocol will be held in strict secrecy by both sides

    Stalin wanted to secure USSR and “in all our experience of world history, he had every right to do so!” Germany started WW1 unprovoked and invaded and brought in the ‘revolution’ (and all the bloody mess that ensued). As Russia had every right to gain access to the Aegean Sea (much more than the Germans). There is not only the ‘Aryan race’ that has ‘rights’ (especially in the Balkan area).

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1029. @utu

    Sorry. My slip, and yes, I read Hoover’s excellent and important book when it was published, in 2011, over 40 years after he finished it. Now what we need to see published is Joseph P. Kennedy’s “Diplomatic Memoir,” finished in the mid 50s and still suppressed. Amanda Smith’s edition of his letters discusses it and excerpts from it, but it’s way past time we had the chance to read it. There’s a reason John F. Kennedy loved and pursued peace, and is first name was Joseph.

    • Replies: @utu
  1030. utu says:
    @Fox

    In contrast, during the Prussian time, Poles were free to act and speak like Poles, they could have their Polish schools and were not forced to speak German.

    You are just another lazy ignoramus. Typical for Hitler fan boys.

    Bismarck and the Prussian Polish Policies of 1886, Richard Blanke, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), pp. 211-239

    The most far-reaching (and most resented) of the many steps taken by Gossler during this period was his decree of September 1887 ordering that “the teaching of the Polish language is to be omitted in all elementary schools in the province of Poznania [it had already disappeared from other Polish districts], and the classroom time which thereby becomes free is to be assigned to instruction and practice in the German language.” A separate order forbade public school teachers to participate even privately in Polish language classes, thus largely frustrating efforts to set up nonpublic instruction programs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_the_Province_of_Posen
    In another letter from 1861 Bismarck stated: Every success of the Polish national movement is Prussia’s failure; we can wage war on this element not based on the rules of civil justice but according to the laws of war.Polishness with all its characteristics should be judged not from the perspective of an objective humanism but as an enemy…There is no possibility of peace between us nor any attempts to resurrect Poland.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1031. @David Baker

    “A *never mentioned* aspect of Post World War ll Europe”. How about “one of the most frequently mentioned aspects”? !!!

    • Replies: @David Baker
  1032. @szopen

    I haven’t followed all the conversations you have been in here but I thank you for making honest, conscientious efforts to contribute positively to understanding the 1930s and 40s realities.

  1033. @German_reader

    “As for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz’s article, imo it’s not worth bothering with, since it’s so far removed from reality.”

    Ya not a single Jew was killed on purpose during the war(if they were the Soviet Union really did it and blamed it on the Germans) but over seven million germans were starved to death on purpose and we are not taught about it.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1034. @Incitatus

    Interesting. Thanks. Mind you I don’t think von Manstein’s critics and critical reviewers as quoted in Wikipedia are to be dismissed. But that doesn’t affect the evidentiary value of the two quotes you have chosen (especially the latter which supports my tentative view!).

  1035. @Incitatus

    No, Hitler did not summon him. Hacha made the request himself after advise from the British Government. Look now, you will get a good glimpse at how allied propaganda works:

    In any case, it was not Hitler who “brought things to a head”.40) With prior approval from his Cabinet, Dr. Hacha set out for his journey to Berlin in order to avert chaos breaking out in Bohemia and Moravia, which was threatening to erupt unless the Reich government intervened, following the declaration of independence by the Slovakian Diet on 14 March 1939. Dr. Hacha, who had been forbidden to make the journey by air because of his heart trouble and had left Prague by special train,41)

    Walendy

    Hacha’s daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin.

    Hacha, who was bothered by heart trouble, had a mild heart attack during his session with the German leaders. He agreed to accept German medical assistance, and he quickly recovered.

    Hoggan

    Germany hastily recognised Slovak independence, and therewith brought Czecho-Slovakia to an end. What was to happen to the Czech remnant? There was no one to guide it. Benes had resigned and left the country immediately after Munich. Hacha, his successor, was an elderly lawyer of no political experience. Bewildered, helpless, he could only turn to the great German dictator. Like Schuschnigg before him, he asked to be received by Hitler; and his request was granted. In Berlin he was received with the honours due to a head of state; and then instructed to sign away the independence of his country. Any fragment of reluctance was silenced by the threat that, otherwise, Prague would immediately be bombed. This was the most casual of Hitler’s many improvisations. As he confessed later,3 the German airfields were shrouded in fog, and no aeroplanes could have left the ground. Hacha hardly needed inducement. He signed as required; and harboured so little resentment that he served as a faithful German subordinate until the end of the war.

    AJP Taylor

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1036. @utu

    As I already knew, you cannot answer, which means you cannot defend your own statements made on this board.

    You said “ghettos” (plural); you can’t name even one. You go on about food rations without any specifics as to where, when, how, who. A total fraud and failure. Own it.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  1037. Sparkon says:
    @Ron Unz

    I did a Google search with the argument “miles mathis flat earth” and the first result is a PDF by Miles Mathis titled “The Earth is Not Flat,” where he says “the spooks are running a very visible disinfo campaign on the Flat Earth,” so I don’t know what you read of Miles Mathis’s work, but you must have missed that one, or got your wires crossed somehow.

  1038. @Seraphim

    In any event, both governments will resolve this matter through friendly mutual agreement.

    “Sphere of interest” does not mean annexation. Molotov came to Berlin and gave a fait accompli to Hitler. His “tone” was hard and already decided. Bessarabia, which you mentioned, doesn’t include Northern Bukovina or Bulgaria, which you didn’t. Stalin’s demands now went from Finland to the Aegean Sea, and they were not going to stop, as Hitler then clearly saw.

    “Stalin had every right to do so” … okay, but Hitler had every right to block him. In doing that he saved Europe, which FR does not want to admit. Hitler fought Stalin and lost, but only because his own Race opposed him and supported Stalin. This is the great shame that whores like FR refuse to admit or feel. In spite of all this, you still say “Germany started WW1 unprovoked and invaded and brought in the ‘revolution’ (and all the bloody mess that ensued).”

    You and I are opposed in every way so no point in trying to pretend we’re in civilized, consensus-seeking conversation about it. Lies and misrepresentation abound! P. S. I use the word Aryan because that’s the word Hitler used at the time.

    • Agree: Fox
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1039. utu says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    What do you think of Joseph Kennedy biography by David Nasaw? Recently I heard an interview with him at WAMC and he was very strong about lack of mafia connection in Kennedy career and there was not much about Hitler. Anyway, Nasaw is Jewish.

    Interestingly JFK hosted Charles Lindbergh in White House in 1962.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  1040. @Carolyn Yeager

    Your defense of Hitler’s white-on-white racism and colonialism doesn’t strike me as a WN as very attractive. That doesn’t mean that I therefore must prefer white-on-non-white racism and colonialism, controlled by Jewish finance no less. I have never expressed such preference. You are resorting to a false dilemma.

    As for NS Germany “needing” Russia’s and Ukraina’s agricultural products in order to survive, why could Germany not have grown those products itself? If has fertile soil enough. See : Germany-Soils Britannica.com

    My country which is far smaller than Germany and has a denser population not only feeds itself, it is after the US the biggest exporter of agricultural products in the world. See : The Netherlands is the second-largest agricultural exporter after US, DutchNews.nl. Why could Germany not have done the same? Hitler may have inherited the neglect of agriculture from his predecessors, but as a “genius” was he not supposed to solve all its problems effectively? Instead he concentrated on heavy industry and armament. Small wonder he “needed” agricultural products by stealing it from others.

    The reason why I as a WN reject Hitler and condemn him more than the Allied rogues of WW II, is that he is espoused by some as a lightening example for us, while exactly such a cult will bring us no more success than George Lincoln Rockwell with his “Hate Bus” or Savitri Devi with her “Esoteric Hitlerism”. Hitlerism is no winning strategy. The success of nationalist parties in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary proves that.

    Picture : How not to proceed : George Lincoln Rockwell’s “Hate Bus”

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1041. @Carolyn Yeager

    Let this be an answer : Wikipedia, Warsaw Ghetto, Famine :

    “…Nazi officials had calculated that a caloric intake of no more than 800 calories per day would result in the mass starvation of the ghetto prisoners within nine months.[42][43] They allocated different caloric targets for different ethnicities, corresponding with Nazi racial doctrine:[42]

    Germans: >2000 cal. per day
    Ukrainians: 1000 cal. per day
    Poles: 600 cal. per day
    Jews: 180 cal. per day

    And here is a picture. Are these starving people “crisis actors”?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  1042. @J. Alfred Powell

    Psyops 101: flood the world with false conspiracy theories in order to distract from and discredit truthful conspiracy research. Highly effective. Most people abandon all efforts to sort out nonsense from facts.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  1043. Fox says:
    @utu

    Where do you fetch your information from?

  1044. Fox says:
    @Anarcho-Supremacist

    You must not forget that this article is about Taylor’s book concerning the Second War. Taylor’s view, conclusions and insight into what was going on is profoundly unpalatable to the people who wanted the war to come.
    Naturally, if you chuck the EVIL HITLER dogma, you will have to deal with actual (not made-up) facts and reality, and the shining knights in armor look pretty pathetic when put in real contexts not shielded by decades of distortion, document falsification, judicial rulings, executions to drive the point home, smears, and open censorship.
    If the human spirit and character is worthy of the spark of the divine it may have, people like Churchill will be toppled from the pedestal arrogated to them, and all that comes with this worship.

    • Agree: A.R.
    • Replies: @Anarcho-Supremacist
  1045. Fox says:
    @utu

    Very good, why do the Poles still speak Polish if they were prevented to do so? Poznania is in German Posen, and it would be of interest to know the composition of the population there. I think your argument is going in the direction of a recent Polish suggestion to accord the descendants of Poles going to work in the Ruhr area in the 19th century Minority Status.

  1046. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Because you are a WN and somehow thinks it has any relation to National Socialism. Your movement is lead by Jews, ours by Adolf Hitler. Your definition of race is skin deep. Barbaric Russians have lighter skin than a black? They’re white like me! That’s also why you accept Jews and Poles who have never said a good thing about the white race.

    Hitler is the only person in history to have a mass racial m0vement. His “hate bus” almost brought your bourgeois world to an end. If there is something that is not a winning strategy, it is cucking to the enemy. Rockwells movement was a good fit to the American mentality. Hate always carried more currency there than in Europe. That’s why they killed him.

    Your agriculture argument shows a complete ignorance on the subject. Germany starved in WW1, hundreds of thousands died. And your solution to abandon weapons production is suicidal when the country is surrounded by hostile, heavily armed nations only looking for an opportunity to attack.

    If you consider the Jew friendly governments in those Slavic nations to be a success, then I will stick with Hitlers failure. As a white man I never got anything but hate from those people. They’d all feel closer to home in Israel than in an Aryan State.

  1047. Ron Unz says:
    @Flint Clint

    Well I’d certainly admit to being at times both ignorant and stupid, and I apologise if I’ve aggravated you. You’re one of my heroes, so I’ll refrain in future from referring to Miles Mathis on your website. I was just addressing general readership of the comments, not suggesting you read Mathis.

    Well, I probably should apologize for losing my temper. But glancing at the Miles Mathis website, it seemed filled with just about every crackpot notion I’d ever seen discussed on the Internet, and many that were entirely new to me.

    Regarding his energetic activities, here’s an analogy…

    Everyone knows that there are quite a number of child-molesters in America. And I think there’s actually pretty plausible evidence that the number may be much higher than officially recognized, quite possibly including many individuals in our political elites, which is obviously a very important issue:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-john-mccain-jeffrey-epstein-and-pizzagate/

    Now suppose there were someone who went around accusing just about everyone and his cousin of being a child-molester, based on the most ridiculous and insubstantial evidence. Maybe he’s just a nut or maybe he’s someone hired by the powerful child-molesters to generate enormous quantities of smoke and thereby protect them.

    Similarly, at best Mathis is just a nut and at worst he’s a disinfo agent, who seems to have attracted a wider following than I would have imagined possible. Basically, the idea is to mix in some of the more important and plausible “conspiracy theories” with such a quantity of rubbish that it makes them look totally ridiculous, and also encouraging the more gullible conspiracy-people to spread them all around as a package.

    Actually, I just Googled around a bit more and discovered that he also claims to have proben that PI=4!!!

    http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf

    So there’s actually a third possibility, namely that he’s just an Onion-type satirist or performance artist…

    In any event, all the future comments promoting or quoting Mathis will go straight into the trash, and maybe I’ll set the spam-filter to catch them.

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @utu
  1048. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well gee, did you bother to look at where that information came from … on the POLISH-written Wiki page? I have opined many times before about such pages at Wiki. All the information in that short “Famine” section comes from here:

    (September 25, 2019). “המומחים הישראלים נדהמו: רופאים יהודים ערכו מחקר סודי על רעב בגטו ורשה”. Haaretz. Retrieved September 27, 2019.

    Hebrew! And what did this page have under “Famine” prior to Sept. 2019?? That’s a worthwhile question, but I don’t have time to look at the “Talk” page right now. I would guess there was no “Famine” section before Sept. 2019.

    The only other source for famine is this: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/epic/pdf/winick_lecture_2005.pdf. But it seems to be a dead link. Hmm, Myron Winick sounds Jewish/Polish too, and this was a lecture he gave, not something he published. Columbia must have removed it.

    It’s endearing how the Jews and Poles work so well hand in hand with one another. But notice how the Jews got only 180 calories a day. I wonder what that would consist of? Grass soup?

    But Franklin said “Let this be the answer” for Utu who has provided no answer. Utu is pleased and accepts the input. Can anything be more ridiculous than you people who are trying so hard to support the Poles in their lies?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  1049. Anon[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean McBride

    Could you try answering a perfectly valid question with a complete sentence?

    Your reply, adjusted for lack of grammar, appears to be: “Europe is the brand names I know”.

  1050. @utu

    The Nazi “Starvation Policy” involved allied tactical and strategic bombing campaigns that destroyed their transportation systems. Vital necessities to sustain concentration camp inmates could not be delivered. There was also a typhus epidemic the German camp staff were dealing with, which was the actual reason why Zyklon B was used–to delouse clothing and other items to prevent the spread of diseases. Hitler’s scheme to exploit his war refugees as laborers turned out to be the death knell for thousands of concentration camp inmates. Starvation was one among many causes of death of those hapless people.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  1051. refl says:
    @Seraphim

    Regarding your account of the killings in Odessa, here an exerpt from the Wikipedia entry, just as an eye opener to anyone, who quotes such things:

    Depending on the accepted terms of reference and scope, the Odessa massacre refers either to the events of October 22–24, 1941 in which some 25,000 to 34,000 Jews were shot or burned, or to the murder of well over 100,000 Ukrainian Jews in the town and the areas between the Dniester and Bug rivers, during the Romanian and German occupation. The primary perpetrators were Romanian soldiers, Einsatzgruppe SS and local ethnic Germans.

    And I am sorry to say that this is a slippery slope. I would not even trust the count at Yad Vashem. If they cared for documentary accuracy, they should themselves go to Wikipedia and post some critical remarks on such numbers that are so completely apart from what they have gathered.
    At the same time, atrocities did happen, and to come to terms with this there needs to be an open discussion, not just on some fringe site as this.

    There is another thing that I would add from my perspective as a German to PhucQ’s remarks on the Russian culture of remembrance. I have myself become quite aware of it because I have been dealing with related matters.
    What struck me most is the complete absence of any memorial culture in Germany. A heroic cult of remembrance is out of the question and where I see it, even in Russia, I am highly critical by all of my own background – I understand,why they have it, but I doubt that it is good for them.
    What I mean is that there is in Germany no memorial culture at all, not even on the personal level. I only learned recently that a whole branch of my own family was cut of because the grand uncle in question went missing in the war and the family lacked the spirit of going through their ordeal together. I have read letters between my other grandfather and his father, written after the war. These letters have a tone that you would not want to sent them to your enemy.
    They might have been a freakish exception, but I have a sense that spiritually something broke apart with these people that could not be fixed. And then I see people in Germany today, who are able to beat you up when you display a German flag (the black-red-golden one – which was banned during the Nazi era and not even existed in the Kaiserreich!). These people are proud to be antideutsch.
    So we here are without any trouble able to produce self hatred to a degree that others quite possibly could not even imagine.

    • Replies: @PhucQ
    , @Seraphim
  1052. @Wizard of Oz

    I equate wars and other major human caused calamities with mystery/murder movie plots: Just go to the end of the tape (Okay, DVD) to learn who’s the bad guy, and unravel the plot. The end of the WWII DVD reveals communism expanding, Jews getting their “Homeland” sanctioned, while collecting reparations from a defeated, demoralized and despised German population, along with a convenient boogeyman to erect if anyone opposes their political/social/economic shenanigans, or notes the wealth and prominence of Jews being displayed by their media.

    Why would anybody be surprised to learn of “Hate Crime” Laws protecting Jews, while our public officials slavishly respond to marching orders from the Knesset? Those are merely indications of the same plots thickening.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1053. @Alexandros

    “…Your movement is lead by Jews, ours by Adolf Hitler…”

    The first part is not true, the second part is ridiculous. Hitler as a kind of “ghost Führer”!

    Russians, Poles and other Slavs are our fellow Europeans. They should be accepted as such, whether their leaders made mistakes in the past or not. WWII ended 74 years ago, we should live in the present.

    “…Rockwells movement was a good fit to the American mentality…”

    I seem to remember he had only some 20 followers.

    Germany starved after WW I because it didn’t have its agriculture in order. It had enough fertile soil to be food self-sufficient.

    The Slavic countries of Eastern Europe with nationalist governments have succeeded in refusing mass immigration of Third World “refugees”. They are not really “Jew friendly” but they understand that official anti-Semitism is not a winning strategy.

    If you want to win a battle you will have to be a realist.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1054. @Carolyn Yeager

    Your “guiding principle” is : If Poles say something it must be false because POLES ALWAYS LIE.

    You live in a much simpler universe than I do.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Anon
  1055. @Incitatus

    Your post is based almost entirely on “Fake News” quotes. Literally, since the Hitler quotes about murdering the Poles are forgeries originating with American journalists. Even the Nuremberg Tribunal (which had hanging the German leaders and making anti-German propaganda as its sole raison d’être) thought that piece of fakery was a little too blatant, and chose not to admit that document as evidence. Google the history of Nuremberg Documents PS-798, PS-1014, Raeder-27 and L-3, there is enough about this online (and in English) to check and figure out what is what.

    That William Shirer and his epigones kept propagating the war propaganda is hardly surprising. Shirer was a card-carrying fellow-traveler who got so obvious about his sympathies that he was eventually fired from CBS for it. Demonizing Germany was a natural part of his agenda, and playing fast and loose with the truth was old habit.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1056. Incitatus says:
    @utu

    “Stalin calculations were driven by his paranoia and lack of understanding of the West.”

    No fan of Stalin, but who in the west (or east) had a reliable understanding of events evermore in transit?

    More condemnable is Stalin’s mistrust in his own intelligence. Forewarned of Barbarossa he dithered. A trait Manstein also attributes to Hitler.

    “He [Stalin] thought that Hitler was much more predictable and less cunning than the West which probably was correct.”

    “Less cunning”? As in ‘having or showing skill in achieving ends by deceit or evasion’? “Correct”? Really?

    What, prior to 22 Jun 1941, did the “West” do vis-à-vis Stalin that was more ‘cunning’ than Soviet slap-and-tickle romance with Nazi Germany?

    Oppenheimer describes the bi-polar atomic age as two scorpions in a bottle.

    Hitler and Stalin? Earlier bottle, different scorpions 1939-41.

    • Replies: @utu
  1057. with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in February 2003.

    You’d think that just about everyone here, with the possible exception of lil ole Greta, would be able to recall, from personal memory no less, that the event in question actually took place in March 2003. Using this misremembered factoid as the opening salvo for your missive does your credibility no favors. Perhaps you should consider employing David Irving as a fact-checker, enamored as you seem to be of his pertinent skeelz in this area; he seems to have a lot of free time on his hands nowadays.

    • LOL: Ron Unz
  1058. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    ‘What does that mean’?
    “It means that you are using words the meaning of which is not clear to you.”

    Actually I asked what you (your words) meant [#1030]. N’est-ce Pas?

    “In other words: There is no language “Czechoslovakian”. When German troops with the assent of the Czechs occupied Czechia (formerly called Bohemia) Czecho-Slovakia had already ceased to exist due to the secession of the Slovaks and Ruthenians a few days before”

    That’s very interesting. Please tell us about the “secession of the Slovaks and Ruthenians”. Who were they? What were their aims, who funded them?

    “neither England nor France had any objection to it, as the conditions on which Czecho-Slovakia had been guaranteed in the Munich accord had ceased to exist (words of Chamberlain).”

    Please produce the “words of Chamberlain” excusing Hitler’s invasion of rump Czechoslovakia. Please explain why he (with France) guarantied Polish sovereignty.

    “Czechs and Germans had lived as neighbors for more than a thousand years, and there was a much better case for cooperation and goodneighborly existence than playing the handpuppet of selfish and cynical powers far away.”

    Yes, yes, yes! And now Austrian Mr. Big wanted to get even closer. But he wasn’t selfish or cynical, Woton forbid!

    You’re not a fertilizer salesman by any chance?

    Stay well, Fox.

  1059. PhucQ says:
    @refl

    Thank you for your comments.
    I am rather reserved about Wikipedia, though. I happened to come across a couple of entries there (which I was fairly good familiar with) that were absolutely biased and designed to stir negative feelings under the disguise of “impartial” narrative. I do not believe Wiki any more as practically any geek can enter or edit info there.
    Apparently Wiki is another project with a hidden agenda. They will certainly give the exact numbers for the Earth diameter and the distance to the Moon, and the exact dates when Christ died and Queen Elizabeth was born. This will create trust. But on some super sensitive or strategic issues it will pursue the same policy as I mentioned above – to mislead the sheeple’s mind in the designated wrong direction.

    Wiki equals CNN or other MSM outlets. You can’t say everything they report is a lie. However….

  1060. @Ron Unz

    In any event, all the future comments promoting or quoting Mathis will go straight into the trash,

    Good decision, Ron! Another would be to do the same for all comments that use Wikipedia as its knowledge source. Sometimes Wiki can be useful, I know, but I would forego it if my adversaries were forced to also. How about it? I mean, if you want serious discussion here … and you said you were a serious person.

    (That would get rid of Franklin Ryckaert.)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1061. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well, Utu is a Pole and he lies, and so can’t answer when he’s questioned about things he says. You come in and answer for him, just as you did for Szopen. When you’re confronted with a Pole’s lies, you close your eyes, shake your head, and won’t listen.

    All three of you tell lies.

    What are we going to do about all these lies? You don’t accuse Adolf Hitler of lying, only of not tolerating these liars the way you do. Yes, you tolerate lies with ease. But you don’t tolerate those who don’t tolerate liars. You hate that kind of intolerance.

    Food for thought.

    • Replies: @Anon
  1062. @utu

    Nasaw’s biography of Hearst is the best of the three I’ve read and his biography of JPK is the best of four. “Under the circumstances” of denial, opprobrium and slander to which advocates of American non-intervention in the 30s are subjected today, Nasaw’s handling of this aspect of Kennedy’s character and career are fairly even-handed, though not as probing or as pointed as I would have preferred.

    My sense is that the insertion into the popular mind of “bootlegger” as the first attribute of JPK that “comes to mind” is the result of a campaign of slander prompted by JPK’s important anti-interventionist stance in the late 30s. Given his visible finances through the 20s, it is certain that he did not need to resort to bootlegging to make his fortune. Nasaw regards it as unlikely. Amanda Smith (editor of his letters, Hostage To Fortune) puts what seems to be deliberate over-emphasis on the absence of evidence in his papers and their previous exposure to the opportunity for censoring by interested parties — so she appears to position herself as agnostic on the question without saying so. Seymour Hersh (Dark Side of Camelot) presents JPK as involved with the Mob to the point of being able to ask for favors. I’m not clear how much weight to grant Hersh, or his sources. My sense is both should be treated with gingerly scepticism.

    Anyone who takes the time to become seriously acquainted with primary sources on Lindbergh — his diaries, for instance — will realize that people who depict him as pro-Nazi, anti-semite, etc., are slanderers and utterly exposed and disgraced by their own campaign of vilification. Charles Beard called them the “smearbund” and they are more with us now than in the 30s — which is itself a telling fact.

  1063. @Franklin Ryckaert

    As an inspiration obviously. If you want to start a democratic revolution, he gives you the actual working recipe. From how to build a party based on an idea and gain popular support, to battling antifa and defeating parliamentary hacks.

    By that token Jews are our fellow Europeans by virtue of the length of their stay here. The word Pole is ancient Germanic for foreigner “the people outside our landpoles”. And at every opportunity since the advent of their nations they have reiterated that fact. Some say the Russian contribution to civilization is Kalshenikov’s and Vodka, but they also gave us the word pogrom. The Czech’s once massacred thousands of Jews because one of their member had thrown sand at a Priest. In Poland there were “excesses” as late as the 1960s, causing a Jewish refugee crisis.

    Hungary are Magyars and was completely Jew infested until they had the grace of German military units restoring order to their country. They’ve mumped it up good now though, or gone back to basics if you will, with President Orban deep in Jewish pockets. I wonder why their famed influence doesn’t induce him to embrace Islamic immigration like it does in so many other countries? Why isn’t the media denouncing him as a racist? A literal Hitler! Perhaps because the Jew likes nothing better than a country where the lower classes hates him, creating constant incidents to play up the victim angle, and a ruling class which submits to him. In the West he can get the latter, and with primitives from Islam taking over he will soon get the former as well. In the West the Jew is no doubt bemused that his exploitation is taken on the chin. But, perhaps in realization of his own lack of moderation, the Jew always fears a boiling point will be reached, and with white people that boiling point is personified by Hitler. No such fears exist for the Slavic world.

    Nor is there any compassion or sense of loss to the eventual downfall of the West either. On the contrary they welcome it because our downfall increases their power.

    Rockwell had a good idea with bad imagery. A little early for Heil Hitler! in those days. The more Jew friendly KKK with the same hate based formula held political influence well into the late 20th century. He was real and tenacious though, and had organizational ideas, something not seen since in race movements in America. Now it’s Ben Shapiro and Lauren Southern leading the kosher nationalism. And Richard “Israel First” Spencer, the goy alibi. Then further down the totem pole there is the Donald himself, the so called Nazi President, who’s family had such close ties to the Netanyahu family that the Israeli Prime Minister reminisces sleeping in their beds. What else do we have? How about Neo Nazi Andrew Anglin, the man behind the Stormer and White Sharia, a Jew. They even let him on Israeli television. We can also mention Tommy Robinson, close to a mainstream nationalist, he too is Jewish. Then there’s Jordan Peterstein, who uses his celebrity intellect and white credibility to further Jewish causes. So much for the lack of Jewish leadership or submission to Jewry in the WN movement.

    Germany did not invade the USSR because they feared starvation, they did it because they thought it would force England to end the war. The agriculture argument was a long term and wholly secondary matter. It was envisioned to support a future increase in the population and relieve the soil pressure in central Europe. Oil, metals and minerals were far more immediate concerns.

    A realist would know that there is zero chance of any political revolution under current economical circumstances. This is all just propaganda for a possible future. If that equation changes in a favourable way there will be no reason to avoid real solutions to real problems. As is the word racist is enough to reduce one self to irrelevance. Clearly a race revolution is not imminent in such a climate.

    • Replies: @PhucQ
  1064. @Carolyn Yeager

    Wikipedia is often good for a prima facie case: enough to get up a case to be answered or at just taken further.

    One way to use it when someone objects to its very detailed and apparently meticulous version, or just a short version where you would be somewhat surprised that anyone had a motive to distort the facts is to challenge the objector to show his bona fides by attempting yo edit it and reporting back on any problem. (That reminds me to check on the version of Wikipedia who said that someone I worked for was in effect, racist, which was plain wrong. I mentioned this to his biographer who said he would take steps to fix it. So, that is an example of a serious scholar, with many major biographies to his credit, taking a completely different attitude to Wikipedia to yours).
    .

  1065. @David Baker

    I see. Your posts should be taken as fictional or figurative. Your “marching orders from the Knesset” is a suitably florid reminder of that. (In case you have trouble with pedantic analyses, the Knesset doesn’t give “marching orders” at least not to foreigners).

    • Replies: @David Baker
  1066. Wally says:
    @utu

    The increasingly desperate utu has no proof for any of that childishness, only Zionist propaganda.
    And notice he doesn’t present any.

    It’s claimed that millions upon millions of ‘holocausted’ human remains exist in allegedly known locations, but in fact there are no such remains.

    See Zionist utu demolished on his laughable attempt to support the absurd & impossible ‘Nazi gas chambers’:
    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/
    comment #429

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1067. Incitatus says:
    @John Regan

    “Your post [948] is based almost entirely on “Fake News” quotes.”

    Really? We’re all akimbo! Kindly cite the quotes.

    Please provide alternate sources [cv’s, published works] that prove Shirer is wrong. While at it Beevor, Burleigh, Bullock, Childers, Fest, Kershaw, Longerich, Sereny, Speer, Ullrich, Weber. Are all wrong?

    Take your time. We’re all ears.

    PS. Don’t bother with codoh and Wally.

    “That William Shirer and his epigones kept propagating the war propaganda is hardly surprising.”

    “Epigones”? Great word. “Surprising”?

    Why is it surprising? Please be specific. Help us out.

  1068. Wally says:
    @szopen

    Yawn. Beck’s speech which only exposes Poland’s propaganda.

    Szopen would rather dodge the facts:
    Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion.

    ”under Polish pressure the Germans in the southern and eastern districts were subjected to oppressive treatment. On Aug. 19 1920 the Poles felt strong enough, indeed, to make an attempt to seize the country by force. On all sides bands of Poles, chiefly recruited from Congress Poland, usurped authority. A number of Germans were forcibly carried across the frontier into Poland, and many were killed. Several weeks elapsed before it was possible to quell this rising and restore order…It had been suggested by the Entente that non-resident Upper Silesians of the German Reich should vote outside Silesia, at Cologne. Germany protested against this, and her protest was recognized as valid by the Entente. In January 1921 the date of the plebiscite was fixed for March 20 1921.
    An immediate revival took place in the use of terrorism by the Poles, especially in the districts of Rybnik, Pless, Kattowitz, and Beuthen. It reached its climax in the days preceding the plebiscite. Voters from other parts of the German Reich were frequently refused admission to the polls; sometimes they were maltreated and even in some instances murdered; and houses where outvoters were staying were set on fire… The day after the plebiscite the Polish excesses recommenced, and from that date onwards continued without interruption… Practically all the towns voted for Germany… the first days of May witnessed a new Polish insurrection which assumed far greater proportions than the former one. Korfanty had secretly raised a well-organized Polish force which was provided with arms and munition from across the border, and was reinforced by large bodies of men from Poland…
    By June 20 the British troops had again occupied the larger towns, while the Poles had the upper hand in the rural districts. As a result of the difficulties in paying his men and providing them with food Korfanty now lost control over his followers. Independent bands were formed which plundered the villages, ill-treated the Germans, and murdered many of them.”

    – 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “SILESIA, UPPER”

    and:

    – Polish newspaper Die Liga der Grossmacht in October, 1930:

    A struggle between Poland and Germany is inevitable. We must prepare ourselves for it systematically. Our goal is a new Battle of Tannenberg. However, this time, a Tannenberg in the suburbs of Berlin. Prussia must be reconquered for Poland, and Prussia, indeed, as far as the River Spree. In a war with Germany there will be no prisoners…

    recommended:

    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
    “Dokumente polnischer Grausamkeiten. Verbrechen an Deutschen 1919-1939 nach amtlichen Quellen” (Documentations of Polish Cruelties. Crimes Against Germans 1919-1939 According to Official Sources).: https://www.amazon.com/Dokumente-Polnischer-Grausamkeiten-Verbrechen-Deutschen/dp/3887411781

  1069. Adrian says:

    In a previous post I wrote about the Dutch refusal to hand over the German emperor, Wilhelm II, to the allies. I quoted from the Erasmus Law Review.

    As it happens the present issue of the London Review of Books also has an article about it, by Stephen Sedley “What to do with the German Kaiser”. It provides details not mentioned in that Law Review.

    They concern a laughably amateurish attempt to kidnap him. Obviously international hoodlumism had not progressed to the stage at which it is now under the impetus of Mossad and the CIA,

    The misadventure “ was undertaken in early January 1919 by a group of American troops led by Colonel Luke Lea, the commander of the 114th field artillery, a volunteer regiment Lea had raised in Tennessee and the Carolinas.”

    The emperor was then at the request of the Dutch government a guest at the castle of Count Godard van Aldenburg Bentinck in Amerongen.

    “With three junior officers and three sergeants, all Americans, Lea set off for Amerongen with the aim of snatching the Kaiser from Bentinck’s château and delivering him to Paris (or, as he much later bragged, to the US government, which would be ‘legally obliged to string him up’). “

    The American officers managed “ to reach Amerongen with firearms concealed under the car seats; once there Lea used his knowledge of German to order a sentry to admit them. Introducing themselves to the count’s son as American officers, they attracted instant suspicion. When Wilhelm declined to see them, they offered him a safe conduct to Paris, with an assurance that a loyal leader such as the Kaiser was unlikely to suffer any punishment worse than exile. When the offer was unsurprisingly refused they retreated to their cars, around which two companies of Dutch soldiers were now taking up position. They made it to the frontier with an inscribed bronze ashtray that one of the officers had stolen.”

    • Replies: @Adrian
  1070. Incitatus says:
    @Wally

    Please quote (links please) Utu’s “Zionist propaganda”.

    Confess, Wally. You’re just a cheap date with nothing to offer.

    PS. Is codoh paying you enough?

  1071. Incitatus says:
    @Alexandros

    [Too many vacuous insults.]

  1072. Incitatus says:
    @Alexandros

    “No, Hitler did not summon him. Hacha made the request himself after advise from the British Government.”

    Tell us how that worked. London required Háche present himself 14 Mar 1939 at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin? Who issued his visas? Why was he kept waiting until early next morning? Was that the English too?

    What about Göring’s threats to bomb/destroy Prague in a matter of hours. Was that London?

    Give us a clue.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Wizard of Oz
  1073. @Incitatus

    Thanks. Reaffirmations of sanity for a UR commenter are needed.

  1074. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The discussion was about Hitler’s right to assure the security of the Reich. Stalin had every right to assure the security of USSR. Actually that is the duty of the leaders of any country.
    USSR declared its interest in the areas of south-east Europe and Bessarabia and Germany its ‘COMPLETE political disinterest’ in the same areas on 23 August 1939 (date of the Pact) clearly raising the possibility of a new partition of Poland. Before any ‘fait accompli’. The war started a week later. It was not out of moral outrage at the annexation of Northern Bukovina (Bulgaria was not annexed as you seem to suggest) that Hitler invaded Russia. Why did he invade Yugoslavia (which was part of those South-Eastern areas in which he declared he was ‘completely disinterested’ while recognizing the interest of USSR?
    Obviously we are not on the same page and obviously you can’t pretend you are ‘civilized’ when you treat as ‘whores’, ‘idiots’, ‘liars’ and other niceties people who are not in ‘consensus’ with you.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
  1075. Adrian says:
    @Adrian

    Whether Wilhelm deserved all that care is another matter. Max Weber, according to the philosopher Karl Jaspers the “greatest German of his time”, once remarked bitterly that Germany’s fate in and after the war was its punishment for having allowed itself to be ruled by a fool like Wilhelm.

  1076. Seraphim says:
    @refl

    My quotation was not from Wikipedia which is intentionally vague on the subject, conflating different events.
    The source is:
    Dora Litani, “The destruction of the Jews of Odessa in the light of Rumanian Documents” in Yad Vashem Studies, VI, 1967) . She quotes the ‘Carp Archive’. Matatias Carp was the author of “Cartea neagra: fapte si documente. Suferintele evreilor din Romania 1940-1944″/Black Book: Facts and Documents. The Sufferings of the Jews of Rumania 1940-1944” – alternatively translated as “Holocaust in Romania: Facts and Documents on the Annihilation of Romania’s Jews 1940-1944”, book intended to document the compensation claims of the Jews as a complement to the “The Black Book of Soviet Jewry” of Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossman, prepared by the ‘Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC)’ and members of the American Jewish community to document the anti-Jewish crimes of the Holocaust and the participation of Jews in the resistance movement against the Nazis during World War II. The book was banned by Stalin and published only in 1991 in Kiev.

    She quotes the note sent by Molotov on the 6th of January 1942 to all Embassies and Legations who had diplomatic relations with USSR, regarding the “atrocities perpetrated by the nazis on the territory of USSR, especially against the unarmed Jewish workers, without any means of defense… In Odessa, 8,000 people, in majority Jews”.

  1077. @Seraphim

    Getting all red in the face with frustration as you have does not change the fact that you’re just repeating what you already said to what I already said. No new information. I did not dispute that Stalin could “assure the security of the USSR” as he saw fit. But the same goes for Hitler. You seem to be saying that Hitler had no right to invade the Soviet Union, and should be, what?, condemned for doing so? I don’t know what your point is. You don’t have one; you’re trying to create one.
    If Stalin doesn’t need any justifications, why does anyone else? You addressed me, I didn’t initiate any invitation to you. I avoid you.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  1078. Seraphim says:

    Do I need your ‘invitation’ to comment? You sound rather presumptuous, it’s not your personal blog. It’s a public forum for debates, not a propaganda platform for anyone’s pet theories on how the world should be run.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1079. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    The government of King Peter of Yugoslavia had been overthrown in spring of 1941 with the connivance of the Bolsheviks, hence only a fool would not draw any conclusions from that.

    That was, however, not the reason for the attack on the SU, only another piece of evidence regarding its (the SU’s) goals. It had been noted by Germany that since the previous summer a conspicuous amassment of Red Army troops had taken place along the border, in addition to the occupation of the Baltic States, as well as of the Bukovina and Bessarabia. “Sphere of interest” does not automatically signal the intent to occupy the area comprising this sphere, as you imply.
    I should like to remind the stalwart critics of Hitler in this matter that the West was spending immense treasure on preparing for war against the SU, immediately after the boneheads in London and Washington had accomplished their goal of eliminating Germany, the former bulwark against the East. London and Paris had been shielded for too long from the East, the Huns, the Mongols, the Turks were held off by the peoples of Central Europe, i.e. Germany in the first place, and to live in the security provided it was easy to became complacent and start playing idly in power politics without thinking. Hence, by arming themselves to the teeth, becoming hysterical and preparing for all-out war against the Bolsheviks after 1945, the “Democracies” gave tacit assent to Hitler’s expectation of Bolshevik intent and threat.
    All of this could have been avoided had intelligent people in London and Washington had influence instead of people of mediocre skill and hazy ideas about their glory and level of comfort they deserved (referring to the luxury hound Churchill and his costly life habits).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1080. Cyrano says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I am not an expert on Krautology, or anything like that, but even as casual observer, it seems to me that one of the biggest problems that you Krauts have is the total inability to challenge, or God forbid, disobey the leader.

    Even if the leader is a total nobody like Hitler. To be sure, Stalin was a nobody too, but in order to secure the obedience of the Russians, he had to terrorize them, while you – you volunteered your love and obedience to the Fuhrer.

    Not only the Fuhrer had a messianic complex, to make the things worse, you believed that he was a messiah too. So it’s hard to tell who was more psychotic, the Fuhrer, or his nation. That’s why I can envision that few more years down the road, thanks to your current masters, instead of a messianic leader, you might end up with Maasai-nic leader with a name like Kunta Kinte or something.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1081. @Fox

    I am no fan of any magical evil hitler dogma but I am also no fan of the Hitler did nothing wrong crowd. It makes the jobs of actual revisionists (David Cole being an example Unz is no fan of) a lot harder. I mean no one disputes that at least hundreds of thousands of Germans and maybe even millions died from being expelled from eastern Europe after the war but its never talked about. When you make up fantasies it makes it harder for revisionsists.

  1082. @Seraphim

    Glaring misrepresentation. You’ve addressed me twice (and insulted me twice), I’ve answered you twice but you’re still not satisfied? I certainly did not imply you needed my invitation to comment, only that I did not seek a discussion with you and do not find you a good discussion partner. Originally you posted:

    3. Concerning southeastern Europe, the Soviet side emphasizes the interest of the USSR in Bessarabia. The German side declares its COMPLETE POLITICAL DISINTEREST in these areas.

    Now you say “Why did he invade Yugoslavia (which was part of those South-Eastern areas in which he declared he was ‘completely disinterested’ while recognizing the interest of USSR?”
    You are placing Bessarabia in the Balkans? It is some ways away from Yugoslavia if you would just check a map. The reason he invaded Yugoslavia was because a coup engineered by the English-Soviet alliance toppled the German-friendly govt. in Belgrade (with which he had an alliance) and he had to re-establish control there so it would not become a third front. Pretty simple and totally justified.

  1083. @Cyrano

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. I’ve heard it all before.

  1084. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    The government of the Prince Regent Paul was overthrown because of the opposition of large parts of Serbian population and the Army to the adherence of Yugoslavia to the Tripartite Pact. Serbia was always against the Central Powers inroads in the Balkans (which led to WW1) and always friendly towards Russia, as sister Orthodox countries. If there was any ‘connivance’ in the coup it was British.

    The Baltic States were former Russian provinces practically annexed by Germany in 1918 and reclaimed by Russia who gave them the status of Soviet Unional Republics. Actually, Germany did not raise any objections as it did not raise any objection to the occupation of Bessarabia. As USSR did not raise any objection to the annexation of Northern Transylvania to Hungary. But it could not remain indifferent to the occupation of Romania by German troops in November 1940 and the dragging of Romania and Bulgaria into the Axis. There should be little doubt that Soviet espionnage knew about the Operation Otto and then Barbarossa.
    Germany incorporated the ‘Baltenland’ into the ‘Reichskommissariat Ostland’. Annexation in other words.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1085. Rules Of Engagement and battle tactics are the sore thumbs that expose the lies presented as the historical narrative. No explosive facts are required to be revealed in a tell-all book when considering this.

    The mainstream has presented the Nazis as the epitome of evil. If that were the case, any group completely lacking in morals would engage in terrorist warfare. If the Wehrmacht, Waffen, Volkssturm and foreign collaborators were so focused on destroying their enemies why wouldn’t they cut off the multiple heads of the snake all over the world? Why wouldn’t they simply have either killed or kidnapped the heads of Organized Jewry and the banking establishment who declared war in 1933? Since the Germans had the obvious technical know how to exterminate millions and destroy their remains, wouldn’t they also have the resources to pull off a strike on the elites and the backers of the Anglo-American system?

    Were the Nazis nothing more than a football team confined to fighting within the lines drawn on the field by their enemies? A real strategist takes out the managers and owners as in a corporate takeover. During a merger the hourly workers are definitely not the main focus.

    Isn’t it strange that all the Nazis and Al-Qaedas of the world ever manage to do is kill and terrorize the average man on the street instead of going after the head of “SPECTRE?”

  1086. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    Your “former Russian provinces” did very gladly quit that inclusion in Russia, and are still glad that they are not “a province of Russia”. The Russian Empire, as much as the Soviet Union, were artificial entities comprised of many different peoples, and they wanted independence an freedom. That’s why the SU ultimately failed, that’s why Yugoslavia failed, thhat’s why Czecho-Slovakia failed.
    In the document signed at Brest-Litovsk, peoples desirous of leaving the Russian rule, were given independence. That Russia didn’t like that is quite understandable, but nonetheless mistaken.
    It is common to point out that Austria broke apart because it included many different peoples within its borders. If this is accepted as a reason for its demise, you must accept the loss of “former Russian provinces” also.
    The First War was primarily caused through an attempt of Russia, France and England to realize their War Aims. Austria had troublesome hyper-chauvinistic neighbors, such as Serbia which was given support by Russia directly, and therefore emboldened to be totally uncooperative with Austria. Despite the temporary occupation of Belgrade, as planned and suggested by the Austrian government as a punitive action against Serbia, Russia, France and England were from the beginning arming against Germany, and indeed getting their troops ready to attack Germany from the west and the east. Austria did not really figure in their preparation for the war in 1914. Otherwise, they would have not put all of their energies into planning and making war against Germany. The Serbo-Autrian war in 1914 could have stayed as localized as the German-Polish war in 1939, had not forces in the dark wanted to trigger a general war.
    King (or Rince Regen) Peter was overthrown through mingling from without, not within Yugoslavia, especially the Russian Bolsheviks, the new government was immediately recognised by Moscow. Looks like more than casual disinterest to me.
    I can’t currently look it up, but I remember that either Germany asked Rumania whether it could have German troops aid in protection of the oil refineries at Ploesti, or Rumania asked for such support, and it was in either case on agreement,Rumania feeling threatened by the recent Soviet occupations and maneuvres in the east.

    Also, the joining of Rumania and Bulgaria of the Axis was volunatry, even if inspired by a threatening political situation, certainly a completely different phenomenon than occupation by troops, as in Bessarabia.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1087. PhucQ says:
    @Alexandros

    Some say the Russian contribution to civilization is Kalshenikov’s and Vodka, but they also gave us the word pogrom.

    Great! This gives a complete picture of what you know about Russia. OK. But Russia must be given undeniable credit for finally giving a name to what Europeans had been doing for at least a millennium and a half. Why don’t you check the list of pogroms spanning all of Europe from London eastward (except for Russia as the only 1143 pogrom in Kiev rid the country of the objects of pogroms for the better part of the ensuing millennium).

    Enjoy: COMPLETE LIST OF ATTEMPTED JEWISH EXPULSIONS (1,030) (with explanations and
    sources): https://lordmolyneaux.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/complete-list-of-jewish-expulsions-908/

  1088. To be fair the Kaleshnikov is a ripoff of a German rifle.

    That’s a list of expulsions. Europeans dominate it because when we settle a Jewish problem we try to do it for good. Admittedly, failing spectacularly at it.

    Here is a list of pogroms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#Selected_list_of_events_named_pogroms

    Suffice to say it has a distinct Eastern flavour to it.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @anon
  1089. Cyrano says:
    @Alexandros

    What kind of flavor does the Holocaust have, you monkey? Civilized western flavor?

    • Troll: A.R.
    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @Alexandros
  1090. refl says:
    @PhucQ

    He believes that “pole” is a German word for deliminating territory – where I allways thought that it means “land” in about every slav language that I have ever come across.

    Now I know “Poller”, I know “Pfahl”, “Pömpel”, “Pfeiler”, Pfosten”…, but no “Pole”, that must be english.
    Oh, I would call Alexandros a “Vollpfosten”, by the way.

  1091. @Wizard of Oz

    In case you haven’t noticed, Jews are the most unoriginal people on the planet. They couldn’t change their “6 million Jews” figure after dozens of articles were published prior to Hitler and WWII. They’ve been kicked out of every country, yet they continue to engage in their Talmudic, racist behaviors: Gaining control of medias, enacting and enforcing speech codes, banking, cultural issues and trade, fomenting foreign and domestic conflicts, faking “Hate Crimes” against their tribe, then coercing goy public officials to legislate laws that specify protecting them. It happens over and over again. Maybe goyim need to learn how THEIR history repeats under Jewish rule.

  1092. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexandros

    I blame Isabella.

    Just imagine — if Jews had not been expelled from Spain but rather contained in Spain — toss ’em a few bones, pat ’em on the head every so often, but keep them confined in one state.
    Maybe the RoW could have set up a fund to compensate Spain for absorbing the nuisance.

    Just imagine: no Jews in Netherlands
    No Jews in Poland
    No Jews in England
    No Jews in Germany
    No Jews in USA

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  1093. Zumbuddi says:
    @Cyrano

    “What kind of flavor does the holocaust have”

    A lot more like roasted pork sausage or sauerbraten than hummus or bagels.

    Far more Germans than Jews were roasted.

  1094. @refl

    I allways thought that it means “land” in about every slav language that I have ever come across.

    And you’ve come across plenty since you’re a Slav … masquerading as a German here, and possibly living in Germany. It’s pretty clear, since you’re usually on the side of the Slavs … I mean, Duh.
    Your terrible spelling also gives you away. Germans in their educational system learn English well, and I have never known one who misspells words in the way that you do. Like “allways” – perfect example. Smart women pay attention to details like that. That’s why so many men don’t like having smart women taking part in their discussion groups. They don’t get away with as much bs.

    • Agree: refl
  1095. @Incitatus

    Henderson advised them they better give Hitler a talk if they wanted to solve their crisis. I expect the travel arrangements were taken care of by letting his host know in advance he was coming. Hitler wanting him to come, but not appearing so, no doubt helped the procedure as well.

    Hacha arrived at 10.40 PM. After being told he had a heart condition (which was so serious he could only go by train), Hitler said for him to have 1-2 hours to relax after his trip. Hacha was admitted 2 hours later. This had the opposite effect as Hacha was anxious to see Hitler, and that stress very well could have contributed to his heart attack later. But if you want to believe the propaganda line that Hitler did this deliberately, to try and kill Hacha, then that needs some explanation. A dead Hacha does not give Germany what it wants. And it certainly does not give them the PR that they want. On the contrary, giving him full state honours when arriving would suggest they are trying to do the exact opposite. Dr. Morell was also on stand by, the man who revived him twice. Again the opposite of what is claimed happened. Instead of “drugging Hacha” to sign the document, the treatment from Morell apparently gave Hacha so much pep he now suddenly refused to sign. That’s where Goring comes in. An empty threat as both he and Hitler admitted later.

    Hacha’s motivation is also telling. He doesn’t fear a German invasion. He comes prepared with a monologue which is as close to “Heil Hitler” as a foreign statesman can go. His anxiety is caused by the Hungarian army invading his borders with backing from Poland, and the looming threat of the USSR to make good on their promise to “protect” his country. Out of all these attractive suitors he chooses Hitler and in retrospect was relatively happy to do so.

    Hitlers motivation is best summed up in his exchange with Henderson in August 39.

    The British Ambassador in Berlin, Henderson, tried once more, on 16 August 1939, in a letter to Mr. Strang, head of the Foreign Office’s central department, to generate an action in connection with this question: “Hitler’s remark that the Protectorate is a necessity for the moment [Henderson’s emphasis] may be worth remembering. I have some reason to believe that he is not satisfied with the solution of March 15 and realises that he made a mistake. Bohemia might in the end be a question of a formula, as the head of the S.A. said to me. It could be anything, so long as it is not reconverted into ‘a bastion against Germany’ and a bridgehead for an attack on Germany.

  1096. @Cyrano

    I taste East and South of the Oder. Those who manufactured the tale and lie about it. And the USSR’s attempt to project their own deeds onto it. What Illya Ehrenburg tells the Russian soldier to do in his propaganda leaflets, is what “historians” today claim Germany did to Russia. If there was a real Holocaust, a real burn offering in the millions, it was the firebombing of German civilians for 5 years.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  1097. Cyrano says:
    @Alexandros

    You know what’s the worst thing that the Nazis actually did? Calling themselves “Socialist”. It was supposed to fool communist sympathizers in Germany into supporting them. This was early on, when the Nazis needed any support that they can get. Later on, it didn’t matter, they felt safe enough to come out of the closet as rabid communist haters.

    That thing about the Nazis being “socialists” was a real good propaganda gimmick. It was so good that few decades later, the moronic western “liberals” decided to emulate, simulate and masturbate with the same idea. You see, that’s how multiculturalism was born.

    Western (read US) liberalism and Nazi socialism share one crucial quality – they are both phony, or in other words they don’t exist. But the Nazis were actually smarter. Their “socialism” was based just on just using the word socialism – it didn’t go any further than that.

    US “liberalism” decided to take the “leftist” propaganda line little bit further. In order to make it convincing, they changed the structure of their immigration so it can appear that they are genuine liberals.

    So to summarize, Nazis’ “socialism” begun and ended with just the word, nothing more. While the US “liberalism” begins and ends with immigration. It doesn’t go beyond that, but ii will be enough to wreck the western civilization. And they think that they are smart, that they fooled everybody. Maybe they did, but the joke is on them.

    Nazi’s Socialism and Western Liberalism – same old idea. If you can fake socialism, why not fake liberalism – all for the same purpose – saving capitalism. That’s actually what caused WW2. The great recession. Not Communism. Not the Russians. Not the Jews. And not the Germans. WW2 was caused because capitalism was in its death throes and WW2 saved it. Same with multiculturalism.

    The geniuses in the 60’s thought that capitalism is facing another existential crisis and that the phonines of multiculturalism will save it. Why not? Look what Nazism did for Germany. It almost saved them. And then it almost destroyed them. Not to worry, multiculturalism will finish the job.

    You see, multiculturalism, i.e. western liberalism is ideological brother of the Nazis’ National “Socialism”. It might be difficult to see the connection, but it’s there. They are both illegitimate children of propaganda.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1098. @anon

    They would have used the Spanish Empire to try to control the rest of the world. They did that with the British Empire, they are doing that presently with the American Empire.

  1099. @Cyrano

    That thing about the Nazis being “socialists” was a real good propaganda gimmick. It was so good that few decades later, the moronic western “liberals” decided to emulate, simulate and masturbate with the same idea. You see, that’s how multiculturalism was born.

    These are cultural Marxists, your “liberals”, and were thrown out of (fled from) Germany when NSDAP came to power. They fled to the US, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer etc, Marxists with the ideology to destroy the family and from within. Frankfurt School and critical theory, most of them Jews.
    The modern German Greens are the political party of the Frankfurt School, AOC and ilk are the US branch.

    The NSDAP were a very socially thinking party, due to the enormous social problems the democratic Weimar regime created.

    Seriously, pathetic “alternative” official narrative, Alex Jones like, but certified kosher.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Incitatus
  1100. @refl

    “…He believes that “pole” is a German word for deliminating territory – where I allways thought that it means “land” in about every slav language that I have ever come across…”

    In many (if not most) languages the meaning of a word for an enclosure shifts to the meaning of that which is enclosed. Thus the meaning of pole or a row of poles can shift to that which is enclosed by a row of poles i.e. “land”.

    The same happened with the meaning of the words town in English and tuin in Dutch. Originally these words meant “enclosure”, which can be seen in the German word Zaun which still means that. In English the meaning shifted to “that which is enclosed” : city, while in Dutch it shifted to “that which is enclosed” : garden.

  1101. @PhucQ

    It requires a lot of work to realize that one’s mind is not one’s mind but has been molded by the suggestion of others and deliberately by the state. The “Immortal Battalion” is not a grass roots phenomenon. It is nurtured and maintained by the state propaganda apparatus in preparation for the coming war. “Immortal Battalions,” like thousands of “committees” of “concerned” (0r outraged) “citizen’s groups” are fronts that would not exist if they were not sponsored by the state or another deep state entity.

    The siege of Leningrad was imposed on the city by the Communists. Those areas of the Soviet Union which were occupied were horrified by what the Communists forced Leningrad to go through. The French sensibly surrendered right away, and nothing happened to them (except when the Americans started bombing as they did in Rouen nearly destroying the Cathedral), but the Communist Party would not allow Leningrad to simply surrender because the Communists were indifferent to human suffering and loss of life, not because Leningrad was “heroic.” Zhukov let 80,000 soldiers die in a futile assault up hill because he risked not being first in Berlin. Many American commanders ordered futile assaults against the Japanese, as for example in Tarawa because they were interested in their own reputations and did not care in the least how many of their soldiers died. War monuments to “Alyosha” are a complete sham. The State does not care in the least how many Alyoshas are killed or maimed. But the state needs Alyoshas that will die for it in order for the state to survive.

    When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union you have not been told that many threw down their shovels in the mines and tools in the factories and cheered. Many joined the Wehrmacht, just as many French and Dutch did because they thought that Stalin was worse than Hitler, and that Hitler’s Germany represented something worth defending. WW II, as you should be able to gather here, was not the war of Germany against the world, but the world of of international Jewry manipulating client states to fight for the principle that no one can expel Jews just because they are harmful to the nation. The joke was that the Jewish anthem is “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Stalin, like the British, and the Americans had no choice but not to go to war against Germany.

