The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin Barrett Archive
Bestselling Revisionist Historian: Germany Was Just a Patsy!
Peter Frankopan's The Silk Roads: A New History of the World shows why we need to re-vision history
🔊 Listen RSS
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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL 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 once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The word revisionist derives from roots meaning “to look again.” And since history is an ongoing project, whose main purpose is to help us understand where we have come from and where we are going, we obviously need to keep taking fresh looks at the past as we propose new visions of the future.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am myself a historical revisionist of the so-called “war on terror,” having written or edited five books on the subject. My conclusion, in a nutshell, is that the State of Israel, whose intelligence service’s motto is “by way of deception thou shalt do war,” has (with the help of many other nefarious forces including rabid right-wingers, global domination enthusiasts, and voracious war profiteers) orchestrated a massive deception based primarily on false flag terrorism in general, and the 9/11 covert operation in particular.

My revisionist history of the “war on terror” poses a danger to Israel and its expansionist agenda. So its agents have relentlessly attacked me, smeared me, and waged economic war against me and my family. One of their favorite smears is the libelous “holocaust denier” canard that almost prevented me from entering Canada last week.

I am not a holocaust denier, under any conceivable definition of that problematic term. But I do support academic freedom and free speech, including the freedom to question facts and narratives concerning any of the innumerable holocausts and genocides of human history. The agents of Israel who are persecuting me claim I am a bad guy because I don’t think people like Ursula Haverbeck or Ernst Zundel or Germar Rudolf or David Irving or Robert Faurisson should be imprisoned for expressing politically incorrect interpretations of history. Whereas I think anyone who supports jailing “holocaust deniers” must be crazy.

ORDER IT NOW

Questioning facts and narratives is how we re-vision history! Peter Frankopian’s recent bestseller The Silk Roads: A New History of the World provides a classic example.

Frankopian’s thesis, in a nutshell, is that Eurocentrism has blinded us to the way that Eurasia and North and East Africa form one super-continent that has been bound together, for thousands of years, by exchanges of goods and ideas. The center of gravity of world civilization, then, is much closer to Persia or Uzbekistan than to Athens or Rome, much less Paris or London.

The Silk Roads casts a new light on the late Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geostrategic vision outlined in The Grand Chessboard (1997). In that book, Bzezinski famously argued that in the chess game of global dominance, the center of the board is in the general region of Afghanistan. Why? Because the Eurasia-North Africa supercontinent contains the great majority of global population and GDP. Therefor, whoever controls the center (the general region of Afghanistan) will dominate the global chessboard. In that respect, little has changed since the days of the 19th century Great Game pitting Britain against Russia for control of Eurasia. No wonder the US has intentionally sabotaged all possibilities for peace in Afghanistan for the past 35 years, in order to create an excuse for a massive permanent US military buildup in the bulls-eye center of the world’s geopolitical heartland.

Frankopan’s assertion that the Great Game for control of Eurasia is THE game, and has been for millennia, casts new light on the two World Wars of the 20th century. Here we embark upon the dangerous ground of World War II revisionism – a much larger and more important topic than mere Holocaust revisionism. For the victors’ history of World War II, which amounts to a sacred Manichaean myth of good guys (Allies/Jews) versus bad guys (Axis/Nazis) is still used today by the Mighty Wurlitzer propaganda factory to brainwash Western populations into imagining themselves the good guys in every conflict, and seeing each new opponent as the new Hitler. In short, the mainstream mythic history of World War II is the centerpiece of modern war propaganda.

In his chapters 15 and 16, Frankopan completely overturns the generally accepted history of the two World Wars, which asserts that they were primarily about the threat posed by a rising Germany. Instead, Frankopan writes:

That Britain represented a threat to Germany – and vice versa – was, however, something of a red herring.”

He goes on to assert: “The reality of the story was very different. Although the days that followed the assassination of Franz Ferdinand saw a series of misunderstandings, discussions, ultimata and permutations that would be all but impossible to recreate, the seeds of war grew out of changes and developments located many thousands of miles away. Russia’s rising ambition and the progress it was making in Persia, Central Asia and the Far East put pressure on Britain’s position overseas, resulting in the fossilization of alliances in Europe. All that stood in the way of further erosion of the enviable platform that Britain had built over the previous centuries was a series of mutual guarantees designed to above all to keep Russia, the master-in-waiting, tied up.” (Emphasis added.)

What the two-phased World War of the first half of the 20th century was primarily about, then, was competition between the Anglo Empire (Britain/USA) and Russia for control of Eurasia. Germany was just a patsy. The whole name of the game, then and now, has always been: At all costs, prevent Germany from uniting with Russia!

This insight sheds considerable light on today’s geopolitical machinations. Many Americans who grew up during the Cold War are puzzled about why the Russians, who are no longer Godless Commies, are still the enemy – even when they are fighting OUR ostensible enemies, al-Qaeda and ISIS. The answer is that the Anglo-Zionist Empire, headquartered in New York, Washington, London, Hollywood, and Tel Aviv, is still primarily concerned with dominating the Eurasian heartland, and a rising Russia – whether it is Communist or democratic or Orthodox or pluralistic or what-have-you – constitutes an obstacle to world hegemony.

That Western project of establishing world hegemony may, according to Frankopan, be nearing its end. The rise of China, and the assertiveness of Russia and Iran, are symptoms, not causes; the underlying pattern is one of the Silk Road, the trade belt across the heartland of Eurasia, re-establishing itself as the real center of the world, relegating the marginal forces at the western fringes of Eurasia, and their gigantic settler colony in Genocided North America, to the margins where they belong.

In Frankopan’s revisionist outlook, the rise of “the West” (meaning the northwest edge of Eurasia) was a historical fluke, driven mainly not by education, literacy, inventiveness, and creativity, but by extreme bellicosity and subsequent hyperactive competition in the technologies of military mass murder. Europe, a land of feuding barbarians at the extreme fringes of the supercontinent’s overarching civilization, managed to temporarily conquer the world mainly because all the feuding between small, independent states fed innovative weapons technologies, especially those involving navies and shipbuilding. (Of course the Chinese had built bigger and better ships centuries earlier, but being civilized people rather than ultra-bellicose barbarians, they used those ships for trade and exploration, not conquest.) The conquest of the world via the oceans established a “new silk road” that put northwest Europe and North America at the center of global trade networks.

Today, as Russia helps stave off US-Zionist imperial domination in the Middle East, while China establishes a massive New Silk Road development project, it seems obvious that the days of Western domination are numbered. Ironically, new developments in weapons technology may be hastening this process: Just as improved navies established Western domination, improved anti-naval weapons, namely the new generations of anti-ship missiles, are helping end it. To take one example: The hardline Zio-imperialists want to wage war on Iran, but cannot do so with any assurance of victory, because Iran can use advanced anti-ship missiles to shut down the Strait of Hormuz – thereby not only keeping hostile forces out of the Persian Gulf, but also shutting down much of the world’s oil supply.

Frankopan’s revisionist view of world history helps us understand that the bromides peddled by high school history textbooks and the mainstream media amount to egocentric feel-good mythology that impedes rather than assists our understanding of reality. Like Ibn Khaldun, Frankopan binds together his historical narratives with what amounts to an all-inclusive theoretical framework; only in the latter’s case, that framework involves exchange and geostrategy in relation to the world’s one supercontinent, rather than a sociological theory of how “barbarism” and “civilization” cyclically give rise to each other.

My only critique of Frankopan would be his neglect of the crucial role of Islam as the central conveyor belt of supercontinental civilization during most of the past 1400 years. By establishing a common language, common culture, common weights and measures, and a common cosmology, metaphysics, and understanding of the meaning and purpose of life on earth, Islam has brought the world together more than any other single factor. Those wishing to pursue this issue further might begin with Marshall Hodgson’s three-volume masterpiece The Venture of Islam.

The Silk Roads poses a challenging question to Western readers: Are “we” going to continue being bellicose and parochial like our ancestors (and like the putative ancestors of today’s Zionist Jews, the early Yahwists whose jealous tribal god told them to hate and fear other tribes and their gods)? Or can we learn to be good global citizens, rather than dominators, of the One World Civilization that has existed for millennia?

The answer to that question may determine whether human civilization has any future at all.

 
• Category: Economics, History • Tags: China, Germany, Russia 
Hide 410 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. So WW2 was really about…Afghanistan???

    Therefor, whoever controls the center (the general region of Afghanistan) will dominate the global chessboard. In that respect, little has changed since the days of the 19th century Great Game pitting Britain against Russia for control of Eurasia.

    I’d say the British were merely interested in Afghanistan as a buffer state for British India. And they never conquered it (neither did the Russians).
    Central Asia was of course an important center of civilization…until it was ruined by the Mongols.

  2. Perhaps what is missing in any relevant discussion of the subject, author, reviewer or now by comment, is to consider the strategic nature of the entire Silk Road understanding and initiative from Alexander The Great, Nicholas of Cusa to Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.

    Indeed it is the higher ecumenical understanding in truth, that is the Peace of the Faith that Cusa and his circles were working upon mobilizing, which is the fostering of physical economic progress realized through the coming together of the universal humanist academies, of which the tradition of Ibn Siba is vital.

    Thus it was precisely the circles around the Labor Committees, of LaRouche, where in the 1990′s was the direct proposals what is now the reality, the invitation of the New Silk Road/One Belt now as the Biggest Deal on the planet, and to which the Anglo-Zionist-Saudi axis are in full freakout mode. This is why they did not want Trump to meet with Putin.

    The opportunity to end ‘geopolitics’ is available.

    Thus the fundamentalist cults of the three Abrahamic Religions are going full blown insane as has been deliberately engineered.

    Here is a fresh disucusion on the role the revival of Classical Culture against the new dark ages.

    • Replies: @alan2102
  3. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Therefor, whoever controls the center (the general region of Afghanistan) will dominate the global chessboard. 

    Afghans have controlled it for most of recent history . I guess Afghans have been dominating the global chess board and I didn’t even notice. Neither did the Afghans , but they were occupied by their bacha bazzi so lets cut them some slack.

    Seriously does R.U. have any other criteria for the writers here other than a obsessive hatred and jealousy of Yahoodi ??

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Lot
    , @Cyrano
  4. @German_reader

    The issue of Afghanistan is that control of it was to prevent a working land bridge between Europe and Asia. This is what all of these wars, starting with World War I to prevent such a coming together.

    • Replies: @Catherine
  5. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. Seldom have Unz readers been treated to so much nonsense compressed into a single article. Well done, Mr. Barrett.

    One thing that stands out as particularly bizarre, though, is the implication that the idea that the World Wars can be construed as a battle between an Anglo-American and a Russian-Asiatic hegemon for control of the center, is somehow original to Frankopan. It is not; this view is fairly well established and is in fact so pervasive that I have no idea who to attribute it to. It is more or less common knowledge, if not common agreed upon knowledge.

    And why on earth would you not deny the Holocaust (which is pretty clearly false) but write entire books denying the canonical 9/11 story (which is pretty substantially true)?

  6. OkieDokie says:

    Hey, if you’re already on the list, what do you have to lose? The Zionists passionate efforts to establish Israel was a key cause of both world wars. The reason Russia is currently the bogeyman is because of her alliance with Syria. Israel, correctly, sees the Shia crescent as a major obstacle to their goal of Greater Israel. “A Clean Break” is an honest blueprint. Why complicate the current situation when it can easily be explained as a pyramid chart of puppeteers, and on the very top is Israel pulling the strings that dictate every step of America’s bellicose dance.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  7. Chinese had a huge nation-empire and were satisfied with it.

    Russians too were content with land empire, which is why they didn’t seek overseas empires much. They even sold Alaska.

    But the only way smaller nations like Britain, Spain, and France could be Great Powers was by conquering more land. And New World offered them this opportunity. Spanish/Portuguese took the southern parts, Anglos took the middle part, and French took the northern part(and claimed Louisiana territory). But Anglos eventually took the northern part too when English beat the French in Canada. And then Napoleon sold Louisiana territories to the US.

    Anyway, smaller nations need empires to be great. UK alone could not be a great power. Same with France. This is why Japanese were especially aggressive. They needed to secure more land to be a great power.

    In contrast, China was a world unto itself. At one time, even Mongolia was part of China. But then, it was under Manchu rule when the Brits came… just like India was under Moghul rule when the Brits arrived. In that case, the Brits did shake things to lead to national awakening in both parts of the world.

    Anyway, when we look at today’s world, it’s easy to understand why Jews are so restless and aggressive. Jews have no great land mass for themselves. Chinese got China, Russians got Russia. Indians got India. Iranians got Iran, which is pretty big.

    Now, Jews have control over US and EU, and they are the best regions to have, but Jewish control is precarious because Jews are the ruling minority elites. Without Jewish control of elite institutions and the Narrative, they can lose supremacist grip, as happened in Russia under Putin. Jews got lots of privilege in Russia but not supremacist power. Jews have it in the US, but it can be lost. And Jews can lose it in EU too. This is why Jews are so restless in their effort to increase diversity and white self-loathing and cuckery. And homomania. Via decadence and diversity, Jews are trying to globalize US and EU. That way, nationalism won’t be able to reassert itself.

    If Jews had a giant nation like Russia or China to themselves, they might be less hyper. But they don’t. Jewish power is immense but it’s like walking a tightrope. Jews need to maintain The Position to have the power. In contrast, China could collapse economically, as under Mao, and still belong to Chinese. And Russia could collapse as in the 90s and still revert to Russian control. But if Jews lose top position in the West, they could lose it forever since they don’t have the power of numbers/demography.

    This is why Jews are most restless.
    And as whites have been indoctrinated to fear their own racial and national pride, their repressed will-to-power is channeled toward globalist ventures. We see this is John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Total cuck dogs of Zionists, they can only act tough and muscular by barking at Iran, Russia, and China. They are loathe to talk about saving and preserving white nations(as it’d be ‘racist’).
    As white power dwindles in white nations, white elites can only exert their power dynamics on the global stage, especially at the behest of their Jewish masters.

    Now, the best thing would be universal nationalism. Nationalism would mean that each people would be content with their own land, culture, and identity. Sure, they would try to get along with others and do trade and exchange ideas. But their main focus would be national identity and interests. And if they all respected one another’s national sovereignty, they could all get along together.

    So, what is wrong with this? Some white Europeans still have imperialist mindset. If they can’t have the old empire back, they wanna turn their own nations into miniatures of Old Empire. So, UK and France look more like Africa everyday.

    Another reason is nationalism in all nations except Israel means less power for Jews. Nationalism means the people of the nation should put their own identity and interests first. It means Jews must be seen as a minority, not the master elites.
    It is globalism that urges all nations to worship homos(minority elites), Jews(minority elites), and Negroes(minority celebs) above their own kind. So, the Irish should put interests of Jews, Homos, and Negroes above those of the Irish. This gives the likes of Soros an opening for infiltration and takeover.
    Same with Sweden. A nationalist Sweden would be Sweden for Swedes. Sure, it could be nice to minorities and get along & trade with other nations. But its main theme would be Sweden should do things to favor Swedes above all else in Sweden. This means Jewish interests must take a backseat. Now, there is nothing wrong with this since minorities in any nation should be of secondary interest. For instance, Russian minorities in China are secondary to Chinese in China, and Chinese minorities in Russia are secondary to Russians in Russia. Okay, fine.

    But Jews can’t stand this since they want the dominant position in gentile nations. Even if Chinese minority got little in Russia, Chinese got big China. Even if Russian minority got little in China, Russians got Big Russia. Russian mind has a Russian body. Chinese mind got a Chinese body.
    In contrast, Jewish mind has no body. It has to control the bodies of others. Problem is that the body tends to reject the mind of another. It’s like organ transplant. The new organ is rejected by the host body, and so the body has to be dosed with drugs and chemicals to lower the resistance.

    Now, there are plenty of minorities without big nations of their own who just get along in their host nations. So, why are Jews so restless? Consider Palestinians. They lost their own nation, and the Palestinian diaspora is content with being humdrum minorities in other nations. Why can’t Jews be like Palestinians?
    Jews got too much pride, too much ability, too much arrogance. The combination of high IQ, pushy personality, historical/cultural pride, and culture of resentment makes Jews dogged and unrelenting in their drive for domination as rightful masters and avengers.

    PS. the notion that the West advanced ahead of other parts of the world because of competition over arms isn’t convincing. After all, American Indians were always bashing one another. But they remained savages.
    And the Near East too was a hot zone of competing empires and powers. But it fell behind. Using the author’s logic, the constant wars among Turks, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and etc should have led to great advancement.

  8. ” The whole name of the game, then and now, has always been: At all costs, prevent Germany from uniting with Russia! ”

    Germany was united with Russia, as the name St Petersburg already shows.
    St Petersburg was full of foreign merchants, not in the least Dutch.
    The Lenin coup of end 1917, the destruction of the young Russian democracy, gave Wall Street the chance to separate Germany from Russian goods.
    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.

    How German expansion eastward, towards the ME, was seen as threatening by Britain:
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    It has been argued that this was the cause of WWI.

    How Britain desperately tried to change ist image:
    Philip M. Taylor, ‘ The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda 1919-1939′, Cambridge 1981

    At present the same is happening, transatlantic trade must have priority over Europe Russia trade, and of course over Europe China trade.
    USA liquified propane gas must have priority over Russian gas piped into Europe.
    The railroad connection China St Petersburg may have convinced Trump and his rich friends that Obama was fighting a hopeless battle for USA world supremacy.
    The battle not only was hopeless, it was self destructive, it forged close Russia China ties.

  9. @German_reader

    What Roosevelt wanted:
    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

  10. Issac says:

    Given the state of western immigration, I doubt you’ll have to worry about them being anything like their ancestors.

    We Jews will, of course, switch sides when it is convenient.

  11. and their gigantic settler colony in Genocided North America

    So disappointing when you reach this phrase. Your heart sinks because you know what’s coming.

  12. vinteuil says:

    “So WW2 was really about…Afghanistan???”

    Heh – only three question marks???

    Afghanistan, like sub-Saharan Africa, ought to have a great big beautiful wall built around it – and every few years, a team of naturalists can go in and document the natives at their exercise.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  13. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    In my ‘golden years,’ I have learned that most of what was taught to me in grade school, a lot of high school and much of college is either lies, disinformation, propaganda or distorted, always with the American flag flying overhead and the refrains of “America the Beautiful’ wafting by.

    An informed and educated people is dangerous to those who are in really in charge of this nation, our occupiers, the Apartheid State of Israel.

    For posting legit facts about the most sacred and Holy Holocau$t™ I’ve been called vile names; accused of bestiality and incest and even had my life threatened several times, but NEVER, not once, did they try and refute what I wrote.

    Why is that?

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  14. vinteuil says:

    “My only critique of Frankopan would be his neglect of the crucial role of Islam as the central conveyor belt of supercontinental civilization during most of the past 1400 years. By establishing a common language, common culture, common weights and measures, and a common cosmology, metaphysics, and understanding of the meaning and purpose of life on earth, Islam has brought the world together more than any other single factor.”

    You go, girl!

    الله أكبر

    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  15. But wasn’t the Russian Empire acquired by the same European racial stock and in much the same way as was the North American continent?

    And, perhaps the European peoples advanced to a higher level of cultural, political, material and spiritual civilization than that of the Middle and Far East precisely because the relatively small population was faced with the challenge of grappling with life on the edges of the receding ice-age glaciers (which in turn opened up a land of vast potential abundance) and they were not burdened by the genetic inertial weight of the sclerotic “center of the world”(as you have labeled it) and so were free to evolve, in a literal Darwinian sense, at a dizzying pace.

    And now that we Europeans have shared that technological know how and its concomitant social institutions with the rest of the world, they, the newly arrived Old World, can begin to assume their rightful place (as I’m sure you would characterize it). You forget the grinding material and spiritual poverty that most peoples in the lands you worship lived in until the advent of the West. Ingrate.

    Brzezinski was a clown in the 1970′s and may well be one still. He’s a political scientist which is to say, not a scientist at all. He shows no understanding of technology and the impact it has had on virtually everything.

  16. In Frankopan’s revisionist outlook, the rise of “the West” (meaning the northwest edge of Eurasia) was a historical fluke, driven mainly not by education, literacy, inventiveness, and creativity, but by extreme bellicosity and subsequent hyperactive competition in the technologies of military mass murder.

    Call me a “Frankopan!” You can also call me a holocaust denier because I deny significant parts of the narrative and question most of the rest because it is pretty transparently bogus and self serving, and because there’s so much pressure to suppress other views. The latter alone should prompt questioning if not outright rejection of the standard, boosheet scenario.

    So many good points in this article that the discussion could, and ought to proceed for a very long time.

    What the two-phased World War of the first half of the 20th century was primarily about, then, was competition between the Anglo Empire (Britain/USA) and Russia for control of Eurasia. Germany was just a patsy. The whole name of the game, then and now, has always been: At all costs, prevent Germany from uniting with Russia!

    Germany, Japan, and the “common folk” of the so called victorious nations were definitely victims in the struggle and we’ve been in phase III for some time. The true victors were the international money bag crowd, and the boosheet (propaganda) continues.

    Thank you for the excellent antidote!

  17. vinteuil says:
    @jilles dykstra

    “Germany was united with Russia, as the name St Petersburg already shows.
    St Petersburg was full of foreign merchants, not in the least Dutch.
    The Lenin coup of end 1917, the destruction of the young Russian democracy, gave Wall Street the chance to separate Germany from Russian goods.”

    I guess you just kind of write at random, assuming nobody well will ever check up on you.

    Eh – prob’ly a good bet.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  18. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    “But Jews can’t stand this since they want the dominant position in gentile nations. , , , Now, there are plenty of minorities without big nations of their own who just get along in their host nations. So, why are Jews so restless? . . .

    The core message of Hebrew scripture is, Who is in charge? Jews identify themselves with god/ultimate power and right-to-rule.

    Jews got too much pride, too much ability, too much arrogance. The combination of high IQ, pushy personality, historical/cultural pride, and culture of resentment makes Jews dogged and unrelenting in their drive for domination as rightful masters and avengers.”

    Let’s get over the high IQ crap; it’s a relatively recent concept, and it’s similar to Jewish scripture declaring Jews chosen.
    Trump’s speech in Poland betrayed an astonishing truth: Trump talked about how Poles had been beaten down for centuries but kept on struggling to create a prosperous, self-governing state.

    He also noted that “there are hardly any Jews left in Poland.”
    Jews had been in Poland for over 700 years; indeed, for several centuries, Poland was home to the largest body of Jews in the world. And for all those centuries, Poland was a failure in terms of self-government. Hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews fled to Germany because Germany WAS prosperous and politically successful; Herschel Grynszpan shot vom Rath because his parents were sent back to Poland.
    So the take-away from Trump’s speech is “Poland finally achieved prosperity and self-government after Jews left.”

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Wally
  19. Agent76 says:

    May 16, 2017 China WIDENS ITS SILK ROAD to the World

    Beijing hopes its top-level two-day Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, starting this [past] Sunday, will be a game-changer for globalization

    http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/05/china-widens-its-silk-road-to-the-world/

    May 13, 2017 China seeks to revive ‘Silk Road’ project

    China is looking to revive the ancient “Silk Road” trading route that would connect Asia to Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

  20. @jilles dykstra

    Anna Karenina and the rest of Leo Tolstoy’s cast of characters spoke French. Levin the über-Russian was critical of Dolly teaching her children to speak French, but he was fluent in French. The Frenchman (and charlatan), Landau, decided that Anna should not be granted a divorce, the last straw precipitating her suicide.

    We forget that France was the superpower/superculture for a crucial century and more.

    Tolstoy hinted at- but Dostoevsky spotlighted Russian disdain for Germans: Katerina Marmeladov (Crime and Punishment) called her German landlady a “trashy Prussian hen’s leg in a crinoline!” (one of the funniest epithets of all time).

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  21. @vinteuil

    So that my statements can be checked, I most of the time specify a source, also on how Wall Street supported Lenin, in order to separate Germany economically from Russia.

    The importance of W European – Russian trade is best seen through how many Dutch trade vessels passed the Sont in Denmark; our Golden Age was based on trade with the Baltic, not with the Indies.

    The British conflict with tzarist Russia was clear in Tibet, Afghanistan and Persia, Iran:

    D. S. Richards, ‘The savage frontier, A history of the Anglo- Afghan wars’, 1990, 2003, Londen

    W. Morgan Shuster, ´The strangling of Persia, Story of the European diplomacy and oriental intrigue that resulted in the denationalisation of twelve million Mohammedans’, New York, 1912

    L. Austine Waddell, ‘Lhasa and its mysteries, With a record of the British Tibetan Expedition of 1903-1904’, New York, 1905, 1988

  22. @SolontoCroesus

    No idea what your argument is.
    French was indeed long the language of diplomacy, France as a great power ended in 1870, when the attack on what now is Germany failed.
    This attack changed the world until now, the unified Germanywas the new world power.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  23. @jilles dykstra

    How German expansion eastward, towards the ME, was seen as threatening by Britain

    That is a key concept and very little known in the US.
    Germany was also expanding peacefully, (commercially) not only in the ME, but also into Persia at the behest of the Persians, as a matter of fact.

    Briefly the relevant point is that Russia and Britain had long been fighting for influence, if not outright control, of Persia as the author notes. The Persians were tired of it and asked the US to come in and straighten the government and finances, and to help the country modernize, but the Brits and Russkies would have none of it and sent the Americans packing.

    The Persians persisted as they should have, and turned to Germany for aid in modernizing the country.

    The rest is history and we’re dealing with it today as the article so ably points out.

    Another thing we must not lose sight of is that there were extra-national interests that were exploiting events much more effectively than the various nations ever could. In fact, rather than discussing history as actions by governments or nations, (which almost all of us do), we’d make more progress towards the truth if we addressed all of this in terms of the key individuals involved.

    For instance, most of the prominent (visible) Zionists who managed to capitalize from the turmoil were probably patsies as well. Their big money backers were likely the major “winners” in all of this. Same with the Bolshies. I’m sure you realize all of that but I’m emphasizing it for those who may be new to the concepts.

    • Agree: Talha
  24. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I might be wrong, but wasn’t Russia allied with America and the U.K. against Germany in WWs 1&2? In WW2 wasn’t Russia’s share of the winnings 11 nations in middle Europe, not further expansion in Central Asia?

    If, and when the super railroad connecting the pacific coast of China with the Atlantic coast of Europe is finished the vast imports and exports of India will still go east and west by ship. As far as I can see, the only importance of Afghanistan would be as a passage from India to Europe. But India does just fine with sea freight.

    Oh well I’m not a global theorist so I’ll stay happily ignorant of the vast importance of Afghanistan to the world.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Skeptikal
  25. @anonymous

    Cannot open the link.

    But indeed, Lawrence (of Arabia) began his career as an archeologist near Mosul, where the Berlin Baghdad railway was to pass, spying on the Germans.
    The German concession was to be ten miles at both sides, thus a lot of the oil then known would fall into German hands.

    Britain also feared the connection to Basra, from were German goods could be easily brought to India.

    In 1916 the first oil fired British turbine dreadnought was launched.

    The jewish colonisation of Palestine began under German protection.
    Forgot when the Kaiser visited Jerusalem.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  26. @ThreeCranes

    You forget the grinding material and spiritual poverty that most peoples in the lands you worship lived in until the advent of the West. Ingrate.

    And you fail to address the bloodshed, destruction, and increases in “material and spiritual poverty” that accompanied the “advent of the West.”

    Any subsequent reduction of poverty is less a result of the benign moral and philosophical influences of the West than the availability and exploitation of abundant and cheap energy.

    Here’s a brief primer for the neo-imperialist crowd.

    “I was young and ill-educated and …One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism– the real motives for which despotic governments act. ”

    -George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant, 1936

    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Rurik
  27. @anonymous

    Herschel Grynszpan shot von Rath
    The usual explanation.
    There is another one:
    René d’Argile, etc., Das Geheimnis um die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Wiesbaden 1958 ( Les Originals Secrêtes de la Guerre 1939 – 1945, Paris 1958).

  28. Rurik says: • Website

    weird

    Nazis = victims

    white Americans = genocidal bad people

    Europeans = savage barbarians

    Amerindians = not

    Zionists = bad

    Ottomans = good, and it’s the Jews ‘whose jealous god hates and fears other gods’

    what a convoluted exercise in virtue signaling

    Mr. Barrett is great when it comes to 9/11, and other things, but he gets bogged down by his own parochial sympathies

    still, interesting read. The Silk Road seems to be revived and ascendant today

    • Replies: @Talha
  29. conatus says:

    Were the Germans patsys?
    Yeah, they were late to the nationalism party, late to the Empire party, and late to the Racism party. They made the mistake that all teenagers make, they were way too honest in their rhetoric and have paid for it ever since, being portrayed in our culture as basically ‘the worst people who ever lived.’
    I don’t know about this gee-oh political long term stuff, I find it hard to believe any group can effect consistent change over that amount of time.
    The Germans were just too young as anaation and too big (Churchill said the thing wrong with the Germans is there are 20 million too many of them) to not be a target.
    They got screwed in 782 at Verden by Charlemagne when he cut off the heads of 4500 of them in the name of the Prince of Peace. They got screwed by the great powers in the 30 Years War(Sweden was a great power and Schwedentrunk was their beverage for the Germans). So they become Prussia, ‘an Army with a country’ and now the world blames them for militarism. These people cant win. Don’t forget they live in am a bad neighborhood where only a river(not the English Channel or the Atlantic and Pacific) separates you from your enemy. They have to be more realpolitik and less sniffily moral.
    So older cousin Britain does not want a strong continental power and she resents her younger relative and WW1, the starvation strategy of Versailles and that brings us Ragnarok Hitler and thus the end of YT’s pride and a demoralized West.
    If Great Britain had let the Germans have their day in the sun, none of this would have happened.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  30. @ANON

    WWI began with tzarist Russia allied with GB and France, against Germany, Austria Hungary and the Ottoman empire.
    Trotzky in 1917 published the secret agreements of 1913, he found in the tzarist archives.

    After Lenin came to power the west sent armies into Russia to fight Lenin, they failed.

    WWI began with the August 1939 Von Ribbentrop Molotov Pact, the division of Poland.
    The west never blamed the USSR for occupying E Poland, nor for the attack on Finland.

    Immediately after Hiter attacked Stalin Churchill chose the side of Stalin, Roosevelt felt the waters for a few days, then followed.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @ANON
  31. @jacques sheete

    You’re missing the main point of what I said. The spread of technology itself is the boon, not Europeans per se. Stop with the horrors of imperialism etc. Everyone has been guilty at one time or another; the Persians invaded Greece etc.

    The point is that mass production, the periodic table, understanding the properties of steel, copper, magnetism and electricity et al have brought unparalleled prosperity to everyone on the globe. Yoked to this radical revision in our understanding of Nature, politics and culture evolved as well–though sometimes they had to be dragged along by the scruff of the neck.

    You can thank northwestern Europeans for much of that.

    You’re welcome.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  32. @jilles dykstra

    to a fellow bibliophile:

    Scott Anderson’s Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly And the Making of the Modern Middle East https://www.readanybook.com/ebook/lawrence-in-arabia-war-deceit-imperial-folly-and-the-making-of-the-modern-middle-east-565425 is a reporter’s version of the intrigues among the British, zionists, Turks/Ottoman empire, Arabs, oil men, and Germans, and the dominant role played by the aristocratic fop Mark Sykes in shattering the Ottoman empire, then carving out their piece of the remains.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  33. @conatus

    I would go farther. Not only were then-superpowers England, France and Russia largely responsible for the horrors of WW1 and 2 but in their nighttime bombing of innocent German civilians, England in particular was guilty of crimes against humanity. Many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were reactions to provocative criminal activity perpetrated by the Allies.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Talha
  34. @Intelligent Dasein

    You’re missing the point, the more well known CIA propagandists have been boring people for years on end. The more intensive techniques are to metaphorically plant explosives underneath of everything people believe to be true. Not only is this uniquely entertaining, it is highly effective for the goal of control. You’ll be shrugging eventually and claiming the whole wide world is all a fraud and an illusion. You didn’t need to swallow any pills it was all on Google. Make your own reality, write your own algorithms, be a better Barrett than Barrett who I believe is connected to Wall Street and the Pentagon for his “lunch money”.

  35. Today, as Russia helps stave off US-Zionist imperial domination in the Middle East, while China establishes a massive New Silk Road development project, it seems obvious that the days of Western domination are numbered.

    Many Americans who grew up during the Cold War are puzzled about why the Russians, who are no longer Godless Commies, are still the enemy – even when they are fighting OUR ostensible enemies, al-Qaeda and ISIS. The answer is that the Anglo-Zionist Empire, headquartered in New York, Washington, London, Hollywood, and Tel Aviv, is still primarily concerned with dominating the Eurasian heartland, and a rising Russia – whether it is Communist or democratic or Orthodox or pluralistic or what-have-you – constitutes an obstacle to world hegemony.

    I strongly agree with these two points, and the author does have a few other good points to make here and there. But pushing the ‘whitey=bad, everyone else=good’ meme can hardly be considered revisionist, since this is precisely the PC crap we were all raised with. And so much of this article is just plain dross, for example:

    The Silk Roads casts a new light on the late Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geostrategic vision outlined in The Grand Chessboard (1997). In that book, Bzezinski famously argued that in the chess game of global dominance, the center of the board is in the general region of Afghanistan. Why? Because the Eurasia-North Africa supercontinent contains the great majority of global population and GDP. Therefor, whoever controls the center (the general region of Afghanistan) will dominate the global chessboard. In that respect, little has changed since the days of the 19th century Great Game pitting Britain against Russia for control of Eurasia.

    Dr. Z hardly invented the concept of Eurasianism. The first man to come up with the idea (as fas as anyone knows) was Sir Halford John Mackinder way back in 1904, while the ‘Great Game’ between Russia and England in Afghanistan was still going on. And not long after, both the Germans and the Pollacks independently came up with their own versions of Eurasianism: Lebensraum and the ‘intermarium’, respectively. Dr. Z, being a Pollack, was probably raised with Pilsudski’s idea of the intermarium, which was to be a large Polish land empire linking the Baltic and Black Seas.

    In Frankopan’s revisionist outlook, the rise of “the West” (meaning the northwest edge of Eurasia) was a historical fluke, driven mainly not by education, literacy, inventiveness, and creativity, but by extreme bellicosity and subsequent hyperactive competition in the technologies of military mass murder. Europe, a land of feuding barbarians at the extreme fringes of the supercontinent’s overarching civilization, managed to temporarily conquer the world mainly because all the feuding between small, independent states fed innovative weapons technologies, especially those involving navies and shipbuilding. (Of course the Chinese had built bigger and better ships centuries earlier, but being civilized people rather than ultra-bellicose barbarians, they used those ships for trade and exploration, not conquest.)

    This is total horseshit! The Portuguese caravella was a massive improvement over all previous ship designs. While it is true that they borrowed elements from Arab ship-building, the Arabs themselves never designed a ship that can could handle the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans — nor did the Chinese. This is why it was tiny Portugal that first conquered Brazil and large swaths of sub-Saharan Africa, rather than the Arab Caliphate. And note also that it was the Portuguese — not the Arabs or the Chinese — who were the first to circumnavigate the globe.

    Oh: and the Arabs weren’t bellicose? And the Mongols weren’t bellicose? Don’t make me laugh! The reason why the white race became the first to dominate the entire globe was not bellicosity, but rather superior technology.

    There, fixed it for ya.

    My only critique of Frankopan would be his neglect of the crucial role of Islam as the central conveyor belt of supercontinental civilization during most of the past 1400 years.

    Sounds like Frankopan got that one right. The Old Silk Roads were already in existence during the era of the ancient Persian and Roman Empires, long before the Arabs hit the scene. True, the Arabs did profit greatly from their control of said trade routes, but those routes existed (and may yet again exist) without them.

  36. Avery says:

    {Not only were then-superpowers England, France and Russia largely responsible for the horrors of WW1 and 2}

    How was Russia responsible for the horrors of WW1?

    How was USSR responsible for the horrors of WW2?
    Nazi Germany _invaded_ USSR and murdered and killed about 15 million Soviet civilians, in addition to about 10 million Soviet military losses.

    If Hitler had stayed in Germany, nobody would care.
    In fact England, France and Italy agreed – in Sept 1938 – with Hitler’s annexation of German-populated Sudentenland.

    But Hitler’s #1 goal for launching WW2 since Day 1 was Lebensraum: the vast, rich, agricultural lands West of the Urals, which ‘unfortunately’ were inconveniently populated by Slavic Untermenschen.

    Hitler vividly remembered the near-starvation of Germany by England during WW1, and was determined not to let it happen again.

    Hitler and Nazi Germany were responsible for launching WW2, and all the horrors that came with it. He should have been happy with Sudentenland, and should have stayed in Germany.

  37. 22pp22 says:

    Unbelievable rubbish. A really, really stupid article.

    The author of this piece should set an example. He should take responsibility for the actions of his ancestors and jump of a cliff.

