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



=>
Ancient Silk Road Routes.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Ancient Silk Road Routes. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
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 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_193853687
The Saker Interviews Michael Hudson
Mock-up of planned Russian-Chinese airliner to compete with Boeing and Airbus. To enter service by 2025. Ambitious? Oh yes. Remember when we laughed at Toyota, Airbus, and Trump? Credit: Sputnik News.
Make Money, Not War
shutterstock_193853687x
Hide 408 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
    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.
    , @jilles dykstra
    What Roosevelt wanted:
    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
    , @Anonymous
    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.
    , @Che Guava
    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.
    , @Skeptikal
    "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?
    , @Boris N

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/bestselling-revisionist-historian-germany-was-just-a-patsy/#comment-1926005
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. anon says: • Disclaimer

    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 ??

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    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.
    , @Lot

    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.
    , @Cyrano
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @German_reader
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Catherine
    Not the Oded Yinon Plan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    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.

    , @Ben Banned
    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".
    , @skrik

    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.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, Druid
    • Replies: @anonymous

    "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."
    , @Joe Levantine
    "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.
    , @Godfree Roberts
    "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%.
    , @Miro23

    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "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.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    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).

    , @jacques sheete

    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.

    , @my2cents
    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!!!
    , @ANON
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @German_reader
    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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD...

    THE BERLIN-BAGHDAD RAILWAY AS A CAUSE OF WORLD WAR I
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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?

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Damn it. I googled that for a translation. Now the fbi is watching me :(
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    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/
     

    , @Philip Owen
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. vinteuil says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    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.

    “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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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).
    , @Wally
    "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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @vinteuil
    "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.

    http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD…;

    THE BERLIN-BAGHDAD RAILWAY AS A CAUSE OF WORLD WAR I

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    , @Stebbing Heuer
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @vinteuil
    "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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    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
     
    , @Skeptikal
    "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."
    , @ANON
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @SolontoCroesus
    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Intelligent Dasein
    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)?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    , @Skeptikal
    "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."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @anonymous
    www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD...

    THE BERLIN-BAGHDAD RAILWAY AS A CAUSE OF WORLD WAR I

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @ThreeCranes
    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.

    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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    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.
    , @Rurik
    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/

    great read jacques

    thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @anonymous

    "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."

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @ANON
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    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/
    , @ANON
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @jacques sheete

    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/
     

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @jilles dykstra
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @conatus
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    #37 Reply to your post #34.
    , @Talha

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Intelligent Dasein
    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)?

    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”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    , @Biff
    Black Africa, Arabs, and the Orientals all sailed to the new world long before the Portuguese. Better ship doesn't equate to better sailor.
    , @for-the-record
    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.
    , @hyperbola
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    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

    , @Rurik
    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
    , @ThreeCranes
    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.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    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.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @basque british are small brained
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Avery says:
    @ThreeCranes
    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.

    #37 Reply to your post #34.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Sparkon says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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.

    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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    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."
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    On the contrary, "anti-semitism" is actually a rational response to collective Jewish behavior.
    , @jacques sheete

    ...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/
     
    , @rish
    Wow, the only sane voice in this repulsive torrent of jew-hating lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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
    , @jacques sheete
    Talha, this statement is correct.

    Many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were reactions to provocative criminal activity perpetrated by the Allies.
     
    , @ThreeCranes
    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).
    , @Anon
    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.
    , @German_reader
    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".
    , @for-the-record
    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/#
     
    , @jim jones
    Thank God for the Spitfire:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rzNYc9cOc
    , @L.K
    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.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wally says: • Website
    @anonymous

    "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."

    “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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Rurik says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    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/
     

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Wally says: • Website
    @Avery
    {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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    The US didn't give anything without strings. They demanded the end of Britain's system of Imperial Preference and the convertibility of sterling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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

    , @SolontoCroesus

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Rurik says: • Website
    @Avery
    {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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    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.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha

    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Talha says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @jilles dykstra
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    thank you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @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.

    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

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @ThreeCranes
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Talha says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @SolontoCroesus
    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.

    …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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Talha

    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.

    Talha, this statement is correct.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    In what way is it correct?

    What are your examples?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Avery
    {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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Talha says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. alan2102 says:
    @Bruce Marshall
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGJYT2Sj42s

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Rurik says: • Website
    @Talha
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @richard warren
    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.

    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.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @DanC
    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:

    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.

    thank you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    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 ??

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @richard warren
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Sean says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    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.
    , @jacques sheete

    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?
    , @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anonymous
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @dcite
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Priss Factor
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mark Green
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Yes. But all nationalists are reasonable. They only want to establish their natural borders. These are their borders at their historically greatest extent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Avery
    {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.

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    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?
    , @Philip Owen
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Talha

    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    , @jilles dykstra
    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)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Wow. Just… wow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    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

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Che Guava says:
    @German_reader
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    A massacre certainly happened, but surely not the 200,000+ sometimes claimed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @anonymous
    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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Lot says:
    @anon

    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 ??

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    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.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Cyrano says:
    @anon

    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 ??

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Biff says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @richard warren
    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.

    …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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Che Guava
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Anon
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Talha says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @jacques sheete
    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.
     

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. 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.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes
    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).

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Talha

    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.

    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″.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Curiously, the Italian bombing of Barcelona actually was WWII-style terror bombing, on a smaller scale and quite ineffective.
    , @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Incitatus says:
    @ThreeCranes
    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.

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. 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!

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    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".

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Talha says:
    @German_reader
    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".

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Priss Factor
    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.

    “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%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    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.

    , @Rurik
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Anon
    Curiously, the Italian bombing of Barcelona actually was WWII-style terror bombing, on a smaller scale and quite ineffective.

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Talha

    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.