    That was then. Who will be sent to war against whom in our time we shall see. But just as the First and Second Temples were destroyed as a logical consequence of what they stood for, there is no reason to think that the Third Temple will be any different. By the way, someone who uses a pseudonym such as “PhucQ” is not “humble.”

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @PhucQ
  1102. Cyrano says:
    @Germanicus

    You must be part of the German “intelegencia”. No wonder Germany is where is today. There was 0 socialism in National Socialism. Do you understand? They were as far right as you can get. Socialism is on the opposite side of the political spectrum – left.

    If the Nazis were socialist, it wouldn’t make sense for them to hate Communism. Comprende? Or maybe the Nazis were “moderate” leftist and the communists were extremist leftists. In your propaganda filled worldview – that’s probably the case.

    Same thing with the US. They are “moderate” leftists, and yet they hated every left wing leaning country in the world and they made sure they did something about it. From Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Vietnam, North Korea. Every country that ever showed any signs of leaning left – was a target of US And yet – they are leftist.

    You have no clue about politics or propaganda or anything like that. Just gobble up the official story and pretend that you know something. One of the true leftist leaders in the western world that I can think of – was Pierre Trudeau. Unlike his dumb son, he was a real leftist. He was a personal friend of Castro – I think he even went to his funeral. And he was also a great admirer of Mao.

    The rest of the western “liberals” are all phonies. They don’t even have a clue what liberal even means. Same as you.

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

    • Troll: Germanicus
    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1103. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    I have no doubts that history written by ‘Europeans’ would be dominated for a long time to come by the ingrained anti-Eastern, anti-Russian bias which is one of the building blocks of (West) ‘European’ identity as the navel of the World and the pinnacle of ‘civilization’ (with Germany on top of the pile) and the “bulwark against the Barbarians of the East” (with Germany on the front line).
    It doesn’t pay much attention to ‘local’ histories (moreover if it were some ‘Balkanik s…hole’ like Serbia). The myth of perpetual Russian aggression is central to Western mythology.
    E.g. ‘King (or Rince Regen) Peter was overthrown through mingling from without, not within Yugoslavia’. There are two different persons.
    Peter II Karađorđević (the son of Alexander I and of Maria of Romania) became King after the assassination of his father. Being under age a Regency was instituted in the person of Prince Paul Karađorđević, cousin of King Alexander. He concluded the Pact with the Axis and the coup was directed at him. He was the one deposed by the coup and King Peter, at age 17, was proclaimed of age after a British-supported coup d’état. Moscow recognized it immediately because of her interest (I am not sure what ‘casual disinterest’ means to you). King Peter was forced into exile by the German attack (on the Orthodox Easter Day, eerily replicated by the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999).

    • Replies: @Fox
  1104. @Cyrano

    You are a whiny crybaby, who can’t deal with facts.
    The NSDAP was a leftist party, in competition with jewish communism.
    Within NSDAP, the was a right wing and a left wing, who were sometimes not on the same page. Goebbels belonged to the left wing.

    Funnily, the communists sat on the right in the Reichstag, the NSDAP on the left, which is where the left/right comes from, you frankly, uneducated moronic ideologue.

    Liberal in a German context is Kant, and I am sure you never heard of him.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  1105. Incitatus says:
    @Germanicus

    “The NSDAP were a very socially thinking party, due to the enormous social problems the democratic Weimar regime created.”

    Kindly enumerate the mythic “enormous social problems the democratic Weimar regime created”. Spare no effort.

    Is it “socially thinking” for five uniformed SA to break into a man’s home and beat-him-to-death in front of his mother? Konrad Pietrzuch in Potempa (Upper Siiesia) 9 Aug 1932?

    What about (after the five were convicted) Mr. Big’s very publicized telegram: “My comrades! In the face of this monstrous blood-judgment, I feel bound to you in unlimited loyalty. Your freedom is from this moment a question of our honor. The fight against a government under which this was possible was our duty!” [“Meine Kameraden! Angesichts dieses ungeheuerlichen Bluturteils fühle ich mich Euch in unbegrenzter Treue verbunden. Eure Freiheit ist von diesem Augenblick an eine Frage unserer Ehre. Der Kampf gegen eine Regierung, unter der dies möglich war, unsere Pflicht!”];

    Problems the NSDAP perpetrated, narratives they invented, phony outrage.

    “very socially thinking party”? Don’t think so. They were thinking about power.

    They got it 30 Jan 1933. Turned Germany and much of Europe into a graveyard in a dozen years.

    • Disagree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1106. Cyrano says:
    @Germanicus

    Funnily, the communists sat on the right in the Reichstag

    You know, you are right. After carefully examining your well educated reply, I realized that I was wrong. And then a revelation came upon me. You know who are the last remaining true left wing countries in the world?

    They are: Great Britain, Australia, India, also I believe South Africa and I think Sweden used to be up until 1966-67. You know how I know this? Because they drive on the left side of the road. The rest of the world are just right wingers masquerading as left.

    Actually they are left wing too, but only for a very brief moments when they pass a slow moving cars – probably driven by slow dimwits like yourself.

    I think actually that’s why Great Britain wants to leave EU. Because all of you are right wingers, and they are the only true left, left in Europe. I think you are genius. You should run for office. That’s why you arrogant dimwits caused 2 WW’s, because you are clueless and you think that you know everything.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1107. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    I don’t follow your post. I am not an adherent of any school of thought that promulgates eternal Russian danger for Europe, but I do believe that for Western Europe it would be best to be well armed and make sure that everyone including those in the East and in the West, as well as from any other possible direction- understands that this is Europe, the home continent of European people, their part of the world, where there ancestors lived and their descendants should also. Unfortunately, with today’s “”””elites”””” in Europe (one irony quotation mark won’t suffice), no understanding of national feeling for the different peoples of Europe is possible. It’s foreign to them, and they sell themselves along with their peoples to the next fashionable, and hyper-moralistic bidder that comes along. (I am thinking here in particular of the former carrier Bolshevik and friend of the Soviet Union Merkel, then in 1989 short-time Western “Democrat” and now fullblown anti-German Zionist and multiculturalist, also acting without any regard of other European nations in her destructive mania). Such flexibility in principal matters is usually not exhibited with as much publicity as in her case.

    Nonetheless, Russia gave support to Serbian ultra-chauvinism before the First War, whatever the reasons may have been, pan-slavism, imperial ambitions, the desire to lay hands on the Bosphorus, I am sure you have it all laid out in your historically correct map of events. This was done in concert with France and England with their own war aims.

    Why don’t you look at it this way: Germans want to be left free from the desires and ambitions of its neighbors who always seem to conspire in ententes, leagues, alliances, secret or not, to deprive the little Germans have wrested from the little land they have. As regards eliminating Germany, the combined forces of destruction have done a thorough job, and whatever Germany is producing now can’t compete with that of the past, it’s rather pathetic, just look at modern German literature or cinema, science is now a poor copy of others, engineering is also not what it used to be. The Wagner productions in Bayreuth are quite remarkably messed up by post-war Germans who had everything taking from them by the ambitious people coming with blazing guns from all directions the wind blows from. So far your idea about Germany as being at the pinnacle of civilization. That’s the idea of people who always had immense misgivings about this nation in the heart of Europe and the remarkable feats it has produced.

    To Yugoslavia:
    Maybe it would be better not to sponsor overthrows of governments in times of high tensions. It’s rather like throwing a match in a barrel of gasoline. Hence, the SU might not have hastened to give support of the newly-installed anti-German government in Yugoslavia. Why do something so foolish? Also, why is all the fingerpointing directed agaisnt Germany in this instance. Wasn’t it Italy causing the avalanche in the Balkans?

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Seraphim
  1108. Seraphim says:
    @ploni almoni

    Perhaps Hitler’s greatest mistake was that he expected that the Russians would not fight and surrender in mass awed by the German ‘superiority’. To his frustration, Russians did fight. War is not an entertainment show and soldiers are expected to die, nay, to sacrifice their lives defending their country as the rule.”We shall never surrender” (Churchill).
    Hitler made the mistake that Bismarck tried in vain to warn against: Don’t take on Russia!
    To quote (again) Bismarck:
    “It could be argued here if such a war could possibly have the consequence that Russia, as Count Kálnoky puts it, would be “smashed”. Such a result is beyond all probability even after the most brilliant victories. Even the most favorable outcome of the war would never result in the decomposition of Russia’s main power, which rests on the millions of actual Russians of the Greek [Orthodox] Confession. These, though separated by treaties, would always reunite as quickly as the parts of a cut-up body of mercury. This indestructible empire of the Russian nation, strong by its climate, its deserts, and its frugality, as well as the advantage of having only a border to be protected, would, after its defeat, remain our native and revolted adversary, just as France today is in the West”.
    “Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians have always come for their money. And when they come – do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play”.
    Hitler played and lost. The Russians came for their money, as Bismarck prophesied. And there were the Germans that surrendered.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @David Baker
    , @Fox
  1109. Miggle says:
    @geokat62

    there won’t be any more white people around, and that’s a good thing…

    Looks very anti-racist. It’s not surprising that an anti-racist activist would write that.

  1110. @Incitatus

    Alexandros’s reply is interesting. Any comment? For some purposes it is enough to ask whether it casts doubt on the simple idea that the invasion of Czechoslovakia put an end to reliance on Hitler keeping his word or otherwise being of sufficiently pacific disposition to make it sensible to avoid confronting him.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1111. L.K says:
    @Fox

    Great posts, keep up the good work…

    That said, you know your dealing with one of the ‘blame Germany for everything’ crowd, and a Team Russia chauvinist(Seraphim) to boot.
    Trying logic and facts with these miserable trolls is like running head first against a brick wall.

    This clown even puts the blame for WW One squarely at Germany’s feet as well, Russia completely blameless as usual… claims the Nestbeschmutzer Fritz Fischer ‘proved’ it… in reality Fischer’s thesis has been totally destroyed by various historians, or, as P. Gottfried said, it has been dying the death of a thousand cuts for quite a while…

    Anyway, you must have learned by now in your dealings with this ‘Seraphim’ the real meaning of the term “double standards”, have you not?

    Take care

    • Replies: @Fox
  1112. @Seraphim

    You may be right, but his 2nd greatest mistake was to engage his country in a widening conflict which eventually enjoined the U.S. A similar booboo occurred during the First World War. Their alliance with Japan made absolutely no sense, until you realize why Pearl Harbor spurred Americans to retaliate against Japan…then Germany. Like the Iraq War, Germany wasn’t threatening America, yet we were ‘obligated’ to destroy the Axis.

    At least Lindbergh identified the usual suspects….

    We’re now on the precipice of a similar conflict. Hmm, is the 7th Fleet operating carriers in ‘Harm’s Way’?

  1113. @Incitatus

    I don’t want to burst you red bubble, but the SA was created as a reaction to the communist street thugs, nowadays called antifa.

    When young people met at NSDAP events, it was the communists who initiated street violence, you call it nowadays “cancel culture”.

    Don’t bother to read any NSDAP program, don’t bother listening to speeches, don’t bother researching the KdF program, the VW Beetle story and many other things.
    Post war Germany profited from the NSDAP policies, but it is of course forbidden to say so. The communists took over and used the KdF, they called it FDGB.

    Go on and pretend, all was well and cozy during the democratic Weimar regimes, with huge unemployment, hyper inflation, hunger, political circus, inaptitude and (sexual) degeneracy. Almost like the US in 2019 and what emits from Hollywood.

    You know what books were publicly burnt symbolically? Magnus Hirschefld’s degenerate works and Frankfurt School smut.
    The modern enforced Weimar regime named a promenade in Berlin after Hirschfeld, and the cities have shameful monuments to communist criminals and terrorists, moron.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1114. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    You don’t follow my post because you read it through the ‘Europocentrist’ glasses (with German colored lenses). Actually you read history through these glasses when you use as self-evident catch-words like ‘pan-slavism, [Russian] imperial ‘ambitions’, the desire to lay hands on the Bosphorus, Serbia ultra-chauvinism’. Russia had not ‘imperial ambitions’, Russia was an Empire for hundreds of years. Germany had imperial ambitions (it self-proclaimed an Empire in 1871 which lived a paltry 47 years before going up in flames).
    What would have Russia, or France, or Britain, gained by ‘depriving the Germans of what little they wrested from their little country’? They had plenty of everything, especially Russia who was offering Germans the opportunity to swim like fish in the sea of Russian expanses: German colonists in droves, explorers, businessmen, engineers (Alfred Rosenberg was a PhD of the ‘Moscow’s Highest Technical School’) administrators, army officers, professors, scientists, artists, tsars and aristocrates, admiration for German ‘Kultur’, mostly Germanophile inclinations. Russia was indeed the ‘Lebensraum’ of Germany in Tsarist times. Russia had no ‘war aims’ whatsoever against Germany. The reverse was unfortunately true. They wanted more (control of oil fields) and unwisely threw to the winds the policy of collaboration with Russia which worked so fine. It’s true for Britain and France too. They had no aims in Germany proper, they were too busy exploiting their expanding colonial empires. Germany wanted a portion of the colonial pie already occupied by Britain and France and claimed it in too boisterous and maladroit fashion which greatly alienated sympathies.
    Why ‘fingerpointing’ directed at Germany when Italy caused the ‘avalanche’? Was not Germany allied with Italy? Anyhow, the Tripartite Pact was a defensive alliance which would not oblige Germany to intervene but in the case that Italy was attacked, but Italy was the aggressor.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1115. @Fox

    Naturally, it would have been better for Germany to never have acquired colonial possessions,

    You plan on moving to Europe and donating your property to an Indian Reservation anytime soon?

  1116. @Rurik

    305 bodies

    it’s estimated that total count of victims would be around ten thousands

    Can you be sure to give us an update if they ever get around to exhuming those?

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  1117. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Supposed to go to szopen, just below.

  1118. @szopen

    Massacres in Piaśnica

    Due to the fact that in 1944, the Germans exhumed and burned many of the corpses in an attempt to hide the crime, the exact number of victims is not known

    Investigations carried out so far have established the names of about 600 of the 12,000 to 14,000 murdered

    [MORE]

    Thirty-six prisoners from the concentration camp KL Stutthof were chosen and brought to the forests in August 1944.[5] Chained and bound, they were forced to dig up the graves, remove the bodies and burn them in specially prepared forest crematoria

    • Replies: @1thinkingoutloud
  1119. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    I wonder how many tomatoes you have covering your eyes.

    (A saying Germans use to point out someone’s apparent lack of paying attention to what’s in front of this individual’s eyes).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1120. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    Are you familiar with Red Symphony (Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor) by Josif Maksimovitch Landowsky of interrogation of Christian G . Rakovsky? Have you encountered it being mentioned in WWII historiography you have read?

    https://archive.org/stream/RedSymphony/RedSymphony_djvu.txt

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1121. utu says:

    I recommend Peter Meyers compilations and comments on texts he read on his web site “Neither Aryan Nor Jew”:

    http://mailstar.net
    http://mailstar.net/antisemite.html

    “Zionists have gone to Poland to look for children of survivors, who were brought up as Poles. The Poles, clearly, just treated these children as their own – no thought of race. Imagine that you are one of these children. You hear someone telling you to change your identity – that you’re a Jew. If someone had not put this into your mind, it would not have occurred to you. Race-consciousness is an idea. If no-one puts the idea into your mind, you won’t be race-conscious.

    “From reading the works of Marx, who would have thought that criticism of Jews would be made a major crime in the first Marxist state, punishable by death or imprisonment in the gulag? Who would have thought that “Marxist” thought police in the West, would be following in the same path? The discrepancy is best explained as a Trotskyist conspiracy operating under the cover of a Marxist mask. Marx wrote three major essays disclosing and criticising the Jewish role in international finance: On the Jewish Question, The Jewish Bankers of Europe, and The Russian Loan; yet in the 150 or so years since, the Trotskyists have not contributed even one additional substantial article on this theme. In fact, Marx himself would have been jailed or executed in the early Soviet Russia, merely for possession of such literature.”

    “I say that the Jews are a religion, not a race as Nazis claim, and not a nation, as Zionists claim. In the same way, being a Moslem or a Christian is a matter of religion, not race. The Jewish religion, like the Islamic, encourages marriage within the faith; it is for this reason, and because the religion sees itself as a “blood” group descended from Abraham (even though it is not) – it is for this reason that Jews are mistakenly considered a race.”

    “Judaism is a religion with two variants: a theistic one which treats God as anthropomorphic, and an atheistic one (yet still religious – an atheistic religion like Buddhism). The theistic and atheistic branches of the Jewish religion are factions like the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam.”

    “We do not choose our ancestry or our name, but we do choose our religion, in the sense that we can change it. A person born into the Jewish religion may side with either of the above factions, may turn against both, or may give up any interest in such matters. In the end, only the individual knows, in his own mind, what his religious identification is. People should only be judged on those things they are responsible for, as individuals.”

    “The pacifist ethic within Christianity comes from neither Judaism nor Aryanism, both of which endorse violence – the Old Testament is comparable to Nazism in this respect. Neitzsche preferred both of those movements to Christianity.”

    “I repudiate Nazism unconditionally: I am especially appalled by Nazi pictures glorifying the attack on the USSR, which I find repugnant and upsetting. The USSR, whatever its faults, did not cause the defeat of Germany in World War I, nor the Great Depression, which were the major causes of German grievance. I am not a violent person, and dislike the violence equally of the “Aryan” invasions of India & Europe in ancient times, the Vikings against pacifist Christian Europe, the Crusades, the European invasion of the New World, the First and Second World Wars, the expansionist Soviet Union, and militant America. I avoid war films.”

    “The celebration of violence by Trotsky and Spengler illustrates the martial spirit of both Judaism and Aryanism.”

    “Despite my rejection of violence, anyone who opposes Zionism is liable to be called a Nazi. In particular, anyone believing the Protocols of Zion genuine is arraigned as a Nazi. Yet, years before Nazism arose, many Russian opponents of the early Bolsheviks believed the Protocols genuine. I side with Russian opponents of Bolshevism like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not the Nazis.”

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1122. PhucQ says:
    @ploni almoni

    Dear Ploni Almoni,

    You seem to be so knowledgeable about my country and the developments in it, both past and present, that I should swoon in admiration. You could check the history of the Immortal Regiment, a very recent phenomenon, before tying this sort of CNN-BBC-type of explanations. The government is indeed trying to jump on the bandwagon with that, yet it still remains a purely civil and people’s movement.

    I am sorry I started writing on this forum. I told myself many times it makes absolutely no sense to engage in a discussion with Westerners (i.e. Anglo-Saxons) for obvious reasons:

    1) They think they know everything better (being totally brainwashed since their cradle);
    2) They feel they are superior to Russians who are a horde of dirty retards in need of enlightenment;
    3) They are incapable to dump their stereotypes and take a sane approach.

    I am glad the recent statements from Foreign Minister Lavrov indicate that the Russian government seems to realise what is becoming a prevalent sentiment in the Russian society – there is not use trying to make the West talk to us as equals. They will never do it.

    Actually, the government since about 2000 has pursued the “honesty is the best policy” inside the country. This is why every household has the Russian-language Euronews TV channel, the state and Gazprom actually sponsor poignantly anti-Russian and anti-government opposition media such as Dozhd TV (also in all cable TV packages) and Echo of Moscow FM radio. Most cable TV providers have obligatory CNN-Deutsche Welle -France 24 – NHK channels. It sponsors Russian translations of Western media articles at http://www.inosmi.ru with direct links to the originals (mostly featuring pieces about Russia), which leave the readership first gasping with disbelief and finally realising the Western media and most of its populace are not the guys to be friends with. Never. Due to their bias and insanity.
    The government also encourages foreign tourism with up to 20-30 million Russians going abroad each year. Of course, they are expecting the best but often they confront the lustre-less reality and get a better grasp of what life in the EU is. You maybe laughing but opening the doors for the population entails eye-opening. This results in a fundamental change in attitudes towards the West – from some sort of the Soviet-era inferiority complex and admiration to mere disdain. Especially in view of the current anti-family LGBTABCDEFGHIJKetc. insanity. No, thanks.

    Nevertheless, I would wish you all a happy and prosperous life as well as fruitful and multiplying comments here and elsewhere.

    Farewell

  1123. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    Did you find the make of your 124 bombers that carried 700 tons of bombs?

  1124. @Franklin Ryckaert

    However, if a country needs agricultural goods and raw materials, there is a descent way to obtain them. It is called “buying”.

    However, if a country needs to deny its enemy access to agricultural goods and raw materials, there is a descent way to do that. It is called “blockading”.

  1125. @Flint Clint

    just as they genocided the Ukrainains and the Russians, the Hittites, and the Minoans, and the Canaanites, and the Philistines, and possibly the Myceneans in the Bronze Age collapse

    You’re forgetting the Homo Erectus, and the Dinosaurs.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  1126. @Reality Cheque

    For a people to be prone to “Genocide”, the population must have been conditioned with the 5 ‘D’:
    Divided
    Degenerate
    Dystopian
    Demoralized
    Disarmed
    Such a collection of humans are ripe to be exploited and prone to genocides.

  1127. @PhucQ

    Most cable TV providers have obligatory CNN-Deutsche Welle -France 24 – NHK channels [. . .] which leave the readership first gasping with disbelief and finally realising the Western media and most of its populace are not the guys to be friends with.

    When I, a westerner, watch or read CNN or Deutsche Welle I gasp with disbelief too! Too bad Soviet TV and media can’t select better examples of western thought within our democracies.

  1128. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    Are you familiar with Red Symphony (Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor) by Josif Maksimovitch Landowsky of interrogation of Christian G . Rakovsky? Have you encountered it being mentioned in WWII historiography you have read?

    I’m pretty sure I’d seen something about it a couple of years ago, perhaps even on this webzine, but it’s pretty vague. Maybe I can track down the article.

  1129. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    From reading the works of Marx, who would have thought that criticism of Jews would be made a major crime in the first Marxist state, punishable by death or imprisonment in the gulag? Who would have thought that “Marxist” thought police in the West, would be following in the same path? The discrepancy is best explained as a Trotskyist conspiracy operating under the cover of a Marxist mask. Marx wrote three major essays disclosing and criticising the Jewish role in international finance: On the Jewish Question, The Jewish Bankers of Europe, and The Russian Loan; yet in the 150 or so years since, the Trotskyists have not contributed even one additional substantial article on this theme. In fact, Marx himself would have been jailed or executed in the early Soviet Russia, merely for possession of such literature.

    LOL. That’s a great point that I’d never previously considered…

    • Replies: @utu
  1130. @James N. Kennett

    the “never again” crowd wants Americans to unlearn the lesson that early intervention in foreign wars is not always in their best interests

    Which would be coterminous with who exactly?

  1131. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    Not more than the ‘rotten tomatoes’ you cover your eyes. When you confuse King Peter II of Yugoslavia with the Prince Regent Paul it means that your sight is not very good. Your knowledge of the history of the Balkans is drawn from the ‘Ruritanian romance’.

  1132. Incitatus says:
    @Germanicus

    “I don’t want to burst you red bubble”

    Have no fear, there’s no chance of that. Not Liberal or Communist. Not Antifa, not Alt-Right. No bubble to burst.

    That you assume such – without evidence – betrays an elementary school playground ethos. ‘Wasn’t me, it was everybody else’.

    Five uniformed SA were threatened by “Reds”, so they broke into a man’s house and beat him to death in front of his mother? What planet do you live on?

    You really miss the whole point. Rule of law.

    Five were found guilty. A politician (an Austrian felon convicted of “breach of the peace, public indecency and assault” after personally grievously assaulting Bayernbund leader engineer Otto Ballerstadt in Munich 14 Sep 1921) championed Potempa murderers. Fair warning for how he (Hitler) would behave when awarded unlimited power (the NSDAP “Seizure of Power”) 30 Jan 1933. He’d snuff more Germans (and many more others) than any in history. Including (pure spite) long retired Otto Ballerstadt (body found 1 Jul 1934 in forest near Gündinger Neuhimmelreich, shot in the back of the head).

    “the SA was created as a reaction to the communist street thugs, nowadays called Antifa”

    The SA was the outgrowth of disaffected ultra-nationalists in the Freikorps and Organisation Consul who sought to overturn/circumvent Versailles. From 1919-1922 Germany suffered 300+ political murders; from Jan-Jun (six months)1922 Germany suffered 376 political murders. 354 (94.1%) by right-wing assassins, 22 (5.8%) by left-wing assassins). In the early 30s the SA numbered 400,000: four times the Reichswehr. Who was protecting who?

    Strasser was fairly candid:

    “Everything which is detrimental to the existing order of things has our [NSDAP] support…because we want catastrophe…everything which hastens the beginning of catastrophe in the present system…every strike, every governmental crisis, every erosion of state power, every weakening of the System…is good, very good for us…and it will always and constantly be our endeavor to strengthen such difficulties…in order to expedite the death of this system.
    – Gregor Strasser [Stachura ‘Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism, p.76, Childers ’The Third Reich’ p.115]

    When Strasser quit the party he became a potential rival of Mr. Big, a loose end. He was shot in an artery and left to bleed to death (took an hour) on orders of Reinhard Heydrich 30 Jun 1934 Berlin. Nice, eh? Strasser wasn’t a ‘Red’.

    Hitler was pretty straightforward:

    “If we do one day achieve power, we will hold on to it, so help us God. We will not allow them to take it away from us again.”
    -Adolf Hitler 17 Oct 1932 speech in Königsberg [campaign for Nov election after refusing cabinet post]

    How about Club-foot Joe:

    “Why do we [the NSDAP] want to join the Reichstag? To arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine with us.”
    -Joseph Göbbels Der Angriff 30 Apr 1928

    “Once we attain power, we will never give it up until our dead bodies are carried from office”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 6 Jul 1932

    As it turned out, Joe got his wish. His dead body was “carried from office”. Never mind about killing six children and a wife. Or millions of others (Germans and others).

    Göbbels bête noire late 20s-early 30s was the Berlin Police, who sought (under Weimar) to keep order. Joe’s Angriff editorials routinely excoriated them and ‘law-and-order’. Why? Because Joe wanted power. As a Reichstag member, he had immunity to say what he liked, to actively work to undermine the state. Smart guy, he made the most of it.

    Personal power – unrestrained – was goal of Hitler and his sycophants. He/they got it, thanks to corrupt monarchist Hindenburg. And sacrificed millions of ordinary Germans for their hubris.

    “Go on and pretend, all was well and cozy during the democratic Weimar regimes, with huge unemployment, hyper inflation, hunger, political circus, inaptitude and (sexual) degeneracy. Almost like the US in 2019 and what emits from Hollywood.”

    “Pretend”? Really? You’re desperate. Why?

    Tell us about Stresemann.

    Tell us why Hitler told a Munich audience “we can say that we have sunk lower and lower…a decrepit industrial sector with twelve million unemployed” April 1926. In fact two million at most were unemployed [BC Hett ‘The Death of Democracy’ p.61]. Wasn’t Hitler good at math? Or was he (like many rabble-rousing politicians) a consummate liar?

    “You know what books were publicly burnt symbolically?”

    Thomas Mann? Erich Marie Remarque? Etc.

    This begs the question. Why burn books? What are you afraid of?

  1133. Seraphim says:
    @PhucQ

    It is a pity you leave. Any sane voice counts and has a pozitive effect, even if it does not become apparent immediately. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” G. Orwell

  1134. @PhucQ

    Thank you, PhucQ for your sincere kind wishes. I am sure you will do better next time.

  1135. @Incitatus

    You really miss the whole point. Rule of law.

    I can’t stop laughing.
    The “rule of law” the occupying powers brought us, witch trials and show trials as a continuation of their war efforts?
    “Rule of law” in the democratic and corrupt Weimar regime?
    They have thrown us back almost 300 years in terms of development of law.

    The Prussian constitution uniquely and firstly prohibited the Strawman.
    Go figure why they destroyed Prussia and prohibited from reconstitution, it is foreign administered to this day.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1136. @David Baker

    Not quite sure I get your objection.

    Are you saying that Jewish establishment strategy produced a good outcome from the Jewish establishment point of view during the 20th Century?

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @J. Gutierrez
  1137. The 2 Worldwars were the resultsof a a zionistic Elite together with crypto-jewish and fremasonery politicans in Europe and the USA.

    Think of the destroyed german cities esp. the city of Dresden. Churchill knew how many refugees from East-Europe (Silesia, Pomerania f.e.) were at the date of the bombings in Dresden. It was a firestorm in Dresden that pulverised the victims. More than 250.000 million innocent people died there but they didn’t found too much corpses becaus of the firestorm.

    I am not a fan of Adolf Hitler and not of what he has done but in the end german soldiers only wanted to protect their country.

    It was a holocaust not on the jewish people (the missing 6 miilions they have already missed in 1919) – it was the holocaust of the german population. The victims in the ovens in the concentrations camp of Auschwitz and others were starved german soldiers that had died on the fields on the Rheinwiesenlager in Germany. The US Army had starved them to death with very less food and water. So they were dying in the mud.

    This is the bloody truth and the film director of the “liberated” jews in the camps Alfred Hitchcok knew that for sure.

    People in the concentration camps were not gassed with Zyklon B (that was for disinfect their clothing and bedding). Most of the people in the camps were dying of typhus or other infectious diseases.

    History must be rewritten because oft the genozid on the german population.

  1138. If by “Jewish establishment strategy” you mean the Zionist strategy, then yes, they achieved their goal of forcing Jews to leave Europe for Palestine. They also arranged for Germans to pay those Jews reparations. Jews were provided transportation by Germany aboard ships to Palestine. There was no Holocaust against Jews, but like most Europeans during the war, they were adversely affected, mainly because Jews declared war on Germany.

  1139. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    Seraphim:
    Since you like to use the term >superiority< so much, always in connection with Germany and Germans, I think that there might be a feeling of inferiority at work in your innermost self.
    That makes me think whether this might not be a strong driver of international politics. That, and envy, is certainly a driving force for today's leftist flappings in the ocean of reality in which they fear to drown.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1140. @Incitatus

    Five uniformed SA were threatened by “Reds”, so they broke into a man’s house and beat him to death

    “Reds” were real. He was a Communist when Stalin was in charge and the Ukraine famine was going on. He was a Cummunist after 16 years had elapsed from the 1917 revolution and he saw what it had wrought and thought “I want that to happen here too”. He was obeying the orders of the Commintern to bring about a Communist revolution in his country.

    I suppose the various nations that successfully thwarted a potential Communist revoulution by killing off its would-be Chekists will have to live with that blood on their consciences.

  1141. Fox says:
    @L.K

    L.K.:
    Thank you for your words.
    Perhaps you have read on occasion some of the books by Rudel; in one of them, he describes being out on a mission on the Eastern Front with his new anti-tank gun mounted on his Ju-87. The gun used tungsten ammunition, a metal of high density and acting as kinetic projectile through its concentrated energy and hardness. (It is the forerunner of today’s uranium ammunition, and lacks the latter’s nasty effects of radioactive pollution). It was very effective in destroying tanks, and Rudel was its first user, and also a first-rate fighter and pilot, which made him notorious among the Russians. Anyway, Rudel was out and, as he writes, “a wild topsy-turvy shouting and commotion from the Russian pilots spotting him ensued.” It’s the plane with the rods! (The rods were the two long cannons mounted under the wings). Rudel’s co-pilot who was fluent in Russian translated it directly for him.
    Anyway, Seraphim, szopen, utu, their comments have something of this wild commotion of shouting Rudel writes about. Must be an eastern trait.

    When I read their comments, I always wonder why they have to prove so ardently that they (their country) had no part in the catastrophe of the First and Second War, and that they were only innocent by-standers, armed to the teeth, with totally justifiable arms-build up, sporting hyper-chauvinism, issuing military threats, dealing in finnaiglings of government overthrows, in poisoning of the international understanding, and so forth. Yet they see no connection between such acts and possible consequences ensuing. Not even theoretically. The instance of insight and understanding is missing.
    It seems that they ought to be able to lean back and enjoy the fruits of their acts and victory, but they can’t, they must prove maniacally that they were just enjoying their bucolic paradise in their country, when the Germans suddenly, unprovokedly, surprisingly attacked them, as they maintain as the innermost dogma of their cult of understanding the current world.

  1142. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    OT FYI:

    Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard. (September 11, 2019)

    http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

  1143. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    Did it occur to you that the superiority complex of the Germans (and I include the Anglo-
    Saxons) is in reality a compensation for an inferiority complex? “We demand our place in the sun”!

    • Replies: @refl
  1144. maz10 says:

    I have been reading articles on this site and following the discussion accompanying them since considerable time. The origins of WW II (in fact both world wars) are very interesting.

    It is by now obvious that war time Allied propaganda constructs dating from the time the said war was fought or just concluded can not be taken at face value and deserve a long overdue critical revision.

    For example Churchill and Roosevelt – their roles to be more precise – should be re-examined. Thanks to the Cold War, Khrushchev’s power grab in the Soviet Union and a number of other factors most of the world knows that Stalin was not your friendly pipe smoking Uncle Joe. The two aforementioned western leaders most certainly deserve a similar reassessment.

    Equally the thesis of Germany’s Alleinschuld for both world wars is in view of today’s historical knowledge unsustainable.

    It is also a fact that Polish – German pre-war relations were difficult and that was not always entirely Germany’s fault (the same goes for German-Czech relations as well as those with a number of other countries and nations).

    In addition not only the Germans but also Soviets and yes those nice westerners too have plenty of atrocities to answer for.

    I could go on but the point is that a reappraisal that is a revision of WW II (by extension WW I) and its (their) origin(s) is long overdue.

    Thus one can learn a lot from articles such as this and even more from the comments accompanying it.

    Having said all this the thesis put forward by the revisionist camp do not change the basic fundamentals of German and Nazi (these frequently overlap but are not the same) malice as well as German and Hitler’s predominant though not sole responsibility for the global conflagration.

    I am writing this having carefully read both the article as well as the comments and frankly speaking the comments of those who can be broadly described as “revisionist” are exposing the most basic deficiencies of the revisionist position. Below are some, though far from all, of the most glaring ones.

    To begin with most of the “revisionists” have a cavalier attitude when it comes to evidence, propaganda and generally standards which are to be applied:

    thus Hitler’s and his cronies wrongdoing, malicious political machinations, lust for power etc. – all these are either brushed aside or excused with ease,

    Germany’s and German’s demands vis-à-vis Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries as well as their respective peoples should have been fulfilled even at the cost of their core interests,

    evidence of German atrocities are quickly dismissed – testimonies are lies, documents are forgeries, photographs do not really show anything etc.,

    when it comes to the brutal conduct of war such as Luftwaffe bombings for example they are easily excused as necessities dictated by the war itself.

    One could go on but I suppose the point is made.

    Having the above in mind the “revisionists” have:
    no problem with Germany not respecting basic right of other nations ranging from such matters as education up to territorial integrity,
    equally the “revisionists” have for the most part no problem to treat German sources including obvious propaganda like unquestionable truth, divine revelations, dogmas which are not to be debated – this in particular when contrasted with their dismissal of evidence & sources showing Germans in an unfordable light are among the greatest weaknesses of them and their position,
    in similar vein the way the conduct of war – including but not limited to the air war – is judged when it comes to the Germans and their adversaries glaring double standards are obvious.

    More could be written however this is sufficiently illustrative.

    In short the double standards favouring Germany, Germans, Hitler and Nazis vis-à-vis everyone else are so glaring that basically any rational debate based on evidence, arguments, standards to be applied and so on is impossible. This has to be for if the same standards to weight arguments, evaluate evidence etc. are applied to the revisionist position it can not stand which in turn explains why such double standards are an absolute necessity for the “revisionists” and their position to begin with.

    Complementary to the thesis just presented some (though far from all) of the “revisionists” are also of limited intellectual abilities and show poor manners. A good example is Carolyn Yeager, who is dismissive of profusely sourced evidence because what was in a news story is sufficient for her. In general when faced with arguments and well sourced evidence Yeager and her ilk are dismissive, rude and do not shy away from calling names such as liar. I have singled her out not because I hold any grudge against her but because of her stance vis-à-vis people who obviously dwarf her in the ability to argue their position. The same could of course be said about many others including those who dismiss well written posts as a wild shouting commotion – probably because instead of leaving them in the comfort zone of an echo chamber they bursts their propaganda bubble.

    In conclusion: it is long overdue to deal with many Allied war time propaganda clichés however it is important not to replace them with revisionist propaganda which is not only no better but in fact frequently worse.

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Troll: L.K
  1145. @4891

    There no are no shortcuts to wanting to know the truth. To judge Irvings work you must do the time reading his books. He has done his time over & and above. Do the reading & make up your own mind. Thats how this site is set up.

  1146. @Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency,

    Talking about Jewish Establishment…thought you might find this clip interesting..

    https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/portfolio/part-27-babylon-hitler-bonus/

  1147. @maz10

    Your comment has all the marks of a gatekeeper: ‘We can’t blame Germany for all the war guilt [we can include other European countries to some extent], but we will NEVER let Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist government off the hook–they must remain fully guilty.’ I would like for you and I to go head to head (toe to toe?) in addressing the “arguments” you have raised. No interference from others on your “Team Russia” or on my “Team Hitler” allowed to muddle up and distract from what WE present. I will start with your specific criticism of me:

    In general when faced with arguments and well sourced evidence Yeager and her ilk are dismissive, rude and do not shy away from calling names such as liar.

    Oh, I see, you are trying to preclude being called out as a liar when you lie. Well, sorry, that is an illegitimate “rule” since lying is a big part of your entire “argument” and therefore the term should not be off-limits. In addition, if what you call “well-sourced” evidence does not meet generally acceptable standards, one is not required to address it as if it were well-sourced. This is a manipulation tactic from you and is probably at the heart of most of the differences.

    I have singled her [CY] out not because I hold any grudge against her but because of her stance vis-à-vis people who obviously dwarf her in the ability to argue their position.

    That is clearly your opinion and you need to defend it as a fact. Examples?

    You have summed your “argument” up this way:

    the double standards favouring Germany, Germans, Hitler and Nazis vis-à-vis everyone else are so glaring that basically any rational debate based on evidence, arguments, standards to be applied and so on is impossible.

    Of course, you are going to call “evidence” whatever you produce. Can we say that material in Polish, or any other language, is not acceptable unless a professional, published translation accompanies it, since this is an English-language forum? Your own translations are not acceptable.

    We will also stick with your “arguments” offered in this original comment. Not allowed to add new ones to distract from having to answer for what you’ve already so carefully composed here. You present as given that most “revisionists” [revisionism means to correct] have a cavalier attitude to evidence, propaganda and standards. Your points are:
    1. Hitler and his cronies are guilty of wrongdoing, malicious political machinations, lust for power ;
    2. Germany’s demands vis-à-vis Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries were unreasonably demanded no matter the cost to them;
    3. Germans committed atrocities, and testimonies, documents and photos produced as evidence cannot be questioned by revisionists;
    4. Brutal Luftwaffe bombings are excused as a war necessity.

    You also say that Revisionists don’t care about
    1. Respecting right of other nations … from education to territorial integrity;
    2. Treating pro-German propaganda as non-debatable, particularly in contrast with propaganda showing Germany in an unfavorable light;
    3. German war conduct being judged with double standards.

    Do you see how impossible it is to reply to such general accusations? You offer no specific examples—in other words, no evidence. Are you going to provide some reliable evidence? Or are you satisfied with just presenting your opinion.

  1148. Fox says:
    @maz10

    You have started out with a reasonable attitude and then turned full force into the Allied “it’s all Hitler’s and the Germans’s doing” camp. You didn’t list the shortcomings of the status-quo defenders.
    For example, is there a difference between using bombs to achieve a tactical goal, such as the siege of a citadel, and bombing a city to smithereens in order to kill the maximum number of workers and their families? Spaight, “Bombing Vindicated”, has much to say to that (an official in the British Air Ministry).
    Likewise, the casual attitude of other countries towards German areas before and after the war is worth considering.
    That Hitler bears major fault for the global conflagration is also not obvious in light of the fact that it was Britain and France not urging Poland to come to an agreement with Germany about Danzig, the German Corridor and other Germans in Poland. This same problem had been identified even by Churchill as the likely cause of future armed conflicts. Why act against one’s own judgement and then feign innocence about what happens next.
    An eventual revision of the history of the Second War – that one of the First War is already undergoing changes away from the primitive Versailles finger pointing and securing of loot and commission of political violence-will have to include an opening of all secret archives on the Allied side, and an explanation for Western attempts to maintain the system of Versailles, which is a catastrophe for Germany and a windfall in money, hegemonial power, and exploitation for the victors. Reminder: The last payment on the reparations pressed from Germany was made in 2011.
    Hitler said it more than once that he wanted to undo the Treaty of Versailles. This was a noble goal and should have had support everywhere where good sense existed. Instead, a super Versailles was put in place after 1945.
    We can conclude a lot from this attitude of the war victors. Instead of recognizing reality and come to peaceable solution, unbelievable degrees of violence were put in motion to cement ideas of middle age origin (such as Richelieus’s fragmentation of Germany, or England’s balance of power). The most hateful propaganda was put in place, and is nowadays even intensified, all in the service to maintain the anti-Germany formulation of history.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1149. @Fox

    In my reply to Maz10 (a sockpuppet) I pointed out that he makes a lot of accusations and states opinions, but all without a shred of evidence to back any of it up. Yet you go into an elaborate defense, giving him and others the opportunity to write a bunch more lies and refutations simply in order to confuse and distract the issues. Generalizations are what the whole hoax and false history are made up of! They should always be forced to spell out their specific charges; then that can be properly answered. They don’t want to do that because that already exposes their weakness.

    I think you give these people way too much. Bending over backward to be fair and honest is a German fault (or maybe bending forward) — and they sure know how to play it. It is something that Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels all despaired over in the German nature. Those who hate the Germans don’t have this problem and we should remember that.

    • Agree: Alexandros
    • Replies: @J. Gutierrez
    , @Fox
  1150. @Carolyn Yeager

    Ms. Carolyn Yeager,

    I just wanted to say, “Well done” and offer a link to a documentary film produced by Dennis Wise. I had seen this film a while back, but when I tried to find it again, it was no longer on Youtube. I wasn’t surprised, and searched the web until I found the film’s website. The documentary is setup into 26 episodes or one 5 hour film. I found the documentary very informative, well produced and covered the whole German experience from Hitler in WWI to WWII. If you haven’t had a chance to see it, I’m sure you will enjoy it, so pour yourself a glass a wine and enjoy. Germanicus if you read this, watch it…

    https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/#gallery

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1151. Right, got it.

    It looks a lot like the Berlin ‘decadence” was just a way of ensuring that the natives wouldn’t have any troublesome children, and secondarily to provide entertainment. Rather like this:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/why-are-so-many-tier-1-college-girls-turning-soft-prostitution
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-20/these-are-top-colleges-sugar-babies

    Things haven’t changed that much. Epstein would have been right at home in the Berlin depicted.

    So, what’s under the hood? What happened and why?

    Germany had a society structured around families with a comparatively strong rule by father figures — they had authority in exchange for victory and providing income. When WW I was lost so decisively, much of that vanished. You could draw an analogy between that and the Western victors after WW II — authority was no longer executed after the war. Several organizations stepped into the gap. The Jewish establishment took over the Left (including Berlin), while in the countryside the pre-War authority system reasserted itself. Eventually, the countryside won.

    Which is pretty clearly what the Left is afraid is happening in the West right now. The USSR isn’t going to step into save the Left this time, and the various forms of immigration, the alliance with Islam, the ceaseless propaganda, all are intended to substitute for a USSR that proved itself unable to survive even if left alone.

    Counterinsurgency

  1152. @maz10

    Wars are atrocities that compel apologists and ‘historians’ to justify the mobilization of millions of people to destroy each other, all in the ’cause’ of some invented nationalist or ideological zeal. These conflicts don’t change, and the means our leaders employ to motivate young men and women into combat or other activities vary little. What DOES change are the attitudes of former anti-war protesters and political figures. Look at liberals today, and assess their metamorphosis from Peacenik, Flower Child, “Make-Love-Not-War” campaigners for surrender to bloodthirsty, shabbos goy shills for Israel. At the very least, Trump is resisting the overwhelming hues and cries of our media and public officials to engage our forces against Iran.

    (As I pointed out earlier, some ‘9/11-ish’ event would occur to ‘encourage’ him to deploy our forces.)

    What I believe may inhibit the warmongering hubris of our leadership would be the mandatory deployment of their offspring into combat theaters. The Kennedy’s sacrificed their young men during WWII. Queen Elizabeth watched her grandson board the military bus, and even John Wayne lost his son in battle (His character, not the man..) You can expect much resistance from liberal representatives to such a mandate, but I believe the American people would insist upon their compliance.

    • Replies: @Reality Cheque
  1153. And thanks for the link. I’m beginning to see why history of the Wiemar Republic isn’t that easy to get.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @J. Gutierrez
  1154. Incitatus says:
    @Germanicus

    “I can’t stop laughing.”

    Well good for you! Pat yourself on the back!

    “The “rule of law” the occupying powers brought us, witch trials and show trials as a continuation of their war efforts?”

    We were talking about Weimar law assaulted by extremists (left and right). All German. Forget?

    You ‘mirthfully’ change the subject. Why? Threatened?

    “They have thrown us back almost 300 years in terms of development of law.”

    Was the NSDAP on the right track abolishing ALL rival (KPD, SPD, Catholic Center, etc.) political parties [Gesetz gegen die Neubildung von Parteien 14 Jul 1933]? Abolishing all labor unions and absorbing them into Robert Ley’s Deutsche Arbeitsfront? Killing/imprisoning ‘problematic’ political/labor figures? Confiscating their assets?

    Policy dictated by one person served by corrupt ingrates, one party?

    Is that the “law” you pine for?

    What about the ‘Fundamental Decree Concerning the Preventive Combating of Crime by the Police’ issued by the Reich Interior Ministry 14 Dec 1937 authorizing “Systematic police surveillance” and “preventive custody” for the “asocial” without court action? “Work-shy” were added in Jan 1938 [labor exchanges were ordered to report those who twice reject job offers or leave work without good reason to the Gestapo]: offenders are sent to Buchenwald.

    Is that the “law” you pine for?

    What about the eight-month sentence in a KZ (concentration camp) for criticizing the NSDAP? After 1939, it was more likely a death sentence. Hans and Sophie Scholl and Weiße Rose ring a bell? They – pacifist students – lost their heads.

    Is that the “law” you pine for?

    What about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Arrested and subjected to torture? 10,000 arrested and imprisoned, the 2,000 sent to KZs, 250+ executed?

    Is that the “law” you pine for?

    “Go figure why they destroyed Prussia and prohibited from reconstitution, it is foreign administered to this day.”

    Actualy Bavarian NSDAP conquered Prußland with Göring and Göbbels. In 1933 poor old Hindenburg (amidst great ‘Weimar’ scandal) wanted to save tax-exempt transfer of his Neudeck estate (given him free by a grateful nation after Tannenburg) to son Oskar. Nazis were smart enough to grease the wheels.

    Result? Messianic Austrian rabble-rouser appointed chancellor 30 Jan 1933. But, of course, you know that.

    Poor Paul. In a private letter to Hitler opened after the latter’s death 2 Aug 1934, he hoped for the re-establishment of monarchy. The very monarchy (Wilhelm II) he advised abdicate 28 Sep 1918 as troops were beginning to mutiny (he later denied such advice and blamed failure on ‘the home front’ – Jews, Freemasons, etc.).

    Germany WW1-WW2 suffered the unfortunate advent of supremely unsuitable leadership. Block-heads is an apt term. Make no mistake, there were many block-heads in other countries (allies and rivals), just as in the world now (GWB and Iraq 2003, DJT come to mind).

    But leadership willing to feed ordinary German Landsers into a meat-grinder they construct in a vain attempt to butcher enemies (Verdun 1916; Stalingrad 1942-43)? Winter gear reaches the Eastern front late January 1942?

    There’s no excuse for that.

    BTW ‘germanicus’ was an honorary sobriquet awarded Roman conquerors of barbaric Teutons. Your adoption (unless you’re an advocate of Rome) is ironic, to say least.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1155. refl says:
    @Seraphim

    Did it occur to you that the superiority complex of the Germans (and I include the Anglo-
    Saxons) is in reality a compensation for an inferiority complex? “We demand our place in the sun”!

    That is exactly the mistake that the Kaiser made, that Hitler made and that the Germans make today – the Angloamericans will never accept any Europeans as their equals. That is for the simple fact that they are led by a psychopathic elite that will any time throw their own people in the gutter. How should they care about anyone else. European monarchs of old always needed their people as a fighting force – so they could never betray them outright. The British aristocracy was in a far better position to show their people the middle finger.

    They came up with that idiotic concept of rule by law – stupidly the regular folks always loose in the end. And then they extend this concept into “international law”-the one who opposes them is always wrong.
    When Chamberlain said that eastern european countries were far away countries that little was known about he spoke out a deep truth: They do not give a fuck and never will. Stupidly, Germans thought they were part of the West – and now they have been flushed down the toilet of history.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1156. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Alexandros’s reply is interesting.”

    Agree. Regret lack of time.

    Any comment?

    One day after awarded the Sudetenland (“the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe”) and signing “peace in our time” Hitler ordered invasion plans [30 Sep 1938]. Let Göbbels tell it:

    “[The Führer issued orders to formulate] a sudden attack…so that the Czechs have no chance to organize any sort of defense…[The goal was] to rapidly occupy the country and seal off Czech from Slovak territory”
    -[Göbbels Tagebücher part 1, vol.6, p.246]

    “This [Hácha’s dismissal of Nazi ally Tiso 9 Mar 1939] is a launching pad. Now we can get a complete solution to the problem we were only half able to solve in October…Decision: on Wednesday15 March [1939], we’ll invade and destroy the entire monstrous construct that is Czechoslovakia”
    -[Göbbels Tagebücher part 1, vol.6, p.279f]

    It had nothing to do with Háche or Tiso, Czechs and the rest.

    Had everything to do with waxing power (and hubris) of gefreiter Hitler. Hubris that only grew after 15 March and 1 September 1939.

    Manstein is a good source.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1157. Incitatus says:
    @refl

    “That is exactly the mistake that the Kaiser made, that Hitler made and that the Germans make today – the Angloamericans will never accept any Europeans as their equals.”

    Actually the “place in the sun” was owned by Europeans prior to 1917 and 1941. They dragged in the USA to solve their spats in both wars.

    “European monarchs of old always needed their people as a fighting force – so they could never betray them outright.”

    Really? “Betray”? Von Falkenhayn didn’t feed 300,000 German Landsers into his Verdun ‘meat-grinder’ to kill an equal number (300,000) French poilu? Ludendorff didn’t lose 880,000 men 21 March – July 1918? Didn’t advise Willie to abdicate 29 Sep 1918? Didn’t flee to Sweden in disguise (spectacles and false beard) designed to avoid mutinous ordinary soldiers sick of bleeding for a consummate incompetent scum bag?

    Dream on.

    • Replies: @refl
  1158. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Hippo, That is such small potatoes if you want to discuss hidden killing, forced immigration and racism. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland.

    In December 1945, These German speaking non combatants were deposited among the ruins of Allied-occupied Germany to fend for themselves as best they could. The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation. This is not counting the deaths of the people in the labor camps that went for over 10 years after WWII ended.

    Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies’ cynical formulation, “reparations in kind”) in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war.

    Ironically, no more than 100 or so miles away from the camps being put to this new use, the surviving Nazi leaders were being tried by the Allies in the courtroom at Nuremberg on a bill of indictment that listed “deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population” under the heading of “crimes against humanity.”

    • Replies: @Fox
  1159. @Counterinsurgency

    You’re welcome,

    Counterinseurgency

    I clicked on the 5 hour clip last night and couldn’t stop watching it. A commentator on this site told me a while back, to check my last name, because Spanish names have Germanic origins from the various tribes that occupied Spain. I had never thought about that, and I did some searches, and he was right, I think. ez is added to a name, if you are the son of, in my case son of Gutier, which evolved from Guntier and later Gunther.

    As I watched those German soldiers, I felt like a bond, I know it sounds stupid, but I did.

    Did you watch the whole film? I know it started kind of cheesy, but it got better, with more detail.

    Take care brother, the clip I sent you reminded me how much… nothing has change in over 100 years!

    Fucking sad!!!!! My heart broke for those German people…It made me realize we can easily go through a total world reset in the span of just 200 years, and not know it…

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  1160. refl says:
    @Incitatus

    Actually the “place in the sun” was owned by Europeans prior to 1917 and 1941. They dragged in the USA to solve their spats in both wars.

    The US was not dragged into the european war by the Europeans, but by the Federal Reserve to save Wall Street loans, because the war had become to big to fail. The second time round it was the lot behind Roosevelt. I mean, we are talking revisionism here and not Hollywood.
    You give a perfect example of what I meant. You have read something about Falkenhayn, so good. The mass murder of the British blockade against civilians never crossed your mind. It is just the same as when you shout Stalin mass murderer all the time, when never caring a shit about what the Russians really went through in two World Wars plus the revolution, Civil war and their Wall Street designed bolshevism.

    I can’t help it, but my sympathies for the West have gone out of the window. Your posts are not likely to make me think my decision over.

  1161. @J. Gutierrez

    Thank you, J. Gutierrez. I have seen the film. It’s shocking it’s been banned at Youtube.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1162. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are right, questions as to historical events and their hinging together must be expected to be answered honestly. A stance which states that not everything seems right and fair with the agreed-upon historical narrative of the First and Second War, and then repeating all the historical distortions and lies -be it remembered that a lie can be a statement of untruth as much as a distortion and an omission-is not honest. It shields the bankrupt allied war rationale from the light of reason and truth.

    It might be too much to assume that there is a general desire for factual and therefore philosophical truth, as living with and through and of the lie is much easier than living with truth. A very basic understanding to be gained is that:
    Winston Churchill was an execrable manifestation of mankind, about the worst imaginable. He was a hateful, blood-thirsty, criminally insane maniac who had talked himself into the position of head insaniac with the assent of a country made hysterical through means of propaganda. He talked the people of England, and through his condemnable confederates and co-conspirators againsnt peace elsewhere, into a senseless war of destruction against a people who meant them no harm. What business is if of England -or America- whom people in another nation elect to be their representatives?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1163. Fox says:
    @1thinkingoutloud

    It is more than ironical, it is shameful to have to witness such falseness and remain quiet under the threat of being done away with one way or another.
    Let’s assume that there is a force in nature that comes down hard on such mockery of what is right and decent, such mockery being demonstrated by the nauseating sway of the rule of cruelty and revolting self-abasement of the allies’ ardent hope for self-exoneration after what they had done.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @L.K
  1164. @Incitatus

    We were talking about Weimar law assaulted by extremists (left and right). All German. Forget?

    Look, Weimar was a corporation, Oswald Spengler pointed it out pretty well.
    The FRG is a corporation, Weimar 2.0.

    As for the rest of your democratic gibberish and artificial outrage, all empty shallow words and paroles. German peoples starved, were unemployed, high crime rates, and money was worth nothing, a trillion marks could not buy you a load of bread in corrupt Weimar times. Jews bought up German assets during these times, they bought housing blocks and demanded insanely high rents.
    NSDAP fixed all this, Democracy 0 :NS 1, these are the facts.
    The NSDAP, build affordable housing quarters, also introduced specific laws to protect becoming mothers, still in use today, rightly so. It protects pregnant women from being fired(punished) for being pregnant, ie uneconomic to keep how they say.

    The NSDAP never made a secret about their dislike of Democracy, which is tightly connected with Social Democracy and Communism, so surely, they used the democratic means to get rid of it. Perfectly fine goal.

    But it was the communist thugs and organizations who violently opposed the NSDAP in the corporate Weimar democracy, that worked just like the US, they serve the highest bidder.
    It pure hypocrisy, the NSDAP played by the freaking democratic rules, and the communists went out for violence and blood, while portraying themselves as exemplars of good democrats, “Who defend Democracy”.
    This utter cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy goes on to this day.