    Comment: Only Whitey is bad. Nice civilized Asians wouldn’t hurt a fly. I’ve heard it all before.

    Answer: Look up An Lushan, Taiping, Yellow Turbans.

    Comment: Only Europeans would do something so bad as to colonise North America.

    Answer: Han Chinese have displaced plenty of other ethnic groups. That is why China is the size it is today. Taiwan was colonised in the seventeenth century. The native population is now 1 per cent of the total.

    Oh, and of course the Mongols would hurt a fly.

    The Mongols devastated Iran and slaughtered of the entire population of Beijing. Whitey didn’t make then do it.

    Whites displaced Native Americans because they had some immunity to small pox. If Whitey had been interested in staughtering every other race, then the Africans would have been easy meat.

  38. Avery says:
    @ThreeCranes

    #37 Reply to your post #34.

  39. Sparkon says:
    @jilles dykstra

    No. In fact, Roosevelt had “felt the waters” long before Pearl Harbor:

    Unknown to Congress and the American people, months before Pearl Harbor the U.S. Navy secretly hunted Axis warships in the North Atlantic. Seven decades later, that simple but unassailable fact continues to elude the public, masses of written scholarship, and most historians. However, now declassified by the National Archives, the once secret documents – including operational plans and orders originating with the Chief of Naval Operations and Commander-in-chief-Atlantic Fleet – confirms that the U.S. Navy throughout most of 1941, was clearly belligerent.

    UNDECLARED WAR – HOW FDR VIOLATED THE NEUTRALITY ACT TO SAVE BRITAIN FROM DEFEAT

    http://historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/

    • Replies: @ANON
  40. One is sometimes tempted indeed to question whether Jews might for whatever reason have disproportionate influence; then one reads pieces such as this and recalls that anti-Semitism is indeed a mental disease that crushes reason and distorts reality.

  41. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were reactions to provocative criminal activity perpetrated by the Allies.

    Umm – I thought Germany bombed London first*. They also (famously) did something similar in Guernica far before any official WW2 hostilities so they were quite capable of indiscriminate civilian bombings. And what was Operation Barbarossa in retaliation for? The Soviets seemed to be living up to their part of the agreement.

    Peace.

    *Note: I do not support indiscriminate warfare in any form – no matter who starts it.

  42. Wally says: • Website
    @anonymous

    “So, why are Jews so restless? . . . ”

    Because their ultimate scam of scams is disintegrating before their very eyes. The ‘holocaust’ narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and the writing is on the wall.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.

    What cannot happen as alleged did not happen as alleged.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
    - Arthur Schopenhauer

    recommended, alleged gassing process debunked:

    http://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywords=model&t=10798&sf=msgonly

  43. Or can we learn to be good global citizens, rather than dominators, of the One World Civilization that has existed for millennia?

    Ah yes, the world that was once at peace, and would be again/still but for the eeevil ones.

    From the Garden of Eden to the reign of the Mother Goddess to – we wuz kangz! I don’t know what it is in human psychology that wants to believe this garbage, but it is there. A determination to deny the first of the Noble Truths, I suppose.

  44. Wally says: • Website
    @Avery

    Poor Avery doesn’t get out much. He merely recites laughable, Zionist mandated, dumbed down ‘history’ / propaganda.

    There is zero proof that Germany killed ’6M Jews, 5M others’, and used scientifically impossible ‘gas chambers’.

    see:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    interesting comparative factoids:

    LEND-LEASE :: MARSHALL PLAN

    Lend-Lease:

    The Lend-Lease policy, . . ., enacted March 11, 1941) was a program under which the United States supplied Free France, U K, China, and Soviet Union and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945. . . .

    A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $667 billion today) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all,
    $31.4 billion (equivalent to $418 billion today) went to Britain,
    $11.3 billion (equivalent to $150 billion today) to the Soviet Union,
    $3.2 billion (equivalent to $42.6 billion today) to France,
    $1.6 billion (equivalent to $21.3 billion today) to China,
    and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

    Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which, . . .beginning on April 8, 1948 . . . the United States gave over $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. . . .

    The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was

    the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), [$3.4 billion; $33.9 b/2016]
    followed by France (18%) [$2.3 billion; $22.9 b/2016 ]
    and West Germany (11%). [$1.4 billion, $13.9 b/ 2016]

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

    iow, the British, who insisted on the war, who knew before hand that did not have the wherewithal to fight the war, who relied upon US aid and Russian blood to win the war, who were the earliest and most prolific propagandists to engender war, was relatively undamaged by war, collected the greatest bounty from US consequent to war.

    it’d be amusing to crank in aid to Israel, which was NOT devastated by war; has the smallest population of any aid recipient; and was a primary victor of WWII.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  46. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    I agree – some things do seem strange…hmmm. But without actually reading the book (and possibly the evidence the author brings to bear) – this may be too presumptuous to automatically write off.

    I agree though that this new Silk Road (I believe Fred Reed’s been writing on it) may reorient things significantly – especially if the West keeps declining in terms of stability.

    I’m going to put ‘The Venture of Islam” on my reading list though – that sounds very interesting.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @SolontoCroesus
  47. Rurik says: • Website
    @Avery

    your entire narrative is the kosher cartoon version of that evil war

    have you ever heard of the Holodomor Avery? (even the spell check doesn’t recognize the word it’s so deliberately marginalized)

    do you have any idea what that event says about the nature of the Soviets? (not to mention the NYT and FDR liars)

    are you that pathetically naïve to believe that the Soviets had no imperial designs?!

    and that they took possession of Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe and Germany only as a gesture of benevolent grace at Churchill’s and FDR’s request?

    Stalin was just a misunderstood lamb of peace and kindness, who was driven to war by evil Nazi Aryan white supremacists hell bent on genociding and enslaving the world!!!!

    pfft

    • Replies: @RobinG
  48. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    Hey Talha,

    The Soviets seemed to be living up to their part of the agreement.

    just that mere statement says it all

    ever heard of Katyn? The Soviets had the Russian people by the ‘hair of the head’, as Churchill put it, and their intentions were not benign to say the least.

    I’m not trying to act as an apologist of the Nazis, hardly, but to pretend that the Soviets were girl scouts is the height of absurdity. They were genocidal fiends hell bent on imperial conquest, domination, and genocide.

    Peace

    • Replies: @Talha
  49. J says:

    This man is mentally deranged. Canadians are right to keep him out.

    The hidden diamond in this shit is that the Islam is a force for good that united the world. And that Afghanistan is the center of the planet, Europe and the “settler colony of America” are marginal.

  50. Talha says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Hey Seamus,

    The reason why the white race became the first to dominate the entire globe was not bellicosity, but rather superior technology.

    These are not mutually exclusive – you dominate by bellicosity and superior technology (and superior training and tactics – which the article fails to mention). Europeans have possibly been the most war-like people ever and that continent has been embroiled in some of the most bloodiest conflicts (mostly isolated to Europeans themselves) known to man. The East Asians come a close second:

    http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen

    (geographic mapping of all recorded battles in human history – watch that continent light up!)

    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#20worst

    The martial skills and superior arms honed from constant fighting and a constant arms race was essential to bringing practically the whole world under heel. And it was done in an impressively short amount of time.

    There is no doubt Europeans have learned to chill for the last few decades (and this a historic anomaly actually and gives people a false impression) – that may be because if they play the “Great Game” again on their continent, it’ll be the last time that game is played on that continent. It may also be that they finally learned their lesson after all the constant fighting.

    True, the Arabs did profit greatly from their control of said trade routes, but those routes existed (and may yet again exist) without them.

    Arabs were a side show in that region – it has always been about Persia in that area (and Persianized Turks and others). The Abbasids were basically the Persians reasserting their dominance. When he speaks about Islam – he is talking about Persia:
    “But the universality of the Persian contribution to all facets of Islamic learning must be kept in mind in any study of the relationship between Persia and Islamic civilization. The extensive efforts of Persian scholars in helping to lay the foundations of so many of the Islamic sciences during the early period continued with the same force into the Saljuq and Timurid periods. So many of the works of this later period which are standard texts in Muslim madrassas, both Sunni and Shi’i, works of such men as Ghazzali, Fakhr al-Din Razi, Zamakhshari, Baidawi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Taftazani, Sayyid Sharif Jurjani and Jalal al-Din al-Dawani, to cite just a few of the better known names, are connected with the Persian world. Ghazzali alone would be sufficient to underline the significance of the contribution of Persia to Islamic civilization…all that we identify with classical, orthodox Islam in both its Sunni and Shi’i aspects would be unimaginable in its existing historical form without extensive efforts of Persians scholars, who worked along with Arab scholars in creating that vast world of Islamic learning to which other peoples also became subsequent heirs and contributors. For this reason, the role of Persia in the elaboration of Islamic civilization and the Islamic sciences has remained central throughout history.”
    The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Seamus Padraig
  51. @jilles dykstra

    1. You wrote:

    “Germany was united with Russia, as the name St Petersburg already shows.”

    Germany was not Germany until after its victory in Franco-Prussian war; St Petersburg was conceived and built a century-and-a-half earlier. Peter gathered influences and technologies from all over Western Europe, but if I’m not mistaken, and if the implications of Russia’s literary geniuses, who lived/wrote at a time when St. Petersburg was the center of Russian culture, Peter/Petersburg adopted (mainly) French dress, for male and female, and French, not Italian or German, was not only the language of diplomacy but of the cultured Russian.

    You wrote:

    This attack changed the world until now, the unified Germanywas the new world power.

    I assume you are not claiming that Germany displaced United Kingdom as “the new world power,” but merely that Germany became A world power.

  52. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    Hey Talha,

    But without actually reading the book (and possibly the evidence the author brings to bear) – this may be too presumptuous to automatically write off.

    I’m not writing off the book, per se. I’m just pointing out the absurdities as I see them in the article. I’m sure the book has some gems, as K. Barrett has been known to say some very cogent and insightful things. I just happen to object to the tiresome idiocies and trite platitudes displayed above.

    Also consider SC’s link to this book as well, if you haven’t already read it, and I suspect you probably have.

    https://www.readanybook.com/ebook/lawrence-in-arabia-war-deceit-imperial-folly-and-the-making-of-the-modern-middle-east-565425

    one of the benefits of hanging around here are the links to interesting information

    Silk Road … may reorient things significantly – especially if the West keeps declining in terms of stability.

    I’ve been hearing more and more about it. The non-Western world, (Iran, Asia, including Russia, perhaps Brazil and S. Africa, others..) are figuring out their own economic future sans the drooling beast/Fed/War pig$ of the zio-occupied-west. They have no choice it seems, and so this nascent, if burgeoning ‘new Silk Road’ is very interesting as an alternative to the Fiend.

    Peace

  53. DanC says:

    The original link to “The Berlin-Baghdad Railway as a cause of World War I” didn’t work.

    If you would still like to read it, it can be downloaded using this link:

    http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA138432

    It’s one of the most important documents on the economic history of warmongering I’ve ever seen.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  54. @Talha

    I agree though that this new Silk Road (I believe Fred Reed’s been writing on it)

    I miss the Leveretts’ blog RaceforIran.com that morphed into GoingtoTehran.com after they published their book by that name.

    The Leveretts started writing about “this new Silk Road” several years ago, upon their return from a teaching stint in China —

    The “New Silk Road” and the Development of Sino-Iranian Relations
    Posted on January 28th, 2015

    http://goingtotehran.com/the-new-silk-road-and-the-development-of-sino-iranian-relations

    One of the persistent themes of the Leveretts’ blog, from its inception in 2013, was that US policy toward Iran was counterproductive, and that while US was busy seeking dragons to destroy, Russia and China were eating American lunch, developing soft-power and trade relations with all of the nations US was intent on conquering for freedum and the amerikun way.

    • Replies: @Talha
  55. @jilles dykstra

    I second your suggestion. It’s a “must read.”

    W. Morgan Shuster, ´The strangling of Persia, Story of the European diplomacy and oriental intrigue that resulted in the denationalisation of twelve million Mohammedans’, New York, 1912

  56. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    but to pretend that the Soviets were girl scouts is the height of absurdity.

    No pretending here. I have no doubt the Soviets were butchers par excellence – not just to Europeans but practically anyone else – remember what they did to the Chechens?

    But my question was a straight forward one; being that the USSR was led by a bunch of communist killers – what exactly did they do to break their part of agreements they had with Germany?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  57. @ThreeCranes

    The point is that mass production, the periodic table, understanding the properties of steel, copper, magnetism and electricity et al have brought unparalleled prosperity to everyone on the globe.

    Another point is that it all has come at a price, and those things can, and have been, and will continue to be misused and as a result, humans abused.

    Stop with the unthinking self congratulatory clap trap long enough to consider the opposite side of the coin. I know it can hurt to drop the heroic and Pollyanna attitudes, but lest’s get real here.

    We in the West are not entirely a benign bunch of angels working for the salvation of mankind, and until we learn to restrain the knuckleheads among us, which is unlikely, we will be responsible for negating, in large part, the “blessings” we’ve either bestowed or rammed down the throats of others.

    Capisce?

    • Replies: @Olorin
  58. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Europeans have possibly been the most war-like people ever…

    Though I agree with Steven Pinker in his analysis of historical violence that (if it wasn’t for WW1 and WW2) – the Central Asian steppe conquerors set the highest benchmark:
    “High-throughput massacre was also perfected by mounted hordes from the steppes, such as the Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks, Magyars, Tatars, Mughals and Manchus.”
    The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

    Very good book that looks at population declines and compares them with historical totals and looks at things from various angles and doesn’t hold back; he terms Shaka Zulu as an African Hitler.

    Peace.

  59. @SolontoCroesus

    …the dominant role played by the aristocratic fop Mark Sykes in shattering the Ottoman empire, then carving out their piece of the remains.

    Sounds like another good read.

    Anyway, I’m glad you mentioned that point because most people should know by now, but don’t, that the Nazis and Japanese we obviously interested in avoiding a similar fate and it’s too bad they were doomed from the start.

    A handful of bankers “won” and I hope they’re roasting in Hell for eternity. Unfortunately their spawn still fester in our midst.

  60. @Talha

    Talha, this statement is correct.

    Many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were reactions to provocative criminal activity perpetrated by the Allies.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  61. Carpenter says:

    (Of course the Chinese had built bigger and better ships centuries earlier, but being civilized people rather than ultra-bellicose barbarians, they used those ships for trade and exploration, not conquest.)

    Is Peter Frankopan serious? The Chinese waged wars of conquest against each other and the bloodthirsty Tibetans for millennia, until the Xing emperor finally got the upper hand. He did this by slaughtering tens of thousands of war prisoners rather than taking care of them as the custom was, so that his armies could move faster and keep the food for themselves. The Chinese delighted in torture and killing of uppity subjects who revolted, or just opposed the often nutty demands from the emperor. Whenever a mandarin or trader got too rich he risked being killed by the emperor’s court, who wanted the money. This could even happen to an emperor’s cousin.

    As for the ships, Frankopan is no doubt thinking of the “treasure voyage” to India. These large ships were not superior to European ones, they had to stay close to the coast. The Chinese were lousy shipbuilders, which is why the Europeans later ran circles around their ships, often literally. The large ships on the treasure voyage were not as large as people are led to believe. But they were large. Why? The size may impress the layman, but it is inefficient – unless you want to bring home loot. Which is what they did. They showed up at Indian ports and threatened the local rulers, who had to give them “gifts”. Very civilized.

    The ships were then destroyed and all records sealed or burned. The eunuchs who ran the emperor’s palace wanted the loot, but then feared that knowledge of the outside world would lead to dangerous ideas among the people. Such as the idea of NOT being ruled by eunuchs. These parasites deliberately shut the door to any progress for the nation. The reason they didn’t wage wars of conquest is that they had enough to fill their coffers with, and plenty of wars of conquest had already been fought, culminating in a China under Xing domination. Which then changed hands every now and then, as rebellions led to new rulers, who like the old ones soon set about taking people’s money until they became insufferable.

    Very peaceful.

    And the idea that Europeans were “barbarians” who only invented to wage war? Laughable. Mathematics, medicine, astronomy, architecture, chemistry, geology – the list of inventions that weren’t made for war goes on and on. But yes, you CAN use medicine, for example, in war time. You can use a lot of things in both war and peace.

    As for ship building, far more ships were used for trade than for war. And all people, in all times, have sought improvements in their war technology – Europeans were just far better at it. 97% of inventions since around 1500 are made by Westerners, more precisely almost solely Germanics, from northern Italy and upward. This should be celebrated, not explained as just pure luck. But I guess Peter Frankopan has his agenda.

    • Replies: @Olorin
  62. @Avery

    If you would read the history of Europe before WW1 and between the wars, you would realize that the Empire of Russian (and later the Soviet Union) was a key player in the drama. Prior to WW1 they had signed the Triple Entente treaty with France and Britain effectively hemming the Germans in. The design was to neuter them. France, still smarting from its loss in the Franco-Prussian war was eager to redeem its national pride and recover Alsace-Lorraine lost to the Prussians in the war. Russian did not become the world’s largest Empire through benevolent home rule.

    Lets everyone stop pretending that the Germans acted in a vacuum, that their behavior was some psychotic episode divorced from the antecedents that precipitated it. “All Nations”, own your own dark side, it’s the noble thing to do and the first step on all paths of religious Enlightenment.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  63. Talha says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Hey S2C,

    Thanks for the website reference; I haven’t read their stuff in a while. But if they are still writing as honestly and openly on topics related to Iran as they used to be – I certainly hope they start publishing them again since our infatuation with Iran just won’t quit.

    I highly recommend them as a source for genuine information free of MSM, Zionist, MIC nonsense.

    Peace.

  64. alan2102 says:
    @Bruce Marshall

    The LaRouchies have made a number of good points, and are right about some very important things, to be sure. Too bad that they are an authoritarian, fear-based/apocalyptic rather chauvinistic personality cult, and hence won’t ever get anywhere. And I am quite serious: it is TOO BAD. Too bad, because many highly intelligent people of good will are drawn into LaRouche’s orbit, but their energy gets dissipated; their energy gets used in ways that can’t possibly have any effective result. It is a shame. Truly a shame. The world NEEDS a “La Rouche” movement — WITHOUT LA ROUCHE.

    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
  65. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    Hey Talha,

    what exactly did they do to break their part of agreements they had with Germany?

    well, there is this

    this well researched and powerfully argued study, a Russian-born specialist has presented abundant evidence that essentially affirms the German contention…

    …it carefully documents the offensive nature of the massive Soviet military buildup on the German border in 1941

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html

    and perhaps more to the point, what Germany found inside Poland where the Soviets had been frolicking; Katyn forrest, which demonstrated for all the world to see the nature of the Soviet fiend. Which would leave no doubt as to their intentions. And if that doesn’t provide adequate proof of the imperial rapine of the Soviet id, then certainly the actions after the war was over, and Stalin grabbed all of Eastern Europe as his personal, private gulag to impose his monstrous cruelty on those people for generations, what are we arguing about?

    If Hitler’s point was that the Soviet fiend was a genocidal danger to Germany, (and everywhere else they c0undl impose their demonic domination) then the actions of Stalin after the war was “won”, it seems to me, certainly made Hitler’s posthumous point for him.

    Had Stalin insisted that Eastern Europe be free after the war was over, then I’d agree with everyone on the issue of German aggression, but considering Stalin’s (and the zio-chumps Churchill and FDR) actions after the war, it seems to prove Hitler’s point, no?

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Talha
  66. @richard warren

    Oh, come on! Do you really believe that ‘anti-Semitism’ is some opinion that arises in a vacuum? No, ‘anti-Semitism’ is nothing other than a historic response to the fact that, as you put it, “Jews might for whatever reason have disproportionate influence.”

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    I’m not surprised a German would be so ignorant of history.

    Look up Mackinder. Controlling central Asia is exactly what the British were trying to accomplish.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Afganistan controlls their own country so much that there is a foreign invasion force with bases in their country.

    Smdh.

    America doesn’t need to physically control Afgansitan. Just to deny control of other powers which is exactly what America is doing.

  69. @richard warren

    On the contrary, “anti-semitism” is actually a rational response to collective Jewish behavior.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  70. @Talha

    These are not mutually exclusive – you dominate by bellicosity and superior technology …

    I never said they were mutually exclusive. You’re burning a straw-man here, Talha. And I acknowledge that whites are capable of being bellicose, I was just trying to make the case that:

    1.) Whites are not uniquely or abnormally bellicose. You yourself later pointed out all of the Asiatic conquerors who swept through some part or parts of Eurasia throughout history. I’m sure that if Genghis Khan had had our technology, the Mongols would have conquered even more of the earth than they did — perhaps all of it. Why? Well, by all accounts, they were an extremely warlike people, much feared in their day.

    2.) What made our ancestors deadlier and more powerful than other historic conquering races was not some native bellicosity, but rather superior science and technology.

    Realize that until the 16th century, most of the warfare that whites engaged in was either of the game-of-thrones variety that all feudal/agrarian societies know, or else they were defending themselves and their continent from foreign invaders, such as the Mongols, the Arabs, or the Turks. The lone exception to this rule was the Crusades; but I maintain that Christendom had at least as strong a claim to Jerusalem as Islam did. Remember: that region had been Greek/Roman/Byzantine for centuries before Islam ever even existed.

    Arabs were a side show in that region – it has always been about Persia in that area (and Persianized Turks and others). The Abbasids were basically the Persians reasserting their dominance.

    In the first case, I don’t consider the Arab Caliphates to have been a mere “side show”. They conquered in their day much of the middle east, north Africa and even the Iberian peninsula. The Christians, then, feared them for good reason.

    Secondly, the Persians did not become Moslem until the Arabs conquered them in the 7th century AD. Until then, they had pretty much all been Zoroastrians. As I explained before, the Old Silk Roads were already in existence during the classical period of ancient Rome and Zoroastrian Persia, so Islam per se has nothing to do with them.

    Peace.

  71. @Anonymous

    I’m not surprised a German would be so ignorant of history.

    I doubt that German_reader is German. Sounds like a troll who wants, for some reason, to discredit Germans.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @dcite
  72. @Priss Factor

    “Now, the best thing would be universal nationalism. Nationalism would mean that each people would be content with their own land, culture, and identity. Sure, they would try to get along with others and do trade and exchange ideas. But their main focus would be national identity and interests. And if they all respected one another’s national sovereignty, they could all get along together.”
    Perfect reasoning. The idea can be enhanced to allow different states within the United States to acquire more autonomy in a process of devolution that would be based on direct democracy combined with a technocratic governance that would abide by the decisions of the local communities. It could all sail smoothly subject to ridding the human mind of two factors that have been the root cause of human misery: imperialism and supremacism.

    • Agree: Mark Green
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    1.) Whites are not uniquely or abnormally bellicose. You yourself later pointed out all of the Asiatic conquerors who swept through some part or parts of Eurasia throughout history.

    Oh yes they are!
    That’s what the president and faculty of Hillsdale College is teaching its students in their “Christian, values-based” curriculum:

    There has been no greater threat to civilization in the 20th century than Nazi Germany. The immediate danger—military, economic, cultural—was to European civilization, but a Nazi-controlled Europe would have threatened much more than just the West. As the conqueror and owner of Europe, Hitler’s Germany would have had the resources to dominate the Mediterranean, to control the Middle East, and threaten the Western Hemisphere. Perhaps that empire would have collapsed from the pressures of over-expansion, but even a relatively brief Nazi rule would have been horrible. The Second World War was the sine qua non for saving much of the world from another descent into dystopian barbarism. https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-presidents-franklin-roosevelt/

    Germans — white Christians — carried out the most horrendous crimes in the 20th century.

    Notice the abundance of conclusions paired with the absence of compelling evidence — or any evidence at all– in the above manifesto.

    That’s what causes me to believe that the “greatest threat to civilization in the 21st century” is the total dishonesty of the purveyors of false history of the 20th (and 19th) century.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  74. @Avery

    How was Russia responsible for the horrors of WW1?

    By mobilizing against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the full knowledge that this would likely trigger a German response. Although Russia was justifiably concerned about the fate of Serbia, she had no mutual defense pact with the Serbs, and therefore wasn’t obligated by treaty to do what she did, unlike pretty much all the other combatant nations.

    How was USSR responsible for the horrors of WW2?

    You are right: they really weren’t responsible for WW2. Stalin did everything he could to keep his country out of that bloodbath. However, the very simplistic narrative that absolutely everything was Hitler’s fault is also Anglo-Zionist propaganda. The fact is, Germany was getting too powerful again, and Britain and France wanted another war to put Germany back in her place, as it were. And since their own publics were largely opposed to war, they hoped to make use of the Polish/Danzig question to engineer a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for London and Paris though, Stalin was too clever for them and saw right through their BS, and so their plan backfired spectacularly. That’s where the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact came from. But unfortunately for the Soviet Union, Hitler’s distrust of Stalin — not to mention his vanity and ambition — would never allow him to run a ‘second banana’ empire in Europe alongside the USSR. That’s where Operation Barbarossa came from.

    The now dominant narrative equating the USSR with the Third Reich, declaring them uniquely and solely responsible for the war, and completely letting England and France off the hook, was devised and spread by the Schachtmannite-Trotskyites after the war in an attempt — largely successful in the west, sadly — to discredit both Hitler and Stalin at the same time.

    By way of analogy, the equally simplistic narrative that the Japs attacked us out of a clear blue sky and with no provocation whatsoever is also a distortion so extreme as to be almost a lie. Roosevelt engineered that confrontation with Japan from the start, partly to prevent the Japs from dominating East Asia, and also to expand Washington’s own portfolio in the Pacific Rim. (We had already had a good start with the Philippenes.)

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Philip Owen
  75. @Talha

    From the eminent British historian F.J.P. Veale’s book “The Advance to Barbarism”.

    “To put the problem in a nutshell; the essential rule of civilized warfare laid down that hostilities must be limited to the combatant forces. But, as from June, 25th, 1940, the combatant forces were separated by the sea. How in such circumstances could hostilities be continued?”

    “Hitler’s solution of this problem was an offer to negotiate peace…..He had achieved all and much more than all he had set out to achieve and Germany lay under the shadow of the Red Army. Nor need we consider that terms he would have been willing to offer since his proposal was not even accorded a reply……both the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and the Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax….gave no indication of any basis upon which a peaceful settlement could be discussed.”

    “But a sulky silence by Hitler’s opponents offered no solution to the problem as to how hostilities were to be continued…..half a century before, the only means available would have been to launch series of the and run naval raids not eh coasts of Europe. Now, however, the conquest of the air had provided a new method by which not only could boredom be combatted but a war psychosis created. The indiscriminate dropping of bombs at night on enemy centers of population would be bound, sooner or later, to call forth reprisals of a similar nature, and the resulting slaughter of innocent civilians could not fail to inflame warlike passions on both sides.”

    “Hitler was threatening that, if the British air attacks on the German civil population continued, he would drop ten bombs on Britain for every bomb dropped on Germany…..”

    “It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940-1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for the sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders.”

    “The [British aerial] raid on the night of May 11, 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces.”

    “Finally, he [Mr. Spraight in his book "Bombing Vindicated] agrees that Hitler only undertook the bombing of the British civilian population reluctantly three months after the R.A.F. had commenced bombing the German civilian population and expresses the opinion that after it had started Hitler would have been willing at any time to have stopped the slaughter….”

    Confidential papers release in the 1970′s reveal that the British high command had, with authority from the highest sources, embarked on a decision to bomb German suburban civilian populations in preference to military targets, ostensibly to destroy morale of the German worker. This was an unprecedented break with conventional rules of war that had prevailed for nearly four centuries of European warfare.

    See also the eminent J.F.C. Fuller’s Military History Of the Western World and The Second World War on how warring armies prior to the 20th century had been somewhat constrained by convention and formal treaties from deliberately targeting civilian populations (religious wars excluded of course).

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @jilles dykstra
  76. Che Guava says:
    @German_reader

    This is interesting, but why you are
    calling yourself a ‘Revisionist on the War on Terror’, everybody who has followed events and reads knows that it is a crock of poo, is a mystery.

    I will read the whole in detail tomorrow evening, but why you are thinking that is a dirty word, it is hard to undesrtand.

    I have a sort-of-friend who is ultranationalist, makes graphics deriding the Chinese-American lady, Iris Chang, who was writing The Rape of Nanking, also a rock song for it.

    It is a good sound (if you are likimg noisy rock with electronic frills, I still do, the piece has real power), but the words are a lie.

    So, the worst kind of revisionist, backing a pure lie. I don’t even think revisionist is really a valid term, it lumps lies and telling truth together.

    The graphics are a cheap copy of the cover of Sex Pistols’ God Save the Queen’. Other of his graphic artworks are good to great (and I think that I recognize some of his commercial ones for Japan Rail at times), but that one is seeming so stupid and cheap to me.

    She is dead quite young, by her own hand, it is said, many years ago, I have little doubt that Japanese mob played a part, I can’t prove it, maybe she was just very depressed, but I do know she was under constant threat by the Japanese mob, while living In the USA! 

    Somebody who is living there should have a new look at events leading to her death.

    In Japanese, it is almost always presented as her suicide proves that she was insane or even ashamed of her book, so it was all a lie.

    Itself a lie.

    That the massacre happened and was as bad as she stated is also corroborated by the top German official there, a member of the NSDAP, many others. Almost nothing cited without references in the book.

    Many interesting comments on this thread, jilles, Rurik. Jacques, and Priss as always, some others I would like to refute, including parts of the article, but Nod is calling.

    • Replies: @Anon
  77. @anonymous

    The US didn’t give anything without strings. They demanded the end of Britain’s system of Imperial Preference and the convertibility of sterling.

  78. Lot says:
    @anon

    Seriously does R.U. have any other criteria for the writers here other than a obsessive hatred and jealousy of Yahoodi ??

    That seems to be the main criterion for the obscure guest authors.

    • Replies: @iffen
  79. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    The Guernica bombing was an attack on a front-line position where there were several major military objectives. I don’t have time right now to fill in all the details, but I think it’s been commented on here before, search “Guernica” under comments-only. I don’t really know about WWII, but I’m sure knowledgeable people will fill us in. I’m surprised they haven’t already.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  80. Cyrano says:
    @anon

    None of the great powers throughout history have ever controlled Afghanistan, starting from Alexander the Great, the Romans, British, the Russians, none of them. And this still didn’t prevent them from being great powers.

    Why does everybody refer to the opinions of one stupid Polak? When was the last time Poland has produced any remarkable statesmen or strategist? Afghanistan has been and is a s**thole, that only some quasi-intellectual can claim that’s important so he can appear that he knows something that no one else does.

    • Replies: @Anon
  81. @Seamus Padraig

    I was just trying to make the case that:

    1.) Whites are not uniquely or abnormally bellicose.

    No one needs to make that case; it’s pretty much a given. The problem is that “we” typically deny “our” bellicosity and worse, try to justify it as some form of charity.

    Apologizing for the ineffably hideous crackpot behavior of ultra-rich white leadership over the last few centuries on the basis that “everbuddy else dunnit” doesn’t cut it.

    If we’re so special, why don’t we act like it?

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  82. Biff says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Black Africa, Arabs, and the Orientals all sailed to the new world long before the Portuguese. Better ship doesn’t equate to better sailor.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  83. @richard warren

    …anti-Semitism is indeed a mental disease that crushes reason and distorts reality.

    Now, tell us about anti-goyism.

    “Likewise, anti-Semitism is a universally accepted notion, but goy-hatred is not. These are just two amongst many other such ‘one-way mental blocks”…Friends, this is not a coincidence. This is a *system* designed to make us all stupid and gullible.”

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-orlando-massacre-the-lies-the-exploitation-and-unasked-questions/

    Is all criticism of Jews merely a result of anti-Semitism? Explain.

    Is criticism of fake Jews (e.g., most atheistic, Zionist thugs of Eastern European origin aka Israelis) anti-Semitism? Explain.

    What do you have to say about this sort of thing?

    ”Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
    “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.”According to Yosef, death has “no dominion” over non-Jews in Israel.”

    “Hate the Gentile!” Israel’s Racist Rabbis, by JONATHAN COOK

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/10/israel-s-racist-rabbis/

  84. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    A massacre certainly happened, but surely not the 200,000+ sometimes claimed?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  85. @Anon

    You may be interested in Orwell’s “Looking Back at the Spanish War.”

    Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

    George Orwell, LOOKING BACK ON THE SPANISH WAR (1942)

    Orwell volunteered for the front lines during the Spanish Civil war, was made a corporal, and was shot through the neck by a sniper while in the trenches, and discharged as a result.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  86. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Cyrano

    Alexander did, not that it much mattered. The only people it really helped were people who wanted to invade India (esp. Mughals, but others as well) from the northwest; it’s a good staging area and a decent recruiting ground.

  87. Talha says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Hey Seamus,

    Whites are not uniquely or abnormally bellicose.

    I’ll certainly agree here – but it also depends on which Whites we are talking about and at what point in their history. I mean the Scandinavians are a great example of people who were the slave-raiding scourge of a lot of Europe for centuries and had their own Swedish Empire, but barely participated in the conquest of the rest of the world. And now – they are mostly neutral.

    The Swiss have a relatively clean record too.

    I had a talk with a co-worker (originally a Hindu from India – me being from Pakistan) and we both agreed that man did we luck out that the British conquered the subcontinent rather than the Spanish – that would have been a disaster.

    But who can doubt that Europe was the location for some of the most devastating conflicts (and log lasting – 100 Years War – oy!) in human history. This naturally spurred military design and tactics – it goes hand in hand. Europeans got a heck of a lot of practice on each other – the rest of the world barely had a chance. And I don’t doubt that the Mongols would have loved to have cannons and muskets at their disposal.

    Realize that until the 16th century, most of the warfare that whites engaged in was either of the game-of-thrones variety

    Totally agree – the thing is historic Europe always seemed like it was Feudal Japan on a continental scale. The violence was mostly internal. But that incubation had a sort of evolutionary quality to it – the martial capability that survived was absolutely devastating. I mean, one could argue that proper use of artillery was not refined until the Napoleonic Wars. Europe was a staging and experimental ground.

    I maintain that Christendom had at least as strong a claim to Jerusalem as Islam did

    Sure thing – I don’t begrudge Europeans trying to take it back – especially since; 1) the (possibly mad) Fatimid caliph destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and 2) Seljuks caused disruption in Christian pilgrimages into the area. I do maintain that certain Crusader kingdoms and armies were horrific in their violence on the local population (even upon Orthodox Christians). Other ones were relatively enlightened and fair-minded – the Normans I believe distinguished themselves.

    In the first case, I don’t consider the Arab Caliphates to have been a mere “side show”.

    To a certain degree I understand. From one aspect, Arab supremacy ended fast and hard in that area of Asia with the fall of the Ummayyads. The Ummayads lasted in the West for quite a while – but that’s not part of the region we are concerned about. The Abbasids had their primary support from Persians:
    “With the rise of the ʿAbbāsids the base for influence in the empire became international, emphasizing membership in the community of believers rather than Arab nationality. Since much support for the ʿAbbāsids came from Persian converts, it was natural for the ʿAbbāsids to take over much of the Persian (Sāsānian) tradition of government.”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Abbasid-dynasty

    But the lasting effect of what the Arabs brought as far as religion, language, culture certainly had far more staying power than whatever the Mongols brought with them – they basically conquered everyone but got absorbed.

    Islam per se has nothing to do with them.

    Not in their creation, no. But yes in their propagation and connection to previously untapped areas and stabilizing the region instead of the destructive wars between Persia and Byzantium – which is what I believe Mr. Barrett was referring to. It did build an impressive inter-continental flow of knowledge by introducing a unified language and idea of universal brotherhood. There were Berbers in Spain studying and commenting on works in science and math in Arabic that were based on original Dharmic Hindu sources. Likewise in Transoxiana from works in Arabic translated from Greeks and Egyptians. I just recently bought a book partially based on the commentary of Mullah Ali Qari (ra) who was born in Herat and eventually came to reside in Makkah and studied under the Egyptian-born scholar Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (ra) and then remained teaching in Makkah as one of its greatest religious scholars. This kind of stuff never took place over that expansive region before Islam came on the map.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anon
  88. @jacques sheete

    Here’s from another good one by Orwell, “Spilling the Spanish Beans.”

    The real struggle is between revolution and
    counter-revolution; between the workers who are vainly trying to hold on
    to a little of what they won in 1936, and the Liberal-Communist bloc who
    are so successfully taking it away from them. It is unfortunate that so
    few people in England have yet caught up with the fact that Communism is
    now a counter-revolutionary force; that Communists everywhere are in
    alliance with bourgeois reformism
    and using the whole of their powerful
    machinery to crush or discredit any party that shows signs of
    revolutionary tendencies. Hence the grotesque spectacle of Communists
    assailed as wicked ‘Reds’ by right-wing intellectuals who are in
    essential agreement with them.

    Bella Dodd, an American Communist, also made similar points in her “School of Darkness.”