    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/#

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Incitatus

    “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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Jon Halpenny
    I think there's no doubt the British should get the blame for starting World War I.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499460618&sr=8-1&keywords=secret+history+first+world+war

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @Jon Halpenny
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. utu says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.)

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.

    , @Seamus Padraig
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    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.
    , @Wulf
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Avery says:
    @utu
    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?

    {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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. The first SJW?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    "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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    "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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. RobinG says:
    @Rurik
    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

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. nsa says:
    @Che Guava
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Cyrano says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Avery
    {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.

    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

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @ThreeCranes
    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).

    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)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    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?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @jacques sheete
    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

     

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @jacques sheete
    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

     

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. I think that Hitler will eventually go down in history as the most misunderstood man.

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

    Read More
    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. Skeptikal says:
    @German_reader
    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.

    “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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. 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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. @jacques sheete

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor
    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.

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Biff
    Black Africa, Arabs, and the Orientals all sailed to the new world long before the Portuguese. Better ship doesn't equate to better sailor.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. 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.

    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

    “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.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Skeptikal says:
    @ANON
    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.

    “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.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Talha says:
    @Anon
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Talha says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @utu
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @jilles dykstra
    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)

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Che Guava says:
    @Anon
    A massacre certainly happened, but surely not the 200,000+ sometimes claimed?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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

    {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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @L.K
    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! :-)

    , @Mulegino1
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @anonymous
    www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD...

    THE BERLIN-BAGHDAD RAILWAY AS A CAUSE OF WORLD WAR I

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    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.
    , @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @jacques sheete
    Talha, this statement is correct.

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

    In what way is it correct?

    What are your examples?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. dcite says:
    @jacques sheete

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alternatereality
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Stebbing Heuer
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Che Guava
    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?

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @dcite
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • LOL: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Avery
    {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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Stebbing Heuer
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    I think a four-year war is almost the height of international competition. Britain won that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Talha
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Olorin says:
    @jacques sheete

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Cyrano says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Seamus Padraig
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Olorin says:
    @Carpenter

    (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.

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    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.
    , @Art

    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. hyperbola says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. L.K says:
    @Avery
    {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.

    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! :-)

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    What a mindless douche. If you need to split hairs to make yourself feel intelligent, fine, be an asshole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Are you Armenian, or just an all-around tool? (Or, maybe, an Armenian tool?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Cyrano says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Troll: German_reader
    • Replies: @Talha

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Mulegino1 says:
    @Avery
    {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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    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".
    , @anonymous
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. 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.

    Read More
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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.
    , @Talha
    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.
    , @L.K
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @jilles dykstra
    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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @anonymous

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Che Guava
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @vinteuil
    "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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Art says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Avery
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Talha says:
    @Anon

    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Talha says:
    @Art

    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    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”.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Troll: Che Guava
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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...).
    , @Rurik

    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. my2cents says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    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!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    WWII has been revised, alas not in the media.
    And not in Germany.
    Merkel still uses WWII propaganda.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Amen to that. Well spoken and truthful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Cyrano says:
    @Talha

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Talha
    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.

    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…).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. L.K says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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.
    , @Cyrano
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @L.K
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    America has these things, but few Americans make use of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Sparkon
    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/

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Catherine says:
    @Bruce Marshall
    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.

    Not the Oded Yinon Plan?

    Read More
    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Cyrano says:
    @L.K
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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)
    , @Avery
    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!

    , @ThreeCranes
    Hey. Stop calling people nasty names.
    , @L.K
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    " 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @ANON
    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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. ANON says: • Disclaimer

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @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.

    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Talha says:
    @German_reader
    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...).

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @L.K
    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.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @ANON
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Cyrano
    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.

    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)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @ANON
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @ANON
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Talha
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @my2cents
    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!!!

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Stebbing Heuer
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  196. skrik says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    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)?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Avery says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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!

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Let me guess: you live in a state where the Obamacare exchange was shut down, so you're no longer getting your meds filled?
    , @anon
    Thank God for that .At least Germans are not inviting the Armenian sheep to roam around the civilized people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Are you Armenian, or just an all-around tool? (Or, maybe, an Armenian tool?)

    {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?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Just a run-of-the-mill idiot. I cannot hope to reach your level of grandeur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @my2cents
    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!!!

    Amen to that. Well spoken and truthful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Cyrano
    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.

    Hey. Stop calling people nasty names.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. jim jones says:
    @Talha

    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.

    Thank God for the Spitfire:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks JJ!

    I love a good rendition of aerial dog fights!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    What a mindless douche. If you need to split hairs to make yourself feel intelligent, fine, be an asshole.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Cyrano says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Hey. Stop calling people nasty names.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @alan2102
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Avery
    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!

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {....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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Avery
    {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?)

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

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Don't worry, you are way beyond pass that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Talha says:
    @jim jones
    Thank God for the Spitfire:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rzNYc9cOc

    Thanks JJ!

    I love a good rendition of aerial dog fights!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Cyrano says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Just a run-of-the-mill idiot. I cannot hope to reach your level of grandeur.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Hey, thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Avery says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Let me guess: you live in a state where the Obamacare exchange was shut down, so you're no longer getting your meds filled?

    {….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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Boris N says:
    @German_reader
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Etienne says: • Website

    Skeptikal (comment 127),

    Thanks for the great links. Invaluable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. @Boris N

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Cyrano says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Art says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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. 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.

    , @Che Guava
    No fake peace from me, every time Tra-la-lah (pbuh) uses the word, it is a lie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. L.K says:
    @Cyrano
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. L.K says:
    @Talha
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @Talha
    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:
    https://youtu.be/NHQicxAByU4?t=1m40s

    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. L.K says:
    @Talha

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. Boris N says:
    @German_reader
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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