    The essential truth about democracy is, it is a tyranny, which will violently cling to power.

    If your all neighbors decide that your apple tree on your property has to be cut down, because it disturbs their view, how is it relevant to you? That’s the tyranny of the majority, who somehow think just because a majority says something, it has to apply to you. The majority is stupid, kept stupid, and the majority ais also willfully ignorant.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1165. @refl

    By now the letters, diaries and minutes of meetings which prove your allegations about the US being dragged into European war by the Federal Reserve to save Wall Street must have been researched by historians so would you please tell us the sources you rely on.

    Mass murder of the British blockade? Two questions. How was it different in intent to Germany’s attempt to blockade Britain by U boat attacks? If their people were starving why did the German leaders continue to make war in France and other invaded countries instead of surrendering?

    • Replies: @refl
    , @J. Alfred Powell
  1166. @Fox

    Let’s assume that there is a force in nature that comes down hard on such mockery

    I would not call it just an assumption, it is more like a certainty.
    But certain people in their hubris will never realize the signs, so the cycle repeats.

  1167. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Go to Adam Tooze: “The Deluge” – which is rather mainstream even, go to “Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War” – by Gerry Docherty and Jim Mac Gregor – also on the internet and mentioned across these pages from time to time:
    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/
    Actually, I recommended this to you more then a year ago – do you only post or also read?
    Go to Anthony Sutton: “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution”.

    How can you expect these things to be published, when they put in question the very foundations of todays oligarchic elite? – Docherty and Mac Gregor have some very clear words on this, go to the website, it takes you no more then an afternoon.
    You will also find – the sources are mentioned there – that the British blockade was designed to fail for the first two years to keep the war going and intensifying to later on lead to decisive destruction and not merely a defeat in war. You will find that the blockade was intensified and kept going for more then two years after the war had ended. This is for example, why all the records of the German General Staff of World War One ended up in the Hoover Institution. The Ebert government had to trade documents that would have exonerated the Germans for food.
    Once the war had started and Germany was marked by the Angloamerican press as the one and unique agressor, it was not to be let out unless completely crushed – or as the French said: ‘Britain is willing to defend France up to the last Frenchman’.

    Our friend Incitatus mentioned the cruelty of Falkenhayn towards his own soldiers. What he did not mention is that Falkenhayn is said to have spent his time as chief of the army mostly on the toilet. Churchill spent the Gallipoli campaign mostly boozing, as he did his premiership during World War II.
    Finally, you have to admit that the German leaders in both World Wars had a point – looking back after a century, the Prussian-German Nazi beast would probably not been worse for the World as the Angloamerican Empire has been. Germany and Europe with it has been totally annihilated. I do not know, if there would have been another outcome possible, but when German leaders told their people that the enemy wanted to totally obliterate Christian Europe, time has proven them right.

    When I look out of my window, I see that destroyed church over there. It has been bombed more then seventy years ago – for the larger part of my life, I have believed that all this destruction was good for something. As I realize that it was not, I have to start thinking again.

    By the way, I do not expect you to get off your high horse.

  1168. @Fox

    What you wrote about Churchill here is a great example of how strong we should be in our language and indignation. Beautiful! Let them try to deny it (leads to more attention placed on it) or turn it around on Hitler/Nazis (shows avoidance).

    True that those who are very partisan, like myself and that ‘Maz10’, are not open to the “arguments” of the other side. For me, I would not waste my time trying to persuade them. Facts are a different matter; facts cannot be ignored. If one gives these super-partisans (Incitatus, Wizard, Seraphim) a hard time, not allowing them to get away with their bs, they will stop replying to us because it doesn’t help them. They may be reduced to talking among themselves, while we also talk among ourselves and present good information for the more undecided to consider. I am trying to be less reactive (judgemental) and more informative, while still letting them and everyone know I’m on to them. Which means I really need to (should) wait a little bit before replying so that I don’t waste the opportunity. I don’t think that is a problem for you.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1169. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    “That begs the question. Why burn books? What are you afraid of?”

    Indeed, why the current elimination of literature and opinion in a broad sense by Amazon, youtube, credit card companies (by refusing to transfer money to targeted fonts of opinion and information)? Why the indexing of nearly 50000 book titles after the liberators bombed their way into Germany in 1945, followed by removal and destruction of these books from public libraries and from private bookshelves? (I don’t know whether for privately owned books it was in fore-thinking the brisance such possession might entail or whether military raids by the liberators were also used to take forbidden books, and if so, as enforcement of the occupation policy or as “souvenir collection”?) Today’s Federal Republic of Germany eliminates books and opinions in numbers it does attempt to conceal, it even has its confederates across the ocean, as people like German Rudolf or Ernst Zuendel have experienced when they were deported from or via the US to Germany for the books they wrote and opinions they made available.

    Staeglich’s Auschwitz Myth was confiscated, the book burnt, Staeglich deprived of his Ph.D. degree for writing such a book. As is my wont, I am only citing from memory, a systematic search for real and symbolic book burning in today’s democracies with their self-worship as bearers of freedom would bear rich of fruit. The United States is still enjoying a large degree of freedom in this respect, as the first Amendment was so intelligently formulated in the Constitution by people of extraordinary understanding of human depravity and its capacity to distort meaning. Hence, the part addressing speech:
    “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”.
    No sly lawyer can redefine “Congress”, “make no law”, “abridging”, “free speech” – at least the terms used cannot be hammered into a murky mush of multiple meanings, including their opposites.
    Hence, pc gab, opinion minefields, an unending 24-h-a-day propaganda for good and bad opinions is maintained, and information selection and access to it is handled currently by private corporations.
    Therefore, in the US there are no prison cells waiting for people with opinions that are not approved by the ministry of information, as is the case in Germany, in Austria, in France, Spain, altogether an expanding community of countries.

    The book burning you are referring to was a private undertaking, initiated by students and a symbolic act, a call to protect German culture and reject destructive literature. As far as I know, the books thrown into the flames as a symbolic public gesture in several German cities were still available. The action was to symbolize a new era the spirit of which did live in the millions hoping for a new Germany. That’s a difference to modern book burnings, they are not symbolic, they mean something definite, they drive home the point that there is forbidden territory, the entering of which carries its risks as defined by the criminal code.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager, L.K
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1170. Indeed, why the current elimination of literature and opinion in a broad sense by Amazon, youtube, credit card companies (by refusing to transfer money to targeted fonts of opinion and information)?

    Considering the occupying powers systematically purged entire libraries of anything they deemed “nazi”, scientific literature, writings, research on ancestry, the question alone is pure chutzpah. They maintain these blacklists to this day.

    The question of democracy and voting has an interesting background.

    The ballot box is called in German language Urn, and to conceal the obvious, they call it election urn(Wahlurne).
    However, if I just take oxford’s dictionary and search for urn:

    a tall decorated container, especially one used for holding the ashes of a dead person

    If you then look how they present the “master” urn in the occupied Reichstag, draped in black garlands, and they all wear black, you come to the realization you witness a ritual funeral of the dead person’s vote.

    Some might say, this is nonsense, I would argue, they should investigate the Cestui Que Vie acts before speaking.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1171. So called “Democracy” denotes a sham application of targeted propaganda to enjoin factions–delineated by race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and political stripes–in an effort to ‘change’ the political landscape with a reactionary cabal of zealots who’ll ignore their limitations. California is a cautionary example of this process (We even import hoards of liberal voters) People can be convinced to destroy their own nation, and even marginalize their purpose for existing.. All it takes is a polished media propaganda campaign, some musical interludes and either false flag ruses, or actual events being embellished to get the tyrannical ball rolling. This process is nothing new. That people are not aware of the process is also nothing new.

    • Agree: turtle
  1172. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    More (sorry) on Czechoslovakia:

    “Führer directive concerning Operation Green…It is my irrevocable intention to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.”
    -Adolf Hitler 30 May 1938 [Akten zur deutschen Außenpolitik 1938-45 DII, no.221; Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p.381]

    A Führerbefehl four (4) months before making “the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe”, winning Sudetenland and signing ‘peace in our time’. Four months and a day before ordering military invasion plans for rump Czechoslovakia.

    At roughly the same time (spring 1938) Hitler waxed Klaipėda (Memel) as a high priority. It fell after the characteristic (ala Austria, Sudetenland) sedition/extortion campaign culminating in a 20 Mar 1939 ultimatum and the arrival of German troops on heavy cruisers Deutschland and Admiral Graf Spee, light cruisers Nüremberg, Leipzig and Köln. The ‘Treaty of the Cession of the Memel Territory to Germany’ was signed 1 am 23 Mar 1939.

    “last territorial demand”

    No such thing for a congenital liar.

    Thoughts on gefeiter Hitler – who assumed personal command of the OKH December 1941 (after dismissing Blomberg and Fritsch) from one who knew him:

    [MORE]

    “The main reason…[OKH; Army High Command was “brushed aside”] lay in the personality of Hitler, in his insatiable thirst for power and his excessive self-esteem, which was engendered by his undeniable successes and encouraged by the lick-spittling of his party bosses and certain members of his retinue…In the last analysis, however, it was Hitler’s lust for power which caused him to usurp the role of supreme war leader in addition to being the Head of State and political chief. A conversation I had with him in 1943 proved most revealing in this respect. It was one of the many times I tried to induce Hitler to accept a rationalized form of command – in other words, to resign the direction of military operations in favour of a fully responsible Chief of the General Staff. On the occasion in question Hitler hotly denied having any desire to ‘play the war lord’ – though he was undoubtedly attracted by the glory that went with it. On the contrary, he contended, the really decisive thing was that he should have the power and exclusive authority to impose his will. Power was all he believed in, and he regarded his will as the embodiment of that power. Apart from this it is not unreasonable to suppose that after the Polish campaign Hitler feared the achievement of the Generals might impair his own prestige in the eyes of the people, and that was why he treated OKH so dictatorially from the outset regarding the conduct of the campaign in the west.”

    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.74

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1173. @David Baker

    Look at liberals today, and assess their metamorphosis from Peacenik, Flower Child, “Make-Love-Not-War” campaigners for surrender to bloodthirsty, shabbos goy shills for Israel.

    And which liberals would those be?

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  1174. Fox says:
    @Germanicus

    I didn’t know that. There seems to be an urge to symbolize their planning in such things as representing the “Master Wahlurne” for the FRG as a real funeral urn. It’s a weird crowd who think of themselves as entitled to rule, being capable of same by pure arrogation, and then symbolizing their disdain for the little people of the masses in such evilly-childish depictions as you decribed.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1175. maz10 says:

    Since before my first post there were no less but 1175 prior ones and that is not counting numerous comments on other articles dealing with the origins of the Second World War and revisionism I find it justifiable to voice opinions and remarks of general nature yet ones reflecting what other commentators representing various positions were kind enough to write.

    I will take the liberty to start with a few words about Luftwaffe actions. Namely German bombings of towns and villages ahead of advancing German troops occasionally caught some enemy forces passing through these localities. However for the most part their result was the death of civilians and destruction of civilian property. It was a matter of luck and coincidence to catch an enemy force just as it marched through a settlement exactly when German aircraft appeared overhead while death and devastation were certain by virtue of dropping bombs on a town or village. Sometimes the bombing of towns was officially justified by targeting a road junction, a railway station or some other facility which was or at least could be used in the enemy’s war effort. Similarly larger cities including capitols were considered legitim too for military headquarters and such were located there. Yet it was stretching the idea of a legitim target and soon enough it came to bite the Germans (I will get back to that later). For the record there were indeed cases when cities and towns were bombed as they were being actively defended against attacking German ground troops this being instances when such bombing was legitim with the caveat that bombing a residential area on one side of a city in order to storm a defensive position on the other side could perhaps raise some doubts. Another thing was the bombing or strafing of roads – obviously the targeting of enemy troop movements as well as their logistics was legitim but the said attacks were indiscriminate thus frequently resulting in heavy casualties among refugees fleeing German advances. When discussing Luftwaffe actions it is also very important to note that while it was strong it still for the most part had only dive-bombers or twin-engine medium bombers and both of these in limited numbers.

    Before moving on it is also vital to point out that German propaganda made a big deal of Luftwaffe actions. Among other things newsreels showing destruction of urban areas by the German Air Force were shown in movie theatres across the Reich and to their eternal credit not a few Germans were taken aback by these scenes of devastation (as noted by the Gestapo which was carefully monitoring the public). Boasting about destructive deeds did not go unnoticed elsewhere too and soon enough the RAF dropped leaflets over Germany showing stilled frames of the said films with a question which was also a bloodchilling warning: Wollt Ihr das büßen? Let it be added that German actions were not somehow singled out for condemnation. When the Soviets bombed Helsinki as well as a number of other Finish cities and towns during the Winter War their actions caused outrage on both sides of the Atlantic. In the end the West did not go to war with the Soviets (even though plans to that end were made) but that was for reasons steaming from how the situation subsequently developed.

    Concerning Allied bombing – it was most certainly brutal resulting in large scale civilian death and destruction of civilian property. Entire cities were turned into ruins and there was a corresponding loss of civilian lives. However if to go by “German logic” a city which had administrative offices (obviously playing some or another role in the war effort), a military headquarter or some other military facility, railyards and road junctions – most large cities had some or all of these – such city was a legitim target. In addition military industries producing war material were also obvious military targets and these happen to be for the most part located right next to urban areas. Of course once bombs start to rain down calmly accepting such “logic of war” somehow becomes not that easy anymore. It is a similar case with attacks on roads. When the Luftwaffe lost air superiority over most of western Europe Allied fighters and fighter-bombers started to strafe literally everything that moved. Great damage was inflicted to the German war effort but many civilians caught on the roads also suffered. Thus there were not a few cases when the pilot of a shot-down strafer was put against the wall as a Terrorflieger. It seems that once they were on the receiving end of air attacks it downed on the Germans that the strafing of roads results in civilian casualties and can amount to de-fact aerial terror – better late then never.

    As a final note on this subject – while the Germans conducted a number of short campaigns using a limited number of dive-bombers and medium bombers the Allies waged a long war to bring the Reich down with huge formations of four-engine heavy bombers. For this reason the destruction they inflicted was many orders of magnitude larger than what the Germans ever were capable of doing. Of course two wrongs do not make a right yet it were the Germans who due to a mixture of short-sightedness and hubris unleashed an air war over Europe only to reap what they sow – it was a very bitter harvest to say the least.

    Moving on to other matters. It is a major shortcoming of western historians be they mainstream or otherwise to outright ignore sources from smaller countries. Probably it is a result of laziness – going any further than the nearest library or God forbids having to look for translations from other languages frequently seems to be an insurmountable task. Some are even unwilling to make an extra effort to conduct research if the relevant material is not accessible one click away in digitalised form. It is also very much possible that once they would become acquainted with the content of foreign historical sources not a few of their assumptions which they hold for rock solid facts could not be taken for such anymore.

    In this context one of the commentators made considerable efforts to present the Polish position and the reasoning for not folding to German demands (not only but that seemed to be the most interesting part) having sourced it and provided translations to the best of his abilities. Considering how WW II started it should have been of interest to anyone who is concerned with this subject – not because Poland and the Poles were lily-white blameless but because taking into account their position and their reasoning behind it as the very top of the Polish leadership expressed it (the same goes BTW for other nations which either chose to fold or to resist the Germans) is an important piece of the puzzle. However the information presented was outright dismissed by a certain other commentator as not even worthy to be read – mind you if it is not even read it could not be dismissed on basis of merit (or lack thereof) – simply because she claims to already know all that matters in this regard (not to mention the accompanying displayed of smugness and unfounded feeling of superiority). The same person has the nerve to write about reason and truth. It is precisely this sort of attitude I wrote about in my earlier post which makes discussion with many representatives of the “revisionist camp” impossible – they demand reason and informed arguments while they themselves lightly dismiss anything that might somehow not fit into their projections.

    As a sidenote the same person seems to think that she can insult me by calling names such as a suckpuppet yet it just demonstrates a pathetic level of pettiness – that and a lack of manners but since her parents failed to teach them in her younger years it would be a futile effort to try doing it now. What is more interesting however is her display of simpletonian enthusiasm for calling out Churchill’s fondness for whiskey, war and politics – neither of the three being a laudable habit – which just shows how childish if not outright infantile she is. Finally the fact that commentators stop responding after a while is in most cases not due to her having “won” anything as she hubristically assumes but rather due to the fact that most people have real lives outside of the internet. At least it can be entertaining of sorts to watch a midget pretending to be giant and it turns into outright hilarity to see a midget pretending to be a giant and take herself seriously in that role.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  1176. Zumbuddi says:
    @Reality Cheque

    Meanngless.

    At whose urging was the war waged?

  1177. @refl

    It wasn’t exactly “the Federal Reserve” that pushed America into WWI, though the Federal REserve helped with the assembly and transfer of funds, as Vice President Marshall predicted it would when the bill was signed six months before the war started. It’s more accurate to call the financial forces that engineered American involvement in this war, and made a killing, “Wall Street.” JP Morgan Co. was in the forefront. The Nye Committee of the Senate established these facts circa 1934-36. FDR appears to have presided over maneuvering America into WWII but it’s important to understand that it was on behalf of these same financial interests headquartered (for the time being) in New York City. The foremost result of WWII, as far as America is concerned, was supplanting of the British Empire by the World Empire of Wall Street. The people who created the National Security State were all Wall Street lawyers — Forrestal, Patterson, the Dulleses, etc. And FDR was the scion of the oldest banking family in Manhattan — they were already the biggest bullies on the block before 1700, figured in the “financing” of the Revolution and of the Civil War, were prominent in the Wall Street takeover of the Republican Party from its inception. That FDR was, nominally, a “Democrat,” points up Wall Street’s ownership of the whole “two-party” puppet show.

  1178. @Fox

    Well, it is not only in FRG lala land, it is the case all over the US empire, just the english language isn’t that revealing in this regard.
    However, also english is pretty clear, people have just forgotten the meaning.

    Take the word privatization, the latin root word is privare, which means to rob, to deprive of. In our face, and too few get it.

    If you consider that the person(a) is a Greek or Roman theatrical mask, the fact that “laws” are introduced by an Act is revealing.

    This theatrical mask is owned by the the corporation which made it, they use it to charge this mask with taxes, fines whatever, and it is used to create debt and “money”. The trick is, to get human beings to wear the mask, and of course, as the keeper of the mask, which is an asset, the corporation has terms of services for the mask usage. If two masks have children, the product of this corporate fusion belongs of course to the corporation. A new mask is born, made.
    Very old game, and it still works.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  1179. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    Hello Fox,

    “why the current elimination of literature and opinion in a broad sense by Amazon, youtube, credit card companies (by refusing to transfer money to targeted fonts of opinion and information)? Why the indexing of nearly 50000 book titles after the liberators bombed their way into Germany in 1945, followed by removal and destruction of these books from public libraries and from private bookshelves?

    Very valid question. Don’t agree with such elimination by any means, but no expert in private business inventory and sales.

    Is it different from NSDAP governmental bans on authors and works? Isn’t that the real question?

    “Individualism will be conquered and in place of the individual and its deification, the Volk will emerge. The Volk stands in the center of all things. The revolution is conquering the Volk and public life, imprinting its stamp on culture, economy, politics and private life. It would be naïve to believe that art could remain exempt from this…[Art can no longer] claim to be apolitical or nonpartisan. It [can] not claim to have loftier goals than politics…[in earlier times artists] might claim the right to ignore politics, but not at this historic moment…[the goal of the régime and Germany’s artists must be nothing less than to] conquer the soul of the nation.”
    – Göbbels speech to German Theatre Representatives Mar 1933 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.297]

    In other words, NSDAP leaders didn’t want Germans to think. They wanted Germans to conform and obey.

    If Amazon-Germany existed 1933, the NSDAP would be the first to limit the menu (and probably kick-back a percentage to Göbbels/Göring).

    “The book burning you are referring to was a private undertaking, initiated by students and a symbolic act, a call to protect German culture and reject destructive literature.”

    True. The Deutsche Studentenschaft called for it. What were they afraid of?

    Mind you, don’t have a TV, don’t look at cable, go to movies or depend usual sources. Saves a lot of time. Self-censorship?

    The wider current question is NSC surveillance post 2001 and the Patriot Act. Meta-data (your every move on the internet and phone) shared with foreign powers? A stupid, ruinously expensive bureaucracy put in place to do what? Retire with benefits (pension and medical) to take up a DC swamp tax-exempt charity spinning lame op-eds week after week like régime-change PG?

    “That’s a difference to modern book burnings, they are not symbolic, they mean something definite, they drive home the point that there is forbidden territory, the entering of which carries its risks as defined by the criminal code.”

    Disagree. Wasn’t Thomas Mann similar “forbidden territory”? Warned by his children when traveling in the south of France 1933, he dies (age 80) 1955 in Zürich. What had he written that threatened the NSDAP?

    What about (WW1 wounded veteran) Erich Maria Remarque? What was his sin? Suggesting the insanity of war in ‘Im Westen nichts Neus’ and introducing the personal in ‘Drei Komaraden’? He dies (age 72) in Lucarno. What had he written that threatened the NSDAP?

    Take your time. I’m all ears

    • Replies: @Fox
  1180. Anon[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @maz10

    Troll
    worse — Long-winded

  1181. @Germanicus

    A little more detail.

    What I tried to explain above is a bit more complex, but tried to break it down to comprehensible level.

    The Prussian Constituition explicitly forbids the Strawman, that is the corporate theatrical mask, the person, which is a dead thing.
    The German civil code distingushes between a natural person and a corporate person.
    I assumes the natural person to be the human being, which defaults the law.

    Artikel 9
    Der bürgerliche Tod und die Strafe der Vermögenseinziehung finden nicht statt.

    Who wants to research it, the British Cestui Que Vie Acts are relevant.

    In other words, already Prussia put a big show stopped on the table for the fiat money slave system. Do you get why the British demonize the “militaristic” Prussia to this day?

    The National Socialists also fully comprehended the game, and expressed it in the 25 points in point 19

    19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a German common law.

    The roman Law refers to the Capitis deminutio (literally decrease of head) practice, to put Names of things in all capitals, such as slaves.

    WWI & WWII have also been about a battle of legal systems, philosophy of law.

  1182. @maz10

    LOL. I detect Szopen behind this little scheme. I thought this with his first comment as ‘Maz10’, and even wrote it in my reply but removed it as I didn’t want to say something I wasn’t sure of. I’m sure now. That’s why I called him a sockpuppet in my reply to Fox. I was sure he was somebody’s sockpuppet.

    Ah well, don’t hit a man when he’s down. What is noticeable is the absence of any evidence — this is pure OPINION again — a narrative without any SPECIFICS, which is what I was complaining about in the first one! I guess every source he can use here he’s already used before, thus that would help to give him away.

    What a disappointment, actually. I was looking forward to pinning that ‘Maz10’ down.
    Advice to Szopen: Honesty is the best policy–really.

    • Replies: @maz10
  1183. L.K says:
    @Fox

    Taking things to the beginning, I think US professors Norman A. Graebner and Edward M. Bennett put it well in their 2011 book ‘The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy – The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision’:

    The rise of the German Empire in 1870–1871 did not rest on external aggression; rather it emerged from the willing unification of several dozen historic German states under Prussian leadership.
    For centuries, these German principalities, amid their disunity, were vulnerable to the external encroachments of Austria[ then a multi-ethnic Empire] and France, the Continent’s two major powers. German unification required the symbolic elimination of the powerful external influences of Austria in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and of France in the FrancoPrussian War of 1870–1871. Both wars, each lasting only six weeks and ending in the total annihilation of both the Austrian and French armies, ended the old European order and revealed Germany, with its powerful army, as the Continent’s dominant state.

    Germany’s sudden acquisition of continental dominance required some adjustment of attitudes and roles in regional politics, especially in Britain and France. Such needed adjustments were not impossible. Germany’s dominance did not rest on conquest, although Germany annexed France’s Alsace-Lorraine along the German border in the 1871 treaty that ended the war.
    Germany’s dominance was largely endemic, resting on its location, size, resources, industries, and the qualities of its large population. None of these assets was based on conquest. The issue of 1871 was whether Europe would willingly coexist with these realities or seek to eliminate them with war – which was impossible.

    • Replies: @L.K
  1184. Incitatus says:
    @Germanicus

    Hello Germanicus,

    “Look, Weimar was a corporation, Oswald Spengler pointed it out pretty well.”

    Confess haven’t read Spengler, so – kudos- you have me there. Only so many hours in a day.

    What have I missed? Kindly post how Spengler would describe Weimar and its faults.

    As for the “corporation” meme, well who cares? Name the shareholders (with legitimate attribution) and enumerate their interests.

    “As for the rest of your democratic gibberish and artificial outrage, all empty shallow words and paroles.”

    What have I said espousing ‘democracy’? Your bridge too far? Do you hate ‘democracy’?

    “But it was the communist thugs and organizations who violently opposed the NSDAP in the corporate Weimar democracy”

    The NSDAP – first and foremost – was opposed to Weimar democracy. Opposition was their birthright. They wanted authoritarian (their exclusive unlimited) rule. Kindly enlighten us otherwise.

    Yes, there were more than enough thugs to go around. The NSADAP had the largest stable.

    “The NSDAP never made a secret about their dislike of Democracy”

    Quite right! The NSDAP eschewed everything that stood in their way (including other parties, the press, labor unions, individual rights, etc.). Power was what they ‘struggled’ for, power they got. They destroyed Germany.

    “If your all neighbors decide that your apple tree on your property has to be cut down, because it disturbs their view, how is it relevant to you? That’s the tyranny of the majority, who somehow think just because a majority says something, it has to apply to you. The majority is stupid, kept stupid, and the majority ais also willfully ignorant.”

    Interesting question. Grew up on a farm with peach orchards. No such problem. Don’t feel anybody kept me “stupid” or “willfully ignorant”. Do you have such feelings?

    But, get your point. “Tyranny of the majority” is a disturbing element. Why, then, aren’t you outraged at NSDAP legal manipulation to ensure their enduring “tyranny”? Total power over individual Germans? Whispering criticism of the régime or listening to foreign radio broadcasts gets you 8 months in a KZ? If you’re lucky. Extra-judicial “preventative detention”? Are you serious? What are we missing?

    “The essential truth about democracy is, it is a tyranny, which will violently cling to power.”

    LOL! It’s 50+ years since I read about Athenian tyrants. Why demonize democracy “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”?

    Leaders in any state (any form of government) will probably “violently (or otherwise) cling to power”. Why chose democracy?

    Give us a hint.

  1185. L.K says:
    @L.K

    I would add that the 1870 Franco-Prussian War was caused by France and that Alsace-Lorraine was then inhabited predominantly by ethnic Germans.

    As US historian Thomas Fleming put it, in ” The Illusion of victory’:

    Many more quotations were obtained from books by German socialists and liberals, attacking “German militarism”—a term these critics of the establishment all but coined.

    Ignored was France’s love of military glory and lust for conquest. In the era of Napoleon, the rest of Europe had labeled militarism the French disease.
    On the eve of the Great War, with a population far smaller than Germany, France had a bigger army, and most of its politicians were obsessed with erasing the stain of their crushing 1870–1871 defeat by Germany in a war that another French militarist, Napoleon III, had started.
    To satisfy the national appetite for la gloire, Paris had established a colonial empire in Africa and Indochina.

    The British, possessors of the world’s biggest fleet and an immense empire ruled by force, were hardly entitled to prate about militarism. But facts seldom if ever deterred the determined men in Wellington House.17

    • Agree: Fox
    • Replies: @turtle
  1186. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    Meanwhile, though, I want to mention (again) the amazing Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich , by Guido Preparata…Ron: Please read this book.

    Well, I ordered a copy of the Preparata book, and read it. I hate to say it, but he comes across as a total conspiracy-crank and a crackpot.

    The book significantly references the short earlier Antony Sutton book on Wall Street/Hitler, which I’d brought a couple of years ago, so I dug it out and finally read it. Sure enough, Sutton also comes across like a conspiracy-crank and a crackpot.

    I’m certainly not saying these books are totally worthless since they gather together lots of interesting references. But the candor and/or judgment of the authors is so dreadful, I just don’t think I can trust them on anything at all.

    One interesting thing I’ve noticed about WWII conspiracy-cranks is that they’re usually utterly, *utterly* terrified of discussing the Jewish role in promoting the war, even though (as I cited in my article) the private statements of Chamberlain and numerous other key players put Jewish influence at the absolute center.

    For example, neither Preparata nor Sutton have any entry for “Jews” in their detailed index, with Sutton for safety’s sake, even avoiding any index entry starting with the letter “J.” So you write a “conspiracy” book about Wall Street, Hitler, and WWII and have no index entry for “Jews”—ha, ha, ha. Quite a number of the key individuals Sutton mentions were Jewish, but you’d never know it from Sutton’s book.

    Sutton also repeatedly mentions Hitler’s diabolical plan to conquer the entire world. Hmmm…

    Meanwhile, Preparata focuses on the diabolical plot of the British elites to destroy Germany. Okay. But instead of simply attacking Germany when it was almost totally disarmed and helpless in the 1920s, they plotted to build up a very powerful German military under Hitler, and *then* start a war (and get defeated in 1940!) presumably because that was much more “challenging.”

    Similarly, everyone knows of Parvus, the Jewish Marxist from Russia, whom the Germans used to provide heavy financing to Lenin’s Bolsheviks in hopes of promoting a revolution. The plan succeeded, and with their Russian allies in revolutionary turmoil, the British almost lost the war to Germany. Okay. But based on zero evidence, Preparata claims that Parvus was actually a *British* agent, who tricked the Germans into funding the Bolshevik Revolution and thereby almost winning the war. Those diabolical British!

    Preparata also seems to believe that during the 1920s and 1930s, the British elites and the top Soviets were secret allies, both cooperating to build up Hitler’s military machine so as to better destroy Germany. He also believes that all the top British figures who seemed to be pro-German or friendly towards Hitler, from Edward VIII on down, were actually part of a diabolical anti-German British plot. Although everyone thought that Churchill and Chamberlain were bitter adversaries, they were actually secretly working together to destroy Germany by building up the German military into the strongest in the world.

    I could provide a very long list of Preparata’s additional crackpottery, but it just isn’t worth it.

    I think I’ve heard that the LaRouchies always claimed that there was a secret British conspiracy currently running the world, so I’d guess that Preparata sold lots of his books in those circles.

    • Agree: John Regan
  1187. Zumbuddi says:

    LK, thanks for this background.

    I’ve heard it said that Franco-Prussian war & subsequent German unification were the starting point for proper history of the World Wars.

    Recently read that several leaders of Zionism were “1848ers” or their descendants, deeply imbued with revolutionary spirit & (excess) energy.

  1188. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    In which manner would be an expert in private business and inventory and sales be of importance in forming an idea of aliens coming into your country and removing all the books they don’t approve of?

    What about Thomas Mann? “Warned by his children”. Two of his politically active children (Klaus and Erika)- I suppose they were violently anti-Hitler- urged him on occasion of his travel in February of 1933 in the South of France not to return to Germany.
    The words chosen in your comment are a good example of how to manipulatively make use of words and facts, “urging” is dramatized into “warning”. Two weeks after Hitler assumed German chancellorship there is already such evil agitation going on. -Just as I remember that on February 2, 1933, a New York Times writer urged already for Hitler’s assassination. I believe to have read this in the book >Kriegsursachen, Kriegsschuld< by Helmut Schröcke, a book I also remember to have been made subject to censorship in Germany a few years ago.
    Anyway, Thomas Mann had a lot of property in Germany, lots of money, and as far as I know his children were capable of transferring it to him in his new residences abroad. He did also retain his German citizenship until he himself renounced it by taking a Czecho-Slovakian passport late 1936.
    Like every normal, self-respecting country, Germany did not look favorably upon people who denounced it, and this Mann did, going as far as expressing his satisfaction of the bombing campaign to destroy German cities. Because he is such an unsavory character, I did never read the Buddenbrooks that had been given me as a present.

    What about Remarque?
    I don't know much about him, mainly that he was busy throwing dirt on Germans who had served in the First War. I suppose that must have been especially bitter for Germans who had to exist through the privations of the Weimar Republic and given their all for the defense against Germany's enemies. Having made plenty of enemies that way, it is not surprising that the students on May 10, 1933 also handed his books over to the flames. The symbolic energy of the public rejection of negative, destructive and insulting writings must have been quite intense, as the real book burning as occurred after 1945 is not causing much of a reaction, perhaps because the modern book burnings are done in stealth and are only administrative measures meant to simply eliminate something and in fact avoid any symbolic meaning one might attach and think of the state machinery behind it as a big, relentless, unfeeling and brutal machine.

    Such as Remarque's behavior was indecent and if one gets a bloody nose from it, that's the risk one takes. I can well believe that all soldiers on all sides believed that they were fighting for their country, and mocking and vilifying such attitudes is vile and repulsive. The common soldiers understood this well enough when they met after the war and could speak with one another in the spirit of understanding, but Remarque was apparently not one of the people who could look into other people's heart with understanding.
    Were his books still on the market after a few exemplars had been thrown into the flames? I would hope so.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Incitatus
  1189. @Ron Unz

    Thank you, Ron Unz! I’ve been slamming Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler for such a long time (and Preparata’s Conjuring Hitler when it comes up), but the conspiracy devotees on the Internet are so numerous and so fanatical that they shout me down. I’m glad I can reference this comment by you. I like your term “crackpottery.”

  1190. @Ron Unz

    Yes, Preparata is disappointing.
    I’ve only listened to him discuss Conjuring Hitler — he not only did not include mention of Jews and zionism, he stated that the matter did not interest him much. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

    A name & background like Guido Preparata offered great hope for insight into Italy’s involvement in the war, with the various parties; Mussolini’s ideas; Italian action in the Spanish revolution, etc., but all Preparata said was, Italy is a mess, it is run by Americans; everywhere you turn you see an American in charge.

    It seems Italians are just as cowed by Jews as are the totally brainwashed Germans, even tho Italy was not treated quite as harshly post-war as was (is) Germany.

    I have observed in Iranian-Americans: they are very protective of Jews, consider them adopted family. Perhaps Italians have had such a long relationship with Jewish people that the impulse is much the same and bred in the bone. It’s certain that the feeling is not reciprocated, not towards Iranians nor towards Italians.

  1191. Incitatus says:
    @refl

    Hello refl,

    “The US was not dragged into the european war by the Europeans, but by the Federal Reserve to save Wall Street loans…”

    No fan of the Fed or bankers. Don’t doubt finance had a say in war on all sides, all nations. One of many voices.

    1914-18 – 14% of German governmental spending is financed by taxes; 86% is financed by borrowing (bonds). Annual inflation (1% 1890-1914) increases to 32% 1914-18 [Burleigh ‘The Third Reich’ p.28-29].

    Waging war costs money. Best you win in order to pay it off.

    The yearling Fed caused European war in 1914? Did it loan money to Germany? Really? Please stipulate loans and amounts.

    WW2? Different story. NY banks (no expert) had a role in the Dawes (1924) and Young (1929) refinancing plans. Naturally the NSDAP was popular in saying ‘fingers’ to the bankers. Yet the real problem was demonic Versailles reparations.

    Odd the NSDAP evinced no concern at the even more confiscatory Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany forced on Russia 3 Mar 1918. One plus million square miles of territory (home to 50 million people), 33% of its rails, 73% of its iron, 89% of its coal, 5000 factories, and a 6-billion mark indemnity. That seemed OK to German victors. Shoe-on-other foot, the same were endlessly whining about their ‘victimhood’.

    The largest war reparations per capita in history? By the Treaty of Paris (1815) defeated France was ordered to pay 700 million francs in indemnities. France was also to pay additional money to cover the cost of providing additional defensive fortifications built by neighboring Coalition countries [E. N. White “Making the French pay: the cost and consequences of the Napoleonic reparations”].

    It was matched only by Treaty of Frankfurt (May 10, 1871), whereby France was obliged to pay a war indemnity of 5 billion gold francs in 5 years plus Alsace-Lorraine. German troops remained in parts of France until the last installment of the indemnity was paid in September 1873, ahead of schedule.

    Germany, after destroying much of Belgium and France 1914-18, never paid what it demanded of France in 1871. They were forced into Versailles when their own men realized their leaders were morons and mutinied in 1918. The word that comes to mind for subsequent non-payment by same the same morons is ‘deadbeats’.

    “You have read something about Falkenhayn, so good.”

    Good, indeed! Actually visited Fort Douaumont and the Verdun battlefield autumn 1971. Most of the battlefield inaccessible with live ordinace. 8” armored turrets scattered like egg-shells. Grave yards as far as the eye could see.

    Reading? Try Alistair Horne’s ‘Price of Glory’. Message: the insanity of war. Have you read it? Have you been to Verdun?

    “The mass murder of the British blockade against civilians never crossed your mind.”

    Sorry. It’s crossed my mind many times. Read my archive.

    Shouldn’t Germany and Austria-Hungary have planned against that before pulling the trigger in 1914?

    Belgium lost approximately the same percentage of civilian population (1.16%) as Germany (1.18%). All tragic. The biggest loser? The Serbs. They lost 17.87% civilian population, 27.8% (including military) total population.

    “It is just the same as when you shout Stalin mass murderer all the time, when never caring a shit about what the Russians really went through in two World Wars plus the revolution…”

    Please quote anything I’ve said about Stalin and “mass murder”, or anything that denigrates Russian survival of awful chapters in history.

    “I can’t help it, but my sympathies for the West have gone out of the window.”

    That’s up to you, of course. No knowledge or advocacy for whatever you label the “West”. If you find something better, please let us know.

    It seems (with respect) you’re whistling at the wind, imagining things I’ve never said.

    If anything, a desperate troll?

    • Replies: @refl
  1192. @Incitatus

    And again, thanks. You have reassured me in my judgment (not as a professional historian or even one very well read) that it is simply wrong to say that Hitler did everything he could to avoid war with Britain and France. True, his main interests were in the east and he would have much preferred to be given a free hand by Britain and France and not fight them. But, if he had wanted to prevent war with them he had to make sure that he didn’t cause them to totally distrust him.

  1193. @refl

    With a bit of luck someone who reads that post of yours will be familar with the sources you name which are only names to me. I hope that will result in a measured assessment of them.

  1194. @Fox

    Great response!
    Incitatus has such a sleezy approach. Like a professional con man of some sort. He pats himself on the back for “not having a TV, cable, not going to movies or using usual sources.” Well, I can say the same, and for a very long time now too.
    I learned that Remarque’s real name is Remark (German), which he frenchified to Remarque. He preferred living in Switzerland. You have to wonder about that.

    Anyway, I loved Thomas Mann’s novels and short stories and read every one of them (in English translation) in the 1960’s. I was completely unaware of his politics. Much later, after 2000, becoming a student of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, I read about Mann’s hatred of Hitler and love for Jews. I was disappointed, truly sad. I didn’t like Mann anymore, the more I learned about him, the less I liked him. He’s still a giant of a storyteller though. I’m glad I didn’t know his personal story when I read his novels, since you say you are unable to read him because you do.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1195. Ron Unz says:
    @refl

    Go to Anthony Sutton: “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution”.

    Well, I just now finished reading Sutton’s later Wall Street/Hitler book, and as I mentioned, he seemed a total conspiracy-crank and a crackpot:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#comment-3488251

    I’d read his Wall Street/Bolshevik Revolution book earlier this year, and it was just as dreadful:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3221789

    go to “Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War” – by Gerry Docherty and Jim Mac Gregor – also on the internet and mentioned across these pages from time to time:

    I also tried to read the Docherty/MacGregor book a few months ago, but it filled with so much ridiculous conspiracy-nonsense I gave up after just a few chapters. Maybe it somehow got better after that, but I tend to doubt that:

    https://www.unz.com/ishamir/do-spies-run-the-world/#comment-3231465

  1196. @Wizard of Oz

    These facts were established by the investigations of the Senate Sub-committee on Munitions chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye of North Dakota in 1934-1937. The evidence produced by their investigations (employing Congressional subpoena power) and their conclusions are published in the Congressional Record and fill several large volumes. Their conclusions are demonstrated and accepted by reputable historians. Matthew Ware Coulter, The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s: Beyond The Merchants of Death (Westport, CN, Greenwood Press, 1997) offers an accurate overview, if unnecessarily cautious and understated.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1197. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Oh, the Valkyrie Brunhilde sung! “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings”. What a relief, ‘Wagner’s operas contain wonderful moments but terrible half hours’ (when is not unbearable boring). Brunhilde’s song is one of the wonderful moments.

  1198. maz10 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Bravo – you were able to get the clue.

    Unfortunately for you there is the end of your intellectual abilities as you fail to understand that you have already proven my point.

    Namely after reading articles and comments on this site I put forward the thesis amounting to that it is impossible to argue with the revisionist camp for its most vocal representatives dismiss evidence presented by others (as I suspect because it might disrupt their constructs or puncture their bubbles).

    That is exactly what you did by dismissing szopen’s profusely sourced and argued posts as not even worthy reading.

    Let me repeat that so that even you can understand it: you dismissed a series of sourced and argued posts as not worthy reading as you admitted yourself thus, by this very action, proving my point. Do not kick a man (woman) when he (she) is down – sorry but you asked for it.

    LOL-ing (by now you should be facepalming not laughing), calling names etc. does not change the above in the slightest instead it just once more reveals your crudeness for all to see.

    Just for the record: I do not know szopen and the only reason I referred to the exchange between you and him was because it perfectly illustrates my thesis and proves the point I made.

    As for the rest. While my post was not short by the standards of internet comments yet it was nevertheless far from an encyclopaedic account of the air war over Europe (it was not intended to be one in the first place) and for this reason it is not footnoted like one. Still I beg to opine that it content stands. That said as any man I could err and I am all ears concerning critical comments.

  1199. @J. Alfred Powell

    I’m afraid there’s another putting money where mouth is case staring at us. Instead of just making positive assertions on UR why not try your hand at editing Wikipedia where the article on the Nye committee says this:

    “Although the committee found scant hard evidence to support the widespread public belief that the profits of the arms industry had been a significant factor in America’s decision to participate in the war, their reports did little to dispel the notion. ”

    The committee of Senate backwoodsmen never finished its work so who knows what sensible findings it might have come up with eventually with the assistance of its counsel Alger Hiss.

  1200. refl says:
    @Ron Unz

    One would have to go into the sources that Docherty/ Mac Gregor use to get more detail. My point would not even be to point to a conspiracy, but rather to expose the War guilt and overall plan of the British Empire and the Angloamerican Establishment.
    Out of my mind a collection of hints, where I rely on their findings to form my own perspective:

    – The claim that Turkey was deliberately forced into the war on the German side during the affair of the battleship Goeben. Turkey had to be on the German side, because it (1) could not be a partner while Russia was also a partner, (2) it held Palestine, which at the end of the war was to be occupied by the British and handed to the Zionists. At that point the authors are quite explicit about the Zionists.

    – In connection with that, the Gallipoli campaign was deliberately cackhandled. Russia was on the point of making its separate peace with Germany after exhausting itself in the war and had been promised the Straits of Constantinople, which in itself contradicts any British geopolitical strategy before or since. The Russians had to be shown that Britain was making an effort in blood for them, while at the same time it was out of the question that this effort should ever succeed.
    Regarding this, it is astonishing to take a look into Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert.

    (It is, by the way, something to think about that a leadership should set up military campaigns with huge losses for their own side with the plan not to succeed).

    – The claim that the blockade against Germany was deliberately set up to let through essential war material to keep Germany fighting. It has been asked ever since, why the war lasted for so long, when all planners had estimated that a modern country of the era could not keep its army in the field for more than half a year or so. The thesis is, that the plan was not to defeat but to destroy Germany in a prolonged campaign. On the other hand, they claim that the blockade was intensified and deliberately kept up for about two years after the war.
    Germany was actually fed through the Belgian relief by the same people, who were fighting them.

    – The claim that the Russian revolution was initiated to counter any Russian attempt at a separate peace. Russia could not be among the victors nations, as it would have taken huge gains, which the strategy of the British Empire would not allow. In WWII the Soviets made enormous gains, but than rather thanks to their agents in the Roosevelt administration and against the British.

    These points allude to a geopolitical masterplan and far less to a conspiracy. There will be better sources for each of these claims, but I am not in the position to go into them in detail. It is a huge effort and I have gone into just a few of the sources that were the most easy to access.

    Regarding your point that the authors in question do not mention the Jewish background: I can proudly claim that I have come to realize the Voldemort-effect myself and most likely the Harry Potter series is a blunt allusion to exactly that group of people. As I from time to time have the luck to explain history to people, I sometimes, when I am in the mood, like to start spilling the beens on certain revisionist findings and watch the eyes of my audience get ever bigger. At some point, however, I stop, because I prefer to keep my job… And I NEVER approach the Voldemort affair. I don’t want it, and it is outright suicidal. This has to be left to future generations. It will come, certainly, and I hate to say this, but it will be bitter.
    I even believe that WWI revisionism is far more healthy then revisionism of WWII, because less bitterness is involved and it will point automaticaly to the same questions regarding WWII.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  1201. If you really want to know about WW1&2, read the German view of them by Gerd Schultze Rhonhof: 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers (https://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X)… which I translated; for the original German see: 1939 – The Krieg, der viele Väter hatte (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=1939+-+The+Krieg%2C+der+viele+V%C3%A4ter+hatte&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss).

  1202. @George F. Held

    For the German version see: 1939 – The Krieg, der viele Väter hatte (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=1939+-+The+Krieg%2C+der+viele+V%C3%A4ter+hatte&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss)
    I might add that many of the books mentioned in this article were once available for free download at the late great German National Socialist website: Gross Deutsches Vaterland. The early days of the internet were the best! It would be great if the Unz Review would post them and the many other materials in many languages that were available there… It seems that all trace of that website has now been excised from the internet.

  1203. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    It’s shocking it’s been banned at Youtube.

    Not at all shocking to me.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1204. @Ron Unz

    Sutton definitely has his faults and his omissions are huge. Nonetheless, he was an influence on Richard Spence. Here is a link to an interview with Prof. Spence from the U. of Idaho. Spence discusses his book, ‘Wall Street and the Russian Revolution.’ The interview is over two and a half hours and is downloadable.

    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/tkelly6785757/episodes/2018-02-27T05_42_50-08_00

    Ron Unz’s opinion regarding Spence’s book:
    “Spence’s book contains a very large quantity of information I’d never previously seen anywhere and I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Sutton’s research.” –
    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3231251

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  1205. turtle says:
    @L.K

    No problem.
    We need only keep in mind that when France invades Germany, and gets its ass handed to it, that is known as “German militarism.” Tsk, tsk.

    In the era of Napoleon, the rest of Europe had labeled militarism the French disease.

    And here I always thought the “French disease” referred to syphilis…

  1206. @turtle

    It should be. But you might not recognize why.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1207. @J. Gutierrez

    J Gutierrez

    Apologies for the delay. I have an urgent project, and I’m writing commentary as a form of relaxation. Right now, I’m waiting for a program to finish executing.

    I did see the whole video. I’ve seen through enough that my empathy is way down.(NE European coldness, don’t you know, and surviving several situations that were intended to destroy me and my family), but it’s clear even to me that every shred of human dignity was stripped from the Berliners when they lost the war and their incomes. I haven’t quite lost all my human dignity myself, but I’ve known several people who have — usually as the last part of their lives. The Berliners were also forced to do violate every belief thy had and do things that would kill them eventually but keep them alive today, and they were forced deliberately. That’s the only way that Berlin (of all places) could have become the “sex capitol of the world”. The “sex scientist” was your archetypal Jewish phony.

    And it might have happened to us, too. The US “homeless’ population is undergoing a very similar version of dehumanization today, and for the same reason– their suffering generates revenue (tax revenue today, tourist revenue back then). I don’t know what’s happening in Mexico, but it can’t be good. This isn’t a time for good things to happen.

    Literature from the Wiemar have been sort of canonized in English Literature, but I don’t believe that the English professors know the context. They are simply accepting a European imported literature as being high prestige because the importers had academic power, and in the process destroying that literature’s significance.
    English literature presents that time as a sort of internal breakdown in Western civilization, one with no intervention by non-Western entities and one caused solely by the loss of WW I. This was clearly not the case; the Left ran Berlin, and the Left was responsible for ensuring that sex was the only way to earn a living for the surviving Germans. The Left ran the USSR and tried to annex Eastern Europe as Soviet Socialist Republics. Nor was the USSR alone. Remember, during this time the French (who had a mild dislike for Germany) were looting Germany under the Versailles treaty. In the West, a controlled media lied about almost everything of importance (Spain, the USSR, the Hungarian Revolution, etc.) Between the Left and the French, Germany didn’t have a chance to recover, and the rest of Europe never quite regained stability.

    I would, quite frankly, have had trouble believing the above before the anti-Trump / open borders publicity campaign of the past several years. That and the quite serious “abolish Whiteness” effort that became important during the Obama administration. And the “sugar baby” app, which is pretty clearly being encouraged by top tier universities. Now, the Wiemar period of history looks lot like this one, and suddenly the literature from that period is perfectly clear in meaning.

    As usual, I’ve been too much the optimist.

    And don’t spend too all your pity on the German people of that time. Please save some of the pity for yourself and me and our relatives.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @J. Gutierrez
  1208. refl says:
    @Zumbuddi

    For the Goeben incident:

    The First Lord of the Admiralty [Churchill] reaped what he had sown. The Kaiser’s ‘gift’ of two warships had an enormously positive impact on Turkish popular opinion and drew them to Germany’s side [11] And it was a decision that suited the Foreign Office and all of the Secret Elite’s pre-war planning. Their unilateral promise to give Constantinople to Russia as a reward for crushing Germany would have been exceptionally difficult had Turkey remained neutral, and impossible had she joined with the allies. By pushing the Goeben and the Breslau into the Dardanelles, the British navy simultaneously pushed Turkey into the German camp. (…)
    Once the Turkish navy was secured behind the powerful German ships, the Admiralty could beat its breast and the Foreign Office lament the consequences, but Constantinople was safe from Russian occupation.

    The loss of Turkey to the German side in the early days of the war has been seen mostly as a blunder, when the sale of two new and already paid for battleships to Turkey was cancelled, requisitoning them for the Royal Navy itself, while two equal battleships of the Germans were alowed to flee to Turkey from the Mediteranean – in this view it was not a blunder at all.

    On Palestine:

    Conscious that the final resolution to the war would be critical to the Zionist claims on Palestine, their British and American leaders became increasingly involved in a secretive network aimed at influencing government policy. The three month period between April and June 1917 was peppered with urgent cables between Louis Brandeis in Washington and, Chaim Weizmann and James Rothschild in London, updating each other about privileged meetings, current opinions and actions to be taken to advance the Zionist plan. [1] Unknown to elected politicians and cabinet members in both countries, these men operated a clandestine cell of Zionist interest whose specific purpose was to normalise, validate and protect the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Their targets were A.J. Balfour in Britain and President Woodrow Wilson in the United States. The British foreign secretary was known to be sympathetic; the American president had yet to indicate his approval.

    This is especially remarkable as the ensuing Balfour declaration was not known in Germany until after the war – it got known basically, when the Zionists laid down their claim at the Versailles conference. The Germans were not even allowed into the conference room, while more then 100 Zionist Jews declared that they had won the war and wanted their share – for this see the speech by Benjamin Freedman

    On Gallipoli:

    The Secret Elite had promised the Czar that Russia would be given Constantinople as a just reward for the Russian war effort, but were determined that it would never come to pass. Although the Allies had sacrificed a quarter of a million men on the Dardanelles and Gallipoli campaigns, as explained earlier, these were deliberately set to fail in order to keep Russia involved in the war but out of Constantinople. In 1915 such action was critically important. Two years on, circumstances had radically changed. The Secret Elite would certainly not allow Russia to take possession of the Ottoman capital in 1917 through a major offensive that might end the war. They intended to carve up the Ottoman Empire for themselves, and Russia would not be permitted to interfere.

    Just as much, the authors blame the Russian revolution on British interference:

    In a sense it was Gallipoli all over again. Hold the Russians fast to the war without allowing them to gain anything from their mammoth contribution. Until the United States entered the war and her troops were on the ground in Europe, Russian troops were valuable, but Russia could not be allowed to share the spoils when the ultimate victory had been secured. It was absolutely essential that the Czar be prevented from mounting a successful offensive in 1917.
    (…)
    Untangling the Secret Elite’s web of intrigue during the Russian mission is no simple matter. But be certain of one thing. Alfred Milner was not a man to waste his time, let alone risk U-Boat infested seas to journey to Russia in the depth of winter, unless it was a matter of the gravest importance. It was no coincidence that he was in Petrograd less than three weeks before the revolution exploded. (…)
    We know that he had private talks with the Czar, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Milner warned Nicholas II that British Intelligence had sound evidence that serious disorder was about to erupt in the capital; disorder which would present an immense threat to the Czar’s personal safety and that of his beloved children. The key objective of this Secret Elite exercise was to manipulate their own agents into power in Russia. Nicholas had served his purpose. Did Milner urge Nicholas to consider abdication with promises that he and his family would find a safe refuge in Britain? The speed with which the Czar abdicated and his lack of fight surprised many.

    Alfred Milner is said by these authors to be the leader of tis so-called secret elite – and it may be the main weakness to point to specific characters as conspirational leaders.

    On supplying Germany with war material, specifically feeding it through the Belgian Relief:

    What we have uncovered is shocking evidence of Secret Elite collusion, both from London and America, to use Belgium as a means of supplying food to Germany and her armies so that they could continue fighting a bitter war of attrition on the continent of Europe. In a series of earlier blogs [1] we demonstrated how these men deliberately prolonged the war by a sham naval blockade which allowed Germany to maintain imports of vital food and war materiel. The Secret Elite sought the utter destruction of Germany and the German economy which threatened British predominance. This could not be achieved by a quick military victory, and it would have to be a long, long war. Armies march on their stomachs and good food supply lines have always been an essential factor in military success. Britain was able to sustain a long war by importing plentiful supplies from across her vast empire and from both North and South America. Germany, on the other hand, was surrounded by the proverbial ‘ring of steel’ and had no comparable sources. The stunning paradox is that Britain, in accord with her allies in ‘neutral’ America, knowingly supplied Germany with the means to go on fighting.

    • Replies: @refl
  1209. refl says:
    @refl

    Now I have messed up with the more-tag.

    The texts are from the Website https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/

    The site has its own search function

  1210. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    like around 70

    Longer than that.
    More like 100 years.
    http://www.revisionist.net/hysteria/anti-german.html

    By 1919, 27 states had banned instruction in and of German. Schools that didn’t burn their German books silently disposed of them, encouraged by the government to ban teaching or speaking of German. Philadelphia, Newport, Kentucky and Lafayette, Indiana all banned the teaching of German, and many other areas, including Milford, Ohio tried to ban the speaking of German. One phone company even banned the speaking of German on its telephones, and English was demanded in most courts. Libraries in Detroit, Denver, St. Louis, New York, Cleveland, Portland and Washington, D.C. all banned German books. Like Scouts in many other cities, Columbus, Ohio’s Boy Scouts burned local German-language newspapers.

    Heavily Germanic Cincinnati, Ohio published more than 30 German language publications before all German-language books were banned from the public library. Thousands were destroyed and all German language classes were dropped from the school system.

    http://www.revisionist.net/hysteria/german-triangle.html

    A typical assault on any German studies in the US university system is the one which took place on the University of Michigan, a college which was actually modeled on the typical German university and had a long, renowned and respected Germanic educational and cultural tradition. Before the war, over a quarter of the students were enrolled in classes in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literature. After the bullying “National Security League” was founded to exterminate “un-American” values, German-purging replaced the historically peaceful campus.