    Essentially the wars of the 20th and 21st century were and are all frauds based on huge lies, all to the greater power glory of the red millionaires just as this article suggests.

    Most of what we know about Guernica and many other things is commie rich guy propaganda.

  89. jeppo says:

    That Western project of establishing world hegemony may, according to Frankopan, be nearing its end. The rise of China, and the assertiveness of Russia and Iran, are symptoms, not causes; the underlying pattern is one of the Silk Road, the trade belt across the heartland of Eurasia, re-establishing itself as the real center of the world, relegating the marginal forces at the western fringes of Eurasia, and their gigantic settler colony in Genocided North America, to the margins where they belong.

    Well, that’s one way of putting it. Borrowing from the theories of Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman and even Orwell, the world is divided into two great geopolitical blocs: Oceania and the World Island. The World Island is the mainland of the Eurasia-Africa supercontinent, and Oceania is all the offshore islands, including the Americas and Australia et al.

    Though the World Island contains the majority of Earth’s land area and between 75% and 80% of the population, Oceanic powers have dominated the globe for more than 250 years, since the *real* first world war. That being the Seven Years War, fought on 5 continents, and also known as the French and Indian War in the US.

    Britain and her allies defeated France and her allies, weakened France’s position in Europe, and established a stranglehold on North America and the Indian subcontinent. For the first time ever an Oceanic nation became the world’s premier superpower, and ever since the status quo Oceanic powers have defended their hegemony against a series of revanchist World Island challengers. The timeline goes something like this:

    1763-1871: status quo Britain defends against revanchist France
    1871-1945: status quo Britain (after 1942 the US) defends against revanchist Germany
    1945-1991: status quo United States defends against revanchist Russia (USSR)
    1991-present: status quo United States defends against revanchist China

    It’s highly unlikely that any other powers will ever displace the US and China as the undisputed leaders of Oceania and the World Island respectively. China would seem to have a long-term edge over the US due to its huge population, but it will be much tougher for China to unite the World Island under its leadership than it will be for the US to continue to dominate Oceania.

    The Muslim world and probably Africa will fall in behind China, but Europe will likely remain allied with the US, leaving Russia and India as the wildcards. If the US can permanently draw Russia into its orbit, then it can indefinitely prevent Chinese hegemony on the World Island. If not, then China will become the world’s sole superpower sometime later this century.

    To paraphrase Nicholas Spykman, “Who controls the Eurasian heartland rules World Island, who rules World Island controls the destiny of Planet Earth.”

  90. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Thanks ThreeCranes!

    I did not know this and found another historian to back it up:
    “Overy traces the origins of the bombing war back to 10 May 1940, the same day that Germany began its attack on the West and Churchill replaced Chamberlain as British prime minister. ‘Chamberlain had always opposed the use of bombing against urban targets,’ writes Overy, ‘but Churchill had no conscientious or legal objections.’ Indeed, already as Minister of Munitions in 1917, Churchill had been in favour of an independent air force and a policy of long-range bombing against German industrial targets.”
    “Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain].’”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/#

    It seems pretty obvious that what Gen. Curtis Lemay said was to be applied to a lot more people in leadership all around:
    “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time,” LeMay admitted later. “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/god-no-the-u-s-air-force-doesn-t-need-another-curtis-lemay-37de19c11652

    That kind of callousness was found in the steppe warlords that I mentioned. Man – I am glad that war was isolated (mostly) to Europe and the Far East.

    Peace.

  91. @Talha

    In regards to area bombing during WW2 it’s actually true that escalation was mostly the responsibility of the British. The bombing of Guernica (a tactical operation in support of the Spanish Nationalists) has been significantly exaggerated and isn’t comparable in any way to WW2 area bombing.
    Good recent account of WW2 bombing is Richard Overy’s “The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945″.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Talha
  92. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “Prior to WW1 they [Russia] had signed the Triple Entente treaty with France and Britain effectively hemming the Germans in. The design was to neuter them. France, still smarting from its loss in the Franco-Prussian war was eager to redeem its national pride and recover Alsace-Lorraine lost to the Prussians in the war…”

    So that’s why France declared war and invaded Germany 1914?

    Wait, wait, wait! Something’s wrong.

    Seems Germany invaded Luxembourg (2 Aug ‘14), neutral Belgium (4 Aug ‘14) , and (evil, evil) France (23 Aug ‘14). All after encouraging rotten Austria-Hungary allies to make war on Serbia (5 Jul ‘14-).

    Golly, ThreeCranes. Seems chronology contradicts you. Can you bridge the gap? Tell us how evil France ordered German troops to invade Luxembourg, Belgium and France itself. Did France whisper a secret code word that evoked involuntary Prußian aggression? Ah, those poor, ever-victimized Huns!

    We’re counting on you TC. Don’t disappoint! Set the record straight!

    “If you would read the history of Europe before WW1…”

    Indeed. Forget the humbling Russian defeat 5 Sep 1905, scarce 9 years before ‘14? No matter. Your heart’s in the right place.

    ““All Nations”, own your own dark side, it’s the noble thing to do and the first step on all paths of religious Enlightenment.”

    Double indeed! Is there a key to this gobbledygook that enables decipherment and meaning?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  93. Sparkon says:

    The whole name of the game, then and now, has always been: At all costs, prevent Germany from uniting with Russia!

    Yes, and the Far Eastern counterpart is:

    At all costs, prevent Japan from uniting with China!

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  94. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Curiously, the Italian bombing of Barcelona actually was WWII-style terror bombing, on a smaller scale and quite ineffective.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  95. Talha says:
    @German_reader

    Hey G_R,

    Yeah – just saw that in an article I linked to. I bet that’s not going to get taught in the British school system.

    Peace.

  96. @Priss Factor

    “China could collapse economically, as under Mao”? Um, no. Mao grew China’s economy 6.2% for 24 years and incurred zero debt–while under crushing sanctions and exclusion from the UN. The USA, during that postwar boomtime, grew 3.8%.

    • Replies: @phil
  97. I just don’t have the energy to take you on. Here’s Wiki. (my bold). You do remember that we were discussing Russia, don’t you?

    “On 25 July Russia began mobilisation and on 28 July the Austro-Hungarians declared war on Serbia. Germany presented an ultimatum to Russia to demobilise, and when this was refused, declared war on Russia on 1 August. Being outnumbered on the Eastern Front, Russia urged its Triple Entente ally France to open up a second front in the west. Back in 1870, the Franco-Prussian War had ended the Second French Empire and ceded the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to a unified Germany. Bitterness over that defeat and the determination to retake Alsace-Lorraine made the acceptance of Russia’s plea for help an easy choice, so France began full mobilisation on 1 August and, on 3 August, Germany declared war on France. The border between France and Germany was heavily fortified on both sides so according to the Schlieffen Plan, Germany then invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France from the north, leading the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany on 4 August due to their violation of Belgian neutrality.”

    Once again someone, you in this case, is taking events out of context and pretending that Germany acted with no motive at all, just sadistically murdering people out of sheer bloodlust. This gets tiring to refute. Try to be balanced.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  98. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    Thanks for the link. WW2 is something I have more knowledge than the common man, but definitely not my area of expertise.

    Had Stalin insisted that Eastern Europe be free after the war was over, then I’d agree with everyone on the issue of German aggression

    I can definitely see this point of view. There was little that was benign about Soviet designs over taking over Eastern Europe – I guess hard-core communists might disagree.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Rurik
  99. @Anon

    Yes, I’ve read of that; iirc even Franco objected somewhat to this (maybe more because the Italians hadn’t asked for his permission than out of humanitarian concerns).

  100. @Seamus Padraig

    And note also that it was the Portuguese — not the Arabs or the Chinese — who were the first to circumnavigate the globe.

    Small correction: While Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) was indeed Portuguese, the mission (1519-22) to circumnavigate the globe was a Spanish one, which is why Guam and the Philippines were Spanish colonies, not Portuguese ones.

  101. @Talha

    Umm – I thought Germany bombed London first*.

    You should perhaps have a look at the following:

    Hitler didn’t start indiscriminate bombings — Churchill did

    Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain].’

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/#

  102. @Incitatus

    I answer you at 103.

    If the last sentence is gobbledygook to you then you simply don’t have ears to hear. So it goes.

  103. @Jon Halpenny

    No doubt about it. The Brit empire was the nastiest troublemaker of the time and responsible for inflaming many conflicts.

    Nock’s “ Myth of a Guilty Nation”
    Exposes the preparation for war against Germany while pretending it was the only guilty power.

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/LibertarianRev-1974nov-00001a02

    It is also available on line and makes many convincing points as does Harry Elmer Barnes’ superb “The Genesis of the World War,” (1923), which is likewise available on line and exposes the masterful Brit diplomacy which succeeded in dragging Germany into a war despite every effort on Germany’s part to avoid it.

    It also pays to remember that WW2 really was a continuation of the game that continues today, and therefore it is false to say that the Nazis started it. It was a project initiated by certain parts of the big money crowd as MG S. Butler so vividly described in his “War is a Racket,” condemning the profiteers for starting WW1.

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill himself called “unnecessary,” (WW2,) the 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote about US involvement in WW1…

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

  104. “Of course the Chinese had built bigger and better ships centuries earlier, but being civilized people rather than ultra-bellicose barbarians, they used those ships for trade and exploration, not conquest.”

    I find the author’s statements to be simplistic utterances. Anyone that doubts the bellicosity of the Chinese only has to study Chinese history. They conquered Korea, and had external wars with the Mongols, Eastern and Western Turks, the Japanese, Vietnamese, and the Burmese, among others. But, they were absolutely ruthless against other Chinese. From the Battle of Banquan in the 26th century BC to today’s interference in Tibet, the Chinese have fought a larger number of wars than any European power. And they didn’t use ships for conquest probably because they didn’t have cannon. Even so, they attempted to use their Navy to conquer Japan twice. Chinese ships were larger than European vessels at the time of Zheng He in the 1400′s, but by the end of the 15th century and early 16th, European ships were faster, more maneuverable, with better sails designed for ocean going voyages. Chinese ships had a flatter hull, better in shallow water, although there were some additions that made deep water sailing easier. One has to wonder about their exploratory nature as they never really attempted to tackle the Pacific Ocean. They never attempted a really long stretch of ocean sailing, comparable to the European powers that traversed the Atlantic and Pacific in the 15th and 16th centuries.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  105. utu says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    You are right: they really weren’t responsible for WW2. Stalin did everything he could to keep his country out of that bloodbath.

    What about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact? Would Hitler invade Poland w/o it?

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Seamus Padraig
  106. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous

    You are an idiot. However, since you choose to post as anon., you already seem to know that. I can give you a long iist of worse than the Germans, from Africans to Asians to Curtis Le May, but will just say, Jewish Bolsheviks, since they were uniquely savage, murderous, and evil.

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Wulf
  107. Avery says:
    @utu

    {What about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact? Would Hitler invade Poland w/o it?}

    Years before the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed in 1939, Stalin tried desperately to have England and France sign a defense pact with USSR to block Nazi Germany.

    He was rebuffed by both England and France . (check it out: it’s true.)

    Did you know Nazi Germany and Poland signed a non-aggression pact in 1934?
    Stalin signed a pact with Hitler after he was rebuffed by both England and France.
    He knew Hitler was going to invade USSR and he knew the Red Army was in no shape to stop him, so he was hoping to buy time to get ready for the coming invasion.

    The invasion by Stalin of Poland was intended to serve the same purpose: to buy defensible space.

    As it turned out, Hitler outsmarted Staling and invaded well before the Red Army was ready. His troops made it all the way to the Volga river, deeeeeep inside USSR.

    As to your original question: Yes, most certainly. Hitler was going to invade USSR for his Lebensraum, and nothing would stop him. Poland and all the other ‘phony wars’ were a sideshow. He had reassured his generals who expressed reservations about Barbarossa that SU would collapse with the first blows: that’s what believed.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  108. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male

    Even in the voyages of Zheng He (or Hwang Ho, in transliteration from Cantonese), there were many cases of punitive expeditions when the natives were not seen as sufficiently cooperative. What is now Sri Lanka had a particularly good and relatively well-recorded example, but there were several similar incidents from S.E. Asia to E. Africa.

    It is interesting that the adventure came to such a sharp and sudden end. The reason given, if we have too much to do with the barbarians, we ourselves will be barbarized.

    attempted to use their navy to conquer japan twice

    When?

    A fifth of the sixth-century nobility here were of Chinese descent (most were from the Korean peninsula, another fifth seen as native), but China cannot be said to have had a navy at the time.

    Mongol invasion, sure, but again, the boats they used were not a navy, and it was a Mongol, not a Chinese, action.

    1894 to 1895? Not an attempt at conquest, and China’s navy was not unitary at the time, also much corruption. It was about Korea to start, further Japanese ambitions as it progressed.

    So when were the two times you claim?

    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
  109. RobinG says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik, I’m sure Avery has heard of the Holodomor, but the extent and intention of that are a subject of serious debate. (Somewhat like the holocaust, eh? ;)

    To hear the Ukrainians tell it, Holodomor was intentional genocide. However, the disaster – mass starvation due to bad policy and planning – affected the entire Soviet Union, most specifically the agricultural areas that were deprived for the benefit of the industrializing cities.

    [NB – I haven’t read Avery’s comment or the article, but this caught my eye.)

    • Replies: @Rurik
  110. nsa says:
    @Che Guava

    Curtis Lemay bragged about killing 20% of the Korean population. When asked how many he would kill to achieve victory, he replied “all of them”. When his targeting officers reported every city in northern Korea had been leveled and they had run out of targets, he ordered them to “level them again”. It is said Eisenhower had great difficulty wresting actual control of the nukes back from LeMay and his newly formed SAC…..but that is another story. Curtis LeMay……one of a kind monster responsible for the cowardly mass murder of at least ten million defenseless civilians from the air.

    • Agree: Che Guava
  111. Cyrano says:
    @Talha

    I think that Hitler will eventually go down in history as the most misunderstood man. You see, everybody thinks that he was evil, but in fact he was just a visionary (besides being a nutcase – which is something you two: Rurik and Talha can relate to).

    Hitler was actually a great humanitarian. How so? Well, everybody thinks that he sought lebensraum because of selfish reasons. Nothing can be further from the truth. He sought lebensraum, because he foresaw that decades later his native Germany will be overrun with refugees – thanks to the idiotic policies of their future friends – the Americans. So he sought some extra territory in order to accommodate the refugee invasion, that’s what a great and unselfish man he was.

    He also foresaw that the Polish will be quite uncooperative on the issue – refusing to accept EU quotas on refugees – so that’s why he invaded them too. I think that Nostradamus had nothing on Hitler, he saw what a selfish nations the Polish and the Russians are – so he invaded them.

    Hitler knew that nations which multiculture together – die out together, that’s why he couldn’t stand the selfish Slavs, what a non-cosmopolitan bunch they are.

    • Replies: @Talha
  112. Talha says:
    @Cyrano

    Hey Cyrano,

    Pretty funny :)

    Though I don’t think either me (me for sure) nor Rurik are trying to carry water for Hitler. Evil people can act rationally in response to others’ actions. I was simply asking what was going on in the background to motivate people to act as they did when – on the surface – things looked like Operation Barbarossa should not have taken place. I’m sure neither Hitler nor Stalin had any qualms using the situation to their favor to try to acquire more territory for their respective side. Just because Hitler could be classified as evil doesn’t automatically make the other side “good” or “sincere”.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  113. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    The destructive wars between Persia and “Rome” were succeeded by equally interminable and destructive wars between whoever happened to occupy Anatolia and whoever happened to occupy Persia, with various other players thrown in at various times.

    • Replies: @Talha
  114. @Avery

    Hitler attacked the USSR three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack.
    If Hitler knew when exactly Stalin would attack is not known.
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Avery
  115. @ThreeCranes

    It is one of the great ironies of history that the official post WWII British report on the effects of bombing Germany concluded that the damage to GB, building bombers, losing the best brains of GB, was approximately equal to the damage to Germany.
    The RAF’s bombing expert Zuckermann was of the opinion that the damage to Britain far exceeded the damage to Germany.
    War is the art of doing damage to the enemy with less damage to one’s own country.

    Solly Zuckermann, ‘From Apes to Warlords, an autobiography, 1904- 46’, London 1988

    Peter H. Nicoll, ´Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, Ursachen, Methoden und Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs’, 1963, 2001, Tübingen ( Britain’s Blunder, 1953)

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  116. @jacques sheete

    The British empire desperately tried to survive, as Balfour already in 1907 said to the USA ambassador ‘maybe war was the cheapest method of keeping the British standard of living’.
    Around 1900 GB could no longer compete economically with the unified Germany.

    Philip M. Taylor, ‘Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day’, 1990, 1995, Manchester

    Philip M. Taylor, ‘ The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda 1919_1939′, Cambridge 1981

    • Replies: @Talha
  117. @jacques sheete

    The British had been terrified of Russian expansion in Asia for decades. From 1902 the British encouraged the Japanese to attack Russia. The result was a major defeat defeat for Russia. The British decided that a weakened Russia could be co-opted. The years leading up to World War I saw the British re-directing Russian ambitions towards the Balkans and Constantinople. This brought the Russians into direct competition with the Triple Alliance.

    Britain was the instigator of World War I.

  118. I think that Hitler will eventually go down in history as the most misunderstood man.

    Nah, the “Chosen Ones” already own that lamentation.

    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
  119. Skeptikal says:
    @German_reader

    “So WW2 was really about…Afghanistan???”

    Your little question seems to be designed to sideline, through wide-eyed incredulity, discussion of the role of Afghanistan in geopolitics of the prev. two centuries. Why is the struggle over Afghanistan called the Great Game? Because Af. is in a central spot on the “gameboard” of Eurasia. Sort of like the king, in chess. Doesn’t have a lot of power of his own, yet the whole game revolves around controlling him. Yet so far no external power has really succeeded in doing this. So your “. . . Afghanistan???” shows that you don’t have the wherewithal to grasp a great irony, w hich is that Af. is supposed weak, but no one can get a handle on the country!!

    One of the greatest experts on Afghanistan, someone who spent years of his life there and made it the subject of his academic work in a number of fields, was the German ethnomusicologist Bernd Glatzer. Of Afghanistan’s place in the Silk Road Dr. Glatzer stated in a 2008 interview (this is s Google translation and it contains much of interest, including Glatzer’s refusal to work for the CIA to hlep the latter “understand” and control the Afghan people; the Google translation is here (it contains plenty of oddities):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/das-militaer-sucht-nach-neuen-wegen–die-taliban-zu-besiegen–ein-gespraech-mit-dem-ethnologen-bernd-glatzer-wie-ticken-die-afghanen–15740206&prev=search

    The original German is here;the title is “The Military Searches for New Ways to Defeat the Taliban: An Interview with Bernd Glatzer: What makes the Afghans tick”:

    http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/das-militaer-sucht-nach-neuen-wegen–die-taliban-zu-besiegen–ein-gespraech-mit-dem-ethnologen-bernd-glatzer-wie-ticken-die-afghanen–15740206

    And here is was Bernd Glatzer said anent the Afghans as it relates to the Silk Road and the new Great Game:

    But few have really been interested in the country, many have moved further to India.Friendly? Open? Cosmopolitan? We are talking about Afghanistan, the country of the Taliban. **Afghanistan was always a trade and transit country.** This has shaped the people there. Located between Central Asia and China, it was a crossroads point of the Silk Road. And it attracted many people: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timur or Marco Polo. Did they get out of it in one piece? No one got out of Afghanistan in one piece. Did they even get out of it? Nobody came away happy, even Genghis Khan suffered heavy losses. The Afghans are happy to let everyone in, but then only with difficulty will they leave again. For me it has also been so, the land still holds me. The Afghans are open to all strangers. But if they realize that the strangers are not honest, they want to abuse them, or even conquer their territory, they can be very unpleasant as the British have experienced the Russians in the nineteenth century or later. It is important to ask why, in other countries, it is so easy to prescribe something to the citizens. Do not the Afghans’ intractability and skepticism have to be described as normal and the behavior of the others? – Quelle: http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/15740206 ©2017

    ++++end of excerpt
    So I think the point is that virtually all of the European imperial powers of history (and maybe also the Asian, that I don’t know) have tried to link east and west, and that has involved conquering/controlling Afghanistan. Do you think that Nazi Germany, had the Axis won, would not have tried to link up with Japan and control India and the ME?

  120. Skeptikal says:

    AFAIK, the first to write comprehensivelyl and in detail about the “new” thesis that Frankopan proposes was Guido Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (Pluto Press, 2005).

    Very heavily documented, Preparata’s book pulls together a mountain of archival and published evidence to explain the financial sleight of hand that financed Hitler, the personalities who plucked AH from relative obscurity and put tools in his hands, and also strategic thinking behind the decision, primarily of Churchill and the British, to continue on to the second phase of the Great War: Because they hadn’t quite achieved what they wanted to in the first round: the destruction of Russia and, BTW, Germany.

    Preparata’s preface is here:

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Conjuring_Hitler_-_Preface

    The full (searchable) text is here:

    https://archive.org/stream/ConjuringHitler/ConjuringHitler_djvu.txt

  121. @jacques sheete

    If we’re so special, why don’t we act like it?

    You’re putting words in my mouth. I never maintained that we were “special,” whatever that means to you. I was simply arguing that we are not “abnormally bellicose.” I was arguing that what once made us deadlier and more powerful than any other race was the technology we created, not some unique cultural bellicosity. That’s all. I am not a supporter of “American exceptionalism” or whatever.

  122. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor

    But the only way smaller nations like Britain, Spain, and France could be Great Powers was by conquering more land. And New World offered them this opportunity. Spanish/Portuguese took the southern parts, Anglos took the middle part, and French took the northern part(and claimed Louisiana territory).

    Another aspect is that Imperialism was the fashion in the late 20th Century. The equation was Empire = Power = Racial Superiority, with little sympathy for “natives”, although the British did regard it as their duty to “uplift them” with clean administrations, good education etc. with some success. The small British administration of India (many Scots) was probably the cleanest and most efficient that that country ever had.

    Anyway, when we look at today’s world, it’s easy to understand why Jews are so restless and aggressive. Jews have no great land mass for themselves. Chinese got China, Russians got Russia. Indians got India. Iranians got Iran, which is pretty big.

    That’s right that they want a physical land empire – no tightrope walk, and the only way to do it is to grab absolute power in the US like they did in Russia 1917 (Bolsheviks) and Hungary 1919 (Hungarian Soviet Republic – Béla Kuhn and his all Jewish leadership). In both cases they immediately started mass killing of anyone who could oppose them – mostly the ethnic majority middle class.

    If Jews had a giant nation like Russia or China to themselves, they might be less hyper. But they don’t. Jewish power is immense but it’s like walking a tightrope. Jews need to maintain The Position to have the power. In contrast, China could collapse economically, as under Mao, and still belong to Chinese. And Russia could collapse as in the 90s and still revert to Russian control. But if Jews lose top position in the West, they could lose it forever since they don’t have the power of numbers/demography.

    If they are not going to integrate, and want to retain racial supremacy (i.e. treat the US as an imperial colonial possession of Israel) then the only real option for them is a dictatorship to remove all political power from Gentiles and repress any dissent probably in NKVD/Gulag style.

    The threat to them is nationalism (which destroyed their project in both Germany and Russia in the 1930′s).

  123. @Biff

    Having a ship or two accidentally land in the new world after being blown wildly off course by a storm is not the same thing as having nautical technology that can reliably support regular transoceanic voyages. The vikings managed it once or twice as well. So what? They never managed to establish any permanent settlements or colonies. Neither did the Chinese, Arabs or Africans.

  124. Skeptikal says:
    @jilles dykstra

    “So that my statements can be checked, I most of the time specify a source, also on how Wall Street supported Lenin, in order to separate Germany economically from Russia.”

    A central point of Guido Preparata’s “Conjuring Hitler.”

  125. Skeptikal says:
    @ANON

    “So that my statements can be checked, I most of the time specify a source, also on how Wall Street supported Lenin, in order to separate Germany economically from Russia.”

    A central point of Guido Preparata’s “Conjuring Hitler.”

  126. Talha says:
    @Anon

    That may be the case but it was relatively stable for a while. Another thing to keep in mind – and this is extremely important; Sassanid/Zoroastrian Persia and Greek/Christian Byzantium were competing religious and cultural enterprises – continuing a very ancient rivalry between the Greeks and the Persians (to a lesser degree the Egyptians). What exactly were the chances that areas under Greek control like the Levant or Egypt would share beneficial knowledge with Persia or that she would do the same or that the knowledge of the Indian subcontinent would easily pass through Persia and be shared westward? Why would the Persians even be interested in anything the Greeks had to offer and deign to learn from them and vice versa? Learn Greek??!! Study works in Persian??!! Was there any precedence for knowledge sharing in their past history*?

    To pose these questions is to have answered them.

    Peace.

    *Other than when Alexander ran roughshod over and through them and adopted some of their customs when they were no longer a military threat.

    • Replies: @Anon
  127. Talha says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Hey jilles,

    Around 1900 GB could no longer compete economically with the unified Germany.

    I find that interesting – even with her huge economic enterprise in India that she was siphoning money and materials from?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  128. @utu

    Poland? Why yes, of course. In the Mein Kampf (1923), Hitler was already contemplating Lebensraum in the east. His plan represented a continuation of the Septemberprogramm from WW1:

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

    Among other things, it called for maintaining control of Poland and expanding eastward into Russia, Ukraine, Byelorus, etc.

  129. @jilles dykstra

    That’s absurd. Have you ever been to London? Compare it with, say, Berlin or Hamburg. London has many, many fine old pre-war buildings, bridges and structures. Berlin and Hamburg have almost none.

    And when did the Germans ever use incendiary bombs over Britain?

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  130. Che Guava says:
    @Anon

    I would hold back on using ‘surely’ before doing a little more research. One of the funny things about it was Gen. Yamashita (not the same one as in S.E. Asia) tried to keeping it under control, but he was overriden by an Imperial prince, who had become very bitter and seriously alcoholic after grievous injuries from a car accident in 1920s France, self-inflicted, lived there like any of the. Fitzgerald novels set in France of the time (including Zelda’s).

    So who is executed for the war crime?

    The general who was trying to control the troops, not the prince who was encouraging them.

  131. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra

    {Hitler attacked the USSR three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack.}

    Aren’t you the same Turkophile ‘historian’ who told me your Turk kin murdered no more than 15,000 (yeah, fifteen thousand) during the Armenian Genocide?

    You know nothing.

    Another neo-Hitlerite revisionist.

    • Agree: Cyrano
  132. @anonymous

    My understanding – from a reading ten years ago of a book on Lord Curzon – was that the three reasons for Britain deciding to go to war against Germany were:

    1. the Berlin-Baghdad railway, which threatened Britain’s position in India, the Suez, and Persia;

    2. the German naval expansion, which threatened Britain’s control of its sea routes to the far east;

    3. Germany’s seeking hegemony on the continent, which threatened Britain’s prosperity and independence.

    Underlying this was that the Kaiser and the gang around him had made no secret of their hostility to Britain, so the British assumed that any strategic advantages the Germans gained in the Middle East, Europe and on the seas would be used against them.

    In truth, what terrified the German elite was Russian modernisation. But they were too stupid to realise that a cleverer strategy would have been to win Britain and France to them to contain Russia, rather than to alientate Britain and France. And so … one hundred years later, we end up where we are.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @jilles dykstra
  133. @jacques sheete

    In what way is it correct?

    What are your examples?

  134. dcite says:
    @jacques sheete

    A “troll to discredit Germans…” Weather German_reader is a “troll” or not, that’s how he comes off. But he’s not the only person to reveal baffling naivete and aversion to any sort of in-depth analysis that goes beyond received “wisdom.” For all that the MSM have been sociopathic liars for decades, maybe it’s true and the American media really does provide at least the options for truth compared to others, such as German for example.

    • Replies: @alternatereality
  135. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    In truth, what terrified the German elite was Russian modernisation. But they were too stupid to realise that a cleverer strategy would have been to win Britain and France to them to contain Russia, rather than to alientate Britain and France. And so … one hundred years later, we end up where we are.

    Isn’t it a reality that National Socialists attempted just that policy: according to Herbert Hoover in “Freedom Betrayed,” the Third Reich had no designs on Western Europe. NSDAP leadership urged that Germany not antagonize France; Hitler considered Britain the natural, or inevitable hegemon and idealised allying with Britain to defeat Bolshevism.
    Reasons for the Germans allowing the British to escape from Dunkirk are ambiguous, but part of the ambiguity may have involved the desire to engage with Britain, or at least not to fight the English.
    Churchill had been co-opted and refused those overtures.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  136. @Che Guava

    “Mongol invasion, sure, but again, the boats they used were not a navy, and it was a Mongol, not a Chinese, action.”

    But, Kublai Khan had subdued all of China in 1271 and begun the Yuan dynasty of China. So, as emperor of China and because Mongolia did not have a fleet, how was this not a Chinese action? Especially since these ships were built in China and Korea. Let’s also not forget that the Qing dynasty was also not ruled by Chinese but by Manchurians. The “chinese” people have never really gone to war. Whoever was their ruler determined who they would go to war with and when. You can quibble about whether to say “navy” or “a whole bunch of ships directed toward a common goal”, but that is just semantics.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  137. @dcite

    it’s hard to overstate the brutality of the brainwasing germans were subjected to after the war. their brains were fried. german_reader, if not a troll, deserves our compassion, and the people who did that to the german people should rot in hell’s latrine.

    • LOL: German_reader
  138. @Avery

    The alleged Armenian genocide began with with an Armenian rising in NE Anatolia, in order to join this territory with the existing Armenian kingdom.
    As was the custom in the Ottoman empire, the rebels were deported.

    Henry Morgenthau, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    ‘The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period’, edited Türkkaya Atatöv, Ankara, 2002

    • Replies: @Avery
  139. @Stebbing Heuer

    In essence there was but one reason, the British empire could not compete with the unified Germany, economically, technically, socially, scientifically.
    WWII, and WWI, began in 1870.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  140. @Talha

    Britain was ruled by country gentlemen.
    They despised industrialists, industrial cities like Manchester had no representative in Parliament.
    Manchesterism was a curse.
    A representative of industrial Britain, as Bright, was not acceptable as a gentleman.
    There was a sensation in London when he at last was invited to dinner by one of the landed gentleman politicians.
    George Macaulay Trevelyan, ‘The Life of John Bright’, 1913, London, 1971, Westport, Connecticut

  141. Olorin says:
    @jacques sheete

    What advances, changes, or evolutions can you name that do NOT “come at a price”?

    Which are never “misused”?

    Which of these shifts never “abuse” others?

    You are attacking ThreeCranes as Pollyanna…but I’d say your points more closely evoke that.

    Life is a struggle. The strong dominate the weak till some strongman figures out how to guide mobs of the weak to dominate his strong competitors.

    Pointed sticks can till or kill. There is no human or animal creation that does not “come at a price,” or get “misused” from someone’s perspective, or “abuse” from someone else’s.

    That is no argument against the points Cranes was making.

    But consider this:

    It is quite the opposite of Pollyanna to say I’d without hesitation sell the souls of everyone who ever lived for painless dentistry and the ability to live free of lice, mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and intestinal parasites.

    Anyone honest, and not a fool, would say the same. Anyone who would not is either a liar, a fool, or needs a year in the Congo bush or modern-day Mogadishu without any outside support of any kind to drive the point home.

    Pride in one’s ancestors and people is natural. Propagandists try to take it away for their own reasons and through evil thinking try to set people against their prior, contemporary, and future kindred.

    That is a population genetics strategy for defeating genetic competitors. For replacing their genetic families with one’s own.

    Consumerism can be stepped away from; many of us have done it. It’s not hard once you get started.

    But it is very difficult for most people to reclaim their vilified ancestors when they have been taught to worship others’.

    And telling a man he should hate his ancestors and their works in the name of Pollyanna is quite devilishly the opposite of the mask of global altruism for the human condition.

  142. Cyrano says:
    @Talha

    You are absolutely right, Hitler and Stalin are moral equivalents – both equally evil. The only difference is that Hitler was a seer – he saw that Stalin was going to lebensraum him, so he just preventively outlebensraumed him. Other than that, they are both the same. Give me a break.

    • Replies: @Talha
  143. @Seamus Padraig

    What is absurd, damage to Britain ?
    The cost of building and operating bombers was huge, that is damage, and, maybe even more important, losing the best young brains of the country.

  144. Olorin says:
    @Carpenter

    The absence of maritime studies from US school curricula is, in my mind, the single biggest litmus for the weak mentation of those in charge of schooling (which is to say, propaganda institutions tailored to children…at least before the rise of Children’s Television Workshop).

  145. Talha says:
    @Cyrano

    Hey Cyrano,

    Other than that, they are both the same.

    I certainly don’t see a huge difference between them. You have your opinion – I have mine.

    Here is a good (and from my perspective, balanced) read on the subject:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    Stalin was known to be a generous and gracious host at parties, maybe Hitler was a better tap dancer…Ultimately, we’ll know when the Scale is brought out for them (and us) on the Day of Judgement.

    This discussion is totally not worth one more digital letter.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Art
  146. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Why would the Persians even be interested in anything the Greeks had to offer and deign to learn from them and vice versa?

    I don’t know, but apparently they did. For a random example, when the head of Crassus was brought to the Parthian court, a performance of the “Bacchae” of Euripides was given, in which the head was used as a prop.

    • Replies: @Talha
  147. hyperbola says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    As for-the-record points out, Magallanes was Portuguese, but the expedition was Spanish. In fact, Magallanes did NOT complete the circumnaviagation since he was killed in Filipinas. To much of the Spanish-speaking world, the first circumnavigation was carried out by Juan Sebastián Elcano

    Juan Sebastián Elcano[1] (sometimes misspelled del Cano;[1] 1476 – 4 August 1526) was a Spanish explorer of Basque origin[2][3][4] who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth. After Magellan’s death in the Philippines, Elcano took command of nau Victoria from the Moluccas to Sanlúcar de Barrameda in Spain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Sebasti%C3%A1n_Elcano

    That’s why the Spanish navy has this ship:

    http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_actividades/prefLang_en/deLaFuerza–0666-ELCANO-LXXXIX-CRUCERO

    And Spain has a “semi-official” (created under the patronage of the prince who is now king of Spain) think tank of this name.

    Real Instituto Elcano
    El Real Instituto Elcano de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos es un centro de pensamiento y laboratorio de ideas creado en 2001 en España, cuyo objetivo, según sus estatutos, es «analizar la política internacional desde una perspectiva española, europea y global, además de servir como foro de diálogo y discusión».1 ….

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Instituto_Elcano

  148. L.K says:
    @Avery

    Avery, you are a pathetic & sad little liar who, to this day, repeats with a straight face that people from modern Turkey are “Uighur savages” from China or some such BS variation of the theme.

    This despite all the genetic evidence showing clearly that this ain’t so.

    You are a complete intellectual fraud.

    Your WW2 narrative is at a comic book level, a Mickey Mouse level, it is really that bad.

    Next time, please tell us all about how Hitler planned to conquer Antarctica and exterminate all the penguins…

    Keep it coming, numbnuts, you are good for a laugh! :-)

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  149. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male

    Sorry, your meandering, meaningless reply does nothing to support your assertions.

    OK baby, just when were the two times a Chinese navy attempted to conquer Japan?

    Your kind of knowledge-free posts, we may do without.

    The Mongol attempt does not count.

    Try not to lie about things of which you know nothing, many posters know much.

    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
  150. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I replied to your nonsense in another thread*.
    You can keep cutting-and-pasting the same denialist drivel, and I will keep cutting-and-pasting my reply (….as long as UNZ moderators let me).

    Let’s see who gives up first.

    [{Therefore the Armenians in that area rebelled, the Ottomans defeated them, and deported them direction Syria.
    Armenians died during the deportation, never more than the names of 15.000 deaths could be specified.}

    You citing denialist shills like Heath W. Lowry, working for the Turk Denial Machine, and writing the nonsense above shows your desperation.

    Fortunately, we are slowly chipping away at the AG denial wall.
    You and your denialist ilk are a dwindling, disappearing minority.

    Your beloved Turkey will break apart into 3-4 pieces.
    Kemalist Turkistan, Islamist Turkistan, Alevi Turkistan, and Kurdistan.
    It will turn into another Iraq, with everybody killing everybody else forever.

    Armenians been around 5,000+ years.
    Have survived a lot, including a very nearly successful attempt by Turks to wipe them out.

    Armenians will have their day and Turks and their denialist allies will be processed.

    Have no doubt.]

    ____
    *

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-latest-escalation-in-syria-what-is-really-going-on/#comment-1916324

    #108.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @Anon
  151. Cyrano says:
    @Talha

    If the only criteria of who deserves to be equated to Hitler is the number of his victims, how about LBJ, Lincoln, GW Bush or Truman being awarded the distinction of being Hitler equivalents. You’re an imbecile that can’t defend his own logic. You are right, this discussion is over.

    • Troll: German_reader
    • Replies: @Talha
  152. Mulegino1 says:
    @Avery

    He is completely correct. Hitler did not order his generals to draw up plans for Fall Barbarossa until after the last meetings between Molotov, Ribbentrop and Hitler in November of 1940, when it became clear that the USSR was going to reoccupy Finland, annex Bukovina and make a move on the Dardanelles. The Soviets had already invaded Eastern Poland, annexed the Baltics and invaded Finland.

    There is overwhelming evidence that gigantic Soviet ground, air and naval forces were staging along the western frontiers of the USSR during the spring and early summer of 1941, with the most powerful Army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, perched along the border with Romania, within easy striking distance of the Ploesti oil fields. Had those oil fields been captured by the Soviets, the Wehrmacht would have been left with a two week supply of fuel and Europe would have been easily overrun by the Soviet juggernaut.

    The ONLY thing – from a military standpoint – that explains the vast encirclements and the netting of hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners during the first weeks and months of Barbarossa – not to mention the destruction of the Soviet’s entire front line air forces within the first 24 hours was that the Soviets were struck when the bulk of their forces were deploying in offensive formations in the vulnerable Lvov and Biyalistok salients, were they were surrounded and annihilated in cauldron battles.

    In the surreptitiously recorded Hitler-Mannerheim private meeting, Hitler candidly admitted that his forces were not ready for a long war of attrition, particularly in the Soviet winter, and that the German weaponry was not designed for the rigors of winter warfare – but he had no choice other than to preempt the invasion force.

  153. Cyrano says:

    To the German reader: Go f**k yourself. There were other European countries that have gone genocidal before the Germans – Spaniards against the Indians in S. America, Anglos against the North American Indians and so on. But the true genius belongs to the Germans – declaring that they are about to go genocidal against one of the most powerful nations in the world – Russia. You stupid Nazi monkey, that’s why you had your a**es handed to you in 2 world wars – because not only you don’t know how to choose your allies, but you don’t know how to choose your enemies either.

    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Talha
    , @L.K
  154. @jilles dykstra

    I think a four-year war is almost the height of international competition. Britain won that.

  155. @anonymous

    I can’t say for sure.

    What I’ve read over the years, and most recently Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction, is that Hitler believed that he would eventually have to wage war in western Europe against Britain and France, and also eventually wage a titanic air war against the United States.

    Britain’s declaring war over the invasion of Poland muffed up his plans, causing him to go too early. Fortuitously for him, and unfortunately for everyone else, the western allies weren’t ready for war, and then when it came with the German push westwards their response – push up into northern France and Belgium as 25 years earlier – left them vulnerable to a revised German plan.

    Hitler, I think to his surprise, quickly found himself master of western and central Europe, being lavishly replenished by Stalin and facing only a weak and shocked Britain.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  156. @Che Guava

    What a mindless douche. If you need to split hairs to make yourself feel intelligent, fine, be an asshole.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  157. Talha says:
    @Cyrano

    You’re an imbecile that can’t defend his own logic.

    Correction – I’m an imbecile that is completely uninterested in winning a debate on who was less awesomeness between Hitler and Stalin.

    Maybe someone else will oblige you.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  158. @Cyrano

    I didn’t mark you as “Troll” because of your opinions about WW2 or Germany or whatever. I marked you as “Troll” because of your habit of insulting other commenters which seems to be something of a hobby for you. Sorry, that’s just really childish behaviour, if you keep doing that you don’t belong in the company of adults and should be set on “Ignore” by all serious commenters here.

    • Agree: Cyrano
  159. @vinteuil

    Damn it. I googled that for a translation. Now the fbi is watching me :(

  160. Art says:
    @Talha

    Stalin was known to be a generous and gracious host at parties, maybe Hitler was a better tap dancer…Ultimately, we’ll know when the Scale is brought out for them (and us) on the Day of Judgement.

    This discussion is totally not worth one more digital letter.

    Hi Talha – there you go again – making sense.

    The powerful 15,000,00 strong Jew-matrix is taking all this Hitler talk to the bank. They love it when the Gentiles do their propaganda work for them by keeping Hitler and WWII alive. All this talk about Hitler just reinforces their “six million lie.”

    Meanwhile in the real world, at the instigation of the Jew matrix, there is current talk of nukes being used. A nuke war would make Hitler look like a choir boy.

    The Jew-matrix is all about and only about Jew power – no matter what they call themselves – they are about Jew-matrix power – no matter where they live – they are about Jew-matrix power – no matter their status in life – they are about Jew-matrix power.

    Imposing irresponsible debt, causing austerity, controlling government by coercion, and bringing war – is all about Jew matrix power – it’s their game – it is what they do. If you claim to be a Jew – you are part of the matrix – period.

    Peace — Art

    • Replies: @Talha
  161. @Avery

    Are you Armenian, or just an all-around tool? (Or, maybe, an Armenian tool?)

    • Replies: @Avery
  162. Talha says:
    @Anon

    No problem. This has an explanation. Keep in mind that I had mentioned that Alexander had brought Persia to heel. And with him came Hellenistic influences that stayed while the dynasty he left behind remained. The Parthians were the transition between that dynasty and the Sassanids – thus some of the Greek influences were still in play. The Sassanids self-identified as the inheritors of the previous glory of the Achaemenid Empire and were a return to a more pure Persian identity that was less influenced by foreign influences.

    It is interesting that you point out a play – because I have also read that artistic influences from Persia did reach beyond its borders – just as with the Greeks.

    However, there was nothing on the scope and quality of the exchange that happened at the time of the Abbassids (if there was – I would love to be corrected on this*). For that to have happened – either Byzantium was going to be overtaken by Persia or vice versa – kind of like how Alexander brought Hellenistic culture with his army. The Rashidun-to-the-Abbasids solved the issue by taking out and absorbing both.

    Peace.

    *Note: I rarely reference Wikipedia, but this seemed to be a reasonably neutral topic. If you look at the names and dates of pre-modern Persian scientists/mathematicians/physicians, the lion’s share of them (who were studying and building upon the works of the Greeks, Egyptians, and Hindus) come after the fall of the Sassanids – there simply is no comparison to the earlier periods:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_Iranian_scientists_and_scholars

  163. @Mulegino1

    The Germans faced a use-it-or-lose scenario. Even if the Soviets were not going to attack until 1942, by then it would have been too late for the Germans (and Western Europe), given Soviet resources.

    It’s also worth noting that the basic reluctance of Hitler to attack the SU (it had absolutely nothing to do with “Lebensraum”) and the inability of Germany to wage such a massive long-term war, dictated certain German actions. In particular they had little choice but to employ terror. The mass shootings of Jews were real (and unquestionably war crimes), but as documented by the Germans themselves always took place in the specific context of anti-partisan warfare, they hardly constituted an “extermination plan”.

  164. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    what was the impact of Mussolini’s misguided and failed incursion in Greece, and the requirement that Germany bail him out? didn’t that force the action in the East to occur in colder weather than had been planned?

    has anyone explored who goaded Benito into the invasion of Greece? Churchill and Mussolini are said to have carried on quite a correspondence, also involving financial dealings. Did Churchill put Benito up to an action that would divert the German force?

  165. Talha says:
    @Art

    Hey Art,

    A nuke war would make Hitler look like a choir boy.

    Yeah – killing off around 2/3 of the world’s population would definitely knock him and Stalin down a few notches, eh?

    How’s Moshe?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Art
  166. Talha says:
    @Cyrano

    Hey Cyrano,

    You stupid Nazi monkey

    I’ve exchanged with G_R before – he is a very reasonable person to interact with. I looked at this thread and there is zero cause for calling him anything close to a Nazi.

    A word to the wise…the German people have more than made up for what their nation did in WW2; concessions, reparations, monuments to their sins, etc. More than some nations that won’t even acknowledge their past sins. In fact, their next generation is even carrying the burden though they had nothing to do with the conflict. People like you constantly hounding them about being Nazis will bring about nothing good. In fact it might make them stop caring whether they are called Nazis or not…and maybe that’ll be a good thing.

    May God have mercy on us all if any subsequent generation of Germans rises in rage and tries to make the world pay for the humiliations and scorn they have had to endure for something they had nothing to do with.

    Peace.

    • Troll: Che Guava
    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Rurik
  167. my2cents says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Peter the Great built St. Peterburg after Dutch architecture after having lived there a while learning ship building….He brought back with him a Dutch shipbuilder after having had him christened in the Russian Orthodox faith and having Russified his name and have him built a Russian Navy…..Still today, there is terminology in the Russian Navy that is Dutch, as there were no equivalent terms in Russian at the time. The Russian flag also used the Dutch colors but in a different order until 1918….in 1993 after the Soviet downfall the original flag was restored as the State flag. So the name had nothing to do with Germany which did not exist at that time.
    When the German Empire was created in 1871, France/Britain and the U.S. had a cow. France immediately declared war on Prussia the largest of the 28 independent German speaking Kingdoms/Princedoms/Duchies, etc. and lost its shirt. The Versailles Treaty of 1871 required that France pay restitution to Prussia. WW1 was solely to break up the Germany Empire. THAT Versailles Treaty did just that and deeded whole pieces of Germany to other countries. Poland did not exist until 1917….Neither did Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s aim was to restore those parts having been stolen back to Germany….It was a continuation of WW1. The allies intent again was meant to break up and keep Germany split up, this was to prevent the Germans and the Russians to engage in trade which would eventually lead to the East….always via Russia. 26 small German speaking Kingdoms/Princedoms and Duchies were no threat, but a German Empire WAS.
    NATO was created not for the security of Europe against the Soviets but Officially to keep the Americans IN – The Soviets OUT – and the Germans DOWN. Washington has occupied Germany ever since WW2 to keep it down. It is losing that “fight”. It has nothing to do with Afghanistan. As far as revising history on WW2. High time!!!

  168. Cyrano says:
    @Talha

    I still think that comparing Stalin to Hitler has about as much merit as comparing Charles Manson to Jesus Christ because both were leaders of religious cults and both have caused deaths of certain number of people.

  169. @Talha

    Thanks for your words, I appreciate it.
    Regarding how Germany deals with its Nazi past, I don’t know…it’s a bit more complicated. Certainly there has arisen a quite perverse culture of permanent national self-flagellation that I’m totally sick of. On the other hand, there’s a lot of German arrogance and condescension towards countries like Poland that were victims of German aggression during WW2. Post-war Germany also failed to a large degree in regards to prosecution of Nazi crimes (even really serious Nazi perpetrators who had been responsible for mass murder mostly escaped punishment). It’s quite schizophrenic in a way.
    Anyway, let’s hope “Cyrano” moderates his behaviour somewhat and doesn’t see Nazi apologists everywhere (though admittedly there are some on Unz review…).

    • Replies: @Talha
  170. L.K says:
    @Cyrano

    Time for you to go change your tampon already, hysteric!

    You are a ridiculous propagandist.

    We get it, you hate Poles and Germans… piss off now.

    BTW, of all people, you had to pick on “german_reader”, who, if really German, is a typical Nestbeschmutzer!

    Listen fool, “german_reader” basically agrees with you that National Socialist Germany was evil incarnate/guilty of everything & you, as the idiot you are, give the poor Nestbeschmutzer a hard time!

    Learn how to recognize your allies, dummy.

    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Cyrano
  171. @L.K

    You’re pretty ridiculous with your frequent temper tantrums. I doubt your hysterical and generally unpleasant behaviour will increase chances of winning new converts to your “revisionist” views.

  172. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Why do you think that I, the ignorant ugly Anerican need you, the European genius intellectual to give me a brief summary of the countries who fought in WWs 1&2 and which countries were allied with what countries?

    Are you aware that we have schools in America that are required to teach 20th century history? When I wrote “I might be wrong but” I was being sarcastic.

    Get over yourself, America has schools and libraries and history books too.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  173. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    Our intellectual Dutchman comes on this site to post standard common knowledge because he doesn’t believe any American even knows how to read.

    My spell check refuses to allow me to write his name but you know who I mean.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  174. Catherine says:
    @Bruce Marshall

    Not the Oded Yinon Plan?

    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
  175. Cyrano says:
    @L.K

    Who says that I hate the Germans and the Poles? By the way you deserve one up yours, you stupid c*nt. You are very original, blame the Jews for everything and paint the Americans as innocent victims.

    At least the German reader has some common sense to recognize past mistakes, unlike morons like you who think that US should have stayed out of the 2 WW – like they made any meaningful contribution to begin with.

  176. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    St. Petersburg was named after Russian czar Peter, not a German. The name has nothing do do with Germany unless you mean the burg ending which is also a French word.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  177. @ANON

    America has these things, but few Americans make use of them.

  178. ANON • Disclaimer says:

    Well, I do use those libraries, especially the Cecil Green and URL libraries. In addition to thousands of university libraries, America has the most extensive system of free public libraries in the world. Every time a library bond issue is on the ballot they are always passed. The libraries are used all the time.
    Wikepedia is just summaries of books from America’s hundreds of thousands of libraries.
    If no one used those libraries they would not exist.

    UNZ commenters seem to depend on Wikepedia short summaries rather than books.

  179. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    The Dutch golden age was based on vicious exploitation of your much abused colony Indonesia. Your royal family is richer than the English royal family because of 400 years of looting Indonesia, piracy and the Dutch slave trade. Your golden age owes much not to the Dutch, but the Amsterdam Jews.

    In fact, the ship that landed the first Africans in North America, Virginia in 1619 was a Dutch ship.
    For every criticism of other nations you make, I can respond with a few facts about the Netherlands. And I don’t even have to ask mr Google.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  180. Talha says:
    @German_reader

    Hey G_R,

    This is the kind of balanced response I have come to expect out of certain UNZ readers like yourself. Look, the Germans aren’t perfect as a nation – who is? Plenty of countries helped certain Nazis to escape prosecution if they would turn sides and come to work for them – so plenty are guilty in that regard. But Germans have and do prosecute historic Nazis well into this century and even have laws banning Nazi symbols in public – what the hell more can one ask for??!! German (and Western European) condescension towards Slavic people far predates WW2 (when they were being rounded up by other Europeans and sold in slave markets in Abbassid and Byzantine lands) – yes, that attitude is not not right, but I don’t think Nazism was the trigger for that.

    There certainly are some Nazi apologists on UNZ – but neither one of us is among them.

    Peace.

    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @L.K
  181. @ANON

    You of course can deny that the so called Dutch Golden Age was based on European trade, we were in the middle between the Baltic and the Iberian peninsula, but it is the truth.
    Custom records at the Danish Sont still exist.
    The VOC never made much profit, that it did not behave in accordance with present day standards of course is true.
    Income per head in the Dutch East Indies in 1940 was just attained again in the seventies in Indonesia.
    I’m not at all proud of the slave trade, alas common people in Europe at the time were hardly better treated than slaves, see for example
    Roy & Lesley Adkins, ‘Jack Tar, The extraordinary lives of ordinary seamen in Nelson’s navy’, 2009 London
    A great grandfather of mine around 1880 was an illiterate peat worker, his life was not much better than a USA plantation slave, maybe worse.
    USA plantation slaves nearly always got food.

  182. @Cyrano

    The trouble began with the USA supporting GB in WWI.
    Charles Callan Tansill, ‘Amerika geht in den Krieg’, Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)

  183. @ANON

    You seem to know nothing on how German influence existed prior to WWI, and even more WWII.
    Danzig was a German city, the present Kalingrad was the great German city Königsburg.
    Google Hanze.

  184. @ANON

    My visits to USA people in their homes, I was received with great hospitality every time, indeed flabbergasted me on what USA citizens know.
    Among them even was a former Berkeley professor.
    In no home I saw a decent newspaper, tv ‘news’ was horrible.
    It reminded me of the Chinese court after the first British warships were seen on the coasts ‘there had often been pirates’.
    A USA veteran Vietnam pilot did know something ‘we were sent there to defend democracy, but it was not true’.
    In the Badlands I had to explain where I came from, after Holland and Netherlands did not seem to ring a bell I added, the one and only time in my life, ‘Europe’, this was understood.
    But even USA citizens well travelled, one of them a USA more or less celebrity, flabbergasted me on their knowledge.
    I presented one of them with the book
    Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995
    It was read, I got the reaction ‘no idea that so many peoples existed’.
    One of course may wonder what the average Dutchman knows, but our tv news, though horrible one sided, in my opinion is far better than the CNN propaganda.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  185. @Talha

    I feel compelled to write about ‘Nazi apologist’.
    Among historians Versailles is universally seen as the worst thing politics ever produced.
    USA citizens, to their honour, understood this, the USA never ratified Versailles.
    Hitler was born in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles.
    There never was a Versailles Treaty, the British blockade of Germany was continued after the capitulation, some 900.000 deaths from hunger between the capitulation, and the therefore forced signing of the ‘Treaty’.
    Keynes understood the folly, his book was published in 1921.
    Also in 1921 historians already knew that Morgenthau’s story about the German guilt for the 1914 was a fairy tale.
    Thomas Fleming, ‘The Illusion of Victory, America in WW I’, New York 2003
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    A.J.P. Taylor, ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848 – 1918′, 1954, 1971, Oxford

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  186. @my2cents

    WWII has been revised, alas not in the media.
    And not in Germany.
    Merkel still uses WWII propaganda.

  187. @Stebbing Heuer

    Nothing about Hitler planning wars in
    Otto Wagener, ‘Hitler aus nächster Nähe, Aufzeichnungen eines Vertrauten 1929-1932, Hrsg. Henry A. Turner’, 1987, Kiel, ISBN 3-88741-129-3
    In the menioned period Wagener was with Hitler almost every day.

  188. I’ve only just noticed that the article alternately refers to Peter Frankopian, whom I assumed to be Armenian, and Peter Frankopan but the book that is pictured in the article clearly shows the author to be Peter Frankopan. ‘scuse me if I’m being a bit pedantic, for a change.

  189. skrik says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    denying the canonical 9/11 story

    Thanks for the interest pique, I won’t engage further here except to note that ‘canonical’ invokes a religious frame, wherein belief may be based on zero data.

  190. Avery says:
    @Cyrano

    The stupid neo-Nazi revisionist apologists like the VaginaHund posting under the highly original handle [L.K.] are too busy reliving the past ‘glories’ of their Hitlerjugend to do something about the present.

    The hysterical neo-Hitlerite calls everybody idiot, but the real Idiots are his German kin, who elect leaders who invite IslmoFascist mobs to F_____ their German women in their own country.

    And the German girlyboys stand around like the c___nts that they are, and watch their daughters, sisters, wives…… get raped by their IslmoFascist UygurTürkoğlar nomadic buddies.

    If only the idiots had stayed in their own country and not become fertilizer in the famous Stalingrad Schweinhunden Fertilizer Factory. Today Germany would not be an American-Neocon occupied country, being slowly but relentlessly Islamized.

    Islamisch Deutschland, Islamisch Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Islamisch Welt.

    Heil Allah!
    Sieg Heil!

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @anon
  191. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {Are you Armenian, ….}

    Yes: Armenian by birth, American by choice; Armenian-American.

    {…or just an all-around tool? (Or, maybe, an Armenian tool?)}

    Are you an Idiot, or just an all-around idiot? (or, maybe, an Idiot idiot?)

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  192. @my2cents

    Amen to that. Well spoken and truthful.

  193. @Cyrano

    Hey. Stop calling people nasty names.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  194. jim jones says:
    @Talha

    Thank God for the Spitfire:

    • Replies: @Talha
  195. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male

    That is no reply, ergo, your original statement was stupid and founded on nothing.

    Resort to meaningless insults, GTFO.

    Alright, you are a fool, but I ask again, when were the two attempts by a Chinese ‘navy’ to invading Japan?

    Come on, genius boy, you must knowing something nobody else in history does, so, I beg you, please to enlightening those of us who actually read history, from a critical perspective, with your vastly superior knowledge.

  196. Cyrano says:
    @ThreeCranes

    I am just trying to make friends. I can’t help it. It must be my charming personality, or stupidity of the discussions elevating my blood pressure.

  197. @alan2102

    Yes…but to say “won’t get anywhere” is to miss the fact that they became enemy number one way back in the 70′s with books like Dope Inc, the adoption of the Strategic Defense Initiative by Reagan….up to the reality of today the fruition of the idea of the New Silk Road/One Belt initiatives that were pushed explicitly since the 1990′s when one also saw the idea of the “Survivors Club” being offered and which came into being as the BRICS nations.

    • Replies: @alan2102
  198. @Avery

    Let me guess: you live in a state where the Obamacare exchange was shut down, so you’re no longer getting your meds filled?

    • Replies: @Avery
  199. @Avery

    Just a run-of-the-mill idiot. I cannot hope to reach your level of grandeur.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Cyrano
  200. Talha says:
    @jim jones

    Thanks JJ!

    I love a good rendition of aerial dog fights!

    Peace.

  201. Cyrano says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Don’t worry, you are way beyond pass that.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  202. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {….no longer getting your meds filled?}

    Oh, wow: how original. Another variant of the good-old ‘meds’ trope.
    Is that the best your ‘Mighty’ bovine brain could come up with?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  203. Boris N says:
    @German_reader

    Central Asia was of course an important center of civilization…until it was ruined by the Mongols.

    This topic is about historical revisionism, so let me play a part in it. The Mongolian invasion, whatever it may have been, is largely exaggerated just simply for one fact: Mongolia has been always at a fringe of any civilization, it has been always one of the harshest and most hostile regions on Earth, which means the population of Mongolia has been always quite small. I wouldn’t give it more than 500,000 in 1200, which converts to 100,000 middle-aged males in total. But not every male could wage war, otherwise their families would be left without the sole breadwinner and eventually die from hunger, so only several tens of thousands of Mongols could really wage war. Plus to wage war they needed at least three horses and unknown number of sheep per warrior (let’s imagine 10 would suffice). So even if the Mongols could, under any fantastical scenario, muster an enormous army of 50,000 horsemen (half of all their men! which was unlikely, I consider they could only muster 10,000 or 20,000, and this must have been their entire army), they needed also 100,000 additional horses and 500,000 sheep. It is really unbelievable horde of animals to feed and to move. Nevertheless, historians for centuries have fed us with such logicically impossible fairy tales and have tried to make us believe that such a scarcely populated fringe region could have enough demographic potential and could produce enough surplus of food and materials (e.g. iron for weaponry) to conquer half of Eurasia. Mongols conquering China, Persia, Iraq, Syria, etc. sounds like the Sami conquering Germany, France, Italy, etc. The Mongols simply could not have enough manpower and resources to do such a feat. The countries that the Mongols conquered and allegedly razed and decimated were ten or hundred times more populous and rich: Persia and the Middle East must have been like 30m, Central Asia like 10m, and China like 200 millions of people. And against all of them a country of 500,000 people with few resources and which could muster mere 20,000 at best?

    Whatever must have happened it must be something entirely different. I imagine it might be that the Mongols only mustered 10,000 horsemen and largely just out of luck and exploiting a period of turmoil in neighbouring countries just in one battle or in series of small battles killed all the elites and became the new elites themselves. A typical scenario in history (see the Manchu in China, the Normans in England). There must have been some battles, but unlikely any mass genocides and destructions. What was the point of conquering a land if you could not exploit its resources and population? For any Mongol it would be obvious that exterminating the entire population and razing to the ground entire cities not only was impossible giving their limited manpower, but also short-sighted and unprofitable.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  204. Etienne says: • Website

    Skeptikal (comment 127),

    Thanks for the great links. Invaluable.

  205. @Boris N

    Well, I’m not an expert on Mongol studies, but 3 points:
    - Central Asian steppe nomads had a huge military advantage against sedentary populations.
    - You’re right that the number of “real” Mongols was probably quite limited, but they incorporated lots of other Steppe peoples (Turks!) into their horde, and eventually sedentary populations as well.
    - They really seem to have been exceptionally brutal and have been experts at large-scale violence and terror. I’ve read some medieval sources about their invasion of Hungary in 1241, and it’s really chilling stuff, full of details about quite methodical violence which I can’t imagine to have been made up entirely. Nothing else from medieval sources I’ve read comes close.

    • Replies: @Boris N
  206. Cyrano says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Hitler was born in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles.

    He must have scarred himself senseless seeing his ugly mug in all those mirrors. Now everything is starting to fall into place. Hitler was traumatised by his birth at Versailles when he saw the ugly face of the fiend – which he (because of his young age) wasn’t aware that’s his own face. I wonder who was the midwife – Churchill?

  207. Art says:
    @Talha

    Hi Talha,

    Understandably, the North Korea nuke situation is a very serious matter – the possibility of a miscalculation is great.

    Here is an article that proposes a reasonable solution from Information Clearing House written by Jacob G. Hornberger. Here is the jest of the article.

    So why does North Korea want nuclear weapons, especially ones that can reach the United States? It wants them for the same reason that Cuba, another communist state, wanted nuclear weapons back in 1962 — for defensive purposes.

    Defense against whom? Defense against the U.S government, of course.

    Think back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. It was the CIA that had attacked Cuba. The reason? Regime change, a core principal of the U.S. national-security state since its inception after WWII. Both the Pentagon and the CIA were determined to oust Fidel Castro from power and replace him with a pro-U.S. dictator, similar to the one who Castro ousted from power, Fulgencio Batista.

    That was the purpose of those Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba — not to start a nuclear war with the United States but simply to deter the U.S. government from invading Cuba again and effecting a regime-change operation there.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47388.htm

    Nkorea is not a communist country – it is a country run by a cult, based on genetic purity of tribe. The people of NKorea are not candidates for democracy. The people of NKorea are into this fanatical tribal purity. Currently making rational sense of NKorea is not in the cards of possibility. We should make peace with what they are.

    The proposal is, like the Cuba deal, that the US promises to not attack NKorea and NKorea promises to eliminate all nukes. This has worked with Cuba – it has saved more war.

    It is time to be rational again. It is time for Trump to make a rational Kennedy move.

    This is win-win for all – NKorea, SKorea, China, Russia, the US, and the world.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. Moshe says “Shalom”.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Che Guava
  208. L.K says:
    @Cyrano

    Hysteric village idiot ‘cyrano’ spits: “You are very original, blame the Jews for everything and paint the Americans as innocent victims.”

    Hmm… so besides being a village idiot you are also a LIAR.

    I’m one of the fiercest critics of the ZUSA here at Unz & there is an electronic record of this;
    Not long ago I wrote re the ZUSA:

    As for the US, 93% of its history involved in wars, nearly all of them wars of choice, says it all. By the time WWI broke out, the US had already firmly taken the road to expansionism & imperialism, starting with the The Spanish-American War of 1898, through which the United States became an overseas empire.
    Since then, the ZUSA has become 100% a rogue state and a real threat to life on Earth.

    You & the dipshit avery should get a room already.

    • Replies: @Avery
  209. L.K says:
    @Talha

    Well, uncle Talha, your stance is pathetic since you know ZERO about National Socialism and the WW2 era, beyond the feel good propaganda… plus you are not even interested in learning…
    In fact, all you seem interested in, is talk endlessly about whatever Moslems did or did not do in the middle ages…

    As for “german-reader”, Jonathan Revusky described this creature perfectly, and it does not surprise me you like him:

    Basically, this “German Reader” person is trying to engage in double-decker “virtue signalling”. He signals his virtue by saying he’s in favor of free speech, free speech being a doubleplusgood sort of thing, right?

    But since he’s in favor of free speech, he’s against the persecution of Holocaust revisionists.

    But then he wants to turn around and virtue signal his ideological reliability so he makes a point of referring to the Holocaust revisionists as “morons”, etcetera.

    This guy with his double virtue signalling is truly a pathetic, spineless sort of creature, and as other commenters have pointed out, totally exemplifies the current-day German “Gutmensch”.

    Randal: “Seems to me German Reader has at least as much right to regard “Holocaust deniers” as morons”

    Uhh, the above comment is based on the idea that German Reader is a serious intellectual and, as such, actually studied the arguments of the Holocaust revisionists and decided those people are all morons. But no, that’s all an imposture really. “German Reader” is, of course, a complete intellectual fraud. He does not know what the broad outlines of the Holocaust revisionist debate even are.

    Go ahead, ask “German Reader” to summarize the basic arguments of both sides. Ask him what books on the topic he has actually read. He won’t be able to answer you. Guaranteed.

    No, all that “German Reader” really understands is that these people are heretics and, in order to be a Gutmensch, he must denounce them.

    Completely pathetic, spineless, unprincipled stance.

    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @Talha
  210. L.K says:
    @Talha

    Uncle Talha; “what was Operation Barbarossa in retaliation for? The Soviets seemed to be living up to their part of the agreement.”

    Not even close, but I’ll take the chance to clarify this once again;

    Barbarossa had NOTHING to do with any search of Lebensraum.
    The quacks who advance this sort of thing count on our complete ignorance of the geopolitical, diplomatic and military issues which truly led to operation Barbarossa.
    It would have been political and military madness for the German leadership, to have turned on the USSR out of some ideological determinism, while Germany was in a increasingly bad strategic situation, facing unfinished business with Britain( the unsinkable carrier ) and its empire and the looming prospect of the US entering the war on the side of the British. This danger was much enhanced after the failure of the air campaign over Britain in the fall of 1940. It must be remembered that the German leadership understood the US special relationship with Britain and had learned of the FDR administration anti-German war mongering in Europe, even before the war, and confirmed the US aggressive aims at fomenting a war in Europe after documents were captured, first in Poland in 1939, and later in France.

    To launch an attack on the USSR at that juncture would entail a huge risk and the prospect of the much feared war on 2 fronts, basically unwinnable for a country such as Germany. Precisely to avoid such a scenario Germany had signed the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939.

    From Stalin’s perspective, the pact was a trap, which the Soviets did NOT need to have signed at all, had Stalin and his entourage had peace and only the security of the USSR in mind, which they did not. In fact, the pact initiated the destruction of the buffer states barrier that separated Germany from the USSR, and this, with the exception of Poland, was done unilaterally by Stalin. More on this later.

    The Stalinist trap was designed to get a large scale European war in motion, pitting Germany against the Western powers. As Suvorov explains, the Soviets cunningly cheated the Germans, who invaded Poland alone while the Soviet forces stood still on Poland’s eastern borders until Sept.17, despite constant German demands that they fulfill their part of the agreement and invade. Eventually the Soviets did and took half of the country but, as Suvorov explains, Britain and France were not interested that the USSR enter the war on the side of Germany(nor did they really care about Poland) and the Soviet delay to invade made it easier for France and Britain to look the other way. Germany got hit with a war declaration, the USSR did not. Hitler and Germany alone got to be blamed for starting the war while Stalin, the breaker of Nations, sat on the sidelines, the USSR as a ‘neutral’ country, just waiting to pounce at the most opportune moment. End of part 1.

  211. L.K says:

    Part 2

    As military historian Heinz Magenheimer explains, despite the massive German victory over the Western allies in the summer of 1940, Germany’s strategic situation became ever more complicated, given the refusal of the British to negotiate an end to the war. The key goal of German command after the 1940 summer campaign was to either create conditions to pressure the English to negotiate an end to the war or to otherwise knock them out. Several options were considered; the most effective would be an invasion of Britain itself, however this option was also the most risky, particularly in view of the weakness and small size of the German navy and the strength of the British fleet.

    Interestingly, one of the other options considered, was to form a massive continental Eurasian bloc extending from Europe to Japan, AND including the USSR, as a means to face the Anglo-American threat and force the Brits to the negotiating table before the US intervened. The USSR leadership’s dupliticity, unreliability and aggressive and threatening behaviour towards Germany eventually ruled that option out.
    As even pro-Stalin British historian Geoffrey Roberts writes in his highly biased ” Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 “:
    “… Hitler’s preoccupation at this time was with Britain, not Russia, and he could not understand why the British had rejected yet another offer of peace negotiations.
    …Hitler gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to involve the Soviet Union in a ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that would range itself against the US as well as Britain.[...]
    Certainly, it was only after the collapse of the proposed continental bloc that Hitler issued a formal directive to prepare for an invasion of Russia.”

    Why did the German led proposition of a continental bloc against the British Empire and the US fail? Because of the absurd demands that were made by Stalin via Molotow in Berlin in November of 1940. More about that later.

  212. Boris N says:
    @German_reader

    Central Asian steppe nomads had a huge military advantage against sedentary populations.

    Very controversial statement. For one reason (among the others): you cannot have a proper blacksmith industry without cites, and without metal and blacksmiths you could not win any war.

    You’re right that the number of “real” Mongols was probably quite limited, but they incorporated lots of other Steppe peoples (Turks!) into their horde, and eventually sedentary populations as well.

    The problem how you win over another nomads, which may be more numerous, and how do you then force them muster new recruits if you have killed all or the majority of their men. It doesn’t fit together.

    I’ve read some medieval sources about their invasion of Hungary in 1241, and it’s really chilling stuff, full of details about quite methodical violence which I can’t imagine to have been made up entirely. Nothing else from medieval sources I’ve read comes close.

    Medieval sources are full of BS, you cannot believe them at face value, and this is exactly the whole point. I’m amazed at how people can still believe those ancient fairy tales, particularly when it goes to numbers. E.g. do you believe NYT and WP? But why do you believe medieval versions of NYT and WP?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Njguy73
  213. L.K says:

    PART 3
    So, why did Germany strike the USSR in June 1941? We need to know the history of what happened in the East after the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939.
    W.N.Sanning summarizes it well:

    “The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939 provided for the following territorial divisions: Estonia and Latvia would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence while Lithuania would fall into the German. From Lithuania the line of demarcation would run toward East Prussia, from there along the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers toward the Carpathian mountains. After the Polish defeat, the Soviet government immediately exerted heavy pressure on Germany for a revision of the treaty. In order to maintain peace, Hitler agreed in the second treaty, the so-called Border and Friendship Agreement of 28 September 1939, that Germany would relinquish its interest in most(but not all) of Lithuania in exchange for the area between the Vistula and the Bug [...]. While Germany was engaged in the Western Campaign from 10 May until 24 June, 1940, the Soviet Union occupied the entirety of Lithuania between 16 and 22 June following the ultimatum of 15 June – that is, including even that portion which was to remain within the German sphere of interest according to the treaty. This occupation constituted not only a gross violation of the two Soviet-German treaties but also of the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of Mutual Assistance (10 October 1939). The German government was neither consulted nor informed of this Soviet action as required under the treaty provisions. The northern Bukovina region of Rumania, which was outside the agreed-upon Soviet sphere of interest, was similarly appropriated by the Soviets, although in this case the Soviets pressured Germany into giving its “consent” within an ultimative time period of 24 hours before occupation. I mention these developments only because they demonstrate the determination with which Russia removed German strategic advantages while improving her own. They also show that Germany had no definite military objectives against the Soviet Union because otherwise it is inconceivable that she would have tolerated Soviet usurpation of the strategically invaluable Lithuanian gateway to Leningrad and Moscow.”

  214. L.K says:

    PART 4
    So, through agressive war on Poland and Finland, invasion and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and threats of war against Romania, the USSR increased its already enormous territory by 426,000 sq.km, i.e, about the surface area of all of Germany as of 1919. In so doing, Stalin demolished the wall of buffer states which separated Germany and the USSR – in the case of Lithuania, in fact, reaching the border of Germany proper(East Prussia), greatly improving his base for offensive deployments towards Germany. Obviously such moves make little sense defensively. Before WW2 the Soviet Union and Germany did not share any borders. This would have made a surprise German attack on the USSR very difficult. Why would the Stalin regime destroy the barrier of buffer countries that that served as a wall between Germany and the USSR?

    http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=36&id=17471&kartennr=3

  215. L.K says:

    PART 5

    Worse, as several historians have noted, through these aggressive moves westwards, Stalin encroached on Germany’s vital and fragile raw material locs. Germany is generally poor in raw materials and the European countries which came under its control due to the war were also generally without strategic raw materials. Without strategic raw materials Germany’s economy would crash and, most importantly, its military industry and armed forces could not go on fighting the drawn-out conflict Germany had become embroiled in. The Soviet leadership knew that very well.

    Germany got its raw materials from the USSR itself and a few other countries, basically Sweden, Finland and Romania. The Soviet expansion had basically put all of Germany’s strategic resources in grave danger; the iron ore from Sweden, timber from Sweden and Finland, nickel from Finland, and perhaps most important of all, petroleum sources in Romania. With the British navy blocking petroleum shipments by sea, Germany got by with imports from the USSR and Romania. The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania, placed the Red Army only 180 km from the Ploesti oilfields.

    As military historian H. Magenheimer states, the haste with which the Soviets conducted these operations in Germany’s rear, while Germany was busy fighting in the West, made the German leadership extremely suspicious of Soviet intentions. Suvorov is blunter; Stalin spooked the German leadership.
    On the eve of Barbarossa, in June of 1941, Hitler wrote a letter to Mussolini: “Russia is trying to destroy the Romanian oil fields… the task of our armies is to eliminate this threat as soon as possible.”

  216. L.K says:

    PART 6

    Until the highly provocative Soviet actions in June of 1940, Germany did not even have rough drafts/ staff studies/contingency plans, for military action against the USSR, which was common practice in Western and Central European militaries.