    When they requested that an official inquiry be made into the loyalty of all University of Michigan faculty, the regents at first ignored the request. However, in October of 1917, Professor Carl E. Eggert of the German Department was dismissed for allegations that he was “pro-German,” and also in 1917, Professor Ewald Boucke, a German national, was forced into requesting a leave of absence for the duration of the war, a request that was granted “indefinitely.” When he asked for reinstatement at the end of the war, he was denied. The University was cleansed of all faculty suspected of “pacifism or subversive” thoughts, and a violent end came to the Germanic studies programs, where enrollment in German courses at the University plummeted from 1,300 to 150. Even the local German newspaper, the Washtenaw Post, was barred from the U.S. Post Office.

    In more modern times,
    neither the HS from which both of my parents graduated:
    https://hs.nyackschools.org
    (where my Dad studied Latin, and both Mom and Dad studied German)
    nor that from which I and my 3 siblings graduated:
    https://highland.aps.edu
    Presently offer instruction in the German language.

  1211. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Kindly elaborate.
    I do not find it “shocking,” because I consider (i.e., assess the nature of) the venue (YouTube).

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1212. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “…aliens coming into your country and removing all the books they don’t approve of?”

    You mean aliens like Austrian gefreiter/rabble-rouser/felon/never held a job in private industry Adolf Hitler? No question he became useful to Germans. They underestimated him. It was their downfall.

    “The words chosen in your comment are a good example of how to manipulatively make use of words and facts, “urging” is dramatized into “warning”.”

    Thanks (I guess?). Try my best “manipulation” in every post. Most call that advocacy, but what the hell?

    “Two weeks after Hitler assumed German chancellorship there is already such evil agitation going on.”

    One second prior to being appointed to office by a corrupt monarchist, Hitler was THE prime agitator. Go figure!

    “Anyway, Thomas Mann had a lot of property in Germany, lots of money, and as far as I know his children were capable of transferring it to him in his new residences abroad.”

    Individuals granted exit visas (not automatic) were allowed to leave Germany with 10 Reichsmarks (less than £100 today) per person. Currency restrictions were part of the NSDAP ‘economic miracle’.

    “Like every normal, self-respecting country, Germany did not look favorably upon people who denounced it, and this Mann did, going as far as expressing his satisfaction of the bombing campaign to destroy German cities. Because he is such an unsavory character, I did never read the Buddenbrooks that had been given me as a present.”

    Please cite Mann’s denunciation [quotes, dates]. Keep in mind the NSDAP blacklisted him on taking power 1933, probably demonized him well before.

    Was Thomas Mann less German, less deserving of a voice and opinion, than Austrian Adolf Hitler? Was Hitler and his party the only embodiment of a people/culture that existed for thousands of years? What about former WW1 U-Boat captain Martin Niemöller, imprisoned with 2720 other clerics at Dachau? What was their crime?

    Why not read ‘Magic Mountain’ or ‘Buddenbrooks’ and decide if NSDAP blacklisting was warranted? Just a thought. After all, you won’t be arrested by the Gestapo (as you likely would have been 1933-45, 8 months in a KZ minimum). CIA and NSA, well maybe (just kidding).

    1933 Gleichschaltung meant the destruction of the individual, free-will and anything that might threaten NSDAP power and Hitler. Laws that prohibited listening to foreign broadcasts, deprived the opponents of a living, rewarded NSDAP hacks and cronies. Ein Reich, Ein Völk, Ein Führer! Tyranny.

    Hitler (and the party) will tell you what to think! Whistling otherwise? Eight months (minimum) in a KZ! Get your mind right!

    German intellectuals were deprived of a living and their property confiscated (low-grade extermination). The lucky escaped, like Mann and Bauhaus founder/architect (WW1 officer) Walter Gropius (allowed 20 RM on exit).

    Back to Erich Marie Remarque [family surname botched as ‘Remark’ in Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle after his grandfather’s time]. Wounded by shrapnel left leg, right arm and back serving in the trenches 31 Jul 1917. Wrote realistic novels about WW1 service and postwar adjustment. That was his crime. The NSDAP banned his books, prevented screening of the movie ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’. Why?

    “10 May 1933, at the initiative of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, Remarque’s writing was publicly declared as “unpatriotic” and was banned in Germany, with copies being removed from all libraries and restricted from being sold or published anywhere in the country.”*

    Why should Göbbels have such power? A failed novelist/playwright, non-veteran whose only experience in the private sector was as a bank-clerk for a year, redundant 1923. Next career? Rabble-rouser, revolutionary, Hitler suck-up who’d do anything to gain/keep power.

    Consider this:.

    “In 1943 the Nazis arrested his [Remarque’s] youngest sister, Elfriede Scholz, who had stayed behind in Germany with her husband and two children. After a trial at the notorious “Volksgerichtshof” (Hitler’s extra-constitutional “People’s Court”), she was found guilty of “undermining morale” for stating that she considered the war lost. Court President Roland Freisler declared, “Ihr Bruder ist uns leider entwischt—Sie aber werden uns nicht entwischen” (“Your brother is unfortunately beyond our reach — you, however, will not escape us”). Scholz was beheaded on 16 December 1943.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque

    Ever hear the term ‘Sippenhaft’? ‘Kin liability’? Here’s an example of enlightened Nazi doctrine:

    “If there is any suspicion that a soldier has absenting himself from his unit with a view to deserting and thus impairing the fighting strength of his unit one member of the soldier’s family (wife) will be shot.”
    – Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler order as the Ardennes Offensive fails 6 Jan 1945;

    As time went on, it was even worse:

    22 Mar 1945 – Generalfeldmarschall Albert Kesselring orders the arrest and imprisonment of the family of an officer captured by the Allies who failed to demolish the bridge at Remagen (four other officers – uncaptured – are executed) [Stargardt ‘The German War’ p.505];

    Think that’s fair? Of course, Heinie exempted himself from the ‘fight-to-the-last’ standard. Go figure!

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  1213. @Rurik

    I see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as uniquely tragic, (and indeed, chose my screen name specifically because he was a figure poised between those two stalwart peoples. A mollifier of sorts, which is what I’ve strove to be.

    Let me guess, Svigor was already taken?

  1214. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @refl

    refl wrote: “You will find that the blockade was intensified and kept going for more then two years after the war had ended.”

    Book Reviews
    The Politics of Hunger [by C. Paul Vincent]
    A Review
    by Ralph Raico
    https://www.unz.com/print/RevAustrianEconomics-1989q1-00253/

  1215. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @turtle

    After the bullying “National Security League” was founded to exterminate “un-American” values, German-purging replaced the historically peaceful campus.

    National Security League
    https://diglib.amphilsoc.org/labs/americanization/nsl.html

    Under the auspices of national defense, the National Security League (1914-1939) advocated for a range of domestic policies, including universal conscription, an interstate highway system, and the naturalization of immigrants. Founded in December 1914 by corporate attorney Solomon Stanwood Menken,** the NSL developed into what historian Robert D. Ward has called “the largest and perhaps the most influential of the groups that worked for preparedness” during World War I.8 By the close of the war, the NSL boasted branches in 22 states—as well as Cuba and Hawaii—with a total membership of some 85,000 members.

    {sounds a lot like ADL, which has national headquarters in NYC + branches in 25 states + Israel }

    **re Solomon Stanwood Menken, founder of National Security League:

    ” . . .Although his parents were Jewish, Menken converted to Christianity and started using his middle name, Stanwood. He married a wealthy New York City socialite; they had one son, Arthur Menken, who became a successful newsreel cameraman for Paramount Pictures and a war correspondent who would later film the Nanking Massacre and the Spanish Civil War).

    Menken became a successful corporate lawyer with the firm of Philbin, Beckman and Menken, whose clients included J.P. Morgan. . . .
    A noted Anglophile, he was in Great Britain with his wife Gretchen (née von Briesen) when World War I began, and was deeply distressed by Britain’s inability to mobilize quickly for war. They returned to the United States aboard the RMS Olympic on August 29, 1914.

    In December 1914, he helped form the National Security League, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to higher military budgets, universal conscription and tight regulation of the economy. He became the organization’s first executive director from January 1915 to May 1917. He took over as president from May 1917 to June 1918, but was forced out after the League became involved in a congressional electoral scandal.

    During his time with the League, Menken advocated a centralized economy protected by high tariffs and taxes and an activist, expanded role for the federal government. He favored the creation of a Federal Reserve Bank and the creation of state-run public corporation to produce and deliver essential goods and services such as milk and coal production and the provision of electricity.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
  1216. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Gretchen von Briesen Menken, wife of Solomon Stanwood Menken

  1217. @Wizard of Oz

    My experience is that editing Wikipedia to correct its obvious slanting on politically and culturally tendentious matters gets promptly removed. Life is too short to deal with masked liars. It’s a pity they have ruined wikipedia and it’s obvious who they are and what interests they serve.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1218. @Wizard of Oz

    The findings and evidence of the Nye Senate Munitions Committee investigations were published in 12 large volumes and are available in research libraries. Another book, besides Coulter’s, which presents good faith discussion of these findings is Charles Tansill, America Goes To War (Boston, Little, Brown, 1938).

    Your effort to characterize (smear) the Nye Committee’s investigations and conclusions on the basis of Alger Hiss’s participation in its staff flagrantly betrays the bad faith which everywhere peeks through your comments to this forum. I will revert to ignoring them. With contempt.

  1219. @J. Alfred Powell

    Good call, J. Alfred. You’re catching on.

  1220. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    You do know that there was a war of annihilation being waged against Germany? Thousands died every day at the front and through allied bombing of cities- people of all stripes, ages, interests, the only thing in common was that they were German and the target of the maniacal orgy of death and destruction from the Allied headquarters. The measures against an underminer of (fighting or resistance) morale seem extreme from the comfort and safety of your desk with the computer you use to play moralist. The true test of your character would be for you to be subjected to a hateful, relentless attack, with everything being destroyed around you, your house, your family, your nation, your country, with you in a position of responsibility. How do you think you would act?
    Mann, by the way could have returned to Germany in 1933, even his book publisher, Samuel Fischer, who was a Jew, urged him to come back to Germany.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1221. @turtle

    You do not find it shocking because you are among those who think they understand the nature of the beast, and so you’re not surprised. You will continue to accept everything as it comes along based on this same need to show you are ‘in the know.’ Youtube wasn’t always this way if you remember; it protected free speech at one time. Since the Jews/Globalists demand their wishes be met, and the dissidents do not fight for their rights as if they deserve them but prefer to simply complain about it as victims, guess who will get their way?

    Since I’m not a big fan of videos anyway, it doesn’t really affect me.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1222. Fox says:
    @turtle

    Interesting. Makes one wonder yet again: Where did this profound hatred come from? Or better, why did it take hold so readily?
    The newspaper burning in Columbus, Ohio seems to deserve much wider dissemination as an apt adjunct to the book burnings by students in 1933 in a few German cities. Our hyper moralists ought to include it in their condemnation of free expression. Let’s remind them that they ought to cast their nets wider than just May 10, 1933 in Munich or Berlin.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  1223. @turtle

    When my grandparent immigrated to this country (Illinois) they were German-only speakers. My father and mother were born in 1914 and 1916 and they were not taught German at all. Neither one could speak it, nor their siblings. They only knew certain words and phrases that they just picked up. Three of my grandparents died between my 2nd and 6th grade years, and I rarely heard them speak German — just a little bit in conversations with others of their generation in private. I have to say it was truly discouraged because they kept up other “old country” habits and traditions.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1224. @J. Alfred Powell

    No smear, just adding to the matters unstated by an apparent believer like you that makes your summary view less than compelling. You didn’t state even that the committee never finished its work.

  1225. @J. Alfred Powell

    Your description of the way Wikipedia is managed is very depressing as even yhr polymaths on these threads eventually resort to it. But you have the enormous advantage of personal experience of the nefarious censorship when attempting an edit. Would you please tell us about your experiences so that readers can build up a true picture of the Wikipedia problem.

  1226. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I think that Incitatus is one of those Germans who maniacally denounce their own people, a fanatic who seeks out day and night new ways of pouring calumny on his own nation. I remember a caricature showing a man (a German) in a library behind a pile of books which apparently had perused at length. The comment line below the picture: “I will not give up! I will not rest until I have proven that Germans are also responsible for the Punic Wars!”

    Thomas Mann belongs to the Emigrants, that group of people who left Germany and went abroad to agitate against their home country. They bear a great deal of responsibility for driving England, France and America into war willingness. Next to them one has to count the pathetic “Resistance” in Germany with their conspiratorial meetings abroad to tell tall tales of coups, oeverthrows of Hitler, and what not they were keeping in readiness. That this was only an encouragement increase tensions did not occur to these moralistic geniusses. Perhaps they were just not satisfied with Hitler’s creation of a classless society in which their privileges would have vanished. Mann was after all aman who had married into lots of money and he is likely to have felt the sting of feared poverty with only 2 instead of 5 domestic servants.
    Had Thomas Mann simply left Germany and not agitated against it, he would have retained his honor as a man, but he went as far as broadcasting for Germany’s deadly enemies, even defending and delighting in their bombing campaign. I see in him the same ideological flexibility as we can witness in Angela Merkel as a particularly exposed individual: From career Bolshevism she went to renouncing the German Democratic Republic, started a completely new path in her life as a “Christian Democrat” – the change took mere days in 1989, now she is totally dedicated to Zionism and the Jewish cause, going as far as pledging Germany for Israel’s wars. If another turn would suit her, she’d take it.
    I can well understand your previous liking of his writings, and the disappointment after finding out about his other side. If he was a good writer, he deserves recognition of that fact from an artistic point of view. I have read only a single work by Mann, Death In Venice and found it not satisfactory. That was before I was aware of his unsavory activities. Hence, I never opened the Buddenbrooks I had been given even before I read Death in Venice, and after knowing of his unsavory activities, Buddenbrooks will stay closed forever.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1227. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    YouTube is a private enterprise, the owners of which are free to make whatever rules they choose for use of their “premises.”
    Once you have identified the owners, it is likely you can guess their prejudices.
    The fact that any videos have been summarily removed by the owners of YouTube demonstrates they have, and enforce, their own prejudices on the site which they own.
    There are those (e.g., James Corbett) who have been cautioning folks on this topic for some time, and recommending other venues which, for the time being, are less hostile to posted content.

    Youtube wasn’t always this way if you remember; it protected free speech at one time.

    The same could be said about Wiki(Wacky)pedia, for perhaps very similar reasons.
    Or Google, for that matter, which, at least in IMO, really ought to “uncloak,” and openly declare, “We are evil. F* Ya’ll and the horses you rode in on.” Most people know that by now, anyway.
    Of course, such “termination with extreme prejudice” is restricted to posts on “certain topics,” as we know, and as Mr. Unz, and various others here, have observed.

    fight for their rights

    Rights? What rights?
    To paraphrase the late, great George Carlin, “It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.”

    You know me only by what I have posted here.
    I may be more cynical than you realize.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1228. gregor says:
    @Ron Unz

    For example, neither Preparata nor Sutton have any entry for “Jews” in their detailed index, with Sutton for safety’s sake, even avoiding any index entry starting with the letter “J.” So you write a “conspiracy” book about Wall Street, Hitler, and WWII and have no index entry for “Jews”—ha, ha, ha. Quite a number of the key individuals Sutton mentions were Jewish, but you’d never know it from Sutton’s book.

    The Haynes and Klehr books on American Communism are like this. Their Venona book is just one Jew after another, but they don’t dare point it out. The index only has “Jewish community, infiltration of.” Ha. Personally, I don’t need them to tell me that Rosenberg, Greenglass, and Gold were Jewish, but surely many an oblivious Gentile has read the book and completely missed a crucial part of the story.

    They’ve got another one called In Denial which calls out academics for whitewashing American communism while desperately redirecting attention toward “McCarthyism.” Again, they don’t point out that what we have is a group of Jewish academics like Ellen Schrecker and Eric Foner running cover for the previous generation of Jewish communists (including their own relatives). And they go a step further and begin the book by bashing David Irving for a few pages and offer an extended comparison of communist apologetics with Holocaust denial. They even naively ask: “How is it possible that the memory of Communist crimes could have vanished so swiftly while the memory of Nazi crimes remains so fresh?” One wonders if authors play dumb out of professional necessity or if they are truly clueless. (My guess is that people like Haynes and Klehr are no doubt “aware” of the Jewish elephant in the room, but, having been inculcated in post-war liberalism, they are unable to see a genuine connection, just as people are unable to see the relationship between blacks and crime. People notice the pattern but they’ve trained themselves to think their way around it).

    With anything from mainstream publishing, usually the best you can hope for is to find some honest data and connect the dots yourself. Or the occasional “own goal” wherein someone unintentionally undermines their own position.

  1229. turtle says:
    @Fox

    Let’s remind them that they ought to cast their nets wider than just May 10, 1933 in Munich or Berlin.

    Good luck with that.
    Try typing “book burning in America” into Google.
    You will find articles on the destruction of comic books in the 1950s.
    “Book burning through the ages” similarly searched yields plenty of results, but no reference whatever (by Google) to the events described in the link which I posted.
    The conscious attempt by the United States Government to completely obliterate German culture and heritage in the U.S., using our own tax dollars against us, remains to this day an (at least somewhat) taboo subject, not to mention a sorry chapter in U. S. history.

    Or better, why did it take hold so readily?

    It was called, by its founder, Edward Bernays, the “engineering of consent.”
    Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, wrote a book, the title of which was “Propaganda,” to publicize his own “special expertise,” which became one of the bases for T. Woodrow Wilson’s* campaign of hatred against his fellow Americans, waged with great success, in order to involve the U.S. in the war in Europe.** My understanding is that the work of Bernays, a Jew, was greatly admired by a certain Dr. Josef Goebbels.

    *I had the privilege to attend “Woodrow Wilson Jr. High School” for grades 7-9, many years ago, along with many other children of German heritage, including many “military brats” whose fathers were stationed at Kirtland AFB, home of USAF “Special Weapons Center,” i.e. nukes. Some of them had been born in Germany (to native born US parents) while their dad was stationed there.
    ** You will find articles on the web which claim that “anti-German sentiment in the U.S. arose after the U.S. entered the war in Europe.” On the contrary. Anti-German sentiment, and the suppression of dissent, was engineered by the Wilson administration specifically to coerce the American public into supporting Wilson’s agenda of involvement in Europe’s war. Wilson, who was reelected using the slogan “He kept us out of war,” proceeded to display his contempt for the American people by taking the country to war. Sound familiar? Try Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, et. al.

  1230. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Carolyn-
    My parents were born in 1923 & 1924 respectively.
    On my father’s side, my grandfather, whose namesake I am, was born in Brooklyn NY in 1893 to German immigrant parents from the Rhineland. I’m told the family ran a winery in Neckarau, now part of Mannheim.

    On my mother’s side, her mother’s family emigrated to New York from somewhere in der Schwarzwald, I know not where. Family rumor has it that Urgroßvater Georg Schaffer jumped ship in NY harbor, but I can’t confirm that.

    Neither of my parents spoke German (consistently, anyway) at home, because each had only one parent of German heritage. My paternal grandmother Gretchen (geb. Post) was Dutch heritage, and my maternal grandfather was English heritage, dating to American revolution.
    However, both parents studied German in school.

    As a young boy, I learned to sing Stille Nacht for my grandfather, and I did know what it meant when Mom said “Macht schnell,” but growing up in New Mexico I naturally studied Spanish in school. Spanish is an official language in New Mexico, so that made sense, but when I later elected to study physical sciences, lack of understanding of the German language proved to be an inconvenience. I have not mastered the language in later life, but derive significant pleasure in attempting same. I seem to have some kind of affinity for the language, though as a native speaker of English, German does seem “foreign” to me in some ways. Strange as it may sound, German, to me, is a very “musical,” or perhaps “logico-mathematical” language. I do not agree with Mr. Sam Clemens on this topic, though I have enjoyed many of his other observations .:)

    discouraged

    By society at large, perhaps, but, in my family at least, not by family members.
    Quite the contrary in fact. I was taught to be proud of where I came from.
    There were 2nd cousins on my father’s side who had “Anglicized” their last name, out of fear, during the WWI era. My mother always addressed Christmas cards to them using the original German spelling. In my adult life, I have known two people, including one fairly close current friend, who have told me the last name they use is not the original family name, but was assigned to their ancestors at Ellis Island. In one case, the original family name has been completely lost; in the other, it will be when grandma dies. She knows, but will not tell.

    other “old country” habits and traditions.

    In my family that was mainly Christmas and Lent.
    Advent calendars, Pfeffernusse and Stollen at Christmas, Fastnachts on Shrove Tuesday.

    Is there a “German character”? Well, perhaps.
    FWIW, I can say that people I have “related to” easily over the years have typified stereotypical “German virtues,” such as a) industry b) thrift c) organization d) striving for excellence, as well as stereotypical “German vices” such as stubbornness and b) suppression of emotions.
    Not all such have been of German heritage, however, so it may be bunk.

    A joke to which you may relate:
    The only way to deal with a German is to step on his toes until he apologizes.

    You , or others here, may find this book of interest:
    https://lookingforhumboldt.com

  1231. refl says:
    @Ron Unz

    Meanwhile, Preparata focuses on the diabolical plot of the British elites to destroy Germany. Okay. But instead of simply attacking Germany when it was almost totally disarmed and helpless in the 1920s, they plotted to build up a very powerful German military under Hitler, and *then* start a war (and get defeated in 1940!) presumably because that was much more “challenging.”

    I think, I can clarify that one – WWI had left France as the supreme power on the continent. You should note, that in WWII not only Germany, but also France was defeated. The Locarno-System left France at the grace of Britain, as under its terms France could no longer take on Germany without British approval. The early years of Hitler left France encercled by (1) Spain, that had turned Fascist, (2) Italy, with whom cooperation was no longer possible, because France on British insistence had turned against it because of Italy’s war in Ethiopia, and (3) a coast, that Germany could attack after Britain had permitted it to rebuild its fleet in the anglo-German naval agreement.
    This is from Carol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. I suppose that Preparata relies on this.

    With this, at the start of German agression in 1938-39, France could no longer act without Britain – the consequences are well known.
    WWII did not only leave Germany defeated, but all of Europe was left under the Rule of the Anglo-American Elite.

  1232. refl says:
    @Incitatus

    The yearling Fed caused European war in 1914? Did it loan money to Germany? Really? Please stipulate loans and amounts.

    Oh, please! Did you never hear that Germany Post-WWI was sentenced to pay enormous reparations in Versailles? Which played a huge part in the downfall of the Weimar republic? That the reparations at the insistence of the US must not have been treated in connection with the Inter-allied loans?
    Do you really think, that if the Entente had given up the war and said ‘Sorry, we can’t pay you’ that the Wall Street banks would have accepted it?
    There is more: The art of going into dept implies, that the creditor takes ever more of an interest in the success of the debitor – the excessive loans that Britain and France took from Wall Street were taken ON PURPOSE, to get the US into the war.

    If anything, a desperate troll?

    Yoe should not invite desperate trolls to read your archive. Maybe they stink… Guard your language.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1233. Ron Unz says:

    Incidentally, for those so interested, I’ve added two new items to my HTML Books selection.

    First, there’s Hellstorm, Thomas Goodrich’s grim and gripping 2010 compendium of the horrors visited upon Germany at the end of the war, which draws heavily upon many of the less easily available sources:

    https://www.unz.com/book/thomas_goodrich__hellstorm/

    I also finally got around to reading and incorporating Douglas Reed’s Conspiracy of Zion, originally written in the mid-1950s but only released and published some years after his death in 1976. Reed had been one of the most prominent international journalists and authors from the 1920s through the 1940s, but was purged and largely forgotten during his last couple of decades. Some of his views regarding the 19th century seem a bit eccentric and conspiratorial, but he provides a very interesting perspective on the 20th century events that he directly experienced, especially starting with this chapter focused on America:

    https://www.unz.com/book/douglas_reed__the-controversy-of-zion/#chapter-40-the-invasion-of-america

  1234. @Fox

    Where did this profound hatred come from? Or better, why did it take hold so readily?

    It did not come mostly from the Jews, but from the British with their campaign beginning in at least 1910 to build up anti-German war hysteria in America. I covered some of it in my series of content from the news weekly “The Fatherland” — search for that name at my website. Prior to WWII, the Brits were even more prepared and organized with undercover activities carried out in the U.S. with the approval of the US government! The book “Desperate Deception” is probably the best account of it.

    In other words, it was manufactured.

  1235. @turtle

    I think you may have missed the point. Or have just avoided it.

    I may be more cynical than you realize.

    I think I was calling you cynical. And not saying that cynical is good. Cynical is not good – it is a defense against appearing “not to know everything already.”

    I really don’t mean to be difficult – as we are allies – but less cynicism would be more appealing to me. Being shocked at Youtube’s decision is one way of taking a stand against such a decision, much better than “Yeah, I’m not surprised.” If you see what I mean.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1236. @Fox

    You think Incitatus is a German??!! You may see something I haven’t seen. I’ll have to look for that. I can believe he is a Jew, and possibly a so-called “German Jew” at that, which would mean he’s not a German at all and could still be on Team Russia. I like that term, which came from L.K.

    But the impression he makes on me is one of revulsion … of what he would do if he had any power. I can barely read his stuff – same with Wiz. With these two, up is down, good is bad – real Orwell language. And of course, the ultimate in cherry-picking quotes.

    People like Thomas Mann thought they were saving Germany. They were Germany, in their minds, not the working class who Hitler was attracting. For them, Hitler was the enemy while England, France and America were their friends, and good guys. I agree that his broadcasting against his own country in time of war, from abroad, is what makes him unforgivable in the eyes of a patriot. No one likes that.

    Death in Venice – a long short story – while his best-known work is not typical of most of his novels, I don’t think. At the time I read them, I was a voracious reader and tended to like most everything I read. But I did think he was special and spent my scant money to purchase his books because I wanted to own them. No wonder Mann had such a high opinion of himself!

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @turtle
    , @Fox
  1237. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You think Incitatus is a German??!!

  1238. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    He posted his family history previously.
    Why don’t you read what he posted before condemning him?
    Unless of course you believe he is lying (your privilege).

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1239. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Fact remains, it is their “house,” so they have absolute discretion who is allowed through their front door.
    No point in attempting to hang out with people who have made it clear they do not like you.
    Best to make some new acquaintances.
    Buck the fozos, as I sometimes say.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  1240. @Incitatus

    What about …Martin Niemöller

    The “First they came for the Communists…” guy.

    I think I know where he’s coming from.

    Martin Niemöller

    He met with Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War and was a committed campaigner for nuclear disarmament.

  1241. turtle says:

    Niemöller at least survived the war.
    Bonhoeffer, and many others, did not.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

    it appears that “Fischer-Hüllstrung had the job of reviving political prisoners after they had been hanged until they were almost dead, in order to prolong the agony of their dying.”[

  1242. @turtle

    Where am I supposed to find that? You, turtle, are making the least sense to me of anyone here. Such as in your comment 1274. There is no way it is intelligent. And don’t ask me to explain myself. If you can’t understand it, too bad.

  1243. refl says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you for including the book bay Douglas Reed into your Library. And as I am a conspiracy nut, I can promise the prospective reader that it does not get more conspirational then Reed, for he puts the Zionist quest for Palestine into a perspective that spans millenia and does not stop neither at the Protocolls of Zion nor at Adam Weishaupt. The depressing thing is that someone whom you would after this intro dismiss as completely crazy, has actually lived through the era of the World Wars at vantage-points and comes up with things like the following:

    The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he [Hitler] would make war if allowed and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, “burking” and ignoring of despatches, and by the epictment of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others’ expense).
    This period has become known as that of “the policy of appeasement” but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse. From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939”; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor.

    I was in Vienna during Hitler’s invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against “the policy of appeasement”, and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor’s discursive acknowledgement.

    The view that I have come to take is, that the encouragement might have been quite deliberate.

    And then there is something else, that I got from Reed. I know a little bit about the functioning of communist ideology, so the point that shocked me most personally was his description of what really made communsim distinctive:

    The Commissar for Public Instruction, Lunatscharsky, was one of the few Russians in high office but he spoke like a Talmudist: “We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best of them must be looked upon as our worst neighbours. They preach the love of our neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Down with the love of our neighbour; what we want is hatred. We must learn how to hate and it is only then that we shall conquer the world”. This is but one specimen of an entire literature of that period, and the only original source for such ideas, known to me, is the Talmud,
    which itself is the continuation of an ancient, savage, pre-Christian idea, and contains such precepts as “You are human beings but the nations of the earth are not human beings but beasts”. Presumably Lunatscharsky qualified by such orations for his choice as Ambassador to Spain during the revolutionary attempt there.

    I know that the inner circle of the Communist movement cultivates hatred of the enemy, to the point that education towards class hatred is even mandatory, so it did take my breath away to learn that such an idea that should be alien to any person of European descent – as much as to humans from most other cultures – should be talmudic. In Communism, most of the population is hardly aware of this, because they will skip such an idea, but as soon as someone enters the inner circle, he will be selected drawing on his natural habit to leave any human compassion behind.

    [MORE]
    (For those who do not believe, here the excerpt from the Stasi internal dictionary, passed through Google translate:)

    Hate
    intense and deep feeling that can significantly influence the actions of people. He always reflects opposing interpersonal relationships and in social life is the emotional expression of the irreconcilable class and conflict of interests between the working class and the bourgeoisie (class hatred). The moral content of H. is dependent on the object to which he is directed, and may therefore be valuable and exalted or petty and low. H. always aims for active engagement with the hated adversary, does not content himself with disgust and avoidance, but is often associated with the need to annihilate or injure him. H. is an essential determinant of the Chekist sentiments, one of the crucial foundations for the passionate and irreconcilable struggle against the enemy. Its strengthening and deepening in the practice of class struggle and a concrete and real enemy image is the task and goal of class education. At the same time, H. is a lasting and powerful motive for action. He must therefore also be consciously used and strengthened in the conspiratorial work as a drive for difficult operational tasks.

  1244. @PhucQ

    I suspect the list is not really complete.

  1245. Incitatus says:
    @refl

    “Did you never hear that Germany Post-WWI was sentenced to pay enormous reparations in Versailles?”

    Gee, that seems familiar. Did it come after Brest-Litovsk?

    Dictated to Russia by Ludendorff 8 Mar 1918? Russia cedes the Baltic States to Germany, Kars Oblast to the Ottoman Empire and recognizes ‘independent Ukraine’? Russia loses 1,000,000+ square miles of territory (home to 50 million people), 33% of its rails, 73% of its iron, 89% of its coal, 5000 factories, and – in addition – is forced to pay a 6-billion Mark indemnity?

    Versailles was thought mild in comparison.

    I’m no fan of forced territorial concessions, reparations or indemnities, including Versailles. Yet much of France, Belgium and Serbia were in ruins. Should German leadership – physically untouched by war it launched, army disaffected but largely intact – have paid nothing? Admitted no responsibility?

    Many saw reparations as a good-faith guarantee Germany would eschew war: in fact, it helped guarantee the opposite. Like “November Criminals” and the Dolchstoßlegende, it fed far-right talking points.

    Germany never paid what it demanded from France (5 billion gold francs and Alsace-Lorraine) for winning the Franco-Prussian War on French soil 1871 (paid by the French two years early). Yet leaders like Ludendorff bleated like sheep, eager to regain power they never should have enjoyed.

    Say what you like about the Franco-Prussian War 1870-71, France cleaned house of the incompetents (Napoléon III, Bazaine, etc.) without regret. Émile Zola’s ‘La Débâcle’ is pretty damming. The French, no more/no less perfect than Germans, wisely got rid of incompetent leaders. Post WW1 Germany was less fortunate. Their leaders (Hindenburg, Ludendorff) wanted a second chance. They found a tame, talented messianic Austrian they thought they could control. They were wrong. He drove a stake through the German heart.

    Post 1918 foreign investment/finance/credit went towards many things: it rescued, revived, stabilized many sectors/jobs in Germany. It didn’t just garner interest on reparations. Such liquidity depends on good-faith. When Rathenau was assassinated 24 Jun 1922 by far-right Organisation Consul thugs, the message to foreign investors was instability. The Mark slid 55%+ in a matter of months. Regular German reparation defaults led to stupid occupation of the Ruhr, stupider passive resistance, and hyper-inflation. Egg on faces all-around. Result? More German far-right ‘I’m a victim, we were betrayed’ talking points.

    In retrospect, armistice 11 Nov 1918 should have depended on acceptance of treaty terms presented at the time, rather than deferred to later date ‘commissions’. If Wilhelm II, Hindenburg and Ludendorff balked at terms, the Allies should have continued war and pushed into Germany. Maybe leveling Köln in 1919 (as Germans leveled Reims 1916) would have helped expose German leadership as the blockheads they were. Would have saved a lot of lives and misery, especially in the WW2 sequel. Which, as you know, included the leveling of Köln (a sin against civilization, just as leveling Reims was in 1916).

    “Do you really think, that if the Entente had given up the war and said ‘Sorry, we can’t pay you’ that the Wall Street banks would have accepted it?”

    The Entente, like Germany, was on the brink of exhaustion and mutiny (excepting US troops). Banks can be insidious/too powerful/criminal at times, but disagree they’re all powerful. Time sorts things out. Though, to be honest, the RE melt-down 2007-08 has me wondering.

    “The art of going into dept implies, that the creditor takes ever more of an interest in the success of the debitor – the excessive loans that Britain and France took from Wall Street were taken ON PURPOSE, to get the US into the war.”

    No expert in debt – have none, careful to avoid them. Bought my current (and previous) auto for cash, it’s about to celebrate it’s 18th birthday (I’m still breaking it in). I think a man wealthy whose appetite is less than his means.

    Recall a popular saying in Northern California 1985: the wealthiest man is the biggest debtor, a figure banks will slavishly resurrect with special terms after every default (Donald J. Trump for example). Perhaps Germany was DJT in the 20s?

    Stay well, refl

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Alexandros
  1246. A search shows there are 477 incidences of the word [jJ]ewish in this article and its comments, and 1,180 words beginning with [jJ]ew.

  1247. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “You do know that there was a war of annihilation being waged against Germany”

    Gleichschaltung, the NSDAP war on individual freedom, began 30 Jan 1933. It targeted rival political parties (left, right, centre), religion, unaligned artists and media (i.e. those unallied with the Party), labor unions, radio, independent press, race, etc. Anything that threatened total control by a small group of unsavory revolutionary opportunists. Led by a messianic, suicidal Austrian opportunist.

    By 1938 Hitler long had total power, gambled the fate of ordinary Germans on Anschluß and Sudentenlad. In 1939 he crossed the line into war – Czechoslovakia and Memel, then (knowing English and French guarantees) Poland. A war uncelebrated in Berlin at launch. Success brought more wars. Ordinary Germans fighting for the vanity of one man.

    It should not be forgotten deadbeat Hitler (who exempted himself from paying taxes in 1934) also launched war on German ‘useless eaters’ 1 Sep 1939. Ultimately 200,000 were killed. What a guy!

    In the end, exposed in failure, suicidal-gambler Hitler ordered the Nerobefehl 19 Mar 1945, an order Morganthau would envy. What’s with that?

    “The measures against an underminer of (fighting or resistance) morale seem extreme from the comfort and safety of your desk with the computer you use to play moralist”

    “Moralist”? Hope not. Nothing but. I do have questions, sad to say. Here’s an example:

    Feldgendarmerie and SS execute 10,000+ Germans (including Hitler Youth) for desertion/defeatism in Berlin (Soviets claim 25,000) [Beevor ‘The Fall of Berlin 1945’ p.247]; do you agree with that?

    Surely the enemy was the Red Army? Why did Feldgendarmerie and SS courageously execute Germans, rather than fight the Soviets? I’d love to know.

    Codicil:

    21 Apr 1945 – Over 2,000 senior NSDAP officials (‘Golden Pheasants’) apply to Generalleutnant Hellmuth Reymann for army passes to leave Berlin, despite the Göbbels declaration “no man capable of bearing arms may leave Berlin” [21 Apr 1945]; all are signed; Colonel Hans Refior (Reymann’s chief of staff) comments “The rats are leaving the sinking ship” [Beevor ‘The Fall of Berlin 1945’ p.261];

    Thus were Germans betrayed.

    Kind regards, fox.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1248. @Ron Unz

    I read two of Douglas Reed’s memoirs of his time in Europe in the 30s and started a third and stopped. He seemed to me, at first, an interesting witness given to remarking facts repressed by most observers, but increasingly, someone whose bitterness, axe-grinding, and obsessive hatreds narrowed and poisoned his vision to the point of blindness. The horrific character of those times were — granted — likely to do that to someone paying open-eyed attention, but it still ends by corrupting the ability to offer useful witness.

  1249. Seraphim says:

    The Peace of Brest-Litovsk was called ‘the forgotten peace’ by historian J.W. Wheeler-Bennett in a forgotten book of 1938, which goes a long way in explaining the Eastern policies of Germany after WW1.
    But another ‘forgotten peace’ was the ‘Peace of Bucharest May 1918’ and the enormous pillage of the country by the occupying German-Austrian-Bulgarian-Turkish troops before and after the peace, plus the loss of territory. It created also the ‘problem of Bessarabia’.

  1250. @Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency,

    When I read your comment it reminded me of Octavio Paz’s Nobel Lecture in 1990. I attached it for you, because it was too long to paste.

    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1990/paz/lecture/

    Mexico, is experiencing tremendous change, like night and day! When I moved back, my plan was to hunker down at my ranch, bury a container, finish the electrical, get the well water working with new pumps, make sure I was loaded for bear, etc. My Alamo for whatever came, and I was certain it would come from the North. I still feel that way and will continue to prepare for that type of scenario, but now I am starting to see things in a different light. I know you are not seeing what’s happening in Mexico because of the US MSM, here in Mexico we have the same problem. The only thing different is that we have Youtubers that have been reporting the true news and people are listening. Not only here, but in Latin America and Europe.

    [MORE]

    Try and look on the web and see if you can find some information about what is happening. If you can’t, you have my email and send me a message. I will share what I can find with you. Don’t get me wrong when I say that it breaks my heart when I see injustice in the world, I’m a fucking beast, an Alpha male, that is why I’m here, the counterinsurgency has to start somewhere and I believe Mexico is that place. Do me a favor and look south, there are going to be a lot of opportunities to make money, if and when the dollar is replaced.

    Mexico is sitting in the middle of the North American continent, huge ports on each coast, all that is needed is a rail system and a big freeway to move containers from one side to the other. There is talk already about starting that project. The Chinese are talking to Nicaragua about digging a canal, but solution is better. The Panama Canal will not be able to service the ships when trade picks up. And Mexico is positioned to move cargo north to the US and Canada and south to Central and South America. This plan isn’t new, it had it’s beginnings in the US. There is a huge International Land Port 15 minutes from me, the Chinese are starting to build warehouses to store products for shipping by train and Nabisco moved from Chicago to this port.

    Manufacturing is not going to return to the US in a global competitive market, at least not anytime soon.

    Take care…

  1251. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I think that it is quite likely that Incitatus is German. In his style, his words, his arguments there is a current of bitter, passionate enmity towards Germans which I find also with the pathetic German “resistance”, the amateurish restauration conspirators who were playing into England’s hands throughout the years after Hitler’s assent to power. They were planting rumors about Hitler’s attempted attacks (e.g., the supposed concentration of troops to attack Czecho-Slovakia in May of 1938, the Holland scare from December 1938), always promising the overthrow of Hitler if this, if that – these geniusses didn’t understand that they were pouring oil into the fires of warmongers across the borders. And they were driven by their disdain of the humble origins of Hitler and the loss of privilege the program of the NSdAP meant for their class.
    Hence, through this kinship I perceive, I think that Incitatus is German, perhaps currently living abroad.

    Incitatus is an adherent of the one-sided coin theory of history; everything is Germany’s fault, none to be found outside the German realm – which he restricts as his preference commands him to the borders forced by the formulators of the Treaty of Versailles. Hence, Austrians are not Germans, even if they say so, or the Sudeten Germans are not, even if they say so, the Memel landers are not, even if they say so and clamor for a return to the nation they are to be denied to join.
    Yes, he would also fit in Team Russia, but I think he is located elsewhere.

  1252. World War Two was supposed to be” Last Good War” that “Wasn’t” rather a War where Millions Died so that could be Billions could be extorted from Innocent Victims to support Lies of a Few.




  1253. parkerd says:

    Ron are you aware of Soviet historian Mark Solonin? Operation Barbarossa was a surprise in more ways than one.
    http://www.solonin.org/en/article_mark-solonin-june-1941-final

  1254. @Ron Unz

    Ron, thanks for preserving the Reed book. Have you considered uploading an HTML version of ‘Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine’ by Samuel Landman? The copyright should be expired.

    This book was mentioned here: https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__memorandum-to-the-president/

    “Mr. Landman states on page 4: The only way….to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews”

    The “Landman Document” was also mentioned in ‘State Secrets’ by Leon de Poncins.

  1255. @turtle

    Problem is, it isn’t their house. To get freedom from prosecution for anything posted on their site, they had to say that they _would_ post anything on their site (not their house, more like public parking). That kept Youtube from being sued into oblivion for copyright violations.

    Now they claim to be gatekeepers (“their house”), but apparently don’t want to be liable for copyright violations.

    Counterinsurgency

  1256. @Fox

    “Turtle” (funny name – you know how turtles pull their head and feet into their shell and ‘hide out’) says that Incitatus published his whole history ‘in his archive.’ Since I asked for that information yesterday, neither T. nor I. has supplied it. I’m sure not going to go through all 1200 comments there looking for it. I guess you never saw it either.

    I noticed he likes to refer to Hitler as “the Austrian” as though that means he’s not German. But I’ve never read his (long) comments carefully due to the previously mentioned revulsion I feel. I don’t use that word lightly – it is real and physical. But I’ll go through his comments just in this thread and see what I notice. Thanks for your views.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1257. @Garliv

    If you’d truly like to know the “binding” force and motivation behind Jewish deception and their acts in general, read Andrew Joyce’s article “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism” and Kevin MacDonald’s Opus’ “The Culture of Critique” and “Separation and its Discontents”. Unz has done a great job cataloging what I call “endangered data” in the form of highly controversial and suppressed books, those two works alone and Andrew Joyce’s entire authorship are essential reading once you’ve truly become aware and open to “the Jewish question”. From there you can work back through historical accounts from Belloc, Wagner, Ford, Solzhenitsyn etc with an entirely new outlook.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/09/27/the-necessity-of-anti-semitism/

    https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_macdonald__the-culture-of-critique/

    https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_macdonald__separation-and-its-discontents/

  1258. L.K says:
    @Fox

    Hello Fox,

    InZitatus has claimed to be a US American with some German ancestry.

    Ron Unz has figured him out as a Jewish activist.

    There is a record here at Unz of his friendly relationships with some of the most vile Zionist Jews who have appeared to troll for israel, such as one ‘Sam Shama’.

    For all his contrived outrage at supposed German wars of aggression and war crimes he is perfectly okay with the fact that a bunch of Zionists, all foreigners( there were hardly any Jews in Palestine b4 the Zionist movement), went to Palestine as immigrants or refugees, armed themselves up to the teeth, and then proceeded to steal their lands and brutally ethnic cleanse them, all this in contravention of the UNs own charter.

    I have also not seen this clown condemn his own country’s endless wars for Empire…

    His posts are invariably about blaming Germany for both world wars and for just about anything bad that is ever happened.
    Typical neocon propagandist. A clown without the makeup and costume.
    Perhaps we should not feed this troll.
    Cheers

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Fox
  1259. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Garliv

    Agree with what you wrote in almost every detail.

    Agree that Jews — wealthy, influential Jews — are to be found behind every major catastrophe in modern times, at least from 1789.

    BUT I force myself to take into account that Jews did not act alone.

    The devil’s temptations of Jesus are a constant reminder to me that many persons are susceptible to the temptations of power, wealth, pleasure, etc. It may be the case that Jews are more often the tempter and non-Jews the tempted, but I suspect that in history examples can be found of non-Jews acting as the tempter/predator. I dunno.

    ____

    PS — this is embarrassing — follows on Wolfgang’s #1292: what is meant by “Culture of Critique?”
    I’ve read parts, try to get the sense of the title – concept but can’t grasp it. I’m too simple minded, maybe.

  1260. @Carolyn Yeager

    Hi again to Fox,
    I went through Incitatus’ posts on this thread and found what I was looking for. Pure gold, too. I think it’s most likely he is an American, from his speech style he could hardly be anything else. Yes, he claims some German ancestry — with the emphasis on “some.” I took a look at Turtle’s “archive” also and that’s where I found this from a different thread (Buchanan article):

    [MORE]

    turtle says:
    September 24, 2019 at 1:39 am GMT
    Questioner (unknown, Incitatus?): Do you have an inner Nazi
    AFAIK, NO.
    As you may be aware, there are those who conflate German heritage with NS leanings.
    I spent a portion of my childhood listening to that sort of horse manure from ignorant American schoolchildren in the 1950s. So, yeah, I am sensitive about it on a personal level. The real question there, of course, is where they learned that sort of nonsense (their parents? mass media? who knows?). And of course there is the usual prattle from some so-called academics and other self-styled “intellectuals” decrying the (implied defective) “German national character.” No doubt you have heard these things, and as an intelligent, educated human, are sufficiently bright, and sufficiently well informed, to treat them with the derision they deserve. Others are either not that competent (perhaps excusable) or have their own agenda, for which “national character assassination” well suits their purpose, whatever that may be (inexcusable, but unfortunately a fact of life.).
    My German blood traces to 576 CE. My Norse blood to 854 (what is now Norway), 879 (what is now Denmark), bef 863 (what is now Sweden).
    I am impressed you are able to trace your family history back that far. In my own family, a 2nd cousin was able to trace our family back to Germany in the 1600s (church records, etc.) , which seemed to me a major achievement. Genealogy was his hobby in retirement.
    […]
    I am 4th gen. German-American on both sides. To the New World in 1870s. Rhineland near Mannheim on father’s side, Black Forest on mother’s. Not pure bred, though. Stubborn Dutch grandmother, and English yeomen in the colonies almost since American Revolution round it out. No one of note, just honest, hardworking people. My given name rhymes with “German,” so I have no problem with “H_ the German,” but a REAL problem with “Nazi” tacked on the end (by ignorant children long ago, not by adults).
    I’ve spent decades reading to discover the cause of obvious NSDAP criminal depravity,
    I applaud your scholarship. As a novice, I must follow your lead, and that of others.
    the greatest disaster to befall German states in a thousand years.
    Agree without reservation.
    First perpetrated on ordinary Germans.
    Yes.
    That’s a main focus.
    Respect, and applause.
    NO offense intended to our Jewish friends (and I can say honestly that I have counted a select few Jewish people among my closest friends, at various times in my life – the key is intelligence, from which all else flows). That said, it is my considered opinion that focusing on “the Holocaust” (crimes against Jews by the Nazis) impedes and distracts from a deeper understanding of the German national nightmare known as National Socialism. I do not wish to belabor this point in this response. Perhaps you agree, (or not). Matters very little to me, either way, what you, or anyone else believes. Personally, I believe Germans are like any other people, and, scarily enough, the German nightmare could well repeat, perhaps with some variations, in many other populations, including our own.
    Heinie the chicken(shit) farmer?
    Worst P.O.S. the Nazis had, bar none.
    Probably responsible for many things for which his boss was blamed, I ‘d guess.
    Not impressive physically, or in any other way you might care to name.
    Would not have met height requirement of SS had minimum been set
    @ 5’-10″ instead of 5-9″, did not meet vision requirement in any case (20-20, no? No specs allowed, except for the boss). Bully who hid behind his organization. And as I like to say, ABAC (all bullies are cowards).
    With best regards,
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    Incitatus replies:

    Incitatus says:
    September 25, 2019 at 2:45 am GMT
    @turtle
    Thanks for your interesting reply, turtle.
    “there are those who conflate German heritage with NS leanings. I spent a portion of my childhood listening to that sort of horse manure…”
    No question. Anyone lacking the standard WASP surname knows the feeling. The ‘how do you spell/pronounce’ routine, repeated all too frequently. Childhood (nit)wits hawk caricatures that demean and bully. Adults that do the same are simply bigots, little different than those that wear white robes and hoods, enjoy cross-burnings and carry coiled rope in the trunk.
    “there is the usual prattle from some so-called academics and other self-styled “intellectuals” decrying the (implied defective) “German national character.”
    ‘Social sciences’ seem the perfect venue for such talentless drivel. Don’t agree with it. Quite the opposite. I esteem Germans, Germany, my roots. What could be better than JS Bach’s Matthew Passion, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, Dürer, the Cranachs, Holbein, Klimpt, Gutenberg, Goethe, Schiller, Nietzsche, Mann, Remarque, Schinkel, and so on?
    That’s why Germany’s 20C journey is so inexplicably tragic. That’s the puzzle worth solving. How did it happen? Why did it happen?
    Why is it important? Because the USA is prone to the same imperial mistakes and seems well embarked on a course that will take us there. Iraq 2003/Patriot Act fair warning.
    I have a postcard ‘Köln 1945’ I view every day. Aerial of Köln Dom (apex of human achievement) and a city (and hauptbahnhof) otherwise leveled. How stupid are we humans!
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=köln+dom+1945&qpvt=köln+dom+1945&FORM=IGRE
    Germans were/are/always will be an extraordinary people. Was there foreign competition prior to WW1-WW2? Of course! When has there not been? Pass the blame around, by all means, but Germany pulled the trigger (invaded neighbors) WW1 and WW2. Why? Isn’t that the question? The UR ‘everybody else did it’ Dolchstoßlegende II mime seems embarrassingly inadequate. Especially when one considers Dolchstoßlegende I in 1919 blamed military revolts against incompetent leadership on the home front, Jews, Freemasons. A ‘Get out of Jail card’ for the corrupt scum-bags like Wilhelm II, Hindenburg and Ludendorff.
    The mechanics of how NSDAP leadership was empowered and sustained is THE cautionary tale. Heinie and Clubfoot Joe, Heß, Speer, Bormann and the rest. All careerist suck-ups to windbag Austrian Mr. Big. A guy that never held a job in the private sector, glided out of military service as a spy on Bavarian political parties.
    But then, you know that.
    “Genealogy was his hobby in retirement.”
    Confess the same. First with my dad (his late hobby as well). Most roots traced to ±1500.
    […]
    Was surprised at the travel (Rome, Jérusalem, Santiago de Compostela, etc.). Usually by oath-breakers and penitents.
    Take Foulques III Nerra comte d’Anjou (972-1040; my 29G-GF). He made three pilgrimages to Terre-Sainte (1002, 1008, 1038). Why? Because he was a homicidal maniac repeatedly caught (burned his wife/ my grandmother to death Dec 999). Killed a lot of others.
    Path to penitent paridise: 4,843k kms. Anjou to Jérusalem. Hard trip. Even today.
    Stay well, Turtle
    • Replies: @Colin Wright, @turtle

    Is this the ‘full account’ that turtle told me existed? It very likely is. Billions of people can trace “German roots” back to 1500 and much farther. So that makes you 1% German, maybe, in the present? What counts is how recent are your German relatives … not how far back they go. What a poseur, and I don’t know that I’ve ever heard more hatred of 100% Germans than from these two so-called Germans. Fox, take note, my friend.

    Maybe more later.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
    , @turtle
  1261. @Carolyn Yeager

    From Incitatus, speaking of German greatness and his German roots:

    What could be better than JS Bach’s Matthew Passion, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, Dürer, the Cranachs, Holbein, Klimpt, Gutenberg, Goethe, Schiller, Nietzsche, Mann, Remarque, Schinkel, and so on?

    There was no painter named Klimpt, but there was a Klimt (Gustav) who was an AUSTRIAN, who always lived and worked in Austria, which to Incitatus does not contain Germans! Whoops, a small fuck-up on your part, Incy.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1262. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    Hello Fox,

    “In his style, his words, his arguments there is a current of bitter, passionate enmity towards Germans”

    Moi?

    With due respect, you seem unable/unwilling to distinguish between Wilhelmine/NSDAP leadership and ordinary Germans. You repeatedly conflate them in defense of a bogus monolith. You don’t rebut proof (events, direct quotes, sources) that indict Hitler and his cronies as enemies of ordinary Germans. Instead you reflexively label it “enmity towards Germans”.

    At peak of popularity 31 Jul 1932 the NSDAP won 230 of 608 seats in the Reichstag in the German Federal Election: 38% of votes cast. The NSDAP numbered 2 million members in 1933; by 1945 they were 8 million (10±% population). In other words, 90% of Germans (ordinary Germans) didn’t belong to the NSDAP. To conflate both is – what’s the word – ‘disingenuous’ (?).

    Beware of what you wish for, what you unthinkingly defend. Just a thought.

    Don’t you find executing 10,000 Germans (including Hitlerjugend) in Berlin for defeatism 1945 Berlin while 2,000+ senior NSDAP officials fled the city like “rats” 21 Apr 1945 ironic, at least? How do you reconcile the two?

    Here’s another example:

    “The Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine, Gauleiter [Erich] Koch, who resided in Rovno, had naturally lost no time in making himself scarce – though not before enjoining the civil administrators and police under his jurisdiction to fight to the last. He was to decamp from East Prussia in exactly the same way later on.”
    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.519

    Rovno fell to the Soviets 2 Feb 1944. Koch fled to ‘Fortress’ Königsberg and was appointed head of East Prussian Volkssturm 25 Nov 1944. After encouraging all to ‘fight to the death’ and failing to evacuate civilians, he fled late Jan 1945 as Soviets encircled the city. He escaped Pillau on an icebreaker, ultimately arrived in Flensburg, where he demanded U-boat passage to South America, then (unsuccessful) went into hiding. He was captured in Hamburg May 1949.

    What was courageous ‘fight-to-the-death’ Erich’s contribution to Germany?

    “We are a master race, which must remember that the lowliest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the population here.”
    – Erich Koch, Gauleiter Provinz Ostpreußen, Reichskommissar Ukraine und Ostland [Shirer ‘Rise and Fall of The Third Reich’ p.939]

    “There is no liberated Ukraine. Our aim must be that every Ukrainian labours for Germany, not that we benefit people here. The Ukraine has to deliver what is lacking in Germany. If this people works ten hours a day, then eight of those hours have to work for us. All sentimental reservations have to be set aside. This nation must be ruled with an iron fist so that it assists us in winning the war. We haven’t liberated it in order to benefit the Ukraine, but rather to secure the living space and food base needed by Germany”
    – Erich Koch, Gauleiter Provinz Ostpreußen, Reichskommissar Ukraine und Ostland 28 Aug 1942 [Burleigh ‘The Third Reich’ p.544]

    Fox, you seem eager to blindly rehabilitate Hitler and the NSDAP without admitting the price ordinary Germans paid for their disastrous rule. Why?

    Do you hate ordinary Germans? Want them to unthinkingly/obediently rise up and be killed as cannon-fodder again?

    Give us a hint.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1263. refl says:
    @Incitatus

    When you mention the treaty of Brest-Litowsk, you once more give a perfect example that you use a standard line argument, while not caring what really is behind.

    The states wrung from Russia in Brest-Litowsk are exactly the independent states of Eastern Europe today. The Russia that lost these states was exactly the Russia of the Bolsheviks that the West has been in a Stand-off with ever since. These states were at the point of the Brest-Litowsk agreement lost to the Bolshewik power in Moscow and Petrograd, and indeed, they were suffering from the Germans who wanted foodstuff and war material for the faltering war effort in the West, while at the same time the Germans were the only ones who could keep the Bolsheviks away. The German imperialists were awkward, I know, but at the same time, there was a certain logic and legitimacy to German hegemony across Eastern Europe at the time.

    As for France, you have to note, that the War indemnity of 1871 was not paid by France, but by Algeria – France at the time was expanding its colonial empire in Algeria with a loss of 25% of Algerias population and 70% of its land to french settlers in just the year 1870-71 (now, I took that out of Wikipedia right now, just to find a source for you, as I knew it but do not have a proper source at hand). Germany, in its own case post WWI had to pay reparations after the loss of important industrial areas in its home country and of all its colonies.
    Regarding Alsace, I am just astonished to meet fluent German speakers from the area even among todays youth. I can only say that the neighbouring Saar-area voted twice for Germany in a span of twenty years and that in Alsace post-WWI no census was held regarding the desire of the people – the French government might have prefered to avoid this question.