    To add insult to injury, as military historian H. Magenheimer writes, German leadership also became extremely suspicious of the possibility of a Soviet-British rapprochement behind their backs in the summer of 1940, given the negotiations in Moscow after the appointment of new British ambassador Sir Stafford Cripps, in June of 1940. The specter of this and other actions by Churchill to form a big alliance with the USSR and the USA, states Magenheimer, was also to have a big influence on German strategic planning. Hitler and others had long also noticed that the Roosevelt administration, before – when Roosevelt tried to convince Stalin to side with Britain and France – but even after the signing of the Soviet-German pact of August 1939, did not try to isolate the Soviet Union & practiced very mild policies re the USSR, while conducting a very aggressive – just short of war – policy against the axis countries.

    At the same time, according to Russian historian M. Nikitin, there were detailed Soviet studies re Germany’s economic and armaments situation under the aforementioned circumstances which led the Soviet leadership into believing that Germany was falling into a condition of hopeless military inferiority and that, contrary to Stalinist mythology, the Soviet leadership was not afraid of Germany.

  217. L.K says:

    PART 7
    For the first time beginning in late June/July 1940, initial steps in the form of contingency plans for military action against the Soviets were taken by the Germans. These were mere staff studies and not the Barbarossa directive.

    The definitive decision to go to war against the USSR was made much later. In fact, after the end of the victorious summer campaign of 1940 against the West, Hitler ordered a large reduction of the German armed forces and many units were demobilized.

    It’s important to note that many Russian – such as M. Meltyukov, B. Sokolov, B.N. Petrov and others – historians’ research into the then( after 1991) partially opened Soviet archives, confirmed that the Soviet General Staff had been working, with Stalin’s approval, on plans for attack against Germany already from the fall of 1939. According to Mikhail Meltyukov, the general staff of the Red army had begun a plan for war against Germany in October 1939. After revision, this plan was approved by the Soviet regime on 14 October 1940. Furthermore a mobilization plan was also developed; it called for the provision of 9 million men, 37.800 tanks & 22.000 aircraft.

    Anyway, despite all Soviet provocations & suspicious behavior in the summer of 1940, while Germany had been fighting the Western powers, Hitler gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to bring the Soviet Union into the ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that I have mentioned above, to face the Anglo-US threat. In November 1940, Molotov was sent to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis.

    During this visit, with Germany and Italy facing an increasingly difficult strategic/military situation, Stalin – via Soviet foreign minister Molotov – delivered Germany a series of demands which amounted to extortion. The demands were absurd and even included territory that Germany had no control over and boiled down to another – and huge – expansion of the Soviet ‘sphere of influence’.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  218. L.K says:

    PART 8

    This bizarro list of demands included, among other items:
    - From Finland, Pechenga the only Finnish port on the Barents sea and Porkkala-Udd, the strategically located peninsula on the Baltic Sea controlling the entrance to the Gulf of Finland.
    - naval bases on the Danish side of the straits of Kattegat and Skagerrak controlling access to the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
    - From Yugoslavia a naval base on the Adriatic Sea.
    - From Greece a naval base in the port of Thessaloniki.
    - From Romania the province of Southern Bukovina, a strategic foothold in the Carpathian mountains to control access to the Ploesti oilfields.
    - From Bulgaria(!) a pact of alliance with the Soviet Union including Bulgaria in the Soviet sphere of influence.
    - From Turkey(!) bases in the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits.
    - From Iran(!) bases in the Persian Gulf.
    - The transfer of territories south of the Baku-Batumi line (in eastern Turkey north of Iraq and Iran) to the Soviet sphere of influence(!).
    - From Japan the renunciation of its oil concessions in the province of Northern Sakhalin. This despite the fact the USSR had enough oil for its internal consumption plus to export abroad.

    Hitler and the German officials were perplexed. They tried hard to sort things out with Molotov, to no avail. Molotov kept reminding the Germans that without Soviet strategic raw materials, Germany’s victories over the Western Allies would have been impossible.

    Historian H. Magenheimer writes that Molotov’s tactics amounted to blackmail, that the demands were impossible to meet if Germany wished to survive as a major power and reinforced the impression with Hitler and other members of the German leadership that the USSR indeed posed a long term serious threat to Germany. Such demands went far beyond anything that could have been expected from Germany in exchange for Stalin’s “good behaviour”.

    Historian J. Hoffmann wrote that for Germany, at that time in an existential struggle, to be hit by such provocative demands left the Germans, objectively, only 2 alternatives: to submit to Soviet subjugation or to fight.

  219. L.K says:

    PART 9
    It was only after the complete failure of the Molotov visit in November of 1940, that the Barbarossa directive no.21 for an attack on the USSR was initiated on 18 Dec. 1940.

    Even then, the decision to go to war against Soviet Russia was not final or irrevocable, as made clear by the directive’s paragraph IV, which clearly states that those were precautionary measures in the case the USSR changed its policies towards Germany.

    However, German-Soviet relations continued to deteriorate. The Germans later found out through secret channels that the British government was very interested in an alliance with Stalin, that Yugoslavia wanted the USSR to take action against Germany, that the Soviets were angry at German guarantees to Romania & were very much considering war.

    In the spring of 1941 the crisis of the anti-German putsch in Yugoslavia, which created a serious threat to Germany’s position in the Balkans and the country’s oil supply, instigated and indirectly supported by Moscow and Germany’s enemy, Britain, is what finally cemented in Hitler’s mind the need to attack the Soviet Union. Several historians believe that it was then, in early April of 1941, that Hitler’s decision to attack became firm.
    At the same time, the Stalinist regime was in an advanced state of preparing an invasion of its own.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  220. @Boris N

    I don’t think the military advantage of steppe nomads over sedentary populations in the pre-modern era is controversial; if you’re interested, just read the relevant sections in Azar Gat’s “War in human civilization”. Admittedly the Mongols were unusual though in that they didn’t just do raids for booty and blackmail for tribute, but actually conquered huge areas.
    Of course medieval sources are often unreliable in their numbers, but you can’t just dismiss everything in them and construct some alternative history out of your own imagination. And some of those texts were by eyewitnesses who had the misfortune of personal experience of the Mongol invasion.

    • Replies: @Boris N
  221. @Avery

    Sadly, I aspire to no higher forms of wit. However, in this case, it’s not really a question of originality, it’s simply drawing the obvious conclusion from your unhinged behavior.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Avery
  222. L.K says:

    PART 10
    Russian historian M. Nikitin – one of many Russian historians who have reached conclusions similar to those of Suvorov – who researched the goals of the Soviet leadership in Soviet archives, particularly during the May-June 1941 period, summarized his findings as such:

    “We once again repeat that the fundamental goal of the USSR consisted of expanding the ‘front of Socialism’ to the greatest possible territorial extent, ideally to include all of Europe. In Moscow’s opinion, circumstances favored the realization of this scheme. The occupation of large parts of the continent by Germany, the futile war, the increasing dissatisfaction of the population of the occupied territories, the dispersion of Wehrmacht forces on various fronts, the prospects of a conflict between Japan & the USA – all these factors were thought to give the Soviet leadership a unique chance to smash Germany by surprise attack, and to ‘liberate Europe’ from “rotting Capitalism”.
    Nikitin added that the data from the archives plus the huge military offensive preparations of the Red Army “unequivocally proves the intention of the Soviet leadership to attack Germany in the summer of 1941.”

    Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran, Pyotr Grigorenko, pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941 & that just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”

    That is why, for example, later during the Nuremberg show trials, General Winter testified:
    “We had at the time the subjective impression that we were striking into an offensive deployment in progress.”

  223. geokat62 says:
    @Art

    The proposal is, like the Cuba deal, that the US promises to not attack NKorea and NKorea promises to eliminate all nukes. This has worked with Cuba – it has saved more war.

    It is time to be rational again. It is time for Trump to make a rational Kennedy move.

    If I were an advisor to Kim Jong-un, I would tell him to hold on to his nukes for as long as he can. Look what happened to Saddam. They attacked him because they knew he hadn’t any. Look what happened to Qaddafi when he agreed to surrender his WMD. And look what is happening to Syria after Assad agreed to surrender his chemical weapons.

    Didn’t Gorbachev agree to allow Germany to reunify after the US promised not to expand NATO one inch eastward?

    No, if KJU is rational, he should hold on to ‘em… otherwise, he can kiss his regime goodbye.

    • Replies: @Art
  224. Incitatus says:
    @L.K

    A seven part ever-more bogus and boring rebuttal, Your Ethnicities!

    Kind of like a National Socialist colonic that sweeps away facts? No matter.

    Kudos! Never doubted you had it in you! Ein Reich, Ein Volk and all the rest!

    We all appreciate your deep insight. Perhaps a little inspiration is in order in case you’re (understandably) fatigued?.

    [MORE]

    Germany was having trouble
    What a sad, sad story
    Needed a new leader to restore
    Its former glory
    Where, oh, where was he?
    Where could that man be?
    We looked around and then we found
    The man for you and me
    Where, oh, where was he?
    Where could that man be?
    We looked around and then we found
    The man for you and me!

    And now it’s…
    Springtime for Hitler and Germany
    Deutschland is happy and gay!
    We’re marching to a faster pace
    Look out, here comes the master race!
    Springtime for Hitler and Germany
    Rhineland’s a fine land once more!
    Springtime for Hitler and Germany
    Watch out, Europe
    We’re going on tour!
    Springtime for Hitler and Germany…

    Look, it’s springtime
    Winter for Poland and France
    Springtime for Hitler and Germany!

    Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!

    The Fuhrer is causing a furor!
    He’s got those Russians on the run
    You gotta love that wacky hun!
    The Fuhrer is causing a furor
    They can’t say “no” to his demands
    They’re freaking out in foreign lands
    He’s got the whole world in his hands
    The Fuhrer is causing a furor!

    I was just a paper hanger
    No one more obscurer
    Got a phone call from the Reichstag
    Told me I was Fuhrer
    Germany was blue
    What, oh, what to do?
    Hitched up my pants
    And conquered France
    Now Deutschland’s smiling through!

    -’Springtime for Hitler’

    No need to thank me L.K.

  225. Avery says:
    @L.K

    {You & the dipshit avery should get a room already.}

    Like you Schweinhund and your Bovine buddy?
    You two already have a barn together.

    Come up with something new, Brownshirt troglodyte.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  226. Avery says:
    @L.K

    And in PART11 the neo-Hitlerite revisionist will discuss the famous Stalingrad* Schweinhunden Fertilizer Factory, where about 700,000 Axis invaders were chopped up and ground into fertilizer, including about 400,000 Schweinhunden, the best fertilizer material.

    As a result of their,….uummmmm, ‘contributions’, Volgograd is covered with beautiful greenery today. Thank you Adolf, thank you very much.

    _____
    *
    for the Geography challenged aging Hitelrjugend and other neo-Nazi apologists Stalingrad is ~3,000 kilometers East of Berlin, deep inside German Lebensraum.

  227. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “I just don’t have the energy to take you on. Here’s Wiki…You do remember that we were discussing Russia, don’t you?”

    I’m humbled by your reply. Lazy, condescending, and Wiki cut-and-past artist? Triple font of inept opinion! Jackpot! I feel so inadequate (not really).

    You asserted (#64) the Entente at fault for WW1 with the shopworn “hemming the Germans in” and ‘French Revanchism’ nonsense. Then added tedious moral equivalents designed to say Germany had a right to attack France, since the latter likely resented being defeated and raped (occupation, 5 billion franc reparations, territorial loss) 1870-71.

    Confronted with military chronology (#98), you’re unable to explain why Germany invaded Luxembourg, neutral Belgium, and France and can’t furnish details on how the evil Entente ordered the German invasion. You instead “don’t have the energy to take you on. Here’s Wiki…(paste, paste).”

    No explanation of the pasted “Schlieffen Plan”, hatched 1905 by Field Marshal Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, chief of the Imperial German General Staff. An aggressive war plan to mass 90% of Reich forces, invade and defeat France in a flanking attack via Luxembourg and Belgium in six weeks, then turn east to attack Russia (contained until then by ally Austria-Hungary). The de facto German doctrine as Russia recovered from Japanese defeat.

    No mention of the long-standing (1866, 1881, 1908) close alliance between Wilhelmine Germany and rotten Habsburg Austria-Hungary. The militarism of the former or the increasing threat of post-1848 nationalism on the latter. Wasn’t this alliance a threat to neighbors? Couldn’t find a good Wiki paragraph to cut and paste? “Don’t have the energy”?

    Your Wiki “On 25 July Russia began mobilisation…” appears bogus. Please provide a web address. Reputable sources date Russian (precautionary) mobilization to 29 July, the same day Austria-Hungary started to bombard Belgrade. Russian full mobilization started the following day.

    No mention of repeated Entente attempts to diffuse the crisis (26 Jul, 28 Jul, 29 Jul) – all rejected by Germany. More important, no mention of Wilhelm’s 5 Jul “[We] would be saddened if advantage was not taken of such a favorable juncture as the present one” for war spoken to Austria-Hungary Ambassador Count László Szögyén-Marich [the ‘Blank Check].

    You plant inflammatory accusations to cover avian embarrassment:

    “Once again someone, you in this case, is taking events out of context and pretending that Germany acted with no motive at all, just sadistically murdering people out of sheer bloodlust. This gets tiring to refute. Try to be balanced.”

    Please produce quotes of my posts proving your accusations. Where did I accuse Germans of “sadistically murdering people out of sheer “bloodlust”?” Don’t be timid, give it all you’ve got.

    Germany and Austria-Hungary’s WW1 motives are actually quite easy to prove (dated quotes and responsible parties). Happy to produce them, with reputable sources, if you want to advance beyond Wikipedia. But, as you might say ‘I just don’t have the energy’ when corresponding with a lethargic birdbrain.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  228. alan2102 says:
    @Bruce Marshall

    Hi, Bruce. I did not miss the stuff from the early days, the 70s. But that is not what I had in mind. It has been LaRouche’s sometimes-crazy statements, and the sometimes-crazy behavior of his organization, SINCE then, including recent years right up to present, that has doomed it to impotence and irrelevance. Yes, they have been prescient in some ways. I said that they have been right about many important things, and I meant that. Again: It is truly a shame that so many highly intelligent people with their hearts in the right place will pour all their energy into this doomed micro-movement that will get nowhere, ever. So much potential for good, all wasted. I grieve for the lost energy and good will, which so desperately needs to be channeled into productive avenues.

  229. Njguy73 says:
    @Boris N

    Medieval sources are full of BS, you cannot believe them at face value

    Any thoughts on this?

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

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Boris N
  230. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {…it’s simply drawing the obvious conclusion from your unhinged behavior.}

    Since you have such a high opinion of your ability to ‘diagnose’ posters based on their posts @UNZ.com, maybe you should draw the obvious conclusion and follow it through: you know, your ‘True Calling’ and all that?

    Apply to a Med school and become a doctor.
    Imagine the possibilities: Dr. Bovine, M.D. Doctor of Psychiatry and Remote Diagnosis.

    Why waste your valuable time here @UNZ with lesser ‘wits’.
    Maybe you were meant to reach bovine grandeur.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  231. The Hawker Hurricane shot down more German aircraft than did the Spitfire despite being made of wood and fabric. The Hurricanes appear to have been more readily serviceable and had a better arrangement of armaments. Both planes had different strengths and weaknesses and were meant to be used in a manner to take advantage of that but things often didn’t work out that way.

    Together they won the Battle of Britain along with a few older planes that were truly outclassed.

  232. @Avery

    You seriously need help.

    • Replies: @Avery
  233. @L.K

    This is really interesting. Is it available in one place somewhere? A book? An essay you wrote?

  234. @Avery

    Just to be clear, am I the “bovine buddy”? Honestly, it’s not clear, even by your standards this is pure rambling.

    • Replies: @Avery
  235. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {You seriously need help.}

    Another brilliant remote diagnosis by Dr. Bovine, M.D.

  236. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {Just to be clear, am I the “bovine buddy”?}

    Yes, you are.

    Jesus S. Christ: are you that thick?
    Beefcake -> Bovine: get it?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  237. @L.K

    Winter was completely right:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    Musial is a Polish historian, who could investigate Russian archives.
    Hitler attacked three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack, indeed the first German sucesses were based on beating an army not yet ready.
    The Russian railway system had made a mess, troops and officers at different railway stations, weapons etc. also at the wrong places.

  238. @L.K

    Werner Maser. ´Der Wortbruch. Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg’, Selent 2007
    Werner Maser, ‘Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin’, München, 2004

    In one of these books Maser explains that when Molotov visited Berlin at the end of 1940 he made it quite clear to Hitler that he now was at the mercy of Stalin.
    Germany and the USSR now had a common border, no longer a buffer state.

    • Replies: @L.K
  239. @Avery

    Apparently I am, thanks for clearing that up. So, between cows, pig-dogs, etc., you seem to have a thing for animals, are all Armenians like that?

    • Replies: @Avery
  240. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Nope.

    And my ‘thing’ for animals is only my thing for you two barn buddies.
    I dug up the highly appropriate descriptor Schweinhund for your neo-Hitlerite revisionist German buddy when he _started_ insulting me for no reason, quite a while and several threads ago.

    In a similar vein, you too _started_ insulting me for no reason.
    Hence, Dr. Bovine, M.D.

    I don’t _start_ the insulting chain.
    If people want to have a civil discussion, I keep it civil.
    But if someone wants to get into the muck, I am not shy – as you can tell by now.

  241. “We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” Hitler, before Operation Barbarossa. Not the words of someone really believing that he was getting in a pre-emptive strike against an overwhelmingly powerful USSR. In the Hitlerite world-view, the USSR was an empire of sub-human Slavic peons ruled by a few Bolshevik Jews. If France could be overcome in a couple of months, the sky was the limit in the east for the racially superior Germans. Or so he thought.
    Statements about self-defence against the Bolshevik hordes were not believed outside the Third Reich in 1941, which reiterated them as part of its propaganda, and indeed most outside observers in that year expected a quick Soviet collapse, as Hitler clearly did.
    Apart from being Hitlerite revisionism, the “Barbarossa As Self-Defence” argument is actually related to the “Russia Stole The US Election” and “Russia Is The Enemy” tropes today which some Unz commentators denounce, oddly enough. Russia as the All-Powerful Enemy, so Hitler was just defending himself in this school of thought. By the same token, NATO had to be enlarged long after the Warsaw Pact had dissolved because, you know, Russians will be showing up in London and Paris with snow on their boots otherwise. It’s where Mein Kampf meets “The Need For A Larger NATO”. Who knows, perhaps today’s Nazis are financed out of a NATO discretionary fund. The mask slipped in Ukraine in 2014 and after.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  242. Art says:
    @geokat62

    The proposal is, like the Cuba deal, that the US promises to not attack NKorea and NKorea promises to eliminate all nukes. This has worked with Cuba – it has saved more war.

    It is time to be rational again. It is time for Trump to make a rational Kennedy move.

    If I were an advisor to Kim Jong-un, I would tell him to hold on to his nukes for as long as he can. Look what happened to Saddam.

    geokat62,

    Look at what happened in Cuba – the Castro’s are still in power.

    If China, Russia, SKorea, and Japan were to sign on to this deal – the Kim’s would be crazy not to take it.

    The Kims want to stay in power – let them – too bad for the NKorean people – but good for world peace.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. Saving the NKorean people would require killing them – this is stupid.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  243. Talha says:
    @L.K

    Dear Nephew,

    since you know ZERO about National Socialism and the WW2 era

    I thought I admitted my lack of knowledge to Rurik.

    plus you are not even interested in learning

    Actually I was thanking people for the edifying links they posted in response.

    about whatever Moslems did or did not do in the middle ages

    Their wisdom is still valid:

    Jonathan Revusky

    Ah yes, my other nephew!

    Both of you guys are still welcome for Thanksgiving, but Auntie says you will have to watch your language – else no apple pie.

    Peace.

  244. @Incitatus

    After reading your post I have had an epiphany.

    Although both L.K and I quoted extensively from recognized authoritative historians and you are contented to prove your contentions with an offer “to produce them” which you allege to be “happy” to do, in spite of this dearth of evidence I say, that I am convinced that you are absolutely correct.

    I confess that I was in error.

    Formerly I had labored under the assumption that in some way Great Britain herself had had some hand in her mastering roughly one quarter of the globe and placing it under her dominion. Now I see that the Nazi’s made them do it.

    Formerly I had thought that Peter and Catherine the Greats were in some way connected with Russia’s having become the largest land empire in the world, now I realize now that the Nazis forced the conquered to submit to an innocent and unsuspecting Emperor and Empress.

    Now I see that the Germans and only the Germans were responsible for the slaughter of the Amerindian and the creation of the Spanish and English Empires of the Americas, currently under Nazi law.

    Napoleon was a German double agent who ruled over the European landmass through his clever hypnosis of the innocent French people who were then programmed to invade Russia thereby carrying out the nefarious plans of those rotten Nazis.

    And the dastardly Germans accomplished all this while themselves having no coherent nation state, her principalities and princedoms being now the inherited possession of this foreign royal family and now that. Trampled upon and torn asunder during diverse continental wars between alien ruling houses, the Hun could not have accomplished all this without assistance. If this is not proof of their having signed a compact with the Devil then what is?

    Thanks for your help. Everything is clear now. So simple. There was just one Devil in the Universe and he sported a toothbrush mustache. Somehow I feel lightheaded, relieved as I am of the burdens of ambiguity and nuance.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  245. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Avery

    Thank God for that .At least Germans are not inviting the Armenian sheep to roam around the civilized people.

    • Replies: @Avery
  246. Avery says:
    @anon

    {Thank God for that }

    Thank ‘God’ for what?
    That Islamist hordes are overrunning Germany?
    You a Turkophile German who has been F___ by a Turk or a genuine Turk nomad savage?

    Or did you mean to say ‘Thank Allah’ or ‘Allahu Akbar’, UygurTürkoğlu ?

    {At least Germans are not inviting the Armenian sheep to roam around the civilized people.}

    ‘Civilized people’ ?
    Who might that be, youse savage nomad Yurt dwelling Turk scum.
    Even sheep from Armenian Highlands are more civilized than youse UygurTürkoğlu nomad scum.

    Everything youse nomad Turk filth claim as ‘Turkish’ was stolen by youse nomad savages from indigenous, sedentary, high-civilizations: Armenian, Persian, Assyrian, Greek,…

    Even the modern Latinized Turkish alphabet was created by an Armenian.
    Without Armenians, Persians, Assyrians, Greeks,…. you illiterate nomads would still be living in Yurts.

    Nomad UygurTürkoğlar savages only know how to murder defenseless civilians.
    No better than carnivorous animals.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  247. Njguy73 says:
    @German_reader

    I don’t subscribe to it either.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  248. @Njguy73

    Good to hear. It really is nonsense, there are lots of sources for the period in question (and not just from the Carolingian Franks, also from independent power centres like the Anglo-Saxons or Langobards in Southern Italy, also from the Byzantine and Islamic civilizations). The idea that all of this could have been manufactured by some conspiracy is simply insane.

  249. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Wonderful post TC. Sarcasm is effective in exposing bogus arguments, don’t you agree?

    Regrettably you continue (third round after your #64) to evade answering how the Entente ordered Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia, and Germany to invade Luxembourg, neutral Belgium, and France. Does this mean you have no explanation, no clue? Understandable. Sadly, Wiki goes only so far. Ask L.K. My condolences.

    Our exchange concerned Wilhelmine Germany and WW1. You introduce “Great Britain…mastering roughly one quarter of the globe…Nazis”, “Peter and Catherine the Greats…largest land empire in the world…Nazis”, “Germans and only the Germans were responsible for the slaughter of the Amerindian…Nazi”, Napoléon “was a German double agent…rotten Nazis.”

    Wonderful! Frantic fig leafs intended to cover your inability to substantiate your original assertion (#64 – Germany didn’t really launch aggressive war 1914)?

    I’ve not mentioned the NSDAP. You project Nazis into your argument. Why? You don’t, by any chance, collect Nazi memorabilia? Uniforms? What’s your favorite: Wehrmacht, SS, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe? Have authority issues? Under treatment (hopefully)?

    “And the dastardly Germans accomplished all this while themselves having no coherent nation state, her principalities and princedoms being now the inherited possession of this foreign royal family and now that. Trampled upon and torn asunder during diverse continental wars between alien ruling houses, the Hun could not have accomplished all this without assistance. If this is not proof of their having signed a compact with the Devil then what is?

    “Thanks for your help. Everything is clear now. So simple. There was just one Devil in the Universe and he sported a toothbrush mustache…”

    Yes, whatever that means. Spot on TC!

    “Somehow I feel lightheaded, relieved as I am of the burdens of ambiguity and nuance.”

    As well you should TC. Nothing like off-loading compost to conceal ignorance. Take your meds, get ready for bed. Don’t worry. Dolf and Eva love you.

    PS. Please tell L.K I breathlessly await publication of his upcoming, long-awaited ‘I was Dolf and Eva’s Lovechild – Honest!’

    All the best!

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @ThreeCranes
  250. iffen says:
    @Lot

    does R.U. have any other criteria for the writers

    You have to believe in conspiracies, the more the better.

    I guess belief in the Jew-matrix qualifies as a conspiracy of a sort.

  251. @Avery

    Again, with the animal metaphors. You know, maybe that kind of thing is acceptable in Armenia, but it can land you in jail in the US.

    • Replies: @Avery
  252. @Uebersetzer

    This statement by Hitler was most likely just bluster, but it is irrelevant what he thought of Slavs or the capability of the Wehrmacht. Objectively Soviet intentions toward Germany were clearly hostile, as were the size of forces arrayed along the border in plainly offensive positions (as L.K.’s posts ably demonstrate). However much Germany anticipated expansion against “inferior” Slavs, they faced a concrete threat that required immediate action.

    • Replies: @Avery
  253. @Incitatus

    You don’t get it. I agree with you. The Germans caused all that nasty stuff before, during and after the first world war.

    Stealthily, anonymously, insidiously, industriously boring under the stalwart, upright, steadfast, beacon unto Nations that were 19th century Britain, France and Russia, the dirty krauts–in spite of their relative powerlessness–nevertheless managed to set the entire civilized world upon its ear.

    Dirty, malicious, malignant, rotten Huns. Maligned as such (as the preeminent military historian, British General J.F.C. Fuller points out) by the propaganda churned out by political machines in charge of the so-called democratic West who, needing to goad and spur their sedate populations into frenzies of hatred towards the arch villain, resorted to hitherto unprecedented use of slanderous propaganda that wholly dehumanized the enemy. The result was starvation, murder and slaughter of millions of German citizens during and after both world wars.

    You have drunk deeply of the bloody Kool aid Insinceritas. I think that murder suits you. You relish it; revel in it.

    • Replies: @L.K
  254. Logan says:

    Read this book recently. Interesting, but especially in discussion of the last two centuries the author is full of it.

    He seriously contends that the British felt more threatened by potential Russian expansion, invading through Afghanistan into India, than by the German Army and Navy. One lost naval battle would leave the British completely defenseless, but they were really more concerned about a Russian invasion of India, which obviously had major logistical challenges. The Russians were of course unable to fight and win a war against Japan despite the presence of a railroad, but they were nevertheless supposed to be able to conquer India despite not having railroad.

    I think Central Asia was indeed hugely important in previous centuries, but the development of worldwide oceanic transport bypassed and impoverished CA. The cost of transporting something from China to Europe was probably 50x or 100x greater by land than by water.

    IMO the author fell prey to the classic error of trying to push his thesis beyond where it applied.

    • Agree: German_reader
  255. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {Again, with the animal metaphors. }

    Again, one of your barn buddies brought up thems sheeps, not me:
    [anon says: July 10, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT '....not inviting the Armenian sheep...."]

    Clearly, you have difficulty figuring out who wrote what.
    Not surprising, since I had to point out the very obvious to you: remember you asking me about the Bovine, don’t you, ‘Beefcake the Not so Mighty’?
    And pretty rich, considering your handle contains the prefix ‘Beef”, you know – a ruminant animal.

    {….. but it can land you in jail in the US.}

    I take it you are speaking from personal experience?
    How was it in there? Oh sorry, I didn’t mean “in there” as in “in there”: I meant “in there” in jail. And is it true that youse gets to meet Bubba in there and fall in non-consensual love?

    • Troll: L.K
  256. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {This statement by Hitler was most likely just bluster, but it is irrelevant…}

    Yeah, sure.
    Everything Hitler and his Nazi gang publicly pronounced was, quote, ‘bluster’ and ‘irrelevant’.
    Why not.


    { (as L.K.’s posts ably demonstrate).}

    Did your neo-Hitlerite revisionist barn-buddy also demonstrate the beautiful _fact_ of Stalingrad Schweinhunden Fertilizer Factory? You know, where the invading Schweinhunden Nazi scum and their sycophant Axis trash were chopped to little bits of pork, converted to bio-char, and spread into the rich Russian soil – to make it even richer?

    Volgograd is blooming, thanks to very rich fertilizer provided free-of-charge by the Nazi filth and their parasite hangers on, who dropped their weapons and prostrated themselves as soon as the Red Army closed the ring around the invaders in Stalingrad, and started processing the pork.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @Anon
  257. L.K says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Hey ThreeCranes,

    Insinceritas is a good one… the thing is as intellectually dishonest as they come, really just a total fraud. But what to expect from a zionist?
    One of inZitatus’ main things – besides hysterical anti-German propaganda – is to deny/minimize the tremendous influence of the powerful and well documented Zionist power configuration – which goes much beyond AIPAC – on the ZUSA’s foreign policy and their horrific crimes against humanity… shocking…

    Anyway, the information in my posts about the causes which led to Barbarossa, comes largely from several books, only a few I think, have been made available in English;

    “Die Militärstrategie Deutschlands 1940-45: Führungsentschlüsse, Hintergründe, Alternativen”

    https://www.amazon.de/Die-Milit%C3%A4rstrategie-Deutschlands-1940-45-F%C3%BChrungsentschl%C3%BCsse/dp/3776623098/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1499718450&sr=8-5&keywords=heinz+magenheimer

    ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit” by W. Strauss.

    https://www.amazon.de/Unternehmen-Barbarossa-russische-Historikerstreit-Wolfgang/dp/3776620285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499747119&sr=8-1&keywords=Unternehmen+Barbarossa+und+der+russische+Historikerstreit

    As D.Michaels says:

    This book’s greatest contribution may well be to highlight for non-Russians the research of Russian revisionists. Strauss is very familiar with this important work, which has been all but entirely ignored in the United States.

    It is no coincidence that the Russian government has largely closed the archives again and even passed legislation enacting historical censorship in regards to revision of the highly politicized “great patriotic war”, about which, Nikolay Koposov writes;

    it was World War II(in post Soviet Russia) that became central to the new “history politics” (or, to use a term that is probably more familiar to historians in other countries, the new “memory politics”

    Obviously, politicized “history” is the norm everywhere, not the exception; just think of the doomed but triumphant Zionist-Anglo-American flavor concerning the world wars and much more…

    Back to those books, Suvorov’s “The Chief Culprit”, which I think is his latest is quite good, though it focuses only on the German-Soviet aspects of the war while overlooking the machinations of the FDR administration and those of the Churchill war party in England.
    Soviet expert, Prof. Albert L. Weeks, wrote of Suvorov’s “The Chief Culprit”:

    “A remarkable book. A delayed bombshell that includes very pertinent new research and discoveries Suvorov has made since 1990…. None of the ‘new Russian’ historians can match his masterful sweep of research and analysis.”

    Military historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann’s excellent book has been translated into English too;

    https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/1591481201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499746476&sr=8-1&keywords=stalin%27s+war+of+extermination

  258. L.K says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Thanks for the book tips!

    Take care

  259. @Incitatus

    You keep going on about the Schlieffen Plan and the mystery of why the Hun invaded Belgium. I thought that that was obvious so didn’t bother answering. It’s been 35 years or so since I read Tuchman’s The Guns of August but I believe she laid out the rationale fairly plainly in a chapter called “his sleeve shall brush the coast” or something to that effect.

    The Schlieffen plan was designed to prevent the right wing of the German Army from being attacked en flank by some combination of the Belgium, French and British Armies. No mystery here. Every army takes steps to prevent this whether through anchoring its wings by geographical features such as rivers, swamps or mountains or by secure allies and as Tuchman so memorably reminded us, the plan was to wheel about such that the last man on the far right wing of the German Army would literally advance along the beach of the English Channel.

    Belgium had the misfortune to have happened to be situated between two big countries. Fighting stallions don’t worry much about stepping on groundhogs during the melee. Armies fight. That’s their job. Murdering civilians isn’t. Nighttime bombing of worker’s suburban homes was an unprecedented break with the rules of warfare as it had been practiced in Europe for centuries but as a non-European I suppose you wouldn’t know that.

    Why did the British feel compelled to interfere in a dispute between Germany and France to begin with? And why in WW2 did Britain feel compelled to interfere in the quarrel between Germany and Poland?

    The real reason is that Germany, now industrialized, was threatening to take away Britain’s foreign markets. Of course in the end, Britain lost most of those markets anyway because they were/are neither as proficient nor as efficient as the Germans when it comes to making stuff. Britain would neither allow the Germans to gain markets at her expense nor expand to acquire enough territory for Germany to become self sufficient.

    See, just as I said, “hemmed Germany in”.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Incitatus
  260. @Avery

    Clearly you have some kind of bio-chemical imbalance. Please, get back on your meds.

    • Replies: @Avery
  261. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Another brilliant remote diagnosis by Dr. Bovine, M.D.

    (psssst, dude, come up with something new next time: that ‘meds’ trope is getting worn out from repetition.)

  262. Rurik says: • Website
    @RobinG

    Hi Robin,

    ..the Holodomor, but the extent and intention of that are a subject of serious debate. (Somewhat like the holocaust, eh? ;)

    I don’t think so Robin, I consider the Holodomor kind of like the genocide of the Amerindian off the N. American continent; an historical fact. It was deliberate, not a consequence of the Ukrainian peasant farmer’s folly.

    But that there are many who would lie about it seems obvious. These two events are presented to us through the jaundiced prism of the victors of that evil war. The Holocaust mythos is used as a justification of the demonization of the Nazis (and all Germans for all perpetuity) to justify what was done to Germany, both before, during and particularly after the war was “over”. The Holodomor is negated to promote the idea that the Soviets were not the sadistic monsters that they obviously were.

    That there are obvious motivations to lie about those two events seems, well.. obvious, no?

    what do you suppose the Western history books (and Hollywood movies and pop culture) will say about the destruction of Iraq and Libya and the genocide of Palestine in the years and decades to come?

    They will tell lies in order to “justify” the myriad and copious zio-crimes that are responsible for both world wars, and all the wars being waged today by the zio-west on Israel’s enemies.

    However, the disaster – mass starvation due to bad policy and planning – affected the entire Soviet Union, most specifically the agricultural areas that were deprived for the benefit of the industrializing cities.

    total bullshit Robin. Not true. The “agricultural areas” were not deprived to benefit the industrializing cities, unless you consider making an example of the most successful farmers in the region by deliberately starving them to death by the millions, as a way of benefiting the cities by terrorizing the most able people under your Satanic domination into subservient submission.

    I’m sure there was a city dweller somewhere, (Stalin for instance), who materially benefited by the terrorization of the people suffering under the Soviet yoke, so in that context, I suppose you have a point.

    But the genocidal starvation of the Ukrainian peasant farmers was not due to a continent or region-wide famine, but rather a concentrated, state sponsored program to remove from the Ukraine all their grains and livestock so as to watch them slowly starve to death.

    I’ve heard it said that the Satanic scum who use starvation to slowly torture people to death, like that method for three reasons. It’s cheap, it’s humiliating, and it’s excruciating.

    Such a deal!

  263. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    Hey Talha,

    Had Stalin insisted that Eastern Europe be free after the war was over, then I’d agree with everyone on the issue of German aggression

    I can definitely see this point of view. There was little that was benign about Soviet designs over taking over Eastern Europe – I guess hard-core communists might disagree.

    it isn’t about hard-core communists Talha, but rather ancient and current tribal resentments and hatreds.

    the reason people hate and demonize (and froth and drool) over Hitler, isn’t because they hate what he did generations ago, but rather because they hate what he represented: proud, unapologetic white, Western culture, values, but mostly proud, erect, ascendant and unapologetic white *people*. ((horrors!))

    The reason people are still rhetorically fighting that war is because they’re not satisfied with German prostration and penance for Nazi crimes, and a repudiation of the white, Aryan people as superior, and ascendant, but rather what they demand is that the white, Aryan man must have his face mashed into the mud, and perpetually humiliated, to the point of paying for his own replacement in his own ancient lands. That’s why they screech Hitler!! Nazis!!! ~ Not because they’re worried that Hitler’s legions are going to come out of the grave and take over Poland, but rather because they want to put a permanent (non-Aryan) boot upon the necks of all Germans (in particular and white nations in general) so that they can feast upon the carcass of a civilization in drastic decline; so guilted by decade after decade of Jewish opprobrium, hatred and vengeance, that they’ll continue to keep rolling over and wallowing in self-loathing as the orcs ravage their lands and their children off the planet for all eternity. Ending once and for all the excruciating envy these people suffer by looking at what Western civilization makes them all feel by comparison.

    Yes?

    Indeed, this is the reason Trump’s speech in Poland has received so much hand-wringing and vitriol. Because he mentioned Western civilization and the will of its people to persevere.

    It is this will of the West to survive that is the very thing all the “Hitler!!” screechers are terrified over. They’ve had the West under their boot for so long, feasting on its dying carcass, that the idea that it might lumber back to life, with Trump and Putin as its champions, has them soiling their knickers.

    Peace

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Talha
  264. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Why is it that only German invasions of other places are necessary, while when France or England do it it becomes villainous? How come Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, unlike Hitler’s, doesn’t get to qualify as French necessity, or Britain’s seizure of Gibraltar as British necessity?

  265. Art says:
    @Rurik

    the reason people hate and demonize (and froth and drool) over Hitler, isn’t because they hate what he did generations ago, but rather because they hate what he represented: proud, unapologetic white, Western culture, values, but mostly proud, erect, ascendant and unapologetic white *people*. ((horrors!))

    This romanticizing of Hitler as a hero of the “white race” is wrong headed.

    He is responsible for killing more white people than anyone else in the last 1,000 years.

    It is our civil Christian culture of personal cooperation and hope for the future, that makes us notable – not our war making native tribal nature.

    It is 100% for sure that Hitler is NOT a hero of the white race. People who use government to make war on others are BAD people – period.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. May I suggest Isaac Newton as a hero of the white race.

    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @L.K
    , @Rurik
  266. @Anon

    Were Russian forces massing to attack France?

    The issue isn’t so much that Germany deserves a pass while Britain doesn’t, it’s the fact that Britain’s historical record of violence and conquest far exceeds anything Germany has been realistically accused of. Britain should be held to a different standard.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Anon
    , @Philip Owen
  267. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    the reason people hate and demonize (and froth and drool) over Hitler

    I think it’s both. I know when I went to visit my in-laws in Sweden, including my wife’s grandfather who had served in the Swedish navy during the war, they were still pissed off at the Germans for WW2. And Germany never even fought these guys. So I can imagine people like the Poles being pretty pissed at both Germany and Russia.

    Now as far as constantly beating the Germans over the head for being Nazis any time they assert some kind of a sentiment that is in their national interest (and yes, this means as ethnic Germans), then see my comment #173.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  268. Talha says:
    @Art

    May I suggest Isaac Newton as a hero of the white race.

    Seconded.

  269. L.K says:
    @Art

    Hey Art,

    You know, I generally agree with what you write…

    But your knowledge of Hitler, NS, WW2, is clearly at a Jewllywood / comic book level, no offense…
    For example, you write:

    “He is responsible for killing more white people than anyone else in the last 1,000 years.”

    This is really a very silly, false, comic book level statement. A lot of what is happening today in terms of wars is facilitated by the falsehoods spread about that period of time. Try getting informed about it…. even not long after the end of the war, some American & British historians started questioning the official propaganda narrative, people like Prof. H. Elmer Barnes, D. Hoggan, A. j. P. Taylor, etc. Give it a try.

    Art: “It is 100% for sure that Hitler is NOT a hero of the white race.”

    Well Art, for most serious people, trying to understand the man beyond the comic book villain character that is been created by the most unrelenting propaganda ever, as well as the movement /party he led, has ZERO to do with finding ‘heroes’ for the white race.

    I find the notion rather silly.

    Cheers

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Art
    , @SolontoCroesus
  270. @Anon

    British troops would have landed in Belgium and flanked the German army. Or French troops would have marched up there and done the same. Once the Germans decided to march, invasion of Belgium was automatic.

    If a man steals your property and tries to starve you are you justified in striking back?

    What I am trying to do is to point out that the behavior of Germany had antecedents. Hitler did not make the decision to bomb London until England had bombed German civilians. England bombed Hamburg to smithereens. The decision to use incendiary bombs was made with an eye towards killing as many civilians as possible. We know this because of access to British General staff material declassified in the 1970′s.

    You and the French and the English want to deny that you…..ah, f*ck it. You’ll never own your behavior. What’s the point of trying to get narcissistic people like you to acknowledge your own culpability. You are sociopaths; protesting your innocence as you systematically scheme to deny other people their right to the same license that you grant yourselves. I honestly don’t believe you’re any better than the least evolved Nazi and in many respects, worse.

    At least national socialism (note, small n and s) granted its people some measure of employment security, health insurance, old age pension, labor union recognition and representation in negotiations and so on. Bismarck first and Hitler later had a far more compassionate attitude towards their people than the English or American elite had and has for theirs.

    There is a reason that all the Nordic countries who adopted the national socialist platform have evolved into the best places to live. Socialism not as a world revolutionary party as Stalin and his meddlesome cronies had it, but as a social safety net for one’s own co-nationals seems to be a reasonably successful program and has been adopted by the most progressive parties of many nations.

    The truth is that the British and Americans couldn’t allow a nation like Germany to succeed with such social-ill-ameliorating programs in place. It would have set a bad precedent and given their workers an example to emulate. For demonstrating an alternative to the cruelly-indifferent capitalism of Britain and America, Germany had to be crushed.

    For the same reason, Germany and the Nordic countries today must be swamped with unassimilable free riders, the ultimate effect of which will be to bankrupt the central governments and so destroy the social safety net. As Milton Friedman said, (paraphrased) “You can have open borders or you can have a workable social safety net, you can’t have both”. The Oligarchs are not so ignorant as to not know the truth of this. Destroying the security of labor everywhere is the whole point.

  271. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    {Were Russian forces massing to attack France?}

    Nope.

    But Nazi Germans and their Axis allies _were_ massing for an invasion into USSR in 1941, did proceed to invade.
    [3.8 million personnel. 3,350 tanks. 2,770 aircraft. 7,200 artillery pieces] (frm Wiki)

    “We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” Hitler, before Operation Barbarossa.

    Theeeen……… the Nazi invaders ran into the famous Stalingrad meatgrinder – and the rest is history, as they say.

    Here is your pitiful alleged ‘Master Race’:
    {…anything Germany has been realistically accused of.}

    Nazi Germany has been realistically and properly accused of and found guilty of Genocide.

    Of (Christian) Slavs.
    Of (Christian) Poles.
    Of Jews.
    Of other Untermenschen.

    • Replies: @L.K
  272. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Well, Britain had a bit of a head start. I think if you consider their records from 1870 onwards (so post-unification) there isn’t so much of a discrepancy. Still, you have a point.

    I’m not sure what you mean by a “different standard”. By what you say it sounds like you mean Britain should be held to a lower standard, but I was criticizing what seemed to be a holding of Britain and France to a higher standard.

    • Replies: @L.K
  273. Rurik says: • Website
    @Art

    This romanticizing of Hitler as a hero of the “white race” is wrong headed.

    but I wasn’t doing that Ace, I was simply pointing out why those that froth about Hitler! and Nazis! under the bed, are doing so. Pointing out how pathetic they are, is not the same as romanticizing Hitler, no?

    He is responsible for killing more white people than anyone else in the last 1,000 years.

    his hubris and mistakes were catastrophic, I agree

    It is our civil Christian culture of personal cooperation and hope for the future, that makes us notable – not our war making native tribal nature.

    our civil Christian culture is a direct representation of our blood. Culture is nothing more or less than the earthly, mortal expression of our DNA. If you took ten thousands Swedes out of Sweden, and raised them in the Congo with zero ties to their native culture, in three generations they’d be building marvels among the mud huts. And philosophizing about the heavens, and their place in it. Conversely if you took ten thousand Congolese and raised them in Switzerland, in three generations they’d be raping each other and turning the place into a giant Detroit.

    Isaac Newton as a hero of the white race.

    he was a superlative genius, and visionary, but for a hero of the white race, I’d take the man I just mentioned on another thread; Charles [The Hammer] Martel.

    for a man or women to be a hero to and for his people, he has to be willing and able to fight for them

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Bliss
  274. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    You are sociopaths; protesting your innocence

    Okay.

    Why did I even bother? Inc the Wonder Horse was right. I was wrong when I said he was on Planet Anti-Germania. I was wrong to try to forestall one of his insult-laden rants in an attempt to get a reasonable conversation going. Mea culpa; mea culpa; mea maxima culpa.

    PS. I did get an actual response to my post from Beefcake, so maybe it was worth doing after all.

  275. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    Hey Talha,

    still pissed off at the Germans for WW2. And Germany never even fought these guys.

    just like they’re pissed off at the Russians today for doing absolutely nothing to harm or even threaten them in the slightest. The Swedes it seems, are genetically more sheep-like than most, and seemingly willing to believe whatever their masters of the day tell them.

    I know a little poem that some friends used to say.. ‘Ten thousand Swedes, running through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian’.

    I told some Norwegian guys once that I heard a similar version as ‘One thousand Swedes, running thought the weeds, chased by one Norwegian’.

    and without missing a beat, they told me, ‘ah, that’s the Swedish version’.

    anyways, all the Swedish virtue signaling vis-a-vis Nazis and Russians is nothing more that the braying of sheep who’ve watched their televisions with a proper sense of Swedish do-goodism.

    people like the Poles being pretty pissed at both Germany and Russia.

    if they’d had allowed a corridor to Danzig, they may have avoided the war altogether. Hubris to go around.

    But I suspect that the propaganda in Poland is no different than the load of horse manure they’ve force fed us all here in the West, so anything they believe wouldn’t surprise me too much.

    what saddens me is that there seems to be no lessens learned from that horrible war, as the grandchildren of the Poles who fought the Nazi and Soviets are again being driven to a war that the grandfathers of the today’s international bankers foisted on Europe back then, and are doing it all over again.

    For the Poles to install kosher NATO missiles aimed at Russia- are certainly the dumbest of the dumb, since Soviet Russia is a thing of the long dead past. And they’re being used again as a chump of the banksters to start a regional war.

    perhaps the there’s a reason they call them cattle

    Peace

    • Replies: @Talha
  276. L.K says:
    @Anon

    “I think if you consider their records from 1870 onwards (so post-unification) there isn’t so much of a discrepancy.”

    Oh, but there is… the British Empire was involved in great deal more wars from 1870-1945 than Germany.

  277. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    May God have mercy on us all if any subsequent generation of Germans rises in rage and tries to make the world pay for the humiliations and scorn they have had to endure for something they had nothing to do with.

    not just Germans Talha, but I know a few modern day American white men who’ve just about hit the brick wall with being blamed for every failure and foible of the black race and others.

    there is a simmering beneath the veneer of civilized pleasantries.

    ‘blacks and browns can’t be racist!’ even as they sucker-punch your grandmother in a knockout game because she’s white and frail. It’s not racist they say, because ‘all white people have all the power, even the ones on the street without a penny to their name. Bashing them in the face because they’re white is not racism!’

    and this mantra is hissed from the length and breath of the politically correct, liberal media 24/7, until one day….

    the ‘racist white boogey man’ they all fear and loath and bash day after day, night after night, just might make his appearance.

    Peace

    • Replies: @Talha
  278. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    ‘blacks and browns can’t be racist!’

    Oh hell yes they can! My daughter shuts that nonsense down when she hears it in her high school. Of course, she is white, but she gets a non-white pass because she is (and dresses) Muslim.

    just might make his appearance

    Like I said – may God have mercy on us all.

    My personal feeling is that it should be publicly just as completely socially unacceptable to insult whites as it is for other people.

    Peace.

  279. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    genetically more sheep-like than most

    Don’t know about that bro – they certainly were some of the baddest thuggs on the European continent for a good long time – you’ve heard of the Vikings and Normans, right? :)

    And they’re being used again as a chump of the banksters to start a regional war.

    Yeah – I honestly think Poland is really stupid to sign up to be the trip-wire for a cataclysmic war between Russia and the US – especially when Russia’s right frickin’ in front of them! Hello guys – you’re not exactly Portugal!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anon
  280. Art says:
    @L.K

    “He is responsible for killing more white people than anyone else in the last 1,000 years.”

    This is really a very silly, false, comic book level statement. A lot of what is happening today in terms of wars is facilitated by the falsehoods spread about that period of time.

    The official count is 55,000,000 dead in WWII. Are they saying that only 25,000,000 died?

    Oh’ – that is a lot better.

    Why keep the subject alive? I give the “six million lie” as much trouble as I can. I do not want to keep WWII or Hitler alive. It only helps the Jew matrix.

    We must keep our focus on the current day Matrix – while we fiddle with WWII – the Jew are stealing everything dear to us.

    Peace — Art

    • Replies: @L.K
  281. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Vikings and Normans, right?

    Danes and Norwegians, no doubt. ( :) of course )

    • LOL: Talha
  282. Art says:
    @Rurik

    This romanticizing of Hitler as a hero of the “white race” is wrong headed.

    but I wasn’t doing that Ace, I was simply pointing out why those that froth about Hitler! and Nazis! under the bed, are doing so. Pointing out how pathetic they are, is not the same as romanticizing Hitler, no?

    My mistake – I read you words wrong – I apologize — Art

    • Replies: @Rurik
  283. @ThreeCranes

    The Russian Empire was a tribute taking Empire on Spanish lines. The North West Europeans were traders. Both sides profit from trade, even if not to the same degree. Russia could have had a Silk Road in the 18th Century if the rulers had thought in terms of trade rather than taking India from Britain by force.

  284. @Beefcake the Mighty

    There was famine in India before Britain arrived. There was famine after Britain left.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  285. Rurik says: • Website

    were some of the baddest thuggs on the European continent for a good long time –

    Peace

  286. This is drivel.

    The Silk Road died because ships carry more cargo more cheaply than a camel.

    The Emma Maersk carries 150,000 tonnes. A train on Russian Railways carries 2,000 tonnes.

    And unlike, say Russia, Britain has no trouble maintaining a Commonwealth despite few economic advantages for its members. One the whole, their imperial experience was an improvement on previous times.

  287. @Joe Levantine

    Yes. But all nationalists are reasonable. They only want to establish their natural borders. These are their borders at their historically greatest extent.

  288. @Seamus Padraig

    Britain was campaigning for general disarmanent and basically disarmed itself. Hardly preparation to put Germany in its place. A big but old navy (Great in Czechoslovakia), a tiny out of date army and a tiny out of date airforce except for fighter planes with a very fast climb rate. Perfect for defence. Even then the first Spitfire was produced after Munich. The first long range bomber was in 1942. Churchill was an advocate of preparation for war but he was a disregarded has been at the time.

  289. Rurik says: • Website
    @Art

    oh no problem Art!

    and for what it’s worth, only because of the one-sided version of history that we’ve all been beaten over the head with from every text book and every movie made since we’ve all been alive, I’m rather sympathetic to LK’s attempts to correct the record when he sees the glaring errors in it.

    But I also don’t consider any attempt to resurrect the reputation of Adolf as remotely positive.

    There are too many Slavs and Jews and others who lost loved ones in that terrible war, for Hitler’s memory to ever resonate as anything but wrong headed….

    ..but then, sometimes I wonder, what is it going to take for Europe to get off its knees and stop sucking Jewish **** and regain their dignity, and perhaps the only thing that will do it is when England and France are on their last legs before every single woman and child has been gang raped, and their mayors are all Asians or Middle Easterners or Africans, before they say ‘fuck it, that guy was right! And the Jews really do want us all dead or enslaved’

    so I don’t know the answers to these convoluted and pressing questions ..

  290. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    How did you read “famine” into “violence and conquest”?

    This though you are of course right, considering the immediate post-Raj. Questions have been raised, however, regarding British actions resulting in the prolonging and worsening of the great Bengal famine of ’43, and I believe it is the prevailing view, in India at least, that the Indian Government at that time was in many respects at fault.

  291. @Philip Owen

    There were famines in Russia before the Bolsheviks took power, does this render it moot to talk about how the Soviets used famine as a political weapon? What’s your point? (I could also refer to the Bengal famine of 1943, which was engineered by the British to crush Indian nationalism, and which the Axis powers offered to help relieve (they were rebuffed).)

    • Agree: L.K
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
  292. L.K says:
    @Art

    Art: “The official count is 55,000,000 dead in WWII. Are they saying that only 25,000,000 died?”

    You see what the problem is, Art? You are foolishly attributing every death in WW2 to Hitler…

    How moronic is that, in light of the REAL facts. Very.

    Art: “Why keep the subject alive? I give the “six million lie” as much trouble as I can. I do not want to keep WWII or Hitler alive. It only helps the Jew matrix.”

    Well Art, to some of us, truth and accuracy do matter… Given that the official WW2 story, which you seem to believe – is a pack of dirty lies, those of us who know better must do what we can to help correct it.

    Art, it matters not one iota if you do not want to keep ‘WWII or Hitler alive’.
    Those who rule some of the most important countries in the world, and not just only the Jews, will always make sure to keep it alive. You just don’t get it. I tried to spell it out for ya;
    A lot of what is happening today in terms of wars is facilitated by the falsehoods spread about that period of time.

    Well, I tried! :-)

    Take care

    • Replies: @Art
  293. Art says:

    God bless Tucker Carlson – on his Fox show (NY 8 pm) he just kicked the ass of a warmongering US x-military matrix man.

    The matrix man accused Tucker of being a traitor for suggesting we should work with Russia and Syria in fighting ISIS.

    Tucker would have nothing of it. It was great!

    The show repeats at 11 pm on Fox cable.

    Peace — Art

  294. L.K says:
    @Avery

    Mental hospital resident avery: “But Nazi Germans and their Axis allies _were_ massing for an invasion into USSR in 1941, did proceed to invade.”

    Dear numbnuts; So were your Red Army heroes massing to invade Germany as I already carefully explained… as I also explained in detail, Germany only attacked because of the very real threat that Soviet Russia represented, which became clear through various provocations.

    As I said, many Russian historians reached that conclusion. P. 103 of “Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit”:

    - From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the [Soviet] conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.

    On p.105, Russian historian Pavlova summarizes that from an objective point of view, the preemptive character of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union cannot really be denied, given that it forestalled the massive & imminent Red Army offensive against Germany.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @jacques sheete
  295. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Congratulations TC! Ever-more inventive evasion, projection, and tortuous red-herrings. All covering failure to substantiate your Entente-at-fault revisionism and “all nations…should own their dark side” moral equivalency (#64). Which you served to Avery with the admonishment “read the history.” Thank goodness you’ve read book-of-the-month-club favorite Tuchman, fascist Fuller and Wiki. A great accomplishment. Little wonder you “don’t have the energy” for more.

    1914 wasn’t a leadership moment for any European nation, ensnared by suicidal alliances. But only two issued ultimatums, refused diplomacy, and pulled the trigger. Austria-Hungary and Germany. You airbrush that out the record. Why?

    “…Germans caused all that nasty stuff…dirty krauts–in spite of their relative powerlessness–nevertheless managed to set the entire civilized world upon its ear.”

    Projecting demeaning epithets onto me? Why? Prove it (quotes please). If Germany was “powerless” why did they invade other countries? Why did they refuse diplomacy? Why (before war) did they goad rotten Austria-Hungary to war? Did they consider themselves “powerless?”

    “…preeminent military historian, British General J.F.C. Fuller”

    Boney Fuller? Embracer of the occult, magic, mysticism, Mosley, and fascism? Special guest at Hitler’s 50th birthday parade in Berlin (20 Apr ‘39)? You’re desperate! Thanks for not mentioning Henry Elmer Barnes (yet).

    “The result was starvation, murder and slaughter of millions of German citizens during and after both world wars.”

    Tragic indeed. Hate to be tiresome, but why (both wars) did Germany invade other countries? Germans were and are a wonderful, highly accomplished people. Were they led by criminally incompetent leaders? Leadership that did everything possible to evade responsibility and (in Hitler’s case) ordered their destruction out of spite in ‘45? Just a thought.

    You don’t mention the “starvation, murder and slaughter of millions” of victims of Germany. Any tears for them? Apparently not:

    “Belgium had the misfortune to have happened to be situated between two big countries. Fighting stallions don’t worry much about stepping on groundhogs during the melee.”

    Kind of “hemmed in” TC? Why didn’t Belgium invade her neighbors? Oh, I forgot. Belgium was a “groundhog” fit only for trampling by a German stallion. That makes it OK. Might makes right. Never mind the 25 Aug ‘14 sack of Leuven, the intentional burning of the priceless medieval library, destruction of 2,000 civilian dwellings, expulsion of the entire population (10,000 souls). To say nothing of routine reprisal executions by occupation forces.

    The WW1 Belgian civilian butcher’s bill was about the same that you lament for Germany. The latter lost ±763,000 civilians (1.18% population) to disease and famine. Neutral Belgium lost about the same ratio (1.16%). But 28% of them were killed in military action and reprisal executions – i.e. rounded up and shot. The remaining 72% died from famine and exposure after the intentional arson of their dwellings.

    Serbia won the death lottery. 17.8% of it’s civilians died. 27.8% of it’s population (including military kia) perished. France lost 4.4%. Total deaths in the German Reich? 4.3%.

    What do you think TC? Serbia lost nearly a third of total population. Still want to play ‘who’s the biggest victim’ when it isn’t Germany?

    “You have drunk deeply of the bloody Kool aid Insinceritas. I think that murder suits you. You relish it; revel in it.”

    Please provide quotes affirming your assertion.

    Trapped in a Teutonic Twilight Zone? Take heart. L.K’s also unable to explain how leaders of (poor victim) WW1 & WW2 Germany were tricked into invading other countries by evil, insidious democracies.

    You both believe in Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany’s right to invade other countries, murder civilians, burn cultural treasures, let innocents die of exposure, etc. Law of the jungle. You weep for German loss, but shed no tears for German victims. You blame victim countries for “Dirty, malicious, malignant, rotten” bias you feel justifies German aggression and murder. Blaming the victims. A novel strategy! Who’s drinking ‘kool-aid’?

    Ponder this TC. 9 Sep ‘14 – Von Moltke (Jüngere) writes his wife “Things have not gone well. The fighting east of Paris has not gone in our favor, and we shall have to pay for the damage we have done”; He is alleged to have told Wilhelm II “Majesty, we have lost the war.” 38 days have past since Germany invaded Luxembourg. Though Germany knows it’s lost, the war goes on for another four years, killing millions. Von Moltke, beset with health concerns, resigns as chief of staff 25 Oct ‘14 and is replaced by General Erich von Falkenhayn. Erich, another outstanding nitwit, masterminds the Battle of Verdun in 1916 and manages to kill 600,000 (half of them his own men) for absolutely nothing before he too, is dismissed.

    TC, you and L.K seem akin to Ludendorff and Hindenburg, who blamed their own failure (and willingness to see millions of Germans slaughtered) on others. Or exiled Willie (who blamed WW1 on Freemasons and Jews in ‘26).

    You’re the worst nightmare of modern Germans, or any free people. Unable to substantiate lazy assertions, invoking partisan invective and clumsy projection. All hiding incompetence. Same song Ludendorff lamely chirped.

    I’ll end with a simple restatement of a long repeated question. Why (1914 & 1939) did Germany invade other countries? Simple question. Can you answer? Don’t bother with the ‘hemmed in,’ ‘everybody hated Germany,’ ‘Germany sufferred greatly’ (they did, but so did their victims), ‘FDR and Churchill planned war.’ Tell us why German leaders launched war and gambled normal German lives and the Vaterland.

    If you claim law of the biggest “stallion” versus “groundhogs” explain why any should care about Germany trampled by a bigger stallion.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  296. L.K says:

    Interesting what Russian historians I. V. Pavlova & V. L. Doroshenko had to say about WW2…

    …historians at Novosibirsk University undertook a major revisionist study of the immediate prewar situation. The results of this scholarly seminar were published in April 1995. Russian historian I. V. Pavlova, stated bluntly in her seminar contribution that for decades Communist Party historians worked to bury the background, origins and development of the Second World War, including Stalin’s August 1939 speech, under a mountain of lies.

    Well, Pavlova, court historians in Russia continue that tradition today, aided by repressive new legislation passed in Russia.

    “Another of the participating scholars, V. L. Doroshenko, said that the new evidence shows that “Stalin provoked and unleashed the Second World War.” Suggesting that Stalin and his regime should have been on trial at Nuremberg, Doroshenko went on explain:”

    … Not just because Stalin helped Hitler but because it was in Stalin’s own interests that the war begin. First, because of his general goal of seizing power in Europe, and, second, because of the immediate advantage of destroying Poland and taking over Galicia. But Stalin’s most important motive was the war itself … The collapse of the European order would have made it possible for him to establish his dictatorship [over all of Europe].

    To this end, Stalin wanted for the time being to stay out of the war, but only with the intention of entering it at the most favorable moment. In other words, the nonaggression pact freed Hitler’s hands and encouraged Germany to unleash a war [in Poland]. As Stalin signed the Pact, he was already determined to break it. Right from the outset he did not intend to stay out of the conflict but, to the contrary, to enter the war directly at the most advantageous moment.

  297. Avery says:
    @L.K

    {Mental hospital resident avery:}

    Dear neo-Hitlerite, neo-Nazi revisionist VaginaHund LIAR:

    take a gander.
    chunks of your Nazi Schweinhunden forbears being processed into bio-char.
    a beautiful site.

    • LOL: L.K
  298. Art says:
    @L.K

    A lot of what is happening today in terms of wars is facilitated by the falsehoods spread about that period of time. (WWII)

    The main falsehood, the most important one, the one that is materially relevant to today’s events – is the Jew Matrix “six million lie.”

    Most of the comments are not about that.

    Peace — Art

    • Replies: @L.K
  299. @Incitatus

    Your post reads as though you took my (and a couple of other’s posting here) comments along with some scribblings from your diary, a pint of gin, a couple of bennies, pages torn randomly from the American Heritage History of the World War I and II and fed them into a shredder and pasted the resulting confetti together into a collage that expresses the inner architecture of your demented mind.

    Level off, man. Steady on now. Find your pulse. Breathe rhythmically. Now synchronize your breathing with your pulse. Count the beats as you breathe in and out.

    You need to give up cigarettes and booze. You’re all out of breath, in panic mode. No one’s trying to hurt you. We’re just trying to get the facts straight. We’ve all been exposed to programming by experts who have refined their skills as Public Relations Professionals. We must break their hold on our minds and the only way to do that is to listen to others.

    Your anxiety is normal. This is what deprogramming feels like. But trust that you will survive and make it through and come out a better, less neurotic person for it.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  300. Sam J. says:

    The basic gist of the “Silk Roads” is the same as “The Geographical Pivot of History”.

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

    There’s only one problem with it. It’s wrong. The GPOH claims anyone that controls the heart land controls the world. Well that may have at one time been true but not now. Sam J.’s theory, “Who ever controls low Earth orbit controls the world” is the correct theory presently.

    It takes about the same energy to get to low Earth orbit as to fly something from LA to Australia so if you build something that can be easily reused and fueled you can easily own low Earth orbit. Once in orbit you can go just about anywhere.

  301. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Avery

    Don’t forget, though, that Stalingrad was only a sideshow. The real issue was of course Afghanistan.

    (not entirely serious)

    • Replies: @Talha
  302. Talha says:
    @Anon

    Heh – Stalingrad – heh…

    • Replies: @Avery
  303. L.K says:
    @Art

    Art: “The main falsehood, the most important one, the one that is materially relevant to today’s events – is the Jew Matrix “six million lie.””

    Not really, Art.

    The main falsehood is that WW2 was the ‘good war’, pitting the ‘good guys’ vs pure evil, i.e. the axis, which, of course, is the party that lost. The ‘bad guys’ were responsible for starting the war, so we are told, and all the other evil deeds, including the holohoax, stems from that initial ‘evil’.
    Classic comic level BS narrative.

    Ain’t it interesting how the defeated are always the bad guys?!
    :-)

    Cheers

    • Replies: @Art
  304. rish says:
    @richard warren

    Wow, the only sane voice in this repulsive torrent of jew-hating lies.

  305. Art says:
    @L.K

    The main falsehood is that WW2 was the ‘good war’, pitting the ‘good guys’ vs pure evil, i.e. the axis, which, of course, is the party that lost.

    I have seen the patty-cake sing-along 1930’s speeches poor old Hitler gave. He is just so misunderstood.

    Attacking all those nations was purely defensive.

    (Gee that sounds like Matrix speak.)

    Peace — Art

    p.s. (Sarcasm-off)

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Rurik
  306. L.K says:
    @Art

    Art,

    I feel sorry for you… you just don’t have a bloody clue as to what you are talking about…
    Clearly u wish to remain ignorant of the facts as it probably makes you feel good…
    Ignorance is a bliss, as they say, eh?

    That’s okay, like I said, I tried.

  307. @L.K

    Col. Pat Lang posted this thought-starter the other day:

    Analysis is not advocacy.

  308. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “If a man steals your property and tries to starve you are you justified in striking back?”

    Luxembourg, Belgium and France were German “property” in 1914? “Strike back” meaning the first strike – launching aggressive war?

    “…the behavior of Germany had antecedents. Hitler did not make the decision to bomb London until England had bombed German civilians.”

    Wilhelmine Germany invented aerial bombing of civilians Jan 1915. 51 bombing raids, more than 5,000 bombs dropped on the UK by Aug 1918. Guernica ‘37, Warsaw ‘39, Rotterdam ‘40. Antecedents?

    “The decision to use incendiary bombs was made with an eye towards killing as many civilians as possible.”

    Guernica ‘37, Warsaw ‘39, Rotterdam ‘40? Nazis used incendiaries. Were Dolf’s fires humane? As many Polish civilians were slaughtered in Warsaw ‘39 as Germans in Dresden ‘45. Any tears for them?

    “The truth is that the British and Americans couldn’t allow a nation like Germany to succeed with such social-ill-ameliorating programs in place. It would have set a bad precedent and given their workers an example to emulate. For demonstrating an alternative to the cruelly-indifferent capitalism of Britain and America, Germany had to be crushed.”

    The US and UK invaded countries and launched wars? Slip into the Teutonic Twilight Zone again?

    “At least national socialism (note, small n and s) granted its people some measure of employment security…a far more compassionate attitude towards their people than the English or American elite had and has for theirs.”

    Plus the “compassionate” benefit of serving as cannon fodder invading neighbors and the “employment security” of eternal rest in a foreign cemetery.

    Don’t forget the great uniforms! One for everyone. Postal Worker, Tax Inspector, Street Sweeper, Ditch Digger, Lavatory Attendant, etc. Nothing better than feeling part of the group! Oh, for the days of the Pickelhaube, Stechschritt and Hitlergruß! Sauerkraut and Schnitzel for all!

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  309. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Ah, TC! Master of hollow banter, ad hominems and bogus projection. You’re really clever, aren’t you?

    Still unable to explain why (1914 & 1939) Germany invaded other countries in ‘14 and ‘39? Simple question. Can’t answer? Without the silly ‘Entente forced them’, ‘Germany was hedged in’, ‘everybody hated Germany’, ‘Germans suffered greatly’, ‘Germany was a big stallion’ bit?

    “We’re just trying to get the facts straight.”

    Don’t think so.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @ThreeCranes
  310. @Incitatus

    Where on earth did you get the impression that Germany started WW1?

    And Germany’s “invasion” of its neighbors in WW2 was acknowledged even by the British as its legitimate right to reclaim territory that had been stolen from it by the Treaty of Versailles.

    Go back and read some of the posts by others above. They will help educate you about the role of various players in the drama.

    I am not an apologist for Hitler yet I won’t fall into the cognitively and emotionally simple ploy of blaming him and him alone for the tragedies of the 20th century.

    I spoke of owning one’s dark side and this seems to be particularly relevant to you. As Carl Jung said, “The brighter the light you bathe yourself in, the darker the shadow you cast.”

    You seem to be relatively unsophisticated and have little capacity for self-reflection so let me help you understand what he is saying.

    When we assume the mantle of unblemished, righteous Virtue we immediately, in a Hegelian fashion, implicitly put others in a bad light–even though we are not aware of doing so. The Tao Te Ching teaches us the same lesson. It is a mechanism, a principle of the Universe. That’s why there is a light and dark side to the yin/yang symbol.

    For Jung, the Shadow we cast was the unexamined dark side of our nature. Because it is at odds with the good we see in ourselves, we don’t want to acknowledge it, look into it and least of all, own it.

    But you cannot advance as a human being–or as a nation–if you don’t have the courage to look at the negative you create just by living. And this applies to Germany, Nazis, Americans, neutral Swiss and Swedes.

    Every living being lives by killing and eating. Don’t pretend you’re not a murderer just because some proxy kills and slaughters your beef for you or that your not a polluter because someone else pumps your oil for you. You’re a murderer, a meat eater, a consumer and you cast a shadow.

    During the war the American and British Armies and peoples committed atrocities as well. Only a child or a fool would deny that. It’s not condoning his behavior to see your enemy with some compassion, to realize that he suffered some injustice at your hands.

  311. @Incitatus

    Guernica was exaggerated by communist propaganda. Warsaw and Rotterdam were front-line, hardened targets ancillary to the main military objectives and their bombing was legal. The bombing of civilian centers far behind the front by heavy bombers was completely different and initiated by the British, not the Germans.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  312. Rurik says: • Website
    @Art

    Hey Art,

    I have seen the patty-cake sing-along 1930’s speeches poor old Hitler gave. He is just so misunderstood.

    Attacking all those nations was purely defensive.

    while I agree with you vis-a-vis Hitler’s racial arrogance, with his talk of Aryans and ‘lebensraum’, it’s also important I think to look at Hitler’s (and Nazi Germany’s) antics with a sense of history, and the enormities that were visited upon Germany by the monstrous treachery and betrayal after Germany laid down their arms at the end of WWI. Seduced by Wilson’s (now infamous) ‘Fourteen Points’, Germany behaved nobly and trusted the allies to act in kind, only to be stabbed in the back, so to speak, and starved into slavery and destitution.

    When you look at how Germany behaved once it had regained it’s dignity under Hitler, from the perspective of history, their actions make more sense, even if ultimately tragic. But then it seems like Hitler and the Nazis never really grasped the netherworld malice that the world holds for those whom they envy, as today Germany and Germans discover they will ultimately be doomed to slow genocide by the forces of global envy and hatred.

    But my main point (I know, I know, get on with it already!)… is that IMHO, neither the exaggerations of the Holocaust or the treachery of the world wars are what should occupy our efforts are getting to the truth, but rather 9/11 is the ticket to freeing the planet from the devil’s death grip.

    The people who did that are still alive and entrenched in power. They will NEVER relinquish that power willingly, and only by a universal acceptance that Israel (and blood-stained, treasonous elements in our own governments) were guilty of that unspeakable evil, will mankind ever be able to wrest free of the chains of tyranny that these demons have us all under their thrall to.

    Americans are tossing their children into Moloch’s sacrificial fires, because they’re lied to.

    if we could but reach them and show them that they’re handing over their children to a murderous and treasonous, demonic ZUS government, perhaps the dominoes will one day fall and the hundredth monkey will open his eyes.

    WWII and the Holocaust are ancient news for millennials, who couldn’t care less. But with 9/11, all the proof of their lies are as glaring as a YouTube video. Something tells me even now, that Larry Silverstein has (and needs) more security details than Donald Trump. And that’s a start!

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Art
  313. @ThreeCranes

    well said, and thank you for insights from Jung and Tao Te Ching; I know very little about those teachings.

    I do recall a lecture by Joseph Campbell in which he explained the difference between Amerindian prayers of thanks to the buffalo before it was killed to provide sustenance and shelter/clothing for humans, and other traditions who felt it was their right to kill animals.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @ThreeCranes
  314. @SolontoCroesus

    We are all literally “afraid of our own shadows”. And rightfully so. Our shadows are the part of ourselves we lock in the closet.

    When you take a walk in the wild you notice that you are surrounded by silence. All the animals have gone quiet because they know your shadow. Through long experience with humans, animals are instinctively aware of our murderous, meat-eating propensity.

    And as every naturalist, hunter or landscape painter knows, if you can just sit quietly for any length of time the animals will resume their normal lives and you will be rewarded with membership in a novel community.

    We don’t think of our behavior as casting a shadow because we’re too busy laying plans and licking our chops. But a good hunter, one who kills his own game, is aware of his shadow. A person who has never killed an animal and then eaten it is, in a sense, a baby. Sort of like that big overgrown monster with the baby face in the Mad Max movie. By killing an animal and eating it you come face to face with your own shadow. Defending your children from harm will do the same.

    Growth, from there, is largely unconscious.

    One night you step through a door into the Void. If the shadow frightens us, the Void outright terrifies us.

    But it is the Void between the Sun and the Earth that allows light to reach us.

    The messenger comes from the Void.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @jacques sheete
  315. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Hey ThreeCranes,

    I recently spoke to a Muslim teacher who had gone vegetarian for the last few months – some of this was due to health reasons and some due to not wanting to eat meat produced by anything other than absolutely impeccable humane and organic standards (also halal hand slaughtered) – a combo which is very difficult to find. I asked him how it had affected his spiritual state – he said he could clearly feel the difference. He mentioned one incident where he passed by some trees that had had their branches cut and he said he could feel their pain.

    Really profound stuff.

    We should definitely not be consuming so much meat that we have to set up these crazy oppressive agri-business monoliths to supply it.

    Peace.

  316. @SolontoCroesus

    Jung thought that there was a personal Consciousness and a Collective Consciousness; a personal Unconscious and a Collective Unconscious. The Individual is connected to the group in the same way as a mushroom is to mycelium. The Individual is the fruiting body of the deeper organism.

    As an individual consciousness develops in the world, it is thrown off its trajectory by various obstacles, some foreign, some internal. Through a homeostatic mechanism, the greater Wisdom embedded in the individual’s Collective Consciousness and Unconscious would try to restore equilibrium by calling the individual back to his Center.

    The Self (the larger Whole that includes all parts of the individual) does this by sending messengers to the Ego ( ordinary consciousness). Because the Self comes from somewhere prior to and of a deeper fundamental nature than the Ego, the Self cannot communicate to the Ego using mere words. It must use symbols, the type of cryptic messages we receive in dreams.

    Because all humans go through similar life stages, the messages are delivered to the Ego by characters as in the cast of a drama. So, to give some examples, there is a Trickster, A Wise Elder, a Totem Animal, The Shadow, The Anima, (our female counterpart if you’re a male and vice versa if you’re a female), a Twin and so on. He found that these characters cropped up repeatedly in his patient’s dreams. He called them Archetypes.

    This biological and psychic urge towards wholeness lies behind our affinity for Mandalas like the Rose Window of the Chartes Cathedral, the Swastika, and other Wheel of Life symbols.

  317. @Incitatus

    You equate Germany’s treatment of the Belgium Army with the Allies’ deliberate starvation, rape and massacre of innocent German civilians during and after the War. Are you arguing that the German Army deliberately massacred Belgium citizens? Prove that.

    We Europeans fight under what we call the Rules of War, not always perfectly, but the rules are there. I suspect that you are not European and so don’t fully grasp this. I am of European extraction and I hold my countrymen to the standards that history has passed on to us. Union and Confederate Armies did not practice random genocide in the countryside as they passed through, though they did help themselves to pigs, corn, and chickens because Armies march on their stomachs. Some Armies have tried to recompense the civilians whose farms were raided and their commanders prohibited pillaging.

    Maybe of more concern to you; the execution of many Jews in Poland by the SS took place behind the battle lines and was in response to Jewish resistance attacks on German supply lines which killed German soldiers. Fine. War is Hell. But if a civilian takes up arms, they cannot then claim to be innocent and undeserving of retribution.

    This is why thinkers such as Sartre wrote short stories about the resistance and used it as the fulcrum of their analysis of the modern world. If you decide to resist then you are a combatant. If comrades of the soldiers you murdered come to your village and demand that the perpetrators give themselves up and if the village shields them then the foreign Army will have the citizens draw lots and punish villagers by random chance. Innocents will die, but as Camus observed, in guerrilla war, there are no innocents. Vietnam drove that point home. All armies (and good, loyal citizens of occupied countries) have wrestled with the same moral dilemma.

    By many accounts, the Germans waged a more civilized war than the Allies. At the start of the war, their submarines allowed Allied sailers time to abandon ship before sinking their mother vessel and so on. When Britain began bombing civilians, those policies were abandoned.

    You’re absolutely correct that Germans mistreated Poles and Jews and that’s because they had convinced themselves that those two groups lay outside the classification of people who were protected by the umbrella of civilized treatment. In short, they were outsiders. The Germans felt that neither Semites nor Slavs belonged in Northern Europe. Let the Slavs have southeastern Europe and the Jews have the Mediterranean. Part of this can be blamed on the Depression which wiped out the savings of the German Middle Class. People were desperate and therefore intolerant. In tough times the outsider is driven out. That’s life. The moral to be drawn is that when your host asks you to leave then maybe you’d better go. I predict that Islamic people in Europe will be taught the same lesson within fifty years.

    • Replies: @Anon
  318. Incitatus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    All sides inflated claims in propaganda. Including Germany. Big surprise.

    Not sure civilian victims in “front-line, hardened [Nazi] targets” felt any better burned or blown death than those in tragic Dresden ‘45. Including the 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians killed in Warsaw Aug-Oct ‘44. Whoops, forgot. That was “legal” since it was a “military objective.”

    What made German and Soviet invasions of Poland ‘39 “legal”? Law of the jungle? Justice met by winning? Doesn’t the same justify Dresden Mar ‘45? Collapse of civilian confidence and régime support make it “ancillary to the main military objectives”? Just a thought.

    I mourn all the victims. Don’t think any war is legal. Always surprised when someone parses history to legitimize the defeated (especially if they started the conflict). Or victor, for that matter.

    “The bombing of civilian centers far behind the front by heavy bombers was completely different and initiated by the British, not the Germans.”

    Was the UK “far behind the front” when Germany invented and initiated aerial bombing Jan 1915-Aug 1918? Think Germany would have hesitated for a moment in ‘39 if they had heavy bombers (Halifax’s, Lancaster’s, B-24s, B-17s and ample incendiary production? Germany bet on close air support (superb JU-87s) for surprise invasions. Dorniers and Heinkels were insignificant. Blame Göring.

    Even when they had a good thing (ME-262), Hitler hog-tied production as a light fighter-bomber.

    Thank God.

  319. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Incitatus

    What made German and Soviet invasions of Poland ‘39 “legal”?

    You are here confusing jus in bello, which was at issue, and jus ad bello, which was not. Likewise the accurate comparison of the bombardment of Warsaw is not to the bombing of Dresden, but to something more like the Soviet bombardment of Berlin in 1945.

    To steer the conversation back to the subject of the article: why did no Power bombard Afghanistan?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  320. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    The moral to be drawn is that when your host asks you to leave then maybe you’d better go.

    In what way were Poles and Jews in Poland “hosted” by Germans?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  321. @Anon

    A. As we all know, Poland was handed some of Germany by the Versailles treaty.

    B. As I said above, Hitler, in his infinite wisdom, thought of all Poles and Russkies as Slavs whom, he believed, didn’t belong in Nordic Europe. Of course, not all Poles are Slavs but Hitler was a fairly provincial man who didn’t travel a lot so he didn’t know any better or didn’t care because all he wanted was a big country just like America.

    The USA had showed the way by exterminating the native population and Hitler thought that Germany could do just that as well. Unfortunately, his neighbors were not really Untermenschen like Native Americans and so the so-called civilized world reacted in horror at his program. Poles and Jews being nearer to them on the phylogenetic scale and all that; you know the way empathy works.

    Hitler strategic mistake lay in thinking that the Brits, as brother criminals in arms, would back him in his quest to build an Anglo/Saxon Empire. But the Brits already had an empire to protect and as I said above, were not interested in allying themselves with a nation that implemented ameliorative social labor reforms that occupy a political place between their, the British brand of Oligarchic Capitalism and Soviet-Jewish Bolshevism.

    This may come as a surprise to many people, but Hitler (following in Bismarck’s footsteps) was a moderate and his progressive-for-their-time social policies have since become the norm in most Western democracies.

    If only France hadn’t ceded that strip of land separating Danzig from Germany to Poland, then history would have been different. Alas, but for the the petulance of Frenchman and perfidy of Albion….

  322. Wulf says:
    @Che Guava

    Comprende inglés reboludo? Your reading comprehension skills need some sharpening, amigo.

    Perhaps next time you will read the whole comment twice and let it sink in for at least 5 minutes before insulting perfectly reasonable commenters that agree with your points?

    Stop embarrassing yourself perro.

  323. @Incitatus

    This is just ridiculous and evasive, although I do agree with you that war IS a crime. German bombing of England in World War 1 was limited to military and port targets. The Warsaw uprising in 1944 has nothing to do with your original point I was replying to, which was the beginning of the war in 1939. (And for the record I have never denied that the Germans did commit crimes in the course of the war in the East, only that these were exaggerated.) And of course you do not dispute my main point, that area bombing of purely CIVILIAN centers (i.e. with no objective beyond terror) in World War 2 was initiated by the British, NOT the Germans.

  324. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    ‘My cup runneth over.’ I’m all a’tingle. More frantic compost spread to avoiding simple answers. Getting stale TC?

    “Where on earth did you get the impression that Germany started WW1?”

    The chronology of German ultimatums, spurned diplomatic alternatives, and launched invasions. Facts.

    Discussed on several posts on this thread. Your 64, 103, 253, 262, 268, 308, 320. Mine(98, 235, 258, 304, 319. You’re unable to refute facts. Squid-like responses cover pretentious stupidity. Nonsense designed to evade substantiating your #64 (Entente responsible for WW1).

    “And Germany’s “invasion” of its neighbors in WW2 was acknowledged even by the British as its legitimate right to reclaim territory that had been stolen from it by the Treaty of Versailles.”

    Please quote the British acknowledgement. You refer to the Treaty of Versailles, signed by Germany. You state Germany had a “legitimate right to reclaim territory that had been stolen” by the very treaty to which they agreed. Please post evidence of that right.

    Into your Jungian mystical shadow lands, another fig leaf for inability:

    “I spoke of owning one’s dark side and this seems to be particularly relevant to you. As Carl Jung said, “The brighter the light you bathe yourself in, the darker the shadow you cast.”

    “You seem to be relatively unsophisticated and have little capacity for self-reflection so let me help you understand what he is saying.”

    “When we assume the mantle of unblemished, righteous Virtue we immediately, in a Hegelian fashion, implicitly put others in a bad light–even though we are not aware of doing so. The Tao Te Ching teaches us the same lesson. It is a mechanism, a principle of the Universe. That’s why there is a light and dark side to the yin/yang symbol.”

    “For Jung, the Shadow we cast was the unexamined dark side of our nature. Because it is at odds with the good we see in ourselves, we don’t want to acknowledge it, look into it and least of all, own it.”

    And so on. You must really be fun at parties!

    But there’s more – your patronizing epistle #327:
    “You equate Germany’s treatment of the Belgium Army with the Allies’ deliberate starvation, rape and massacre of innocent German civilians during and after the War. ”

    Projection? Quote anything I’ve said about the “Belgium Army” versus the “deliberate starvation, rape and massacre of innocent German civilians during and after the War.” Please.

    “Are you arguing that the German Army deliberately massacred Belgium citizens? Prove that.”

    You’ve obviously been too busy with Jungian therapy. Reprisal executuions are established facts in WW1 history. 23,700 Belgian civilians were thus dispatched. An additional 62,000 died from exposure and famine (unsurprising after the Germans burned civilian dwellings and made thousands homeless).“

    Maybe of more concern to you; the execution of many Jews in Poland by the SS took place behind the battle lines and was in response to Jewish resistance attacks on German supply lines which killed German soldiers. Fine. War is Hell. But if a civilian takes up arms, they cannot then claim to be innocent and undeserving of retribution.”

    I’ve nowhere mentioned ‘Jews in Poland’, ‘the SS’, ‘Jewish resistance’ on this thread . Why introduce those subjects TC? Troll? Your #327 continues with allusions to Sartre, fulcrums and:

    “…Germans waged a more civilized war than the Allies…as Camus observed, in guerrilla war, there are no innocents…You’re absolutely correct that Germans mistreated Poles and Jews and that’s because they had convinced themselves that those two groups lay outside the classification of people who were protected by the umbrella of civilized treatment. In short, they were outsiders.”

    Where did I posit “Germans mistreated Poles and Jews” on this thread?

    Need I say it TC? You’re so full of crap it’s amazing you don’t explode. Sacrifice half your troll pay, or double your Jungian analyst visits. Your current program’s inadequate. Your “dark side” is winning. Enough said. Best wishes.

    PS. Hi to S2C. Glad to hear you’re getting in touch with your sensitive side. Still waiting on your sources for torture at Nüremberg ‘45-46. Don’t disappoint me!

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @anarchyst
  325. L.K says:
    @Rurik

    Rurik: “WWII and the Holocaust are ancient news for millennials, who couldn’t care less. But with 9/11, all the proof of their lies are as glaring as a YouTube video.”

    Hmmm… because not enough people stood up against the lies re WW2, the holohoax, etc, these falsehoods have become “facts” which are to this day used by the powers that be to justify all sorts of illegal wars.

    I am not so sure millennials care much about 9/11 either… how many even know a third building which was not hit by aircraft, collapsed just like in a controlled demolition setting?

    Remember what I said about the USS Liberty? Ancient history too by now , eh? It is.
    Few in the ZUSA know or care.

    Give it some decades & 9-11 will go down the same road. Even in alternative media, a lot of which is about gatekeeping anyway, rarely is the obvious Zio/Israeli role/responsibility ever brought up.

    Everything is important. I first woke up to the holohoax/ww2 lies, and that, in turn, made me a lot more suspicious about other events, including the 9-11 hoax.

    Cheers

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Rurik
  326. L.K says:
    @Incitatus

    You are such a pathetic troll, inZitatus.

    All this BS you are posting here, including this old crap blaming Germany for WW 1 has been refuted extensively, by moi and others, in other threads.

    You are a ridiculous Troll, a disgraceful LIAR, & a complete intellectual FRAUD.

    inZitatus to Solonto: “Still waiting on your sources for torture at Nüremberg ‘45-46.”

    So cute…Lying and trolling comes all so naturally to you, eh? Obviously you are full of shit, because I myself had already provided you with evidence of torture re those show trials. I won’t let you forget, bitch:

    As I said, Höss testimony is complete nonsense and the reason is that the man was tortured into ‘confessing’. How do I know? For one thing bc Höss himself wrote about it before execution – he was tortured by the Brits and the Poles – but also, because confirmation has come with the publication in England of a book containing the name of the chief torturer, a British sergeant, and a description by the torturer of the circumstances of Höss’s arrest, as well as his torture. The book is ‘Legions of Death’ by Rupert Butler, published in 1983.

    Re Höss’ torture at the hands of the British as reported in the book ‘Legions of Death’, for which the author interviewed some of the torturers, Prof. Faurisson writes:

    The prisoner[Höss] was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
    Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

    …The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. (p. 237)
    So it is that Bernard reveals “It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]” (ibid.). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986): Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid[e) in Schleswig-Holstein. “They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks,” recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. “We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” said Mr. Jones.
    …Clarke’s statement, obtained under the conditions just described by bullies of British Military Security under the brutal inspiration of sergeant-interpreter Bernard Clarke, became Höss’s first confession, the original confession indexed under the number NO-1210.

    Interesting how the torture methods are remarkably similar to recent cases, say, Zamerican torturers in the fraudulent “war on terror”.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  327. L.K says:

    I should add that Höss is NOT an isolated case. There were several such incidents. For example, British journalist Alan Moorehead, described the treatment of some of the Belsen camp personnel after the british takeover:[Essay by A. Moorehead, “Belsen,” in: Cyril Connolly, ed., The Golden Horizon, pp. 105–106.]

    As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant’s language become ferocious. “We had had an interrogation this morning,” the captain said. ‘I’m afraid they are not a pretty sight.’ … The sergeant unbolted the first door and … strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in front of him. “Get up,” he shouted. “Get up. Get up, you dirty bastards.” There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and face spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in front of him, trembling violently.
    “Come on. Get up,” the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled beard … “Why don’t you kill me?” he whispered. “Why don’t you kill me? I can’t stand it any more.” The same phrases dribbled out of his lips over and over again. “He’s been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard,” the sergeant said.

  328. L.K says:

    Through jacques sheete, I came upon this excellent article by Jewish American economist and historian, Murray Rothbard:

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Which is precisely what scares the bejesus out of shills like inZitatus.

    “ The task of revisionism has been to penetrate beneath these superficialities and appearances to the stark realities underneath — realities which show, certainly in this century, the United States, Great Britain, and France — the three great “democracies” — to be worse than any other three countries in fomenting and waging aggressive war. Realization of this truth would be of incalculable importance on the current scene.”

    - Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  329. @L.K

    It’s no use L.K, you can’t get through to him. He’s armored himself with faux Virtue.

    He keeps going on about the loss of lives in Belgium and asks what “right” the Germans had to invade Belgium in 1914 as though war were something to be debated by lawyers before the first stone is thrown in anger. He has a legalist’s mind.

    Had Britain not stuck her nose in, WW1 would never have occurred. There would have been a brief war between Germany, Russia and France; it would have been settled in a year and the continent would have returned to peace. But Britain’s intervention turned it into a “World” war. Same with WW2. Both wars would have been regional contests and that would have been that. Neither Britain nor the United States had any business interfering in Continental disputes.

    Of course, if Germany had won WW1, Incivitas would not argue on behalf of poor Belgium but rather on behalf of Germany. His schtick can only work in a setting in which the side he takes is the prevailing Law Of The Land–else his argument has no traction. He would be in Belgium’s face demanding reparations to be paid to the Nazis for loss of lives and property due to Belgium’s resistance. As a legalist he is a shameless opportunist. Standing upon Law gives him the sense of upholding What is Right and this allows him to shield his own selfish motives from himself as he advances his personal agenda. This is the Shadow at work. He blinds himself to his personal gain by shining the white light of Virtue upon his endeavor.

  330. anarchyst says:
    @L.K

    It is interesting to note, that on the 50th anniversary of the June 8, 1967 deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5), NOT ONE MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET commemorated the event–not even a small “blurb”… Usually, the 50th anniversary of ANY event is mentioned…not so for this deliberate act of war…
    This is PROOF that the “tribe” OWNS the media…

  331. anarchyst says:
    @Incitatus

    My Polish friends who lived through WW2 described the Germans as very polite and professional. When there were German troop movements, an officer would go door-to-door to politely advise the occupants to stay indoors until the troops passed through. There were even individual acts of kindness demonstrated by German troops.
    Of course, the gentile Polish people had no problem “ratting out” the communist commissars who were primarily jews…

    • Replies: @Avery
  332. Avery says:
    @anarchyst

    {My Polish friends who lived through WW2 described the Germans as very polite and professional.}

    Wow: that is quite a revelation.
    Amazing.

    Did your alleged ‘Polish friends’ also describe the Intelligenzaktion as, quote, ‘polite and professional’?. You know, the aktion that murdered about 100,000 Polish élites (i.e. intelligentsia, teachers, priests, physicians, et al.)?

    Maybe the murders were carried out politely and professionally by Nazi Germans?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  333. anarchyst says:
    @Avery

    Nope…the murders were carried out by Bolshevik communists (not ordinary Russians). It is interesting to note that the Katyn massacre perpetrated by the Bolsheviks resulted in an unusual collaborative effort between the Germans and the Allies. There is a certain amount of denial by the Allies, who did not want to demonize the Bolsheviks, but were forced to by the evidence and by the participation of the International Red Cross…you see, it was jewish Bolsheviks that committed the massacre…

    • Replies: @Avery
  334. Avery says:
    @anarchyst

    {….…the murders were carried out by Bolshevik communists}

    Intelligenzaktion was carried out by Bolsheviks in 1939-1940?
    I didn’t know Nazi German Einsatzgruppen were Bolshevik.

    Maybe there is a parallel Universe where there was another WW2, and Nazi Germans there were Bolsheviks: is that the one you are referring to?

    • Troll: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  335. anarchyst says:
    @Avery

    It is obvious that you are a hasbara troll who will deflect historical FACT as it puts you Bolshevik jews in a bad light…

    • Replies: @Avery
  336. Avery says:
    @anarchyst

    It is obvious you are insane.
    The historical FACT is that your Nazi ancestors murdered ~100, 000 Polish intellectuals.

    You are delusional: Intelligenzaktion. _was_ a Nazi operation.
    Katyn was Katyn, and Intelligenzaktion was Intelligenzaktion.

    You live in some kind of an alternative Universe.
    Your Nazi German forebears murdered ~100,000 Polish intellectuals during operation Intelligenzaktion. Murders were carried out by units of Nazi German military specializing in war-crimes, mass-murder, torture, ….such the Einsatzgruppen.

    • Troll: anarchyst
  337. Art says:
    @Rurik

    But my main point (I know, I know, get on with it already!)… is that IMHO, neither the exaggerations of the Holocaust or the treachery of the world wars are what should occupy our efforts are getting to the truth, but rather 9/11 is the ticket to freeing the planet from the devil’s death grip.

    Hear hear – you have got that right – 9/11 has pushed the US totally into the 15,000,000 strong Jew Matrix camp.

    Chief Matrix man – Netanyahu said “that 9/11 would help Israel” – that is the gross understatement of the century.

    My opinion of the German people is going down – they still accept leadership dictates – taking in all those mad refugee people is crazy – they listen to Merkel like they followed Hitler. Tribalism makes people dump – period.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. I do not use the Matrix Jew “h-word” – only the “six million lie.” There is no disputing that.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  338. phil says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Data source please? Per Angus Maddison, Mao’s China had lower average living standards than the US in 1820. Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore in November 1978 and convened a meeting of the Politburo in December 1978 to launch the “Open Door” policy reforms. Chinese living standards have multiplied by more than 10 since that time.

  339. Bliss says:
    @Rurik

    our civil Christian culture is a direct representation of our blood. Culture is nothing more or less than the earthly, mortal expression of our DNA.

    This is funny considering that swedes/germanics do not even exist in the christian bible. Germanics were human sacrificing pagans for a hell of a lot longer than they have been Christians. Most of them have abandoned Christianity anyway. You look very stupid and ignorant attempting to tie religion and culture to blood and DNA.

    If you took ten thousands Swedes out of Sweden, and raised them in the Congo with zero ties to their native culture, in three generations they’d be building marvels among the mud huts. And philosophizing about the heavens, and their place in it.

    So how do you explain the inability of swedes and the rest of the germanics to create a civilization of their own for thousands of years after other races had succeeded? Swedes were christianized and civilized only in the 12th century.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Rurik
  340. @Intelligent Dasein

    I didn’t bother about this article which seemed an odd fit for UR but then read RU’s astonishing Digest note which said it had top billing for Comments. Now I have been prompted to read up a bit on the unusual Frankopans, as they have taken to calling themseves (and good for them adding a bit of gaiety to boring reality and upsetting the Association of Croatian Noblity which is not polite about their claims to a title whose successive lines had, from memory, died out five times by 1600). And I have read some reviews of the best selling book which made no mention at all of anything to support Barrett’s thesis and give it qualified approval only for accuracy and balance on the rest. Altogether a strange beast to find in this alternative media webzine.

  341. Rurik says: • Website
    @L.K

    because not enough people stood up against the lies re WW2, the holohoax, etc, these falsehoods have become “facts” which are to this day used by the powers that be to justify all sorts of illegal wars.

    I don’t think it was the lies per se. Rather it’s the liars. If you took possession today of the Federal Reserve Bank, and with that unlimited power of the purse – purchased every media outlet, every Internet outlet of consequence, every politician and every judge, inserted your people into the universities and all the ad agencies until it was your voice alone that rang out from California to Poland, and from S. Africa to Greenland, then in no time flat all those lies that were told would melt away like kosher butter in the sun, and the memes and paradigms and mantras would be yours to write into the history books.

    All it would take is a decade of movies and TV shows, school text books and billboards telling the truth, and the lies would slither into the dank crevices and die, and the truth would ring from all the lands.

    But you’d have to control the narrative. That’s all. Once you do, you’d be able to create a popular culture to suit your inner-most deeply held wishes and aspirations. If you wanted people to consider Israel a murderous, genocidal apartheid state, it’d be as simple as telling the truth. Something that is verboten today.

    Being as ((they)) own all of those things, from the Fed on down to who’s deciding what’s in your child’s text books, today ((they)) have that power over our culture and institutions, and that is the reality that we live in.

    But with 9/11, something so immediate and outrages and documented, I suspect that if anything does have the power to open (especially young) people’s minds, then that is it.

    They can lie like a wiz 24/7, but with videos of building’s plopping into their basements, and more and more people speaking out

    http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

    the truth-snowball just might create a firestorm.

    and when the lies about 9/11 go, so too will all the other lies about WWII and all the rest, because all of those lies are all emanating out of the exact same orifice of zion.

    Cheers

  342. Rurik says: • Website
    @Art

    Hey Art,

    My opinion of the German people is going down – they still accept leadership dictates – taking in all those mad refugee people is crazy – they listen to Merkel like they followed Hitler.

    There is irony here Art.

    The only reason the German people are going down is because they’ve been ravaged and eviscerated and hounded and demonized like no people ever since the Old Testament gloried in the genocide of Israel’s enemies (everyone ele).

    It is directly due to the ubiquitous smears of the German people as ‘Nazis!!’ and ‘racists!!’ that are causing them to lose their dignity and will to survive as a people. The Germans are a magnificent race of humans with a glorious past. They’re the engine of Europe’s economy and the pride of Europa, but they’ve been so relentlessly bashed by the ‘people of envy, malice and hate’, for generation after inglourious generation, that they’re giving up.

    They don’t have the energy to fight not only the tribe, but those of the goyem who’ve joined in on the fun of pilling on for their own personal advancement

    what ever you want to say about Hitler, he and his Nazis are all long dead. But their memory and their notoriety is now used as a weapon by the Jews to destroy anything and anyone who gets in their way. Just like the way today they compare Donald Trump or Putin = Adolf Hitler.

    It’s long past time since we play along with these people’s tiresome (and genocidal) narrative. I have to wonder, if Putin and Trump are = Hitler, was even Hitler = Hitler?

    Or is that ultimate boogey man just the expression of the ((tribe’s)) angst over being put out of total power over a people / victim / host, as was certainly the case during the Weimar regime, when the tribe lorded it over the prostrate and betrayed German people like no other.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  343. @OkieDokie

    At least Barrett’s rubbish, which would make Frankopan embarrassed to have him as a reviewer, gave me the occasion to read and question what appears to be a minor item of rubbish in your Comment. What on earth did Zionism have to do with causing WW1 – or WW2 for that matter?

  344. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    What on earth did Zionism have to do with causing WW1 – or WW2 for that matter?

    hi wiz,

    the Balfour Declaration proves that America’s involvement in WWI was a direct act of treachery on behalf of Zionism by treasonous and disloyal Jews who controlled our newspapers and others (Woodrow Wilson, et al)

    what was the end result of WWII (and the genocidal slaughter of the flower of Europa), imposed by Zionist Jews and others (FDR, Churchill)…

    … but Israel, rising out of the ashes of Europe

    duh

    here’s Charles Lindbergh’s patriotic speech on the verge of America going to WWII

    (I invite the moderators to use the “more” link:)

    [MORE]

    Des Moines Speech:

    It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

    That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

    At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

    Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

    Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

    If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

    We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

    We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

    What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

    The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

    When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

    National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

    Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

    I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

    As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

    Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

    First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

    Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

    As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

    England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

    We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

    The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

    It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

    No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

    Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

    Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

    I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

    We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

    The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

    The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

    In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups–the British, the Jewish, or the administration–stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

    I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

    When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

    They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

    Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

    Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

    There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

    To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters–less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

    Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

    Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”

    England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months–”the best way to defend America and keep out of war.” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”

    First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

    The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

    We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]– a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

    Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

    We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

    We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

    The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

    Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

    There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  345. @Wizard of Oz

    That is actually not a bad point, but I take his comment to use the more modern (if perhaps narrow) term “Zionism” for the more accurate (if somewhat unwieldy) term “Organized Jewry”. Do you dispute that such a thing exists?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  346. @Bliss

    “So how do you explain the inability of swedes and the rest of the germanics to create a civilization of their own for thousands of years after other races had succeeded? ”

    I’m not ordinarily rude but I’m getting tired of this.

    You are an ignorant MORON!

    Before you run down old Nordics as primitives go visit the museums in Denmark and Sweden. You will find beautifully sculpted bronze axe heads that date to 1500 b.c. Elegant, form following function synthesizing art and utility, the direct lineal precursors of Scandinavian design that is justly admired today. To say nothing of their magnificent ships that owed nothing to the prophet of the unrelenting, blinding light of the harsh desert. Your Jesus is a poor, dusty carpenter compared to our magnificent ship-building, world-exploring Thor!

    Metalworking of this high a caliber is definitely not the product of troglodytes. Even the flint axes that preceded these are works of art.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Bliss
  347. @Rurik

    “I have to wonder, if Putin and Trump are = Hitler, was even Hitler = Hitler?”

    There ya’ go mate. The reason they have to pound the theme home to us every evening with some program about the Nazis on TV is that without the artificial propping up of the bogus flats, we would see the entire theatre set for what it is, a painted illusion. If Hitler were who they say he was and if their version of events were true, those would stand on their own merits.

  348. geokat62 says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Thanks for sharing the Lindbergh speech, Rurik.

    I was especially struck by this quote:

    National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America.

    It reminded me of similar polls in Russia after the fall of the SU. Although Yeltsin’s popularity was at an all-time low of 6%, the (((Russian))) oligarchs made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. They promised him they would do everything in their power to help him win the election, if and only if he agreed to give them control and ownership of the Crown Jewels. And miracle of miracles he won… just like a Rocky movie, he came back from the dead.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Rurik
  349. Rurik says: • Website
    @Bliss

    Germanics were human sacrificing pagans for a hell of a lot longer than they have been Christians.

    and grew into the most intelligent, virulent, proud, hardy, fiercely independent, fighting off Romans and Ottomans and everyone else who dared raise a sword on their ancient lands.

    Until they were seduced by Christianity, with its talk of honesty, truth, kindness and love that most certainly resonated within their noble blood, until today, when the ravages of that Middle Eastern nonsense about spreading the other cheek has them handing over their lands and their daughters to Muslim invaders.

    A lot of good the religion of living on your knees and spreading the other cheek has done them, (and the rest of us) eh?

    So how do you explain the inability of swedes and the rest of the germanics to create a civilization of their own for thousands of years after other races had succeeded?

    this is pure idiocy

    Christianity has become the death knell of Sweden and Western Europe, not its savior.

    Take a look at how Markel’s Christian democrats have doomed Germany. Or the whining, politically correct, prostrate, abased, self-loathing Swedes are fairing today in Sweden.

    Now more than ever they should heed the blood-call of the ancient Gods of vigor of their ancestors, and toss these pitiful African and Middle Eastern invaders out on their arses, along with all the crybaby Christians and other abased, obsequious worms slithering in the government and media and institutions demanding Sweden commit suicide to save their souls.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Bliss
  350. @Rurik

    What you say is true, brother.

    The Muzzies, Jews and indulgent, do-gooder Christians stir up trouble amongst us only because we fight them with one hand tied behind our backs. Were we to unleash the awesome power of Thor’s nuclear hammer on an Islamic city for every act of terror on our shores, their mischief would stop immediately. These Middle Eastern one-allseeing-eye-in-the-desert-sky-worshipping types live by our indulgence and they shouldn’t be allowed to forget it. We coddle them.

    When I am King, heads will roll.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @L.K
  351. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    Apologies to TC. I somehow hit “reply” to the wrong comment.

  352. Rurik says: • Website
    @geokat62

    It reminded me of similar polls in Russia after the fall of the SU. Although Yeltsin’s popularity was at an all-time low of 6%, the (((Russian))) oligarchs made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

    we have a front-row seat view to how it’s all done Geo, just by watching their incessant lies for war right now. CNN is nothing but 24/7 lies about Russia. And they all march in lock-step to the lies, like the pathetic sheep they are, and no doubt were back then.

    wars are ‘good for the Jews’, so it seems, so long as other people fight and die in them

    here’s to hoping that Trump and Putin and the rest of us can somehow pull back their reins of the demonic schemes

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  353. Rurik says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    unleash the awesome power of Thor’s nuclear hammer on an Islamic city for every act of terror on our shores, their mischief would stop immediately.

    yes, but we should always keep in mind that the worst of these “terror” attacks are done by Israel, as a false flag to get us to kill their myriad and well-earned enemies.

    From the Lusitania to Liberty to 9/11, these murderous and treacherous fiends have been using us as chumps and Janissaries to kill people who’ve done us no harm, like the Iraqis or Libyans, or Syrians today, whose nation we destroyed to bolster Israel.

    When I am King, heads will roll.

    Skol to that!

  354. @Rurik

    I won’t take issue over accuracy or bias but note the amusing way that you confirm non-Americans old impressions of American insularoty and ignorance of the the rest of the world (one of the more recent areas for derision has been the low number of Congressmen with passports when elected and Governor George W. Bush never having travelled outside the US eccept to Mexico). I have tended to resist such scornful jibes but here you are promoting them up front with your indifference to America’s part in WW1 being very late and quite perkpheral (except that it had the advantage of being still fresh and actually richer. As to WW2, America’s late entry into it can be regarded as a mere two and a quarter years if measured from Hitler’s attack on Poland up to at least four if you count Japan’s second 1930s attack on China. You may have overllooked that Britain in the late 30s actually restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine: so much for your nonsense that WW2 was a Zionist creation.
    As to your “genocidal slaughter of the flower of Europa” you seem to have overlooked that the truly genocidal slaughter was of Jews although what both Nazis and Soviet forces did in Poland to the intelligentsia and upper classes was genocidally intended. It was actually WW1 which could be (and was) tegarded as destroying the flower of some countries’ educated and intelligent upper classes compounded by the fact that the volunteer officer class of Britain was from the first generation since birth control had begun to reduce family size markedly starting with the educated. Earlier phenomena of restricted fertility as in 17th century Britain and 19th century France and Ireland are I think interesting phenomena and maybe also dysgenic.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Rurik
  355. @Wizard of Oz

    lost while editing…. Despite my scorn for your insularity I am not happy that “The American Century” has already collapsed with the American form and substance of government no longer being a worthwhile model of “government for the people”,

  356. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Organised Jewry has indeed existed in changing forms and strengths for a long time (compare perhaps old fashioned Protestant churches who are now led by women clergy pushing for the ordination of transgender dogs etc ). Jews organising as Jews were, for example, by no means all Zionists 100 years ago. I note that typical Reform Jewry in America has tended to be secular and assimilitative although unsurprisingly not anti-Zionist and certainly and understandably susceptible to Israel’s very strong propaganda weapons such as the Holocaust, the providing of refuge for Soviet Jews etc. No doubt some pride to in overturning stereotypes of the stetl Jew by military success and the more recent flowering of the high tech Israeli economy.

    I doubt if organised Jewry or even a few rich Jews who had the President’s ear had anything like the systematised power before some time in the 60s or 70s or even later that they have now when the Cold War is no longer a competing factor and American politics has been totally corrupted by money. Mind you the costs of American health care and governments’ rising unfunded liabiliries compete pretty well with the Israel lobby for damage to ordinary Americans.
    Specifically, I don’t think “Organised Jewry ” is a particularly useful substitute for a description that emphasises Israel because I can’t see anything much uniting Jews strongly and uniformly except defence of Israel. Preferential access to the Ivies? Maybe, for a minority.

    I should perhaps have added elsewhere (to Rurik?) that I think Israel has probably reached peak influence. Numbers do count and the growth of BDS is a sign of what may be coming.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  357. Bliss says:
    @Rurik

    Yesterday according to Rurik:

    our civil Christian culture is a direct representation of our blood.

    Today according to Rurik (after yours truly posted some inconvenient truths):

    Christianity has become the death knell of Sweden and Western Europe, not its savior…….Now more than ever they should heed the blood-call of the ancient Gods of vigor of
    their ancestors

    • Replies: @Rurik
  358. Bliss says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Before you run down old Nordics as primitives go visit the museums in Denmark and Sweden. You will find beautifully sculpted bronze axe heads that date to 1500 b.c.

    It is really moronic of you to think that things like axe heads and boats prove that germanics created a civilization worthy of the name. Where are the pagan Germanic monuments? Where are their books on literature, history, religion, philosophy? Where is their math, science and technology? Why were they considered primitive barbarians by the greeks and romans who founded western civilization?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  359. @ThreeCranes

    Good omments there. Those who’ve responded negatively once again demonstrate that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    One claimed “Wilhelmine Germany invented aerial bombing of civilians Jan 1915″ but is clearly errant. Way off, in fact, as per usual, and the claim is debunked with ease.

    The first time a city was bombed from the air was in 1849…

    http://ideas.ted.com/the-warfare-tactic-that-crushed-cities-but-not-spirits/

    Aerial bombing from heavier-than-air aircraft was apparently first done in Libya, over a century ago, by an Italian pilot who carried out the first ever air raid. The Italian pilot Giulio Gavotti dropped 1.5 kg of bombs on Ain Zara, a village 8 km west of the capital Tripoli. The fact that Turkish forces were encamped there does not nullify the claim. It was indiscriminate bombing of an oasis where non combatants were as likely to be as actual combatants.

    During fighting in November 1911 between Italy and forces loyal to the Turkish, Ottoman Empire, Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti wrote in a letter to his father: “Today I have decided to try to throw bombs from the aeroplane.
    “It is the first time that we will try this and if I succeed, I will be really pleased to be the first person to do it.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13294524

    Here’s another pre-1915 example. Adrianople was a city and likely contained civilians. Whether they were intended as a target is moot.

    Bulgarian airmen prepare for a mission to drop a bomb by hand on Adrianople (now Edirne, Turkey), from their Bleriot XI aircraft, during the First Balkan War, circa 1913. The Bulgarian Air Force was the first to use aircraft for offensive military action.

    http://world.time.com/2012/10/08/the-balkan-wars-scenes-from-the-frontlines/photo/bulgarian-bomber/

  360. @Wizard of Oz

    Agreed, accuracy in language is important and while “Zionism” can be a reasonable proxy, it’s often inaccurate. And I hope you are are right about the rise of counter-movements like BDS, but we shall see. BTW, while there’s no doubting Jewish intellectual abilities and initiative, Israeli tech and military success comes largely off of their parasitical relationship with the West, mainly the US.

  361. @L.K

    Germany only attacked because of the very real threat that Soviet Russia represented, which became clear through various provocations.

    It was a Soviet Russia, that had the full support of some of the world’s richest banksters, I might add.

    Those simple concepts, while true and extremely easy to grasp, still elude most of the population. It’s really unfortunate that things so readily apparent still remain mysteries even when they’re pointed out so clearly. Thread bare, century old Allied propaganda still prevails in the minds of the simple.

    The only remedy, if any, is probably repetition, so thanks!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  362. @ThreeCranes

    Where on earth did you get the impression that Germany started WW1?

    The type cannot get beyond Allied propaganda. I’ve argued the point numerous times without effect. Apparently at least some of them have now heard about H.E. Barnes, so maybe that’s a start.

    Good luck, but I predict that soon enough you’ll see that it’s not worth spending much time answering them.

  363. @ThreeCranes

    I’d think that those who are terrified of the Void are those who think a bit too much of themselves, and as you say, they would do well to grow up.

    Speaking of wilderness, you are correct and I would add that everyone would do themselves a favor and make an effort to get out on a clear night and observe the Milky Way. One would do well to consider that many “stars” beyond it are actually other galaxies many times larger than our own.

    If that doesn’t set one’s mind straight, nothing will.

  364. @ThreeCranes

    That’s the best comment on the subject I’ve ever read. As eloquent as it is true.

    Unfortunately, the message will be misunderstood, sneered at, and twisted beyond recognition.

  365. @ThreeCranes

    Are you unaware of the Liberal government’s moves toward a welfare state in Britain circa 1910? Apparently not? And has it occured to you that two years conscription into the Germàn army was a pretty big negative to set against a few paternalistic welfare state type payouts designed to win enough support to offset the lack of democratic rights and freedoms?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  366. Boris N says:
    @German_reader

    I don’t think the military advantage of steppe nomads over sedentary populations in the pre-modern era is controversial;

    Controversial because to wage war you need resources, while the harsh Mongolian steppe has always lacked that. Look for how the Kalmyks have happened to live near Volga and what they endured during their trip. Logistics: a great deal of historians always ignore this important thing.

    if you’re interested, just read the relevant sections in Azar Gat’s “War in human civilization”.

    From its table of content I imagine it is another typical Western humanitarian (I’d even say Talmudic, considering the author) empty talk. I doubt it’s worth my time to read. Does he mention anything about logistics?

    Of course medieval sources are often unreliable in their numbers, but you can’t just dismiss everything in them and construct some alternative history out of your own imagination.

    Not to dismiss, but not to take at face value. And you must have confused me with somebody, but I have not constructed some alternative history. Sorry, I did not know that to question the established historical narrative is a crime against history. ;) But after all we are in a revisionist thread

    And some of those texts were by eyewitnesses who had the misfortune of personal experience of the Mongol invasion.

    The journos from WP and NYT are also witnesses, alright. Or if we return to the main topic of the thread, the innumerable eyewitnesses of WWII. We even can not make up and agree on what have happened 70 years ago, but we pretend we are 100% damn sure what have happened 700 years ago. Because, because, well, decayed mediaeval scrolls cannot lie!

    After all, I did not say that the Mongols had not existed or something like that. I disagree with the idea that Mongols were superhuman super warriors, omnipotent destroyers and exterminators, who destroyed dozens of Asian civilizations and exterminated bazillions of people. Their empire must have worked some other way.

  367. Boris N says:
    @Njguy73

    Such ideas deserve to exist, but considering the rigidity of the established narrative any such ideas will be always anathematize as fringe and heretic. And unfortunately they also attract real freak scientists like Fomenko, which does not add any credibility to such ideas. While in fact a lot of the established history is very doubtful, but one cannot question it lest one will be excommunicated from the scientific historical community. For its rigidity and authoritarian mind-set the historical academia is hardly different from other “social studies”.

  368. @Bliss

    Hey, I’m sorry I called you a moron.

    But I still disagree with you.

    Of course the Germans didn’t leave a permanent record as did the Greeks because the Germans worked in wood and the Greeks in marble. A boat is just as much a testament to human achievement as is a marble temple. And the bronze casting of the Danes was as good as anything in the world. What you say notwithstanding, metal working is an indication of high culture and you have to have sharp tools to carve wood.

    Remember too that the Germans (or some type of precursor) followed the retreat of the glaciers and just as in Alaska today, civilization (such as it is) on the fringe of retreating ice sheets is of necessity primitive, consisting as it does of trapping and hunting, trading furs for manufactured goods.

    I won’t argue with you about philosophy etc. I have studied Classics and Philosophy, History of Mathematics and without question, the Greeks set a high bar. I’ve read the Icelandic Sagas and found little reason to argue your point.

    But I still think its a mistake to dismiss Nordic civilization with a dismissive wave of the hand. They weren’t barbarians. They were rural people who made their living from farming, herding, fishing and hunting.

  369. Che Guava says:
    @Art

    No fake peace from me, every time Tra-la-lah (pbuh) uses the word, it is a lie.

  370. L.K says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Oh please,

    The biggest terrorist entity in this world is the ZUSA & its various allies, such as Britain, Zaudi Arabia, etc… and by a wide margin too.

    The ZUSA & allies have been bombing, sanctioning, invading, occupying and murdering people in various Muslim countries for over 20 years now, all under spurious pretexts…
    Killing, wounding, starving & displacing millions. That is terrorism on steroids.

    Also, the ZUSA & ZUK – even France – all have a long history of covertly supporting & using Wahhabi extremists in various ways…
    The ZUSA, ZUK & France have used Wahhabi mercenaries in Libya & have long been using them in Syria. Al-Qaeda in Syria has been covertly supported by the ZUSA & ISIS’ reign of terror was deliberately sponsored as a tool for the ZUSA to re-insert itself into Iraq & create a pretext for the US to illegally invade Syria supposedly to fight… ISIS… which the US & its allies helped create.

    The biggest alleged Muslim terrorist attack, 9-11, as Rurik points out, was an obvious inside job, a false flag op. The official story does not have a leg to stand on…

    Backing up the above with some evidence;

    American Officials Admit that the U.S. Is a Huge Sponsor of Terrorism

    The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:

    Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

    Odom also said:

    By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

    The Washington Post reported in 2010:

    “The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.”

    The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.
    Ted Gunderson Former FBI Chief – Most Terror Attacks Are Committed By Our CIA And FBI

    Former US Ranger Jack Murphy, after talking to US spec ops instructors training “Syrian Rebels” in Turkey and Jordan, wrote;

    …a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm
    Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis…

    Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  371. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    I won’t take issue over accuracy or bias but note the amusing way that you confirm non-Americans old impressions of American insularoty and ignorance… [blah, blah..] but here you are promoting them up front with your indifference to America’s part in WW1 being very late and quite perkpheral (except that it had the advantage of being still fresh and actually richer.

    as for America’s involvement in WWI, all I said was:

    ‘the Balfour Declaration proves that America’s involvement in WWI was a direct act of treachery on behalf of Zionism by treasonous and disloyal Jews who controlled our newspapers and others (Woodrow Wilson, et al)’

    now what does that have to do with Americans being fresh?

    Germany was winning the war, but they saw it for what it was, a fratricidal slaughter of the flower of Europa, and suggested to the other belligerents that they simply end it. But Perfidious Albion (being Perfidious Albion) was not to be mollified, and intrigued to bring the Americans in on their behalf, telling the Jews and Zionists that if they use their control of Americas newspapers (and Wilson’s White House) to cajole America into the war, that the Zionist Jews can have Palestine for a Jewish state.

    That’s all I said about it, (and it’s all true). So I don’t get your angst over American insularity. If anything, we Americans could do with a lot more insularity when it comes to bombing all of Zion’s well-earned enemies.

    That’s my hope wiz, that Trump will usher in a new era of American foreign policy, where we don’t go all over the place slaughtering people for Israel. As we did in both world wars, and are doing today in Syria. Except that seems to be changing huh wiz, as the money and arms seems to have been choked off to the orcs, and now Putin and Assad are winning over there, and it looks like the Golan Heights will remain Syrian territory, since Syria is going to remain a sovereign nation with recognized borders, (unlike the “shitty little state” that refuses to define its borders, hoping always [with America's help!] to steal the land of others and incorporate them into Israel), huh wiz?

    so much for your nonsense that WW2 was a Zionist creation.

    what was the end result of WW2 wiz?

    what global objective was obtained by the slaughter of 60 million people, with Europe and Russia in smoking ruins?

    what rose up out of the graves of so many millions of the children of Europa / Christendom, with the blessings of zio-England and zio-America’s leaders, and to the outrage of the rest of the world, far too brutalized by war to object other than feeble denunciations. But that didn’t stop the Arabs from heroically trying to fight off these Jewish usurpers and genocidal thieves and terrorists, but with America’s relentless aid, the Arabs were defeated and more and more of their land became occupied or stolen or both.

    But now is a new time wiz, one where there’s no longer a quisling puppet in the White House. (or so at least we can hope!)

    and just look at this!

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain%E2%80%99s-surgery-may-be-more-serious-than-thought-experts-say/ar-BBEyAAt?OCID=ansmsnnews11

    there are many good and decent Christians and honorable Muslims and Jews that come to this site. May I please offer to join them in my very, deeply held and earnest prayers for God / Allah / Jehovah- and all the other Gods to intervene with this matter and urge providence along in a way that will make this planet and the universe a far, far, FAR more divinely gracious place. It’s hard to imagine a time for more celebration and great joy all around than for such an auspicious turn in the US Senate. Please God, hear our prayers!

    I’m not just praying for a single soul, but rather for the literally millions of souls that this man has condemned to horrors and worse, but even more so God, I’m praying for the millions of souls that this man has not yet, but certainly would if he could, send your way prematurely.

    Join me wiz, let’s at least make this a bipartisan prayer, (so to speak). Let’s both ‘send it out to the universe’, (as my girl likes to say ; ), and plead to whatever power that amuses itself with the follies and affairs of man’s quixotic, enigmatic, and tragicomic existence, to intervene here and make all of our lives infinitely better with just one big malignant tumor. For the love of God, for the love of His people, and for the love of truth, honestly, dignity, life, happiness and goodness all around.

    That is my earnest prayer, (and I hope wiz’s too!), and so heed it please Lord, and spread your blessings upon your beleaguered children.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  372. Rurik says: • Website
    @Bliss

    Today according to Rurik (after yours truly posted some inconvenient truths):

    your ‘inconvenient truths’ were, if I remember correctly, that until the Nordic people adopted Christianity, they were basically wallowing in the mud. This is a common refrain, and wrong.

    There is ample, (what wasn’t specifically destroyed) evidence that the Nordic people’s were very advanced indeed, well before the catastrophe of having to worship the dead Jew on a stick.

    But this particular mind-fuck was so convenient to the PTB, that they couldn’t resist.

    ‘You mean we tell then that they have to believe it, and if they don’t they’ll burn in pits of lava for eternity? And once they’ve been thus morally terrified, we can treat them like cattle and order them around like sheep, and they’ll even consider acting like sheep as a kind of virtue, and brag about it?! ‘

    How could the kings resist?! A religion that reduces your people to wanting to live on their knees, obeying and obeying and obeying, as if it were a virtue!!

    pay your taxes, send your young men to die in endless wars of conquest so that your king will be that much more exalted!! Praise God!

    we need more wars? send in the priests!

    look at them now, their sons and daughters taught in Ireland to love homosexuality from the Catholic pulpits. America’s evangelicals worshiping all too mortal, two legged Jewish war pigs. Christians in America’s heartland feverishly augmenting an African, Islamic invasion of their lands. Dooming their white Christian children to hell on earth.

    The GOP (Christian to a man and woman!) sycophants abasing themselves in prostrate obeisance to Jewish war pig Sheldon Adelson, licking the shekels off the floor at his feet.

    This is Christianity? As Ted Cruz excoriates any genuine Christian that doesn’t bow down to the anti-Christ, Moloch-god of zion.

    and you think it was this imposed and enforced worship of a primitive desert religion that saved the Nordic, Germanic peoples?

    It doomed them. Look at Germany today for God’s sake!

    they’re spreading the other cheek like no tomorrow! Look at England, a pedophile’s paradise.

    Look at France, where Muslims are ascendant and openly put their Islamic god’s boot on the face of the Christians and laugh at their effete impotence, as they rape their women and slaughter and terrorize their sheople.

    No, I say that it was the words about truth, love and justice that won over the Western man to Christianity, (words and concepts I too respect), but in the end, the institution rotted from the top, and today it is the death of our collective civilization, and the very institution that will usher in a dystopian hell on earth.

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t bow down to it, (and all the venal liars and opportunistic child molesters and private jet owners and war pig$) who make up its leadership today.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  373. Rurik says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    It was a Soviet Russia, that had the full support of some of the world’s richest banksters, I might add.

    Those simple concepts, while true and extremely easy to grasp, still elude most of the population. It’s really unfortunate that things so readily apparent still remain mysteries even when they’re pointed out so clearly. Thread bare, century old Allied propaganda still prevails in the minds of the simple.

    world’s richest Jewish banksters?

    like the ones who funded Trotsky?

    I just typed a frustrated diatribe on today’s “Christianity”, and the ‘Christians’ who can’t get enough of wars and slaughter and Israel’s version of genocide, terrorism and rapine in the holy land, so long as it’s all being done by “God’s chosen people”, for whom no amount of moral abasement is enough for today’s “Christians” (especially the German version).

    I put it all down to venality. The leadership of Christianity today is fundamentally [heh] corrupt and avaricious and venal. Rotten IOW, and this is why so many of the things you mention are true; that Western civilization is so dumbed down that they’re sheep to the slaughter, and the men and women with the cattle prods pushing the children of the West to die in Eternal Wars for Israel, are as often “Christian’ as anything else.

    But they’ve become so used to being on their knees, as self-loathing ‘sinners’- too terrified of thinking for themselves, that there doesn’t seem to be any humiliation or wanton slaughter so egregious that they won’t embrace it.

    lemmings

    And people like me are horrified to watch them all march off the cliff, but if we try to tell them – its a fool’s errand, because being proudly, militantly dogmatic and eternal followers, they’ll Pavlovian-like remember their catechisms and kneejerk howl their feeble denunciations.

  374. @Rurik

    I agree with all the aspersions you cast upon the Abrahamic religions, but….

    as for why today’s European male is passive in the face of the colonization of his territories I wonder if something else isn’t at play.

    Since the invention of the nuclear bomb and the world’s reaction to the United States’ using it on Japan, the U.S. has never even threatened to use it in anger against anyone, though we hold it in reserve and other peoples mostly comply with our wishes. This may have given western men a false sense of security and power. They know they have the biggest gun so they don’t have to be intimidating and forceful.

    Other men push against us here and there, now and then and we don’t push back except with tiresome, burdensome “limited wars” that end up hurting us as much or more than the countries we fight. The Muzzies began terrorism back in the 70′s and saw that we had no real effective response. Now they know that we’re too cowed by nanny moralizers to turn their cities into molten glass and so they have no fear and therefore no respect for us.

    We simply won’t declare war against them and fight with all the tools at our disposal.

    Why should they take us seriously? We’re self-castrated eunuchs.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  375. @Wizard of Oz

    Every citizen of every civilized country should serve either two years military service or two years civil service engaged in labor such as shoveling ditches. Not only does this give a young person a feeling of having contributed something useful to his nation but it also gets them off their butts and out of the ghetto, suburb or city into fresh air.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  376. Rurik says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    though we hold it in reserve and other peoples mostly comply with our wishes.

    I prefer to consider it a purely defensive weapon ThreeCranes, rather than a bludgeon held over other’s heads, demanding compliance.

    Other men push against us here and there, now and then and we don’t push back except with tiresome, burdensome “limited wars” that end up hurting us as much or more than the countries we fight.

    I would posit that it has hurt them much, much more than it has hurt us, unless you’re talking about the mothers and fathers of young American men and women sent to fight and die in contrived wars of aggression against nations that have done us no harm, but that Israel wants destroyed for their own nefarious reasons. And of course our moral standing in the world as a result of our aggressions for Israeli hegemony. But other than those things, it is undoubtedly the smaller nations that have been utterly destroyed, like Iraq and Libya, others.. that have come out the worse for wear from our myriad and serial depredations upon them.

    The Muzzies began terrorism back in the 70′s and saw that we had no real effective response.

    do you know why the “Muzzies” started doing that? Did you know that until the 1970s, Americans could get on a passenger jet with their shotguns in tow, because there simply was no reason on God’s green earth for anyone to want to do other passengers any harm. It was quite literally unthinkable at that point.

    But then something happened in the world that changed everything. America became Israel’s bitch. A bully and a murderous thug on the world’s stage. Dooming the Palestinians to murder and humiliation beyond anything a human could stand, so they began (understandably) to lash out. They are like modern day Amerindians who’re being genocided and slaughtered and brutalized and humiliated, and they can only take so much, from a world and an America in particular that lectures the rest of the world on ‘human rights’, even as it denies these people their humanity, and writes them off as inconvenient, because Zionist Jews control the USA’s money supply, which allows them to own all the media of consequence and the politicians and courts and universities, etc…

    Did you know all that?

    So America went from a well loved, (if criticized nation for the lot of the blacks) to a hated nation responsible for atrocities in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Ukraine for instance.

    If you’re going to have a conversation about Islamic terrorism, without a fundamental understanding of where that terrorism emanates out from, then it’s a little pointless.

    Muslims would normally have little or no reason for killing Americans, especially when we’re so far apart geographically, and we like to buy their oil. But because it is America that has been facilitating the slaughter of Muslims in the holy land, and now we’ve taken to destroying their countries willy-nilly, and assassinating their leaders, and driving millions upon millions of them to jihad with our serial wars upon them- always based on lies- that I wonder if a little self-reflection isn’t called for from us Americans. Here’s a clue for Americans: They don’t hate us because we’re free. They hate us because we slaughter their families with terror drones from their skies. We bomb their nations into the stone age, and murder their leaders and impose Zio-quislings upon them to steal their resources and impose an iron-fisted rule upon them.

    That’s why they hate us. And then to add insult to injury, we invite them into the West and then act shocked because some of them go berserk with rage at what we Westerners have done to their respective nations, and figure at least they can rape or kill a few of us as payback.

    So there is much insanity in the world today, thanks to the Zio-Fiend who has his money-grip on our collective necks. We’re forced to send our young people to die in war that are ‘good for the Jews’, and then when we’ve driven these people insane with rage at what we’ve done, the Jews think what better than to invite these stone age people to live in the heart of Europe and N. America!

    They have us eating our own shit, and blaming Muslims for what ((they)) are doing my friend. And if you don’t think they’re laughing about it all the way to the bank, you couldn’t be more wrong.

    We simply won’t declare war against them and fight with all the tools at our disposal.

    a declaration of war would require an act of a cowardly and treasonous congress, and we all know those sniveling whores aren’t worth the blood and dirt on a single American soldier’s boots.

    I’m not sure what to make of your myopia vis-a-vis Israel, which is the festering boil on our body politic that is the center of all the things you’re lamenting.

    Yes, the Western male is a shadow of masculinity, and more often a groveling imitation of a man, too feminized to and put upon to even defend his own family and lands from invasion. But that isn’t the fault of the invaders, rather it’s the fault of the kosher man behind the curtain, pulling all the levers and turning the dials of our cultural narrative, where we’re all evil racists except when we’re dying in Eternal Wars for Israel, then we’re suited to our task, and our widows are handed a shiny medal as proof that our young men died for the right reasons, as their home communities are overrun and their children are raped or savaged by invading hoards.

    At least, that’s more or less how I see it.

    Cheers

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  377. @ThreeCranes

    That is a view I begin to find more sympathy with than when my father used to express it but I don’t think it offsets the oppressiveness of the European Continental conscription systems back when they chewed up 2 or more years of much shorter lives than e now expect.

  378. @Rurik

    I agree with your analysis but if I write about Jews, they screw up my computer. Really, I mean that. So I stopped.

    And yes, I did mean by damage to America all the negative spin offs you mentioned. We have declined as a people because of the incessant small-time wars we inflict on the world.

    I believe that when a person or nation acts, they should do so decisively and with full power. Quickly and totally. Let pain be crisp. That’s the end of it. No long lingering slow bleeding or torture of either one’s adversaries or self. I live this way and believe it the right way for nations as well. It is more humane, establishes a pecking order and therefore promotes peace and understanding.

    Men will respect you only if your show that you can beat them or if you kowtow to them. Then you can be friends with full understanding between you.

    I don’t support what Israel has done to the Palestinians or American support for Zionism but one should not passively allow another, irrespective of the justice of their motives, to bomb innocents on planes etc.

    As Aristotle observed, punishment, to be effective, must be harsh enough to hurt enough such that the perpetrator never wants to experience it again but not so harsh as to instill a lingering sense of resentment such that the perpetrator devotes the rest of his life to revenge.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  379. Incitatus says:
    @L.K

    Take a weekend off, and what do’ya know? It’s like TV exterminator adds. When light’s absent, the blattella germanica multiply in conjugal delight. In this case fearless squamata germanica (L.K) has even weighed in with his usual “intellectual” contribution:

    “pathetic troll, BS, ridiculous Troll, disgraceful LIAR, complete intellectual FRAUD., So cute, Lying and trolling, you are full of shit, bitch”

    Needless to say, I’m humbled by the academic force of those words!

    “I myself had already provided you with evidence of torture re those show trials [Nüremberg ‘45-46]. I won’t let you forget, bitch: As I said, Höss testimony is complete nonsense and the reason is that the man was tortured into ‘confessing.’

    Kindly post where you and I exchanged views on Nüremberg torture. You write you “already provided…evidence of torture.” Provide the date, post number, and UNZ link please.

    “Re Höss’ torture at the hands of the British as reported in the book ‘Legions of Death’, for which the author interviewed some of the torturers…”

    Why do you omit the subtitle L.K? The book you source is titled ‘Legions of Death: The Nazi Enslavement of Europe.’ Disagree with the subtitle? Two and a half stars on Amazon (4 customer reviews). Are you (as Amazon reviewers comment) cherry picking the text as a “holocaust denier?”

    No matter. Here’s what I asked 14 Apr ‘17. Heads up blattella germanica (ThreeCranes, Jacues/Jacques Sheet, etc). Simple question:

    L.K I don’t doubt your love for Germany. I part ways with you when it comes to 20C Wilhelmine and Nazi leadership. I think it was the biggest enemy of the German People. Two catastrophic wars – the first ruined them financially. The second brought moral and physical ruin. For what?

    Alternatives. Blame WW1 and WW2 on everybody but Germany. But whose troops were first to invade? Germany. So either German enemies mobilized and ordered German troops into battle (you’re not claiming that are you?), or German leadership underestimated the enemies they invaded. My bet’s on the second option. Which means German leadership was incompetent. And criminal. Period. Biggest loser? The German People. QED my critical stance on 20C German leadership. Their prime victims were the German People. And a lot of others as well.

    Why didn’t Hitler supply his troops with winter gear in ‘41 L.K? Did he forget? Did the Jews (or FDR or Churchill) make him forget? Why did Adolf turn on his own people in ‘44-45 and order Speer to destroy Germany in an epic Wagnerian Götterdämmerung Morgenthau would envy? Was it because he loved the German People? Why did SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler pretend to be Sergeant Heinrich Hitzinger and quickly commit suicide on discovery? Was it because he was proud of his record?
    -#529, http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-is-back-in-town/

    L.K, you didn’t answer. Just as TC can’t say how the Entente was responsible for ordering German troops to invade Luxembourg, Belgium and France (post #64).

    All are invited to tell us how the US and FDR started WW2, given Germany’s 11 Dec ‘41 declaration of war on the US. Did nasty FDR plant the impulse in saintly Dolf’s mind? Give us a hint.

    Step back. I’m in fear of misleading any and all, and can only offer the following pathology on squamata germanica and blattella germanica:

    • Characteristic behavior is to ignore questions too difficult to answer;
    • When unavoidable respond with patronizing dull-witted tropes;
    • When asked to substantiate posts, change the subject (Jung, ‘dark side’, etc);
    • Embrace sympathetic sentiment, lover’s laments (anything but answer the question);
    • Return to your original post (#64) and pretend it’s unchallenged;
    • Cherry pick bogus sources to confer legitimacy (L.K);
    • In extremis resort to vile ad hominems (“pathetic troll, etc”) (L.K).

    This ends in simple advice. Buy a good laxative. You’re all full of crap.

  380. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    “Germany was winning the war, but they saw it for what it was, a fratricidal slaughter of the flower of Europa, and suggested to the other belligerents that they simply end it.”

    The aggressive war plan Field Marshal Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, chief of the Imperial German General Staff, crafted in 1905 called for defeat of France in a flanking attack via Luxembourg and Belgium in six weeks. Didn’t happen. (‘Miracle of the Marne’ etc.)

    Here’s what Chief of Staff Generaloberst Helmuth von Moltke (junger) wrote his wife 9 Sep 1914: “Things have not gone well. The fighting east of Paris has not gone in our favor, and we shall have to pay for the damage we have done.” He’s alleged to have told Wilhelm II “Majesty, we have lost the war.” 38 days after Germany invaded Luxembourg.

    How do you explain that Rurik? Was Germany “winning the war?” Do you know better than Helmuth?

    Von Moltke, beset with health concerns (terminal stupidity?), resigned as chief of staff 25 Oct 1914 and was replaced by General Erich von Falkenhayn

    “Germany…saw it for what it was, a fratricidal slaughter”.

    Really? Erich, another outstanding nitwit, masterminded the Battle of Verdun in 1916. The concept was simple. Lure the poilu into a ‘meatgrinder’ that would kill as many as possible. Sure enough, Erich killed 600,000. Unfortunately half were German, sacrificed for absolutely nothing. Erich was dismissed 29 Aug 1916.

    Rurik, you allude to a German desire for peace. Forget to mention their hope to keep Luxembourg, Belgium and Northern France? Despite the fact they knew they’d lost the war 38 days after invasion?

    Are you that desperate?

    “But now is a new time wiz, one where there’s no longer a quisling puppet in the White House. (or so at least we can hope!)”

    Messianic? About a four-time bankrupt real estate developer? A guy who steals family crests? Get a grip.

    “…let’s at least make this a bipartisan prayer, (so to speak). Let’s both ‘send it out to the universe’ and plead to whatever power that amuses itself with the follies and affairs of man’s quixotic, enigmatic, and tragicomic existence, to intervene here and make all of our lives infinitely better with just one big malignant tumor. For the love of God, for the love of His people, and for the love of truth, honestly, dignity, life, happiness and goodness all around.”

    “That is my earnest prayer…and so heed it please Lord, and spread your blessings upon your beleaguered children.”

    Wow, Rurik! Going to demand a tithe next? Offer a prayer cloth from Wötan or a vial of holy water from some sacred fjord?

  381. “All are invited to tell us how the US and FDR started WW2, given Germany’s 11 Dec ‘41 declaration of war on the US.”

    Easy. U.S. violated every clause of the neutrality treaties then in effect, shipping armaments, ammunition, weapons of war to combatants (England). Roosevelt had already declared de facto war on Germany long before the German declaration or war on America. Every historian knows this. No one disputes it.

    Did you go to college?

    You’re like Tiny Duck. You enjoy making patently absurd statements that are so easily refuted that no one bothers to do so. Then you construe their silence as admission of the unassailability of your drivel.

    Yawn.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  382. @ThreeCranes

    What were thoae “neutrality treaties” you refer to? If you can’t give links please give sufficiently precise titlea so one can research them.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  383. @Anon

    Very prudent of you when pulling high toned intellectual rank on another to go Anon. After all even the most leatned legal and classical acholar could make a slip in a relaxed moment and forget that “bello” being ablative the preposition has to be one of the group that you would remember from “a, ab, absque, coram de etc”rather than the “ad, ante, apud” lot which take the accusative.

    Still, even a learned chap like Incitatus needs a prod now and again. It would be funny if someone with his witty moniker didn’t pick your solecism. Ah, yes it comes to me: the deliberate mistake to sus him out….

    • Replies: @Anon
  384. geokat62 says:
    @Art

    Just came across this interesting article on consortiumnews.com.

    Here’s an excerpt from The Logic in North Korean ‘Madness’:

    Richman underscored the rationale for the North Korean government to develop nuclear weapons against the will of the U.S. “Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the U.S. government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a U.S. attack, get yourself some nukes.”

    Robert E. Kelly, Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at Pusan National University, wrote, “This is not a suicidal, ideological, ISIS-like state bent on apocalyptic war but rather a post-ideological gangter-ish dictatorship looking to survive. The best way to guarantee the North’s survival is nuclear deterrence. … It is a rational decision, given Pyongyang’s goals to, 1) not change internally, and 2) not be attacked externally. This is not ideal of course. Best would be a de-nuclearized North Korea. But this is highly unlikely at this point.”

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/17/the-logic-in-north-korean-madness/

  385. @Wizard of Oz

    “On this day in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Neutrality Act, or Senate Joint Resolution No. 173, which he calls an “expression of the desire…to avoid any action which might involve [the U.S.] in war.” The signing came at a time when newly installed fascist governments in Europe were beginning to beat the drums of war.

    In a public statement that day, Roosevelt said that the new law would require American vessels to obtain a license to carry arms, would restrict Americans from sailing on ships from hostile nations and would impose an embargo on the sale of arms to “belligerent” nations. Most observers understood “belligerent” to imply Germany under its new leader, Adolf Hitler, and Italy under Benito Mussolini. It also provided the strongest language yet warning other countries that the U.S. would increase its patrol of foreign submarines lurking in American waters. This was seen as a response to Hitler’s March 1935 announcement that Germany would no longer honor the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which prohibited Germany from rebuilding her military; he had then immediately stepped up the country’s submarine production.

    Although the legislation stated that the U.S. intended to stay out of foreign wars, Roosevelt insisted that the country could not foresee future situations in which the U.S. might have to amend its neutral stance. Noting that “history is filled with unforeseeable situations that call for some flexibility of action,” Roosevelt contended that the law would not prevent the U.S. from cooperating with other “similarly minded Governments to promote peace.” In other words, he left plenty of room for America to change its mind regarding the sale of arms to friendly countries and gave it the right to exercise options to protect her own safety. This came to pass in March 1941, when the passing of the Lend-Lease Act increased America’s military exports to the British in order to help them fight off Hitler’s advance toward England.”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  386. @ThreeCranes

    Thank you for being so frank. Nothing to do there with breaching neutrality “treaties”. Indeed no suggestion that a case could have been made that American laws were being breached. The 1935 Joint Resolution, if that was the “Neutrality Act”, seems to have been a fine exercise in politically adroit euphemism. Did it, I wonder, enjoy enthusiastic support from Jews in America concerned at the direction Hitler was taking Germany?

  387. Rurik says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    I agree with your analysis but if I write about Jews, they screw up my computer. Really, I mean that. So I stopped.

    ;)

    We have declined as a people because of the incessant small-time wars we inflict on the world.

    that’s definitely one of the reasons ThreeCranes, among others. Incessant pop culture, Hollywood/Madison Ave spiritual sewage flowing from the kosher msm 24/7. Academic dumbing down, lower standards, a psychotic imperative to do away with the tenacious performance gap, even if it means lowering the higher down to the lower, and many, many other causes. But I agree most definitely that our constant wars and especially the Eternal WarsⓊ we’re in right now are a catastrophe.

    I believe that when a person or nation acts, they should do so decisively and with full power

    in a life and death struggle, I couldn’t agree more.

    but one should not passively allow another, irrespective of the justice of their motives, to bomb innocents on planes etc.

    I’d put an unhesitating bullet right though them, and aim for a instant death

    punishment, to be effective, must be harsh enough to hurt enough such that the perpetrator never wants to experience it again but not so harsh as to instill a lingering sense of resentment such that the perpetrator devotes the rest of his life to revenge.

    but who are we to punish?

    it was the Israelis that did 9/11, and yet our congress gushes over Bibi when he comes to lord it over us all. It is Israel that extorts billions from us in a circle of corrupt largess that runs from congress to Tel Aviv right back to congress. It is Israel that foments so much hatred in the Muslim world, and our boys and girls that get ground up over there, destroying those people’s countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their innocent souls, if not more.

    When it comes to ferocity, I can tell you that what I’d unleash upon ISIS would spin your head. But I consider them as less than animals, and deserving of a quick path to Allah. Not so the people of Syria or Libya or Iraq whose nations we have destroyed, at the behest of our enemy Israel. That’s the problem as I see it.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  388. Here are some links to help you out;

    “The laws concerning the rights and duties of neutrality are contained, for the most part, in the Declaration of Paris of 1856, Hague Convention V, 1907 (neutrality in land war), and Hague Convention XIII, 1907 (neutrality in maritime war). One of the first recommendations of the last convention was that, when war breaks out between certain powers, each nation wishing to remain impartial should normally issue either a special or general declaration of neutrality. Such a declaration, however, is not required by international law. A neutral state may, during the course of the hostilities, repeal, change, or modify its position of neutrality, provided that such alterations are applied without bias to all belligerents.”

    http://lawin.org/neutrality/

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/neutrality

  389. Post 399 is @ Wizard of Oz’s 397.

  390. @Rurik

    People reflect about the future of the USA and muse about the “decline of Empires” but I can tell you one sure way to ensure that our nation doesn’t suffer that fate and that’s to not become an Empire to begin with.

    Too late for that, I know.

    NeoLibs who believe in the wonders of Empire cite statistics about higher standards of living in Rome et al due to uniform standards of measures, coinage, absence of internal tariffs, ease of transport on the far-flung well built roads etc. NeoCons cream their jeans because they anticipate raw power on a larger scale.

    Neither do much for me. I have smaller ambitions and would prefer prosperity for myself and my kind, a sense of gemutlichkeit will suffice and is both easier and harder to achieve. Harder to achieve through their methods which exclude the human-scale factor and easier because doing so doesn’t require reprogramming the entire world.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  391. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    LOL!

    (also at #394)

  392. @Incitatus

    #393 it seems with shifts in the numbers ,not #394 …

  393. Rurik says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    I have smaller ambitions and would prefer prosperity for myself and my kind, a sense of gemutlichkeit will suffice and is both easier and harder to achieve. Harder to achieve through their methods which exclude the human-scale factor and easier because doing so doesn’t require reprogramming the entire world.

    sounds good to me

    but we are caught in a struggle for the soul of our societies and cultures, between those (like myself) who would like them to persevere, and those who would not (and are driven by some intractable imperative to see it all destroyed)

    Cheers

  394. @Incitatus

    You have previously claimed ignorance of any Rothschild involvement in the two world wars and I believe I answered that you were simply being disingenuous. You obviously enjoy reading so this should surely be one to add to your list.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/hidden-history-the-secret-origins-of-the-first-world-war/5600090

  395. Smiddy says:

    Russia was the only legit anti-Rothschild nation at the time, thus the original author is correct, albeit dog-whistling to a degree. Hitler was 100% controlled along with Churchill.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  396. @Smiddy

    I would welcome any additional information on that if you would oblige. Thank you.

  397. @22pp22

    When you say whitey you mean the basque british ,why are you blaming mainland europeans for the hundreds of millions you have killed,you afraid once the majority basque americans lose their power all the nations you wronged will tear you to pieces, also asians have nothing on you when it comes to killing.

  398. Wild Man says:

    This article then begs the question – well why then, did Churchill and the bellicose Anglo-Zionist Empire, side with Russia over Germany with respect to World War 2? Could it be because, what Barrett sees as the bellicose Anglo-Zionist Empire, could instead be more accurately described as the bellicose efforts of Zionist-empire-building-proper?

  399. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Avery

    Jilles doesn’t like Armenians because just like the Spanish they are Catholic, not orthodox Christians slightly different rites but in communion with Rome.

    Jilles is only on this site to clip
    and paste library books that agree with his bigotry and prejudice against America. He’s such a typical 2 generations out of the potato field “educated “ useful idiot pseudo intellectual N European.

    He seems to favor the Turks whether it was their centuries long wars against S Europe or the 1910 Armenian massacres.
    He’ll start lecturing us about refrigators and dishwashers soon.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.