    Banks can be insidious/too powerful/criminal at times, but disagree they’re all powerful. Time sorts things out. Though, to be honest, the RE melt-down 2007-08 has me wondering.

    Here we are getting to the core of the question. I certainly know my part of the story of German militarism in the Kaiserreich, and we can start a competition who has read more books. The thing is, that with the Western failures in recent times, the history of the 20th century appears in a different light. It is unbelievable that the makers of the banking crisis in the 200os did not know what they were doing, and so it necessarily follows that the bankers of the 1900s – being bankers – also knew what they were doing.

    The supreme conspiracy theory – ans I have still not read it anywhere – would be this: Was the foundation of the FED in 1913 the preparation for the outbreak of war in 1914?
    In a short, continental war, Germany should by all standards have won. In a prolongued effort, its military would exhaust itself and would finally be overcome, if only the US would support the Allies with war material and finally, manpower. Now, how to get the US into the war?

    By the end of 1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory. The vehicle for this transatlantic operation, once London took charge in 1915, was a single private bank, the dominant Wall Street house of J.P.Morgan, which happened to have historic ties to the City of London. This was a business operation for sure. But it was coupled on the part of Morgan with an unabashedly anti-German, pro-Entente stance and a backing within the United States for President Wilsons loudest critics, the interventionist forces within the Republican Party. The result was a quite unprecedented international combination of public and private power (…) Through the private business contacts of J.P.Morgan, supported by the Business and political elite of the American Northeast, the Entente was carrying out a mobilization of a large part of the US economy, entirely without the say-so of the Wilson administration.

    (Adam Tooze, The Deluge)

    It was this war dept, that could in the end only be garantied by the American taxpayer through the American entry into the war and it was this debt that haunted the Entente governments at Versailles. This was the real background to the Reparations question, never mentioned but always there.
    I am a bit sad that Ron Unz dismissed the book by Preparata, ‘Conjuring Hitler’ – he might be a conspiracy nut, I will take another look, but this will discourage people from reading.
    Preparata bases his thesis to a huge extend on one finding – and I do not know if it is genius:
    If the victors at Versailles seriously had wanted Germany to pay its reparations and come clear with their former enemies, they could most easily have ordered the German war bonds to be declared nil and void and instead the reparations to be paid – this would have liberated the German people from a huge debt burden and taken away the wealth of the ruling German elite. Instead, Germany with the Hyperinflation became the only War participant to be free of internal debt, as they owed their war debt only to themselves and no foreign banks. It was paid for with the impoverishment of their own people.
    From this, Preparata derives that the Versailles reparations were never ment to be paid at all, but to open Germany to American investments. The Dawes- and Young-Plans merely replaced sovereign debt with private debt to exactly those banks who had stood against Germany in WWI, which were now laying the groundwork for German military power for WWII – and what you should think about that without becoming a conspiracy nut, I do not know.

    My father was a history teacher for thirty years, and he is still quite knowledgable about WWI, U-boat warfare, the Zimmermann telegram etc. When I came up with the story that the US entered the war for Wall Street loans, he shouted at me that I should leave him in peace with my ‘backstairs history’.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1264. @Ron Unz

    Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British covert operations in the United States, 1939-1944 (Washington, D.C., Brassey’s, 1998) is indeed first rate and fundamental to an informed understanding of the events and period it discusses.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1265. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “There was no painter named Klimpt, but there was a Klimt (Gustav) who was an AUSTRIAN, who always lived and worked in Austria, which to Incitatus does not contain Germans! Whoops, a small fuck-up on your part, Incy.”

    Mea culpa. My fingers aren’t as agile as was once was the case. Misspellings occur. But kudos to you for discovery, Carolyn! Pat yourself on the back! BTW, he narrowly escaped being labeled ‘degenerate’ by the NSDAP.

    As for the difference between reconstituted Germany (1871) and Habsburg Austria-Hungary, what’s your problem? They (Prussia) found differences sufficient to go to war 1866. Was that a mistake? Did they forget their common ‘Germanous’? Give us a hint.

    Vagabond (no means of support) Hitler was a subject of Habsburg Austria, dodged military service there to enlist in a Bavarian regiment 1914. After serving time for his 1923 Putsch, he should have been rendered to Austria 1924. Alas, didn’t happen. He was too useful to German monarchists and militarists who thought they could control him.

    All of which is to say, despite your doubt, Hitler was an Austrian. Why do you resist acknowledging it?

    Ashamed of Austrians?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1266. Incitatus says:
    @L.K

    L.K, prime want-to-be-Nazi star in UR’s flea circus/freak show!

    “Ron Unz has figured him out as a Jewish activist.”

    Yes, Unz pegged me as a Jew (he thinks they’re the smartest, mostly all he talks about: ever wonder about that?) but never substantiated his ‘feeling’, never refuted my questions. I’m not, btw. Maybe that bothers him? Who cares?

    “His posts are invariably about blaming Germany for both world wars and for just about anything bad that is ever happened.”

    Blaming German Leadership is not the same as blaming Germany. A broad distinction that none-the-less invariably escapes you.

    Unable to refute simple evidence, you indict character rather than content. You cling to homespun nonsense like: “Btw, I’m Italian on my mothers side, from Veneto and Piedmont. Ah, Bella Italia!” and “my ethnicities, Germans and Italians, have accomplished more than armenians could ever dream to.” One has the distinct feeling you can’t trace roots beyond three generations and spend most of your time admiring yourself in the mirror.

    Care to explain the flight of Gauleiter Erich ‘fight-to-the-last-German’ Koch? The flight of 2,000+ senior NSDAP “rats” from Berlin 21 Apr 1945 after executing 10,000+ ordinary Germans?

    “There is a record here at Unz of his friendly relationships with some of the most vile Zionist Jews who have appeared to troll for israel, such as one ‘Sam Shama’.”

    Some might say you can be counted on to insult or unfairly characterize those you’re not smart enough to dispute. Such was certainly the case with Sam Shama (who, unlike you, was civil even if you disagreed with him). You faultlessly mistake civility with kindred service.

    Such is the poverty of your soul, the deficiency of your intellect.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1267. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British covert operations in the United States, 1939-1944 (Washington, D.C., Brassey’s, 1998) is indeed first rate and fundamental to an informed understanding of the events and period it discusses.

    Sure. I discussed it in an article back in 2016:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

  1268. @Incitatus

    I would say that “Incitatus” (you don’t mind if I put your name in quotes from now on, do you?) is a paid, possibly even trained operative. He seems to appear in every comment thread of any relevance to his message, which must use up close to 8-hours a day. His job is simply to fuck with everything that goes against this message/mission in whatever way he can, without getting thrown off the site … which is almost impossible to happen here. Who would subject themselves to such an unpleasant job and punishing schedule unless they were paid?

    But he’s not that good. People in his line of work don’t have to be. For example, he did misspell the Klimt name, but the important point I made was that he was giving examples of German greatness, in which he included the Austrian painter Klimt, yet he continually points to Adolf Hitler’s birth and youth in Austria as preventing A.H. from being a legitimate German! He makes his own words meaningless, and so they are.

    Oh yeah, he tries to dissemble with babble about Prussia and Austria-Hungary but it is entirely irrelevant. Just about everything he comes up with is irrelevant. I have said often, and my website shows it, “I Love Austrians.” I know Austrians well. And I love Germans, including Adolf Hitler. Sue me.

    Just please don’t try to talk me out of it.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1269. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Some might say you can be counted on to insult or unfairly characterize those you’re not smart enough to dispute.

    Well said.
    In days of yore (very much yore 🙂 one of my roomies wrote a computer program he called “Mike,” named after the sentient computer in Robert Heinlein’s famous SF novel.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
    “Mike” was an early “AI” which used its (his) own criteria to determine if he regarded his interlocutor as “stupid” or “not stupid.” (Notice the parallel with the Scottish “not proved”).
    If Mike regarded you as “stupid,” into the bit bucket you went.
    “Not stupids” got a reprieve. 🙂
    (Paul later invented something called the Domain Name System.)

  1270. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you, Carolyn; you must have spent quite some time lifting the cover of the pot containing Incitatus and his stew, and letting some light enter. He is one of the people who have an obsession with “proving”, and he reminds me therefore of the caricature I remember from a distant past, showing an Incitatus type in a library, surrounded by stacks of books and sedulously reading them with a bitter and unforgiving mien. The text underneath reads: I will not give up! I will prove that Germany is also responsible for the Punic Wars!”
    This whole attitude is shot through every one of his statement, like a colored thread in an embroidery. The tone of voice of lecturing which I mentally perceive from his writings is that of a driven individual. There was one mistake he made in his writing which very strongly made me think that he might be a German living abroad, and most likely in America, but I will not name that mistake.
    His unrelenting accusations against and calumny of Germany does apparently, as you found in sifting through the sediments of his commentary history, partner with an admiration, as revealed by his rather extensive knowledge, even as far down as to the correct use of the sharp s “ß” of the German alphabet. Perhaps he feels that Germany could have been for Jews a great chance to liberate themselves from rabbinical strictures and ancient ritual; but it was messed up through their own decision to seek Palestine as a Jewish homeland, which was only to be had by turning against Germany in the First War.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1271. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    (would be) Bride of Hitler:

    hatred of 100% Germans

    50% not good enough for you?
    Perhaps your dream will come true, and you can have me, and my ilk (whatever that means) denounced to the Volksgerichtshof.
    Maybe even resurrect Roland Freisler as the presiding judge.
    What the hell, if you are going to go, might as well go in style.
    I must admit, it has been quite a journey, from “Nazi” in my childhood to “self-hating German” or “Jew troll” in my 70th year. Perhaps you and “Harold Smith” are good friends?

    Must also confess that my best friend ist ein mischling (Methodist mutter, devot Christian).
    Would that be sufficient to consign me to Dachau, in your world?
    Hell, I might be able to meet up with Fritz Thyssen, and discuss der Stahlbau.
    One never knows.

    Tschuss.

  1272. turtle says:
    @Fox

    IMO,
    “The Jews” (i.e. Jewish “leadership” ) fucked themselves once, by their dealings in Germany, and are about to do so once again, by their dealings in Palestine.
    This is not to say anything bad about “average.” or “rank and file” Jewish people, who are no doubt being led to perdition by their scumbag “leaders,” such as Benny Netanyahu and similar filth.
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5563004.Hermann_G_ring
    “It works the same in any country.”

    “Rev.” Hagee and his mentally challenged “followers” notwithstanding, IMO most people are starting to see through the deceit.
    Sooner or later, the shit will hit the fan, and when that happens, all bets are off.
    I just hope that not too many well meaning but deluded people get caught in the firestorm.

    You reap what you sow.

  1273. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    I believe that Erich Koch was found guilty of malfeasance by a “nazi court” and executed thereafter.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1274. Fox says:
    @L.K

    Thank you, L.K.!
    Incitatus (perhaps “The Inciter”) is indeed the Leopard who can’t or won’t wash off his spots, or doesn’t think of doing so. I don’t know whether he acts on his own -that’s quite possible- or is in the Electro Army we know of, kept, paid and trained by a little country on the Eastern Coast of the Mediterranean Sea. I rather think that he is not affiliated in such manner.
    Just for his benefit I will repeat it again: Austrians are Germans; just as the Saxons are, the South Tyroleans, the Prussians and Hessians, and also the Alsatians and Swiss. Even if some of them do not want to be politically attached to the larger body of Germany, or can’t due to exterior duress. They are still Germans.
    Yes, it is his characteristic that he maniacally seeks out German responsibility, just as the library dweller, I wrote to Carolyn about, who burns midnight oil in this lonely place. The caption reads:
    “I will not give up! I will prove that Germany is also responsible for the Punic Wars!”

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @L.K
  1275. turtle says:
    @Fox

    “I will not give up! I will prove that Germany is also responsible for the Punic Wars!”

    English, no doubt.
    And most likely a great admirer of W.S. Churchill.*
    *drunken bum and wholly owned subsidiary of {some shadowy group} who supported him in the style he believed he deserved during his “bleak period,” the 1930s, only to take him “out of the warehouse,” and re-activate him, so to speak, when the time was right,
    He who pays the piper, calls the tune,

  1276. @turtle

    (would be) Bride of Hitler:

    Now, isn’t that stupid and childish of you … a 70 year old man? Very much like the children you complain of who called you Herman the Nazi when you were a kid. You didn’t like it, but yet you do the same thing.
    Do you know my childhood was more in the 40’s but I was never taunted by anything like that. Never one little bit. Maybe your last name was very German sounding – what is it? Herman —- ? Schnicklesnout or something that bad?

    And have I called you any names? I only copied your own comment in praise of ‘Incitatus’ that you wanted published in the Buchanan thread because I was shocked by it and wanted Fox to see it. You are highly irritated that I did. People like you and ‘Incitatus’, you like to have it all your way. YOU are going to define what a German is!

    50% not good enough for you?

    No, it’s not. I’ve noticed that only 100% Germans are really loyal and can always be depended on. Half Germans, being half something else, will turn against Germans/Germany when it suits their fancy. I’m quite sure ‘Incitatus’ is only a little bit German and it’s not important to him.

    So was that Incy comment I copied the “whole history” that you told me was in “his archive”? What a farce. “My German blood traces to 576.” And you accept that. At least you are honest in your account of your family history. What is it about ‘Incitatus’ that makes you so self-effacing toward him? You admire him. Agree with every word he says.
    It must be that you two are very similar. What else would induce you to overreact to my exposure of your comment (which you led me to), as in “Perhaps your dream will come true, and you can have me denounced to the Volksgerichtshof. Maybe even resurrect Roland Freisler as the presiding judge.” And that was not enough. You had to add “Would that be sufficient to consign me to Dachau, in your world?”

    Yes, you and ‘Incitatus’ are two peas in a pod, after all.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1277. @Incitatus

    The West and the Bolshevik’s both had similar slogans in the war. Peace! Justice! Self determination for peoples!

    At Brest, the Bolsheviks wanted peace “without annexations or indemnities”, as they had promised their people. Germany was willing to grant such a peace, on the condition the West would agree to the same. Sounds fair doesn’t it? Very German in spirit. You do for me, I do for you.

    In typical Eastern fashion they only hear what they want to hear, so they misinterpreted the first point, and forgot all about the second. To this day such details are not important to them. But the lack of Brest in modern arguments suggest they know the real truth. They need a third party such as yourself to furnish that old fable.

    When the West, predictably, refused an honourable peace, the conditions for the Brest were void also. Now Germany wanted some military security and fodder for their starving population in order to continue the war in the West. And since both the West and the Bolshevik’s had been talking high and mighty about self determination, it turned out a happy coincidence that most of Western Russia Empire wanted independence in accordance with such terms. This would satisfy Germany’s military security and the peoples of those nations. To this day there can be no doubt that their judgment was correct. Not only did the “victim” publicly proclaim this to be their wish (though lying about it), but what was formerly Western Russia is now a belt of independent nations who do not regret their decision to break free from the Russian overlods. So while it is obvious to spot the Germans self serving motivation in this case, it is hard to argue that the result was not just and equitable. Except for the Russian Imperial System and their Jewish successors of course, which you think more important than the will and prosperity of the people. Not surprising, we know who you are, but I think it important the rest of the world can know your hypocrisy too.

    ‘Untouched physically’ is an interesting argument. Except for the Tsar and his family brutally murdered by your progressive friends, all the leadership in that war went untouched. Your attempt to portray the Germans as rabid, unrepentant aggressors who lived in warmth and comfort while their victims suffered horrible fates is, of course, obvious. In 1919 one could expect people to believe such lies, but already in the 30s it was considered to be exaggerated war propaganda only still believed by the zealous few. So why bring up this tired trope now? I am reminded of a statement made by a great European:

    All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

    It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    With that in mind, let’s continue.

    Germany paid their last and final instalment on the Versailles Treaty in 2010. Around 20 billion RM had already been paid before Hitler cancelled it. What started as lies mixed with truth has now become pure lies. You must be getting warmed up.

    The French, who are “no more or less perfect than Germans”, nevertheless proceeded to take action far superior to Germany, is your next thesis. Another example of your commitment to reason and probity.

    There is some semblance of truth to your claim that Ludendorff used Hitler as a stepping stone. I say some because he only attempted to do so. When the Ludendorff trial of 1924 became the Hitler trial, his time on the national scene was over. Hindenburg on the other hand needed no help from Hitler, did not like Hitler and actively tried to curtail him. So no semblance of truth there. If anyone fits such a description it is Von Papen, but he’s a “democrat” who served Hitler until 1945, so you can’t mention him.

    Your next couple of sentences are very illuminating though. ‘Driving the stake through the heart of Germany!’. Likely the vast majority of people know that this expression has to do with killing vampires and other demonic creatures of the underworld. It’s curious why someone who claims to be a German has such a view of the country? It is also a paradox that someone who hates Germany as much as you do should have any objection to a wholesome deed like that. Unless, of course, as we have seen, you are less than honest in your approach. Any adherence to truth and logic must take a backseat in your quest to blacken the image of the German Nation, so oder so!

    Not only is the internal instability of Germany at the time laid squarely at the feet of the right and their behavior, always evil and criminal, but also the occupation of the Ruhr and the hyperinflation is due to German perfidy. The aftermath of war, the reparations they cannot afford and the string of armed revolutions from the Bolshevik’s have nothing to do with it. The latter incidents you don’t even deem worthy of mention. Last I said you were warming up, now you are positively glowing.

    There’s another difference than the 5 billion Francs from the 1871 War and the 128 billion Marks Germany was ordered to pay in 1921. The year before it was twice that, but I guess the victorious allies realized the sum was obscene enough that they could easily cut it in half. The Franco-Prussian war was ended on fair terms. Bismarck deliberately did not ask for too much, because it was important to establish an honourable peace. In order to do that France could not be too humiliated. When Germany laid down their arms in 1918 they were promised something similar. What they got was betrayal and the full weight of the hammer of Jewry and the West. A war indemnity amounting to more money than exists in the country and complete fault for a war the British had been planning for years, as Lord Balfour admitted to the American ambassador Henry White in 1910:

    Balfour: We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.

    White: You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.

    Balfour: That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.

    White: I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.

    Balfour: Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.

    And in order to secure these “fair dealings” you propose to level an artistic European city with one of the most famous Cathedrals in the world. I’m sure your patriotism can be felt all the way to Tel Aviv.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1278. @turtle

    Perhaps you and “Harold Smith” are good friends?

    I don’t think so because I don’t know who he is or why you’d mention him. I looked him up and found only a British MP from the 1920’s who was quite unremarkable – even married the sister of his better-known brother’s wife. Died young of cancer.
    I’m at a loss.

  1279. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You admire him. Agree with every word he says.

    I respect his evident scholarship on the topic of National Socialist Germany.
    As my own knowledge of history is limited (my least favorite subject in school) I am not in position to criticize the substance of what he, and several others with superior knowledge, have posted here.
    The man says he has spent ten years of his life reading up on the topic. That journey is just beginning, for me.

    I also respect his stated goal of researching what brought a great country to ruin.
    I am not persuaded (nay, I am insulted, as you also should be) by knuckleheaded pronouncements about the (presumed defective) “German national character.”

    As with you, I am proud of my German heritage, as I believe we are entitled to be.
    Too bad (for you) I am “not German enough.” Oh, well..

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1280. turtle says:
    @Alexandros

    Interesting post.
    Would you kindly post the source of the Balfour-White exchange, for the benefit of those of us with less historical knowledge?
    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1281. @Incitatus

    Ah, the sophistry continues. I went to the gunshop the other day, asked for a bazooka. What do you need that for, they asked. I’m going to blow up a federal building, I said. That’s illegal, I was told. We can’t sell you the bazooka. What? What about my individual freedom!

    If a state lets itself be plundered, then that is good, but if a state tells them you do not plunder our people any longer, then that is bad!

    The pen is mightier than the sword they say, so let’s ban the sword and give free reign to the pen. Present day bears clear witness to the folly of such a mindset. An entire civilization and its people are facing imminent destruction because it has been infected by the sweet lies of the enemy. Does the German Patriot have any solutions to this problem? Or shall civilized society be sacrificed on the altar of your empty slogans?

    It’s also hard to see what is opportunistic about this. The definition of the term is to disregard principles in favor of personal gain. Surely the most opportunistic approach would be to join the robbers and take the 30 pieces of silver as payment. Hitler on the other hand told his people what he believed and he told them the same thing in 1920 as he did in 1945. He launched relentless attacks on every known power structure. Remarkable consistency and risk taking for a shameless opportunist! Can our modern parliamentarians claim similar?

    By 1938 Hitler enjoyed more popular support than any statesman in European history. The people so downtrodden by his tyranny they surrounded him like a rockstar to cheer him on every time he took a trip in his open car. Every village they passed through this happened. And when was the last time we saw a democratic leader travel in an open car? Whenever the leader of the free world deigns himself to visit the dominions, his security detail alone could cripple the budget of a decent sized town.

    Also curious how the fate of ordinary Germans is gambled by bringing other, downtrodden, Germans into the Reich. Is it the act itself that was a gamble, or was it the looming threat from the West to punish any attempt at self determination for Germans? I guess they should have let themselves be plundered, as they are currently doing. What upstanding principles you espouse. More German than Herman!

    In 1939 Germany was still committed to peace. When the Hungarians wanted a slice of Czechoslovakia, he supported the Czech’s. When the Slovaks came asking for his support to break free from the magnanimous Czech rule, he again deferred to the Munich agreement. The best he could do was to promise them support if they became independent in a legal way. Every objective observer, even subjective ones like Czech officials, had to admit that Germany and Hitler had been following the agreement to the letter.

    Which begs the question, why was the British PM, Mr. Peace In Our Time, threatening Hitler with war in mid January? Did it have something to do with his previous utterances in private, where he only viewed Munich as a delaying tactic to gain military supremacy? And if the return of the German city of Memel by complete and enthusiastic public acclaim, that Lithuania had opportunistically invaded and annexed after WW1, was cause for war, then that says more about the leadership of “the free world” than it does Germany.

    The watershed moment came when Chamberlain gave the Polish Dictatorship an unprecedented war guarantee. This was followed by open threats of war from the Poles and even a partial mobilization of their armed forces. If Adolf Hitler ever needed a cassus belli for war, he had it.

    But he does not take the bait. Instead he asks his General Staff what is the latest date a war can be prosecuted against Poland before the weather turns bad? September 1st they told him. For the next 6 months the Germans tirelessly attempt to reach a peaceful solution with Poland. A tough nut to crack when Ridz Smigly holds mass meetings agitating for war and promising the Polish army will be in Berlin before any Germans set foot on Polish land. The terror campaign against the German minority becomes so severe hundreds of thousands flee the border to Germany, living behind all their possessions and livelihood. Poland goes further. They shoot down a couple of civilian Lufthansa airliners and threaten to starve Danzig. Customs officials are ordered to dress in military attire, in order that the Danzig Germans can get used to Polish military occupation. It will be hard to find a better example of a nation actively agitating for war.

    August 28th Hitler has had enough and orders the Wehrmacht to march, but when he hears news that a peaceful settlement is still possible, he rescinds the orders. The next days are feverishly spent trying to bring the Polish government to sanity. The response is a complete rebuff. On September 1st, the last day of the war season, Hitler finally orders an invasion. Under the circumstances he is both legally and morally permitted to do so. The British on the other hand is not handcuffed by such contortions. They leave their ally Poland in the dust and declares world war on Germany. Mission accomplished. To Chamberlain’s credit it should be noted he only signed the war guarantee reluctantly, saying it felt like he had signed the doom of civilization. No doubt his most prescient moment.

    Calling Hitler a deadbeat when he was a decorated war hero and served the German people unbendingly until his demise, is a clear sign of your character. We have seen soldiers being spat upon by the self proclaimed enlightened individuals in our societies. As they say, a man can be known by the company he keeps.

    The best example I can come up with when talking about useless eaters is Anne Frank. A frail and chronically sick girl, completely unable to work and Jewish to boot! What did the Germans do to her? Shot on the spot? Gassed? Or given medical care in 7 different camps? In the Auschwitz General Orders, which was made available only in 2001 by the German government (Quellen und Darstellung Auschwitz) we get to know the internal workings of the camp. Toes are to be inspected every day by trained professional, in order that deceases and infections do not spread in the camp. Those doing hard labour is to get double rations. Jews travelling in trains is to be given a gas burner for warmth and food. Ursula Haverbeck, who was a civilian girl during the war and now sits in German jail for exercising her free speech in the free world, is brought to tears when she reads these things, because ordinary Germans were not provided such “luxuries”. Evidently the Germans took their international reputation seriously, even in 1945. Can’t be seen to mistreat Jews. Better to leave the German civilian a little more hungry and colder, the only thing the world media will not have any issues with.

    Regards the T4 program, here is the exact order by Hitler. An actual written document, as opposed to all the other claims of Germans barbarity.

    Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr.Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of individual physicians, with a view to enable them, after the most critical examination in the realm of human knowledge, to administer to incurably sick persons a mercy death.

    Currently this type of business is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Canada. The first euthanasia societies were formed in the mid 30s in America and England. Most Western countries practice a far more barbaric method today. Since they can’t openly kill the patient, they deprive them of nourishment and let them starve to death. This is common practice in the USA and Europe today. I’ve had several family members subjected to this humane treatment at the end of their lives. One Aunt took a whole month to die.

    The Nerobefehl is an invention by Speer. No order exists, despite his claims that it went out to hundreds of commanders. We have several of Hitlers military conferences between March and May. Their studious attention to details, small and big, to save the German people does not correspond very well to Speers claims. Nor does Hitlers political testament where he names a complete government and orders them to fight for the German people until the end.

    Do we agree that deserters should be executed? Or do we agree that men trying to escape Berlin despite orders from the Government are shameless cowards? Which argument is it that you want to make here? Desertion is good, or desertion is bad? And is it the fault of the government, or not the fault of the government? Indeed the enemy is the Red Army, so why don’t these men and boys capable of bearing arms fight it?

    I’ll tell you about a betrayal. For years the 20th of July conspirators had been transmitting military orders direct from headquarters, by land cable, to a Soviet spy cell in Switzerland. The valiant Stauffenberg, who is now celebrated as a hero for attempting to assassinate the Chancellor by the current German Government, had no trouble sacrificing the lives of hundreds and thousands of German soldiers in this way. And why did the do it? Was it to bring democracy and liberalism back to Germany? No, quite the opposite! He wanted the return of Aristocratic rule and was enthusiastic about most Nazi policy. He just didn’t like the fact they were losing the war. Niemoller is a similar character. He was as pliant a Nazi as anyone until his dream of becoming a Nazi Pope was shattered by Hitler. These are the hero’s of the left today. No doubt a fitting relationship.

    • Replies: @Dube
  1282. @turtle

    If I remember correctly it is from the memoirs of White.

  1283. @turtle

    I respect his evident scholarship on the topic of National Socialist Germany.

    Evident? It is ‘evident’ to you because you are inclined to think the same way, having been bombarded with propaganda during your entire American life. You say your own knowledge is limited, so on what are you basing your judgment? Only this bias.

    The man says he has spent ten years of his life reading up on the topic. That journey is just beginning, for me.

    ‘He says.’ You are naive and have come to a place to learn that is fraught with peril for a beginner. Did you read Ron Unz’s article first? You’re not impressed with his reading and learnedness but are impressed with commenter “Incitatus?” I have been studying National Socialist Germany since 2005, have visited Germany, Austria and Poland and 3 former “Nazi concentration camps.” There are others here who are German and live in Germany, but you choose “Incitatus” as your expert?

    It could be that your being called a “nazi’ by other children made quite a big mark on you. That you still mention it today is evidence that it still hurts. (As I told you, I never experienced anything like that.) You didn’t want to be a “nazi” then and you still don’t. I think it’s as simple as that. German – good; Nazi – bad. Since “Incitatus” personifies that same belief for you, you’re drawn to him.
    Probably can’t change it at your age, unless you really wanted to. If you’re comfortable where you are, you won’t.

    One more thing, though. “Incitatus” doesn’t just hate German “Nazis” but also Wilhelm II and the whole bunch of Germans who were in charge at the time of WWI. And before that? How far back does his criticism of Germans in relation to French and British (even U.S.) leadership go? He praises the culture of Germans, but none of their political leaders. Something to ponder as to why.

    Since I don’t know of anything better, I’m going to recommend you read a few things by Austrian Germans from my website. No “proof” of anything, just a different pov.
    https://carolynyeager.net/anschluss-austria
    http://kriessmann.carolynyeager.net/articles/confessions-young-nazi
    http://kriessmann.carolynyeager.net/articles/witness-anschluss

    Let me know what you think.

  1284. turtle says:

    You are naive and have come to a place to learn that is fraught with peril for a beginner.

    I will readily concede that.
    I have to trust that my early education (education, not training) involved the development of critical thinking skills, but readily admit a lack of background. As I said, for me the journey has just begun.

    Did you read Ron Unz’s article first?

    Of course.
    As a Californian. I certainly know of Mr. Unz, and do respect his intellect, if not (necessarily) all his conclusions on any given topic.

    I have been studying National Socialist Germany since 2005, have visited Germany, Austria and Poland and 3 former “Nazi concentration camps.”

    Happy to know you have had the privilege of travel.
    I have not been so fortunate.

    evidence that it still hurts

    Oh, it does.
    Unfortunately, I am blessed (or cursed) with an excellent memory.

    You didn’t want to be a “nazi” then and you still don’t.

    Of course not.

    German – good; Nazi – bad

    Unfortunately, some of my ignorant elementary school classmates were taught that the two are equivalent, i.e., German = Nazi = Evil Incarnate.
    Why is that? Who put them up to it? Eh?
    Isn’t that some kind of “blood libel,” to borrow a phrase?
    How is it permissible that one, and only one, group of people (the largest non-English ethnic group in the country) should get the message that they are incurably evil and beyond redemption?
    Certain other groups {which must not be named} screech to high Heaven upon “detecting” even falsely, criticism of their group, or any of its members.
    However, what I call “anti-Teutonism” is not only allowed, but expected, and at least at some times in our history (WWI) actively promoted by our own government.
    How do you explain that?

    Work calls. Got to go.
    I will have a look at your website, can’t promise when.
    Current “to read” list includes:
    AJP Taylor (which I have never read)
    Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof
    FJP Veale
    et. al.

  1285. @turtle

    Udo Walendy – Truth For Germany, is excellent to understand how the Nuremberg Trials doctored its so called documentation. Every mainstream historian today leans on the Hossbach Memorandum to prove Hitlers aggressive intentions. Notorious best selling journalist William Shirer, seemingly still the entry point for those in the masses who want to learn about WW2, goes to town with it:

    “the decisive turning point in the life of the Third Reich.” At this critical conference, Shirer wrote, “… the die was cast. Hitler had communicated his irrevocable decision to go to war. To the handful of men who would have to direct it there could no longer by any doubt.”

    Der Führer supposedly revealing to his generals his plan to take over the world. Spuriously though, the leader of the German Army in the years which could be considered fulfilment of these plans, head of the OKH, Field Marshal Von Brautisch, did not learn the contents of these plans until American officials told him after the war. Apparently Von Fritsch didn’t consider it important enough to tell him.

    When Hossbach himself, who was a member of the clique who several times tried to assassinate Hitler, was asked to verify the contents, he refused to do so.

    It is beyond my knowledge as to how one or several typewritten copies
    of my one-and-only handwritten minutes could have materialized.

    Walendy goes on to say:

    To this day, the general public still does not know. The truth is that no minutes
    were taken officially, and that Colonel Hossbach had written down, by hand,
    from memory, only five days after the meeting, Hitler’s exposition. His reason
    for doing so remains completely in the dark; he had no such orders. He could not do shorthand, he had not even taken any notes during the talk and, therefore, he was not in a position to give a verbatim and complete account of the meeting. He relied on his memory, as he declared in a notarized affidavit on 18 June 1946.4

    Hitler’s expositions are founded on hypothetical considerations which, in the
    event of a possible war between Great Britain and Italy, could effect German
    policy. There was no talk of planning an offensive war, much less a world war.

    The Commanders-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe and the Navy, Göring and Admiral Dr. h.c. Raeder, had already been informed, before the start of the meeting, that Hitler wanted merely to rectify more vigorously the deficiencies in armament.

    The so-called “Hossbach Memorandum” is not available in any shape or form,
    neither as an original nor as a copy, nor has it ever been.1) There exists merely the photocopy of a typewritten copy which had been slipped privately (the source remained unknown), without a signature, to the Americans in 1945. This photocopy is since that time, contrary to the truth, accepted as “in the keeping of the German government in the archives and also captured therein”.

  1286. L.K says:
    @turtle

    InZitatus’ “scholarship”???
    Listen, repeating, like a pirate’s parrot, recycled Allied propaganda, from the never ending barrage of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ books re WW2 published in their dozens every year, and which are used by this clown inZitatus, does NOT make for scholarship at all… at best, for cheap propaganda.
    What sort of “scholar”, in the year 2019, after a “decade” of studies, does not know that rump German Austria desired to unite with Germany after WW one ended, and was barred from doing so by the victors? This has been known since the end of the Great War!! It’s been ON RECORD since then, no matter how many court historians lie by omission. On the other hand several historians have written about this matter, and this includes British and American ones, so a serious person studying this for a decade(gasp) has no excuses for not knowing it.

    Even worse is the behavior of your hero when confronted by facts he does not like, he just ignores it all, and keeps on repeating the same garbage time and again. The clown asks for ‘sources’, then simply ignores them. This is the behavior of a crackpot.
    I could give many other examples, such as his constant pushing of the totally discredited ‘Hossbach Memorandum’, as if this is some solid piece of documentation, even after being taken to the woodshed for a good spanking, since this ‘memorandum’ is a worthless forgery.
    Reviewing “Das Hossbach-‘Protokoll’: Die Zerstoerung einer Legende”, by Dankwart Kluge, M. Weber concludes: “This important study leaves no doubt that the highly touted protocol is actually a forged revision of an uncertified copy of an unauthorized original, which has disappeared.”
    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p372_Weber.html

    Renowned British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, who initially was fooled by this forgery, later revised his position and wrote:

    No evidence that Hitler planned aggressive war has ever been produced … [This] revision upsets the entire verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is still solemnly quoted as justification of the Allied war against Germany.”

    and added that

    “those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum.”

    It’s as if Taylor wrote these words especially for our Zionist shill, inZitatus.
    source: Taylor’s classic “The Origins of the Second World War”, edition containing the added ‘Second Thoughts’ chapter, which comes right after the preface. Pgs.XXIII, XXIV.
    After the aforementioned quote Taylor adds;

    “They should also warn their readers[….] that the memorandum, far from being an ‘official record’, is a very hot potato.”[1]

  1287. L.K says:
    @Fox

    Just for his benefit I will repeat it again: Austrians are Germans; just as the Saxons are, the South Tyroleans, the Prussians and Hessians, and also the Alsatians and Swiss.

    Indeed. At the very least, this is how the overwhelming majority felt til the end of ww2.

    Just for the record, which crackpot propagandist inZitatus will keep ignoring;
    ‘The Illusion of victory’, US historian Thomas Fleming:

    Wilson proclaimed self-determination as a great principle—and then gave away chunks of German-speaking Europe to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy and France, sowing the seeds of the next war.
    Knowing that Austria favored a union with Germany after Vienna lost its empire, Wilson wrote into the Treaty of Versailles an article barring the union, no matter how the Austrians voted.

    British historian A.J.P TAYLOR, p.15 of ‘The Origins of the Second World War’.

    German-speaking Austria, the rump of the Habsburg monarchy, was forbidden to unite with Germany without the permission of the League of Nations.
    This was a grievance for most Austrians, including the German corporal Hitler, who was at this time still an Austrian citizen.

    The Brits, such nice folks, forced Vienna to comply by threatening to resume the blockade of food to Austria.
    Later in 1920-21, plebiscites held in the major states of Austria had vote output near 100% in favor of union with Germany.
    The French intervened and forbade plebiscites in the other states.

  1288. Dube says:
    @Alexandros

    The watershed moment came when Chamberlain gave the Polish Dictatorship an unprecedented war guarantee.

    Will you please cite the language that constitutes the war guarantee, and explain how the guarantee is unprecedented.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1289. @refl

    Preparata seems to take a mould and makes a mountain of it. Firstly the notion that the Entente Governments would have had any motivation to free the German people, or any people for that matter, from debt. It is so fantastical I’m inclined to dismiss it out of hand. A man who apparently knows a great deal about the facts can not make such conflations without motive.

    Where his thesis completely fails is when he claims that these preparations laid the groundwork for Hitler. That is somewhat true in the sense that the economic devastations they caused enabled him to garner public support, but from that to establishing Germany as a powerhouse with the capability to fight another long war, is a leap you simply cannot take on conjecture alone. A more reasonable conjecture would be to suggest their actions furnished the efforts of Communists. By the time Hitler took power there were 6 million confessed members in Germany. We usually only hear about the failed Spartacus rebellion, but the situation was quite more serious than that:

    Around 4 November, delegations of the sailors dispersed to all of the major cities in Germany. By 7 November, the revolution had seized all large coastal cities as well as Hanover, Brunswick, Frankfurt on Main, and Munich. In Munich, a “Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council” forced the last King of Bavaria, Ludwig III, to abdicate. Bavaria was the first member state of the German Empire to be declared a Volksstaat, the People’s State of Bavaria, by Kurt Eisner of the USPD. In the following days, the dynastic rulers of all the other German states abdicated; the last was Günther Victor, Prince of Schwarzburg, on 23 November.

    It was a civil war with Communism in Germany. Possibly only German militarism and strength of character prevented their coordinated effort from succeeding as it had done in Russia. When the crash in 29 happened, the Communist Party in Germany had gained 10% of the votes the year before. Hitlers party was still miniscule and had barely broken the 2,5 barrier. The only real policy separating Hitler from Communism was his racialism. That might have appealed to a lot of Germans, but apparently it was not enough to offset the massive financial and moral support from high echelons of society enjoyed by the Marxists. The results of the 1930 election must have come as a shock to everyone. A 30% increase for the KPD was certainly less than expected, but still healthy. Surprisingly most of the votes from newly impoverished Germans went to Adolf Hitler. A 16 point increase. Two years later he would more than double his support.

    Still he is not Chancellor. Still his party does not get any contributions from the wealthy. Still the establishment with all their connections and handlers do nothing to help him. It is only due to Hitlers persistence and the lucky chance that every other attempt at forming a government fails. First Papen, then Schleicher. Until Papens desire for the limelight convinces himself he can control Hitler and approves of him as Chancellor in a coalition government to Hindenburg. In the middle of this crucial moment Hitler has struggled with financial difficulties threatening to bankrupt the organization and faced internal rebellion from the Strasser faction. His distress grows so great he is reported at one point to declare he will shoot himself if the party fails. Why is Strasser rebelling? He grew impatient with Hitlers refusal to simply take over the country by force, using the million strong Sturmabteilung. Hitler wanted legitimacy and feared the cultural destruction a civil war would bring. If psychopathic world schemers conjured Hitler, they failed to use some of his most attractive cards.

    The fact that foreign and national capitalists took their opportunity to enrich themselves in the Zwischenreich likely have far more natural causes than an elaborate conspiracy. That some of them undoubtedly saw Hitlers potential for conflict once in power, is another matter. Britain is certainly far more lenient to him in the early 30s than she needs to be. A mere nod of approval in 34 would be enough to allow the Poles and the French to go ahead with their invasion schemes against a military prostate Germany. When re-militarizing the Rheinland, France easily has cause and ability to severely punish Hitler. Late in the 30s the West wants Stalin’s support to surround Germany and force a surrender. Only his refusal enables the formation of a long war. As we can see there is far more material for the conspiracy minded in that period. But to conjure a unique historical personality like Hitler is not done and there is no evidence it was done.

    A simpler explanation is that Germany was being exploited because that is how the elite likes it. If you allow yourself to be plundered and are too stupid to speak up against it, that is good. And when Hitler gave them a fight, they used all their might to crush him. To suggest there was some special circumstance behind this, beyond the known facts, smacks of taking a recurring historical event, “the usurper who is defeated in attempt to gain power”, and running wild with it.

    • Replies: @refl
  1290. @Dube

    It is the opinion of Hoggan:

    Great Britain for the first time in history had left the decision whether or not to fight a war outside of her own country to another nation. Britain’s guarantee to Poland was binding without commitments from the Polish side. The British public was astonished by this move. Despite its unprecedented nature, Halifax encountered little difficulty in persuading the British Conservative, Liberal and Labor parties to accept Great Britain’s unconditional guarantee to Poland.

    It is instructive to consider the comments of the British leaders about what they believed was the
    opening of a righteous campaign to destroy Germany, and, in view of the British bombing strategy
    adopted in 1936, to destroy the German women and children. Alan Campbell Johnson, an enthusiastic
    admirer of Lord Halifax, referred to the “Halifax Diplomatic Revolution” of March 1939, “which
    culminated in the ‘unprecedented’ guarantees to Poland, Rumania and Greece.” He believed that “the
    essence of his (Halifax’s) achievement … was an attempt to revive Britain’s historic and traditional role,
    the Balance of Power.” Halifax rejoiced in what he considered a favorable opportunity to bring his
    inveterate hostility toward Germany into the open.

    • Replies: @Dube
  1291. @turtle

    Happy to know you have had the privilege of travel.
    I have not been so fortunate.

    It’s not a privilege, it’s a decision. Most European Americans can manage it, if they want to.

    “You didn’t want to be a “nazi” then and you still don’t.”

    Of course not.

    The “Of course not” says a lot. A nazi to you at the time was what you had learned from your general surroundings to understand as a nazi — Evil Incarnate. You said it yourself! But are you going to keep that idea/belief for the rest of your life because it’s too much trouble (and too uncomfortable) to learn differently? You pride yourself on being an independent thinker, a critical thinker … but are you?

    It’s good to have a book reading list, but do yourself a favor and read some shorter pieces also that might help you to get out of your fixed ideas and do you more good than even those books. Like the short essays I recommended, written by good Austrian-German men who served in the war, from their perspective when in their teens in the 1930’s. A big difference from those who have only read about it and want to preach about it.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1292. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    but are you?

    I hope so.

    good Austrian-German men who served in the war

    FWIW, I was once romantically involved with a woman whose father served in the Afrikakorps.
    He was a farmer from Ostfriesland, who moved his family to Ontario, Canada following the war.
    I never met him, because he had passed away by the time I met his daughter, Ute, who was born in Ostfriesland after the war (a German baby boomer, IOW).
    She did speak of her dad, and also her mother, who was still living (in Canada) at that time.
    As she described him, it is no doubt he carried the burden of PTSD*, of which I know something personally, unfortunately.

    *That is an entirely different topic, best left to another thread.
    Perhaps, “Experience of the common soldier in {pick the war of your choice}.”
    As I was draft-deferred (II-S) during Vietnam, I did not make the acquaintance of Americans with personal experience in that conflict until later in life. It was a real eye-opener. I, and a very close friend, unfortunately became members of that “club” via a different route. I do not wish to speak further on that topic. Trust me, you do not want to join.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1293. @turtle

    “Turtle” – I questioned once before your ability or willingness to make sense. I must do so again.

    What has Ostfriesland in far west Germany to do with two young Austrians who served in and survived the war on the German side? Because you knew a woman whose father had a bad time, you say, this somehow connects with the essays I recommended to you … WHICH IT DOESN’T AT ALL. These essays are not about the war but about National Socialism in Austria before the war. But of course you’re looking for reasons not to read them.

    You are slippery as hell. And maybe a little nuts. Do and think as you wish, it does not actually matter to anyone else at all, or to the world.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1294. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Do and think as you wish, it does not actually matter to anyone else at all, or to the world.

    You have got that right, at least.
    Perhaps I should have checked out long ago…
    I would advise you not to waste your time with me.
    But, perhaps you have already made that decision.
    “Good on ya” if you have.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1295. @turtle

    Love you, turtle – for some reason. Be well.

  1296. Dube says:
    @Alexandros

    Thank you for your response. Here is the text of the Halifax/Raczynski agreement.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

    I see no terms granting Poland initiative in the sense of a “blank-cheque.” It is a defense pact, activated only “in consequence of aggression” against Poland. (Article 1.)

    The concept is repeated through the subsequent articles. Were Poland to have initiated military engagement, the United Kingdom had no obligation to act.

    A “blank-cheque”? Not so.

  1297. refl says:
    @Alexandros

    It is certainly right that the failure of the Entente powers at Versailles to heap the burden of the reparations on the German elites – who, if anyone, were responsible for German warfare in WWI – does not prove anything. This treaty was an agreement between bourgeoise ruling classes and it was not in the cards to undo their collaboration. Though, you can try to see more in this, for example, when you look at a person like Hjalmar Schacht, who moved on from being a member of the international banking cartel right to supporting Hitler and was finally spared at Nuremberg.

    Still, Hitlers rise was on the whole predictable, as ANY character who in his time might have arisen as national leader in Germany would have had to dedicate himself to the undoing the Versailles treaty. This had been a sham and a betrayal and Germany was still not broken as a military power. It is pointless to argue, if they were justified about their territorial revanche – what they did up until the victory over France is just what Great powers do, when put into the situation they were in.
    Seeing this, WWI had left Germany in a potentially stronger position then it had been in before, because the eastern European states would be rather inclined to Germany then to the USSR. The only thing that stood between them and German leadership in continental Europe against the USSR were the pathetic guarantees by the British and French that would not be honored.

    So much is obvious from reading the map – and then you take a look at how British foreign policy pre-Hitler neatly fits British foreign policy at the time when Hitler was in power. The following is from Carol Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope:
    On Locarno:

    The Locarno Pacts were designed by Britain to give France the security against
    Germany (…) and at the same time (…) to prevent France from ever occupying the Ruhr or any other part of Germany (…). Moreover, by refusing to guarantee Germany’s eastern frontier with Poland and Czechoslovakia, Britain established in law the distinction between peace in the east and peace in the west (…) and greatly weakened the French alliances with Poland and Czechoslovakia (…). Thus, the Locarno Pacts, which were presented at the time throughout the English-speaking world as a sensational contribution to the peace and stability of Europe, really formed the background for the events of 1938 when Czechoslovakia was destroyed at Munich. The only reason why France accepted the Locarno Pacts was that they guaranteed explicitly the demilitarized condition of the Rhineland. (…) In March 1936 Britain dishonored its agreement, the Rhine was remilitarized, and the way was opened for Germany to move eastward.

    And on the British encirclement of France:

    The other five items in the encirclement of France were: (1) the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935; (2) the alienation of Italy over sanctions; (3) the remilitarization of the Rhineland by Germany with British acquiescence and approval; (4) the neutrality of Belgium; and (5) the alienation of Spain. (…)

    In May of 1935 France could have acted against Germany with all her forces, because the Rhineland was unfortified, and there was no need to worry about the Italian, Spanish, or Belgian frontiers or the Atlantic coastline. By the end of 1938, and even more by 1939, the Rhineland was protected by the new German fortified Siegfried Line, parts of the French Army had to be left on the unfriendly Italian and Spanish frontiers and along the lengthy neutral Belgian frontier, and the Atlantic coastline could not be protected against the new German fleet unless Britain cooperated with France.

    Diplomatically, the groundwork of Hitler’s agression had been laid even before he came to power. This is conjecture, but any student of the interwar era has to deal with the strange fact that the restrictions against the Weimar republic fell the moment when someone came to power who foreseeably would take Europe to another war. I have mentioned above, that I see in Douglas Reed’s saying that the policy of appeasement was for real a policy of encouragement far more then he might have meant himself.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1298. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    Hi Fox,

    “I believe that Erich Koch was found guilty of malfeasance by a “nazi court” and executed thereafter.”

    Sorry. Koch apparently lived incognito until May 1949, when arrested by Brits in Hamburg. He was extradited to Warsaw and eight years later tried and convicted for the death of 400,000 Poles [he was never tried for crimes in the Ukraine]. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to ill health. He died in Poland (age 90) in 1986.

    Ninety years is lot older than most of those Germans he ordered to ‘fight to the last’. To say nothing of ordinary Germans he had executed for cowardice (he escaped three times).

    What’s up with that, Fox?

    Was Erich Koch right to execute ordinary Germans, then (unsuccessfully) demand a U-boat voyage to South America, then hide in Hamburg? Give us a hint.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Fox
  1299. @Incitatus

    He probably got him confused with Karl Koch who was the commander of Buchenwald and was charged with malfeasance, one charge being ‘theft from Jews’. Later, SS investigator Konrad Morgen established he had murdered a handful of prisoners. He was sentenced to death on these charges and executed in April 45.

    Now, why did Karl Koch take the bother to meticulously hide the evidence of his murder of Jewish co conspirators, hide it so deep that it took months for hotshot SS Judge, ‘Blutrechter’ Morgen, to establish them?

    The prisoners were taken to a secret place and were killed there, mostly in a cell of the camp prison, and the sick reports and death certificates were prepared for the files. They were made out so cleverly that any unprejudiced reader of the documents would get the impression that the prisoner had actually been treated and had died of the serious illness which was indicated.

    All this for a handful of Jews? Why doesn’t he justify these murders with the good ol’ “the Jew looked at me wrong!”? Isn’t that supposed to be official Nazi policy? Aren’t we hearing stories about trucks filled with babies going straight to the meat grinder in these camps?

    Regards Erich Koch, he was a shining example of the bourgeois mentality still in Germany. Hitler planned to execute such specimens after the Battle of Berlin. Though, we could mention, still with the need to justify his action morally:

    It is simply unbearable for me personally to have people shot for something I do myself (that is why I have to stay in Berlin and not run like coward officers, then I will have authority to execute them).

    Adolf Hitler – Berlin, April 1945

  1300. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hi Carolyn,

    “I have said often, and my website shows it, “I Love Austrians.” I know Austrians well. And I love Germans, including Adolf Hitler. Sue me. Just please don’t try to talk me out of it.”

    What a surprise! Exercise your arm for the Hitlerguß (the Führer’s sole life-long athletic endeavor)?

    You conform (almost) exactly with your lover. Congratulations!

    Sure, he was unmarried to age 56 (he was saving himself), but, make no mistake, he wasn’t a homosexual. Not at all, he sent them without trial to concentration camps. In the conventional domestic realm Adolf opined:

    “The greater the man, the more insignificant should be the women”
    – Adolf Hitler 1934 in conversation including Eva Braun [Beevor ‘The Fall of Berlin 1945’ p.253]

    Words to live by, eh Carolyn? Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein (Österreichisch) Führer?

    As a women, are you “insignificant” enough to qualify as a want-to-be bride of Hitler? What do you think about the Eva’s cyanide wedding present? Apogee of NSDAP gifts? Marital love in suicide? Innocent question.

    Warning: your fringe Pan-Germanism is showing trying to equate Germany and Austria.

    Why Did Admiral George Alexander von Müller (Chief of the German Naval Cabinet 1914-1918, daily contact with Kaiser Wilhelm II) distrust/disparage Austrians? They were fellow ‘Germans’, after all. But poor George (and patron Wilhelm II) are full of mistrust in daily diaries. What was the problem? Was it because Germans (i.e. das Zweiten Deutsches Kaiserreich) were separate from das Habsburger Österreich-Ungarische Reich? No, can’t be true, since both in your ‘Pan-German’ fantasy had the same agendas? Give us a hint.

    How about Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuß, murdered in a failed (Austrian acting from Germany) Hitler-engineered coup 24 Jul 1934? Did Dollfuß think of himself as ‘German’ or an ‘Austrian’ before he was shot dead? Or was it, in retrospect, simply bride-of-Hitler Pan-Germanism, feel-good Nazis oats?

    “Just please don’t try to talk me out of it.”

    Perish the thought! That, at the very least, would require a séance and (just guessing) several exorcisms. Probably kill a few innocent priests.

    I’m not a priest, and certainly not that brave.

    PS: you’re not dating Wally, by any chance?

  1301. @Incitatus

    I guess you can get an “E” for effort, Incy, but such a childish, 6th grade level attempt at ‘wit’ doesn’t deserve an answer from me. I’m way beyond your low-class jokes.

    You’re even more at a loss in understanding what “love” is than your protege “turtle.” Your slimy repulsiveness makes him seem even lovable in comparison to you. For his benefit I will deign to remind you that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a complex multi-racial entity, not “Austria” as you like to call it, trying always to confuse one thing with the other. The Germans lived in the western part of that empire and ran the country’s bureaucracy, so they had a lot of influence and were thus not necessarily unhappy with the arrangement. The German Empire under Wilhelm II was not always in accord with the Habsburg Empire. After WWI, rump Austria was a single nation and wanted to unite with post-war Germany, but as a defeated nation was not permitted to. France and Russia especially did not want to see Germans joined together. As everyone knows, this demand only grew more urgent until in March 1938, when political unhappiness with the Austrian chancellor Schuschnigg reached a peak, his government fell and German Reich troops marched into Austria, greeted everywhere with flowers, love and great joy.

    BTW, the dictatorial Dollfuss was not ‘murdered’ but died from loose gunfire during an attempted coup by anti-Dollfuss Austrian National Socialists in 1934. These NSers were not connected to Germany’s NS, by direct orders of Hitler to stay out of Austria’s business. Kurt Schuschnigg became chancellor and banned all political parties other than his own and instituted other strict laws. So you see, this authoritarian rule is kind of a German thing; they will always prefer it over chaos.

    That’s all you get from me.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1302. @refl

    You are a man in search of a conspiracy. Can you see it? To me, it’s BORING as hell. I wonder if others find you as much of a bore as I do, for that reason.

  1303. @Incitatus

    Sorry to disappoint you. It’s true Hitler had an amazing stamina when it came to raising his arm to salute the troops. He could keep that up, stone faced, for half a day while entire divisions marched by. The “unathletic” Führer had a keen interest in hiking and mountaineering since childhood and this no doubt helped provide him with the physique to take such strain.

    It also inspired him to introduce athletics programs to the German people. An undertaking so threatening to the Enemy they had all the fitness manuals burned after the war.

    Hitler married late, but not due to lack of suitors. His childhood friend Kubiczek recalls that even as a teenager, long before he had any accomplishments to his name, the bourgeoisie women of the opera would slip notes into his coat, offering sex. When he became a celebrity, and later Führer, these scenes took on ridiculous proportions. Reportedly Magda Goebbels was so madly in love with him that she married his propaganda minister just for the proximity gain. Even the elderly women who knew they had nothing to offer sexually, would lavish him with gifts and favors in order to secure a modicum of affection.

    Portraying Adolf Hitler as a sexual delinquent, even going so far as to suggest he was a queer, is perhaps your most bold attempt at historical manipulation thus far.

    And I’m not sure being a “significant woman” would be a blow in itself. When Leni Riefenstahl heard that Hitler had rejected her for being “too wordly”, she was pleased. At least it wasn’t because Der Führer found her unattractive!

    Perhaps it was their Catholicism that bothered von Müller? Or his objection to Slavic and Roman blood? Whatever his reason for distrusting fellow German speakers, seeing you embrace bigots to support your argument is slightly satisfying. Your notion that 90% of the Austrian populace wanting to join Germany was something born out of fantasy, is another leckerbisschen.

    I see Carolyn has thoroughly debunked your falsehood about Dollfus, so with that I bid you a pleasant weekend to sort out some of that cognitive dissonance.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1304. @Dube

    I’m not a diplomatic historian like Hoggan, so I can’t with certainty say whether or not the text is in fact unprecedented. What does seem certain though is that it was sufficiently controversial to arouse bitter commentary from people with experience in the field.

    British diplomat Roy Benman

    the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British government. It placed the decision on peace or war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling military dictatorship

    Historian Liddell Hart

    placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment.

    Historian Richard M. Watt

    This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. For Britain to give such a blank check to a Central European nation, particularly to Poland—a nation that Britain had generally regarded as irresponsible and greedy—was mind-boggling.

    Reading it myself I gather there is a secret protocol attached. Mainly specifying that the generic terms used are meant to signify Germany and Danzig.

    Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with Germany in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

    The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by Germany which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly (Danzig), the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

    Should Germany attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should Germany thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I will apply.

    In Article 2 we read that war can be triggered by incidents other than military aggression by Germany. It is enough that Poland feels it is necessary to resist with military force. Since Poland have been running an economic blockade on Danzig, strangling its commerce, and is threatening them with starvation, there could very well be a rebellion in that city which would then have to be resisted with military forces. Does this then trigger a war between Germany and England? It would seem so.

    This could be why so many are calling it a blank cheque. It gives Poland all the room it needs to trigger a war. Article 3 even specifies that economic warfare which could bring Germany to war is to trigger Article 1. In other words, a mere attempt to alleviate sufferings at Danzig, in any way whatsoever, could be concocted to justify war.

    • Replies: @Dube
  1305. @Dube

    Let me just add to Alexandros’ quite competent reply, my own understanding of this. I don’t remember where, but I have read that in truth this agreement was valid even if Poland attacked Germany first (!) based on its feeling that that was necessary to secure its sense of well-being. I see this in Article II:

    (1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

    (2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State concerned.

    This is extremely wide in its scope and does indeed seem to say that if Poland decides for whatever reason to engage in hostilities with Germany, England will join it. This, of course, fits perfectly with the other evidence that England, with the USA pushing from behind, WANTED a war between Poland and Germany. Poland wanted it too, thinking its allies would fight with it.

  1306. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “I guess you can get an “E” for effort”

    You know, Carolyn, you’re right! Re-reading my post, I agree. Vary with you most of the time (and you with me), but that’s no reason for sarcastic incivility. My apologies.

    “You’re even more at a loss in understanding what “love” is than your protege “turtle.” Your slimy repulsiveness makes him seem even lovable in comparison to you.”

    Sorry. Don’t care much for mass-murderers. “Love” seems rather alien to them. As for Turtle, he’s his own man, no protégé. Intelligent and interesting, but that’s only my opinion. You seem obsessed with him. Why? BTW thank’s for the “slimy repulsiveness” bit.

    “I will deign to remind you that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a complex multi-racial entity, not “Austria” as you like to call it, trying always to confuse one thing with the other.”

    Do you mean some ‘Austrians’ weren’t ‘German’? Perish the thought! The ‘Tilt’ alarm on your pan-German pin-ball game is ringing maximum!

    “BTW, the dictatorial Dollfuss was not ‘murdered’ but died from loose gunfire during an attempted coup by anti-Dollfuss Austrian National Socialists in 1934”

    Were they bad marksmen? What were they aiming at Carolyn? Innocent gunfight in the Vienna corral?

    “These NSers were not connected to Germany’s NS, by direct orders of Hitler to stay out of Austria’s business.”

    Sorry. That’s manure.

    [MORE]

    • 22 Jul 1934 Bayreuth:
    – Hitler meets Generalmajor Walther von Reichenau (Chief, Wehrmacht Office in the War ministry), briefs him on the “immanent Austrian question”;
    – Hitler meets with Theodor Habicht (“bonehead” NSDAP superintendent for Austria), Hermann Reschny (head of the Austrian SA), Pfeffer (liason with the Berlin NSDAP, and Göbbels;
    – Göbbels writes “Austrian question. Will it work? I’m very skeptical” [Tagebücher]. Why? Göbbels thinks Habicht is a “bonehead”;
    • 25 Jul 1934:
    – Members of an SS standard (mostly ex-Austrian army men) occupy the Austrian Radio transmitter building and the federal chancellor’s office;
    – SS standard members murder Austrian Federal Chancellor Dolfuß, deny him (requested) RC religious last rights;
    – Despite optimistic first reports, Austria puts down the Nazi coup.
    • 26 Jul 1934 Bayreuth:
    – “bonehead” Theodor Habicht (NSDAP superintendent for Austria in the failed coup) and Pfeiffer report to Hitler; Habicht is forced to resign.

    If Hitler had nothing to do with murdering Dolfuß, why did he meet immediately before and after the event with the murderers, then throw unsuccessful “bonehead” under the bus and force him to resign?

    “As everyone knows, this demand [Anschluß] only grew more urgent until in March 1938, when political unhappiness with the Austrian chancellor Schuschnigg reached a peak, his government fell and German Reich troops marched into Austria, greeted everywhere with flowers, love and great joy.”

    “More urgent” indeed. Let Clubfoot Joe tell it:

    “We must maintain tension in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Never let things settle down.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 7 May 1936

    What do you suppose he meant? He was no less candid two years later:

    “Terrific, inflammatory language [in leaflets calling for Anschluß]…We [Hitler and Göbbels] dictate a telegram to Seyß-Inquart asking the German government for help. It arrives quickly. This gives us legitimation.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 12 Mar 1938

    Hitler/Göbbels dictate a telegram to Seyß-Inquart to be resent them asking for help? To give “legitimation “? Tilt-alarm ringing again? Let’s recap:

    • 09 Mar 1938 – Chancellor Schuschnigg calls for referendum amidst rioting by NSDAP affiliates [Göbbels: “We must maintain tension”];
    • 11 Mar 1938 – Hitler threatens invasion, Schuschnigg resigns and cancels the plebiscite; President Miklas refuses to appoint Seyss-Inquart Chancellor; Hitler orders invasion for the following day and sends a draft telegram to Seyss-Inquart for the latter to resend requesting German troops at 10 pm;
    • 12 Mar 1938 – Anschluß with Austria

    Genuine popular kismet?

    Cat caught with canary feathers is more like it.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1307. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    Incitatus:
    You are quite right. I was wrong with that. I was thinking of the unflattering opinion Alfred Rosenberg expressed about Koch in his book titled “Letzte Aufzeichnungen”.
    Alexandros is correct, I was mixing Erich Koch up with Karl Koch. The latter’s fate offers an interesting perspective for anti-nazis, ideally, it would make them re-think their dogmatic first principles for making statements about National Socialism and its adherents. Karl Koch was sentenced to death by an SS-court for murder of three prisoners and corruption at Camp Buchenwald and executed in front of the inmates of Buchenwald in April of 1945. Now, if that doesn’t corroborate all the stories of evil SS and camp guards who had all a free hand at any crime they pleased! Perhaps my error was willed by providence to bring into the open one of so many very interesting stumbling blocks for establishment story tellers.

  1308. Incitatus says:
    @Alexandros

    “Sorry to disappoint you. It’s true Hitler had an amazing stamina when it came to raising his arm to salute the troops. He could keep that up, stone faced, for half a day while entire divisions marched by.”

    Really? I’m so glad! Volker Ulrich catalogues Hitler’s exhaustive exercises in stationary arm salute. What a guy! Doubtless, had he won the war, Hitlergruß would be an Olympic event.

    “It [hiking and mountaineering] also inspired him to introduce athletics programs to the German people.”

    “Mountaineering”? What mountains did Hitler climb (other than Mount Ego and that every day)? Hiking? Do you confuse it with mild walks digesting boiled vegetables while talking about what country to invade at the Berghoff?

    “It also inspired him to introduce athletics programs to the German people.”

    Germans prior to Austrian Hitler were sedentary and unathletic? Who knew? Sources [German athletic inactivity prior to Hitler] please.

    “Hitler married late, but not due to lack of suitors.”

    “Suitor” denotes “a man who pursues a relationship with a particular woman, with a view to marriage.” Is there something you’re not telling us? OK. Time out. Yes, many women would have married the Führer (if that’s what you mean). Why did he refuse them?

    “When Leni Riefenstahl heard that Hitler had rejected her for being “too wordly”, she was pleased.”

    Years since I read Leni’s autobiography (great book), don’t remember amorous attraction. Did I forget that part? Please enlighten us (quotes, page#). If anything, Hitler seemed threatened by women who were high-achievers. Thus his ponderous “The greater the man, the more insignificant should be the women” nonsense.

    “Portraying Adolf Hitler as a sexual delinquent, even going so far as to suggest he was a queer, is perhaps your most bold attempt at historical manipulation thus far.”

    Please quote my Hitler “delinquent” portrayal. Mentioned his late marriage (saving himself?) and crowing about “insignificant” women (even to his mistress), that he threw homosexuals (and a lot of others) into concentration camps. That much is common knowledge.

    Be fair. I didn’t mention Geli Raubal, the Führer’s 23-year-old half niece (19 years junior), the only women he ever seemed to care for, nor her suicide using his Walther 18 Sep 1931 in Munich. That case remains open.

    Didn’t also mention his late marriage 29 Apr 1945, poisoning his bride and shooting his brains out the following day. No mystery there. No “delinquency”. Good old solid German family values, nicht wahr?

    “Perhaps it was their [Austrian] Catholicism that bothered von Müller?”

    Still working my way through his diaries. Thus far his obsessions are kaiser and court dysfunction [emperor, military, chancellor squabbles]; petty rivalry, naval impatience at unrestricted submarine warfare they knew (from 1915) would render the US an enemy; stalemate in France and the (not often mentioned) price in Landsers they were paying. Only up to late 1916 so far. The price of Somme and Verdun on ordinary Landsers not reordered at court.

    Austrians seem the poor cousins that endlessly annoy them begging for equal status. Not inexplicable. Austria-Hungary leadership (e.g. Conrad von Hötzendorf) were complete basket cases. Germany had to bail them out beginning to end.

    “seeing you embrace bigots to support your argument is slightly satisfying”

    Did I miss something? What ‘bigot’ have I embraced?

    “Your notion that 90% of the Austrian populace wanting to join Germany was something born out of fantasy, is another leckerbisschen.”

    Kindly quote my assertion.

    If Austrians genuinely wanted Anscluß, why did Hitler/Göbbels manufacture the crisis (for five years, accelerated in 1938) then send a draft of the request for intervention to a patsy who sent it back to them? If genuine, wouldn’t the intervention request be formulated by non-aligned Austrians in government? Innocent question.

    Regret I’ve not had time to respond to your interesting #1312. This will have to do.

    [MORE]

    You don’t mention Ludendorff’s ‘safe-passage’ insertion of Lenin into St-Petersburg 16 Apr 1917, funded with 40 million gold Marks ($100 million today). Was that a mistake? Ludendorff was a smart guy. It led to Russian collapse and Brest-Litovsk 3 Mar 1918, a confiscatory bonanza. It also led to Bolshevism, but who cares? Blowback? No problem!

    “‘Untouched physically’ is an interesting argument. Except for the Tsar and his family brutally murdered by your progressive friends”

    My point was Germany’s infrastructure was untouched. Comprehension problems? The Tsar’s murder belongs at the foot of Germany, who worked tirelessly to destroy his régime. His murderers are not my “progressive friends”, as you desperately project. Ultimately they were Willie II’s proxies.

    “And in order to secure these “fair dealings” you propose to level an artistic European city with one of the most famous Cathedrals in the world. I’m sure your patriotism can be felt all the way to Tel Aviv.”

    Really? Comprehension really isn’t you strong point, is it? My assertion was that a people that experiences war on their own soil is less eager to launch it. Germany 1918 hadn’t visibly experienced war their leaders launched. Want to know who did, and lost “one of the most famous Cathedrals in the world”? More famous than Köln?

    • 4 Sep 1914 – the XII Saxon Corps arrives at Reims; the Imperial German Army opens fire with artillery located 7 km in Les Mesneux; world-famous royal coronation Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Reims suffers considerable damage (statuary and façade damaged, windows blown-out); eight days later (12 Sep) the German Army, despite French objections, decides to house German wounded in the cathedral and spreads 15,000 bales of straw are spread on the floor; they evacuate when the French under Franchet d’Espèrey retake the city the same day; six days later (18 Sep) German shelling hits the bishop’s palace (killing three and injuring fifteen), sets fire to scaffolding around the north tower which spreads to the timber frame superstructure, melting the lead roof, which poured through gargoyles further damaging the statuary and façade; in all over 300 shells are said to have hit the cathedral, leaving it a ruin in a city 85% destroyed;

    What about this in Belgium:

    • 25 Aug 1914 – Germany sacks Leuven, fires the world-famous 300,000-volume medieval library with incendiary pellets and gasoline, kills 248 residents, destroys 2,000 civilian dwellings, expels its entire population (10,000); Germany shoots 4000 civilian hostages in retribution in the first two months of war.

    In WW2 the same ruin ultimately visited Germany. Had Germans known what citizens of Reims and Leuven experienced, who knows?

    What were you saying about “patriotism”? Please clarify. Whose patriotism? Ever think French and Belgians may have “patriotism”?

    “Tel Aviv”? Quote anything I’ve ever written that substantiates a connection.

    I’ve written about Hitler’s/Himmler’s ‘Sippenhaft’ (clan liability). It’s similar to what Likud Israel enacts in ‘collective responsibility’ kin confiscations and demolitions. You seem to have missed that, though you accuse me of “Tel Aviv” ‘patriotism’. You’re too preoccupied with Nazi necrophilia, without really knowing what Hitler and the NSDAP were all about.

    Hint: it wasn’t the welfare of ordinary Germans.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1309. @Incitatus

    I know you have to show that you’re working your full 8 hours a day for your employer, but I’m not so employed so don’t have the time or inclination to chit-chat with you. The only thing I have time for is your, ahem timeline. Where did your timeline come from? Of course, from your own bonehead.

    How do you know who Hitler was meeting with on July 22, 1934? Oh, from your sources. What are they besides your interpretations from Josef Goebbels never-confirmed diary that was not found intact, lets remember, but only as loose typewritten pages (more precisely as glass plates in the Soviet Union). I don’t accept this “diary” in Soviet custody as credible unless confirmed by credible documents.

    Who was Hermann Reschny who you say was head of the Austrian SA who met with Hitler? Any information about Reschny you have probably comes from German Wikipedia, and that information is sourced in one place: Hans Schafranek, the only source given for the entire Reschny page!! (Not unusual; most Hitler-related pages in English Wiki are without decent citations – or any at all!)

    Hans Schafranek (born 1951) is described as an Austrian contemporary historian and publicist. He believes in “the betrayed Austrians” theory. Since 1982 he has been a freelancer at the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance. His work in 16 book publications to date has focused on Stalinism, Comintern, Trotskyism, Spanish Civil War, resistance against National Socialism and intelligence services in the Second World War.

    So you take a bit here and a piece there and try to convince readers that you have something when you have nothing. You always have nothing. No historians who care about protecting their reputations subscribe to the “Hitler ordered the assassination of Dollfuss” or the “Hitler was behind the attempted coup in Austria” theories. Because there is no evidence of it.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1310. May I enter a plea for reconsideration of the Second World War?

    Many of the readers here must know that in power political senses Jews controlled the USA, and also of course the USSR, and the ‘British’ Empire, and France, and also Turkey and China. (Don’t know about India). They could arrange different propaganda in evey country, which I suppose amused them. They could arrange for controlled opposition; think Hitler, Mussolini, etc. And script the war for Jewish aims, namely to kill goyim in unprecedented numbers, build up debt for Jews and make sure it was enforceable, reward the local secret allies (though not by huge amounts), and generally weaken and damage countries. Don’t assume WW2 bore much relation to the media and academic versions!

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Seraphim
  1311. @Rerevisionist

    Do you actually “know” that Jews controlled the USA, USSR, British Empire, France, Turkey, China and “arranged” for WWII so easily?

    Do you “know” that Hitler, Mussolini, etc were controlled opposition?

    Do you “know” that WWII followed a Jewish script so exactly?

    No, of course you don’t. If you did you could prove it, which you are far, far from doing. It’s all conspiracy theory, which is all you do know. Easy conspiracy theories will never get us to the real truth because they obfuscate what is true/factual/documented/common sense in favor of a simplistic good/evil portrayal that is just as wrong as the current media/academic version.

  1312. @turtle

    Perhaps you and “Harold Smith” are good friends?

    I have just now come across “Harold Smith” as a commenter here at UR, in the new Washington Watcher II article. So that is now solved. But why you would think he and I would agree on anything, I don’t know. Our views on Trump are not at all the same. I’m in agreement with Washington Watcher on Trump and fully support the latter. Smith calls Trump an “evil messiah.” And how about you? Or was this just another of your inexplicable, passing remarks without meaning?

  1313. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “How do you know who Hitler was meeting with on July 22, 1934? Oh, from your sources. What are they besides your interpretations from Josef Goebbels never-confirmed diary… Any information about Reschny you have probably comes from German Wikipedia…”

    Fair question. Thank you for asking.

    Longerich ‘Göbbels: A Biography’ p.268-269 (Göbbels was at Bayreuth, present at the meetings, was stupid enough to make the notes in evidence). Also Longerich ‘Henrich Himmler’ p.177-178 (Himmler was responsible for coordinating Hermann Reschny, head of the Austrian SA, and SS-Standarte 89).

    You’re welcome. You might try reading history, rather than Wikipedia and Tarot cards. Just a thought. As for “Hans Schafranek” (whoever that is) and your mind-fart projection, what can one say? ‘Calm down’?

    This may seem odd, but Longerich appears to be somewhat better informed and more reliable than you, Carolyn (no offense). After all, you opine “I love Germans, including Adolf Hitler. Sue me. Just please don’t try to talk me out of it.”

    I’m the last person to “talk you out of it”. As if that were even possible!

    Kindly reciprocate with evidence and source(s) for your affectionate:

    “the dictatorial Dollfuss was not ‘murdered’ but died from loose gunfire during an attempted coup by anti-Dollfuss Austrian National Socialists in 1934. These NSers were not connected to Germany’s NS, by direct orders of Hitler to stay out of Austria’s business.”

    The original plan was to arrest Dolfuß and the Cabinet at a regular meeting and replace them with a new cabinet under NSDAP member Anton Rintelen (a Dolfuß enemy), then declare unification with Germany. SS-Standarte 89 occupy the Federal Chancellery [25 Jul 1934], but find most cabinet ministers have left the building. A squad under Otto Planetta seizes Chancellor Dolfuß, who struggles and is shot twice. Denied medical treatment and religious comfort (both requested), Dolfuß dies in three hours.

    The putsch meanwhile garners little/no support, and the Austrian police and army surround the Chancellery. The Nazis surrender on assurance they will be granted safe passage to Germany.

    Safe passage is revoked after the murder of Chancellor (undisclosed in negotiation) is discovered. Seven are tried (including Planetta) and condemned to death by the Austrian (German) government.

    Hope that helps.

    “So you take a bit here and a piece there and try to convince readers that you have something when you have nothing. You always have nothing.”

    Innuendo is no substitute for intelligent debate, Carolyn. At best, it’s a fig leaf over outright stupidity. Didn’t they teach you that at Troll University?

    “No historians who care about protecting their reputations subscribe to the “Hitler ordered the assassination of Dollfuss” or the “Hitler was behind the attempted coup in Austria” theories. Because there is no evidence of it.”

    Really? Are you sure? Hitler meets with planners before and after the event at Bayreuth?

    Can’t think of one of the following who, to lessor/greater extent (each has his specialty) exonerates Hitler in the Dolfuß murder and failed putsch: Volker Ullrich, Thomas Childers, Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Joachim Fest, Antony Beevor, Michael Burleigh, Nicolas Stargardt, etc.

    Kindly tell us what historian objectively holds Hitler blameless.

  1314. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    Incitatus:
    As always, you race through the torn-up landscape of your information battle field.
    I have also read Leni Riefenstahl’s autobiography, and I also think that it is a great book. In addition, I remember that she wrote that on occasion of a visit to a house (which she intended to rent, if my memory serves me right) in Berlin, Hitler accompanied her and as they talked, she said that she felt that Hitler was showing interest in her as a woman. – Which she didn’t want (= rejected). And that was the end of this.
    Secondly, while Hitler wanted as a long-term outcome the union of the forcibly split-off Austrian province with the rest of unified German provinces (because this what Germany is, regardless of how English speakers or other foreign nations define Germany), he did not interfere in Austria. The Dollfuss affair was entirely caused by Austrian National Socialists (they existed there as an independent organization).
    The crisis of 1938 was caused by the rather unintelligent and underhanded behavior of Schuschnigg. The Austrians welcomed their Reichs-German brethren with unconcealed enthusiasm, and the 99+ agreement to the German (Reich)-Austrian union in the later plebiscite is the mirror image of this excitement. You can’t ever discuss into oblivion, or undermine the reality of Hitler’s unsurpassed popularity in world history.
    And I can say with certainty: He will bring change to the world in the future, despite all the efforts of people like you and your fellow deniers.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1315. turtle says:
    @Fox

    He will bring change to the world in the future

    Mirabile dictu!
    Something to do mit Liebe Heini und die Futhark Runen?
    “The evil men do lives after them?”
    Oder?
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    {topping off mein Puffmais}
    Patagonia here I come…

    • Replies: @Fox
  1316. @Incitatus

    Also Longerich ‘Henrich Himmler’ p.177-178 (Himmler was responsible for coordinating Hermann Reschny, head of the Austrian SA, and SS-Standarte 89).

    I just so happen to have pages 178-9 from this Jew-book, plus the index which shows “Reschny, Hermann p177, 178-9” and that’s all. All Longerich says is

    “A case was brought against Georg Reschny, the leader of the Austrian SA, before the Supreme Party Court on the grounds of his alleged betrayal of the putsch, but was dropped at Himmler’s request for fear of implicating other high-ranking party leaders. (158)
    “It was not until four years later, in April 1938, directly after the Anschluss with Austria, that Himmler ordered a thoroughgoing investigation of these events.” [That would be because after the Anschluss, they had possession of documents and witnesses of the Austrian govt. that could aid them in their investigation -cy]. … [It]concluded that the SA leadership had regarded the takeover of the Standarte by the SS as “a betrayal of the SA.’ (159) … the exact circumstances of Dollfuss’s [death] could not be clarified.

    This is all hearsay by Longerich, a big nothing, but I don’t have access to the footnotes. Do you? “Innuendo is no substitute for intelligent debate,” Incy.

    Further, this sad excuse for a historian Longerich is another Jew who won’t give any biographical information prior to his university degrees and teaching positions. No family, no religion, calls himself “German.” His garbage books are published by the Oxford University Press, no less. He has an agenda as long as my arm.

    Now here’s the thing about Hans Schafranek being the only source on German Wiki’s Hermann Reschny page: If Reschny was such an important player (friend of Hitler, key to the Dollfuss coup, etc.), why haven’t other historians written about him? Why only the hack Schafranek?
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Reschny Probably some of those footnotes in Longerich’s book link to Schafranek as the source for his information.
    * * *
    You wrote:

    The original plan was to arrest Dolfuß [… 3 paragraphs by you …] Hope that helps.

    Three paragraphs in all, taken directly solely from the Longerich Himmler book, from which I copy from page 178:

    “A squad under the leadership of a former NCO of the Federal Army, Otto Planetta, was nevertheless able to seize the Federal Chancellor Dollfuss. In circumstances that have never been explained, in the course of a struggle he was, however, seriously injured by two gunshot wounds and died three hours later, without receiving either the medical attention or spiritual support that he had requested. (152) The circumstances of the murder of Dollfuss in particular were to confirm the international image of the SS as an utterly inhumane and ruthless organization: SS members had violently, and under degrading conditions, brought about the agonizing death of the head of a sovereign state. Dollfuss, a controversial and decidedly right-wing politician, had become a martyr murdered by the SS.” (153)
    “During the course of 25 July it became apparent that the security forces did not support the intended change of regime. […] that evening the putschists surrendered on the basis of an assurance that they could travel unhindered to Germany. In view of the murder of Dollfuss, however, the Austrian government did not feel itself bound by that assurance. Seven putschists, including Planetta, were condemned to death and executed.” (154)

    Beyond the fact that the Austrians of the Fatherland Front party lied so disgustingly to the National Socialists, telling them they would be freed and then executing them, beyond that is the fact that you still do not have proof of any kind that Dollfuss was murdered. That becomes very clear from the very material you present! As I said, you have nothing. You never do. Only a badly botched attempt at smoke and mirrors. Especially here:

    Can’t think of one of the following who, to lessor/greater extent (each has his specialty) exonerates Hitler in the Dolfuß murder and failed putsch: Volker Ullrich, Thomas Childers, Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Joachim Fest, Antony Beevor, Michael Burleigh, Nicolas Stargardt, etc.

    Kindly tell us what historian objectively holds Hitler blameless.

    Exonerates? What a set-up! How about you say which one holds him responsible for it. Please quote with source and page number. I would want to know the argument they use because these are all fully establishment “historians/journalists.” Longerich was your best bet and you came up short with him.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1317. Fox says:
    @turtle

    Since people like you pour all their energy into fighting whatever they perceive to be of Hitlerian origin, you determine the course of your actions by making yourself dependent on your fanatical pursuit.
    Since Hitler also showed what energies could be released through the focused expression of will, this will also remain knowledge that will be remembered sometimes in the future. The whole history of the world has been re-written and is manipulated as a reaction to the phenomenon of Hitler.
    You, as much as the world you are a denizen of, are held in bondage by your thinking and maniacal circular thinking about Hitler. Others might just think about what might be different, and perhaps better, had Hitler’s thought prevailed in the War. It seems that many, perhaps most people alive are thinking about him one way or another. That’s how effects are produced.
    You see, you didn’t understand what I was saying, you are only capable of snap-reacting to the trigger word “Hitler”.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1318. Dear Mr Unz,

    Thank you for your insightful article. Some commentators here have said that you have swung too far the “other” way in the apportioning of blame. There are seldom “good guys” or simple causes when it comes to wars and perhaps you have “over corrected”.

    Nevertheless, the fact that other historians have been “purged” is usually a sign that you are somewhere near the truth. After all, if there was nothing to hide why would alternative facts be purged?

    So, thank you for your integrity and critical thinking. You are giving a voice to all those other historians who have been discredited.

    I believe that a “Grand Awakening” is happening. People are starting to realize that much of their “history” is propaganda or more accurately a LIE. The establishment is loosing its grip on the narrative. It is your website and other alternative sites that contribute to this awakening. Keep up the good work.

    As George Orwell said;

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it”.

  1319. Seraphim says:
    @Rerevisionist

    How many people know that the personal physician of Hitler (and many SS elites) was Dr. Theodor Morell, whose ‘dark complexion and features (and offensive body odor) arose suspicion of Jewish ancestry’? And that he kept Hitler under a constant dose of opioids up to the end in the bunker? Dr. Morell got out with a clean slate from the Allies who ‘captured’ him but released him immediately, although he was a Party member from 1933 and subsequently ‘got rich during the war from abattoirs and factories manufacturing his hormone concoctions and Vitamultin. He was also funded by the contracts that supplied the military machine with his drugs’.

  1320. Historian says:

    I am currently reading Viktor Suvorov (as noted in the article above). “The Chief Culprit” by former GRU intellegence agent Suvorov stands what most other historians have pitched (ie, that the Germans invaded USSR for Lebensraum) on it’s head. With unerring precision he produces fact after fact after fact detailing exactly how and why the USSR was preparing to invade and conquer all of Europe. THAT is why Hitler attacked them and started a dreaded 2 front war. The Germans had no other choice.

    “The Chief Culprit” is an updated and expanded with additional info on Suborov’s earlier work you suggest “Icebreaker”. Thank you for the recommendation Mr Unz, it’s a game changer.

  1321. turtle says:
    @Fox

    people like you

    No doubt you have my full dossier in front of you so that you may speak with authority, Herr Feldwebel.

    pour all their energy

    Nope. This site serves only as a bit of comic relief from the stress and boredom of daily existence, for me.
    “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here.”
    – A. Lincoln
    “Life’s but a walking shadow,
    A poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more.
    It is a tale told by an idiot,
    Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
    – W. Shakespeare

    Hitler also showed what energies could be released through the focused expression of will,

    Yes, I am aware of that.
    Didn’t need Leni’s film to tell me about it.

    that will be remembered sometimes in the future.

    Only by those of us who proudly carry it in our DNA.
    The will to power (der Wille zur Macht)* is kind of a German thing.
    * the conscious channeling of Kraft for creative purposes, according to (yes, I know) Wikipedia.
    The fruits of that creativity are the German gift to the world, from the printing press to the diesel engine, from calculus to quantum mechanics, from Bach to Beethoven.
    It is the exact opposite of the “pleasure principle,” as expounded, and perhaps glorified, by the notorious Dr. Sigmund Fraud (intentional misspelling).
    Pursuit of pleasure produces nothing of value, only dissipation and decay.
    The channeling of energy for creative purposes produces everything of value.
    The “glory years” of National Socialism (before the war) were a demonstration of that.
    Which country won the most medals in the 1936 Olympics?
    Hint: the U.S., a much larger country, was a distant second to the host nation.
    Which country was in better economic condition in that year?
    I believe you will find that the policies of Roosevelt took a back seat to those of Hitler.

    You, as much as the world you are a denizen of, are held in bondage by your thinking

    That is certainly true. We are all held prisoner by our (possibly erroneous) preconceptions.
    Even you, Herr Fuchs.

    It seems that many, perhaps most people alive are thinking about him one way or another.

    In your dreams. In any case, most who hear the name “Adolf Hitler” will react as they have been trained to react, by Hollywood and other sources. In this case, I do not believe the adage that “bad publicity is better than no publicity” is valid.

    AFAIK, most historians believe that Joseph Stalin was responsible for the deaths of many times the number of innocent victims ascribed to Adolf Hitler. So why is that every two bit tin pot dictator who comes along is reflexively referred to as “the next Hitler,” rather than “the next Stalin?” Hmm?

    you didn’t understand what I was saying

    Correct. I did not.
    You said:

    He will bring change to the world in the future

    which seems a bit cryptic to me, particularly as it refers to someone long since deceased.
    Thank you for expounding on your beliefs.

    Best regards,

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Fox
  1322. @ Ron UNZ

    World would have been better place now if Germans would have won the second WW.
    And the world would now be in peace.
    But it is now only spilled milk.

    • Agree: Fox
  1323. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “…this Jew-book…Further, this sad excuse for a historian Longerich is another Jew who won’t give any biographical information prior to his university degrees and teaching positions. No family, no religion, calls himself “German.” His garbage books are published by the Oxford University Press, no less. He has an agenda as long as my arm.”

    Kindly describe Longerich’s accounts with which you disagree. What is his “agenda”? Be concise.

    If “Longerich is another Jew who won’t give any biographical information” how do you know he’s Jewish? Telepathy? Or is “Jewish” an involuntary smear of anything that blemishes belief? When dust-bunnies appear under your bed, stains on your blouse is it the “Jews”? Are all people who prefer privacy and don’t trouble the world with websites trumpeting self-importance “Jews”?

    Thanks for corroborating the Dollfuß narrative I posted [1348] with Longerich’s accounts in ‘Göbbels’ and ‘Himmler”. I try to be accurate. Only the conspirators seem to have been armed, only one person (Dollfuß) seems to have be shot twice, then refused medical treatment and religious sacrament until death (three hours). His assailants surrendered on condition of safe-conduct to Germany.

    You allege “Dollfuss was not ‘murdered’ but died from loose gunfire…These NSers were not connected to Germany’s NS, by direct orders of Hitler to stay out of Austria’s business.”

    Is that what a coroner writes on the death certificate? “Loose gunfire”? Whose “loose” gunfire, Carolyn? Who had weapons? Who opened fire? What were they aiming at, given only one person was hit (twice)? Did Dollfuß shoot himself? Did good German Austrians subsequently indict and convict conspirators of “loose gunfire”? Don’t think so.

    Why did the assailants demand safe-conduct to Germany as the price of surrender if they disobeyed the Führer? After all, Mr. Big had a month prior murdered [saved Germany from] over 200 loyal followers, rivals, and people who knew too much [traitors] in Operation Hummingbird. Heinie Himmler was a very busy fellow [champion übermensch].

    “This is all hearsay by Longerich, a big nothing, but I don’t have access to the footnotes. Do you?”

    • Longerich ‘Himmler’ – End Notes p.749-948 [199 pages] – Bibliography p.949-991 [42 pages];
    • Longerich ‘Göbbels’ – End Notes p.768-911 [143 pages] – Bibliography p.717-756 [39 pages];

    “Hearsay”? Guess again. Longerich is very thorough. Have you read either book? Doubt it. You label him “sad excuse for a historian”. Why? Be specific (reasons, sources).

    “Now here’s the thing about Hans Schafranek being the only source on German Wiki’s Hermann Reschny page: If Reschny was such an important player (friend of Hitler, key to the Dollfuss coup, etc.), why haven’t other historians written about him? Why only the hack Schafranek?”

    Blatant strawman. Spare the irrelevant Schafranek/Wikipedia nonsense (whatever it’s about). Neither was my subject or my source: you’re arguing with yourself.

    “Exonerates? What a set-up! How about you say which one holds him responsible for it.”

    Comprehension problems? To varying degree ALL do. Have you read ANY of them?

    “Please quote with source and page number.”

    Pay tuition and perhaps I’ll consider it.

    “I would want to know the argument they use because these are all fully establishment “historians/journalists.” Longerich was your best bet and you came up short with him.”

    Why not read them and decide for yourself?

    Is bovine stupidity, consoled with labels like “establishment” to discredit sources unread, too easy? Innocent question.

    Still waiting for your Dollfuß narrative and sources, Carolyn. Especially on:

    “These NSers were not connected to Germany’s NS, by direct orders of Hitler to stay out of Austria’s business.”

    If unconnected why the Bayreuth meetings with Hitler immediately before [22 Jul 1934] and after [26 Jul 1934] the murder/failed coup? Innocent Wagner appreciation coincidence?

    Please quote Hitler’s “direct orders” for non-interference in Austria prior to the coup (with sources).

    Thanks in advance.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  1324. @Incitatus

    I notice you have not said a word in reply. I believe you’re at a loss. So here is more for you.

    Longerich ‘Göbbels: A Biography’ p.268-269 (Göbbels was at Bayreuth, present at the meetings, was stupid enough to make the notes in evidence).

    You’re spelling Goebbels in the book title wrong on purpose because you think the name looks ‘uglier’ that way. LOL.
    The only mentions of Dollfus in this biography are on pages 243 and 269. Here is page 269:

    Pfeffer, whose role in the Third Reich has previously remained rather shadowy, quite clearly played a key role in the backing given to the Austrian putsch conspiracy by German Party headquarters; as it happens, Goebbels had been for a spin in his boat with Pfeffer two weeks before the putsch.(91) [Wow, how much more proof do we need?!]
    What is more, it also emerges from this short diary note of Goebbels’s that on July 22 Hitler had received Major-General Walther von Reichenau, head of the Wehrmacht Office in the War Ministry.
    This visit had taken place immediately before his talks with Habicht, Reschny, and Pfeffer. So it would appear that the former service chief had been informed about the undertaking, at least in broad outline. This too was completely unknown until now. (93) [Would it appear that way? Is that how you prove crimes? -cy]
    July 25 was the actual day of the putsch attempt. Members of an SS standard, mostly ex-Austrian army men, occupied the Austrian Radio transmitter building and the federal chancellor’s office, murdering Federal Chancellor Englebert Dolfuss, the head of government. (93) [Never officially determined -cy] In the course of the day. Goebbels, still in Bayreuth and waiting nervously [sez who?], began to hear the first optimistic reports of the putsch.(94) But the situation changed quickly: By the same evening the Austrian government managed to suppress the revolt in the capital.(95) The uprising, which had spread to many parts of Austria on July 25, was soon quickly and thoroughly crushed everywhere.(96) [So far, nothing here.]
    The next day, Habicht and Pfeffer turned up in Bayreuth to report. [Where is the proof of that?] Habicht was forced to resign, and a few days later the Austrian headquarters of the Party [?] was closed down. Hitler also decided to make von Papen German ambassador in Vienna. An international crisis was in the offing. Even if only temporarily, Goebbels thought that there was a “danger that the great powers would step in.”(97) The decisive factor in the failure of the putsch was that Mussolini had immediately lent his support to the Austrian government.(98) [typical Italian move -cy] If Hitler had deduced from his discussions with Mussolini in Venice that the latter would approve of a German intervention against Dollfuss, then this was a miscalculation.(99) All that Mussolini had agreed to was the ousting of Dollfuss and Austrian Nazi participation in government, not a putsch and the cold-blooded murder of the head of state. [Author’s surmise -cy]

    What Longerich cobbles together here does not add up to Adolf Hitler’s involvement in the 1934 putsch, and probably wasn’t meant to. It’s YOU, Incy, who wants to make it so. Naturally he was watching what was happening there, and as Fox said, he had long-term hopes, but as for making the “murder” of Dollfuss happen–you don’t come close to making that case.

    All you want to do, and what the Jew Longerich wants to do, is to make the “Nazis” look as bad as possible. He is not interested in truthful history any more than you are! Your pathetic attempts to belittle me and my knowledge, when all your “proofs” come from Amazon’s free “Look Inside” pages, makes you a laughing stock. If you have access to the book, identify Longerichs’ footnote sources. That would tell us much more.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1325. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “I notice you have not said a word in reply. I believe you’re at a loss. So here is more for you…”

    Kindly refer to Post #1358. Questions asked remain at large.

    Didn’t read but your first sentence – what’s the point?

    Say hello to Dolf and Eva for us.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1326. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Call.

    Geheimnessliebe

    Nope. Geheimness?? Not even a German word.
    Merkwürdigliebe.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1327. Fox says:
    @turtle

    Referring to my saying and your bafflement of its meaning: “He will change to the world in the future”

    It’s like Jesus, or Newton, or Leibniz or E.v.Behring, they have formulated something beyond ordinary time, hence their ideas will be applied as much now as 100 years ago or in 300 years.
    But I suppose there is a fundamental incomprehension of reality among the anti-nazi, anti-fascist, anti-normal crowd, hence there will always remain that gulf behind which this crowd of historically retarded gabbers will get lost in the dark of eternity.

  1328. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    It is to be noticed that the anti-nazi crowd is sporting general conspiracies as a crutch to keep their crippled historical show on playing. Can’t you imagine that the Austrian National Socialists, having been formed in Austria as an independent organisation after seeing the success the NS had in the German Reich, might act also independent of any orders from abroad, just on the conviction that the situation in Austria had become ripe for change after Dollfuss’ assumption of dictatorial powers?
    (By the way, would you enjoy living in a regime such that of Dollfuss?). Wasn’t he a kind of strongman people like you with sympathies for the zombie faction of the DÖW would abhor? Or was he a good fascist?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1329. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    They all tolerate misandry from women though… think how lucky that is

  1330. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well, to paraphrase her a bit, that’s women for you.

  1331. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    Well, when they are the majority everywhere (even at a webzine like this one), their perception is that their view must be the right one.

  1332. Dube says:
    @Alexandros

    Regrets for my delay, and thanks to you (and Carolyn) for your observations in defense of the “blank check” metaphor concerning the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 25, 1939 (Halifax/Raczynski).

    Here again, a copy of he Agreement, including the Secret Protocol.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

    I continue to reject the ‘blank slate” metaphor, for I do not see terms that obligate British action to a decision that is solely Polish.

    You suggest, In Article 2 we read that war can be triggered by incidents other than military aggression by Germany. It is enough that Poland feels it is necessary to resist with military force.

    Well, no. Here is Article 2 (1):

    The provisions of Article I […support and assistance…] will also apply in the event of any action by [Germany] which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly [the latter pertaining to the Free City of Danzig], the independence of one of the Contracting Parties [Poland], and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

    Please note the bolded word above, clearly. It means, clear to all. Thus British affirmation is necessary.

    You continue, Article 3 even specifies that economic warfare [by whom?] which could bring Germany to war [sic] is to trigger Article 1. In other words, a mere attempt to alleviate sufferings at Danzig, in any way whatsoever, could be concocted to justify war.

    OK, let’s look at Article 3:

    Should [Germany] attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties [Poland] by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should [Germany] thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties [Poland], the provisions of Article I will apply.

    Article I is triggered if Germany embarks on hostilities. So it may be better not to take that course.

    Since Poland have been running an economic blockade on Danzig, strangling its commerce, and is threatening them with starvation, there could very well be a rebellion in that city which would then have to be resisted with military forces. Does this then trigger a war between Germany and England? It would seem so.

    You are reaching, but why not. If (1) and (2) and (3) then (4), so necessarily (5)? The British officials reading that might prudently say, not clear.

    In any case, I see British judgment guarded in the Agreement. Not a blank check.

  1333. @Incitatus

    If “Longerich is another Jew who won’t give any biographical information” how do you know he’s Jewish?

    It is long known he is a Jew. I was surprised he refuses to own it, didn’t expect that. The name “rich” usually attaches to Jews. And very important, all these “shy Jews” begin their biographies with their higher education — never any parentage, birthplace, family information. Guess you haven’t noticed. How about you show some evidence he isn’t a Jew?

    Thanks for corroborating the Dollfuß narrative I posted …

    Yes, the narrative you copied from the Amazon “Look Inside” function. What a sham you are. ‘Read the book’ you advise, when you have never read these or probably any book. If you had, you could give the footnotes. They are the key to the value of Longerich’s narrative.

    You allege “Dollfuss was not ‘murdered’ but died from loose gunfire

    The point is not that, but whether it was a plot hatched in Berlin or Munich. You are avoiding the main issue that you raised.

    CY: “I would want to know the argument they use because these are all fully establishment “historians/journalists.” Longerich was your best bet and you came up short with him.”

    Incy: Why not read them and decide for yourself?

    Haha, you brought them up, why don’t you read them? Then you could answer a question about them instead of fielding everything.

    If unconnected why the Bayreuth meetings with Hitler immediately before [22 Jul 1934] and after [26 Jul 1934] the murder/failed coup?

    Because Hitler was in Bayreuth! Everyone who wanted to see him went to him, he didn’t go to them. What do you know about these meetings? Nothing, nor does Longerich or the others. It’s merely conjecture and ‘conspiracy theories.’

    Please quote Hitler’s “direct orders” for non-interference in Austria prior to the coup (with sources).

    Pay tuition?

  1334. @Incitatus

    Didn’t read but your first sentence – what’s the point?

    Well, that’s a win for me. I skeered you off. Yep, you don’t expect others to go to the trouble to show up your empty “evidences.” You depend on name-calling and evasive repartee. I’m sure you are overpaid.

    I am putting my victory trophy on my mantel now. Looks beautiful.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1335. Anon 2 says:

    Re: Around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish

    Wrong! In the 1920s less than 1% of the population of the Soviet Union (or Germany) was Jewish. It appears that Ron is confusing the Soviet Union with the Russian Empire. Because the latter prior to 1914 included much of Poland where the Jews constituted about 10% of the total (Poland was the world center of Jewish life in the 19th century), it is indeed true that the Russian Empire was 4% Jewish.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1336. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon 2

    Re: Around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish

    Wrong! In the 1920s less than 1% of the population of the Soviet Union (or Germany) was Jewish. It appears that Ron is confusing the Soviet Union with the Russian Empire.

    Sure, but I was referring to “Russia” around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, when it did represent the Russian Empire.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1337. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “Merkwürdigliebe”

    You’re right! Thanks. Confused geheimnisliebe, ‘secret love’ with strange love, misspelled it in the bargain. Fifty years takes a toll on language vocabulary/spelling skill acquired in six years of study.

    Call:

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bat+guino%2c+dr.+stranglove%2c+pervert&&view=detail&mid=297368A083168979E0F5297368A083168979E0F5&&FORM=VDRVRV

  1338. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Didn’t read but your first sentence – what’s the point?
    “Well, that’s a win for me. I skeered you off…”

    Exactly. “Skeering-off” is your sole interest. Thank you Carolyn!

    Responding to reasonable questions, supported by legitimate history and principle quotes, is well beyond your intellectual capacity. In short, your agenda is to obscure debate like the squid jets ink. In short, to waste time. Puerile troll behavior. Sad.

    “Haha, you brought them [Ullrich, Childers, Kershaw, Bullock, Shirer, Fest, Beevor, Burleigh, Stargardt, Longerich] up, why don’t you read them?

    I’ve read all of them and a great many more. You’ve obviously not read one.

    Kindly name your source on Dollfuß murdered “random gunfire” . Third request.

    Stick to tea leaves, Tarrot cards, and seances, Carolyn. Why not also learn to read fortunes? Just a thought. Better, a refresher course at Troll University to make you less obvious, less helpless, less boring.

    Enjoy your trophy!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  1339. Anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @Incitatus

    the divorce musta been a baetch.

    Did she get the double-wide AND the Ranger?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @turtle
  1340. Incitatus says:
    @Anonymous

    Well done!

    Pat yourself on the back and draw another ‘tall-boy’ from the cooler.

  1341. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “It is to be noticed…”

    Noticed by whom? Someone who confused Gauleiter Erich Koch with his own pet martyr? OK, honest mistake. I’ll give you that. Kindly answer what I asked L.K #1301:

    • Explain the flight of Gauleiter Erich ‘fight-to-the-last-German’ Koch? The flight of 2,000+ senior NSDAP “rats” from Berlin 21 Apr 1945 after executing 10,000+ ordinary Germans for desertion?

    Still waiting.

    “…the anti-nazi crowd is sporting general conspiracies as a crutch to keep their crippled historical show on playing.”

    Presumably you’re one of the ‘pro-Nazi crowd’ Fox? Hitlerian sainthood, ‘nothing to see here, move on’? Why can’t any of you answer simple questions?

    “Can’t you imagine that the Austrian National Socialists, having been formed in Austria as an independent organisation after seeing the success the NS had in the German Reich, might act also independent of any orders from abroad, just on the conviction that the situation in Austria had become ripe for change after Dollfuss’ assumption of dictatorial powers?”

    I can indeed imagine it. Help us all imagine it. Just answer the following (Carolyn couldn’t):

    • Why did Dollfuß putsch conspirators meet with Hitler at Bayreuth 22 Jul 1934?
    • Why did Göbbels write “Austrian question. Will it work? I’m very skeptical” [Tagebücher 22 Jul 1934]?
    • Why did Hitler brief Generalmajor Walther von Reichenau on the “immanent Austrian question” 22 Jul 1934?
    • Why did Dollfuß murderers request safe-passage to Germany if they were “independent”?
    • Why, if Dollfuß was killed by “random gunfire” (Carolyn’s unsourced assertion), was the SS squad indicted/tried/convicted of murder?
    • Why (if independent) did coup masterminds Habicht and Pfeiffer report to Hitler at Bayreuth 26 Jul 1934?
    How (if independent) could Hitler dismiss Habicht and dissolve the Austrian NSDAP?

    Give us a hint, Fox. Moving on:

    “Hitler wanted as a long-term outcome the union of the forcibly split-off Austrian province with the rest of unified German provinces (because this what Germany is, regardless of how English speakers or other foreign nations define Germany)”

    When in history had Habsburg Austria been united to Germany? Nazi 20C Pan-Germanism doesn’t alter history that prior to 1938 Austria was never a part of Germany: it fought Prussia in 1866 , five years before “Germany” was conceived at Versailles.

    “We must maintain tension in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Never let things settle down.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 7 May 1936

    What do you suppose he meant by “tension”, Fox? Give us a hint.

    “The crisis of 1938 was caused by the rather unintelligent and underhanded behavior of Schuschnigg”

    Please elaborate. Schuschnigg called for a plebiscite to let Austrians decide amidst NSDAP riots [9 Mar 1938] and was threatened with German invasion [11 Mar 1938]. What was wrong with Schuschnigg’s call for a plebiscite? Be specific.

    Hitler/Göbbels sent patsy Seyß-Inquart a draft telegram inviting German intervention (apparently Seyß-Inquart wasn’t smart enough to write his own):

    “Terrific, inflammatory language [in leaflets calling for Anschluß]…We [Hitler and Göbbels] dictate a telegram to Seyß-Inquart asking the German government for help. It arrives quickly. This gives us legitimation.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 12 Mar 1938

    Why did they need “legitimation”, Fox?

    What happened? German invasion 12 Mar 1938. Armed troops. What did the new NSDAP régime decree? A plebiscite, the very thing that touched off the “crisis”. It was held 10 April 1938, SS, SA, German troops in residence. Guess what? Everybody’s for Anschluß (or else). What a surprise!

    “You can’t ever discuss into oblivion, or undermine the reality of Hitler’s unsurpassed popularity in world history.”

    Here’s the last SD (Sicherheitsdienst) report on the mood of loyal Germans:

    “Deep-seated disappointment and misplaced trust; a feeling of grief, despondency, bitterness and growing rage, above all…Amongst those who have known nothing in the war other than sacrifice and work…[many say] we did not deserve to be led into such a catastrophe…[people of all classes] excused themselves of any guilt for the course the war had taken [insisting] that it was not they who had responsibility for war leadership and politics.
    – Sicherheitdienst [SD] Final Report on German Morale Late March 1945 [Stargardt ‘The German War’ p.545-46]

    “Popularity”? Not so much when the price had to paid. Ordinary Germans paid it, not scum bags like Gauleiter Erich Koch.

    “And I can say with certainty: He [Hitler?] will bring change to the world in the future, despite all the efforts of people like you and your fellow deniers.”

    Really? That’s your rock, your safe harbor? The promise of another killing spree?

    Has it escaped your notice that Hitler blew his brains out with a Walther PPK .765 after poisoning his day-old frau seventy-four years ago? After poisoning loyal Alsatian Blondi and having her puppies shot? That’s the “change to the world” you await?

    Seek help, Fox.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1342. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Walther PPK .765

    Nope. Not even Harry Callahan packs such a cannon.
    7.65 mm is correct.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1343. turtle says:
    @Anonymous

    Straight outta Bikersfield.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=AoyVVz_w1kE
    No offense intended to Mr. Lindley.
    Kick a buck, Hoss.
    I’ll see your PBFs & raise you a fringed leather jacket. 🙂

  1344. Anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I see two pluses to Unz writing these pieces instead of Dinh.

    1) Unz writes better. I won’t elaborate on this, because I am trying to stay kind, despite 2).

    2) Unz has no anti-White resentment, nor does he, while not being white, express anti-White resentment through technologies, devices, and in virtual avenues all invented/produced/run/read by Whites. This is another important difference.
    I haven’t read anything by Dinh since I stumbled upon one or two anti-White phrases — of course Whites are indifferent to racial resentment at them, when they aren’t pleased by it and supportive of it, so there have been no complaints at all, nor there will be.

  1345. Fox says:

    I see:

    “It”: = the general perceptive entity constituting a conscious image of the world.

    You want me to explain the flight of Koch + 2000 further upper party members:
    Since I know but little about Erich Koch (mostly what Rosenberg wrote in his Letzten Aufzeichnungen), I can give you only my own thoughts to the whole, both concerning Koch as well the “general high-ranking party member” who fled.
    I think it is a matter of simple psychological insight that every organisation attracts career-minded people. The sudden avalanche of applications for party membership after January 30, 1933 (and no, I am not going to look up any numbers, I let y o u do that) is not a reflection of sudden acceptance of National Socialism as a Weltanschauung (= philosophical view of the world’s workings, but since you are original German, you know that) by a lot of people, but rather the adaptation to changed times. Hitler was not mistaken when he valued the majority of these new-found Paulusses as not of the same calibre as the party members from the times of struggle. Hence, a lot of party careerists made their way up the ranks, among them people of not the best character or more than superficial understanding of National Socialism. They quit when things looked bad. And the situation did look bad. Have you ever looked at the scenes of apocalyptic destruction of Germany when it was finally liberated, to use the post-war term for this act of total destruction, of its self-determination, its territory, its industry, its cultural treasures, its history, its pride, its treasures, its future. No? Well, I am not surprised, otherwise you couldn’t pretend to be completely oblivious of anything that really happened. All you know is what post-war “historians” and their employers have put in print (or film, or display, or radio broadcast, or laws, etc.) to further and secure their career and keep their safety. I think that today’s career Democrats would just as soon abandon the sinking ship if circumstances would suggest to them such a career move.
    I don’t condone in general brutal measures, but where do you get your number of 10000 from? That people were shot for plundering, probably committing crimes in the chaos and what in the military would be called “cowardice in the face of the enemy” I do know (whether in the circumstances of descending chaos and darkness well substantiated or not) and it would not be any different in any other country in similar circumstances as those experienced by Germany in the days of its final struggle. Perhaps we’ll yet witness somesuch occurrence in our lifetime. And then, there were the thousands of Germans who died from the bombs, the hardships of flight, the crimes by the liberators, well, let’s not forget about that as well, even if it sullies your neatly drawn caricature (German: Bad! Allieds: Good!!).

    You know very well of the fraudulent stunt von Schuschnigg wanted to pull with his “plebiscite” and the confusingly worded question to betray the accord he had with the German Reich in order to end the exclusion of the majority of Austrian Germans from representation in government.

    Again, when your world is falling down around you, you might find critical words about it. If the Germans asked by the SD said that “they did not deserve being led into such a catastrophe”. I don’t read into that a condemnation of NS, Adolf Hitler, or Germany, but a great disappointment at having to endure such a fate, and that it might have been different with a different leadership (as you know, failure of any sort makes one think that mistakes were made by those in the leadership).

    Finally, Austria:
    As you know, Dollfuss had enacted a new constitution when most of the people elected as representatives were absent. That was due to making illegal both the NS party and and the Social democratic Party. The latter had caused an armed revolt against your Dollfuss and were suppressed. That such behavior is not making only friends, is quite obvious (to me at least).
    To what degree the Reich NS leadership was informed of a coming action against Dollfuss, I don’t know. But to know does not equal to cause, and even the hope for success of an action to remove Dollfuss was there.

    The action by the Austrian National Socialists on July 25 had at its aim, as said by Otto Planetta, leader of the action, to occupy the radio station and the government building in Vienna. Dollfuss died in the action, how is not known to this day. The label of “murder” was easy to stick on the failed action leaders, so I don’t put much value into this official verdict. Otto Planetta, executed for Dollfuss’ demise, maintained that there was no intent to kill Dollfuss.
    What if Habicht and Pfeiffer were hoping for the same eventual outcome, the political reunion of Germany with its still split-off province Austria? Wouldn’t that also explain why Hitler received the two after they fled the pursuers in their home province of Austria? Sympathy does not equal confederacy.

    Lastly I will repeat to you that Austria is as much part of Germany (Germany = Deutschland = Land of the Germans) as any other German province. Suebia is as much German as is Bavaria or Tyrol (North and South), as is German Switzerland or Alsace (Elsaß in German), as is Silesia or East Prussia or Holstein or Saxony, and so on. That the German Emperor resided in Vienna until 1806, when Napoleon forced him to abdicate and rencounce the German crown should be enough obvious evidence. The German Reich lasted about 1000 years until this forced abdication, and the feeling of Germans did continue. Mozart thought of himself as a German, and to be German a special jpy and source of satisfaction, even if he was not born in Austria, but rather in the independent Bishopry of Salzburg at the time. Only later did it become incorporated into Austria, yet he thought of himself as German.
    What you think of as “Germany” is what the English-speaking world is defining as Germany, for Germans, Germany is the land where Germans live. They are not all politically unified, but it is an aspiration of Germans to live in one nation. That this was and is disturbing other people is their problem, if they don’t like Germans, they should let them go and join their German brothers and sisters, and if they are “Democrats” and “Human Rightists”, they should do this even with fervor. But as you know, they are not like that.
    If I have not given a reply to all of your questions, extrapolate, and apply also psychological thinking.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1346. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    Walther PPK .765
    “Nope. Not even Harry Callahan packs such a cannon. 7.65 mm is correct.”

    Didn’t specify .765 [m/dm/cm/mm]: cm is my preference (too many years building in the metric system – mm are specs only).

    The Walther PP and PPK are predominately .765 or .9 [cm] (or, if you prefer 7.65 and 9.0 [mm]). Numbers alone distinguish them for those who know the pistol. I have a PP .9. Beautiful weapon. Much more reliable than a luger (junk). On par with the Colt Model 1911 Super .38 (also wonderful).

    Keep nitpicking turtle! Be the makin’ of ya!

    • Replies: @turtle
  1347. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    Hi Fox,

    “every organisation attracts career-minded people.”

    Agree.

    “The sudden avalanche of applications for party membership after January 30, 1933…[membership] is not a reflection of sudden acceptance of National Socialism”

    NSDAP membership ±2 million in 1933 grew to ±8 million by 1945. Ultimately ±10% of population. In other words, 90% of Germans were not NSDAP members. Think about it.

    “Hitler was not mistaken when he valued the majority of these new-found Paulusses as not of the same calibre as the party members from the times of struggle. Hence, a lot of party careerists made their way up the ranks, among them people of not the best character or more than superficial understanding of National Socialism”

    Sorry. “Alter Kämpfer” Gauleiter ‘fight-to-the-last-German’ Erich Koch joined the NSDAP 1922 (member #90). Holder of the coveted ‘Goldenes Parteiabzeichen’ (‘Golden Party Badge’). Truest of the true.

    He ends up (after ordering ordinary Germans into eastern meat-grinders on pain of death 1943-45) escaping time after time, living incognito until arrest 1949, living until the ripe old age of 90. Make no mistake, Erich certainly had a deep “understanding of National Socialism”. He WAS ‘National Socialism’.

    Try again.

    “I don’t condone in general brutal measures, but where do you get your number of 10000 from?”

    10,000 is a conservative estimate of Feldgendarmerie and SS summary [i.e. non-judicial] executions (including Hitler Youth) for desertion/defeatism in Berlin 1945. Russians claimed 25,000. Antony Beevor ‘The Fall of Berlin 1945’ p.247. It’s a good read.Decide for yourself.

    “What you think of as “Germany” is what the English-speaking world is defining as Germany, for Germans, Germany is the land where Germans live.”

    LOL. Minnesota, where my Prussian GGF settled 19C is “Germany”? That would surprise him. He was trying to escape Bismarck’s cannon-fodder Prussia.

    Why not define nationals by contemporaneous legal standards instead of the Pan-German nonsense? Yes, Mozart may have hoped himself ‘German’. Did he consider himself Prussian or Bavarian? Doubt it.

    Hitler was an Austrian felon [assaulted engineer Ballerstedt 14 Sep 1921/convicted 29 Jan 1922, served prison time] who should have been remanded to Austria after serving time for subsequently trying to overthrow German government [8-9 Nov 1923].

    “You know very well of the fraudulent stunt von Schuschnigg wanted to pull with his “plebiscite” and the confusingly worded question to betray the accord he had with the German Reich in order to end the exclusion of the majority of Austrian Germans from representation in government.

    Sorry. Know no such thing. Why was independent Austria Germany’s business? BTW Kurt Schuschnigg wasn’t noble. There’s no ‘von Schuschnigg’ family domain/appanage. Why pretend he was?

    Sum up: plebiscites are BAD conducted by Austrian natives, GOOD if conducted by foreign Germans (Wehrmacht, SS, SD, SA in attendance)? That about cover it?

    “Otto Planetta, executed for Dollfuss’ demise, maintained that there was no intent to kill Dollfuss.”

    LOL.” Demise”? Dollfuß was the only one shot (twice). And was left without medical care (requested) and religious last rites (requested). He took three hours to die. “There was no intent to kill”? Are you serious? Did Otto forget his victim was bleeding to death? For three hours?

    “What if Habicht and Pfeiffer were hoping for the same eventual outcome, the political reunion of Germany with its still split-off province Austria?”

    Sorry. In 1934 Austria was/had never been a “split-off province” of Germany.

    Nice try. Why not try Haydn (with Mozart) next time?

    Stay well Fox.

    • Troll: John Regan
    • Replies: @Fox
  1348. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Keep nitpicking turtle! Be the makin’ of ya!

    I’ll take that as a friendly comment, u.n.o.
    “Details” are my life. 🙂

    [MORE]

    Colt

    Regret having sold my Python, many years ago.
    Also a work of engineering & manufacturing art.

    cm is my preference (too many years building in the metric system

    Interesting. CGS units, in other words.
    I’ve only seen firearm bores specified as mm or fractional inches.
    The only metric spec CDs (construction documents) I have seen in the U.S were so-called “soft metric” on U.S. Gov’t projects, years ago. “Soft metric,” of course, means that, e.g., doors are still 3′-0″ and CMUs are 7″5/8, etc, but dwgs carry dual dimensions. It’s been so long I do not remember what metric unit of length was used. My (perhaps flawed) memory is saying mm, but that may be incorrect.

    In school, of course, we were taught CGS in chemistry classes, MKS in physics, U.S. customary (a.k.a. “Imperial”) in engineering classes, with the addition of kip (1000 lbs) for structural work. To the extent that metric units were mentioned in engineering classes, it was MKS (Newton-meters, etc.).
    Were you educated in the U.S.? Canada? Or?
    Just curious..

  1349. turtle says:

    90% of Germans were not NSDAP members.

    And of the remaining 10%, I’d venture it was certain that some (no idea how many) joined the Party as a perceived “wise career move,” which it may well have been, rather than any ideological conviction.
    Which would put the percentage of “hard core” ideologues at something less than 10% of the population. I wonder how that compares to the USSR, or the USA, for that matter?
    Based on my personal experience, it is damned difficult to get most people to take any interest at all in (local) politics, even when shown that their economic (not to say their personal) well-being will be significantly adversely affected if various government policies under consideration are actually implemented.
    “Paul Revere “gets very little glory, in real life.
    Just my experience. Yours may vary.

  1350. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    Incitatus:
    You do not know what you are talking about. As I said, you are misled by the definition alien nations are using to define who is German and who is not. Austrians are as much Germans as are Suebians or Lower Saxons or Hessians, to give some examples of German people within the German Volk.
    It does not even seem to concern you that the Austrians themselves said that they were Germans. What do they know after all!
    After the occupation by the Universal Good-Doers in 1945, the Austrians were of course also re-educated and told in no uncertain terms that they were not part of the German Nation, and a century of hostile, evil-minded undermining propaganda has of course its effects. (A fear, by the way, the evil perpetrators of such propaganda can’t shake,….they are haunted by the idea of: “what, if we are finally not making the rules anymore?”). Just as the Versailles Extorters forbade Austria to call itself Deutschösterreich (= German-Austria).
    So what about Mozart? Is he Austrian, or not Austrian, or German, as he himself proudly wrote, or even Suebian, as his parents moved to the independent Bishopry (Fürstbistum) Salzburg from the Suebian region of Bavaria?

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1351. @Ron Unz

    “Totally dependent on 700,000 horses” is ambiguous but whatever the kind and degree of dependence on horses it is meant to indicate it must be wrong. This I say from my experience of two Himalayan treks, only to 16000 feet, on which the number of ponies considerably exceeded the number of people despite the fact that we had ben made to leave our howitxers and even our flamethrowers behind. By wrong I mean that 700,000 horses is an ibsignificant number for an attack launched by 3 million troops.

  1352. Have you considered that there was a mixture of both mechanised and horse drawn vehicles used?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1353. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “You do not know what you are talking about. As I said, you are misled by the definition alien nations are using to define who is German and who is not. Austrians are as much Germans as are Suebians or Lower Saxons or Hessians, to give some examples of German people within the German Volk.”

    What’s missing here? I referred to Hitler as ‘Austrian’ and Carolyn had a panty fit. You follow with all sorts of subjective ‘I feel German’ crap. Doesn’t change a thing. LEGALLY Hitler was born AUSTRIAN. Full stop. Has nothing to do with Mozart, pan-German ‘rise-up, we’re all German, where ever we may be’ nonsense. Sorry.

    You’re welcome to think otherwise. Hitler was a ‘citizen of the universe’, ‘moon-monkey’, whatever turns you on. Doesn’t change his legal origin [which was Austria, not Germany].

    “So what about Mozart? Is he Austrian, or not Austrian…”

    Born 1756, 133 years before Hitler, subject of the Archbishophric of Salzberg.

    [MORE]

    Why not tell us why most of his operas are in Italian? Was he a traitor? Confess I like ‘Zauberflöte’ (masterful) and’ Entführung’ (fun) as much as ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ (his best?). To say nothing of the symphonies, concertos, quartets, divertimentos, serenades, etc. But, of course you’re only digging up poor Mozart’s corpse up to legitimize Hitler.

    Mozart contributed inestimably to the richness of human existence. His work manifest. What did Hitler contribute? Don’t you realize conflating the two doesn’t serve your case?

    Let’s get back to another NSDAP hero you mention:

    “I know but little about Erich Koch (mostly what Rosenberg wrote in his Letzten Aufzeichnungen”

    Rosenberg. High priest of the NSDAP. Born Estonia 1893. Disputed lineage (German? Jewish? Whatever?). Educated in Riga and Moscow. Emigrates to Germany 1918, arrives Munich. Joins the DAP [later the NSDAP] Jan 1919. Here’s what he wrote:

    “Every race has its soul and every soul in its race – its own unique internal and external architecture, its characteristic appearance and manner of lifestyle, and a unique relationship between its forces of will and reason…”

    “Every race cultivates its own highest ideal. If, by the massive infiltration of alien blood and alien ideas, this is changed or overthrown, the result of this inner metamorphosis is chaos and, by epochs, catastrophe.”
    -Alfred Rosenberg ‘Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts’ (‘The Myth of the Twentieth Century’) 1930

    “Some six million Jews still live in the East, and this question can only be solved by a biological extermination of the whole of Jewry in Europe. The Jewish Question will only be solved for Germany when the last Jew has left German territory, and for Europe when not a single Jew stands on the European continent as far as the Urals… And to this end it is necessary to force them beyond the Urals or otherwise bring about their eradication.”
    -Alfred Rosenberg Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete Reich (Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories 1941-45) 1941 Conference [Robert K. Wittman and David Kinney: –‘The Devil’s Diary: Alfred Rosenberg and the Stolen Secrets of the Third Reich’]

    Usual self-serving race nonsense and Jew scapegoat crap. No surprise there. Alf, one might say, knew a good thing. Job security, etc. A bit late in ensuring his career post patron Hitler, but who can blame him?

    Rosenburg (52), having fled Berlin for Flensburg, was relieved of his failed eastern ministry 6 May 1945 by Dönitz. Introspective, he walked the shore of the Baltic, fell, injured his foot and was hospitalized. He blamed his fall on an old foot injury.

    The real reason?

    “He [Rosenberg] was found almost lifeless. He spoke of having poisoned himself, and a suicide attempt was suspected, but it turned out that he was merely drunk.”
    -Albert Speer ‘Inside the Third Reich’ p.496; Devil’s Diary p.388

    What about “Alter Kämpfer” Rosenburg, Fox? ‘Party member from [before] the time of struggle’?

    Then there’s Deutsche Arbeitsfront Leiter Robert Ley, joined the NSDAP 1924. Helped destroy labor unions and confiscate their funds. He was full of novel ideas:

    The trade unions that were swayed by Marxist teaching did not want social peace. They calculated that their chances of acquiring political power would improve with the growing dissatisfaction of the workers. One of the first necessities with which the Hitler Government found itself faced was that of dissolving the organizations that kept alive the antagonism between employers and employees. They were replaced by the Labour Front.
    – Deutsche Arbeitsfront Leiter Robert Ley May 1936 [Rauecker ‘Social Policy in the New Germany’]

    “The fight against the Jews has not ended… it will not have ended until the Jews throughout the world have been exterminated.”
    – Deutsche Arbeitsfront Leiter Robert Ley May 1939 [Manvell & Fraenkel ‘Incomparable Crime’ 1967]

    “We swear we are not going to abandon the struggle until the Last Jew in Europe has been exterminated and is actually dead. It is not enough to isolate the Jewish enemy of mankind – the Jew has got to be exterminated!”
    – Deutsche Arbeitsfront Leiter Robert Ley May 1943 [David Cesarani ‘The Final Solution’ p.224]

    Jews, Jews, Jews! How predictable!

    What did another fellow Nazi think of Ley?

    “I think he [Himmler] shirked his responsibility by committing suicide. I am not too unhappy about it because I would not particularly enjoy sitting on the same bench with him. The same is true of that drunken Robert Ley, who did us a favor by hanging himself before the trial started. He was not going to be any advantage for us defendants when he took the stand.”
    -Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring 24 May 1946

    Do you know better than Göring and Speer, Fox?

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  1354. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:

    Aus -tria, as with Australia, is linguistically equivalent to Eost-tria or East-tria. As the word Aus / Eost always does, it refers to the East and when used in Europe it implies significantly Slavic or otherwise Asian blood. ie: non-Deutsch blood. Which Austria has, especially in its Eastern portion. As the history of Slavic control over Austrian territory clearly describes.

    [MORE]

    (Ger-man seems to be a Jewish / Judaic-Anglo appelation for the Deutsch, possibly specifically referring to the non-Jewish nature of “Ger-mans” – A “Ger” being a specific Jewish term for a non-Jew).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre#Etymology

    Old English Ēostre continues into modern English as Easter and derives from Proto-Germanic *Austrǭ, itself a descendant of the Proto-Indo-European root *h₂ews-, meaning ‘to shine’ (modern English east also derives from this root).

    The very name of Austria implies a non-Deutsch, non-European Eastern foreignness. The Austrians call themselves Austrian, and thus willingly imply their own Eastern foreignness. I have nothing against the Austrians, and am sure that they are mostly quite Germanic. But that doesn’t discount the essentially Slavic-Eastern blood that has defined their Eastern territory. The nation was likely given a name that denotes “foreigner” as a genetic boundary marker. Eastern “Germany” has these genetics as well to a degree, but I am unsure how it and Eastern Austria compare on a genetic basis.

    In religious myth it plays out like this:

    Eostre = the Mother Goddess of the East and Sunrise who is the consort of the Western Father God of Judgement and the mother of Pan / Dionysus who is the dead and resurrected God of degenerate behavior, foreigners, imperial expansion, etc. Some would draw connections to the Virgin Mary and Christ.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1355. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “I’ll take that as a friendly comment, u.n.o”

    Please do, it was so intended.

    “Details are my life.”

    You’re right, of course. Sorry to have become less rigorous.

    90% of Germans were not NSDAP members.
    “And of the remaining 10%, I’d venture it was certain that some (no idea how many) joined the Party as a perceived “wise career move,” which it may well have been, rather than any ideological conviction. Which would put the percentage of “hard core” ideologues at something less than 10% of the population”

    Agree. 1933 NSDAP membership (±2 million) was ±2.5% population. Doubtless there were many careerists/opportunists in that figure as well. That’s the point. A radical mini-minority (1.25%?) sunk Germany. Easily happens when you give one man/demi-god unlimited power in any system.

    “I’ve only seen firearm bores specified as mm or fractional inches.”

    True. But if you say Walther PPK 765, few mistake it for a Krupp howitzer. Well, given UR, maybe not.

    “The only metric spec CDs (construction documents) I have seen in the U.S were so-called “soft metric” on U.S. Gov’t projects, years ago.”

    Projects I dealt with routinely cited US products as Spec standards. ‘Soft metrics’ ruled. Partly to sell US products, no doubt (nothing wrong with that). Centimeters were most accessible in local details (30cm =1 ft; 20cm = 8” concrete wall, nominal CMU; 5cm = 2” rigid insulation; 45cm =18” seating height, 180cm = 6’; etc.). Site plans and over-all building plans in meters. The metric system is a great standard. We were supposed to adopt it in the 70s-80s. Never figured out why we didn’t.

    Stay well, Turtle.

    • Replies: @turtle
  1356. @Incitatus

    You, Incy-pinchy, are a frigging liar and a disgusting dirtbag, to boot. I will put that in boldface – dirtbag.

    I referred to Hitler as ‘Austrian’ and Carolyn had a panty fit.

    I never once objected to you calling Hitler an Austrian, just the opposite! But you’ve said this more than once – you keep repeating it. Why? The only reason I can come up with is that you lie as you breathe, you can only lie, you must lie because you are a lying JEW. Deny you are a Jew all you will, but your Jewish hatred for NS Germany and Adolf Hitler is pathological and the most extreme of anyone I’ve encountered at this site … and that’s saying a lot. You can’t be anything but a (Israeli maybe?) Jew. Fox may wish he was talking to a far-left or communist German, but he’s only wasting time with a lying Jew (who cannot and will not change).

    In Rosenberg, we see German blood coming through. In spite of growing up in the Russian Empire, he gravitated to Germany and joined up with the nationalist movement in Munich. The best you can do is try to ridicule a fine human being and German. The National Socialists saw clearly what Jews were doing in and to Germany. Hitler wrote to Herr Gemlich in 1919 when he was only 30 years old, one year out of the war:

    Through inbreeding … often in very small circles … there lives amongst us a non-German, alien race, unwilling and indeed unable to shed its racial characteristics, its particular feelings, thoughts, and ambitions and nevertheless enjoying the same political rights as we ourselves do. And since even the Jew’s feelings are limited to the purely material realm, his thoughts and ambitions are bound to be so even more strongly. Their dance around the golden calf becomes a ruthless struggle for all the possessions that we [Germans] feel deep down are not the highest and not the only ones worth striving for on this earth.
    The value of an individual is no longer determined by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the community, but solely by the size of his fortune, his wealth. The greatness of a nation is no longer measured by the sum total of its moral and spiritual resources, but only by the wealth of its material possessions. Maser, 1973/74, p 213-17

    And so do Jews seek to sabotage their host nations, and turn them into places where their peculiar Jewish qualities are most highly valued, thereby demeaning and destroying the racial instincts of the host people. This is what you are trying to do. You say it, loud and clear, in every comment you write. You should be able to stay, but the Nazis have to go!

    Haha, no YOU have to go. At least, now, you have a country of your own to go to.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1357. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “Salzburg<”

    Congratulations. You found a misspelling (Salzberg/Salzburg)! What a sage!

    No knowledge of Mozart and his work. No answers to posted questions #1389 (big surprise). No response to profligate criminality in the NSDAP, evidenced by fellow Nazis.

    With due respect, you’re even stupider than troll Carolyn.

  1358. @turtle

    90% of Germans were not NSDAP members.

    And of the remaining 10%, I’d venture it was certain that some (no idea how many) joined the Party as a perceived “wise career move,” which it may well have been, rather than any ideological conviction.

    The NSDAP limited its membership after a certain point in time. They didn’t want practically everyone in Germany to join the party, which could easily have happened; they chose to keep it smaller and more manageable. The point is, it was their choice. So you’re just blowing smoke.

  1359. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Hoss,
    Thanks for your reply & kind words.
    I guess we could have an interesting discussion on metric vs. imperial, but that is totally off topic, so will refrain from extensive comment in this thread.

    Never figured out why we didn’t.

    Partially have, but not totally.
    In the building industry, most likely the nightmare of dual manufacturing specs (hard metric vs. soft metric).
    Strongest point for metric is that all units are related (no weird conversion factors).
    Imperial units have their own advantages, though, or those not “decimocentric.”
    Nothing magic about base ten. If humans had six fingers & toes, we probably would be using base twelve.
    Twelve has more divisors than 10, and 96 has more divisors than 100, including 16.
    So, those who use 96ths of a foot are really using 60 hexidecimal.
    Sixty is a nice number. Surveyors like it for good reason.

    You didn’t answer my final question, though (your privilege). 🙂

    Take care,

  1360. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Incy-pinchy… frigging liar… disgusting dirtbag… boldface – dirtbag”

    Wow, Carolyn! That’s the best you can do?

    [MORE]

    Thanks for your honesty. Talk to your (ex) husband lately? How’s first/only love love Herr Hitler doing? Skull/brains back in position? How are things working out with Eva? Is she jealous?

    “I never once objected to you calling Hitler an Austrian, just the opposite!”

    Please quote that “opposite” exchange.

    “And so do Jews seek to sabotage their host nations, and turn them into places where their peculiar Jewish qualities are most highly valued, thereby demeaning and destroying the racial instincts of the host people. This is what you are trying to do. You say it, loud and clear, in every comment you write. You should be able to stay, but the Nazis have to go!”

    Wow! A bonus of gratuitous racial scapegoat hogwash. Well done!

    “In Rosenberg, we see German blood coming through”.

    Aw, come on. Are you really so stupid you champion “drunkard” Rosenberg after what Speer had to tell?

    Do you tire of the smell of the manure you spread, Carollyn?

    “Haha, no YOU have to go. At least, now, you have a country of your own to go to.”

    Don’t worry about my country (399 years family old). Worry about your troll-factory/boiler room.

    You have my sympathy.

    Stay well, Carolyn.

    • Troll: L.K
  1361. Carolyn: “I never once objected to you calling Hitler an Austrian, just the opposite!”

    Incy: Please quote that “opposite” exchange.

    Please quote me having a “panty fit” when you called Hitler an Austrian.

    I recall saying it was a well-known fact that Hitler was born and grew up in Austria. Along with millions of other German people. Race is real and you’re stuck with being a Jew no matter where you live. It’s really funny how you’re all breathless over German art and music.

    And it should be mentioned that any real German (like myself and Fox, for example) would never insult anyone for being Austrian or imply that German-Austrians were not like any other Germans. So you’ve condemned yourself as a liar right there.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Incitatus
  1362. @Anon

    Austria refers as little to Eastern blood as Australia does. It is merely a geographical denotation. The Eastern Reich. No more exotic than the Upper East Side. Yes there is Eastern admixture, but that can be found in all of Europe, although of course to a greater extent where the racial West meets the East.

    [MORE]

    The name German is of relatively recent origin, only about 2000 years old. It does not derive from Jews of course, but from a German tribe named ‘Gertmanne’ (Gert’s men). They settled in the area surrounding modern Frisland around 300bc. According to Tacitus, who called them something else when he wrote 500 years later, they were pacifistic, peace loving and ‘the best of Germans’. This is perhaps why the Romans used ‘German’ for all the people on the other side of the Rhine. Germans did not make such distinctions, which is why their country is simply called “The peoples land”.

    The Gertmanne were originally Sea People who founded Athens. In their language that word meant friend, or friends (Athenai). Chosen to show the local populace (The Hellenes) that they did not settle with malicious intent. Their main Priestess was Minerva, which the Greeks adopted as a Goddess, Pallas Athena (friend friend in the two languages). Here is how the Greeks viewed her:

    Goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill.

    Quite descriptive of Germans, even with all the later admixture, and a clue to the National Socialists fascination with Greece and their opinion they were of German origin.

    • Replies: @Anon
  1363. anarchyst says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hello Caroline Yeager,

    Please realize that jews such as Inctatus always desire to have the last word, which quite often exposes their nefarious jewish supremacist attitudes.

    As to firearms, Inctatus shows his ignorance (masking itself as false intelligence) by insisting that his answer to turtle is correct. The correct definition is 7.65mm or .32 caliber.

    I understand your frustration in dealing with the likes of jew Inctatus, but name-calling rarely works and can be counterproductive. Just realize that jews always have been muckrakers and troublemakers for the entirety of their existence.

    Best regards,

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1364. Oh Gee, what would I do without your help, poor little ignorant ‘Caroline’ that I am. (Even Incy spells my name correctly, why can’t you?)

  1365. Bookish1 says:
    @turtle

    How many people that vote Republican in the u.s. are active members of the Republican party.? If it’s even 10% I would be suprised. So what are you trying to say?

    • Replies: @turtle
  1366. turtle says:
    @Bookish1

    Exactly what you said.
    In my experience, most people take scant interest in politics, even if proposed policies will directly and adversely affect their lives.

  1367. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Please quote me having a “panty fit” when you called Hitler an Austrian”

    Your comment #1291 to Fox (8 Oct 2019):

    “I noticed he [Incitatus] likes to refer to Hitler as “the Austrian” as though that means he’s not German. But I’ve never read his (long) comments carefully due to the previously mentioned revulsion I feel. I don’t use that word lightly – it is real and physical.”

    You’re welcome.

    “frigging liar and a disgusting dirtbag…your Jewish hatred for NS Germany and Adolf Hitler is pathological…lying Jew…you lie as you breathe, you can only lie, you must lie because you are a lying JEW…you’re stuck with being a Jew no matter where you live”

    Tisk, tisk, Carolyn. Another panty fit? Take a moment and wipe the drool from your Aryan lips.

    [MORE]

    “Hatred”? Here’s the master:

    “The intelligentsia appointed by Stalin must be exterminated. The leadership apparatus of the Russian empire must be destroyed. The use of the most brutal violence is necessary in the Greater Russian region. Ideological ties do not really hold the Russian people together. It will collapse if one gets rid of the functionaries.”
    – Adolf Hitler Address to Senior Officers on Barbarossa, transcribed by Generaloberst Franz Halder 17 Mar 1941 [Burleigh ‘The Third Reich’ p. 518]

    “This is a war of extermination…Commanders must be prepared to sacrifice their personal scruples.”
    – Adolf Hitler Address to Senior Officers on Barbarossa, Reich Chancellery on USSR Invasion Plans 30 Mar 1941 [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p. 189]

    “The Führer commands that on entering the city the entire male population should be eliminated since Stalingrad, with its convinced Communist population of one million, is particularly dangerous.”
    – Adolf Hitler to Sixth Army 2 Sep 1942 [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.356]

    “Hatred”? He killed millions. In the end, the Austrian turned on ordinary Germans:

    “If the German people are no longer strong enough and ready to sacrifice their own blood for their existence, then they should perish and be wiped out by another, stronger power. They are no longer worthy of the place they have won for themselves.”
    -Adolf Hitler to the Danish Foreign Minister 27 Nov 1941 [Stargardt, The German War p.227]

    How do you explain that, Carolyn? Words to live/die by? Hitler did his best with the Nerobefehl ‘45. Should the victors have killed every German male and sold women/children into slavery as in Hitler’s messianic “war of extermination”? Give us a hint.

    Here’s what a long-loyal minion said:

    “We all share the guilt. We went along with everything, and we half-took the Nazis seriously instead of saying “to hell with you and your stupid nonsense“. I misled my soldiers into believing this rubbish. I feel utterly ashamed of myself. Perhaps we bear even more guilt than these uneducated animals.”
    -General de Infanterie und Stadtkommandant von Groß-Paris Dietrich von Choltitz, post-Paris-surrender 25 Aug ’44 at Trent Park, North London

    But for v. Choltitz, Paris would have been destroyed as part of the Führer’s Wagnerian suicide pact.

    “Race is real”

    Squid ink. You conflate legal citizenship and race, switch one for the other, third-rate evasion. Are you unable, or just unwilling to answer simple questions? You disregard the difference between incompetent/criminal NSDAP leadership and ordinary Germans, making the latter again suffer the sins of the former. Nations are not monolithic. Just a thought.

    “any real German (like myself and Fox, for example) would never insult anyone for being Austrian or imply that German-Austrians were not like any other Germans.”

    More squid ink. Do you hold German citizenship? If so, you’re probably blogging from prison. They’d know you for what you are.

    “In Rosenberg, we see German blood coming through. In spite of growing up in the Russian Empire, he gravitated to Germany and joined up with the nationalist movement in Munich. The best you can do is try to ridicule a fine human being and German.”

    Comprehension problems? Göbbels couldn’t stand him. Speer ridiculed Rosenberg as a drunk. Just as Göring ridiculed “drunken Robert Ley” and was thankful Ley committed suicide. All were Party members, highest of the high. NSDAP leadership distrusted and oft despised each-other. A dysfunctional crime family. Read Speer’s ‘Inside the third Reich’.

    The best summation of Rosenberg:

    “It was Rosenberg, the intellectual high priest of the “master race,” who provided the doctrine of hatred which gave the impetus for the annihilation of Jewry, and who put his infidel theories into practice against the Eastern Occupied Territories. His woolly philosophy also added boredom to the long list of Nazi atrocities.
    -Justice Robert H. Jackson

    To be fair, Al did his best. Killed as many as he could (i.e. ordered others to do it). Mr. Big sanctioned it:

    “This [pacification] will happen best by shooting dead anyone who even looks sideways at us.”
    – Adolf Hitler to Alfred Rosenberg 1941 [Beevor ‘The Second World War p.211]

    Seems tens of millions looked “sideways”.

    Stay well, Carolyn.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1368. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reality Cheque

    Sit tight. Genocidal-Torah Karma is going to be a bitch in the medium and long term future as well.

  1369. Incitatus says:
    @anarchyst

    Hi anarchist,

    “jews such as Inctatus…nefarious jewish supremacist…jew Inctatus…jews…muckrakers and troublemakers”

    Labeling anything disagreeable “Jewish” seems an involuntary reflex with you folks, doesn’t it? When you get a new zit, blame the Jews? Dust bunny under the bed, it’s the Jews? Rain on your book-burning, Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed, laundromat loses your hood-and-robe…well, you get the idea.

    “name-calling rarely works and can be counterproductive”

    Wise advice, anarchyst. Pity you forgot to take it.

    BTW isn’t it about time for your regular tearful cut-and-paste lament for “engineer” Fred Leuchter?

    You’ll be happy to know 10 have been prosecuted for similar fraud by the Mass DPL so far this year (https://www.mass.gov/dpl-disciplinary-actions/resources). Unlike Freddie, 9 actually had licenses (one in VT). Go figure!

    Just trying to be helpful.

  1370. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexandros

    Austria refers as little to Eastern blood as Australia does.

    That’s wrong.

    By the way, Australia is squarely in the Eastern Hemisphere and is destined to be muddled with Far Eastern blood. To say that Australia doesn’t refer to Eastern people isn’t tenable. Its not like the Anglo power structure cares about the blood (lineage) of the criminals that it sent to the other side of the planet. Border zones can be named with the inevitable future in mind.

    Austria is a Slavic border zone, once controlled and inhabited by Slavs, where Slavic blood intermingles with Western. There is Slavic blood in interior western nations, but it doesn’t compare with border zones like Austria. Hence, Aus-tria.

    [MORE]

    but from a German tribe named ‘Gertmanne’

    That’s interesting. My conjecture is just that and I don’t mind considering other theories. Though, I wouldn’t give more weight to yours than my own. Jews see the ability to name something, or to know the origins of that name, as a source of power over it. It has been long documented that they have a special animosity toward the German people. It is common in Western society for esoteric names to be given false explanations (in the United States, for example, giving a false etymology stemming from Native American origins is common for names that reference an ancient European histories and social structures of which most people are not aware).

    Goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill.

    Quite descriptive of Germans, even with all the later admixture, and a clue to the National Socialists fascination with Greece and their opinion they were of German origin.

    Here, with all due respect, you are squarely out of your depth. I’d respect your other answers more if you would have stayed in your lane here and not tried to sound authoritative.

    “Greek” religion, as with all religion in antiquity, is immensely complex and factioned, as were the “Greek” people and their cultures. These were not unified peoples and their religions had conflicting theologies and cultural aims that generally corresponded to the geographical and cultural preferences of any specific tribe.

    The Goddess cult most likely stems from pre-Greek origins, is the predecessor to what Christians would call the concept of the “devil” (as worshipped at the volcano on Lemnos), what gnostics would call the “demiurge”, and from which the Jews would later roughly source the concept of their god in their days as miners in Edom. He is the metalsmith, the craftsman, the technology god, the King of the World, and the the demiurge (most of these matching up with the concepts implied by the adjectives used in your description). He was cast out of Heaven by Zeus and is therefore known for his deformed legs and crippled walk.

    So, which “Greeks” fought this cult and which practiced it? Who slaughtered the Telchines? Thinking of “Greeks” as “Greeks” leads to a false concept of history. Who were the Spartans / Dorians, the Athenians / Ionians / Attics, the Trojans, the Macedonians, the Cretans, the Thessalians, the Thracians, the Cypriots and the Pelasgians? To start? Who of these came from the same tribes and who were warring tribes? What is the origin of any and all? What were their cultures and religions? Until you can answer this, you will not understand Greece nor its religions.

    You gave a meaningless propaganda summary of the Goddess cult that doesn’t begin to describe its meaning, drives, and what is spawned (and spawns). The Goddess cult and its spawned gods are Asian / foreign in origin (as the Greeks noted), as is all Semitic religion that derived from it. Its not controversial that technology is said to come from the King of this World, or the Christian Devil: otherwise known as the fashioner, the creator, the metalsmith (see the overly liberal use of craft and metallurgy analogies and mythology by Judeo Rosicrucians and Freemasons, including the Molten Sea analogy for the One World effort and racial mixing).

    Given that Germany didn’t exist in the age of Greece, the Greeks weren’t Germans. What you mean to imply is that the Greeks were racially Germanic, which is what the National Socialists stated. Which is true for at least some Greek tribes (with most others likely having a healthy portion of Germanic admixture), but this is also true for the Western half of the cro magnon derived, racially unmixed culture in antiquity.

    Of the tribes that I noted, with whom did the Germans identify?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1371. anarchyst says:
    @Incitatus

    A “license” was not required to design execution equipment.

    Leuchter was prosecuted at the behest of jews who did not want to see their phony “holohoax” (oops, I mean “holocaust”) claims eviscerated and shredded, being the fairy tale that the holohoax has proven to be.

  1372. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Disingenuous, to say the least.
    You know better, Hoss.
    Shame on you.
    How about William Mulholland:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland#Initial_career_in_Los_Angeles

    Mulholland, who was best described as self-taught,

    and yet,

    Mulholland named as its chief engineer.

    Licensed as a P.E. in California?

    [MORE]

    Wicky-wacky pedia article is silent, but I doubt Mr. Mulholland was eligible to sit for the P.E. exam.
    And to this day, California law is permissive, allowing years of documented professional experience under the guidance of a licensed professional in lieu of formal education (not 1 for 1).

    It is most certainly true that representing yourself as a “professional engineer,” or equivalently, “registered professional engineer,” a title granted by the state, is highly illegal.

    However, as you well know ,there are many (perhaps even the majority) of well educated and well qualified engineers who are not state licensed, because their duties do not require it. You have stated you are licensed in 6 states. Although you did not say, I presume, based on your posts here, that you are licensed as a civil engineer. In your line of work , that would be normal and expected.

    However, in other disciplines, e.g electrical or mechanical, my experience is that a state license is required only if the practitioner wishes to sign and seal construction documents. Thus, licensed electrical engineers are generally power distribution engineers, and, in California, licensed mechanical engineers generally design (and certify) HVAC systems.

    Every set of CDs which cross my desk have the seal and signature of such licensed professionals on the relevant sheets. However, if you have graduated from, let’s say, Stanford, with a BSEE or higher, and found employment with. e.g. Hewlett-Packard, I doubt you would ever sit for the EE professional engineer exam, because your job would not require it.

    The converse is also true. The following two examples may be relevant.

    Example 1:
    I have been on jobsites where the general contractor designated some of their onsite staff as “engineers,” even though these folks (typically young people with engineering degrees, just starting their careers) were not licensed. They were “engineers” by job title, but not “licensed professional engineers” according to the law.
    Example 2:
    My computer hardware supplier is quite willing to dispatch people they call “network engineers,” and bill $135/hr for their services, for people whose educational qualification is generally at the community college level (2 years post secondary), plus, perhaps, a certificate, such as “Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.”

    But then, Bill Gates did not graduate from Harvard, so I guess he has to do what he can.
    Is Bill Gates an “engineer?”
    Inquiring minds want to know…

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Incitatus
  1373. @Incitatus

    CY: “Please quote me having a “panty fit” when you called Hitler an Austrian”

    Incy: Your comment #1291 to Fox (8 Oct 2019):

    “I noticed he [Incitatus] likes to refer to Hitler as “the Austrian” as though that means he’s not German. But I’ve never read his (long) comments carefully due to the previously mentioned revulsion I feel. I don’t use that word lightly – it is real and physical.”

    You’ve got to be kidding. Oh no, you’re not. That’s how dishonest you are. I did not imply the revulsion you arouse in me comes from your “referring to Hitler as ‘the Austrian’ and therefore not German,” but clearly stated it was your “long (unreadable) comments.” And you well know it, as does everyone else. Which means YOU DON’T HAVE A QUOTE FOR THAT and are reaching for whatever comes closest to hand. It is exactly your total failure to be honest that brings on the revulsion – felt by many. I guess you’re proud of that … kind of like the Devil, eh?

  1374. anarchyst says:
    @turtle

    Bill Gates is NOT “the smartest guy in the room”.

    Bill Gates WAS “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” as his daddy was partner in one of Seattle, Washington’s most prestigious law firms.

    Gates purchased an “operating system” from a REAL software developer, claimed it as his own, and had his daddy’s law firm craft a tight legal “licensing system”, which, for the longest time, required one to purchase computer “hardware” in order to obtain the “operating system” (software).

    This one moved propelled Microsoft into becoming one of the most widely-used operating systems on the planet. As IBM was looking for an “operating system” for its microcomputers at the time, things “fell into place” for Microsoft.

    People such as Bill Gates think, that because of their “success”, they can “lord it over the masses” and (attempt to) decide what is good for the rest of us. It is no secret that Gates and others of his ilk would like to see the world population drastically reduced “by any means necessary”. Who decides?
    We need to “nip this thing in the bud”…

  1375. At 91 I may be the oldest poster on the the UR site although a relative newcomer of two years or so. It was an easy conclusion for me to see that the editor-in-chief, Mr Unz was a self-made man with an IQ well above the Mensa entry level. I have read through Mr Unz’s discourse of the origins of WWII, but am not in total agreement with his conclusions, especially as they relate to Winston Churchill.

    But first allow me to state a little of my background. During the 1930s I grew up in a small farming community in the west central part of Ohio, with very fertile soil that made for successful farming. Although most of the community voted Democrat there was little love for FDR because of his agricultural policies. Such mandates as the killing of excess hogs did not set well with my grandfather for one. There was a strong strain of isolationism as well. The America First Committee had considerable influence in parts of the Middle Western states and such luminaries as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh made no secret of their belief that Jews were directing America’s foreign policy. When electrification finally came to our farmhouse and a radio was purchased, it was often turned to a Detroit station that carried Father Charles Coughlin’s Sunday after noon broadcast. The good priest had a virulent hatred of FDR and he was not reluctant to blame the Jews for any ailment that afflicted America.All the above is to corroborate Mr Unz’s assertions of FDRs culpability involving us in that conflict.
    Having read many of Churchill’s works, as a military veteran I was impressed with his bravery under fire. I was even more impressed by his escape and evasion from a Boer prisoner of war camp during that war. He may have been a drunkard and even a warmonger but I will always be an admirer of his writing skills and his willingness to go the extra mile as a war correspondent.

  1376. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    [Lengthy Holocaust disputes should generally be confined to Holocaust threads.]

  1377. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:

    Having read this Magnum Opus and much of the American Pravda series, which as a German reader lives up to its name, I still wonder where Mr. Unz draws his optimism from. Given that as long as the US Empire exists, so will its foundation myth: of the great, good war between the crusading Eisenhower its moral forces of liberation and the satanic forces of National Socialism lead by the devil personified. Just as the myth of German villany may have been deconstructed and debunked in credible books of respectable authors, but it is alive and well in Hollywood which blasts its message into the entertainment-nexus of the entire world.

    And since the foundation myth of both the USSR and Russia is the great patriotic war and heroic defeat of fascism there is not much policy change to be expected. From this different view of the Great War which lead the foundation to this world order that is. The same is true for China which is still a communist country at the end of the day, so I do not expect them to tell the objective, neutral history of the war against National Socialism and Fascism which lead to the victory of Maoism and the existence of Communist China itself.

    Similar in Europe. As has been mentioned in the comments: the book by German Bundeswehr-General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof The War That Had Many Fathers https://www.amazon.de/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X drew a similar conclusion to Mr Unz. Without mentioning the J-word for rather obvious reasons. And it was widely read. And watched on YouTube aswell, 186k here

    Another video portraying the book of quarter-Jewish historian Edgar Dahl about Roosevelt planning WW2, which had reached well over 100k views in less than a week, seems to have been just scrapped from the de facto monopolist aswell and only mirrors remain. And when searching for it directly, one is greeted with the counter-narrative of the usual propagandists.

    Given the fact that Unz too drew from widely available sources by established journalists and historians of their times, who later mostly lost their jobs, got unpersoned or were systematically destroyed by Jewish Power like David Irving, it too confirms the fact that the truth can indeed be surpressed and simply overwhelmed with the megaphone of the greater media power and greater propaganda.

    Therefore the conclusions drawn from these texts remain uncomfortable truths for individuals, who would be excluded from the mainstream and rendered powerless themselves, if they tried to act upon them. This is even more true for the material which kind souls like Gerhard Menuhin have shared with the public and for which men like him have sacrified so much to tell it.

    Sure enough, if Mr. Unz were to state his main thesis in Germany publicly, that Jews have been among the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, but Jewish (media) power has turned them into its greatest victims, he would be trialed for sedition and likely end up in jail.

    Thanks to the increasingly censored and monopolized internet fragments of the truth and alternative narratives can reach the people. But if it changes anything in politics, remains to be seen.

  1378. Bookish1 says:
    @Miggle

    Hitler had the ss kill all the same? I dont think so. Only roehm and a number of his followers

    • Replies: @Miggle
  1379. Bookish1 [AKA "rochester"] says:
    @Anonymous

    cremated bodies leave remains which are not ashes but bone chips. There would be way to much to hide if millions of people were cremated.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1380. @Anonymous

    This is a different presentation by General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof but it’s the same topic, and it has English subtitles

  1381. Olo says:

    contrary to the thesis that Hitler did not want war, there are facts – reinforcements, training and projects done jointly with the USSR after Rapallo. The war was being prepared by the establishment of the United States and the GB and aimed at rebuilding Europe and plundering the USSR

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1382. @Anonymous

    I am getting great satisfaction out of filtering truth from the still tiny fraction of heterodox but honest scholarly historical literature which Ron Unz has publicised as potentially closer to tje truth than standard accounts. While it is obviously impossible to duplicate Ron’s reading I have reservations about the degree to which he has given possibly excessive credit to some accounts where I strongly suspect the footnotes would not bear out the main theses.

    That is a long preliminary to trying to engage some degree od scepticism on your part prompted initially only by what I take to be an unwarranted rhetorical flourish. Count me, if you like, as one who, given a hammer sees every problem as a nail, but I cannot overlook what I take to be carelessness about something as important as the law. I simply cannot believe that Ron could be charged with anything as serious as sedition if he published his views in Germany.

    I had the good fortune of living before the full Wirtschaftswunder with a minor German aristocratic family where I met a great cross section of people, including a son-in-law grandson of a very grand eponym after whom a great battleship was named. There was absolutely no quibbling about Nazi wickedness or its being (to my surprise as a frivolous young Aussie) of every German’s responsibility. Actually there was a partial exception in the case of a young German baroness from Berlin and also of Mutti whose instinct was to say “it was those awful Nazis”.

    As it happens I can felicitously connect that experience with watching a History Channel production of WAGTV “True Evil: thr making of a Nazi – Albert Speer”. (This is to be dostinguished from a rather melodramatic series with a similar title that I soon turned off). It’s big point for me was that Speer got away with starving slave labourers to death and knowing about the Holocaust by “pulling a blinder” in which he apologised for being associated with all those evils of which he knew nothing! His *deputy* was condemned to death and he didn’t even get a life sentence!

    It was suggested that the Nuremberg judges had, for PR reasons, to show that they were discriminating and not just across-the-board vengeful. This, however, was said to have had the result of giving every German an excuse. You see, we were like Albert Speer, innocently caught up in others’ wickedness. New to me but highly plausible.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @Anonymous
  1383. @Bookish1

    You might like to check this. I got bored with fiddling round with a smartphone calculator, but,start with this:
    .
    Typically, the remains from an average adult will weigh about 4 pounds. Sometimes as little as 3 lbs, or as much as 10, depending on the person’s height, bone density, etc.Feb 26, 2016

    Then you take 38 pounds per cubic foot and I get very roughly 600 metres x 600 metres one foot high. Negligible if that is anything even in thw ballpark.

  1384. @John Regan

    Maybe you are just trying too hard to be even handed. It’s BS to treat the US and Japanese *predictable, culturally mediated* behaviour as equivalent let alone similar. It isn’t even prima facie plausible. How many American pilots would have lined up to be kamikaze pilots even after say 10 years of Hollywood conditioning? Ever heard of the Bataan Death March? My uncle was a Red Cross medical orderly in Changi and he made a point of letting his stockbroking partners do ALL the highly profitable Japanese business even 20 and 30 years after the war. And Changi wasn’t the River Kwai. It was such a disgrace for a Japanese soldier yo surrender that blowing up oneself and enemy with a grenade was actually honoutable. I have close Japanese relations to whom I am devoted so don’t try that really-the-same line on me.

  1385. Bookish1 says:
    @Major Styles

    But there is more. When the greatest generation entered the american scene in the early 1930s every city in america was a safe, clean place to live. At the time that the greatest generation started to retire(around the mid 1980s) every american city was a dirty crime ridden asshole of a place to live. That happened under the the watch of the greatest generation. The only positive that I will give that generation is that they still had enough pride not to race mix and change their ancient bloodline forever into something that doesn’t follow any script.

  1386. @Olo

    Simply as a convenient place to make a somewhat related comment let me point out another fact from the documentary about Albert Speer that I mention just above. It serves, I am happy to say, the cause of complexity. Hitler wanted many things with different degrees of intensity at different times, many barely compatible.

    One counter to the idea that his ideas never included “conquering the world” was the planning he undertook from an early stage for that Thousand Year Reich – one modeled on the Roman Empire with monuments and other buildings so gargantuan that, at the very least, there had to be an element of fantasising in Hitler’s more extreme plans.

  1387. Bookish1 says:
    @Fox

    Fortunate for jews us non jews dont generally believe in collective guilt, as jews do. If we did kaufmans book could set off a pogrom.

  1388. I note that “Wiz of Oz” has made 4 comments in a row (after being absent for awhile), seeming to take over from “Incitatus” who has gotten temporarily knocked out (comment 1413 as well as losing every argument he’s in). I’ve also noticed that “Incy” takes over from “Wiz” when the same thing has happened to him. It’s like they are a tag team.

    And what does he say in these four comments? Nothing but meaningless chit-chat, and more recommendations for the History Channel. This guy admits he gets his history from the History Channel, yet he writes in the style of a highly educated, well-traveled intellectual. Total bunk. I decided way back in the first thread I participated in not to reply to these two, but at times I have jumped in, and have actually not been sorry. But they are a sorry twosome, and are mostly better ignored. Their entire purpose here is to say bad things about Hitler/Nazism/Third Reich and defend the Big Holocaust Lie, and are thus simply looking for opportunities to do that.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1389. @Carolyn Yeager

    Oh dear, you poor obsessive creature. You are so blind that you can’t even see that Incitatus is actually very well read on WW2 histoty while I am not and have to use my wits to try and filter some truth from Ron’s latterday readings and writings and some attention to those who may be able to be taken seriously, as sceptical scholars and purveyors of truth. Unlike you I have no obsession about the Holocaust. I am, as I peruse UR, at least equally interested in forming a cottect view about a number of Chinese questions, and, with no passion at all attempting to shape various conspiracy theories to fit some standard of plausibility.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  1390. @Anon

    I suppose its hard when you don’t even know that you are ignorant but what about tryimg a little Googling and arriving easily at this truth

    “Terra Australis (Latin for South Land) was a hypothetical continent first posited in antiquity and which appeared on maps between the 15th and 18th centuries.”

  1391. @NoseytheDuke

    Of course – if you are addressing me. . That goes withoit saying though it was Ron who, rather extravagantly, said “totally dependent”. Maybe you were putting it to him?

  1392. mary-lou says:
    @PJ London

    Would this Dr. Grimm be related to the famous brothers of Grimm’s fairytales?

  1393. @Ron Unz

    As you are accumulating nuances and small complexities over time may I invite your attention to #1419 yo #1423 which may have small elements of novelty.

  1394. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It was suggested that the Nuremberg judges had, for PR reasons, to show that they were discriminating and not just across-the-board vengeful. This, however, was said to have had the result of giving every German an excuse. You see, we were like Albert Speer, innocently caught up in others’ wickedness. New to me but highly plausible.

    There is another reading, why Speer might have received a minor sentence at Nuremberg. You find it in Irvings book on Nuremberg:
    Speer had actually been responsible for the eviction of Jews from Berlin for his Germania-plans and he had made quite extensive use of forced labour for his projects. So against him there was the most handy evidence to have him sentenced to death – granted that one allowes for the legitimacy of the War Crimes Tribunal in the first place.

    So the tribunal could make use of him as a crown witness against all the others by making to him certain promises, which is the most usual proceeding in any show trial anywhere in the world.

    Basically, you have to come off the idea, that Angloamerican-administered justice is better then any other justice. The Soviets famously sent the same prosecutor to Nuremberg, who had been responsible for the 1930s Moscow show trials – and why shouldn’t they, since he was their best man for the job.
    It is far less well known, that the British maintained a torture facility of their own at Bad Nenndorf close to Hannover. This is on the record, because years later it was exposed in the British parliament. One of the inmates to be tortured there was Oswald Pohl, chief of the RWHA (SS economics department), that had been in charge of the concentration camps. While Pohls testimony alone for that reason should have been inadmissible in any proper court, it was nonetheless used in Nuremberg. You can go on like that regarding huge amounts of testimony at the Nuremberg trials.
    When you look further, also in Irvings book, you will find that the treatment of the inmates at Nuremberg during their investigation was strikingly similar to the treatment of political prisoners in communist countries (and possibly elsewhere). They were not openly brutalized, which made sense, because they were to be exposed in a courtroom, and as they were elderly men, hands-on violence would have made them unpresentable. Instead, they were treated to sophisticated white torture, like sleep deprivation, threats against the family, solitary confinement etc.

    And indeed, if you tell this to anyone in Germany openly, you will get problems. A charge of sedition will be the ultima ratio, but I have SEEN(!) people loose their jobs for far less, and the people I am talking about were among the most cultivated and on the subject most knowledgable characters I know.

    And this gives me reason to understand, why the few Russian commenters on this site feel pissed of quite regularly – to call their party any names in the world is absolutely commonplace. At the same time, to this day, with so many proofs to the contrary, the presumption of Western innocence and lesser guilt is taken for granted and is fundamental to the comments even by people, who regard themselves as woke.

    In a new announcement, Ron Unz has suggested that he might limit the possibility to post multiple comments – I appreciate the idea, even in the best iunterest of the hyperactive part of the commentariat themselves.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  1395. @Wizard of Oz

    Yes, a possible reading but I daresay it could be nailed by fact. I don’t think that the removal of poor Jews to accommodate Speer”s grand archotectural and city planning plans would have been enough to show hm complicit in the Holocaust. Indeed I am unaware of the degree to which the first Nuremberg trial was a Holocaust trial at all. Do you know?

    • Replies: @turtle
  1396. @Wizard of Oz

    You are such a fraud. Note the title of this article you are blabbing on: Understanding WWII History … not Chinese history.

    you can’t even see that Incitatus is actually very well read on WW2 histoty while I am not and have to use my wits to try and filter some truth from Ron’s latterday readings and writings

    As to “Incy” being well-read on WW2, please see his comment #1348. He “proves” his knowledge of the 1934 putsch in Austria with a page each from Jew Peter Longerich’s biographies of Goebbels and Himmler, which he read using Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature on their website ads. That’s his trick for being “well-read.” There was nothing incriminating there, anyway. He couldn’t quote anything from all the other authors he mentioned. You at least admit your ignorance and that you’re here to learn from others. That’s why you’re still watching the History Channel … at your advanced age! I’ll remind you of that next time you start spouting off as an expert.

    … with no passion at all [I am] attempting to shape various conspiracy theories to fit some standard of plausibility.

    Like the conspiracy theory that Hitler had Dollfuss murdered? Yes, that fits. And all the conspiracy theories related to the holohoax. I do think you’re maybe being honest about that.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  1397. @Incitatus

    Just realize that jews always have been muckrakers and troublemakers for the entirety of their existence.

    Did you _have_ to put on that shoe and loudly announce that it fits?

    Counterinsurgency

  1398. Miggle says:
    @Bookish1

    Bernt Engelmann’s account in his book In Hitler’s Germany describes the Röhm Putsch this way. He quotes Marga (which I guess is another version of Greta), a girl who was one of his group of friends at school, but this is years later.

    I bumped into an old school friend, … elegantly dressed older woman …

    She recognizes him. They sit down for coffee. She talks at length of the joyful era of Nazi rule for her as a schoolgirl. She tells the story of her father, who had joined the Nazi Party and been an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler within the family, then suddenly ceased to be. Why? She didn’t learn for a couple of years, she says, and relates what her father told her then. She says:

    Our family had been vacationing in Munich that June of 1934. And on June 30th, just one day before we were supposed to go back to Düsseldorf, something awful happened …

    Engelmann continues in his own words (as translated by Krishna Winston):

    It was on this day that Hitler had his old guard liquidated: Ernst Röhm, supreme commander of the SA, the only friend with whom he used the intimate du form of address, as well as at least 150 high-ranking members of the SA were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and driven to their place of execution, where they were put up against a wall without execution and shot. The victims also included […, …, …], as well as well as many others who were killed either for revenge or because they knew too much about Hitler’s past and his private life. One of them was […]. Another was the priest Bernhard Stempfle, who had helped Hitler write Mein Kampf. In all, hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, were murdered between 30 June and 1 July. But in a speech before the Reichstag on 13 July Hitler announced that sixty-one persons had been shot, among them nineteen ‘high-ranking SA members’; another thirteen had lost their lives ‘resisting arrest’, and three had ‘committed suicide’, making a total of seventy-seven dead.

    The connection with Marga’s father is that one of his friends by chance had the same name as an SA member and those who rounded him up did no other identify check. His frantic wife rushed everywhere for help including to him, Marga’s father, which is why for them on that day “something awful” happened and her father’s adoration for Hitler turned into disgust.

    That’s all I know. If you want to quarrel with “all the same”, go ahead.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  1399. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “As to “Incy” being well-read on WW2, please see his comment #1348. He “proves” his knowledge of the 1934 putsch in Austria with a page each from Jew Peter Longerich’s biographies of Goebbels and Himmler, which he read using Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature on their website ads.”

    Really, panty-twist–troll Carolyn?

    This is only a contest because you can’t refute points noted. You haven’t read Longerich, Volker Ullrich, Thomas Childers, Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Joachim Fest, Antony Beevor, Michael Burleigh, Nicolas Stargardt, etc. I have. Thus your desperate attempt to project your ignorance on others that may indeed not have read them. Ignorance is bliss, and, in your case, your livelihood.

    Here’s what you retreated from answering by calling me “repulsive”, a devil” and the rest of you mind-fart stock phrases (third request):

    • Why did Dollfuß putsch conspirators meet with Hitler at Bayreuth 22 Jul 1934?
    • Why did Göbbels write “Austrian question. Will it work? I’m very skeptical” [Tagebücher 22 Jul 1934];
    • Why did Hitler brief Generalmajor Walther von Reichenau (Chief, Wehrmacht Office in the War ministry) on the “immanent Austrian question”
    • Why did Dollfuß murderers request safe-passage to Germany if they were “independent”?
    • Why, if Dollfuß was killed by “random gunfire” (Carolyn’s unsourced assertion), was the SS squad indicted/tried/convicted of murder?
    • Why did masterminds Habicht and Pfeiffer report to Hitler at Bayreuth 26 Jul 1934?
    • If Habicht was independent, how could Hitler dismiss him and dissolve the Austrian NSDAP?

    That’s just on Austria and Dolfuß 1934. Never really asked you why Hitler/Göbbels sent a telegram to patsy Seyss-Inquart 11 Mar 1938 for the latter to resend (verbatim) inviting German intervention.

    If intervention was natively desired, Carolyn, why did Berlin Nazis write their own ticket?

    Doubtless you’ll call me a devil, vermin, and the rest. Go for it.

  1400. turtle says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Nuremberg trial

    The title of this article is:
    “Understanding World War II.”
    It is not “Understanding the Aftermath of World War II.”
    The Nuremberg Tribunals were part of the aftermath, not part of the war.*

    Why do you wish to change the subject?

    *Unless, of course, you hold with the British “black propagandists” (reference upthread) who assert the war (against Germany) will never be over, until there are no more Germans, and no more Germany.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1401. @Incitatus

    Pointless arguing.

    Name calling? Right here you call me “panty-twist–troll” and “mind-fart stock phrases.” That’s much worse than ‘devil’ and ‘repulsive’ (speaking of which you certainly are using repulsive language, and did right from the start, too.)

    Refuting points? You’ve refuted nothing. You give book authors names without any refutation or quotes attached. I refuted what Longerich claimed (very little and all hearsay). You never supplied the many references he used … clearly because you don’t have the books, or (less likely) because you don’t want them known.

    You say, “You haven’t read these books. I have.” But not a shred of evidence that you have. LOL.

    Answer your questions yourself if you think they’re important. I don’t. You are making a claim for which there is no proof anywhere. That’s why most historians don’t make the assertions you’re making. Quote them with book titles and page numbers if you really believe they do. You did it for Longerich because you found it on Amazon, where I found it too. Lol. LOL! You’re a laughing stock.

  1402. @Incitatus

    Doubtless you’ll call me a devil, vermin, and the rest. Go for it.

    I have never called you or anyone “vermin.” This is a good example of how you operate, sticking lies in with something true, and putting words in your opponents’ mouths. Yes. pretty repulsive.

  1403. @turtle

    You confuse me. I search in vain for “black propagandists”. Otherwise: you are kidding aren’t you? Isn’t what Speer did before Germany’s surrender patt of WW2?

    • Replies: @turtle
  1404. turtle says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You are dodging my question.

    The title of this article is:
    “Understanding World War II.”
    It is not “Understanding the Aftermath of World War II.”
    The Nuremberg Tribunals were part of the aftermath, not part of the war.*

    Why do you wish to change the subject?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1405. Anonymous[729] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I simply cannot believe that Ron could be charged with anything as serious as sedition if he published his views in Germany.

    I consider it extremely likely. It would be considered “Volksverhetzung”. Nebulous as the term is on purpose; same with hate-speech. And I think the immense power of the J-lobby would swing the charge in favor of a conviction. Germar Rudolf also reported that a judge who just wanted to give him a lower sentence, felt that he had his hands bound, because he feared the ‘public outcry’ (media power) wielded against him. And if it can happen to David Irving, it could absolutely happen to Ron Unz. At best his fate would be similar to that of Ariel Toaff.

    One can, of course, always try. Gilad Atzmon manages to publish in Europe, too, after all. But I would only do it with the finest lawyers can buy.

    And given that the Unz Review also published some holocaust revisionists, the charge might be even more severe. In any case: I see no likely chance that the Unz Review could legally publish in Germany or much of Europe. Which is why the US first amendment and free internet are of such vital importance. And why they are besieged by the establishment, the lobby, the deep state, the cathedral.

    You report of Germany from even before the Wirtschaftswunder and the circle of people you met there. That is, I assume, almost seventy years ago now. Germany today, as a state, culture and people is dramatically different from those times. It doesn’t surprise me that back then you met people who didn’t have (collective) guilt or felt no connection to the National Socialists.

    Several things are important to understand: Right at the end of WW2, the USA knew the conflict with the Soviet Union was immediate and needed West-Germany as a buffer state. Naturally it needed to be strong, armed and rebuilt. Especially in the Konrad Adenauer and Kurt Georg Kiesinger years, which are now considered reactionary years of burgoise fascism by the dominant left, the collective negative identity of Germans was not in full dominance yet. Germans as the people “who made Auschwitz possible” or “synthetic evil of humanity” or “a history of antisemitic villains from Luther, over Nietzsche to Hitler”. Just as Wehrmacht generals were used to built the Bundeswehr and BND, while today the Wehrmacht is fully demonized since at least the 90s, the exhibition of “Verbrechen der Wehrmacht” and Goldhagens book Hitler’s Willing Executioners.

    [MORE]

    The collective guilt in Germany as a tool to cultural hegemony of the political class rose parallel to the rise of the politically correct left, the 1968ers, which rose parallel to the holocaust industry and the increasing cultural and political Americanization. In my opinion they were more important than the official de-nazification and immediate after-war propaganda by the allies. Which were only carried out to a certain extent for the reason mentioned above. Today’s propaganda is also way more refined. Although they did interlock. And both the trans-atlantic networks today, its political class and the far left ideologoues are extremly harmful to my country.

    Especially Herbert Marcuse and other Berkely radicals met a willing German gentile host in the 60s, ready to enact a second communist revolution with different means to bring about religious utopia, Rudi Dutschke thought in this patterns and mixed it with Tolstois Christian anarchism. Just as they were actually being used as a golem to really finish the nation for good. Useful idiots indeed. But largely successful.

    Their most “precious gift” are the Anti-Germans. Individuals who were systematically bread to be racial enemies of their own people and race. Julia Schramm, a Bomber Harris and Morgenthau fan girl was employed by the Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung, a partially state funded NGO, to patrol facebook for hate-speech. This NGO is lead by Anetta Kahane(Cohen), a Jewish communist and former Stasi informant: IM/Informeller Mitarbeiter. “Sauerkraut Kartoffelbrei – Bomber Harris feuer frei!”

    Sure enough the internet yields plenty of material on German antifa like her. The second image in the line is from #bombergate which involved her and an accomplice.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bomber+harris+do+it+again&t=opera&iax=images&ia=images

    I also think the increasingly non-European and non-gentile character of the current US elite plays a significant role, both in the USA and Europe; especially given the baggage of politically charged victimology, anti-German and anti-white European in nature, they carry. Ron Unz wrote about it in nature of anti-semitism and the frenzied clusters who concentrate on the leverages of information-warfare and political power.

    It is true that today you will also find Germans who reject collective guilt. To my surprise I even met a social democrat voter who knew perfectly well that WW2 had been forced upon us and its historical narrative was used to keep us down (and the empire up). Why he then voted one of the parties which fosters to this day the guilt as a weapon against its own nation the most, was beyond me.

    But indeed Germany feels like the center of an Empire in which the first people to be colonized are its own subjects. A country in which 36% of people under the age of 18 already have a migration background, which thus would be the countries future. Excluding all further immigration and demographic shifts from low native German birthrates, higher MENA and subsaharan African birthrates. Which are significant.

    The development from post-war Germany to what it is today was a long and a huge transformation indeed. And certainly too long for this comment section.

    But considering Speer and Wernher von Braun: “Die Kleinen hängt man, die Großen fängt man!” “You hang the small ones and catch the big ones.” Valuable lesson for anyone who wants to survive the coming days of racial hatred against Germans, white Europeans and dare I say, gentiles: Make yourself invaluable! So the powers think twice, if they hang or catch you.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Wizard of Oz
  1406. Anonymous[729] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Having said all of that, I just now read Mr. Unz article on the ADL again. https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    In which Ron effectively mocked them as he bitch-slapped them around and deconstructed them from their foundations to their current practices. Quite a funny and entertaining read! A sight to behold. The conclusion and twist at the end was quite clever as well.

    And I think, it’s important that the American Pravda series is at least translated into German, French and Japanese.

    I assume, if the translations are published on the Unz Review, European or Japanese laws should not apply. Although I suspect it might be possible to restrict access to the site domestically, once a certain ammount of traffic was reached. Which hasn’t been done to the Occidental Observer and its translations. But it is also a far smaller site.

    However, if a series with identical content were to be produced, published and hosted in and by Germans, it should prove to be much more difficult. Having losely followed the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, John Demjanjuk, Horst Mahler, Nikolai Nerling aka “Der Volkslehrer” and not the least David Irving and Leo Frank cases, political leverage, media power and skill of lawyers, choice of judges, finances seems to be more important than a non-existant objective science of law. And laws, too, can be changed, if the trial does not produce the desired outcome. Case in point: the Ernst Zündel trials. Since then, it is even ruled illegal to use evidence to defend yourself against charges of holocaust denial, because of the “Offenkundigkeit” of the event.

    Now, it would be the next logical and most entertaining step for our American Banzai! Journalist to take on the German and European ADL equivalents and the J-Lobby as a whole. Ron Unz should be experienced, well read and connected and wealthy enough to get the job done, if he were to dedicate his bright and learned mind to the task.

    • Replies: @Fox
  1407. Fox says:
    @Anonymous

    Disclaimer:
    “Volksverhetzung” is in English “Public Incitement”, in Germany a criminal offence.
    While, for example, it is not “Public Incitement” for Daniel Godhagen to posit a genetically based hatred of Jews in Germans (“Hitler’s Willing Executioners”), it is Public Incitement to state that the Six Million figure is a made-up number that has symbolic meaning in Judaism. Goldhagen was bestowed the highest medal the Federal Republic of Germany has in its ammunition clip, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf went to prison for sting publically that they thought that this number was unreal. Even chemical analyses count as Public Incitement if they are in disagreement with the maniacal tantrums of FRG officialdom.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  1408. @Anonymous

    Interesting and, of course, very well informed. I am in no position to quibble. Except on the minor point that my pre Wirtschaftwunder [not 70 years: I’m not really ancient!] friends were actually inclined to accept the responsibility of all Germans for Nazi atrocities.

    And on one other pedantic matter. Ron might well be charged with some crime for his admirable publication but it surely wouldn’t be sedition.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Anonymous
  1409. @turtle

    1. Have you read anything but the title? It seems not, or you have gotten the discursive subject matter of the article.
    2. i did reply by reference to Albert Speer being an important player in WW2 so… no change of subject, and
    3. So, what, it is a conversation which may or may not be opened up to shafts of lights from different angles – to tje tadye of some but not all.

    • Troll: L.K
  1410. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The charge would be Public Incitement, a rubber paragraph used for everything to to with “politics of history” (a notion of common regime parlance in the FRG) to be criminalized. Without declarations of loyalty to the regime and its ideology, and without avoiding to critically address the major topic (you know what that is) criminal charges and most likely prison would be unavoidable. All, of course, accompanied with cant about freedom, free expression, and the like.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  1411. Giuseppe says:

    Another American Pravda article fully exposes yet more long-standing imperial myths and lies. Ron Unz is a national treasure.

  1412. Bookish1 says:
    @Miggle

    The truth is that Roehm and a number of his followers planned to kill Hitler and his closest followers but the vast majority of the SA were dedicated supporters of Hitler. So Roehm told those loyal supporters of Hitler that they planned on killing the people that were threatening Hitler to gain support of the SA. A lie of course. After Hitler had Roehm and his immediate followers shot the remaining SA men all showed their loyal support of Hitler which they always had felt. If a few innocent men got shot with Roehm and his fellow traitors that happens. Mistakes happen sometimes.

  1413. You don’t know what to believe these days, although the sports results are usually accurate.

  1414. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fox

    Goldhagen was bestowed the highest medal the Federal Republic of Germany has in its ammunition clip

    I couldn’t find him on the list for recipients of the Bundesverdienstkreuz, but Steven Spielberg is in it. I believe to remember, that it was for Schindler’s list. And of course Spielberg founded the Shoah foundation, was much of the money behind the process to destroy David Irving, has his very own pedophilia rumors/scandals and is also very active to rally against the AfD and the threat it allegedly proposes for the “revival of fascism”.

    It is the peculiar nation of the current German political establishment and left-liberal mainstream media, to revel in guilt. They are addicted to it like a heroin addict is to his drug. But I have, and this is an important point, the strong suspicion that it is equaly a US-imperialist tool, especially in historical context, to keep the Germans down and the USA on top, but also a tool of cultural colonialism.

    The dual-nature of Adenauer and his times was that he considered himself and identified with the Allies. Thus he and “the good Germans” triumphed over the evils of fascism at the side of the USA and he also quickly sought the West-Bindung through NATO. But today, in our 68er establishment world, that is still not good enough and “proto-fascist” because the holocaust is not fully considered the foundational myth of that republic which was actually founded at Villa Rothschild… Adenauer even dared to scandalize Ben Gurion’s allegations of German collective guilt. — Times have radically changed indeed…

    And the law is the whore of politics? Yes, it is very much so when it comes to the ongoing spiritual and physical occupation of my country and the continuation of Nuremberg Trial like show trials. Like those for holocaust revisionists. — But to be quite frank with you: the personal defending them, often the costume Neo-Nazi parade or underclass is not attractive either. But I suppose the learned and established people there could be are afraid to lose everything. And there are not many Alain Sorals, Gerard Menuhins and Germar Rudolfs in this world indeed.

  1415. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fox

    Yes, you are correct. It was a translation mistake on my part apparently, or rather on the dictionary I used to look up the word, which hasn’t really an equivalent in US law. Althought pressure groups of a peculiar ethnic persuasion try to get it with the anti-semitism bill, condemning white supremacy bill and all the rest of it.

    The lobby interests are the same. Embodied also by the ADL and SPLC. Fortunately the USA first amendment (and the second one) still stand. For now.

    While in this part of the world we fully realize the Grundgesetz to be the constitution of occupation.

  1416. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    my pre Wirtschaftwunder [not 70 years: I’m not really ancient!] friends were actually inclined to accept the responsibility of all Germans for Nazi atrocities.

    An abominable view. Even given the official narrative of WW2 which was put to scrutiny by articles such as the very one we are commenting under.

    Why?

    1. A population is never, especially not fully, responsible for the actions of their political leadership. Especially not under a dictatorship. IF it was so, ALL Americans would be responsible for millions of civilian casualties in the Middle East by now; for Hillary Clinton murdering Gadaffi and handing Libya to Al-Queda; for the almost genocidal policies of the Iraq sanctions which killed at least 800,000 children and possibly more.

    2. Hitler never got more than 33% of the votes. And a good deal of people opposing Hitler were politically repressed.

    3. The Wehrmacht was an honorable army; the war effort in general just part of an especially bloody part of general human war history. And this was seen as common historical sense up until the 90s, even here. Although it probably didn’t count for the political establishment. – The Historikerstreik was probably the first publicly visible power grab of the New Left, which had already established itself. And in it you could also see the inter-locking of interests of US-Imperialism and the New Left. I think Habermas’ rationalization was that German guilt was the only thing linking Germany to the USA and preventing the rise of German nationalism. – It’s a simplification for this comment of course.

    4. It completely washes away the immense and monstruous atrocities committed against the German people, especially the civilian population. Including my own family. Who were Sudetengermans.

    This is Albright’s father by the way:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Korbel

    Quote: “Korbel served as an advisor to Edvard Beneš, in the Czech government in exile.”

    I assume he was directly influencing the genocidal policies of total ethnic cleansing committed against the Sudetengermans, in a similar fashion Morgenthau did.

    “Korbel returned to Czechoslovakia after the war, receiving a luxurious Prague apartment expropriated from Karl Nebrich, a Bohemian German industrialist expelled under the Beneš decrees.” What a coincidence!

    5. The strong indications that the Allied War Propaganda concerning The Third Reich, Hitler, National Socialism, The Second World War and including the fate of the Jews in Europe, are likely false, exaggerated and twisted, or omit very important facts. See this article and the Pravda Series in general.

    But I am not surprised on the other hand. There is a certain coldness in this “morality”. It’s the code of the collaborator. And given that my grandparents were met after their deportation in Germany with terms like “Kartoffelkäfer” which means something like “pest” and “parasite” by other ethnic Germans, there obviously is a limit to kinship and loyalty. White nationalists believe in illusions.

    And there will never be justice, or freedom, or simply safety for the German people as long as both the US empire and the deranged neo-liberal ideologues and traitors sit ontop of this nation. The world of Bach, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, Planck and so many others; the most modern and honorable nation, the 2nd Reich of Bismarck, ruined to a rotting dung heap of nihilism, leftism, (self-)hatred in a decapitated, amputated, deeply poisoned and occupied state. Because it dared to resist the very powers who own and control the world today.

    Menuhin called those years HUMANITY’S LAST GRASP FOR FREEDOM
    https://www.holocausthandbooks.com/dl/978-1-59148-141-6-TellTruthShameDevil-2nd-LowRes.pdf

    And you wonder why an ethnic Jew of all people would write that about these years. What sounds so unbelievable, so alien to our ears today. But as I followed and still follow him and others down this rabbit hole, old certainties erode around me and so are the pillars of this world order…

    But the lobby is hard at work to shut it down https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/alain-soral-sentenced-to-2-years-jail-for-sharing-gilets-jaunes-anti-rothschild-rap-video/

    and so are the hasbara trolls in the comment sections…

  1417. Jutta says:

    Dear Mr. Unz,
    as a German, born in Berlin 1940, and accordingly indoctrinated it took me sixty-five years until I started to listen to a different narrative and it took two Jewish people, both very esteemed, for me not to shut down the conversation immediately. Because they were Jews they had, in my view. a right to be listened to. In my country one cannot utter the slightest doubt of the official narrative without people looking aghast and getting very uncomfortable should one follow up with a second sentence. I have never tried more than that.
    Unfortunately, I have helped indoctrinate my sons the same way and, of course, they reacted with incredulity when I first mentioned I’m no longer convinced that what we are by law ordered to believe are indeed the facts. As yet I haven’t ventured any further.
    I cannot overstate how much I thank and bless you for the work you are doing here.

  1418. Dear Jutta,

    I am an American living in Japan but now in the beautiful German countryside. You have a beautiful culture and a heritage of which to be proud. I am currently staying in an Inn which was constructed before the founding of the country of my birth. The people here are very friendly, earnest, and seem to be an honest and hard working lot.

    I do believe the Holocaust did occur but I question the numbers portrayed in the official narrative. My grandfather was part of the allied group that went to Buchenwald in 1945. My grandfather in his old age said what he saw was tragic but also held the belief that the numbers of those killed was “highly exaggerated”. He was a quiet and pragmatic man.

    The fact that questioning these numbers may be illegal is a travesty (imagine what that could lead to….). I think certain groups of people (Jews and non Jewish) have taken advantage of this situation to further their agenda. In addition I believe people like Merkel are counting on white guilt to allow a continued polluting and destruction of the white race. It is interesting to see some small towns here where Africans have been imported and how the Africans seem to be unwilling to adapt to the country giving them refuge (another topic but perhaps related).

    WWII was a terrible time for the world. There are times I fear that another great war will be upon us soon and it will be the most important war in the history of humanity.

  1419. I have heard it all explained as a balance of power struggle. Over 200 years worth of wars.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  1420. Ron Unz says:

    I’m pleased to announce that I’ve now added a copy of the John Wear book to our HTML Book collection:

    https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1421. Seraphim says:
    @bailintheboat

    If you take the ‘Long view’ of History, it is rather 1000+ years of war.

  1422. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Understanding World War II?
    Ron Unz doesn’t understand World War I, so that’s impossible.

  1423. JAhd says:

    were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants

    were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants

    were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants

    were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants

  1424. “Friendly Fire explores the intrigue and treachery between – and within – the nations that were ostensibly allies during the Second World War. It demonstrates the extent to which the Allied war effort was driven by vested interests primarily concerned with the balance of power in the post-war world rather than the defeat of Germany and Japan. These machinations prolonged the duration of the war by as much as two years and the end results were a Europe divided between East and West, and the onset of the Cold War.

    Among the many revelations, we learn how, for its own economic ends, the Roosevelt administration actively encouraged the hostilities war between Britain and Germany, and how Anglo-American relations during the Second World War were characterised by suspicion, mistrust and a struggle for future supremacy. The authors detail how British agents tricked Hitler into declaring war on the US in order to bring America into the European conflict and how, under the guise of war aid, the US gave the USSR the means to establish itself as a world superpower – including, from 1943, the secrets of the atom bomb.

    Friendly Fire is based on extensive research undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic and contains information obtained from important archives and the testimonies of those individuals actively involved in the events. It relays the shocking truth about now-legendary figures – Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin – who actively shaped the destiny of countless millions, and details the real agenda behind the formation of the post-war world and the consequences for us all.”

  1425. Corvinus says:

    Contrary to the diatribe of Paul Craig Roberts, the fact of the matter is that World War II began when Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, sought to militarily nationalize the economy and lay waste to perceived agitators of German purity. The declaration of war on Germany by Great Britain and France was the culmination of several aggressive actions and outright diplomatic treachery, including a secret deal with a rival that enabled Germany to invade Poland, a sovereign nation. Hitler invaded Denmark, France, and Czechoslovakia to secure land and resources for his nation. Churchill and FDR supported Polish efforts to maintain their rightful claim to territory. Germany was the aggressor with conquest of Europe as its prize under the guise of rescuing German people from persecution. The Polish government’s alleged mistreatment of both Germans and Russians served as the impetus for Hitler and Stalin to claim that their hands were forced. The line had been drawn in the sand by Great Britain and France, and Germany crossed it.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Alexandros
  1426. Fox says:
    @Corvinus

    This is another rehash of the endless “Hitler – Bad, Allies -Good!” distortion of reality.
    There is a clear historical development that led to the outbreak of war between Poland and Germany. Poland had within its borders a large German population, concentrated along its western border; & Poland pursued a chauvinistic, small-minded, mean anti-German policy against its German citizens. In addition, it thought that the German city of Danzig was Polish.
    Comparing common democratic and bolshevic reasons for going to war with the German campaign in Poland, I find that ending Polish terrorism against its German citizens (and that goes from murder, arson, mutilation to closing of schools, not recognizing German diplomas (from the time when Poland did not exist), confiscation of German belongings and real estate to forbidding to read mass in German) supplied a good reason to put a stop to the arrogant, megalomaniac and delusional behavior against the Germans who had been put against their will under Polish sovereignty. For you, “alleged”, but for the news agencies of the day and the diplomatic notes, a reality.
    Remember Grenada, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines, Yugoslavia and their democratic attackers? Or Hungary, Afghanistan, Czecho-Slovakia, the latter in in 1968, this time it was the gallant erstwhile ally of the Democracies?
    Had France not declared war on Germany, no German soldier would have set foot on French soil.
    When German troops occupied Prague, Czecho-Slovakia had already not existed anymore, it had disintegrated through the secession of Slovakia and Ruthenia. The occupation of the remaining Czechia took place on the express agreement of that state (insofar it enjoyed legality, unlike the unprovoked attack of England on Norway, the occupation of Greenland, Iceland or the invasion of Morocco and Algeria by you know whom). As the Protectorate Czechia fared very well during the war and was spared the brainless destruction desired by Churchill and Roosevelt.
    Hitler had become Chancellor in order to eliminate the bestial Treaty of Versailles. The provisions of this document were presented to Germany for signature, it had no input whatsoever. Since the beneficiaries of it were to arrogant to make even minor concessions when they could do so, Hitler outwitted, outmanoeuvred and outpowered them, and they didn’t like to let go of their ill-gotten claims.
    For this reason, Hitler will always deserve respect for his strength, intelligence and willpower to attempt to right this world-historic wrong, while the beneficiaries will forever carry the stain of dishonor, avarice, lack of intelligence and unbelievable meanness with them. An eternity last pretty long.
    The result of the world-historic stupidity of the people who authored the treaty of Versailles, and those who wanted to maintain this criminal and immoral dictate at all costs, even at the price of a world war (fill in your heroes’ names here), is becoming evident in the regression of the western world, the steep decline of Europe as the origin of modern civilization into a feeble, aimless and barren consumer society that allows itself to be stepped on by anyone. Not to forget the further achievement of establishing the death religion that is being installed as a soul-killing cult.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  1427. Dear Ron

    as to Nazi-Zionist economic partnership you write:

    David Irving also uncovered the fascinating detail that the two largest German financial donors to the Nazis during their rise to power were both Jewish bankers, one of them being the country’s most prominent Zionist leader, though the motives involved were not entirely clear.

    The motives involved become clear when you read the book “Conjuring Hitler – how Britain and America made the Third Reich – ” by Guido Giacomo Preparata, an italian-american professor for economic history.

    Here a TIM’s interview on the book

    Best regards

    Maurizio Muston

    • Replies: @james charles
  1428. @Corvinus

    “Let me ignore all the information in the article and just regurgitate 80 year old propaganda instead”.

    Thanks for showing us who you really are.

  1429. Corvinus says:

    “Thanks for showing us who you really are”.

    Indeed, a man who is not buying into revisionist history.

  1430. Corvinus says:
    @Fox

    “This is another rehash of the endless “Hitler – Bad, Allies -Good!” distortion of reality.”

    That would be a strawman on your part. There is culpability on the part of Great Britain and France in relation to the Treaty of Versailles and its harsh terms. But as AJP Taylor noted in his work, Germany had the financial means to pay the war reparations, they simply chose not to, and Great Britain and France actions as appeasers had tremendous influence on Hitler’s conduct. In addition, there are historical phenomenon that led Germany to invade Poland, chiefly because of Polish unwillingness to acquiesce to his demand of territorial annexation. Indeed, there was Polish persecution of Germans on it western borders, but that had been in retaliation for German atrocities in the mid-1800’s by the Prussian regime.

    “I find that ending Polish terrorism against its German citizens (and that goes from murder, arson, mutilation to closing of schools, not recognizing German diplomas (from the time when Poland did not exist), confiscation of German belongings and real estate to forbidding to read mass in German) supplied a good reason to put a stop to the arrogant, megalomaniac and delusional behavior against the Germans who had been put against their will under Polish sovereignty. ”

    Do you hold the same anger for the German terrorism against its Jewish-German citizens (and that goes from murder, arson, mutilation to closing of schools, not recognizing Jewish diplomas, confiscation of Jewish-German belongings and real estate to forbidding to read the Torah in their own synagogues?

    When Poland became an independent state after World War I, there were multiple areas where the population was mixed (German and Polish). So in this early phase, a number of Germans found themselves suddenly in a “foreign land”, surrounded by Poles who (sometimes violently) changed the administration from German to Polish. However, the situation normalized. When the Nazi government came into power, Hitler was clear that the existence of the Polish state was intolerable, and accusations of constant attacks on Germans—some legitimate, others completely falsified—living there enabled justification for invasion.

    “Had France not declared war on Germany, no German soldier would have set foot on French soil.”

    You are speculating here.

    “Hitler had become Chancellor in order to eliminate the bestial Treaty of Versailles. The provisions of this document were presented to Germany for signature, it had no input whatsoever. Since the beneficiaries of it were to arrogant to make even minor concessions when they could do so…”

    No argument on my part here.

    “Hitler outwitted, outmanoeuvred and outpowered them, and they didn’t like to let go of their ill-gotten claims.”

    In large part due to British and French appeasement, and a lack of foresight that Hitler represented a danger to the stability of the European continent.

    “For this reason, Hitler will always deserve respect for his strength, intelligence and willpower to attempt to right this world-historic wrong…”

    OR, he could have led the nation to prominence without blaming squarely the Jews and insisting on using the cudgel of invasion to accomplish his aims.

    “The result of the world-historic stupidity of the people who authored the treaty of Versailles, and those who wanted to maintain this criminal and immoral dictate at all costs…”

    To the victor goes the spoils, right? That is, unfortunately, human nature. But for every choice comes consequences.

    “the steep decline of Europe as the origin of modern civilization into a feeble, aimless and barren consumer society that allows itself to be stepped on by anyone.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    • Replies: @Phil_from_NJ
  1431. Arnieus says:
    @Paul

    The notion that Hitler, only a few years after saving Germany from starvation and restoring a stable peaceful country would set out to conquer the world with the smallest military in Europe is illogical. The inbred dynastic banker clans ruling the west were determined to destroy a newly prosperous Germany before populations in the West started wondering why they were still mired in the great depression. My father worked in the Civilian Conservation Core and sent 90 percent of his earnings home to feed 8 younger siblings. The last thing the bankers wanted was for men like him to begin to understand the predatory nature of the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine the horror for the bankers when Germany so unexpectedly knocked France out of the war in a couple months.

  1432. Certainly Roosevelt, Churchill, and their (((handlers))) contributed to the instigation, perpetuation, and expansion of WWII. But that doesn’t allow the logical fallacy that Hitler was blameless. Hitler’s foreign policy amounted to sheer brinkmanship. He was successful with the Anschluss and the Sudetenland, but after that he was pushing his luck. He should have committed to prolonged negotiations for Gdansk. Instead, it was the height of folly to make a treaty with the monstrous (((Bolsheviks))) of the USSR and invade Poland. Added to invasions of the Low Countries, Norway, and France, Hitler’s peace overtures could only be treated with the utmost skepticism. In short, Hitler was terrible at foreign policy, his excuses notwithstanding. He waltzed himself into Hell with Churchill as his dance partner.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  1433. Anyone wanting a quick and relatively concise education on WAR should watch the excellent
    video available on YouTube, called “All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars” –

    Brad Anbro (my real name)

  1434. Half Back says:

    Ron,
    Thought you may like this Russian insider article/Press Conference V.Putin with new information the origins of ww2.
    https://russia-insider.com/en/professor-putin-gives-great-ww2-history-lecture-room-full-neighboring-presidents-transcript-video.
    President Putin lays it out that Poland and their disastrous foreign Minister Mr Beck was a primary cause of WW2.

  1435. @Corvinus

    “Do you hold the same anger for the German terrorism against its Jewish-German citizens (and that goes from murder, arson, mutilation to closing of schools, not recognizing Jewish diplomas, confiscation of Jewish-German belongings and real estate to forbidding to read the Torah in their own synagogues?”

    Yawwwnnn… You’re repeating kosher fabrications and lies.

    World Jewry was the one who started the fight with Third Reich Germany–not the other way around. They are the ones to blame for any and all discomforts experienced by their lesser Jewish brethren.

    Compared to what the Jewish Bolsheviks did to the Gentiles in Russia and surrounding countries after they seized power, Third Reich Germans were down-right hospitable to Jews. They just wanted them to leave Germany hence the restrictions. Period.

    You need to do better research if you’re going to get involved in debating this topic and expect not to look like an ignoramus whose parroting the victors’ and Jewish (incorrect and biased) version of history.

    “Judea Declares War on Germany.” – Daily Express (March 24, 1933)

    The above declaration was before any Jew was sent to a concentration camp, before any restrictions were placed on Jews (for good reason) removed from government, academia, etc., before the 1935 Nuremburg Race Laws which Jews had collaborated on with the so-called “Nazis” on which forms the basis of Israel’s “right to return” law down to this very day, etc.

    “The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…

    — Vladimir Jabotinsky in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)

    “Germany’s unforgivable ‘crime’ (my emphasis–Phil) before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the (((world-finance))) couldn’t profit any more.”

    –Winston Churchill, The Second World War (Book by Winston Churchill, Bern, 1960)

    “America is dead, murdered by Jews in the imposition of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which produced the Great Depression in 1929, the theft of America’s gold by Franklin Roosevelt in 1929, the deliberate creation of World War II by stifling Japanese oil and getting them to attack Pearl Harbor, the reason for which was to declare war against Germany, which had been rescued by Adolf Hitler from the Jewish takeover of his country after World War I.

    –John Kaminski

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1436. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:

    Ron if you do not post my comment then at least read the 2books listed below and Eustace Mullins
    links to his excerpts from his books, thank you.

    The version of WW2 we have been presented is a false one, carefully constructed and contrived to deceive , the truth is shocking beyond belief.
    David Irvings Hitlers War and Churchills War are good and are freely downloadable at his publishers
    fpp.co.uk he had to create his own publishing company as no one would print his work as it would puncture even if only in a small way the bubble of history we live in today.

    The following representations of history appertaining WW1 WW2 and more recent history written in 1952 1958 and by Eustace Mullins from that period until his death in 2011 corroborate their findings even though they lived in different countries and did not meet as far as I am aware.
    Captain Archibald H. Maule Ramsay was imprisoned by Churchill without charge and was released only after the outcome of WW2 was beyond doubt 5 Years later.

    Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained,
    without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September,
    1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons
    and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.

    Archibald Maule Ramsey The Nameless War

    https://ia800500.us.archive.org/9/items/TheNamelessWar_105/TheNamelessWar.pdf

    Quote.
    Hitler laid it down, that the British Empire was an essential element of
    stability in the world ; and even declared himself ready to defend it with troops,
    if it should be involved in difficulties anywhere.

    Louis Marschalko was a Hungarian that escaped to the US after WW2 before the Communists arrived.

    [MORE]

    Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, ex-commandant of the American torpedo flotilla stationed at Pearl Harbour, in his book published under the title The Real Secret of Pearl Harbour, exposes how Roosevelt prepared and provoked this attack against the U.S. With a series of irrefutable proofs Rear-Admiral Theobald establishes that Roosevelt himself brought about the catastrophe of Pearl Harbour. On November 26th, 1941, he sent such an insulting note to Japan that she was left with no other choice but to attack. “With the help of the note of November 26th,” states Admiral Theobald, “President Roosevelt purposely and irrevocably unleashed the war for the United States. Japan’s attempt to avoid the stranglehold was without success. She had either to surrender or to fight, and there was no doubt about her choice.” Despite the fact that American Intelligence had acquired the secret code of the Japanese fleet several months earlier, so that the American High Command knew in advance of every movement of this fleet, the Commandant of Pearl Harbour received no message at all, informing him that, due to the outcome of diplomatic negotiations, a Japanese attack was imminent. As much as four weeks earlier the chiefs-of-staff knew very well that the Japanese intended to overrun Pearl Harbour. They even knew the exact hour the Japanese warships and carriers left their home ports to attack Pearl Harbour. They succeeded even in intercepting the secret Japanese telegram containing the text of the declaration of war and commanding at the same time that this declaration was to be handed over to the White House at the exact time the first bombs were falling on Pearl Harbour. This catastrophe could have been averted easily, but President Roosevelt eagerly awaited the attack. He expressly forbade the American fleet to leave Pearl Harbour. Four thousand, five hundred and seventy-five unprotected American soldiers died, eighteen ships, amongst them four great American warships, were destroyed. But Roosevelt and those standing behind him attained their aim! [Page 87] “I say to you fathers and mothers again… again, and again, your sons shall not be sent to die on foreign soil unless attacked!” booms the promise of “our President” amid the thunder of the bombs falling on Pearl Harbour.
    ………………………………………………………………….

    Two years later, the thirty-one-year-old Rabbi Korff, one of the
    leaders of the Stern terrorist organisation, lead a march of 600
    fanatical rabbis to Washington, where as their spokesman he
    demanded that on account of events in Palestine, the United States
    should drop another atomic bomb — on London. Rabbi Korff openly
    threatened Washington’s successor with the power of world Jewry.
    (“The Jews Have Got The Atom Bomb”, page 3, edited by Gerald K.
    Smith.)

    https://archive.org/details/TheWorldConquerors-TheRealWarCriminals1958

    Eustace Mullins researched a great deal and devoted his life to uncovering the truth.

    A UNITED NATIONS PROJECT

    In May of 1945, the architects of postwar strategy, or, as they liked to call themselves, the “Masters of the Universe”, gathered in San Francisco at the plush Palace Hotel to write the Charter for the United Nations. Several of the principals retired for a private meeting in the exclusive Garden Room. The head of the United States delegation had called this secret meeting with his top aide, Alger Hiss, representing the president of the United States and the Soviet KGB; John Foster Dulles, of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, whose mentor, William Nelson Cromwell, had been called a “professional revolutionary” on the floor of Congress; and W. Averill Harriman, plenipotentiary extraordinary, who had spent the last two years in Moscow directing Stalin’s war for survival. These four men represented the awesome power of the American Republic in world affairs, yet of the four, only Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr., had a position authorized by the Constitution. Stettinius called the meeting to order to discuss an urgent matter; the Japanese were already privately suing for peace, which presented a grave crisis. The atomic bomb would not be ready for several more months. “We have already lost Germany,” Stettinius said. “If Japan bows out, we will not have a live population on which to test the bomb.”

    “But, Mr. Secretary,” said Alger Hiss, “no one can ignore the terrible power of this weapon.” “Nevertheless,” said Stettinius, “our entire postwar program depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb.” “To accomplish that goal,” said John Foster Dulles, “you will need a very good tally. I should say a million.” “Yes,” replied Stettinius, “we are hoping for a million tally in Japan. But if they surrender, we won’t have anything.” “Then you have to keep them in the war until the bomb is ready,” said John Foster Dulles. “That is no problem. Unconditional surrender.” “They won’t agree to that,” said Stettinius. “They are sworn to protect the Emperor.” “Exactly,” said John Foster Dulles. “Keep Japan in the war another three months, and we can use the bomb on their cities; we will end this war with the naked fear of all the peoples of the world, who will then bow to our will.”

    Edward Stettinius Jr. was the son of a J.P. Morgan partner who had been the world’s largest munitions dealer in the First World War. He had been named by J.P. Morgan to oversee all purchases of munitions by both France and England in the United States throughout the war. John Foster Dulles was also an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guaranteed him the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co., and the Rothschilds. Alger Hiss was the golden prince of the communist elite in the united States. When he was chosen as head of the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after World War II, his nomination was seconded by John Foster Dulles. Hiss was later sent to prison for perjury for lying about his exploits as a Soviet espionage agent.

    This secret meeting in the Garden Room was actually the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world’s first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do. Thus we see that the New World Order has based its entire strategy on the agony of the hundreds of thousands of civilians burned alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including many thousands of children sitting in their schoolrooms. These leaders had learned from their master, Josef Stalin, that no one can rule without mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. As Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, was to say (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), “We have got to scare the hell out of “em.”

    http://whale.to/b//mullins8.html

    http://whale.to/b//mullins_a.html

    As an adjuncted to the above

    Thomas Goodrich has a book he has written called “Hellstorm”

    https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/

    The film is here.


    Audio only discussion

    https://insidetheeyelive.com/hellstorm-the-audio-book-with-tom-goodrich-and-paul-english-itel-5-18-19/

    http://thomasgoodrich.com/

    The first task of the Federal Reserve system would be to finance the World War. The European nations were already bankrupt, because they had maintained large standing armies for almost fifty years, a situation created by their own central banks, and therefore they could not finance a war. A central bank always imposes a tremendous burden on the nation for “rearmament” and “defense”, in order to create inextinguishable debt, simultaneously creating a military dictatorship and enslaving the people to pay the “interest” on the debt which the bankers have artificially created.
    Eustace Mullins

    Americans love their captivity. There’s no responsibility. When you’re a captive, you don’t have to make a decision about anything, though you have no Liberty. People don’t want Liberty. Liberty is nothing but uncertainty. It’s much easier to have someone tell you where you’ll be, what you’ll do and who you’ll pay tomorrow than to worry about it yourself. The same goes for what you think

    Eustace Mullins

    https://ww2truth.com/2019/03/19/the-crucifiction-of-german-women-the-testimony-of-captain-hermann-sommer/

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-allies-win-wwii-an-epic-orgy-of-torture-rape-pedophilia-coerced-prostitution-descends-upon-defenseless-german-civilians/

  1437. The New World Order

    To understand what is happening to the Christian world since the end of the eighteen century, it is worth reading “The protocols of the elder of Zion” and from Douglas Reed, “The controversy of Zion”, from John Beaty, “Iron curtain over America”, from Henry Ford, “The International Jew”. For better understanding of the WWII, it is a must to read from Victor Suvorov, “The chief culprit” and also the “Rakovsky’s revelations”.

    We are learning how a sect coming from Russia managed by talmudits, the guardians of the written and oral Torah launched them selves to the world conquest at the end of the nineteenth century, what this sect has achieved and its next objective. I made a résumé of what I have understood and have been adding the results of the time following the completion of the above books.

    The revolution and the Zionism are like the left and the right arm of one entity, named “The International Jew” by Henri Ford, whose objective is the fulfilment of the messianic promise: the Messiah’s comeback to Jerusalem and the destruction and enslavement of the gentiles. The Zionism is in charge of gathering the dispersed community, of fighting assimilation and digging a deep trench between them and the gentiles; using antisemitism as a tool to achieve its goal. The revolution is the weapon to destroy the strutures of the nation-states to be able to enslave their population.

    The arm of the revolution was the first one to become active, but in the underground, and thus no one can say whether it is the father or the son of the Illumnati from Weishaupt. The Zionism’s arm became active when the Entity took notice that the assimilation processus in the West could jeopardize their objective.

    [MORE]

    Since the first world war, the USA public services have been infiltrated by the agents of the revolution coming from Russia. Thus the President Roosevelt worked with Stalin to trigger the WWII to expand the revolution to the all world, to insure its sustainability. With material and financial support from the USA, Stalin was to take over all Europe, the British isles included and Roosevelt was supposed to crush the Japan Empire which had fustrated Jacob Schiff and thus was not compatible with the revolution.

    The plan was the following : Trigger a war in Europe involving the major nations which were supposed to exhaust them selves to facilitate Stalin’s intervention, to impose peace and turn those nations into the soviet system. To initiate the war, Germany with Hitler and with all its woes resulting from the Versailles treaty, was the easiest candidate, identified by Stalin, to bring to war. Roosevelt was put in charge of freezing all negotiations between Germany and all others european countries and after Munich, he ordered Beck, Chamberlain and Daladier to cut all relationships with Berlin. Then Stalin went to proposed Hitler some help to solve the Dantzig corridor issue by making another partition of Poland, and Hitler fell into the trap.

    As said before to Roosevelt, England declared war to Germany and France followed, but both closed their eyes about the USSR having taken half of Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Finland and Romania. In this plan, Poland was used as the detonator, Germany was trapped and France and England went to war without understanding that behind Germany, the real ennemy was hidding : the revolution with the USSR on one side and Roosevelt on the other side both working on behalf of the talmudic Entity.

    Actually, the plan did not worked as forecast. France and Britain were supposed to be able to carry a war of attrition against Germany and their early collapse came as a bad surprise. Furthermore, Hitler having understood as soon as december 1940 that he had been trapped and watching Stalin’s war preparations, realized that if he was not anticipating the coming russian’s invasion, Germany would be crushed by the russian steamroller in few weeks. Stalin underestimated Hitler’s daring and he lost the first leg between June 1941 and July 1942, and with it around 5 millions men. The overall picture was changed, Roosevelt would have to send to Europe some soldiers to allow Stalin to eliminate Hitler. Stalin could no more fulfil the objective of the revolution. He woud have to share with Roosevelt, Europe and this was the beginning of the end of the Communism.

    Then the cold war period was a time when the way to drive the world revolution had to be revisited. The talmudic entity which had triggered the world revolution had choosen in 1917 the Bolcheviks with the Communism. The experience and the failure of Staline with its brute force and the exposure, that Stalin, in the same way as Constantin took control over the Christianism, could take the control of the revolution, led that identity to understand that a world revolution on the type of a Menchevik socialism could yield better results.

    The Bolchevik method relied on gathering the masses and turn them in a sort of a steamroller to crush everything in front. The Menchevik method uses poisons to divide people, to ruin the middle class, to corrupt and pervert everyone, to blackmail everybody using spying and denouncement, to plunge people into confusion by cutting their roots in order that people commit self-destruction. That is the method used today.

    I don’t believe that the connivance between the talmudistes from the URSS and the USA broke at the end of the second world war. It was a transit period for the revolution from the bolcheviks in Russia to the mencheviks in the USA and the revolution changed its name to become “the New World Order” and the poison replaced the terror. This change did allow also to erase the apparent contradiction between the two arms of the talmudic entity; the communism being universal when the zionism is sectarian and nationalist. This contradiction with Israel terrorist behavior had become an issue to too many people.

    Douglas Reed did not saw this transition but before 2000, it was probably hard to notice it. The exposure of the cold war to become hot was not real since the URSS had already the atom bomb and could turn Europe into ashes and no-one in Europe could find any motivation to commit suicide. All these howls and criminal incitements to trigger upheavals in the East in 1956, were just tricks to speed-up the end of communism since it was no more useful for the talmudits.

    This period also gave the time necessary for some of the URSS’s nomenclature to understand that the end of communism could be an opportunity to becomme billionaires while in the US their collegues were using the military-industrial-complex to rob the US taxpayers with the threat and fear of the URSS artificialy induced by the media. Today the menchevik revolution or ” the New world order” has been able to poison and enslave the western world including New-Zealand and Australia. Russia has been trying to get rid of its talmudic chains but is not yet free.

    During that time, the “International Jew”, who used to have its quarter in Europe, seems to have move to the US and there after having secure the control of the US dollar source, has been able to severe its dependance towards gold, which had been its weapon of mass destruction until then. Since that date, its corruption power has been infinite and he has been able to finance all the new technologies to monitor people and at the same time, through processus automation, make them dispensable. All this explains why, today, the International Jew is close to meeting its objective.

    Today the quarrel between Trump and the Democrats is a quarrel between the Zionism and the “New world order” (ex. menchevik revolution). For the “New world order”, the cart must not be put before the horse and the nation-states have to be destroyed and their population enslaved to allow the comeback of the Messiah to Jerusalem. The Zionism’s role is to weld the jewish community together, to fight assimilation and segregate the Jews from the gentiles. The Zionism have to be the Doctrine’s guardian, it is not to the Zionists to submit or destroy the gentiles.

    Today the Zionists are impatient and they want to coerce God to fulfil his commitment now. They are betting that by triggering an apocalyptic war, the Messiah will have to come to Jerusalem and that at last, they will be the world masters. But the “New world order” is afraid that trying to coerce God may induce Him, in the contrary , to trigger the”Jewish catastrophe”. This the rationale of the fight of the democrats from Wall Street against Trump the Zionists’ champion.

    I agree with Douglas Reed that we may be heading towards the “Jewish catastrophe”. The Zionists war madness or the foul perversion of the leaders of the “New world order” is calling for their auto-destruction. Yet it may also be a sign that the world is becoming sterile and can no more produce someone at the Creator’s image and therefore with the “Jewish catastrophe” , there could be un unprecedented hecatomb among the gentiles unable to reach the apotheosis.

  1438. TJM says: • Website

    Dear Mr. Unz, It has taken me a couple months, but I finally finished reading your long article on American Pravda/ WWII. It was a very interesting read and I learned a lot. Thank you.
    My takeaway is that the wars of the 20th century were devastating to the human race. Imagine how much further human society would be today if those wars had not occurred. Imagine how much more advanced would be our technology. Imagine how much better would be our infrastructure. Imagine America as still being a small government republic instead of the Military Police State it has become.
    Well, it’s too late now.
    The details of WWII are interesting, but do they really matter?
    WWII itself is the crime that keeps on giving.
    TJM

  1439. @Phil_from_NJ

    “You need to do better research if you’re going to get involved in debating this topic and expect not to look like an ignoramus whose parroting the victors’ and Jewish (incorrect and biased) version of history.”

    That is funny coming from someone who has no nose for the fake quote which you even advertise by citing the source of that obviously phony Churchill as “Book by Winston Churchill, Bern 1960”!!! Ask a real research scholar why that shows you up.

  1440. @Ron Unz

    Ron, when you are doing the preparatory reading for the second edition of Understanding World War II close to highest priority should probably be given to Tim Bouverie’s recently published “Appeasing Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War” which has been praised as the best work on Appeasement by Max Hastings, Andrew Roberts, Margaret McMillan and Simon Heffer. I learned of it in the second half of Tom Switzer’s ABC National “Between the Lines” program here where the author is interviewed.

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/feb-29/11984706

    Tom Switzer is quite sound. He criticised the Iraq War in 2003 and is a Mearsheimer realist.

    BTW Bouverie says the harm done to Germany at Versailles was overstated, especially because debts were written off. (He also noted that Germany was rearming, skirting the terms of the treaty, during the Weimar period).

  1441. “In these days of the Internet, anyone can easily establish a website to publish his views, thus making them immediately available to everyone in the world.

    “Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter can bring interesting or controversial material to the attention of millions with just a couple of mouse-clicks, completely bypassing the need for the support of establishmentarian intermediaries.”

    Not exactly. At this point, as anyone who has been de-platformed by either social media giant can attest, Facebook and Twitter currently are establishmentarian intermediaries.

  1442. @Monotonous Languor

    Certainly Roosevelt, Churchill, and their (((handlers))) contributed to the instigation, perpetuation, and expansion of WWII. But that doesn’t allow the logical fallacy that Hitler was blameless. Hitler’s foreign policy amounted to sheer brinkmanship.

    Any policy that is in opposition to Jewry could be considered brinkmanship. It’s not a fight anyone is likely to win.

    Hitler’s foreign policy amounted to sheer brinkmanship. He was successful with the Anschluss and the Sudetenland, but after that he was pushing his luck. He should have committed to prolonged negotiations for Gdansk.

    He did commit to prolonged negations for Danzig. Only the other side was not interested in any negotiations at all.

    Instead, it was the height of folly to make a treaty with the monstrous (((Bolsheviks))) of the USSR and invade Poland.

    What is your suggestion? Start a war without the promise the USSR will stay off your back? Submit to Jewry? Nobody else was interested in signing any treaties, so he took what he could get. The alternative would be to avoid a fight when every enemey is threatening you. That would perhaps keep him in power for a few more years, but it would not change the destiny of Germany. Most likely they would be the victims of a massive Soviet assault not many years down the line, and all of Europe would be washed away along with Germany.

    Added to invasions of the Low Countries, Norway, and France, Hitler’s peace overtures could only be treated with the utmost skepticism. In short, Hitler was terrible at foreign policy, his excuses notwithstanding. He waltzed himself into Hell with Churchill as his dance partner.

    So, again, what would you rather have him do? Sacrifice military security for non existent goodwill from abroad? They wouldn’t have made peace with him even if they trusted him. That was the whole point. He knew that, but made the offers anyway so posterity could see who was war mongering. You seem to be of the erroneous belief that the Devil will let you defeat him. That such a proposition will not entail numerous dangers and risk.

  1443. @Alden

    Please elaborate and explain. Are you disagreeing with something? It is not clear what.

    I have BTW returned to this thread after someone recorded “Denial” mostly the work of Deborah Lipstadt and, before asking Ron for a review, wanted to see what he had already said or commissioned. The film doesn’t actually make Lipstadt an appealing figure!

  1444. @CanSpeccy

    At least that is one of the intelligently constructed cases. I suspect it is lacking a controlling mind to make it happen so cleanly.

  1445. @CanSpeccy

    That’s not bad from “a totally ignorant buffoon” 😉

    I would add too the fact that bombing of industrial cities in which a lot of civilians would probably be killed if not evacuated was inevitable long before it started in WW2 – though the Germans didn’t have the heavy bombers which would have been best for the job. After all the cause was lost on 16 December 1914 when German cruisers shelled Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby indiscriminately..

  1446. @Ron Unz

    Ron, this seems as good a place as any to deliver on my intention or promise I made somewhere on UR to check out and report on the reason for the non renewal of Taylor’s contract as lecturer in 1964. So I inquired about it of my old friend who had been President of Magdalen College, where Taylor was a fellow for many years. He replied:

    “Alan Taylor was a controversialist historian, immensely popular to newspaper readers, students, tv viewers. I don’t think his views as expressed in his works had any influence at all on his career. I can remember his funeral – but recall nothing that was said of him that suggests he was ‘unloaded’** whatever that means”.

    **as surely would have been the case at a typical English funeral for his class and celebrity if there was anything in it.

    I note by the way that your making an exception to rely on Wikipedia for your assertion (repeated and reinforced) that Taylor was “summarily purged” shortly after the publication of his book is not now borne out by Taylor’s Wikipedia entry. As an additional point I note that the book was published in 1961 and his contract not renewed in 1964.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  1447. @Wizard of Oz

    Addenda.

    This is Wikipedia on the 1961 Taylor book:

    “Taylor had previously written The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918. As he later wrote in his autobiography:

    “I wanted to be writing something and decided that I could carry on my diplomatic history from the point where the Struggle for Mastery left off. I had, I thought, done most of the research work needed by reviewing the various books of memoirs and the volumes of German and British diplomatic documents as they came out. At that time no original sources were available: no cabinet minutes or papers, no Chiefs of Staff records, only more or less formal documents from the Foreign Office with very occasional minutes. *This extraordinary paucity, as it seems now, makes my book a period piece of limited value*.”

    Then
    “Since 1947, he had read fifteen volumes of British diplomatic documents, eight volumes of German diplomatic documents and one volume of Italian diplomatic documents, all of them covering the 1930s. However, according to Kathleen Burk’s biography of Taylor, he did not read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf until after writing the book.”

    A review of Kathleen Burk’s biography noted that she was Taylor’s last research student but that the only justification for yet another biography, since there had already been good ones, was the new material she had turned up, including apparently proof that Taylor had dismissed the significance of Mein Kampf without having read it.

  1448. Avalanche says:

    You wrote: “Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government”

    David Duke’s extraordinary, well-referenced, and well worth reading book “My Awakening” not only identifies every one of these revolutionaries, he includes photos of them.

  1449. jasmin says:

    The overall picture is that the combination of British Imperialism and Jewish finance was responsible for the Boer War, WWI, and WWII. And America was pushed into WWI, and WW ll by American Jews who dominated the financial, academic, and media institutions. And once again the United Staes has been brought to a dangerous situation by the Jews who dominate the neoconservatives and liberal interventions who have the US Military rampaging throughout the Midddle East in support of Israel and Israeli apartheid and acting against American interests.

  1450. Ron, I think I was in one of my annus horribilis hospital visits when you published this article so my duty to the higher pedantry wasn’t performed. And yet, and yet, I do recall reading previously that Kathleen Burk’s biography of A.J.P. Taylor disclosed that he had not read Mein Kampf before he wrote Origins. That is a pretty deadly fact. Now, returning to the Wikipedia accounts of Taylor,and, separately, of his Origins of the Second World War I find a long and fair account of the man and, precisely to the point of responding to the prominent place you award to his controversial 1961 (revised 1963) book, I find this passage quoted from his autobiography

    I wanted to be writing something and decided that I could carry on my diplomatic history from the point where the Struggle for Mastery left off. I had, I thought, done most of the research work needed by reviewing the various books of memoirs and the volumes of German and British diplomatic documents as they came out. At that time no original sources were available: no cabinet minutes or papers, no Chiefs of Staff records, only more or less formal documents from the Foreign Office with very occasional minutes. This extraordinary paucity, as it seems now, makes my book a period piece of limited value.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  1451. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    For obvious reasons of personal pride, elderly individuals find it very difficult to acknowledge that they have lived their entire long lives engulfed in a fog of dishonest propaganda, failing to realize that up had been transformed into down and top into bottom. Your own rather foolish comment must be understood in this light.

    I originally read Mein Kampf decades ago back in high school, and little of it stuck in my mind. But out of curiosity, I decided to reread it again some months ago, and found it filled with all sorts of interesting ideas and strategies, most of them quite mundane, such as whether Germany should have tried to ally itself with Britain or with Russia. I find it very difficult to understand how use of that text would have substantially changed Taylor’s classic work.

    Other contemporaries seem to have shared my perspective since the book was easily available in an English translation soon after Hitler came to power. Indeed Arthur Bryant—“Churchill’s favorite historian”—seems to have drawn quite heavily upon it in his 1940 history that I discussed in my article, a history that was quite favorable towards Hitler. Indeed, Churchill himself as well as Lloyd George and numerous other contemporaneous leaders had all sorts of very positive things to say about Hitler long after the English text was in full circulation.

    I find a long and fair account of the man and, precisely to the point of responding to the prominent place you award to his controversial 1961 (revised 1963) book, I find this passage quoted from his autobiography

    As I pointed out in my article, Taylor’s 1961 classic received glowing reviews by the leading mainstream intellectual publications on both sides of the Atlantic, became an international bestseller, and remains by far his best known book. However, it did get “Britain’s most prominent living historian” purged from Oxford University after a quarter century of his very popular teaching there, which may help explain why he was very cautious in standing by his work when he wrote his autobiography a couple decades later.

    In any event, the doubts you raise about Taylor’s analysis hardly apply to the dozen or more other top-ranking scholars or journalists I cited who took more or less the same position, most of whom were also purged on similar grounds.

    Please forgive my unkindness, but you really do strike me as an long-retired USSR apparatchik in 1991, utterly horrified that Russians are now daring to question the Soviet political legacy of Lenin, the greatest political and economic genius in the history of the world.

    If you haven’t already done so, you really might want to read the FDR/Hitler exchange we recently published:

    https://www.unz.com/article/hitler-answers-roosevelt/

    Given the enormous length and weight of this comment-thread, I’d assumed it had long ago been closed, so I’ll do so now.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS