The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Colin Liddell Archive
One Day as a Lion
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Fascism in its inception was a distinctly localised phenomenon, growing out of the specific concerns and obsessions of Italians in the immediate post-WWI period.

For example, one of the main drivers in the formation of the movement that is little commented on today was the Dalmatian question. During WWI, Italy had been promised Dalmatia — the coastal region of Croatia — as spoils of war, only for it to be pulled away at the peace talks and given to the newly-created state of Yugoslavia. To a large degree, Mussolini’s rise to power floated on the fall-out from Gabriele D’Annunzio’s brief seizure and occupation of the Croatian city of Fiume in 1919, which the Italian government was forced to disavow, angering war veterans and patriots.

From a welter of local issues, Fascism nevertheless gelled together and seized the day, gaining control of the Kingdom of Italy and impressing people across a continent numbed by four years of devastation and a devastating pandemic.

The movement that then emerged was one with a militant, revanchist, emboldening ideology that emphasised the superiority of the fascist “man of action” as a heroic figure, unafraid of death, and only living through things greater than himself. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State,” as Mussolini phrased it.

Il Duce, as the memes at the time ran, was mobilising the long-dormant power of Rome and recreating the ancient empire of the Mediterranean. However, the tone had been set even earlier by D’Annunzio, himself in rich rhetoric, honed by his career as poet and writer.

When Italy had initially sat on the sidelines of WWI, it was D’Annunzio who made speeches, with ringing words and lofty themes, advocating involvement in the senseless slaughter:

“Blessed are the young who hunger and thirst for glory for they shall be satisfied… Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be called upon to staunch a splendid flow of blood, and dress a wonderful wound… Blessed are they who return with victories, for they shall see the new face of Rome.”

Mussolini picked up this strain of high-flown language, which was itself picked up by America’s own master of modern rhetoric. In the 2016 Presidential election campaign, Donald Trump famously retweeted a post with what is perhaps the best-known quote from Mussolini:

“It is better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep.”

This was typical of his style and the image he constantly tried to project. Critics of Fascism claim that “the mobilizing power of such language would be exploited fully by Fascism.” But was it?

Did the Fascist system create a society of men who felt “blessed” to “hunger and thirst for glory,” a nation of warriors who preferred to live one day as a lion? The result as well as the details of the war suggest that it failed abysmally.

After almost two decades in power, the country that went to war in 1940 was far from the heroic ideals embodied in its propaganda, pomp, architecture, and flashy militarism.

Ettore Conti, one of Italy’s leading industrialists at the time, was well aware of this failure. In his diary entry for the 2nd of January 1940, he comments on the mood of the country in the period before Italy declared war on Britain and France in 1940:

“We may well be on the verge of war: but never has a country wallowed in such a state of apathy and inertia: never has Fascism been held in lower esteem by the Italians. The failings of the dictatorship are now finally evident to all, even to those who had supported it in good faith… The gradual but constant worsening of the quality of leadership, the insolence of the officials in every branch. the spread of profiteering combined with the most idiotic constraints imposed on every aspect of private life have turned the Italians into an amorphous herd that has no sense of will, of faith or inspiration. And with this country in this state, they want to take us to war.”

Conti’s misgivings were borne out in the events that followed. Italy’s “heroic” Fascist army was given a severe drubbing by the lowly Greeks, while in Africa, its large forces in Libya and Abyssinia were rounded up by British forces that they greatly outnumbered. The Italian general Rodolpho Graziani’s 200,000 men were brutally defeated by General Wavell’s British and Commonwealth force of around 30,000 men. Only the arrival of the German Afrika Korps in 1941 pushed back the British, who had also been depleted by the redeployment of troops to Greece, Abyssinia, and the Far East.

Rather than living one day as a lion instead of a thousand years as a sheep, the Italian Fascists were living one day as sheep and then surrendering in their droves to the British Lion.

The Italian air force and navy fared no better. The Battle of Taranto saw the Italian navy dealt a devastating blow that also reassured the Japanese that a torpedo bomber attack on Pearl Harbour would be feasible. The weakness of the Fascist Italian troops was also a major factor in the collapse and encirclement of the German army at Stalingrad.

As a martial code, Fascism clearly and resoundingly failed.

The easy way out of this for apologists of Fascism is to blame the Italians themselves, and point to the fact that in the modern era they have never been great fighters. This is true, and it is even plausible to see Mussolini and D’Annuncio’s tough guy posturings as “overcompensation” for Italy’s actual military inferiority. But Fascist Italy’s military performance still seems to fall below even this level, when, according to the rhetoric of Fascism, it should have soared high above.

ORDER IT NOW

Conti’s observations seem to offer some insights into what was really going on. He mentions “apathy” and “inertia,” as well as the low esteem that Italians had for the regime. This seems to be accurate: when the tide of war turned decisively against the Axis in 1943, the Italians abandoned the Fascist regime overnight and placed Mussolini under arrest, forcing Hitler to send Otto Skorzeny to rescue him. The Germans, by contrast, fought doggedly in support of their discredited regime, until almost the entire country had been conquered and devastated.

Conti’s diary also highlights the insolence of the Fascist officials, the profiteering, and the constraints imposed on private life.

It is not hard to infer what was really happening here: a non-meritocratic state, in which position was determined by ideology, party position, and a Fascist form of ‘political correctness’ was firmly in place, and those representing it were clearly abusing their power. The apathy and inertia mentioned are typical manifestations of passive aggressive behaviour, of people doing as little as possible and dragging their heels rather than resisting outright.

This speaks of a populace tired of bombast and propaganda, whose main defence was utter cynicism and barely disguised contempt for their leaders. It is easy to see how these feelings would work themselves out on the battlefield, and lead not only to defeat but abject defeat.

For people in the modern, degenerate West, Fascism sometimes has an understandable appeal. Its iconography, which still resonates through the ages, projects an image of strength and virility that appeals to those far from its reality. But history reveals that Fascism has its own degeneracy, one that led to its defeat but also enshrined its glamour in death.

Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and currently blogs at Affirmative Right. He recently published a book “Interviews and Obituaries,” available on Amazon.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Fascism, Mussolini, World War II 
Hide 336 CommentsLeave a Comment
336 Comments to "One Day as a Lion"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. In WW2 Italian officers were incompetent noblemen despised by the common soldiers; German officers generally had come up through the ranks, were very competent, and were loved by the common soldiers. Fascism and NS work just fine if implemented with a true meritocracy. Neither works otherwise, but that is true of all systems of government, including democracy. American democracy does not work since it elects human trash to high office, and has done so for over a century.

  2. anonymous[275] • Disclaimer says:

    Mussolini had grandiose visions. But the average Italian had little interest in Ethiopia and other targets for colonization. It’s not as if any of them entertained ideas of actually moving there for whatever reason so your average Italian soldier had little commitment to these projects. Apathy and poor performance are how unwilling people under duress respond when tasked with things they care little about, that’s quite true. The rhetoric certainly had (has) some appeal to it as long as it stuck to generalities without having to actually spell out any real specifics. Since, as pointed out, fascism was specific to Italian conditions and could thus not be exported to countries with different histories and cultures, even though many other countries did have movements that were considered fascistic for various reasons. It was something that existed in a time and place that is long gone except for Hollywood movies and television that grind out stereotypes 24/7 and throw all sorts of things into the fascist category.

  3. Kirt says:

    My favorite Mussolini quote (apocryphal or not) – “It’s not impossible to rule the Italians, merely pointless.”

  4. Blindlight says: • Website

    You condemn fascism but ignore the German model? Interesting, I guess because your point would then fall flat

  5. utu says:

    Fascism is not a bad thing. Mussolini got it almost right. Few weeks ago I wrote a comment that a populist movement that can bring the left and the right together is the only solution.

    The movement must be populist that folds the left and right together against the cosmopolitan middle that consists of the economic neoliberal right and the cultural left. The nationalism must be its glue and the enemy (there always must be an enemy) the financial international elite. Anyway you cut it it will be some sort of fascism.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @m___
    , @CanSpeccy
  6. This piece ignores the fact that the armies of the modern Italian state have always performed abysmally, whatever the political system. They managed to lose to the Ethiopians in 1894, and barely overcame the Libyans in 1912-13. They were manhandled by the otherwise hapless Austrians in 1914-18, and as recently as the UN intervention in Somalia, after one particularly bloody ambush in which his country’s troops were left in the lurch by the Italian contingent, a Pakistani officer vowed that never again would the Pakistanis rely on the Italians for support.

    Kingdom, Fascist state, or republic, modern Italian troops have performed remarkably badly. Italian fascism was hardly a success, but modern Italy’s shortcomings are not just a matter of the state’s ideology.

    • Agree: Hail
  7. And what about Franco who wan against all odds and was capable to deal with all those Communists.

  8. Anonymous[316] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s easier to swear loyalty to a king than to some concept.

    Everything for the state just empowers middle class bureaucratic nerds. Mussolini was a blacksmith & Hitler a painter.

  9. Z-man says:

    Blaa, blaa, blaa, a lot of typical, rehashed critique of the Italian war effort.
    Italy wasn’t ancient Rome in 1939. Germany, Britain and France had surpassed ‘The Boot’ in technology since the industrial revolution. Mussolini’s own economics minister told him that Italy would not be ready for a modern war until 1942. They aided the Germans in the Battle of Britain with Fiat bi-planes going against sleek Spitfires and didn’t have any large numbers of modern fighters until, yep you guessed it, 1942. Their Navy lacked radar but their submarines and commando divers still did a lot of damage to British shipping and the Royal Navy. The Army had lighter tanks compared to the heavier more modern British ones.
    True the Italian people weren’t convinced of fighting against the British or French or even the Russians but that is a testament to their intelligence and realistic attitudes not apathy. They eventually did fight anyway. In Africa they met with defeat at the hands of better armed British forces but poor Italian leadership & tactics also were to blame as they spread their forces thin along the coast. But they did regroup before the Germans came to help. When Rommel came in with his Afrika Korps most of the troops under his command were still Italian. In fact the first defeat of the US Army were at the hands of mostly Italian units in the Kasserine pass in Tunisia. As for Russia the German positions were almost hopeless on all fronts including the flank defended by the Italians. The carnage there was immense. Once the Allies invaded Sicily yes the Italians gave up too quickly but the writing was on the wall. Still ten thousand allied troops died in Sicily, many at the hands of discouraged Italian troops. If Hitler had been assassinated in ’44 the Germans would have probably surrendered at that point, a year earlier, to the Allies also.

    • Agree: L.K, Haxo Angmark
    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    , @unpc downunder
  10. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:

    He died like a dog. He ran, got caught, and was shot.

    He should have fought to the end.

    • Replies: @Anon
  11. haole says:

    The libertarian in me see nothing of interest in facism, it is a subset of socialism.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Anon
  12. Anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Fascism in its inception was a distinctly localised phenomenon, growing out of the specific concerns and obsessions of Italians in the immediate post-WWI period

    No, fascism is merely the modern version of monarchy that exists in the absence of a validated nobility. Merely because the various monarchies were / are either neutered or eradicated, does not negate their political requirement. “Fascism” reasserts the primacy of the tribal nation, as monarchy did. Its entirely historical when correctly seen from that perspective, as it was our government for most of our history.

    The movement that then emerged was one with a militant, revanchist, emboldening ideology that emphasised the superiority of the fascist “man of action” as a heroic figure, unafraid of death, and only living through things greater than himself.

    Which is an utterly typical pre-Christian hero figure or demi-god. See Hercules, Perseus, etc. These figures were the basis for the gods that later came to rest atop modern religion, and were generally mythologized ancestors whose genealogy often validated kingship.

    Il Duce, as the memes at the time ran, was mobilising the long-dormant power of Rome and recreating the ancient empire of the Mediterranean.

    And Jewry is mobilizing the long-dormant power of King David, just as dozens of other new Kingdoms drew on the founding myths to validate their existence. The world over. What is your point? The West today desperately needs a resurgence of a non-Jewish mythological root to found renewed self-affirmation and defense.

    Critics of Fascism claim that “the mobilizing power of such language would be exploited fully by Fascism.”

    Not critics. Enemies. They ignore the same language from their friends.

    Ettore Conti, one of Italy’s leading industrialists at the time, was well aware of this failure. In his diary entry for the 2nd of January 1940, he comments on the mood of the country in the period before Italy declared war on Britain and France in 1940:

    “We may well be on the verge of war: but never has a country wallowed in such a state of apathy and inertia: never has Fascism been held in lower esteem by the Italians.

    And such sweeping opinions by individuals then have more credibility than sweeping opinions by men today (many being propagandists) because?

    The failings of the dictatorship are now finally evident to all, even to those who had supported it in good faith…

    This could be a statement from any communist actor in the USA in 2017, amidst communism’s constant offensive against Trump.

    How is this innately-less-contextualized historical statement from a man in the 1940’s more credible compared to similar statement’s by propagandists of today?

    The inevitable whittling down of all contextual factors, with the passage of time and recorded history, does not lend historical statements more credibility than modern statements that seem to run parallel to them but that have serious credibility issues in light of modern clear contextual factors.

    The gradual but constant worsening of the quality of leadership, the insolence of the officials in every branch. the spread of profiteering combined with the most idiotic constraints imposed on every aspect of private life have turned the Italians into an amorphous herd that has no sense of will, of faith or inspiration. And with this country in this state, they want to take us to war.

    Said the NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, etc.

    Conti’s misgivings were borne out in the events that followed. Italy’s “heroic” Fascist army was given a severe drubbing by the lowly Greeks, while in Africa, its large forces in Libya and Abyssinia were rounded up by British forces that they greatly outnumbered.

    These events still do not lend credibility to sweeping statements about the supposed morale and perspectives of the Italian people.

    Many Germans, and nationalist the world over, would rather die than turncoat in spirit and politics and live (which is essentially giving into something worse than death). I doubt that deep spirit has changed much between generations, unless the Italians are a different breed. To state as much would be racist.

    Rather than living one day as a lion instead of a thousand years as a sheep, the Italian Fascists were living one day as sheep and then surrendering in their droves to the British Lion.

    A florid and meaningless piece of fiction writing in regard to their will and spirit.

    The Italian air force and navy fared no better. The Battle of Taranto saw the Italian navy dealt a devastating blow that also reassured the Japanese that a torpedo bomber attack on Pearl Harbour would be feasible. The weakness of the Fascist Italian troops was also a major factor in the collapse and encirclement of the German army at Stalingrad.

    Yes, we know who won WWII.

    As a martial code, Fascism clearly and resoundingly failed.

    You sound like a Jew or an anti-White negro. “Martial failure”, which is inherently based in a particular nation’s access to troops, technology, natural resources, and their ability to mobilize all of those to defend their very specific geography, and how all of that stacks up against similar factors for their opposition, has zero to do with the validity of any specific political system. To state otherwise is sophistry. Italian defeat no more invalidated “fascism” than German defeat did

    Fascism being a term that is is so politicized today that it is only applied by enemies of Europe and other resistors of Jewish controlled States. It is never applied to oppressed states that are Jewish controlled, even when apt. See Jewish controlled communist Russia for an clarifying example, whose government is never deemed to be “fascist” but instead is often apologized for.

    The easy way out of this for apologists of Fascism is to blame the Italians themselves, and point to the fact that in the modern era they have never been great fighters.

    You write like a sophomore. Not only is your attempt to bait founded on weak ground (see earlier above in regard to your attempt to link the political ideology to fighting factors), your straw-man counter arguments that you are putting into the mouths of your proposed debate opposition are also weak.

    Not only would a discussion in regard to the reasons as to why the Italians were defeated not be centered on the supposed fact that Italian fighters were “supposedly weak”, the fact that you think that this is what such a debate would look like outs you as intellectually inept in terms of how you perceive war and its logistics.

    But Fascist Italy’s military performance still seems to fall below even this level, when, according to the rhetoric of Fascism, it should have soared high above.

    What’s that? The 75+ year late equivalent of “you said that you were going to bash my brains in, and my brains are still in my head…so nyah nyah”!

    Again, you argue like a Jew or a low rent anti-European negro. In more civil language, you argue like a propagandist without clever copy but a deadline to meet all the same.

    As I prior stated, self defense and the appropriate politics for it has nothing to do with conflict outcomes: win or lose. Those politics are much more pertinent to the recognition of an existential threat, the will to prepare to fight, the will to fight, and the government during and after that time assuming victory. That’s more explanation than you deserve given your silly rhetorical antics.

    Real world logistical, resource, technological, and geographic factors are what matter to victory once the war is on, which adults would be willing to converse over.

    However, you chose to ignore those in order to make a propaganda argument in an attempt to make a bad, utterly failed attempt to degrade any state other than Israel who wants to have an ethnically interested rulership (you know, the de facto modern definition of “fascist”).

    The Germans, by contrast, fought doggedly in support of their discredited regime, until almost the entire country had been conquered and devastated.

    Discredited how, precisely?

    Conti’s diary also highlights the the insolence of the Fascist officials, the profiteering, and the constraints imposed on private life.

    Again, see earlier comments about parallels to modern propaganda. “Insolence” is a bullshit / semantically meaningless accusation based in political hostility (ie: propaganda), “profiteering”, as we can view in today’s partisan propaganda is propaganda, especially if we would hold both sides accountable for the same charge, and “constraints on private life” are common in wartime but this, in fact, sounds like the typical modern SJW and subversive Jew bullshit that we don’t let everyone do everything all of the time.

    It is not hard to infer what was really happening here: a non-meritocratic state,

    Read: a state who had to crack down on foreign-group / communist subversion.

    in which position was determined by ideology,

    LOL. My word, your writing and thinking sucks. At least edit for positional concision before you submit an article. Ideology is a prerequisite for nearly all meaningful political positions for the party who is in power. Again, your essay is sophomoric.

    party position,

    LOL

    and a Fascist form of ‘political correctness’ was firmly in place,

    Right, because in a war in which Europe’s existence was at stake they should have let political libertarianism run rampant. Never mind that it was and is a vehicle for the very subversion that brought Europe to war in the ideological sphere, with the Red Army to the East as a result.

    and those representing it were clearly abusing their power.

    Clearly.

    Wait, I almost moved on. Where is your support for your statement…? I missed it. It doesn’t exist? Oh shoot, that’s inconvenient. Again, your writing is sophomoric. In the parlance of your peers: it sucks.

    The apathy and inertia mentioned are typical manifestations of passive aggressive behaviour, of people doing as little as possible and dragging their heels rather than resisting outright.

    Sure. Because seventy plus years later “apathy and inertia” aren’t hack journalist (propagandist) terms that lack the breadth and depth of what is likely endless unrecorded contextual detail, not to mention the recorded detail about the wider conditions in the nation that both existed and led to that moment. Instead, the Italian people were merely apathetic and lazy. Sounds accurate.

    This speaks of a populace tired of bombast and propaganda,

    This speaks to narrative that you just invented out of thin air.

    whose main defence was utter cynicism and barely disguised contempt for their leaders.

    See my prior response. Cool story though.

    It is easy to see how these feelings would work themselves out on the battlefield, and lead not only to defeat but abject defeat.

    Your propaganda style is absurdly unsophisticated. This essay is pretty much akin to a creative writing submission.

    Alright, buddy. I’m about ready for you to bring it home with your big conclusion 😉 Tell us about bad fascism, a conclusion built on your stated narrative house-of-stone.

    For people in the modern, degenerate West, Fascism sometimes has an understandable appeal.

    Uh huh.

    Its iconography, which still resonates through the ages, projects an image of strength and virility that appeals to those far from its reality.

    Uh huh.

    But history reveals that Fascism has its own degeneracy, one that led to its defeat but also enshrined its glamour in death.

    LOL!

    After all of that I knew that you wouldn’t disappoint with one last swing for the fences, which resulted in a stylistically ridiculous sentence whose two clauses both fall on their face: the first rhetorically and the second both rhetorically and stylistically, And yes, since you attempted to end on a silly poetically-styled “point”, your style is fair game.

    Your first attempted point about degeneracy, which normally would echo a clear point in the essay, doesn’t connect with a single thought in the essay.

    Your second clause is a hilariously florid attempt at an impactful concluding statement. A general writing tack that, again, is best left behind in sophomore English class. I do like how you used “glamour” and “death” together though, like your mind is still on the t-shirts at your job at Hot Topic (because sophomore, remember?). What you gave up was any meaningful connection to persuasive writing let alone historical pertinence (even if we were for a moment to allow you your perspective).

    Ron, I respect your equal opportunity editorial policy. However, given its lack of content, letting this essay past the editorial board is a choice that I don’t fully understand.

    • Replies: @Heros
    , @ia
    , @FvS
  13. Anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    The Germans, by contrast, fought doggedly in support of their discredited regime,

    Every time an African, Arab, or Turk gains citizenship, rapes, brutalizes, kills, or otherwise breeds in Germany, the German “regime” gains credibility.

    Every time that a Jewish agent or group facilitates these things anywhere in Europe, the German regime gains credibility.

    The German regime has a lot of credibility. Your words have little in contrast.

    • Replies: @Anon
  14. Miro23 says:

    …while in Africa, its large forces in Libya and Abyssinia were rounded up by British forces that they greatly outnumbered. The Italian general Rodolpho Graziani’s 200,000 men were brutally defeated by General Wavell’s British and Commonwealth force of around 30,000 men. Only the arrival of the German Afrika Korps in 1941 pushed back the British…

    OT but Hitler was very taken with Mussolini, and it was only after the defeats in Russia that he reflected on the resources wasted in North Africa that could have turned the tide in the East. He regretted his Italian involvement but by then it was too late.

    Also there’s the aspect that whatever Germans commit to, they seem to do it in an extreme and uncompromising way – currently SJWism, where they’re the top demonizers of Trump and defenders of Saint Hillary.

    A great article on Italian fascism’s little known, but genuinely degenerate and corrupt nature.

    • Replies: @Wally
  15. I guess, part of the author’s point is that Italian “fascism” was culturally specific to that time / place.
    I find it difficult to determine whether he blames the “failure” more on Italians or on fascism.
    Was Italy simply unsuited to the “experiment” in “fascism” ? It’s difficult to think otherwise….
    The Mussolini quote (by Kirt) is highly suggestive: “It’s not impossible to rule the Italians, merely pointless.”
    Side point: I think blaming the Italians as a “major” cause of the Stalingrad catastrophe/victory is a bit rich…the expression a “bridge too far” comes to mind….

    • Agree: Z-man
  16. Epigon says:

    In retrospect, Piedmont should have stopped at Tuscany when unifying Italy. Nothing good came south of there. Lombardy, Venetto, Savoy, Liguria, Tuscany state would be a powerhouse.

    Blaming Fascism for horrible Italian military performance in WW2 ignores the even worse Italian display in WW1.
    Furthermore, if we blame Fascism for general Italian ineptitude, shouldn’t Fascism be praised for the ethos of Bersaglieri and Rommel’s African Italian divisions that showed tenacity?

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Anon
  17. Alfred says:

    Italy’s industries and transport (trains) were largely dependent on coal from the UK. Hitler promised to make up for the loss of this coal when Italy joined Germany. He did not keep his promise. A modern society cannot function without cheap energy – let alone carry out invasive wars in Africa (libya and Ethiopia/Eritria).

    The same situation pertains today. Italy’s oil consumption per capita has been dropping since 1980 – as has the economy. Italy’s attempts to be friendly with Russia – against the wishes of the USA – must be seen in that light.

    https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=it&product=oil&graph=consumption

    • Replies: @Anon
  18. It should be said that Italian soldiers were not responsible for the disaster that befell the Germans at Stalingrad. It was Romanians who were overrun, leading to the encirclement of Stalingrad.

    In fact, some of the Italians fought heroically. Particularly the Alpine troops of the Tridentina and Cuneense Divisions.

  19. @Blindlight

    If you want a broader perspective (a very broad one) I can recommend Hicks [1]. Hicks makes a very strong case that fascism is a byproduct of the Counter-Enlightenment, was both Left and Right wing, and that the Counter-Enlightenment was quite likely a byproduct of Middle and Eastern Europe’s attempt to defend itself against the encroachment of Western Europe in the form first of Napoleon’s armies, then of Enlightenment thought. Hick’s work is broadly consistent with Bloom’s [2].
    It seems there were two forms of Middle / Eastern European Fascism, one Right wing (Imperial Germany), one Left wing (Third Reich). The Right version (aristocratic state) was discredited by WW I, the Left version (popular / welfare state) was discredited by WW II. Hicks points out that the non-Fascist Left was discredited shortly after WW II, in the AD 1950s, by Khrushchev’s secret speech and the Hungarian uprising. Hicks maintains that the complete failure of the Left and the Counter-Enlightenment described above led directly to contemporary racial Postmodernism, the Left’s current philosophical foundation.
    Hicks does not mention Italian / Mussolini fascism, I suppose because it isn’t relevant to his primary theme, which is the Counter-Enlightenment.
    However, there is an argument that Italian “corporate fascism” was widely adopted by the Western victors of WW II, all of which strongly believed in governmental control of industry. The mixed economy, legal labor unions, representation of labor unions on corporate boards, all were in Italian fascism. Whisker outlines this thesis in an on-line essay [3]. If this argument is correct, then we’re looking, right now, at the long term effects of Italian Fascism. After a few generations, the ruling elite decides that leading the people, while perhaps not _entirely_ pointless, is ‘way too much like work, and pay much more attention to enjoying power than maintaining it. Eventually they are replaced — in our case, largely by foreigners. Stross [4] gives a good fictional view of this.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Stephen R. C. Hicks.
    _Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault_ .
    Ockham’s Razor; Expanded edition, 2013/12/19.

    2] Alan Bloom.
    _Closing of the American Mind_
    Various publishers. Originally printed 1987.

    3] James B. Whisker.
    “Italian Fascism: An Interpretation”.
    _The Journal of Historical Review_, Spring 1983 (Vol. 4, No.1), pages 5-27.
    Posted at: http://ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p–5_whisker.html

    4] Charles Stross.
    _Toast_, short story “Big Brother Iron”.
    Cosmos Books, 2002.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast:_And_Other_Rusted_Futures

  20. @Blindlight

    The question should be comparative: Under which model would Italy be more powerful, independent, and bioculturally prosperous: Fascism or democracy? We see the results of the latter, although I wouldn’t deny that stagnation is possible under fascism (you’re only as good as your elite and we can question the extent to which party-states can renew their elites). That Italy remained relatively disorganized and corrupt says more about Italy than about fascism.

    I would like to see some good books comparing Italy’s social, economic, and cultural development before, during, and after Fascism.

  21. The final solution to the Dalmatian question was achieved by Tito and his communists after WWII by expelling the Italian population which has been present in the region since the Roman Empire of antiquity and through the Venetian Empire of the Middle Ages. Whatever Nazis and fascists want to do it seems the commies do it better. And they say ethnic cleansing, mass deportations, denial of rights of property and citizenship based on ethnicity are Nazi and fascistic methods. Funny that.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  22. Heros says:
    @Blindlight

    From it inception, Italy was a creation of the mafia and the freemasons. There is no Italy, it is a large geographic peninsula perfectly designed for city states. Just talk to a Venetian, Sicilian, Roman or even a Süd Tyroler. Dubrovnik likely belonged to Venice, which it had been a part of for centuries.

    Everything that has happened since the outset of WWI has been a part of an evolving Judeo-Masonic plan. In July 1914 the car that Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated in by a freemason agent had the license number A 111-118. This just happens to be the date of Armistice ending the war. How totally masonic to tells is this before the start the war, and how totally masonic to play with numbers this way, and how totally impossible for this to happen by chance.

    As Blindlight says, the fact that Mussolini could not rule Italy has very little to do with Fascism.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  23. snoopyiv says:

    Italy under Mussolini was just one more worthless anti-human right armed nation state characterized by insolence, private interest profiteering, -human right denying bunch of criminals dba as the elite.

    As is usually the case, the population had to defend itself from one more power-abusing, private media guided, false propaganda uttering armed nation state headed by a manic. Thanks to Double d, triple l. Colin Liddell for the Article. There was a giant difference between Germany and the Italy. The Italian people were losers before it all started. they never had the German mind, the German heart, the inner self respect to be the best at the expense of no one else but it self, as did the German people. It really did not matter who ruled
    Germany or what the philosophy of the government was, Germany was going to be successful because of its people. Germany was a nation of winners. Italy; was a nation of losers.

    Read Roland Greene User’s Pan-Germanism, 1913, 1914 to understand the entire world was after Germany because it was so efficient, its population so well prepared, its goals so well defined, the probability of its success on any endeavor so strong it took the whole world to bring down Germany, and almost before the ink was dry .. Germany Rose again not because of philosophy or repatriation greed, but because Germany was the homeland of the German People, they did not care how they did it, per se, they just wanted to live the life they had all become accustom to enjoy and ironically, they wanted to share it with the entire world.

    The Zionist wanted Germany defeated, Germany had to be decimated because otherwise the Zionist would be forced to allow Germany to share in the oil the Zionist stole and were stealing from the Ottomans and Arabs as spoils of WWI and WWII.

    clearly most of the world’s humanity would be better off without having to deal with armed nation states.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @ia
  24. Miggle says:
    @Blindlight

    What’s this thing you call “fascism”, Blindlight? Where did you get that word from? Blindlight?

    And what German model? Model of what?

    • Replies: @Blindlight
  25. DFH says:

    Italians did terribly under every political system in every modern war. I think they’ve failed in their front in every war they’ve fought in post-unification, apart from against primitives. It’s absurd to blame Fascism for this in such a perfunctory way when the same thing happened under previous liberal governments and when a country with a similar political system performed exceptionally well in the same war.

    Yet more evidence that Colin Liddell (and his friend Nowicki, for that matter) are conceited wastes of space.

    • Agree: dvorak
  26. Heros says:
    @Anon

    What an epic take down.

    I think the topic of Mussolini and Fascism in Italy was overdue, it is an important piece of the puzzle. The comments may well make the poorly conceived article worthwhile anyway.

    I do think that you should lay off on the snobby “sophmore” english slurs. Some of us would say that anyone who wasted their time in University studying English beyond 10th grade was someone destined be self-important and liberal, not someone who wants to produce and prosper.

    • Replies: @Anon
  27. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    It’s a complicate answer to that question, but a simple version is that while Franco had help from Hitler and Mussolini (Hitler’s planes carried Franco’s troops to Spain, without that no civil war), but, ironically, Franco got a big boost from Stalin who was playing a double game in Spain. He had his secret service in Spain killing off the non-Stalinist leftist, like Andreu Nin and repressing the anarchists who were a bulwark against Franco, especially in Catalonia. Stalin was more interested in keeping Hitler distracted with events in western Europe and when he saw that Spain was a lost cause he decided to cut a deal with Hitler. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was inked only a few months after Franco finished off the Republicans in May 1939.

    See; http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/10/has-spanish-civil-war-ended.html

  28. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Franco regrouped in the Maghreb after being outed from Europe and won thanks to his Arab African troops recruited there. Funny that too: the republicans and communists ended up trying to fight off an African invasion led by Franco’s phalangists and supported by Hitler’s Nazis and Mussolini’s fascists. I guess whatever it takes to win. The republicans lost Spain mostly due to infighting and Stalin’s policy of trying to run the war ineffectively from Moscow.

  29. onebornfree says: • Website

    Fascism is just another variant on the idiotic “grand theme” of collectivism itself, with [perhaps] fancier uniforms/military salutes and all the rest of the visual “eye-candy” crap.

    Something the article did not mention: Mussolini had been a higher up [head of?- I forget] in the Italian communist party prior to his claimed “invention” of fascism.

    Fascism grew directly out of communism. [All Hitler later did was add race to the mix, plus some fancy new insignia, natty uniforms for all concerned and some idiotic militarized social ritual. ]

    Economically speaking, fascism/socialism cannot work, because increased, mandatory centralization of all economic activities in a geographic area always results in a decrease in the standard of living for the general population. Increased poverty, in other words.

    Fascism/socialism is a scam, as are all “top-down” centralized, compulsory, anti-market, systems of economic organization.

    All such systems of compulsory social and economic order are doomed to eventual economic failure, if allowed to continue long enough.

    This should be obvious from past examples throughout history, from the original Plymouth colony to the USSR, and Venezuela, S. Africa N. Korea etc. etc. etc. , but no, “we” just need to try this idiocy one more time, in the newest, grandest currently hyped-up variation on the theme , whoever might be promoting it[ Ocasio Cortez? , Trump?, Xi? ].

    Because idiots can/will never learn from history that all top down centralized economic systems cannot ever work, but only lead them all to increased poverty, and also because ” a sucker’s born every minute”, new adherents to the “pie in the sky” grand delusions of fascism/communism/socialism are never in short supply, forever eager to force everyone else to “give it a go” just one more time.

    Mussolni = just another fool [assuming he did not know what he was doing], in a long, never ending line of fools [Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Xi] down through history.

    As Mencken once said:

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic”.

    And so it goes.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @Anon
  30. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    onebornfree says: “Mussolini = just another fool [assuming he did not know what he was doing], in a long, never ending line of fools [Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Xi] down through history.”

    Oops, how could I forgot the fool Hitler in that short list? My mistake.

    regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  31. @George F. Held

    Fascism, like socialism/communism, will never work in a huge country such as the crumbling USA. We are now, thanks to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, far too diverse and multi-cultural for any system of governance to work, most especially the growing cancer of leftist social democracy that the D’s now embrace. The only hope for whites is to separate.

    Look at what is happening to Mr. Trump. With this contrived Russia nonsense initiated by Hillary’s henchmen, they never gave him a chance. Now they have arrested his long-time confidante Roger Stone. Will Mueller pry his fingernails off to make him flip? We’ll see what happens after 2020 when president Kamala Harris falls on her face. I often wish that Trump had been a little more like Mussolini.

  32. @Guillaume Durocher

    ‘That Italy remained relatively disorganized and corrupt says more about Italy than about fascism.”

    Let’s talk genetics since the population of Argentina (especially BsAs) is so heavily derived from Italy.

    That Argentina remained relatively disorganized and corrupt says more about Italians than about Peronism.

  33. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Franco was a Spanish patriot , a military , a Catholic , Franco troops , even inferior in men and arms at the beguining of the civil war , were disciplined and efficient . He had the backing of England , Italy , Portugal and Germany . Under Franco Spain prospered , there was social and economic justice , and Spain became a country of middle classes .

    The Spanish Republic could not control anarchists , separatists , antichristians , unions , communists . The republican troops even having very superior armies and arms lacked moral , faith ,discipline , organization . The blood thirsty republican anarchists militias killed thousands of civilians ,priests and nuns . The republican middle classes were soon fed up with republican anarchy . And even the countries that backed the Republicans ended fed up with republican indiscipline and chaos .

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  34. Che Guava says:
    @utu

    I have heard much the same from an older Italian (leftist) friend. He said his father’s line had been that Fascism had been great, and that his father had thought it all wonderful until the concordat with the Pope (father obviously anti-clerical).

    Westerners like, at times, to describe Japan of the time as simply imperialistic, but there were many fascist-style institutions from at least the 1920s, still are, and after the war and until the late 1990s, our economic model was basically a perfected form of the Italian Fascist one, seems to have worked very well while it *was* the model.

    People in general also forget that Italy has many legal, corporate, and institutional legacies from the Fascist state, and even some from the Italian Social Republic (the rump govt. at Salo).

    Militarily, they weren’t much good as allies, but from my reading, that is not just because of being Italian, the Italian Waffen SS units seem to have a good military record, likewise the Alpine forces in WWI, veterans of which seem to have been the core of what became Fascism.

    • Replies: @utu
  35. Zumbuddi says:

    What credentials does Colin Lidell bring to the table?

    What makes his perspective on Fascism more informed or compelling ?

    Granted, this essay is head and shoulders above the rantings of an ideological knuckle-dragger like Yalie Jason Stanley, but his “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them” sets a very low bar.

    This is to say that “fascism” has been tossed about so wantonly: and an honest to the facts history of the Italian situation in the wars era so badly recounted; and told mostly by writers with an agenda far different from recording accurate scholarship, that nobody is credible and the public seriously misinformed.

    I await accurate scholarship on Italy in the wars era, and I hope its author is a proud and patriotic Italian who has no axe to grind nor ancillary agenda to advance.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Colin Wright
  36. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Well , Liddell ,

    The german blockheads lost in Stalingrad because of their own limitations , previously they had been defeated by the russians at the doors of Moscow , and stopped in Leningrad .

    Or do you want to blame the italian , rumanian and hungarian patsies for the german defeat ? , problably many italians hated german racists even more than the russians themselves .

    Who arrived sooner to the doors of Moscow ? Napoleon on horseback or the blitz krieg artists in their shiny panzers ?

    Answer : Napoleon

    PS both French & allies , and German & allies had a difficult way back from Moscow .

    • Replies: @Anon
  37. Anyway US fascist political comedy named “Lets get Trump” has opened curtains on the final act.
    (You know Zionist Globalist can be fascist also.)

  38. Rich says:
    @snoopyiv

    I hate to write this, because I respect the German people and also have some German relatives, but your “successful” German people were beaten down down like rabid dogs. They were the biggest losers of the 20th century. How much self-respect did the Germans have while every female in their country, from the age of 8 to 80, was being raped by Soviet soldiers? Or are being willingly “raped” by foreign refugees today? Germany, to this day, this big powerhouse, remains a client state of the United States and still pays reparations to tiny Israel, a country that didn’t exist during WW2. They are so broken, it is actually against the law to do historical research into certain aspects of that war, and even a British subject was imprisoned for questioning aspects of the “holocaust”. The majority of the German populace are a broken people, willingly surrendering their future to the hordes they’ve allowed into their country.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Anon
    , @jacques sheete
  39. utu says:
    @Che Guava

    Militarily, they weren’t much…

    That Italy’s military accomplishments during the WWII were dismal is irrelevant to the discussion about the merits of fascism. One must question the motives of the author of this article. That he renounces fascism now is his problem and how he rationalizes it I do not care. To whom is he virtue signaling?

    If Italy remained fascist there would be no refugees coming form Africa to Europe and there would be no insane feminism and LGBT in Italy. These are the issues that are important and not how Italy was defeated in Africa in the WWII.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:

    Much of what Liddell said of First Fascism is true, which is why we need neo-fascism that makes place for individuality and humanism. And nationalism against imperialism, not nationalism as springboard for imperialism(to emulate French and Anglo empires).

    Instead of honestly addressing the problems of Italian National Character, Mussolini mostly paved over it with pomp & posture, excessive braggadocio. It was like a doctor neglecting the true ailments of his patient and just recommending more makeup and fancy clothes.

    Another problem was the cult of personality that turned Italian politics into mindless adulation of Mussolini as diva, man of charisma. It made for good show, but a nation is more than a performance. Neo-fascism must be humanist in emphasizing that it’s the People who really count, and therefore, there must be an honest assessment of national character and ways to improve it. National character is what holds Russia back too.

    And of course, there was the fatal alliance with Germany. But then, if Hitler hadn’t invaded Russia, Italy would have been the junior partner of the most dominant nation in Europe.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  41. Z-man says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Thumbs up! My agree button is disabled. LOL

  42. @George F. Held

    Hitler might have won WWII if he had not been forced to cover Mussolini in his many failing military attempts.

    ” Germany was never truly committed to the ground game in North Africa, being dragged there more or less against her will due to the ineptitude of the Italian Army. The most Germany ever committed to the theater was the Afrika Korps and Erwin Rommel, possibly one of the greatest tacticians of all time, to keeping their Italian allies in the fight in Africa.”

    If Hitler had not been forced to split his army and try to bail out Mussolini, he might have been able to defeat his hated arch-rival the Soviet Union/Bolsheviks/communist.

  43. Z-man says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Argentina was the most advanced country in South America, largely because of it’s Italian and other European ancestry and also because of it’s natural riches (agribusiness). It’s going down the tubes now because the European portion of the population is shrinking rapidly.

    • Replies: @Hail
  44. Wally says:
    @Blindlight

    Please explain.

    No doubt that will difficult in lieu of the fact that it’s now known that NS Germany did not do what is alleged.

    ‘Blind’ light indeed.

  45. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    That he renounces fascism now is his problem and how he rationalizes it I do not care.

    We should all renounce the First Fascism of Mussolini. It failed. But just because First Fascism failed doesn’t mean that Fascism has failed forever. Consider all the early flying machines that failed before Wright Brothers came along. Also, the French Republic failed too. But its ideas lived on and were later revised to make them work. And Greek democracy failed. Athens lost to Sparta, and later all of Greece was conquered by Macedonians and then later Romans. Still, there were ideas in democracy that were useful later.

    The good thing about fascism is it is NOT stuck on a single ideology. It allows for a ‘creative’ blending of different ideas to make for something more useful. Every idea has value but also a useful limit. There is some truth to Marxism, but it is not the one and only truth. There is value to capitalism, but it can’t rule everything. We need tradition, but it’s not the final truth. We need to adopt progress and change, but not everything promoted as ‘new’ is good. A sane fascism allows for a balance of all these forces and ideas.

    Also, fascism is the best ideology about the way of power. Fascism is most naked in its view of how power really works at the psychological, social, economic, and political level. This is why people feared fascism. It has X-ray eyes and saw power for what it was. While people who sought power in the name of spirituality or justice were often sincere, they were also drive by the will to power innate in human nature. This is why people fear the label of ‘fascism’. They find it too ‘pornographic’ in its view of power. But this view need not be ‘pornographic’. Just honest and natural. After all, not all candid discussion of sex is pornography. Fascism can be an erotics of power without turning into prostitution. What we have in the US is actually a kind of gangster-pornographic fascism ruled by oligarchs and deep state. Most US politicians are useless because they are whores bought off by the System. Of course, everyone denies that he is fascist and, if anything, blames the OTHER guy of being ‘fascist’. That is sure sign that just about everyone that counts is really ‘fascist’ in the US. It’s like everyone hates but accuses the OTHER guy of hate. It’s like everyone is racially conscious but accuses the OTHER guy of ‘racism’. If you want to know what most people are, pay attention to what they deny of themselves but accuse of others. Against such mendacious gangster-pornographic fascism, we can have natural and honest neo-fascism that speaks truth about power, truth to power, and acknowledges the true way of human nature. Yes, we do notice race and racial differences. Yes, we do feel hate as well as love, and indeed, both emotions are interrelated as people naturally hate whatever threatens what they love.

    Also, fascism is useful for accepting pluralism of truth. Religious fanatics will say God is everything and atheists are devil worshipers. Atheists will say religious people are morons and should really be sent to re-education camps. Neo-fascism can acknowledge there is no objective evidence of God and science is crucial to modernity, but it can also acknowledge the innately spiritual nature of man. Thus, we can avoid the stupid and inane insults between the Christian Right and people like Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher.
    Then, you got libertarians for whom everything is ‘muh markets’ and ‘muh individualism’, and then you got socialists for whom everything is ‘muh programs’. Even though everyone knows by now that mixed economy is a fact of life, there is still so much discussion in either/or terms. Honest neo-fascist discussion of economics can correct that.

    At any rate, we need Critical Fascism as Neo-Fascism. First Fascism and National Socialism might have succeeded without the mindless Cult of Personality and a Critical Culture that called on abuses and faults in the system. Without such a critical approach, the bugs of the system cannot be detected. Neo-Fascism also needs to be humanist because, without humanism, some over-zealous types might begin to see everything in mythic terms. But man is not a god. Japanese found that out in WWII. It easy to break the will of even the strongest men. Look at the sight of all those German POWS in Stalingrad. They invaded with such pride and confidence. But they ended up in rags, reduced to slaves to die in Gulag.

  46. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    The german blockheads lost in Stalingrad because of their own limitations , previously they had been defeated by the russians at the doors of Moscow , and stopped in Leningrad .

    It’s easy to conquer empty space. It’s like a foreign army could easily conquer most of Illinois. The farmlands and small towns. But if it approaches Chicago, that’s a lot of people there.

  47. Wally says:
    @Miro23

    You’ve absorbed too much of the MSM propaganda.

    Please tell us about the other “extreme’ aspects of Germany which you think you know about.

    Germans and other Europeans in fact are reacting favorably to Trump and demanding an end to the totalitarian EU involvement, an end to ‘immigration, and demanding free speech.

    But then we know where you get your ‘news’.

  48. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Zumbuddi

    What credentials does Colin Lidell bring to the table?

    We need a critical spirit. Even if we adopt a new kind of fascism, we must cast a critical eye on First Fascism and National Socialism and learn why they failed.

    We also ask why Ataturk’s national-humanist brand of fascism fared much better. Granted, it wasn’t called ‘fascism’, but it was. Ataturk had a more modest view of history and accepted the limits of Turkey’s role in the world. One thing for sure, he wasn’t trying to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire.

    Also, we need to study how all power systems eventually turn defacto-fascist.

    Look at China. It went from hardline communism to fascism, even though it will never admit it. It has a blend of nationalism, capitalism, socialism, traditionalism, and modernism. Unlike in the communist days when ONE idea dominated all, the New China admits that the best way is to use various ideas and modes to fashion what is most natural and pragmatic in the ways of power.

    Look at Russia. It went from communism to pirate-capitalism to fascism, even though it too will never admit it(because the historical myth is ‘Russia defeated fascist Germany’). But current Russia, like China, is also a blend of tradition and modernity, capitalism and socialism, and nationalism.

    In a way, the communist roots of Russia and China may have allowed for a saner kind of fascism. Communism was awful but it was about the Common Man than Man striving to be mythic hero led by a god, as was the myth of Italian Fascism and National Socialism(and Japanese Neo-Yamato-ism). Granted, communism turned lots of people in slaves and killed millions and had its own cult of the godlike leader. Still, the ideology of communism stressed Man as Man, not Man as Myth.
    And because of that humanistic element, the eventual forms of fascism that developed in China and Russia lacks the kind of mindless arrogance that defined Italy and Germany(and Japan).

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Zumbuddi
  49. Miro23 says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    It should be said that Italian soldiers were not responsible for the disaster that befell the Germans at Stalingrad. It was Romanians who were overrun, leading to the encirclement of Stalingrad.

    In fact, some of the Italians fought heroically. Particularly the Alpine troops of the Tridentina and Cuneense Divisions.

    True enough. It was the Romanians who were overrun, putting the Italians in an impossible situation. They fought well in the circumstances. Mario Rigoni wrote an invaluable firsthand account, “Sergeant in the Snow”:

    https://www.amazon.com/Sergeant-Snow-Mario-Rigoni-Stern/dp/0810160552/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

  50. Just a quick look at population trends and fertility rates show why whites need fascism and their own homelands. Per World Population Review, out of 200 countries, you have to go down to #62 before you reach your initial First World country – Israel. The next one is Ireland at #123, but it is still below replacement at 1.98. Italy, at a rate of 1.49, is 178. If war had been averted, Mussolini’s family-friendly policies, like Hitler’s, would never have allowed their populations to drop so drastically. Feminism, with its emphasis on careerism instead of family formation, is the worst enemy of the white race, and, if it is not stopped, we have no future.

    I wanted this comment to address Utu’s, but it wound up here by mistake. Sorry.

    • Agree: Z-man
  51. Rich says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    That’s a big “if”. Did Hitler stand a chance against the combined efforts of the Allies? If Italy had gone with the Allies, instead of the Axis, would Germany have been okay with its southern flank exposed? My personal opinion is that if Herr Hitler hadn’t stupidly attacked Stalingrad, then even more stupidly, refused to save his 6th Army and allow Paulus to withdraw, he may have been able to fight to a stalemate and get better terms at the end of the war. Once the US entered the war, it was pretty obvious that the Germans stood little chance of victory.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  52. Agent76 says:

    November 09, 2018 Oceania Is at War with Fascism

    If you’re a critic of global capitalism (sometimes referred to as “globalism”), I’ve got some good news and some bad news for you. The good news is, you’re not a “peddler of Russian propaganda” anymore. The bad news is, you’re an anti-Semite.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50584.htm

    Aug 30, 2011 CORPORATE FASCISM: The Destruction of America’s Middle Class

    A new kind of fascism has taken over America: the merger of corporations and government whereby corporate power dominates.

  53. Hank Yobo says:
    @Z-man

    “Buzz” Beurling thought that his Italian opponents over Malta were gallant and chivalrous while the Luftwaffe pilots he fought against were just cold-blooded killers. He admired the former and loathed the latter.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  54. @Anon

    “…Instead of honestly addressing the problems of Italian National Character, Mussolini mostly paved over it with pomp & posture, excessive braggadocio. It was like a doctor neglecting the true ailments of his patient and just recommending more makeup and fancy clothes…”

    Actually, “pomp, posture, braggadocio… makeup and fancy clothes” are all part of the theatrical Italian national character. Italians are no more a people of soldiers as they were in Roman times. Since the Renaissance they have become a people of artists and that includes theatre. No political system, even Fascism with its cult of heroism, could change that. National character always trumps ideology. Colin Liddell’s article proves very little about the value of Fascism.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  55. @Johnny Walker Read

    That’s the first time I’ve ever read that Italy may have cost Germany the war. Per Pat Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War,” England’s war guarantee with Poland was the culprit. As there was no other way to get to the USSR, Hitler blitzed thru Poland in 1939, thus England was obliged to come to its defense, thus forcing Germany to fight a two front war, when it only had designs on its East. If Britain and the US had done nothing, it seems quite possible that Germany could have defeated the Communists, and there would have been no Cold War.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  56. peterAUS says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Pretty much.
    Especially:

    ..ethnic cleansing, mass deportations, denial of rights of property and citizenship based on ethnicity are Nazi and fascistic methods. Funny that.

    Even that thing, Wiki, has something about it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)

  57. Hail says: • Website
    @Z-man

    On which, see a 2015 23andMe analysis of Argentinians (comment-144):

    Here is a similar analysis of Argentinians in the 23andMe database. Defined as people born in Argentina or, if born abroad, who have all four grandparents born in Argentina (n=102, July 2015):

    Aggregate, sample of Argentinians on 23andMe:
    87% European (incl. 60% S.European [25% Iberian, 15% Italian, 20% Other/Broadly S.European], 10% NW.European, 7.5% Jewish, 6% Broadly European, 2% E.European);
    10% Amerindian (mostly in the Mestizo and Castizo pop.);
    1% Subsaharan (largely found in the Mestizo pop., who are 2.6% Subsaharan; Whites get only 0.2%) [….]

    Argentine ethnic groups, by % Amerindian ancestry per 23andMe
    – 0.5% Amerind: White Argentinians of relatively recent European ancestry (of, I presume, 1880s-to-1910s arrival stock from Europe, at which time Argentina had immigration waves comparable to or exceeding in relative terms the USA’s of the same period) (n=44);
    – 14.0% Amerind: ‘Castizos’ and White Argentinians of relatively long Argentine ancestry […];
    – 35.5% Amerind: Mestizos with nativity in Argentina (n=15).

    – [T]rue Whites in our sense might be up to 45% of Argentina. […]

    – Near-Whites may be around another 40%, with many if not most of these passing for full-White by phenotype much/most of the time;

    – The remainder (around 15%) are more typical Latin American mestizos.

    My comments: [….]

    – Much more significant, and also not counted here, are the several million recent (often illegal) Amerind and Mestizo immigrants from elsewhere in South America. If included, they would bump the national aggregate ‘Amerind’ component up by perhaps ten or more points [approaching 25%?].

    (See further comments at link, comment-144)

  58. Epigon says:
    @Heros

    When did Ragusa/Dubrovnik belong to Venetians?

    Why do people on this site feel the need to write nonsense on subjects they have no knowledge?

    Italian population on east Adriatic coast is the result of settlement policies post-WW1.

    Originally, there was no Italians in Habsburg Istria and Dalmatia.
    Venice purchased Dalmatia from Hungarian king who was bankrupt, but was defeated later on by another.
    It was Venice which goaded Crusaders against Zadar/Zara in 1202 – so guess how many Italians lived there.

  59. Z-man says:
    @Hank Yobo

    That reminds me of a story an old Neapolitan told me once about the British and Americans attacking a target in Naples during the war. When the Brits came in they would come in with one or two planes and precisely try to hit the target and then leave. When the Americans came they flew many planes and carpet bombed the area that shook all the houses in town. (Grin)

  60. @Zumbuddi

    ‘…I await accurate scholarship on Italy in the wars era…’

    McGregor Knox is pretty good, if not Italian. He also has useful references, if you want to go further into it all.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Zumbuddi
  61. Hail says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    The essay has some merit but clearly suffers from a little historical myopia, zooming in on the period 1920 to 1944 and disregarding what preceded and followed.

    Even within this narrow period, as other commenters above have noted, it fails to go for the obvious comparative analysis to any of the Axis-aligned rightist regimes, or Nationalist Spain. Not to mention the elephant in the room, the NS state in Germany, on which all we get is this late-essay, one-sentence wave of the hand:

    The Germans, by contrast, fought doggedly…

    In fairness, Lidell does kind of grant these points, here:

    The easy way out of this for apologists of Fascism is to blame the Italians themselves, and point to the fact that in the modern era they have never been great fighters. This is true, and it is even plausible to see Mussolini and D’Annuncio’s tough guy posturings as “overcompensation” for Italy’s actual military inferiority. But Fascist Italy’s military performance still seems to fall below even this level

    But does not define what “fall below even this level” is supposed to mean.

  62. How has the West come to be degenerate? Look at who is administrating the poison…

    Italians, at least of the southern part of the famous boot where a great deal of miscegenation with Afro-Semitic Arab has taken place, are virtually good at nothing save the bullying through their Mafioso enterprise… whoever thought that they could come to the rescue of Germans in any situation? The guido is happy with his plate of pasta fagioli and tiramisu!

  63. peterAUS says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Pretty much.
    Especially:

    National character always trumps ideology.

    Japan, for visible example from the opposite side of the world.

  64. Jake says:
    @haole

    Fascism is indeed a type of socialism.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  65. peterAUS says:
    @Epigon

    Why do people on this site feel the need to write nonsense on subjects they have no knowledge?

    Ah…..well…..probably for the very same reason they do it everywhere.

    The usual: gives them sense of belonging, makes them feel good about themselves, gives them chance to offload their frustrations…the usual.

    The very nature of mass access to Internet.
    I haven’t seen a forum that hasn’t deteriorated for the last, say, 10 years.

    The only defense, of sort, is, IMHO:
    Get a feel for a “handle” and act accordingly. Follow; read; skim; skip; ignore.
    Works OK, most of the time.

  66. Jake says:
    @Rich

    All that about Germans is true.

    Here is what is more fascinating: that same self-hatred that Germans exude is now the norm for the masses of whites in the UK and US. And it has not come from military defeat followed by occupation, but from the WASP Elites of the UK and US despising the vast majority of whites they rule.

  67. Z-man says:
    @Rich

    This post reminds me of the Italian defeat in Italy. The Allied forces stopped fighting up ‘the boot’ after Rome fell and the Allies concentrated their effort on France (D-Day). At the end of the war, when the Germans left and the final remnants of the Fascist regime collapsed, Italian communist partisans killed thousands of Fascists & Mussolini sympathizers. An ugly time which kept the Italian right wing down for years after. “With Democrats and Communists you lose”

  68. Z-man says:
    @Colin Wright

    WWII Campaigns: Sicily
    GORDON R. SULLIVAN
    General, United States Army
    Chief of Staff

    Also, ‘The Royal Navy in the Mediterranean-Naval History.Net’ Fairly unbiased history of Italian-British battles in the Med.

  69. m___ says:
    @utu

    On Facism…

    Fascism is not a bad thing. Mussolini got it almost right. Few weeks ago I wrote a comment that a populist movement that can bring the left and the right together is the only solution.

    The movement must be populist that folds the left and right together against the cosmopolitan…

    …quite to the point.

    A good example of how understanding social and political reality has many a layer. Again, to the core, and after peeling and poking, the above commentary makes sense.

    The big wrong conceptually of Facism as a political theory, is probably the in-tenability of a social system that elaborate and costly. More so today, since the populations versus physical resources is out of proportion. The added value of a population has become a liability. This in less then half a century, two generations. War being obsolete, the strive for wealth rather immensely complex comparably, since bit by bit the exhaustion of physical resources must be in-calculated into a finite world.

    Just as a remark, a dictator, often associated with de facto Facist regimes, can as well be a group. Say “deep state” in the US today, say Bolshevics of the early hour. For one, “media” alas “propaganda” haven’t stopped either.

    That brings us to mention, that Fascism can be a theory of global dominion. Secondly, all and every political theory is outdated, simply because the environment has changed, anywhere locally, on the face of the globe. There are no historical models that correspond to today’s organic reality.

    Finally that makes rummaging as here, quite possible but inutil. Some variables present today, were not, at least that apparent and visible then. Exit old school Fascism, as much as anything else pre financial capitalism, as viable.

  70. @follyofwar

    Hitler lost his war against the USSR because of a combination of reasons, to wit :

    1) A two front war against the UK + the US and the USSR, later on with a third front in the South (Italy).

    2) A loss of precious time, effort, material and men by first helping the blundering Italians in North Africa and then in the Balkans.

    3) The effect of autumn in Russia which turned its unpaved roads into pools of mud.

    4) The effect of winter in Russia (40 centigrade below zero !) for which the German troops had no appropriate clothing.

    5) The supply lines became too long.

    6) Stalin’s “scorched earth” policy.

    7) The Russians had better tanks.

    8) The Russians could muster extra troops from Siberia since they knew that Japan would not attack them.

    9) Hitler divided his forces into three parts (North : Leningrad, Center : Moscow, South : Stalingrad) all of which failed in their missions, while they might have succeeded if they fought united.

    10) Hitler refused help from the peoples of the Baltic states, Belo Rus and the Ukraine, all who of whom were hostile to Communist Russia.

    11) Hitler refused help from anti-communist Russians, who would have fought with him under general Vlasov.

    12) Hitler was a man who was inspired by his own megalomania, which included reckless contempt for his adversaries. Realism never played a role in his grandiose plans. Eventually he was overtaking by reality. That is the outcome when you play politics as a Wagnerian Opera rather than Reality Chess.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @EugeneGur
  71. Anon[301] • Disclaimer says:
    @Heros

    I’m glad you appreciated the response.

    With all due respect, “sophomoric” is a term that means generally “underdeveloped” or “immature”, rather than referring to actual education. That’s how I first used it, or meant to. Though, I did later begin using it to refer to education given the author’s consistency in his immature writing style that really did begin to remind me of an actual sophomore’s writing. The temptation to use it in that manner was too great after a while. I meant to general offense beyond my commentary on the essay at-hand.

    In my experience, writing and rhetoric has little to do with English education beyond learning grammar and essay structure; and 95% to do with practice (and a lot of it) in both reading and writing. Theoretically (but I believe many examples can be readily found) someone could remain immature in spite of a lot of classroom experience well into college, or become a fantastic writer in spite of no education beyond middle school. Depending on their volume of practice in reading and writing.

  72. Z-man says:
    @Anon

    Ridiculous post.

    • Replies: @m___
  73. David says:

    “Blessed are the young who hunger and thirst for glory for they shall be satisfied…”

    Mussolini picked up this strain of high-flown language, which was itself picked up by America’s own master of modern rhetoric.

    Gee, I wonder if they might have been exposed to such high-flown language from another source. Almost sounds like a famous passage from somewhere.

  74. Hey, British guy, forget it. You and your mates are not lions anymore. Rommel had you by the balls, but he had not enough fuel for his tanks.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  75. Z-man says:
    @Epigon

    Nothing good came south of there.

    LOL, except many of the entrepreneurs of modern Italy are southerners and many of it’s casualties in both world wars were southern.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  76. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – Hitler had no choice, the Communists were about to launch their attack on Germany / Europe.

    – Hitler knew the dangers of a two front war, but had to do what he simply had to do.

    – Yes, the Italian military in most cases was indeed poor.

    – Sorry, but the Soviets ‘better tanks’ is an oft repeated amateurish nonsense.
    What the Russian had were factories out of harms way to mass produce tanks of rather low quality. Which proves that sometimes quantity IS better than quality.
    The best tank in all of WWII, and the one that Americans later most copied from was the German Mark IV Panther. It was a numbers game that was Germany’s problem in regards to most armaments.

    – The 3 parts of the German forces, north, center, & south was a reasonable approach in order to split the Soviet forces likewise, and to avoid being surrounded.
    The entire matter was however a time critical effort. Hitler knew that, his Generals knew that.

    – The Germans helped countless anti-communists forces. You are simple uninformed.

    The Germans rolled the dice because they had to, it was not Hitler’s “megalomania” (direct from the “History Channel”, LOL).

    recommended:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  77. Heros says:
    @Epigon

    “When did Ragusa/Dubrovnik belong to Venetians?

    Why do people on this site feel the need to write nonsense on subjects they have no knowledge?”

    I was writing about Italian city states. Here is what I wrote:

    “Dubrovnik likely belonged to Venice, which it had been a part of for centuries.”

    Wiki says:

    “After the Crusades, Dubrovnik came under the sovereignty of Venice (1205–1358)”

    I have no dog in your fight. The entire Adriatic and Mediterranean is perfect for independent city states, history proves my statement correct. Hundreds of independent and prosperous city states preserving their unique identity, culture and history. It is a shame that one group of people obsessed with the third temple to solomon have robbed mankind of this.

  78. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @George F. Held

    In WW2 Italian officers were incompetent noblemen despised by the common soldiers;

    And Italian common soldiers were a bunch of mama’s boys despised by officers. It went both ways.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  79. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @haole

    The libertarian in me see nothing of interest in facism, it is a subset of socialism.

    You might appreciate it as ultra-individualism of the Great Man.

  80. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Every time an African, Arab, or Turk gains citizenship, rapes, brutalizes, kills, or otherwise breeds in Germany, the German “regime” gains credibility.

    Because Germany morally disgraced and discredited itself by waging genocidal wars, mainly against Slavs.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  81. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    It was Romanians who were overrun, leading to the encirclement of Stalingrad.

    Can’t blame them either. They weren’t armed and trained properly.

    Besides, Romanians are of Roman background.

  82. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    Economic policy is irrelevant to politics and power, except as ever-changeable assistance to the goals of the political entity.

    There is no innate political-social value to one form of economic policy.

    Economic policy effects on the political entity can invert depending on the wider chess board as well as the social policy of the entity.

    Political power does not derive from economic policy but from social policy and culture. Precisely because true political power, beyond the always finite influence of cash, is only born out of the relative closeness of cooperation between two parties. Deep cultural bonds, therefore, create the most effective and longest lasting political power.

    In fact, they create the only historically meaningful political power.

    Increasing social cohesion in real institutions like the church, family, and greater racial community increases political power.

    Decreasing or destroying any one of those institutions destroys political power.

    Economic policy can only help either that improvement or destructive process along, but will do so differently depending on the greater world context in any one time period and dependent on the political (social) policy of the state.

    Communism is the social policy of cultural (political power) destruction, led by a foreign group who wishes to rule. By weakening the political power of the people (ideally to de facto slave status), it is strengthening its ability to rule over them.

    Fascism is the social policy of cultural (political power) cultivation, led by a domestic party who is representing the people that it wishes to strengthen and lead. By strengthening the political power of the people, the party is strengthening its power.

    The mark of being led by a foreign power is that your cultural and community institutions are attacked, down to the family structure itself. The family being the cornerstone microcosm of the strong political community. Without it, no independently strong political party can nor will exist.

    Socialism and capitalism, both being economic and not social policies, have no innate political value beyond their use to the political entity in any one time period.

    Capitalism can move communism forward (and it does today), because communism is not an economic but a social policy (set of policies, today referred to as cultural Marxism). Therefore, you can attach any economic policy to communism and advance its true goal of tribal political destruction.

    In Russia, socialism was used to forward the communist goals of culture (political-social) eradication for the middle class to turn them into a cultural slave class. People were told that their true bonds were in the meaningless economic sphere instead of the politically meaningful cultural sphere. Today, capitalism is used toward that end (arguably more effectively).

    In recent fascist nations, socialism was used in a greater context of fascist social policy that sought to cultivate culture. Income and resources were shared across economic classes to a degree, but the people were never forced to identify along economic lines. Instead, cultural identity was primary.

    In sum:

    The economic policies of capitalism and socialism are ultimately politically meaningless without the context of the accompanying social policy. They are often used as red herrings and straw man, and anyone attempting to discuss the political sphere by focusing only on economic policy should be held in high suspicion because this speaks to either deception or ignorance. Cultural policies of fascism and communism, or wherever the society rests on the scale between, are what matter to the effects that those economic policies will have.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  83. ia says:
    @Anon

    The West today desperately needs a resurgence of a non-Jewish mythological root to found renewed self-affirmation and defense.

    That’s true. But the West used to have a Hellenic form of Christianity, where spiritual progress, begun in this world, continued after death. Nowadays, everything has be to done here on earth. Pity.

    • Replies: @Jake
  84. @Z-man

    Yes, military equipment and logistic support matters. The Italians were industrially backward in 1940 and it showed. The Japanese were very brave throughout the war, but lacked heavy armour and couldn’t match the allies in open warfare. In 1945 they were soundly thrashed by the Russians in Manchuria.

  85. Blindlight says: • Website
    @Miggle

    To me and apparently to Jews, fascism boiled down to the idea that non-Jewish countries should be ruled by non-Jews who focused on the welfare of the ppl.

    Here’s the quote from the Jewish subversion manual
    “The Jewish Catechism”
    “Fascism is not an accidental phenomenon. It arises in places where we underestimate the local people’s efforts to be the owners of their own land.Fascism develops secretly in all nations. Luckily for us, different nations arrive at it at different times and under different names.”

    https://blindlight.org/index.php/component/k2/item/555-the-jewish-catechism-for-the-ussr?highlight=WyJ0aGUiLCIndGhlIiwiamV3aXNoIiwiJ2pld2lzaCIsIidqZXdpc2gnIiwiamV3aXNoJyIsImNhdGVjaGlzbSIsInRoZSBqZXdpc2giLCJ0aGUgamV3aXNoIGNhdGVjaGlzbSIsImpld2lzaCBjYXRlY2hpc20iXQ==

    advise reading the wholehandbook

    goy ruling themselves. Its why there was a WW II when you get past the bullshit

  86. @Johnny Walker Read

    The battle of Gazala is one of the less known battles of WW II, but probably Rommel’s greatest victory. Arguably the Italian soldiers made a valuable contribution to the victory, especially when they succeeded in relieving Rommel when he became cut off behind enemy lines.

  87. m___ says:
    @Z-man

    Admittedly, the confusion of language can be unending. But the post if rightfully understood: “authoritarianism” instead of hidden authoritarianism in “democracy”as in the West now-a-days, has but the who exercises it, as a difference.

  88. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Anon

    Anon[267] • Disclaimer says: “….The economic policies of capitalism and socialism are ultimately politically meaningless without the context of the accompanying social policy. They are often used as red herrings and straw man, and anyone attempting to discuss the political sphere by focusing only on economic policy should be held in high suspicion because this speaks to either deception or ignorance. Cultural policies of fascism and communism, or wherever the society rests on the scale between, are what matter to the effects that those economic policies will have.”

    Pure, unadulterated pseudo- intellectual drivel. But by all means, carry on! 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  89. han9 says:

    When it comes to Italian military performance it is certainly a mixed bag with many cases of what could be with justice described as underachievement to put it mildly. Having said that there were also many cases of brilliant exploits and contrary to the popular joke there are many Italian war heroes just check Luigi Rizzo or Gamba di ferro.

    A classic case of Italian military performance being misrepresented or rather the popular image of it being far from what it really was is how Italy did in World War One. It is also a case of an exception to the general rule that the victors write history – in this case the loser seem to have the upper hand. Namely it is as if everyone remembers Caporetto but all have forgotten Veneto.

    I could write much more but sorry it is getting late in my time zone so just let me add for finish that German whining about the Romanians or Italians not holding some or another position is pathetic. The Germans should have held them themselves and if they did not have enough own troops to man them it means they had no business waging war so deep in enemy territory.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  90. ia says:
    @snoopyiv

    just one more worthless anti-human right armed nation state

    What does a human rights state, or world, look like? Can you give me an example?

  91. Hank Yobo says:
    @Tukultininurta the Britishslayer

    Logistics is a crucial part of any successful war effort. No fuel, whose fault was that?

  92. @Wally

    The idea that Hitler’s attack on Russia was merely a preventive strike against an attempt of Stalin to conquer Europe for communism stems from the book Icebreaker by the Russian Viktor Suvorov. Suvorov’s thesis has been debunked by all serious scholars and is contradicted by all the facts. The Russians were ill prepared for such a colossal undertaking and the Nazi intelligence did not see any such preparations on the ground. See : Wikipedia, Icebreaker (Suvorov).

    Besides, Stalin’s policy was “socialism in one country” and not “world revolution”, reason why had Trotsky murdered.

    Hitler’s motive for attacking Russia was creating Lebensraum for his “superior” Germans at the cost of the “inferior” Slavs, a motive he tried to hide by pretending to “fight Bolshevism”. If he really believed that Stalin was about to invade Europe, surely he would have used that in his propaganda.

    But of course, Suvorov’s dubious thesis is popular among Hitler’s (secret) admirers.

    • Agree: Cyrano, Haxo Angmark
    • Disagree: Hail
    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Hail
    , @Bukowski
  93. Roberto says:

    Fascism is how Hitler saved the capitalistic system in Germany and maintained the control of its oligarchy. Fascism relies on military spending to employ the population, thus gaining political support. Fascism’s prime tool is military spending. Military spending produces a product that doesn’t build up on the nation’s shelves in the form of unsold inventory, and therefore can not cause a depression or a recession.

    It is an answer to Carl Marx, however, in the end, the bill must be paid.

    “There is no such thing as a free war.”

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  94. Zumbuddi says:
    @Colin Wright

    Thanks for the suggestions, Colin Wright and Z -man.

    • Replies: @L.K
  95. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    Fascism is indeed a type of socialism.

    Yes, and some degree of socialism is necessary. It humanizes us. But too much of it is bad cuz it becomes sappy or faceless.

    What is the most socialist unit among humanity? The family. If parents have 7 kids, and if some are better-looking and smarter than others, the parents still try(or should try) to spread the love equally among all the kids. Also, parents teach kids to help each other and share stuff. Also, even if one kid grows up to be successful while his siblings not so much, he still looks upon them with fondness as part of the family. And in times of trouble, family members try to help each other out. It’s like what the guy realizes in MICHAEL CLAYTON as he looks at the horses. He and his brothers are part of the same family and share the same blood. They have to look out for each other. A family that is run totally on libertarian or capitalist grounds would be inhuman. Socialist mindset is intrinsic to the family. (Also the lawyer that turns against his own firm comes to the realization that life isn’t only about profits about the good of the whole. He comes to emotionally connect with some small town girl, the kind of person who might be ill-affected by some corporation. The reason why the Sackler family did what it did was because it felt zero familial-socialist connection to white goyim. Such Jews feel for fellow Jews, not for goyim.)

    Notice how Youtube, also controlled by Jews, will not feature videos about ‘white death’ when it comes to the opioid crisis.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sackler+opioids+%27white+death%27

    Now, socialism is harder to come by when it deals with outsiders. However, a kind of socialist mindset can work in a homogeneous community of shared values. Homogeneity trumps diversity when it comes to success of socialism. After all, socialism works best within the family due to shared blood and emotions. In a homogeneous society, people may be strangers but they still look upon others as ‘part of my national family’. This is what the guy realizes in Kurosawa’s HIGH AND LOW when his chauffeur’s kid is abducted for ransom. He struggles at first but comes to feel for his servant’s child as if he’s his own. Now, homogeneity is no guarantee for socialist feelings. In Japan, the core sense of commitment and loyalty was to one’s master and superior, not to the inferiors. That’s why it takes some effort for the warriors in SEVEN SAMURAI, rich man in HIGH AND LOW, and young doctor in RED BEARD to feel a bond with their social inferiors. In BAD SLEEP WELL, we see how a rich corrupt oligarch has such strong feelings for his own daughter but sees most Japanese people as just ants or economic units. It’s like “my daughter is a princess, but the daughters of other men, especially social inferiors, might as well be whores.” While most Japanese fathers would not want to see their own daughter enter porn or prostitution, they seem okay with the daughters of OTHER fathers ending up that way. Japanese fail to connect the dots and understand that their own daughters are THE OTHER MEN’S DAUGHTERS from the eyes of other men. This is different from the viewpoint of Anglo-American Protestant Reform mindset that regarded all women as part of the Moral Family. Thus, something like prostitution was wrong for ALL daughters, not only for ‘my daughter’, as in the Japanese mindset. (Granted, such Anglo-Protestant mindset has been destroyed in the US. Jews had a role in it. Also, smaller family size divided the nation more along class lines. In the past, when a child grew up with siblings, some might succeed, some might not. But even as a rich person, he would feel for his poorer brother. But now, many successful people grew up as ONLY CHILD or were born to two high-IQ parents. So, the elite world is the ONLY one he knows, and his idea of ‘social justice’ is pure symbolism of making aching noises about the Magic Negro or Holy Homo.) Increasingly, poor white kids are likely to know only poor people, and rich white people are likely to know only rich people. The High and Low division is becoming permanent.

    Anyway, given that socialism works best within the family, it has pragmatic utility only when the larger community has family-like feelings toward one another. It cannot work when most people of a nation distrust one another, don’t identify with one another, and even hate one another.

    Also, socialism must be mutualist, and this is where fascist-socialism has an edge over faceless welfare socialism. Fascist-socialism was about all people contributing to and taking from the System. New Deal was fascist-socialism founded on patriotism and work ethic. It wasn’t about something-for-nothing, the mainstay of faceless and soulless Great Society socialism. True socialism should be like a bunch of wood in campfire. Each piece of wood leans on other sticks, but they also lean against it and against each others. So, they are all leaning and supporting one another. And that allows for the camp fire.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Miro23
  96. Arnieus says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Like Assad, Franco needed somebody else’s airforce. Hitler was above all else anti-communist as he was well aware of what went down in Russia and who was behind it. Germany got lots of target practice in Spain.

  97. @Hail

    The Bolivian and Peruvian diaspora has not been a significant portion of the Argentine population until less the 15 or so years ago and Argentina’s social capital has been in trouble for a lot longer.

    Hard to blame much of this on “los Indios”. Just sayin’ this even as a deplorable white Gringo.

    • Replies: @Hail
  98. Miro23 says:
    @Anon

    Very good commentary. Repays a careful reading.

  99. Cyrano says:
    @onebornfree

    Abso-F**ken-lutely. There is nothing in common between fascism and socialism. Last time I checked (and I am checking on a daily basis) neither in Nazi Germany, nor in fascist Italy, did they confiscate the means of production from the rich and gave it to the poor. Unless taking from the rich Jews and giving – back to the German state can be considered socialism. Maybe then, the concentration camps were nothing more than a German version of the gulag? Germans were merely emulating Stalin. Of course, it all starts to make no sense now. The problem is, not all Jews were rich, and not all of them deserved to end up in the German “gulag” – the concentration camps.

  100. L.K says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler’s motive for attacking Russia was creating Lebensraum for his “superior” Germans at the cost of the “inferior” Slavs

    Cheap propaganda by a cheap propagandist.

    And by pretending that Suvorov is the only Russian historian who has advanced such a thesis, you, at the very least, prove your ignorance, if not your intellectual dishonesty.

    With the fall of the Soviet Union there was a partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), and many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s aggressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:

    Former Soviet intel officer , Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Viktor Suvorow), Russian military historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov of the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, Russian historian M. Nikitin, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafov, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.

    Not to mention non Russians who have since reached similar conclusions.

    There is a REASON why Russia has closed the archives and passed laws to protect the “great patriotic war” national mythology.

  101. L.K says:

    Terrible article, shallow, and full of tired stereotypes by this Colin Liddell.

  102. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Roberto

    Roberto says: “Fascism is how Hitler saved the capitalistic system in Germany and maintained the control of its oligarchy.”

    Pure twaddle. Fascism is a brand of socialism, directly derived from Marx’s communism. Always has been, always will be. Its almost the exact same crap with a different name.

    A wealth confiscation and expropriation scheme to benefit elites [ i.e. “the oligarchy”] with the thin veneer of “the national interest” to fool the always gullible masses as they are robbed blind.

    Like its brother, communism, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with larceny on a grand scale.

    There was little or no capitalism in Germany even prior to Hitlers rise. Hitler just stepped on the gas and just about entirely eliminated it , “in the national interest” 🙂 .

    Roberto says:“Fascism’s prime tool is military spending. Military spending produces a product that doesn’t build up on the nation’s shelves in the form of unsold inventory, and therefore can not cause a depression or a recession.

    Complete and utter twaddle! Basically you are claiming that massive government spending programs do not cause recessions or depressions [as long as the spending is on military and associated] . Yeah right!

    But carry on fantasizing your econo-porn by all means. Highly amusing I must say.

    Regards, onebornfree

  103. @Epigon

    Why don’t you go and check Austrohungarian census data for Italians in Istria and Dalmatia in the 19th century or since whenever they had them before writing that Italians colonised the eastern Adriatic coast only after WWI? You’re trying to rewrite history with your nonsense.

  104. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Uruguay is also heavily Italian and seems to present a much better situation.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  105. Cyrano says:

    I don’t know about Lion for a day, but I firmly believe that it’s better to be a Lying King than Lion King. That’s where the good old propaganda comes handy. It has the power to smooth over any deficiencies of any system. It has the power to transform a worn-out street whore – Capitalism, – into a vibrant fresh faced porn actress – Multiculturalism.

  106. L.K says:
    @Zumbuddi

    Hello, Zumbuddi,

    Truth is, there are very few sources about the Italian military in WW2 in English – or WW1 for that matter – that are any good.

    Most of the authors in the English speaking world often don’t even use Italian primary sources;
    Often, it seems, because they just cannot even speak the language.

    At any rate, MacGregor Knox, mentioned by this Colin Wright, although BIASED, is at least useful, and he does use Italian sources. In his HITLER’S ITALIAN ALLIES, Knox writes:

    The troops themselves in any event did not necessarily show in 1940-43 the readiness to surrender of popular legend.
    Units in North Africa, Albania, and Russia held together in conditions – usually deriving from
    the army’s logistical inadequacies – that would have caused soldiers of the industrial democracies to quail.11
    With the exception of the Albanian retreat of 1940/41, where the disorganization resulting from hasty remobilization and chaotic shipment overseas was decisive, Italian collapse, like that of the French in 1940, normally resulted from surprise envelopment by enemy mobile forces. …

    In Albania, the casualty figures from Mussolini’s futile March 1941 offensive suggest that Italian troops were at least as willing to die in doomed frontal assaults as they had been in 1915-18: almost 25,000 casualties from two corps in six days, including 29 percent of the infantry and artillery strength of the lead corps.13

    In their ratio of dead and wounded to prisoners of war – a key indicator of commitment to the fight – Italian forces in North Africa* rivaled their German allies from the beginning of the British offensive at El Alamein to the final collapse at Tunis: 1 dead or wounded to every 3.3 prisoners, against 1 dead or wounded to every 3 prisoners for the Germans.14

    * despite much lower motorization levels on the part of the Italians.

  107. Zumbuddi says:
    @L.K

    Thanks LK.

    A few days ago I read about a top-notch Italian division, the equal in training to Germany’s best forces. Germans respected them, so did Allies.

    I can’t find the article or name of the group.

    Do you happen to know the name of Italian Army’s best fighters?

  108. Sean says:

    It is not hard to infer what was really happening here: a non-meritocratic state, in which position was determined by ideology, party position, and a Fascist form of ‘political correctness’ was firmly in place, and those representing it were clearly abusing their power.

    Italy is not meritocratic, it never was and the amount of nepotism is a public scandal there. Italy was crushed by Ethiopians at the Battle of Adwa in 1896, did badly in WW1 and 2, and is notoriously politically unstable and divided. Giulio Andreotti, the ultimate insider of Italian politics, was actually convicted of murder. While he was still alive a popular film portrayed him as murderous godfather.

    It would be nice if you could blame fascism for these things because then all that would be necessary to make Italy a super efficient state would be to avoid fascism, but it was a flawed attempt to solve those long standing problems than an cause of them.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Zumbuddi
  109. Zumbuddi says:
    @Anon

    I’m not that interested in the social science or comparative political theory of the various manifestations of -isms. (Applying the epithet “fascism” to anything going on in USA is most likely as well informed as a mynah bird.)

    I’m interested in the Italian historical situation in era from Unification to occupation (and subversion) by USA, with particular attention to Mussolini – Gentile’s manifesto on Fascism .
    Interesting to note that Leo Strauss studied the Mussolini / Gentile document, and Zionist leader Jabotinsky was a great admirer of “The Lion.”

  110. @RadicalCenter

    You are correct. Let’s wait and see how legal weed goes there.

  111. Romanian says: • Website
    @Jon Halpenny

    Unfortunately, we were overrun, though I resent the implication that we did not fight heroically. The troops were poorly armed and armored, and even poorly clothed. It seems to be our default state, to neglect the Armed Forces and thereby increase our casualties. 160k dead and just 3k taken prisoners out of 90k for the entire Axis line-up in Stalingrad.

  112. @Anon

    neither you nor anyone else who have left negative comments on this thread about Italian military performance during 1915-18 or 1940-43 have any substantial knowledge on the matter.

    1) the Alpine War between the Austrians and Italians during WW1 was a unique hell, especially during the winter. Both sides, incompetently commanded, fought themselves into the bloody ground…much as ill-led Brits, French, and Germans did on the Western Front. The only time the Italians were pushed back was Caporetto, 1917, when the Germans came to the aid of their Austrian allies. In 1918 the Italians decisively routed the Austrians @ Vittorio Veneto.

    more than 1,000,000 Italian soldiers were KIA, 1915-18.

    2) while the first two (1940) Italian offensives of WW2, against Greece and in N. Africa, were indeed debacles…the problem was largely gross incompetence at the level of overall and Divisional command (Bergonzoli et al.) Mussolini then cleaned house and the performance of Italian ground troops for the rest of the war ranges from good to excellent:

    *Italian last stand in Ethiopia, April 1941,at the Keren mountain fortress. I have first-hand accounts on my bookshelf of Brit and Empire troops who fought the Italians @ Keren and later against German paratroops @Cassino in 1944. They all agree: the Italians were tougher.

    *North Africa, the “Crusader” Battle, November-December 11941. Italians excellent throughout: the Savona Infantry Division, holding the extreme easternmost extension of Rommel’s position, was cut off early but fought on until it was pulverized by overwhelming air and ground attack. At the southernmost extension of the battle, near Bir el Gobi, the British 22nd Armored Brigade and Italian Ariete armored division collided head to head: 22nd armored was substantially destroyed, while Ariete fought on with distinction throughout the battle. Empire forces eventually won this engagement, but only by attrition: Empire air and naval forces operating from Malta had cut the Axis north-south supply line during the August-November convoy battles. The fatal failure to seize Malta, both in 1941 and 1942, is entirely on Hitler’s plate, not the Italian.

    *North Africa, Battle of Gazala-Tobruk, June 1942. Italians excellent throughout. At one desperate moment early on, Italian combat engineers saved the entire Afrika Korps by, under heavy artillery fire and air attack, cutting a pathway through Rommel’s own minefields.

    *North Africa, El Alemein, Oct.-November 1942. All Italian units fought well, and one, the Folgore paratroop division, with absolute distinction. Anchoring the southermost extension of Rommel’s line, these lightly-armed paras held out for 2 weeks against wave after wave of Empire infantry, armored, and air attack. Eventually, with 90% KIA, a dazed and bloodied remnant were overrun and taken prisoner. Folgore is the only combat unit in the entire IInd World War to have been granted full Battle Honors – retention of weapons and colors – by the eventual victors.

    Air War: Regia Aeronautica produced a substantial number of aces, and overall shot down about as many allied aircraft as they lost. In the naval air war, Italian torpedo-bombers sank numerous allied warships and transports.

    Naval War: submarines included, the Italian Navy sank about the same tonnage as it lost. The Italian defeats @ Cape Matapan and the Tarigo convoy Battle occurred at night, because the Germans refused to share radar with their allies. The #2 ranking ASW vessel in the entire World War was the Italian destroyer Circe, with 4 quick kills of Brit subs. And would have had more…except after the 4th kill, Brit intel (via Ultra) kept track of Circe‘s location and systematically routed Brit subs as far away as possible.

    naval mine warfare: Italians second to none, continually laying, re-laying, and reshaping their own minefields. Scores of Brit submarines, destroyers, and cruisers lost on these deathtraps. Italian frogmen? Ask the crews of Brit battleships Valiant and Queen Elizabeth: “uh…they sunk us.”

    I could go on, but you get the point by now. This business about “Italian military incompetence/cowardice” was a card played by Brit propaganda during the war, in an effort to drive a wedge between the Germans and the Italians…and with some success. Unfortunately, the lie still endures in some quarters.

    • Agree: utu, Z-man
  113. @Zumbuddi

    Folgore (“Eagle”), a paratroop division. See my above reply to “Anon” and the other misguided ones in the thread.

  114. republic says:
    @Hail

    https://www.amren.com/features/2017/04/argentina-a-mirror-of-your-future-buenos-aires-latin-america/

    Gustavo Semeria, American Renaissance, April 14, 2017

    How demographic change can destroy a country.

    Argentina is a distant mirror that reflects what may be North America’s future. My country is a small-scale laboratory of the effects of migration: A suitable migration policy can transform a nation for the good; a wrong one spoils it.

    In 2004, the socialist government of Nestor Kirchner passed a new migration law, implementing what was known as the “Patria Grande” (Big Homeland) program. This included amnesty for all illegals, as well as a relaxation of income requirements for immigrants. It also guaranteed free access to public education at all levels, free medical care, family reunification, elimination of the obligation for public officials to report illegal immigrants, issuance of residence permits with only a sworn statement rather than proof of income, and voting rights in local elections. These measures were clearly meant to win votes from non-whites.

    In light of immigration over the last 80 years, my own calculation is that 18 million inhabitants—nearly 40 percent of the population—are not white. There are very few genetic studies, but the foremost one [2] comes close to confirming my estimate. The results probably inflate the figure for whites, with an estimate of 65 percent. The estimate for Mestizos or Amerindians is 31 percent, and for Africans, 4 percent. It is undeniable that Argentina has declined; I believe it is at least in part a consequence of the decline in the number of whites.

    In 30 years, a good migration policy transformed Argentina into one of the best places on earth. From 1880 to 1910, six million Europeans chose to come to my country rather than to the United States. Later, a bad migration policy—or the absence of any policy at all—drove the same country towards fragmentation and chaos. The decline accelerated between 1990 and 2017.

    • Replies: @Anon
  115. @Jon Halpenny

    At Kharkov earlier in the year the Romanians held a sector of the pocket successfully against Russian counterattack but the Russians were ill supplied and had few T34s. The Germans thought the Romanians could hold their sector of the Volga alone because of that.

  116. @Zumbuddi

    Probably Decima Flottiglia MAS. The original SEALS.

  117. @Guillaume Durocher

    I would like to see some good books comparing Italy’s social, economic, and cultural development before, during, and after Fascism.

    Also a comparison of the times before and after Italian unification. Someone told me that the ratio of wealth between Northern and Southern Italians has actually increased since unification, though I have not attempted to verify the claim.

    In any case Italian unification may have been a mistake, since it brought together people of very different cultures; and in their resentment at “foreign” rule, Sicilian families created Cosa Nostra.

  118. Jake says:
    @ia

    There is no such thing as an authentic Christianity that is not Hellenic. The New Testament was written in Greek because that was the language of ‘higher education’ and art and morality in the Hellenic world. Latin, a language that is more logic-demanding than Greek, is the one perfect language in which to transmit Greek ideas to the world.

    The Reformation, a culturally Germanic work, began the murder of historic Christianity as well as of Christendom, and it did so demanding that the Hellenic basis of Christianity be cast aside for Germanic languages and Germanic thought, Germanic cultural biases.

  119. Rich says:
    @Sean

    Using the Battle of Adwa to advance your thesis is like saying that Custer’s defeat at the Little Bighorn was proof of poor American fighters. The Italians were vastly outnumbered and made some serious miscalculations in the battle and the war, but in the end it was more a lack of political will than lack of martial spirit that caused the defeat. In WW1 the Italians faced the entire Austrian Army and 7 German divisions, not exactly a bunch of pansies. In WW2 the Italians were a mostly divided people and did not enter the war enthusiastically. Most of the jokes about the Italian Army’s reluctance to fight and eagerness to surrender was propaganda to give courage to those fighting them. I’m not trying to imply that the Italians were anywhere near the professionals that the Germans were, but they had some pretty tough units that fought with bravery.

    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Sean
  120. han9 says:

    I can not help but to comment on Italian fascist ‘theatrical politics’.
    While the Italian fascist were theatrical or perhaps even clownish the fact is that politics are at least in part ‘performing arts’ in virtually all systems.

    Soviet communists had their ‘red rituals’, there is plenty of theatre in western politics too with various primaries, debates, conventions etc. which are frequently scripted and choregraphed performances.

    Going back to the Italian fascists – if theirs was a circus with clowns then their Teutonic counterparts from across the Alps run a circus with a freak show: a madly screaming and maniacally gesticulating oddball, a monstrously fat drug addict with a taste for operetta style uniforms a ranting crippled dwarf.

    • Replies: @Anon
  121. @han9

    ‘When it comes to Italian military performance it is certainly a mixed bag…’

    I’m afraid you’re wrong. It wasn’t ‘a mixed bag.’ In particular, the Italian military performance in World War Two was so bad it was surreal.

    Of course examples could be cited ad infinitem but one all-too-typical example was the sinking of the cruiser Pola. When she was hit during the Battle of Cape Matapan the crew panicked and abandoned ship. In their lifeboats, they noticed she was still floating, so they reboarded her and started firing her up again. At this point, the British came along, lit up the Pola with their searchlights, and sank her in earnest.

    In general, the Italians had a few formations that achieved mediocrity in purely defensive roles: Ariete, Giovanni Fascisti, the parachute division, the Savoia Grenadiers at Keren. However, there were no offensive successes of any size at all, and more generally Italian units simply and promptly collapsed under any kind of serious attack. Sometimes I think Italy helped Britain stick it out through the dark, early years of the war. Could Britain’s morale have stood up absent all those regular, crushing victories against numerically far larger Italian forces?

    To make one comparison, look at what happened when Italy attacked Greece. Then look at how long Greece lasted once the Germans intervened. Overall, Italy’s performance in World War Two at least can only be described as catastrophic.

    • Troll: L.K
  122. After Operation Little Saturn, Italian soldiers were encircled by the Soviets and had to retreat almost 200km across frozen landscape. In order to break out, the Italian Alpine troops had to make a human wave attack against entrenched Soviet positions. They succeeded in their attack but overall casualties were enormous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nikolayevka

  123. Zumbuddi says:
    @Sean

    Andreoti, a convicted murderer in high office.
    How disgusting, but par for the course for those Italians.

    —–

    Vince Foster
    Ron Brown
    Paul Wellstone
    Seth Rich
    Chris Stevens
    Glen Doherty
    Tyrone Woods

  124. Heros says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Why didn’t Hitler work with Franco to kick England out of Gibraltar. That is one mistake I cannot understand, and it is often used by those who claim that Hitler was a masonic puppet.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @Rich
    , @Haxo Angmark
  125. Zumbuddi says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    “That Itsly remained relatively disorganized and corrupt says more about Italy than about fascism.”

    Pretty sweeping, not to mention racist, statement, Durocher.

    What expertise, what body of scholarship supports your assertion?

    In an Arktos podcast last summer you said you “speak a little Italian.” You also said you had ” not followed Italian politics very closely of late,” and that “parliamentary politics is notoriously complicated.”

    With the yellow box Ron Unz grants you greater status over us plebe commenters.

    What have you done to deserve it, and what makes your opinion on Italy anything more than the bigotry of a mediocre onlooker?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  126. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @han9

    Fancy that: on UF, a jackass can pretend to be a theater critic, without ever having seen the real show.

    • Replies: @han9
  127. FvS says:
    @Anon

    Right, because in a war in which Europe’s existence was at stake they should have let political libertarianism run rampant. Never mind that it was and is a vehicle for the very subversion that brought Europe to war in the ideological sphere, with the Red Army to the East as a result.

    Racial libertarianism not political libertarianism, specifically with regard to the allowance of Jewish subversives in one’s country. Incidentally, life under fascism sounds boring as hell, the equivalent of letting the Mormons take over where all that’s left for entertainment is watching the Hallmark channel and playing board games.

  128. han9 says:
    @Anon

    By your comment you mean sir? – for what you wrote can be interpreted in at least two opposite ways.

  129. han9 says:
    @Colin Wright

    I am afraid you have it wrong sir.

    I never implied that they were some sort of military supermen for they were not. Yet the common perception about the Italian military is a result of British WW II propaganda (earlier in WW I Austro-Hungarian propaganda which hold to this day despite A-H forces at the end collapsing under Ital attack).

    The example of cruiser ‘Pola’ does not show cowardliness. As you know – because you know of course since you invoke the example – the ship was immobilised early in the battle. Abandoning her in face of the approaching British fleet which included battleships was not cowardliness but avoiding suicide. In the end the Italians were sunk anyway together with two more cruisers but the whole Matapan disaster was not a result of cowardliness.

    The Greek campaign was indeed a military fiasco but then again, as I have already written, I did not claim the Italians were military superman. Having said this the Italians had their share of military exploits some of which were mentioned by other commentators above so you just need to make the effort of scrolling up a little and read this or that.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Catiline
  130. Z-man says:
    @Zumbuddi

    Good reply.
    If Italy/Italians were so disorganized how do you explain the fact that Italy is always counted as a top industrial power and that they helped build the USA, Argentina and other nations.

  131. Z-man says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    On top of that, against the Austrians in WWI they had to go up hill where the Austrians almost always had the high ground.

  132. Z-man says:
    @Rich

    Most of the jokes about the Italian Army’s reluctance to fight and eagerness to surrender was propaganda to give courage to those fighting them.

    Propagated by Churchill and his Jew handlers.

    • Replies: @Catiline
  133. DFH says:
    @Heros

    Franco wouldn’t declare war on Britain because Britain would then cut off food supplies to Spain from South America

    • Replies: @Heros
    , @Anon
  134. Rich says:
    @Heros

    Having only recently defeated the Reds in Spain, Franco knew he couldn’t risk entering the war. In negotiations, Hitler offered him Gibraltar, which Franco, being an intelligent man, respectfully turned down. If Mussolini had been as clever as Franco, he might have avoided entering the war and never been hung from that lamppost.

    • Replies: @Heros
    , @Anon
  135. Sean says:
    @Rich

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelledeen/2016/05/19/nobody-knows-anything-about-fascism/

    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/battle-of-omdurman-when-the-british-with-11000-soldiers-took-on-60000-natives-in-sudan-losing-47-killed.html

    At last, dawn came, and with it the showdown. … Mahdists fell in their thousands, blood soaking the ground. Most never even came within 300 yards of their enemies. By waiting for dawn, the Khalifa had left it too late. His attack was shattered.

    https://rastafari.tv/the-russians-who-fought-for-ethioipia-in-the-battle-of-adwa/

    It is true that each case one can see why Italy did badly, the British could have lost for all their Maxim guns if the enemy had put in a night attack: the Italian faced Russian crewed guns. However, when you look at the succession of sub optimal performances in relation to their resources you have to conclude that wars are not Italy’s strong suite. Italy did badly against a comparable county like Greece. Fascism worked for Greece. Micheal Ledeen is an expert and says Italian fascists claimed to be able to unleash the creative powers of a “new fascist man.”

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/constructing-greek-state-part-2/
    Metaxis blamed the failures of the past 100 years on Greeks pursuing narrowly defined self-interests at the expense of the nation as a whole. This pursuit of personal freedom impoverished Greek society and actually made everyone less free. His political philosophy is summarized by Sarandis (1994, pp. 151-152):

    The individual must merge with the whole, and his own will was to be submitted to that of the nation. No one would be absolutely free and no individual could exist outside the state. Everything constituted part of the state, through which alone the will of the Greek people would be expressed. And this collective national will transcended the present and was independent of the living components of the nation, since it represented the volition not only of this era but also of the people of previous generations through thousands of years of history. Furthermore, individuals would subordinate their interests and suppress their own appetites and selfishness before the national collective welfare; only thus could they be powerful and consequently free.

    The grain of truth is that Fascism is a response to country coming apart under the stress of liberal mobilisation against external threat and domestic discord . But liberalism is better, much better, at building up the a country’s wherewithal. .

    BOOK REVIEW – EUROPE: THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY BY SIMMS The primacy of foreign policy for a state’s survival or flourishing had a profound impact on most other political domains. Different constitutional systems developed and evolved to cope with international competition: Britain’s parliamentarism is one example, Prussia’s autocracy another one. Each system strived in its own way for flexibility and efficiency, especially with regard to financial politics, developed largely for the funding of war. The struggle for supremacy in Europe has always been a zero-sum game and the author shows how many local and far-away phenomena of the past half millennium (e.g. slavery in the Americas) can be explained through that lens. In the meantime, one stumbles upon some surprising details. The reviewers learnt that in eighteenth-century Russia ‘Westernisation’ and ‘Europe’ stood for more efficiently organised despotism (119), that London bankers financed Napoleon (159), or that the Weimar Republic was more centralised and thus potentially more powerful than both the Second Reich and todays’ Federal Republic

    Yes, Weimar’s tax raising powers were what took Hitler to the gates of Moscow. Andreotti took his country from a substantially rural one to the fifth largest economy in the world. Simms says much of history is about fear of Germany, which Trump is said to be obsessed with, Germany is parasitical on US taxpayers for defence, is concentrating on building up productive capacity. Italy (too big to fail) is currently using Germany’s position as backstop of the conspiracy to deindistrialise Europe for the benefit of German business known as the European single market. Germany is having its European system used against it, Germany cannot allow Italy to explicitly default on the loans made to it by greedy French bankers. Italian populists are attacking the French https://www.ft.com/content/ff3783f4-20a4-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

    Hence Macron, he is a bankers man and all about getting Germany to agree to mutulisation of the toxic loans made to Italy by France. If unthinking algorithmic competition to rise to the top is fascist, then I am afraid everything is, even the grains of sand on a beach.

  136. Z-man says:
    @han9

    Also if they had better and more equipment, say 100-200 top notch German tanks, 200 more modern fighters, 100 more modern bombers (all with the trained crews) and radar on their ships.

  137. Heros says:
    @DFH

    Franco could have given Hitler use of the port of Algiceras, right next door to Gibraltar, and stayed out of the fight. There was probably already a train straight through from Berlin to Algiceras, through Ronda. From their German canons could have shut the straight down in minutes.

    Spain is also an incredibly rich land with aquaducts dating from the Romans piping water all over the ag areas. Spain provides massive amounts of food to Europe today. I find it hard to believe that the Spaniards would have starved.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  138. Heros says:
    @Rich

    “Having only recently defeated the Reds in Spain, Franco knew he couldn’t risk entering the war. In negotiations, Hitler offered him Gibraltar, which Franco, being an intelligent man, respectfully turned down.”

    Many of those murdering reds ended up in southern France and were a thorn in both Franco’s and Hitler’s sides. After September ’39 they were being supplied directly by MI anyway. If anyone should have known about the British working with the Communists in Russia to foment revolution around the world, it should have been Franco.

    As to whether Europe is better off under Talmudic law now, than under Christian law if Hitler had won because of Frano’s support in taking Gibraltar, I have my own opinions.

  139. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Well , the english helped Franco to transport the spanish troops stationed in north Africa to the peninsula , and granted Franco full credit to get oil from Texaco during the civil war .

    Although a minoritary part of the the Franco supporters ( Falange ) officially sympatized with Germany , in private most of the supporters of Franco disliked the germans because of their arrogance ,racism and nazipaganism . You can not sympatize with people that thinks their are racially superior to you and worship Thor and Odin .

    • Replies: @Rich
  140. EugeneGur says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The effect of autumn in Russia which turned its unpaved roads into pools of mud.

    Which the Russians could just fly over, since they had wings. It’s the Russian magic, you know – our bad roads and bad weather only affected the Germans but the the Russians.

    The effect of winter in Russia (40 centigrade below zero !) for which the German troops had no appropriate clothing.

    And no one before the war had a foggiest idea that there is winter in Russia, so to prepare appropriate clothing was unthinkable for the highly competent Germans!

    Besides, this is a myth: the German offensive on Moscow in 1941 happened in summer and peaked in October-November when the temperature was relatively mild (5 below zero, not 40!) and the snow was shallow, whereas the Russian offensive in December-January that defeated the Germans was conducted at 40 degree below zero and 2-3 feet of snow.

    The same in Stalingrad in 1942: the German offensive was actually in summer and early fall (dry roads, perfect weather), and it failed nonetheless. Whereas the Russian offensive in November through February (cold winter!) succeeded.

    The Russians could muster extra troops from Siberia since they knew that Japan would not attack them.

    The Russians didn’t know that – at least, not at the time of the most desperate struggle in 1941-42 – and they kept a sizable army at the Far East the entire war.

    Hitler divided his forces into three parts (North : Leningrad, Center : Moscow, South : Stalingrad) all of which failed in their missions, while they might have succeeded if they fought united.

    Perhaps, but they would’ve been defeated at all the other directions and lost just the same. Or do you think Hitler would’ve defeated Russia even if he’d taken Moscow? Napoleon did, remember, and a lot of good it did him.

    Hitler refused help from the peoples of the Baltic states, Belo Rus and the Ukraine, all who of whom were hostile to Communist Russia.

    He did not: the German Nazis did use these scumbags to conduct executions, and that’s all they were good for. The Germans once threw the Ukrainian CC unit “Galitchina” against the Red Army out of desperation, and after that it was no more. Belorussia, as you might know, was the site of the most intense gorilla movement throughout the war, which cannot survive without the local support. The same goes for the Vlasov’s “Army”: the did fight, just not too well.

  141. Rich says:
    @Anon

    You may not know this, but the Spanish people believe they are superior to everyone else, too. As a matter of fact, so did the English for a long time, and the French and the Italians, and the Portuguese, and every other group on Earth. It’s only very recently that European groups have begun to disparage themselves. Franco didn’t officially join the war because he felt he was in somewhat of a weakened position because of his recent civil war. He did, however, send a a Division of volunteers to serve with the Germans on the Russian Front.

    • Replies: @Anon
  142. @Colin Wright

    I think the Italians made a worthy contribution to the battle Of Gazala. At one point Rommel was cut off behind enemy lines. Italians went forward and made a way through the minefields, thus rescuing him. Gazala was a massive Axis victory.

  143. @Heros

    The Dutch author Geert Mak, in his book, ‘In Europe’, states that 200,000 people starved to death in Spain in the 1940s.

    David Irving has also stated that Franco could not declare war on Britain because he knew the British would mount a blockade on Spain in retaliation.

  144. Hail says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The idea that Hitler’s attack on Russia was merely a preventive strike against an attempt of Stalin to conquer Europe for communism stems from the book Icebreaker by the Russian Viktor Suvorov

    It is wrong to say that the idea that Barbarossa was a preemptive action “stems” from Icebreaker (1990), unless you mean the very specific thesis of Icebreaker itself stems from Icebreaker, which is a tautology.

    It is 100% certain that versions of this idea (Barbarossa as preemptive strike) have a distinct tradition in the scholarship. Below is an excerpt of one of them from the 1970s.

    But in fact what might be thought of as blind-men-touching-parts-of-an-elephant versions of the Icebreaker thesis were already heard at Nuremberg in 1946. It’s tough to get through the long transcripts of those trials, but it’s all in there.

    People now forget that the Nuremberg defendants were primarily on trial for the crime of waging aggressive war, which at least in a legal sense certainly most of Hitler’s campaigns were. A lot was said about the decision to invade the USSR, with the German ex-regime defendants saying their intelligence reports had it that Stalin was preparing for war against Germany. One can dismiss this was a self-serving defense, but that they claimed it, is not in doubt.

    Here is David Irving, 1977, in Hitler’s War, at its time praised by the ‘mainstream media’ as among the most authoritative war accounts to date, in part because it so heavily used original sources (diaries, interviews, undiscovered archival documents, all in original German, in which Irving is fluent). Irving had prepared this book from about 1970 to 1976 (which is before, I would note, the Holocaust ‘industry’ had cranked into gear):

    Thus, Hitler regarded “Barbarossa” as that most controversial of campaigns–a preventive war.

    [….]

    Neither Hitler not his military advisers were any longer in doubt as to Stalin’s long-term intentions. [Chief of Army High Command] Halder was to state that if the Russian deployments were shown to an impartial military expert he would have to concede that they were offensive in design. Throughout March [1941], Russian troop movements close to the frontier had been so intense, with a heavy flow of reinforcements from Moscow toward Smolensk and Minsk, that eventually Halder felt anxiety about the threat of a Russian preventive action. […] Halder wrote on April 7 [1941], “If we discount the catchword that the Russians want peace and won’t attack anybody themselves, then it has to be admitted that the Russian dispositions could allow them to convert very rapidly from defense to attack–and this could prove highly embarrassing for us.”

    The Fuhrer himself was in no doubt. Stalin’s pact with Belgrade [of early April, 1941, following an anti-Axis coup d’etat in Belgrade], coupled with the [Soviet-Turkish] communique of March 24 [footnote] provided further justification for “Barbarossa.” At the end of it all he was to say, “I didn’t take the decision to attack Moscow lightly, but because I knew from certain information that an alliance was being prepared between Britain and Russia. The big question was, Should we strike out first or wait until we were overwhelmed some time in the future?” According to his army adjutant, Hitler’s decision was reinforced by Intelligence reports on feverish airfield and arms dump construction by the Russians throughout the spring [1941]; there were also reports from Polish agents of Russian troop movements from as far away as the Far East, and of the creation and deployment of new armies for what could only be offensive purposes.

    [Footnote to “the communique of March 24, [1941]”: Russia had reaffirmed her non-aggression pact with Turkey to encourage her to adopt a more aggressive role against Germany in the Balkans. The Soviet Union had steadily overcome her traditional distrust of Turkey. On February 18, the Forschungsamt had intercepted a description by the Turkish ambassador in Berlin of his conversation with the Russian ambassador, Vladimir Dekanozov, who had hinted that Turkey and the Soviet Union should exchange ideas on the Balkans. The Germans had then also intercepted the Turkish secret cables from Moscow, in which the ambassador there reported that on March 9 Molotov’s deputy Andrei Vyshinsky had first proposed such a communique, and explicitly stated that the Soviet Union would “understand” any operation Turkey was forced to launch against “the threat of an attack”; Turkey’s acceptance and reciprocation of this assurance on March 14 was also intercepted.]

    [From chapter entitled A Bitter Victory, 1977. The 1991 version of Hitler’s War is available at Unz.com in html format.]

    That is David Irving, 1977, publishing evidence for the preventive war thesis thirteen years before the more detailed and Soviet-source-heavy Icebreaker (1990). Given that Hitler’s War was a long project, Irving likely had the information that went behind this and other passages that seemingly endorse some version of Icebreaker as much as twenty years before Suvorov published.

    As for Viktor Suvorov himself, according to his Wiki entry he was serving as a Soviet intelligence agent in Geneva in 1977 upon the release of Hitler’s War, from which he would later defect to the UK.

    A late 2010s update: David Irving himself, now 80, appears to partially if not wholly endorse Icebreaker. It is work Irving himself never could have done.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  145. Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    If Mussolini had been as clever as Franco, he might have avoided entering the war and never been hung from that lamppost.

    Mussolini’s alliance with Hitler paid off huge dividends UNTIL Hitler decided to attack Russia.
    IF Hitler hadn’t invaded Russia, it would have been better for Franco to cut a deal with Hitler too.

    History is funny that way. Decision you make AT THE TIME is without foresight of what will happen later.

    • Replies: @Rich
  146. Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    Maybe the Roman Empire used up all the strong and courageous men of Italy. Too many died in battle, while the wusses who stayed behind had the kids with the women.

  147. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    The movement must be populist that folds the left and right together against the cosmopolitan middle that consists of the economic neoliberal right and the cultural left. The nationalism must be its glue and the enemy (there always must be an enemy) the financial international elite. Anyway you cut it it will be some sort of fascism.

    You seem to equate Facism with every kind of dictatorship and nationalism, but there are differences, as for example between Mussolini’s dictatorship, from which the term Fascism derives, and Hitler’s Nazism, and Trumpist nationalism.

    To Mussolini, the Italian people were creatures of the state, to be shaped and used to meet the dictator’s objectives, the latter justified in terms of national glorification. Fascism is thus consistent with imperialism and globalism and the subjugation of national identity to imperial goals.

    Conceptually, Nazism was different in that it treated the state as the agent of the nation, the latter viewed as a biological entity. Hence, Nazi imperialism was overtly genocidal, intent on expanding the German nation at the expense of other nations, while domestic policy aimed to promote the welfare and cultural life of the German people.

    Nationalism is not a necessary concomitant of dictatorship, as the electoral success of the MAGA movement has shown, and it cannot, therefore, be lumped with Fascism. Large numbers of Americans, voted freely to preserve the American nation from submergence by an unrestricted flood of immigrants of an alien race and culture. Such determination of public policy by the people is clearly not consistent with existence of a Fascist state.

    It is in the Democrat Party and corporate/Silicon Valley drive for open borders and globalization contrary to the will of the people, that one sees clearly the face of Fascism in America.

    • Replies: @Anon
  148. Rich says:
    @Anon

    Good point. Hitler and his Huns looked undefeatable at that point. Had the Brits stood up to the Germans earlier, things might have turned out differently. My understanding is that the Fascists were in negotiations with the Brits before Il Duce made his decisions, but the Brits weren’t offering the Italians anything concrete.

    With hindsight, we all agree that attacking the Soviets was probably a bad idea.

  149. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Halpenny ,

    a dutch knowitall can say that 200.000 people starved … bla bla bla , false , while a few thousand of dutch starved to death in WWII because of german blocade

    Englishman Irving can say that the earth is flat , the english helped Franco all the way ,

    see

    Well , the english helped Franco to transport the spanish troops stationed in north Africa to the peninsula , and granted Franco full credit to get oil from Texaco during the civil war .

    Although a minoritary part of the the Franco supporters ( Falange ) officially sympatized with Germany , in private most of the supporters of Franco disliked the germans because of their arrogance ,racism and nazipaganism . You can not sympatize with people that thinks their are racially superior to you and worship Thor and Odin .

  150. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    The Blue Division were voluncteers , or mercenaries , like the American Blackwater or Academy , they swore fidelity to the Fhurer , thus legally they lost the spanish nationality .

    After Stalingrad Franco told them to quit fighting with the germans , shut up , and keep a low profile

    • Replies: @Rich
  151. @Hail

    Well, I am in principle prepared to revise my opinion on this matter, though I would like to see more confirmation (and by preference not from the side of the Hitler sympathisers). Hitler may have been surprised by an attempted attack by Stalin, thus justifying a preemtive attack, but he was intent on invading Russia anyway to create Lebensraum for his Germanic people. He had stated that clearly years before Barbarossa in Mein Kampf. In his Table Talk too he repeatedly talked about colonizing Russia for Germans while keeping the local Slavic people in subjugation. Then there was his plan to completely destroy St. Petersburg, Moscow and Stalingrad, as if that was necessary for “self-defence”. Stalin may have been a rogue, Hitler wasn’t less so.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @jacques sheete
  152. Hail says: • Website
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    My impression is there were serious problems in the middle decades of the 20th century that were largely political in origin. Like all wrong turns and given a decent ‘base’, once the negative energies that caused them were let go, the problems would fade. This ‘moving on’ process I understand began in earnest by the 199os (subsequent bumps notwithstanding).

    According to the essay reposted by commenter Republic above, though, it was exactly during this period (1990s to present) that the Indian/Mestizo illegal immigration problem began in earnest.

    Due perhaps to Argentina’s immigration-nostalgia and lack of much a race problem / race consciousness for generations, they were unprepared to deal with it, and responded with handouts and reckless amnesties even right after the early 2000s financial crisis. It seems inevitable that this at least exacerbated Argentina’s ongoing problems.

    There has supposedly also been a noticeable degree of net White emigration from Argentina, a situation remarkably similar to California’s (CA population peaked around 1990): Whites leaving, more than enough Amerindians (and others) replacing them to keep population steady. A population flux below the surface.

    (Caveat: Argentina’s problems are a little reminiscent of the recent PIIGS problems in Europe; the two primary European countries of origin for Argentinian ancestral stock, Spain and Italy, are ofc encompassed by that acronym…)

  153. Epigon says:
    @Z-man

    Are you really going to counter my argument by citing “enterpreneurs” of modern Italy, which is a corrupt, Mafia infested mutt shithole, and by citing the disastrous field record of Italian Army in both World Wars?

    Really? Did you ever wonder whether the extremely low morale and combat performance might be connected to Southern “mentality” and “culture”? I mean, Italians were extremely willing to surrender, except a select few special and armored units.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  154. Epigon says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Isonzo front. Caporetto.
    Getting thrashed by smaller forces on the offense and defence.

    Vittorio Venetto battle is 24 hours before armistice and the multinational AH army had already began disintegrating along national lines.

    You have cherry picked the best, exceptional Italian WW2 units and now try to portray it as standard Italian performance.
    Greeks thrashed the Italians and captured 1/3 of Albania. Does it get any more humiliating? Kinda – 9 French in a pillbox vs 5000 Italians.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  155. Miro23 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler may have been surprised by an attempted attack by Stalin, thus justifying a preemtive attack, but he was intent on invading Russia anyway to create Lebensraum for his Germanic people. He had stated that clearly years before Barbarossa in Mein Kampf. In his Table Talk too he repeatedly talked about colonizing Russia for Germans while keeping the local Slavic people in subjugation. Then there was his plan to completely destroy St. Petersburg, Moscow and Stalingrad, as if that was necessary for “self-defence”. Stalin may have been a rogue, Hitler wasn’t less so.

    Agreed & these are some extracts from HTT with the conversation Nº.

    EASTERN EMPIRE – (25) “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.” (53) “To exploit the Ukraine properly – that new Indian Empire – I need only peace in the West.”

    SUBJECT PEOPLES – (20) “We’ll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans – this is essential – will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.” (11) “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.”

    MOSCOW & ST PETERSBURG – (617) “The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a fatal event in the history of Europe; and St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth’s surface. Moscow too. Then the Russians will retire to Siberia.”

    STALIN – (267) “Stalin too must command our unconditional respect. In his own way he is a hell of a fellow! He knows his models, Genghis Khan and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial planning is exceeded only by our own four Year Plan.” (300) “If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! …..They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed – and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works.”

    DEFEAT AT MOSCOW – (162) “Sunday will be the 1st March (1942). Boys, you can’t imagine what that means to me – how much the last three months have worn out my strength, tested my nervous resistance. I can tell you that during the first two weeks of December, we lost a thousand tanks and had two thousand locomotives out of operation.” …. “Now that January and February are past, our enemies can give up the hope of our suffering the fate of Napoleon.”

    WAR IN THE EAST – (300) “For us things are much more simple, for in most cases we have no choice. In the East if I don’t attack, the Russians will gain the initiative. We have constantly faced the danger of being annihilated.”

  156. Anonymous[786] • Disclaimer says:

    @Heros

    Apropos naratives and reasons of Spain avoiding WWII:

    In reality, Third Reich’s opposing deep stater and chief of Abwehr, Admiral Canaris tipped Franco that Hitler was not planning to occupy the Iberian Peninsula even if Spain failed to join their WWII effort; therefore allowing Generalísimo to deal properly with an offer he can refuse.

    It’s not easy to win wars when your own chief of military intelligence is working against you, and you don’t figure that out until 1944.

    Makes you wonder how much of The Allies victory was really based on flaws in the Enigma machine…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abwehr#Undermining_the_regime

  157. Z-man says:
    @Epigon

    R u from the north of Italy?
    Mutt shithole? LOL, where did you crawl out of, slug?
    With all that corruption it’s still a very rich country and desirable to live in, I guess it stole it all from your tribe and mud hole, lol.

    • Agree: Catiline
  158. Catiline says:
    @Z-man

    “The stories of Italian cowardice carried in the British press like all things else in wartime were designed for home consumption for civilians.” Ernle Bradford.

    • Agree: Z-man
  159. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @George F. Held

    So why was the German army led by merocratic qualified up from the ranks officers defeated far more badly that the Italians led by incompetent noblemen?

    And why was Germany led by those meritocratic qualified officers treated so badly by the conquerors when Italy was treated very well by the conquerors?

    FYI joining the Nazi party and sucking up to the nazis was as much a prerequisite to becoming a German military officer as it was necessary for Italian officers to join and suck up to the fascist party

    The German army was far more loaded with noble and Gentry officers that the Italian army. Mussolini the socialist was genuinely anti aristocrat and bourgeoisie. Hitler was brought to power by the big industrialists and many, but not all aristocratics, Gentry and haute bourgeoisie.

    The wonderful German military lost even more badly that the Italians you despise; half the country given to Russia, major cities destroyed mass rape approved by the conquering Russians POWs starved to death mass executions in the Nueremburg trials by the conquering Americans hundreds of billions extorted by Israel over the decades

    So what government and military did the best for its people? Italy or Germany

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  160. @Haxo Angmark

    Hi Haxo,

    you are absolutely correct. Anyone who seriously studies the historical record about the Italian performance looks beyond the propagandistic accounts penned down by the anglo saxons whose biased viewpoints and accounts have come to dominate too much of our history and views on world war 2 in particular.

    Unfortunately I have not seen anyone give the actual primary reason why the Italian forces performed mostly poorly (with regards to achieving strategical objectives, not to be confused with tactical performance of the men themselves).

    One of the few correct elements of this essay states that the Italians were not ready for war in 1940 and would not be until 1942. What the author, and nearly ever western historian who has written about this, fails to do is to consider in detail what this meant. They get stuck on the part ‘not ready in 1940’ and seem to completely ignore the part of ‘would be by 1942’. So what did they miss?

    They missed the part how the transition towards an army capable of going to war affected the Italian army (Navy and Air force much less so). In order to be able to fight effectively the army had to be reorganized from a force relying on large slow moving formations of leg infantry to force that would be able to move and act much quicker. On the one hand this required fast moving motorized formations supported by armor, it would also meant a slimming down (transformation would be more apt) of the leg infantry into more agile units which while still limited compared to motorized units, would be far more capable of reacting (on an operational and strategic level) to enemy actions than the old style leg formations were. Pools of motorized and armored support elements could be added as needed to strengthen these.

    Such a reorganization takes time. A lot of time. In 1940 they were in the middle of this. The Italians had figured they had enough time as the germans didn’t seem to be ready for war prior to 1942 either. So when they did go to war in 1940 they were caught with their pants down. Most of the divisional and higher level formations had already reorganized into an army structure suited for the new way of warfare. But they still lacked much of the equipment (especially trucks and other motor transport) to make effective use of this structure. Furthermore, there had been some radical changes in the structuring of the troops and as neither the soldiers themselves nor their commanders had had time to properly train for a new style of fighting, they reverted to the old ways. Worse, not only had the higher command echelons not have the time to adjust themselves to a different kind of warfare than they had always expected, they had failed to fully develop a proper doctrine which would make best use of the new concepts and new organization.

    So the Italian army was mostly organized for one kind of warfare in 1940, but lacked necessary equipment, training, doctrine and support echelons to actually conduct that kind of warfare. When they were forced to go into combat, they reverted to what they knew, the old tactics and doctrines, but for which their structure and organization was very poorly suited!
    It’s like forcing a US light infantry brigade to conduct maneuver warfare against an enemy heavy tank brigade in open terrain. Individual high quality will matter for little in such a scenario. The heavy brigade will win.

    What is most striking about the Italian performance in ww2 is that at levels below division, the Italians on average (up to the invasion of Sicily) performed at a similar level as most other nations, with both ups and downs in performance. As another commenter mentioned already, the troops that humiliated the Americans at Kasserine were mostly Italians. But at levels above division, with few exceptions (Messe perhaps?) they performed much worse.
    The reason for this is the extreme mismatch between what the army was organized for and what it was capable of performing materially.

    In order to really grasp this you have to study the Italian order of battles in great detail and contrast these with tables of organizations and equipment and be able to understand what this means in terms of actual military capabilities. It then becomes quite obvious that they were asked to perform impossible tasks, at strategic and operational level. At a tactical level, especially in defensive battles they often performed admirable.

    R.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  161. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Mussolini and Hitler both died. What’s the difference between suicide and running and being caught?

    Nothing. And at least Mussolini didn’t take down a major city with him the way Hitler took down Berlin with him.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  162. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    There are some French proverbs I really like and have led my life by. One is “ don’t listen to what he says, LOOK at what he does”

    Look at what both the German Hitler and his Nazi did and what Mussolini and his fascists did.

    Both brought their countries defeat.

    Defeat is defeat no matter how glorious some people think the defeated country was.

  163. Catiline says:
    @han9

    Figures like Visconti Prasca and Count Ciano convinced Mussolini that the Greeks would not put up much of a fight and that Greek morale would collapse quickly. So they sent in a small force of some 50,000 men to counter what they thought would be only 30,000 demoralized Greeks.

    The Italian ambassador in Athens tried to warn them that the Greeks were ready to put 350,000 to the front, but his warnings were ignored for whatever reasons. In effect, Mussolini was led astray by some very bad advice and assumptions.

    So it was obvious that a force of 50,000 troops when confronted by 350,000 Greeks were quickly going to be repulsed and withdrawal back to Albania. The Italians had to call in reinforcements and by January there was a stalemate.

    The Italians did not really need the Germans to defeat Greece. By early April, the Greek front was beginning to show cracks. The Italians were making small advances here and there.

    The Germans stole the show after the Italian army pinned down 80% of Greek forces. The Greeks had nothing left to stop the Germans and Bulgarians, and thanks for that goes to the Italians.

    Besides, the Greeks needed the British to come to their rescue. See it from that point of view.

    The Germans and Bulgarians hardly did any fighting. The real fighting, the real wearing down of the Greeks, came from an Italian invasion that was relentless and on-going.

    Even in January, when the Greeks could go no further, and there was stalemate, the Greek generals were very concerned and despondent that they were unable to defeat the Italians. Secretly, they knew the war was lost.

    Dr James Sadkovich, an expert on the Balkans, states: ” It is far from clear that the Germans ‘saved’ the Italians in Greece, since by April there was no threat of a collapse of the Italian fronts in either Albania or North Africa.

    There was simply no chance for the Greeks to defeat the Italians. The Greeks delivered blow after blow, but the Italians continued gradually growing stronger. In Swastika over the Acropolis Drs. Stockings and Hancock point out that the Greeks only had enough artillery shells for another month of fighting and they were short of manpower and resources. In a word, they were “at the end of their logistical tether,” while in contrast the Italians were building up their strength.

    “Although the Greek pressure on the Italian army was relentless, an atmosphere of gloom was said to prevail in Athens, where the war against the hated Italians was now felt to be lost. And this feeling of gloom started in January when the Greek advance was stopped.”– Dr Owen Pearson Albania in the 20th Century

    Why the gloom felt by the Greek generals? Because they knew that without outside help they did not have any chance of defeating the Italians.

  164. @Heros

    for the same reason that Hitler allowed the BEF to escape @ Dunkirk; refused to seize Malta despite the fact that Empire air/naval forces based there continually savaged Rommel’s trans-Med supply lines; refused to seize Cyprus (which, with Crete and Malta, would have turned the entire Mediterranean into an Axis lake), refused to give Rommel sufficient force to overrun Egypt, cross the canal, and seize the oilfields (in fact, Rommel’s standing orders were “restore the Italian colony in Libya only – DO NOT INVADE EGYPT); and refused Japan’s early 1942 offer to extend it’s upcoming Indian Ocean carrier strike to the point of seizing Madagascar…which would have cut the last remaining allied convoy route to the Middle East, collapsed the British Empire then and there, and drastically re-shaped the entire War to the Axis powers vast adavantage:

    Hitler, like most 20th century German leaders, was an Anglophile. He wanted to take down the Red Empire, not the British…he never wanted war with England in the first place and strove to avoid it. When it happened anyway, via England’s backstab over the German-Polish affray, he still attempted to take down the (((Reds))) w/o taking down the Brits first.

    an impossible task. And

    that’s the main reason Hitler Germany lost the World War.

    “freemasonry” has nothing to do with it.

  165. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    They’re also a nation of drunks dependent on one of the biggest social welfare systems in the world, They can’t be fired for any reason including absenteeism and being drunk
    All day long.

    One thing that really struck me about Germany. One never sees boys out and about on their own. They’re always with their mommies till they’re 17 or so.
    German mommies pride themselves on never letting their sissy momma’s boys do any housework, not even making their own beds.

    And what’s up with the weirdo custom of 12&13 yr old boys using the women’s locker room at the public swimming pools with their mommies?

    Never saw that in public swimming pool locker rooms in Italy.

    • Replies: @Catiline
  166. IL Duce as he was known use to be a card carrying member of IL Partito Socialista Italiano PSI Italian socialist party
    He was also funded by French and British secret services in establishing his fascist newspaper where he presented an editorial where for the first time in western modern industrial age the term LO STATO CORPORATO, the corporate state was introduced . Basically the fusing of corporation and government.
    Reflect for a moment, since Thactherism and Reaganomics neo-liberal economic theory became a practised reality. Hence for circa 40 years the words work place reform and economic reform were imperative absolutes in order for liberal western society to survive and thrive.
    Well the largest wealth gap since the Gilded age and bracket creep fascism is alive and well in all aspects of western so called civilisation.
    Any one who thinks that we are not living in fascism I would ask anyone to read Mussolini’s article where he states lo stato corporato is the only way ahead. Welcome to Mussolini’s dream and Orwells nitemare. Fascism and the Orwellian dystopia is all around us and it is growing.
    POST SCRIPTUM: The Emperor has no clothes will the Gillet Jaune Yellow Vest movement is what is needed and hopefully it will not be highjacked by the fascist jackals which in the post modern age are corporatist the modern brown shirts of the fascist.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  167. get an Italian writing about Italian history please….this piece is embarassing

    • Replies: @Asagirian
  168. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfred

    Wasn’t it easier and cheaper for Italy to buy French and German coal shipped by railroad than British coal shipped by boat unloaded and put on trains?

    We’re I some 1860s Milanese or Turinese factory owner or owner of a home heating coal company I’d go for French coal as being closest and thus far cheaper to transport than British coal delivered by ship then train.

    Being s high volume cargo, the cost of shipping and delivering coal is enormous. Why do you think steel
    mills and factories were always built close to the coal supply?

    Maybe Italian industry use English instead of continental coal. I don’t know. But if Italian industry used British coal it wasn’t a good decision

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  169. Catiline says:
    @Anon

    There is altogether too much anti-Germanism (along with anti-Italianism) on this thread. This only benefits dirtbags like Liddell.

  170. Z-man says:
    @Another anon

    Good post.
    Again if (and if is the biggest word in the world) the Italians had a couple of hundred modern medium tanks and a few more hundred top flight military aircraft and trucks and most importantly FUEL then they might have had a better showing for themselves but they still would have lost to the Anglo Zionist beast anyway. (Grin)
    They cut their losses and surrendered even if somewhat ignominiously.

    • Replies: @Another Anon
  171. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Epigon

    The King of Piedmont wanted to rule all of Italy. He conquered the rest of Italy and achieved his goal.

  172. @Epigon

    “Isonzo Front; Caporetto…getting thrashed by smaller forces on offense and defense”

    the 1915-16 Isonzo (and other) battles featured Austrian forces holding generally uphill positions in difficult Alpine terrain in often ferocious winter weather; the Italians, generally on the attack, took fearful casualties…as did the Austrians. Both sides thrashed each other to the point of exhaustion with little movement in the Front itself…identical to the Western Front, 1914-18.

    Caporetto, 1917: Germans, Germans, Germans. Fresh German troops sent in to stiffen the Austrians led that attack against a now-exhausted, ill-led Italian Army. The godawful Cadorna was then sacked, an excellent new C-in-C appointed (Garcia), who rebuilt and reinvigorated the Army.

    Vittoria Venetto: during 1918 the Italians went back on the offensive and drove the now-German’less Austrians northward. Vittorio Venetto was the culmination of that months’-long offensive.

    “Greeks thrashed the Italians…”. Yes, this was one of the 1940 debacles, and I stated so.

    I “cherry picked the best…”. So what; this is a thread, not a 500 page book. And I left a lot of Italian cherries unpicked. I could also have mentioned the torpedo-riding Italian frogmen who took out the Brit cruiser York during the June, 1941, Battle of Crete; or the daylight Malta-based air attacks on the Italian convoys…during which a typical RAF squadron did, indeed, sink 24 Italian transports…while losing 27 of 29 aircrews to Italian AA gunners; or the September, 1942, large-scale attempt by Brit 8th Army to land on the Egyptian coast behind Axis lines…which was bloodily repulsed by the Italians; etc. etc. @

    http://conspiracyandchaos.net

    currently inactive, I’ll eventually deal with the entire issue. Basically, Mussolini’s State and military structures were indeed rotten from the top down. But the closer you get to the field units, the better the performance. Which, by 1942, on land, sea, and air, was generally good throughout and often excellent.

    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Colin Wright
  173. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @onebornfree

    The Nazi German costumes and erotica have always been very popular with both men and women homosexuals and S&M perverts.

  174. Z-man says:
    @Anon

    That reminds me that Hitler threatened Mussolini after he was rescued by Skorzeny and Mors at the Gran Sasso. He told Mussolini that he would level an Italian city every week that Benito didn’t play ball with him. So Mussolini went to Salo and became the titular head of a rump, occupied Italy.

    • Replies: @Anon
  175. Z-man says:
    @falcemartello

    POST SCRIPTUM: The Emperor has no clothes will the Gillet Jaune Yellow Vest movement is what is needed and hopefully it will not be highjacked by the fascist jackals which in the post modern age are corporatist the modern brown shirts of the fascist.

    Yes, just like the Tea Party was hijacked by the NEOCON/Zionist scum and corporate elite.

  176. Catiline says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    “Greeks thrashed the Italians…”. Yes, this was one of the 1940 debacles, and I stated so.

    Nope. See above.

  177. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @republic

    Great post. Good for you. Same things happened to America. Kirchner is German ethnicity no?

  178. Asagirian says:
    @giovanni zibordi

    get an Italian writing about Italian history please….this piece is embarassing

    Italians as history writers are more embarrassing than as soldiers.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  179. @Colin Wright

    Cape Matapan (March, 1941), was one of several night battles in which Italian naval units w/o the advantage of radar (and code-breaks) were chopped up by Brit naval units with radar and de-crypts. Give the Italians radar and equivalent information, perhaps a different outcome. Which is in any case no worse than the Japanese wipe-out of allied cruisers @ Guadalcanal during the night of 8-9 August, 1942. And the Japs had at that point no radar at all, while the allied cruisers (and destroyers) did.

    basically, Colin, you’re a 3rd-rate imitation of a 2nd-rate Court Historian

    who cranks out propaganda issued by the nominal victors.

    clearly, though, you’ve got sufficient brainpower

    to become a 2nd-rate imitation of a 1st-rate Court Historian, so

    keep on striving. Meanwhile, here’s a more realistic visual appreciation of Folgore’s stand @ El Alemein:

    Italian “Eagle” Division paratroops @ Battle of El Alemein, October-November, 1942

    • Agree: Catiline
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  180. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Don’t forget the entire food, hospitality and medical industries bent on banning Whites from every job from fruit picker to cook to dishwasher to Doctor of Medicine.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  181. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Z-man

    I didn’t know that. My WW 2 focus isn’t on refighting it but in the reaults; half of Europe and China conquered by the communists and commie supremacism in America

  182. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon

    Don’t forget the entire food, hospitality and medical industries bent on banning Whites from every job from fruit picker to cook to dishwasher to Doctor of Medicine.

    If that is the true, it is, surely, because at least in the case of fruit pickers, cooks and dishwashers, white people are presumptuous enough to suppose that they must be paid at least the legal minimum wage, and cannot be expected to work under conditions that fail to meet minimal workplace health and safety standards, a misapprehension from which illegal immigrants presumably do not suffer.

    Or are you suggesting that white Americans are subject to racist discrimination by employers, and if so, why?

    As for alleged discrimination in the case of Doctors of Medicine, what could be the reason for that? And who is making these discriminatory judgments?

    • Replies: @Anon
  183. Rich says:
    @Anon

    In a way, but without Franco’s approval they would not have been allowed to fight for the Germans. Spain was a Fascist state, controlled from the top down, there is no way close to 50,000 Spaniards could have fought with the Nazis without their government’s assistance and blessing.

    Blackwater is an interesting comparison, different, but probably just as professional, although I’m pretty sure Mr Prince’s boys wouldn’t have been able to go anywhere without approval of the US government, either.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  184. @Haxo Angmark

    ‘…basically, Colin, you’re a 3rd-rate imitation of a 2nd-rate Court Historian

    who cranks out propaganda issued by the nominal victors…’

    More to the point, in the Second World War at least, Germany was like a Wagner opera.

    Italy was like a Three Stooges short.

  185. @Asagirian

    ‘get an Italian writing about Italian history please….this piece is embarassing

    Italians as history writers are more embarrassing than as soldiers.’

    That seems improbable. It would certainly be hard.

    Italy in modern times has been seriously bad.

    It’s a little-known fact that she participated in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. While Prussia was whipping Austria, Austria was whipping her.

    She attempted to annex Ethiopia in 1894. The Ethiopians annihilated her army. Being Christians, they did not execute their Italian prisoners, but castrated them.

    Her invasion of Libya in 1912 turned into a fiasco, with the beaten Italians beseiged in Tripoli.

    In World War One, Austria found herself being consistently beaten by Russia, and even Serbia. However, she was able to handily — and repeatedly — beat Italy. When Germany took a hand in 1917, a young Captain Rommel made a name for himself, advancing with 48 miles with his company in thirty six hours while taking nine thousand prisoners.

    In the Spanish Civil War, Italy took a hand, but — again — was routed, this time by the distinctly rag-tag Republican militia. Her Nationalist allies derisively serenaded her ‘Spain is not Abyssinia/Spaniards have guts/Even Red ones.’

    Then we get to World War Two…but do we really want to rehash that? Suffice it to note that following powers all got to humiliate Italy: France, Greece, Britain, all of the other Commonwealth states, Russia, the United States, the Yugoslav Partisans, and Germany (when Italy tried to change sides). It seems unfair that the Romanians and Finns weren’t given a turn.

  186. @Haxo Angmark

    ‘…But the closer you get to the field units, the better the performance. Which, by 1942, on land, sea, and air, was generally good throughout and often excellent.’

    Lol. What can you say? In 1942, at El Alamein, things degenerated to the point where when the British attacked, one Italian division simply laid down its arms. The British didn’t even bother to round up the Italians or collect their weapons, but simply went over them. Then, when the Germans counter-attacked and drove the British back, they made the Italians — still in their positions — pick up their guns again.

    During the successive collapses of the winter of 1942, the Germans tended to be quite sympathetic towards the Romanians, granting that they’d done the best they could, given what they had. On the other hand, they were extremely bitter concerning the Italians who simply panicked and fled, abandoning vast stocks of arms and ammunition, and worse, seizing transport from field hospitals, leaving the wounded to the tender mercies of the advancing Russians.

    But there. As you say, this may well have been Italian arms at their best.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  187. National military performance varies over time. Until the War of 1870, German troops — Prussia excepted — were generally regarded as mediocre. In the American Civil War, they were even regarded with open contempt.

    In 1941, Soviet Russia was widely expected to fall quickly. Everyone — not just the Germans — expected it to be over quickly. That appraisal, of course, owed much to Russia’s performance in World War One, and even more to her performance in the Winter War with Finland. If Germany had whipped the vaunted French army in six weeks, how long could the Russians hold out?

    China’s armies were a joke throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, and proved incapable of stopping any determined Japanese advance in the Second World War.

    They did better in Korea.

    The point is that I am not arguing for some inherent national failing. Societies — and military cultures — are not static. What makes a man willing to fight, and able to fight, for his country is a complex equation, and the variables change.

    However, it is absurd to argue that Italian soldiers in the modern era have been anything other than what they were; the worst troops fielded by any significant European state. Whatever explanations one wishes to advance for that fact, it remains a fact. Abusing one’s interlocutor won’t change it.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Jon Halpenny
  188. Z-man says:
    @Colin Wright

    LOL, you must’ve been beaten up by an Italian when you were young, or had your girlfriend stolen by one, rofl!

  189. @Rich

    ‘In a way, but without Franco’s approval they would not have been allowed to fight for the Germans. Spain was a Fascist state, controlled from the top down, there is no way close to 50,000 Spaniards could have fought with the Nazis without their government’s assistance and blessing.’

    That’d be about half right. Certainly the Spanish government authorized the formation of the Spanish division that fought in Russia.

    However, Spain was hardly ‘controlled from the top down,’ nor was it especially fascist. Rather, Franco was perpetually balancing the various factions — among them the Fascists — who competed for power and influence: the Church, big business, the army, the fascists, the Carlists…

    He was also balancing Spain’s attitude towards the war, tilting towards Germany when she appeared to be winning, then managing to pull back in time when the outcome began to appear less certain. Part of that balancing act was not actually entering the war — but permitting a division of volunteers to be formed in 1941, when Germany was at the apex of her success.

    An excellent book on this is Payne’s Franco and Hitler. Not only is it incisive, but in its preface, it has one of the best short summaries of the Spanish Civil War I’ve ever read. Payne has irritated me subsequently, but I still recommend this book without hesitation.

    • Replies: @Heros
  190. One interesting thing about Italy’s participation in World War Two is that until she actually did so, her military prowess was considerably overestimated.

    The British, for one, were sure the Italians would be able to dominate the Mediterranean with their large, modern fleet — far larger than what Britain could spare for the theater — and were skeptical of their ability to hold Egypt against an Italian onslaught. After all, in the 1940, the British didn’t even have one full division there.

    In the interval after it became clear France was going to fall but before the B.E.F. was rescued at Dunkirk, Churchill even tried to buy Italy off. I know he offered her Malta, and I’m fairly sure other concessions were proposed. Gibraltar? A land corridor to Italian East Africa?

    However, Mussolini wanted the glory of triumph on the battlefield. He declared war on June 5th or so. The point is that Italy could have done rather well out of World War Two if she’d just let herself be bribed.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  191. @Colin Wright

    Going somewhat against type, the Italian military performed creditably against the British in East Africa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_II)

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  192. Hail says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    the worst troops fielded by any significant European state

    Military historians have done detailed, data-based calculations on soldier effectiveness.

    I believe it has been calculated that 100 German soldiers of this period were, holding all things equal, worth 150 American and British soldiers. This means if the Germans had 10,000 men at a given “all else equal” engagement, the British/Americans had to have over 15,000 or they’d be expected to lose most of the time.

    I don’t know if they ever did a calculation for the Italian soldier of the 1940s, but I would expect the ratio to be pretty unfavorable.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  193. @Colin Wright

    In other words, they just shouldda wet their beak.

    Ayyyy!!!

  194. @SteveRogers42

    ‘…Going somewhat against type, the Italian military performed creditably against the British in East Africa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_II)

    Not really. This would be one of those instances where Wikipedia wouldn’t be an adequate source.

    Playfair’s volumes on the war in the Middle East are very readable and perfectly fair; I’d suggest reading those.

  195. Zumbuddi says:
    @Anon

    To understand, first, you have to flip the narrative: the wars happened because, as Corbett reports re WWI, a group in Britain , including wealthy Jews, was intent on destroying competition from Germany.

    According to historian Thomas Fleming, FDR shared that determination which became his impetus for WWII, Again, Jews were a key part of the group that sought war and to destroy Germany — Rabbi David Bar-Hayim is brutally frank: in war, Jews destroy the best gentiles. Germany was the best. If Germany had been led by Betty Boop, she would still have been laid waste.

    Italy was second best: no other people -save for the Greeks, perhaps–has given more to create Western Civilization than the Italians. In addition, zionists nurse a seething hatred for and envy of Rome . Italy, the “second best” gentiles, was ravaged up its entire length; nearly 400,000 Italian civilians were killed. Rome was not destroyed but she was captured by the Jew Mark Clark, and made the harlot of the zionists who were pulling the strings in FDR’s admin. If Italy had been led by the most powerful army of all time, still she would have been destroyed, because Italy represented the Best of Gentile civilization, and Jews must destroy the best Gentiles.

    Both Germany and Italy were only newly unified. German unification was more successful because its component parts had greater cultural affinities. Not only Germany’s built environment but even its psychological landscape was reduced to dust and ashes.

    Italy had been occupied by so many internally competing groups that unification was always a challenge, Mussolini Fascism was a grand bid to finally unify the Italian people. FOR and Zionists determined to prevent that at all costs. The Italian people were — and continue to be treated as playthings, “clowns.” The people who gave the world music, art, architecture, literature, orderly government treated as buffoons by history’s. habiru — nomads.

    • Replies: @Heros
    , @Z-man
  196. @Hail

    ‘…I don’t know if they ever did a calculation for the Italian soldier of the 1940s, but I would expect the ratio to be pretty unfavorable.’

    The difficulty would be finding instances where the Italians didn’t lose. The British victories in North Africa in 1940-41, the Russian rout of the Italian Eighth Army in 1942-43, and the German disarming of the Italian armies in 1943 all furnish examples of Italian numbers that were insufficient; but how many would have proved sufficient?

    Not much data. We have a few temporarily successful defenses by divisional-size units, but nothing approaching a reasonable sample and almost nothing at all for non-elite units. As a rule, Italian attacks failed if faced with anything like serious resistance, and as a rule, Italian units attempting to defend a position promptly fled or surrendered if attacked in earnest.

  197. @Colin Wright

    I notice you make no mention of the battle of Gazala.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  198. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Our federal government and the medical industry who wants non White cheap labor from hospital janitors to physicians

  199. @Z-man

    Even if they had those tanks and trucks (and doctrine!), they would still have lost if the war had turned out to be an ‘unconditional surrender’ and ‘fight to the end’ kind of war just as it did historically. If the Axis nations had achieved better results in the first few years of the war, a conditional peace on conditions very beneficial to the Axis nations (including Italy) might have been possible. Don’t forget that this was how most european wars, including the first world war, up until then ended.

    With regards to the restructuring of the Italian army, they tried to ‘leapfrog’ ahead to a new kind of army running the risk that while they were reorganizing their army was in considerable disarray. An image that comes to mind is that of german soldiers in the 1920’s drilling with portable cardboard tanks. They lacked the actual tanks but they were structuring and training for mobile warfare. That is in my view an apt illustration for the Italian army of 1940, nowhere near ready for what they were supposed to do.

    On paper the form the army was supposed to take is quite interesting. Had they been able to complete it (that of the non motorized infantry formations in particular) I think you’d have been surprised by their performance. We’ll never know. The Italians during the 2nd ww and the years leading up to it are a treasure trove of missed opportunities, bad timing and poor planning with regards to their military.

    The Regia Aeronautica of the early 1930’s was the 2nd largest air force in the world and most modern of them all. And by the late 1930’s all off those aircraft were obsolete or at best outdated. Few saw action in world war 2. Mussolini had invested heavily into creating a dominant air force (France was seen as the great adversary Italy needed to at least match). Since it was a mostly new organization it also allowed him to turn it into a thoroughly fascist arm (the army and navy were predominantly royalist, not fascist). So they made it big.

    But a big air force needs a lot of money for operating costs. In the mid to late 1930’s nearly the entire air force budget went to maintaining a force that was getting more and more outdated and less and less operational. There was very little money left for developing new designs and build/purchase these. Right at the time when aircraft design was going into a whole new phase internationally. In many ways, 1940 was just about the worst possible year for the Italians to go to war.

    R.

  200. Heros says:
    @Zumbuddi

    “To understand, first, you have to flip the narrative: the wars happened because, as Corbett reports re WWI, a group in Britain , including wealthy Jews, was intent on destroying competition from Germany.”

    Exactly. It seems like all the self important intellectuals here cannot divorce themselves from the standard pregurgitated narratives. Corbett lays it out in his WWI series. There was a conspiracy between the Zionists and the Judeo-freemasons. Haxo Langmark, one of these freemason deniers writes above:

    for the same reason that Hitler allowed the BEF to escape @ Dunkirk; refused to seize Malta despite the fact that Empire air/naval forces based there continually savaged Rommel’s trans-Med supply lines; refused to seize Cyprus (which, with Crete and Malta, would have turned the entire Mediterranean into an Axis lake), refused to give Rommel sufficient force to overrun Egypt, cross the canal, and seize the oilfields (in fact, Rommel’s standing orders were “restore the Italian colony in Libya only – DO NOT INVADE EGYPT); and refused Japan’s early 1942 offer to extend it’s upcoming Indian Ocean carrier strike to the point of seizing Madagascar…which would have cut the last remaining allied convoy route to the Middle East, collapsed the British Empire then and there, and drastically re-shaped the entire War to the Axis powers vast adavantage:

    He then goes on to blame it all on “anglo-saxons”:

    Hitler, like most 20th century German leaders, was an Anglophile. He wanted to take down the Red Empire, not the British…he never wanted war with England in the first place and strove to avoid it. When it happened anyway, via England’s backstab over the German-Polish affray, he still attempted to take down the (((Reds))) w/o taking down the Brits first.

    It keeps slapping him across the face, yet he has to deny it, as if like G.H.W. Bush: “Read My Lips: NO SECRET SOCIETIES”.

    James Corbett’s excellent series on the real causes of WWI, secret societies:

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

  201. Z-man says:
    @Zumbuddi

    To understand, first, you have to flip the narrative: the wars happened because, as Corbett reports re WWI, a group in Britain , including wealthy Jews, was intent on destroying competition from Germany.
    According to historian Thomas Fleming, FDR shared that determination which became his impetus for WWII, Again, Jews were a key part of the group that sought war and to destroy Germany — Rabbi David Bar-Hayim is brutally frank: in war, Jews destroy the best gentiles.

    Funny how things have flipped. Now the Brexit crowd is protecting Western Christian values and the neutered German dominated EU empire is trying to destroy it with alcoholic degenerates like Junker in charge of unelected Godless bureaucracies. Hopefully the Germans will come to their senses and screw them also.
    Trump must be conflicted here, he instinctively wants to help Christian Russia and an independent nominally Christian Germany but has all those sons of Satan backing him, including some in his own family.

  202. Heros says:
    @Colin Wright

    Could it be that Franco knew from some other source, like the Jesuits or the Catholic Church, the freemasons, or even the zionists themselves, that Hitler and Mussolini and Germany and Italy were being set up for a big genocide? Could it be that Franco knew that Hitler also knew that the whole thing was a set up to crush the German people and set up the judeo-masonic new world utopia?

    I don’t care if you believe that the jews and/or the freemasons had nothing to do with what really happened in WWI or WWII, but please don’t expect us to believe that all these freemasons had nothing to do with British genocides the same way jews expect us to believe that all those communist jews had nothing to do with the brutality of the Bolsheviks and their genocide of the slavs.

    Watch the Corbett series on the real origins of WWI and get back to us if you don’t believe what he is telling us.

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

  203. Heros says:

    You have to cut the Germans a little slack here. They were set up to have to attack to defend themselves, starved, genocided, then blamed for their own genocide. Twice. Twice taken over by jews afterwards, twice forced to hate themselves and their people, twice forced to accept heeb filth and talmudic law, in the same way a goose is force fed to create Pate.

    • Agree: Z-man, Zumbuddi
  204. anonymous[283] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s amusing to see all these Americans on here sneering at Italian military ability and impugning their courage when it’s the Americans who have the most abysmal record of all. Dropping massive amounts of bombs on third worlders is the American way of “war”. Vietnamese peasants drubbed the Americans and made them flee in their helicopters. In both world wars the Americans moved in at the last moment to attack the depleted and exhausted Germans who nevertheless gave them more than they could handle. Even the most primitive of combatants, the lightly armed Afghans, have not caved in before the massive firepower of the US military. The historical record ranks American soldiers below that of the Italians. Just a bunch of materially rich bomb tossers. Americans have watched too many war movies and believe themselves to be a nation of Rambos when in reality they only attack the weak and vulnerable.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Rich
  205. @Jon Halpenny

    ‘I notice you make no mention of the battle of Gazala.’

    Ah yes. Ariete managed to perform competently in a defensive role for a few hours there, didn’t she?

    A real stand out — relatively. Nevertheless, one does have to beware of ridiculously slanted Wikipedia pieces, which, coupled with a general reluctance to be openly rude in print, gives rise to a misleading impression of general Italian military competence. The overall reality was pretty awful, to be frank. As the contemporary joke went, ‘what’s the best way to visit Italy?’

    ‘Join the Greek army.’

    Actually though, if one cares to move past the futile attempts to deny general Italian military incapacity to a reality-based discussion, units such as Ariete are interesting. They suggest the power of the culture that any collective organization generates. A division such as Ariete outfitted with about the same weapons as any other Italian division, and presumably filled out with about the same Italians, consistently outperformed the average.

    One could expand the discussion to schools, police forces, etc — all kinds of collective bodies, all of which often perform at very different levels, even when given the same resources and operating in the same environment. However, just to confine the conversation to military units, the same variability appeared among US divisions in World War Two. The Marines in the Pacific noticed it. Some US Army divisions were units they were happy to fight alongside of; others were absolute shit.

    But, guys, the modern Italian state has fielded some of the worst armies of all time. There’s no question of that. They’ve been the worst in Europe for over a hundred years now.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @Jon Halpenny
  206. @anonymous

    ‘…It’s amusing to see all these Americans on here sneering at Italian military ability and impugning their courage when it’s the Americans who have the most abysmal record of all…’

    Oh that’s ridiculous. We’d rather make the other poor bastard die for his country, that’s true, but if anything, we’ve usually done rather well, considering our inexperience. Our pattern is to outproduce everyone, and ultimately drown all sides in a tidal wave of high explosive and cans of pork and beans. Nothing wrong with that, unless a hero’s grave is your goal.

    It’s really worked pretty good, overall. We just have to avoid wars that are by definition unwinnable.

  207. Heros says:

    The despicable Yankee war record goes a lot further back than the wars of European Genocide. Already 100 years earlier the Yankees were raping and murdering their way across the Indian nations and the entire south. Lets not forget the Phillipines either.

    The fact is that the US army, whenever it is confronted by an equally provisioned and equipped opponent, crumbles like a house of cards. It has been a farce and a lie ever since Jackson, possibly from the beginning. None of its most vaunted generals has ever had to face the kind of existential crisis that the German military leadership faced over and over for 100 years, and usually won when they were betrayed.

    Far and away, the greatest US general was Robert E. Lee, and he fought against the cesspool republic.

  208. ‘…Americans have watched too many war movies and believe themselves to be a nation of Rambos when in reality they only attack the weak and vulnerable…’

    Be fair. Things have changed, but until recently, compared to us everyone was weak and vulnerable. What would you have had us do? I suppose we could have declared war on both sides in World War Two or something, that might have been a fair fight.

  209. Rich says:
    @anonymous

    To me, it looks like the split was about 50-50 on the Italian military’s performance in the late 19th through the 20th century. That being said, how does it feel to live in an American world, when, if what you say is true, our soldiers are so inferior? We run the world yet all we are is a bunch of “bomb throwers”? Ridiculous.
    The US defeated the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies, then withdrew from the country. The US military won every major battle, signed a treaty with the Reds in the North and withdrew. Had the US honored its treaty obligations to the South, they would never have been defeated, but a leftist coup had managed to remove the American president, Nixon, and the leftists running the US government were actually allies of the Reds, having supported them throughout the War.
    The Taliban were removed from power and now exist as guerrillas fighting in the bush. Unless the US were willing to kill everyone, there will always be opposition fighting a guerrilla war. That’s the nature of warfare in the modern world.
    Don’t you think the Germans would rather have their soldiers ranking below the Americans and coming out victorious? Germany remains an occupied, client state of the US to this day. I guess waiting to attack the “depleted and exhausted Germans” was a good strategy, right? Winning is what matters, and by every measurement, the US won.

  210. ‘It’s amusing to see all these Americans on here sneering at Italian military ability and impugning their courage when it’s the Americans who have the most abysmal record of all. ‘

    Mm. Perhaps you should read an account of Belleau Wood, or acquaint yourself with the performance of Torpedo Eight at Midway.

    Americans, having traditionally had a small and ill-funded army (seventeenth in the world in 1940, behind Portugal), inevitably enter wars unprepared, with neophyte soldiers led by equally inexperienced officers.

    That leads to fiascos. But we learn — and of course we produce so much that in short order we’re inundating all parties with everything imaginable. Moreover, in the bump and hiccup phase, there are usually opportunities for us to display courage against the odds, and we often take advantage: see Torpedo Eight.

    I don’t see anything to be ashamed of at all in any of that.

  211. “If there is only one plane left I want that man to go in and get a hit”

    John Waldron, commander of Torpedo Eight, who died when his plane, and every other plane in his squadron, was shot down as they made their torpedo run against the Japanese fleet.

    They all went in.

  212. JackOH says:
    @Colin Wright

    Colin, FWIW, I knew a senior infantry Army sergeant, a real top kick type, whose job it was to make recommendations on the combat readiness of troops slated for deployment for Gulf War I in the 1990s. Not sure how it was done—review of training records? personal inspection? Also not sure if he reviewed Regulars, Reserves, National Guard, or some mix.

    Long story short—some units were simply not combat ready. It was clear from his disgust and pointed comments he wasn’t talking about unit failings as a result of circumstances beyond the unit commander’s control.

  213. peterAUS says:

    ….. a senior infantry Army sergeant, a real top kick type, whose job it was to make recommendations on the combat readiness of troops slated for deployment

    Senior sergeant making such recommendations!? You sure about that? He wasn’t a part of a team lead by at least Lt Col?
    O.K. Who EXACTLY would write THAT report, sign it and deliver it to the higher command? In this case….Pentagon?

    Long story short—some units were simply not combat ready.

    Any chance of making it long? Could clear up some things.

    What units?
    Just one.

    What EXACTLY were those shortcomings?
    Just three.

    Just curious how that worked then and there….as you say, that is.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @JackOH
  214. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS

    Actually, cancel my comment and questions above.
    That’s the problem in online pubs. Anyone can express strong opinion about anything, including complicated stuff which requires tons of real life experience they haven’t got.
    Military appears to be one of those topics people who haven’t spent a day in have VERY strong opinions about. Makes sense, in peculiar way.

    People reading this who were subjects to “combat ready inspections” know exactly how it sounds:

    knew a senior infantry Army sergeant, a real top kick type, whose job it was to make recommendations on the combat readiness of troops slated for deployment for Gulf War I in the 1990s. Not sure how it was done—review of training records? personal inspection? Also not sure if he reviewed Regulars, Reserves, National Guard, or some mix.

    Long story short—some units were simply not combat ready. It was clear from his disgust and pointed comments he wasn’t talking about unit failings as a result of circumstances beyond the unit commander’s control.

    Those with zero experience in such matters would need a LONG tutorial. Doing “online education” of such types….oh man.

    Moving on.

  215. Tyrion 2 says:
    @George F. Held

    Occam’s Razor:

    Hitler left Germany in devastated ruins because he was a loon who believed a paranoid fantasy that justified him to be so evil that the Germans feel the need to abolish themselves in order to account for it.

    • Replies: @Heros
  216. @Colin Wright

    Not a fair assessment, in my opinion. Ariete routed and overran the 3rd Indian Brigade, for example. And it was in the thick of the fighting for much of the battle subsequently.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  217. peterAUS says:

    Hitler left Germany in devastated ruins because he was a loon who believed a paranoid fantasy ….

    I just feel there is much more there than that. MUCH more.

    To the heart of the matter, though: a MAN, as species. Fallibility of him/her.

    I guess that some of us here (writing, commenting, reading) aren’t happy with the current state of affairs.
    I guess that some of us would like to see something else.
    And….hehe…the most important: we have no idea what EXACTLY that something else would be.
    Fascism yes/no as in this article. Nazism yes/no as in countless “debates” here. Etc….etc….

    I guess that most of us could agree that some, certain, elements of both/either Italian Fascism and German Nazism could be part of that NEW thing we’d like to see implemented.

    One element I can’t buy is the concept of “Rule by a Dicator”. Il Duce, Fuehrer, whatever. One man must not be given such power. Ever.

    Now….hehe…granted…..there is something in general population which simply needs that “Great Leader”. But, people actually making the system work must implement checks and balances.

    Founding Fathers got that well once upon a time. Not quite well, apparently, but, the best so far I guess.

    Sorry for the interruption guys. Back to performance of Italian Army in WW2.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @Z-man
  218. @L.K

    Hey, L.K, I was thinking that you might be interested in signing up on this new Discourse forum I set up. Not much activity yet, but hey, if you write something on the forum, at least I’ll read it and reply!

    https://heresy.space/

  219. Heros says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Kaufman was already working on his book “Germany Must Perish” long before the US entered the war. The Morgentau plan was deliberately leaked in 1944. Both of these jewish plans called for the complete and total genocide of the German people.

    Yes, Hitler and Goebbels used this as propaganda. But compare what these plans said that the allies had in store for Germany after the war and what the allies did to Germany after the war. Guess what, they match 100%. America, which had starved Germany through 1919 and caused millions of deaths, who had deliberately leaked their plan saying they were going to genocide the germans, demanded unconditional surrender.

    Yes, the Germans fought to the bitter end. Not because of Hitler, because of Germany. History has proved them correct. History has proved that the US has been nothing but a play toy for powerful jews for around 150 years. England far longer.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Colin Wright
  220. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Heros

    Your partly fictional partly of of context plans notwithstanding, he Germans most certainly consent to their abolishment now. The only answer is that the shock of their ancestor’s behaviour has left them in traumatic passive suicide. This is unfair, but it is still true.

    • Replies: @Heros
  221. Zumbuddi says:
    @peterAUS

    “he he”
    Is that the sound a jack ads makes?

    “One thing I can’t buy is rule by dictator. . . One mam must mot be given such power, ever.”

    Read Machiavelli more carefully. Drill key concepts into your brain, at least these two comcepts, in this order:

    1. Love your country with all your might.
    Machiavelli closed The Prince with the declaration that He would do whatever it took to save Florence, to make it a republic, even if it meant losing his soul.

    In this, Niccolo’s model was Moses, who took “dictatorial power” over the Hebrews, to the extent of having a large part of them killed.
    Machiavelli reasoned that Moses was the most significant model of a leader so ce Moses was counseled by, and answered only to, God.

    2. Machiavelli wrote that “when a people has lost its virtu, its manly courage, its moral grounding, to the extent that Florence had, and that post-WWI Weimar Germany certainly had, then the ONLY possible hope for recovery of virtu was to appoint a “tyrant”, someone from outside (as Moses was) to assume TEMPORARY dictatorial powers.

    Obviously Mussolini would have been well-versed in Machiavelli; and it should be recognized that Mussolini was more of an in tellectual than Hitler, a reality Hitler himself acknowledged as he sought to learn from Il Duce.

    (Side note, one more time Jabotinsky was a great admirer of Mussolini and adapted his principles i nto Revisionist Zionism.)
    2

  222. JackOH says:
    @peterAUS

    peterAUS, buddy, you may want to read the casual comment I wrote instead of the one you think I wrote.

    I made no claims of personal military experience, and I said the senior sergeant made recommendations as to the combat effectiveness of units. He didn’t make the decision on whether to deploy those troops, and I didn’t say he made the decision. I offered the comment to support the obvious idea that troops of various nations, whether victorious or defeated, can be judged beforehand as to their combat effectiveness.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  223. @Jon Halpenny

    ‘Not a fair assessment, in my opinion. Ariete routed and overran the 3rd Indian Brigade, for example. And it was in the thick of the fighting for much of the battle subsequently.’

    Alright. Leaving the details of the above action aside, Ariete was indeed a viable combat unit, able to run with the big boys.

    …but that was about as good as it got. The general run of the Italian army was awful, abysmal, could be counted on to consistently fail, etc.

  224. @Heros

    ‘…America, which had starved Germany through 1919 and caused millions of deaths…’

    You see now, that’s a fantastically unfair and inaccurate description. It wasn’t America that insisted on punitive peace terms and continuing the blockade until Germany agreed to them. If anything, by 1919 we were half-way to being disgusted by the whole thing and checking out entirely.

    One also has to note your assumption that it would have been ‘the Jews’ who would have been bent on Germany’s destruction in World War One. That’s a pure anachronism. If anything, ‘the Jews’ would have been hostile to Russia, not Germany, in that war. In point of fact, ‘the Jews’ tended to be for whatever country they resided in that war.

    • Replies: @Heros
    , @Heros
  225. Z-man says:
    @peterAUS

    Sorry for the interruption guys. Back to performance of Italian Army in WW2.

    LOL!!!

  226. peterAUS says:
    @JackOH

    I said the senior sergeant made recommendations as to “the combat effectiveness of units.

    A senior sergeant can not,by himself, officially, make any recommendation as to “combat effectiveness of units” except of his own. He can, and should do it, as his job, only for the unit he belongs to.
    A senior sergeant can, officially, make recommendation as to combat effectiveness of units outside of his own as member of a team led by senior officer. He submits his recommendation to the team leader/that officer who then makes and submits report to command that sent him to make that inspection.
    Chain………of……….command.
    NCOs…………and officers. Commissioned/Not commissioned. Organizational position and power.

    To cut to the chase. If you’d said, instead of “senior sergeant” a “Colonel” it would’ve made (some) sense. Because the Colonel can be dumb, can have some agenda and/or the very inspection can be poorly organized and executed.

    I offered the comment to support the obvious idea that troops of various nations, whether victorious or defeated, can be judged beforehand as to their combat effectiveness.

    Yes, they can, if, IF done properly. Often it isn’t. Espcially in peace and even more especailly in countries/regimes where meritocracy, expertise etc aren’t what the power is about.
    Societies where you have corruption, nepotism and conflicting agendas in particular.

    The only way to be marginally sure how combat effective unit could be is a realistic tactical exercise with live ammunition. And…hehe….even then…those targets don’t fire back.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  227. @Colin Wright

    I am not sure what you mean by “manhandled by the hapless Austrians”. By early November 1918, the Italian army had smashed through the Austrian defenses and was on its way to Vienna. The Austro-Hungarian armistice with Italy preceded by a week that with the Entente powers, hardly a sign of having “manhandled” anyone.

    • Agree: Z-man
  228. “On June 29, the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment entered the stronghold and accepted the surrender of 6,000 Allied prisoners while capturing a great deal of supplies and equipment.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mersa_Matruh#Battle

  229. @peterAUS

    ‘The only way to be marginally sure how combat effective unit could be is a realistic tactical exercise with live ammunition. And…hehe….even then…those targets don’t fire back.’

    There’s also the point that the war about to be fought must be the one that is anticipated.

    While the French army in 1940 had very disturbing shortcomings, noted by British observers, what was perhaps a more serious blow was that the Germans in no way fought the war the French expected. Given Poland, that was the French army’s own fault, but the point remains. The French army would probably have performed much better if 1940 had simply been a rerun of 1914.

    Other examples, of course, abound. The French army (again) in 1914. The British army in the Boer War. The American army in Viet Nam. The Aztecs faced with Cortez. People can be all set for the last war — but you can’t count on the enemy to fight it that way.

    More generally, this is why I tend to be skeptical about forecasts about who’s going to do what when the next war comes. As a rule, it all never goes as expected. Someone breaks the rules, or something.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  230. Hank Yobo says:

    I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Churchill’s statement when he learned of Italy’s declaration of war against the UK. He remarked that “Tourists will no longer have to visit Pompey to see the ruins of Italy.”

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  231. The Germans, by contrast, fought doggedly in support of their discredited regime,

    Pretty good article until that. Discredited? That glib comment is about as discreditable as it gets.

  232. @Hank Yobo

    always the bon mot…

    from silvertongue Churchill, ultimate

    (((Rothschild))) shabbatz goy,

    and the most savage

    imperialist, warmonger, and genocide artist

    of the entire 20th century.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    , @Z-man
  233. @onebornfree

    Oops, how could I forgot the fool Hitler in that short list? My mistake.

    How could you forget the fools, FDR and Churchill? Their names should be synonymous with “collectivist fool,” no?

  234. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    That Argentina remained relatively disorganized and corrupt says more about Italians than about Peronism.

    I know next to nothing about Argentina, but given the history of US involvement in S America, any disorganization and corruption says more about probable US meddling there than anything else.

  235. @Rich

    …but your “successful” German people were beaten down down like rabid dogs.

    By greasy, rabid swine.

    It was in no way a fair fight, Bolshie!

    PS: The Germans never wanted war to begin with.

    …Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany. [As were several other populations in countries surrounding Germany.]

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?
    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

    • Replies: @Rich
  236. peterAUS says:
    @Colin Wright

    There’s also the point that the war about to be fought must be the one that is anticipated.

    Of course.
    That’s where that “realistic” comes into play.

    I tend to be skeptical about forecasts about who’s going to do what when the next war comes.

    Well, I am not. I mean….that’s why all military related science, organization, preparation etc are all about.
    My approach is “percentage” or “probability”: what’s the probability that side “X” will prevail over side “Y” if war objective(s) are “x” and “y”.
    The very same principle we, humans, do when thinking about any conflict, struggle, whatever.
    You in an unarmed fight against MMA heavyweight champion. Well, true, you could take him out. I’d put my money on the champion. Say, 95 % in his favor.

    The “problem” with modern wars is that their real vs proclaimed objectives are different.

    Afghanistan is good example. It’s popular around here to say it’s US loss. Well, at least for some people.
    Just to put things into perspective: since 2001 US had , apparently, 2,313 dead there so far. 17 years of occupation. Loss…..
    The epitome of Blitzkrieg is Poland ’39. 16,343 Germans killed in a little more than a month. Great victory.

    There are several “hot” spots in the world as we speak. I am sure that, depending on who could get involved and with what war objectives, we could predict up to, say, 80 % probability, who would win and who would lose, with ease. Good enough.

  237. Hank Yobo says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Churchill also spent a part of his life in uniform where he could learn how the military actually worked. Have you? Perhaps his comments about Italy were based upon his evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses. That’s the beauty of a bon mot: it conveys real truth in a witty and forthright manner. You also forgot to mention that “Sir” Winston won the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature in your list of his many accomplishments. I wish all imperialists, warmongers, and genocide artists–yes, he was a painter–were as talented.

  238. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Stalin may have been a rogue, Hitler wasn’t less so.

    In a rogue’s gallery, both FDR and Churchill make those two look like tyros.

  239. @peterAUS

    Victories are not measured by numbers. We’ve lost in Afghanistan — no question. The Germans won in Poland — also no question. Russian losses exceeded German in the Great Patriotic War by a multiple of perhaps five to one; who would you say won?

    It is interesting. One point that’s been noted about the American Civil War that people have commented on is that while we might consider this or that battle a Confederate victory on account of the losses each side suffered, at the time everyone considered it a Union victory; the Union held the field at the end of the day.

    Thinking about it, perhaps that way made more sense. On the other hand, we kept winning the field in Viet Nam — but lost the war anyway.

    I suppose it’s all ultimately a function of what one’s goals are. But then, theoretically, both sides could ‘win’ a given war — or both sides could lose it.

    However, simply looking at the body count is a bit like the IQ debate. Aside from everything else, it’s an unconscious reflection of the obsessions of our age. A medieval knight probably wouldn’t care what the body count was — or whether you thought he was stupid. He’d be all wrapped up in his obsessions.

  240. @peterAUS

    ‘Of course.
    That’s where that “realistic” comes into play.’…

    That’s a little silly. What is considered ‘realistic’ is of course determined by what’s expected.

    My point is that with nasty regularity, each new war presents the combatants with the unexpected.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  241. @jacques sheete

    ‘I know next to nothing about Argentina, but given the history of US involvement in S America, any disorganization and corruption says more about probable US meddling there than anything else.’

    On the bright side, I suppose this tendency to blame the US for everything and then some is a backhand way of equating us with God.

    It’s a variant on ‘no sparrow shall fall…’ If a sparrow does fall, in the minds of some people, almost necessarily it was the US that killed it.

    I don’t suppose it could be considered that the Argentines, Chileans, etc might be the ones most responsible for their own destiny? Could that be in the cards?

    We could, for example, suborn, attempt to bribe, manipulate, etc Norwegians all day. I’m skeptical that we would accomplish much.

  242. Rich says:
    @jacques sheete

    The Germans didn’t want a war, but Herr Hitler did. If he’d held off invading Poland, he probably would have gotten his corridor, negotiations were under way. But he couldn’t wait, he feared the Brits and the French, as well as the Soviets were improving their militaries and would soon have him surrounded. He made many serious mistakes, Stalingrad, declaring war on the US, Dunkirk, etc. He must’ve been a good corporal, he received the Iron Cross, but as the Commander of the German Military he was a failure.

    As far as being beaten by “rabid, greasy swine”, whatever. He lost and he brought the greatest defeat in their history upon the German people. It was only the magnanimity of the British and the Americans that allowed the Germans to survive as a people. Thank heaven the Morganthau plan wasn’t put into effect.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  243. Z-man says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    from silvertongue Churchill, ultimate
    (((Rothschild))) shabbatz goy,

    That explains the fawning the American MSM made at the funeral of said Churchill decades ago (besides his being a war leader and ally of the USA, lol). I was but a mere child but I remember now noticing the grand coverage it was given in the owned MSM, way back when.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  244. Z-man says:
    @jacques sheete

    I know a little about the country, having visited twice and fallen in love/lust with several Argentine women. (Grin) The demographics of the country have rapidly changed over the last 30 years. A predominantly European population is being rapidly replaced with more typical mixed Hispanic lines. Just on my second visit I noticed this myself. Argentina had one of the richest economies in the world, even up to the 1970’s and weren’t disorganized at all, even with all those Italians, lol, who actually helped build the country.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  245. peterAUS says:
    @Colin Wright

    That’s where that “realistic” comes into play.’…

    That’s a little silly.

    O.K.

  246. Heros says:
    @Colin Wright

    “You see now, that’s a fantastically unfair and inaccurate description. It wasn’t America that insisted on punitive peace terms and continuing the blockade until Germany agreed to them. If anything, by 1919 we were half-way to being disgusted by the whole thing and checking out entirely.”

    The narrative claims the Americans opposed the embargo, but it is a lie. Did you bother to listen to Corbett on the real causes of WWI that I linked to above?

    The judeo-freemasons had already practiced war by starvation on the Irish, the Confederates, and the Boers in South Africa. Of course, the Sassoons and England were also still busy creating more opium addicts in China, and had fought the Opium wars and Boxer Rebellions to keep their monopoly drug profits flowing.

    The US income tax and the FED were created by these same judeo-freemasons in preparation for the great war they were planning. The US was from the beginning a key element of this plan, which included the extermination of at least 20 million Germans.

    The Allies were completely exhausted by 1915, but the masons were not finished yet. In 1916 the Kaiser almost got a peace with his offers of pre-war status-quo-ante. The masons put a quick end to that. It was not until the Balfour agreement was signed and the Bolsheviks had taken Russia that the jews and the masons brought the brain washed Yankees into France.

    Germany was starving all through this period, Hungary had cut off food supplies to Austria and Vienna was starving too. Corbett gets into Hoover and the fake Belgian Relief that was actually a masonic effort to keep Germany in the war at all costs until the Ottoman empire was broken up and the jews could get Jerusalem.

    With this backdrop we enter 1919 and the Versailles negotiations. All of ex-axis central Europe is starving under the judeo-masonic British blockade. The masons are determined to kill off more that 20 million Germans.

    Wilson and House were a part of this entire operation. Sure, they try to claim that they wanted to break the blockade, but that is horsepucky. The millions of Germans that were exterminated unnecessarily are just as much a legacy of the US as Britain.

    “If anything, ‘the Jews’ would have been hostile to Russia, not Germany”

    Considering what the jews did to Russia in 1917-1990, nothing I wrote contradicts this statement. But you conveniently forget the Dolchstoss. Jews who deny it ever happened are certainly not going to admit that it was planned long before the war even started, but that is the fact.

    Finally, look once again at the license of the automobile Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in in 1914, the license plate has the date of Armistice, A 111 118. This isn’t coincidence, this is masonic numerology:

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
  247. Heros says:
    @Tyrion 2

    “The Germans most certainly consent to their abolishment now.”

    Consent? Do you mean “by consent of the governed” and a “social contract” and all that talmudic mind control blather?

    Germany is still occupied by US-ZOG troops and has a ZOG imposed constitution. That is hardly consent. Of course the US has been using its usual tools like their kosher-media and Hollywood to brain wash Germans. But they also never spare usage of that giant German gonad crusher: Muh holohoax.

    “The only answer is that the shock of their ancestor’s behaviour has left them in traumatic passive suicide.”

    That is “The only answer” for jews, talmudists and satanists perhaps. The correct answer is that jews have strapped Germany to their kabbalistic sacrificial stone and are busy sucking out their blood until last drop of German blood is extinguished. I can tell from your comments that this would give you sadistic pleasure, just like pre-teen boys for Bryan Singer.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  248. Heros says:
    @Colin Wright

    fantastically unfair and inaccurate description.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html

    “The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.

    Please also remember Secretary of State Albright’s famous quip about 500,000 starved Iraqi children: “It was worth it”. So when it comes to war by starvation, the US sits at the head of the table flanked by the USSR and China.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  249. @Rich

    The Germans didn’t want a war, but Herr Hitler did.

    Oh, he did? Sounds like he was pretty much forced into it.:

    But he couldn’t wait, he [accurately] feared the Brits and the French, as well as the Soviets were improving their militaries and would soon have him surrounded.

    It was only the magnanimity of the British and the Americans that allowed the Germans to survive as a people.

    Yeah, starvation blockades and financial strangling are sooo magnanimous.

    PS: If you want to be taken seriously, cut the BS.

    • Replies: @Rich
  250. @Z-man

    Argentina had one of the richest economies in the world, even up to the 1970’s and weren’t disorganized at all, even with all those Italians, lol, who actually helped build the country.

    Just as I would have guessed.

    Is there a decline as described, and what’re your thoughts on the causes?

    Has the CIA been messing around there as well?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  251. @Heros

    Another excellent comment there!

    The judeo-freemasons had already practiced war by starvation on the Irish, the Confederates, and the Boers in South Africa.

    India too.

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill

    As quoted in, The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit
    By Rakhi Chakraborty
    https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

    … Madhusree Mukherjee in her book Churchill’s Secret War creates a complete picture of the famine and rationalises the silent blitzkrieg that followed Britain’s warped state policies; despite having a substantial harvest in 1942, massive areas of the Indo-Gangetic plain were hit by famine the next year, the worst being Bengal.

    -Sanghita Sanyal, 31 famines in 120 years of British Raj, the last one killed 4 million people in 1943
    https://yourstory.com/2017/08/british-raj-famines/

    I am not familiar with either author, but what they claim fits a pattern, I believe.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  252. @Hank Yobo

    Churchill also spent a part of his life in uniform …I wish all imperialists, warmongers, and genocide artists–yes, he was a painter–were as talented.

    The preening, thrill seeking, dandy monster was a mere dabbler both in uniform and in painting. His paintings are childish and lack originality. Banal comes to mind, yet the drooling claques fawn over the garbage as is to be expected.

    You also forgot to mention that “Sir” Winston won the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature

    You didn’t mention, and probably never realized, that the prize is a farce. O-bomb-a obtained a “peace prize,” too, remember? Worthless trash.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    , @Colin Wright
  253. @Colin Wright

    We could, for example, suborn, attempt to bribe, manipulate, etc Norwegians all day. I’m skeptical that we would accomplish much.

    Well, “we” could always “sanction,” or bomb them back into the Stone Age if none of the above worked. Because that’s what sweet innocent choir boys do.

    • Replies: @Heros
  254. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Heros

    Your ugliness (and craziness) seems to be on show every time you write something.

    • Replies: @Heros
  255. The soldiers of the Italian Army in Russia did not disgrace themselves. It took three days of vicious fighting for the Soviets to break the front of the Italian Army. Soviet infantry failed and it was only when T34s were sent in en masse that the Italian front caved in. The Italians had few effective anti-tank weapons to stop three Soviet tank Corps.

    http://31.210.87.4/ebook/pdf/Death_on_the_Don_The_Destruction_of_Germanys_Allies_on_the_Eastern_Front_1941_to_1944.pdf

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  256. Your ugliness (and craziness) seems to be on show every time you write something.

    Sounds like projection to me. Probably also some of this,

    “Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius. ”

    -Archbishop Sheen

  257. @Colin Wright

    I don’t suppose it could be considered that the Argentines, Chileans, etc might be the ones most responsible for their own destiny? Could that be in the cards?

    Definitely could be, but that may be stating the case too simplistically. It also “could be” that Uncle Suckers’s meddling in Latin America is not fantasy, but we proles will never know, will we?

    I’m no fan of the NYT, but they may have something here.:

    Declassifying a more extensive set of documents would also bring into sharper focus a shameful period of American foreign policy, during which Washington condoned and in some instances supported the brutal tactics of right-wing governments in the region.

    America’s Role in Argentina’s Dirty War
    By The Editorial Board,NYT

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/americas-role-in-argentinas-dirty-war.html

    Check this. Why not Argentina too?

    As long as Latin American or any reformers fail to understand that Karl Marx was correct that there can be no reforms, no revolution, no improvement for ordinary people as long as the old order is left in place, Washington, not Latin Americans, will control Latin America.

    – Paul Craig Roberts, Washington Has Appointed A President For Venezuela

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/23/washington-has-appointed-a-president-for-venezuela/

    PS: Yeah, I know all about the biases of da Times, so save it.

    • Replies: @L.K
  258. Heros says:
    @Tyrion 2

    “Your ugliness (and craziness) seems to be on show every time you write something.”

    Thats it? Thats your best ad-hominem? Pretty pathetic, but it is what would one expect from someone who has to cling to the narrative for the definition of “ugly” and “beautiful” because he can neither think for himself nor rebut an argument.

  259. Heros says:
    @jacques sheete

    Colin Wright is hopelessly mired down inside the overton window. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot pull his head out. For instance take this one:

    “We could, for example, suborn, attempt to bribe, manipulate, etc Norwegians all day. I’m skeptical that we would accomplish much.”

    Does this guy have a clue how many aggressive wars Norway has been forced to take part in since WWII? 3 Iraq wars, Syria, Libya, you name it. Right now Norway is the front line for this blatant attempt to start a third world war for Israel with Russia. Norway is a just another ZOG bitch who does exactly what the Rabbi commands her. The people of Norway have no say in this matter, just as the Americans had nothing to say about 200,000 americans dying so that the US army could win the first world war for jews who wanted to genocide Europeans and steal land in the middle east.

  260. Hank Yobo says:
    @jacques sheete

    How many cavalry charges have you participated in? How many POW camps have you escaped from? How many times has a price been put on your head? How many times have you been elected to office? How many countries have you governed? How many times have any of your decisions had the potential to change the course of world history? How many of your speeches can still be quoted from memory? How many Nobel Prizes in Literature have you been awarded for your multi-volume histories? [Since your not impressed by prizes, then how many books have you published?] How much are any of your paintings worth? How many statues have been dedicated to your honor and memory? If the answer to any or all of the above is “Zero,” then maybe you shouldn’t disparage someone with a perfect score. Yah, Churchill was just “a thrill seeking dandy monster.” What’s your CV look like?

  261. Z-man says:
    @jacques sheete

    While I subscribe to conspiracy theories because ‘you cant make some of this shit up‘ I am not an historian on Argentina so won’t be able to pin down any specific incident of CIA or Cabalist interference. Suffice it to say that Argentina’s agribusiness was/is a competitor for similar American products and could see the CIA or others interfering.
    As for the decline in the economy, besides the decline in the number of middle class whites, you can blame it on massive socialist policies going back to the 40’s and Evita Peron.

    PS. BTW, as I’ve been reminded here that Jews made up a bigger percentage of the population than in the USA maybe that has something to do with its (decline) but I don’t have any evidence of them deliberately screwing with the Argentines except for Singer (American Jew) and his ‘hedge’ funds screwing he gave them a few years ago.

  262. Z-man says:
    @Heros

    LOL, isn’t that ‘cuck’ what’s his name… Stoltenberg, a Norwegian? LOL!!!

    • Replies: @Heros
  263. Heros says:
    @Z-man

    Anders Brievik was too, what an MI6 psyop that was. Straight out of Tavistock. We can be certain that Norway’s police could do nothing about it, likely they were never even warned what MI was planning.

    I have traveled and camped in Norway, and I had the impression that there was a pent up fury among the men. In Norway, the energy exporter with the highest fuel prices on the planet, practically every road is a toal road. I saw a few examples of road rage where Norwegian men cross into the on-coming traffic lane in order to by pass toll cameras and toll barriers. It was shocking at first. The National Parks were full of single mothers with their children, with no men in sight. All over the place. It is one messed up country, but when it blows we may see some surprising acts of toxic masculinity from the Norwegian men.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  264. Rich says:
    @jacques sheete

    Sorry, Jack, I’m not unsympathetic to the German people, and I understand wanting to get back the lands they lost in WW1, but can anyone seriously doubt that invading Poland turned out to be a mistake? How many millions of Germans had to die for Danzig? Had Hitler been able to refrain from invading Poland, continued to rebuild the German economy and had the ability to negotiate with the Brits, French and Americans, he could have formed an alliance with them against the true menace of Communism. Because of his overzealousness, he helped grow international communism into a major threat, leaving Eastern Europe with the Red boot on its throat for years.

    Starvation blockades and financial strangling are all weapons in war. Unfortunate, but no less than the Germans would have done if they’d had the ability, and the need.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @jacques sheete
  265. Z-man says:
    @Heros

    …but wait, I thought Norway was at the heart of the Scandinavian socialist paradise?? (Sarcasm)
    I’ll be rooting for that toxic masculinity shock. (Grin)

  266. L.K says:
    @jacques sheete

    Argentine’s decline has NOTHING to do with any supposed decline in the numbers of whites nor with any “Socialist” policies.

    It has to do with its greedy, traitorous and corrupt Oligarchy and its practices, which are supported by the US.

    Economist Michael Hudson knows the story only too well:

    In 1964, Hudson, who had just received his master’s degree in economics, joined Chase Manhattan Bank’s research economics department as a balance-of-payments specialist. His task was to establish the payment capacity of Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

    https://michael-hudson.com/2018/07/argentina-back-on-the-debt-train/

    Argentina is the poster child for countries that have totally screwed up their economy. Their predatory right-wing oligarchy has managed to steer their country from the most prosperous in the world in the late 19th century to one of the the poorest and most debt-strapped countries. This is a political problem. But the oligarchy blames labor and says that it has to be paid even less.

    In 1990, I helped organize the first Third World bond fund. It was issued by Scudder, Stevens & Clark. At that time in 1989-1990 Argentina was paying 45% per year on dollar bonds. Brazil was paying the same. Now just imagine: 45% a year. That doubles your money in two years! No country can possibly pay that for long. But it was clear that the Argentine dictatorship – bolstered by a US-backed assassination program against labor leaders, land reformers and left-wing professors – would continue paying for at least five years. So that was the fund’s time frame.

    And yeah, the US has been heavily involved in screwing Latin America up, as Dr. Roberts says.
    A good book on this is Greg Grandin’s “Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism ”

    The British and Roman empires are often invoked as precedents to the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy. But America’s imperial identity was actually shaped much closer to home. In a brilliant excavation of long-obscured history, Empire’s Workshop shows how Latin America has functioned as a proving ground for American strategies and tactics overseas. Historian Greg Grandin follows the United States’ imperial operations from Jefferson’s aspirations for an “empire of liberty” in Cuba and Spanish Florida to Reagan’s support for brutally oppressive but U.S.-friendly regimes in Central America. He traces the origins of Bush’s current policies back to Latin America, where many of the administration’s leading lights first embraced the deployment of military power to advance free market economics and enlisted the evangelical movement in support of their ventures.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  267. Z-man says:

    Argentine’s decline has NOTHING to do with any supposed decline in the numbers of whites nor with any “Socialist” policies.

    Well, actually that was my argument and your extreme rebuttal actually proves my points. Socialist policies led to borrowing from the The Zog’ed Fed which charged interest that the Argentines couldn’t pay anymore because their middle class shrunk. QED.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  268. Zumbuddi says:
    @Rich

    Your arguments assume Germany was in the driver’s seat, an unsupportable assumption.

    Zionist Jews had been engaged in provocations of Germany from even before Hitler came to power. They worked in collaboration with British propagandists — Sniegoski reviewed “Desperate Deception” on Unz forum.
    The US East Coast Episcopal establishment was in on the scheme; so were major financiers and the most influential media of the era — Luce’s publishing empire, NYTimes, Jewish-owned Hollywood, the “new” medium of radio, also controlled by Jews

    Churchill had been bought to ensure full British cooperation with the goal of destroying Hermany, removi g it as a powerful competitor and reducing it to a tribute-paying vassal.

    Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof has studied Germany’s comparative strengths and threats, and traced Germany’s negotiati g efforts . If the Danzig negotiation HAD succeeded, some other gambit would have been devoted to force Germany into war.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Rich
  269. @Heros

    ‘Please also remember Secretary of State Albright’s famous quip about 500,000 starved Iraqi children: “It was worth it”. So when it comes to war by starvation, the US sits at the head of the table flanked by the USSR and China.’

    That reference is starting to irritate me.

    First off, in a country of fourteen million or something, there would only be about three million children. A sixth of them did not starve to death. That would be a famine on the scale of Ireland in 1848. Proportionately, it would exceed the death toll during the ‘Great Leap Forward.’

    Where are the pictures of the bloated bellies? The anecdotes of cannibalism, of corpses found by the roadside, their lips stained from eating grass?

    Half a million children died? I think not. Show us the plunge in school enrollments.

    Second, wouldn’t Saddam Hussein bear some responsibility for whatever suffering did occur? After all, we weren’t embargoing trade because he was being a team player. Are we obliged to feed everyone, regardless of their behavior?

    Nobody was preventing Iraq from planting and raising crops, from baking bread. I would guess that whoever many died, they died as much because Saddam Hussein simply did not care or even welcomed their deaths as because of whatever we did.

    • Replies: @Heros
  270. @Heros

    ‘Colin Wright is hopelessly mired down inside the overton window. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot pull his head out. For instance take this one…’

    I do find myself accused of some novel things here. This ranks with the discovery that I am a Jew.

    • Replies: @Heros
  271. @Jon Halpenny

    ‘The soldiers of the Italian Army in Russia did not disgrace themselves…’

    This simply isn’t true. You’ve been reading some very slanted sources.

    …people want to say the Italians did just fine; it was the poor equipment, etc. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were so?

    However, the awful truth is that it wasn’t just that.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  272. @jacques sheete

    ‘…’You also forgot to mention that “Sir” Winston won the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature’

    You didn’t mention, and probably never realized, that the prize is a farce. O-bomb-a obtained a “peace prize,” too, remember? Worthless trash…’

    Whatever his other flaws — and that’s an interesting subject — Churchill was a mighty fine writer, if sometimes not a particularly reliable source.

  273. @jacques sheete

    ‘…I am not familiar with either author, but what they claim fits a pattern, I believe.’

    The irony here is that under normal conditions, far from starving the Indians, the British did just the opposite. Their arrival in India spelt an end to mass famine as a routine feature of life in India. It continued, but as isolated, brief episodes, swiftly addressed.

    Railroads, you see. Railroads — and efficient, humane British rule — meant it was possible to transport food from where it was to where it wasn’t.

    But there. I suppose there’s some sort of cachet in vilifying colonialism. Have at it.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  274. @Heros

    ‘…Finally, look once again at the license of the automobile Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in in 1914, the license plate has the date of Armistice, A 111 118. This isn’t coincidence, this is masonic numerology…’

    Sometimes, the Unz Review gets to be a bit too much of a good thing.

  275. Rich says:
    @Zumbuddi

    It’s possible that the Nazis felt pushed into a war, obviously many Jews throughout the world would be opposed to losing out on the wealth they’d accumulated in Germany after WW1. The Nazis also had domestic issues to worry about and Europe’s refusal to back the Czechs, right or wrong, made Herr Hitler think he was in the driver’s seat. In the end, with hindsight, can’t we agree that the invasion of Poland eventually led to the rape and destruction of Germany?

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @jacques sheete
  276. @Z-man

    ‘…That explains the fawning the American MSM made at the funeral of said Churchill decades ago (besides his being a war leader and ally of the USA, lol). I was but a mere child but I remember now noticing the grand coverage it was given in the owned MSM, way back when…’

    Well, Churchill was a great man.

    The uncritical adulation is a bit much, and some correction is called for; for one thing, his influence on military decision-making in the Second World War was often disastrous.

    However, it’s perfectly possible to go overboard in the opposite direction, and many do.

    The orthodox narrative is often flawed. It doesn’t follow that one winds up any closer to the truth if one inverts it. As a tedious but usually valid principle, the truth tends to lie somewhere in between. We can, for example, find much that was praiseworthy in Nazism. It doesn’t follow that it was actually good; merely that the world persistently fails to accord with our tendency to divide it into black and white.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  277. Heros says:
    @Colin Wright

    Please explain the connection between jews and that statement. Overton? I don’t get it.

    I wanted to name my second son Colin. We settled with Kyle.

  278. Heros says:
    @Colin Wright

    But Albright said, yes, 500,000 children and babies were worth it. Own it USA. This isn’t like one of the “confessions” tortured out of German officers at the Nuremburg sham trials. This was just your typical jew boast made on behalf of the shining city on the hill. There could have been far more if we start considering things like depleted uranium, phosphate, who knows what.

  279. @Colin Wright

    Why is it not true? I have also read Anthony Beevor’s book on Stalingrad. Beevor also states the Italians fought doggedly for three days against the Soviet attack and it was only when they faced a mass attack by tanks that their front lines collapsed. Even then, many Italian units managed to stay coherent and many fought their way out.

  280. Zumbuddi says:
    @Rich

    Your fact pattern is incorrect.

    First, it should be understood the the new Zionist movement set off a kind of civil war between Jewish groups — assimilated German Jews opposed zionism, restive Eastern Jews pressed for the zoo ist bision, and only in Palestine — Nordau and Herzl had proposed other locations for Jewish colonization, and a majority of Co degrees assented, but the Eastern Jewis delegation was adamant: Palestine or nothing. They carried the day.

    Second, Chiam Weizmann, who maneuvered the Balfour agreement, was from Belorussia and represented Eastern Jewish interests, which ran cou ter to German Jewish preferences.

    Third, But only German Jews had the wealth and skills desperately needed for the resource-strapped pronect.

    Fourth, Louis Brandeis was a passion ate Zio ist, but from secular, econo.mic motives. He cared not about pogro.s in the East, he ordered that “all Jews leave Germany.”
    Zionist Jews, esp. In USA, set about creating atrocity propaganda and provocations of Germans in order to force unwilli g German Jews to leave Germany.

    Yes, that is contrry to everything you have been led to believe, but the fact pattern above is readily proved from Jewish documents and publications.
    Zealous Zionist Jews wanted — NEEDED — all German Jews to leave Germany, starting before Hitler’s appoinment: Leo Strauss left in 1932 iirc. They created provocations to frighten Jews i to leaving. Such provocations, such as the Jewish economic war, also affected Poland and Polish leaders, Making them unwilling to negotiate in good faith.

  281. @Z-man

    So ultimately it was (((those bankers))) again. I wonder if the Argentinian government of that time was not “advised” by people of the (((same ethnicity))). There are 180,000 of them in Argentine, the highest number of Latin America. To lure people into a debt that cannot be repayed and then robbing the debtor of all his possessions is a classic trick of these people.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @jacques sheete
  282. Z-man says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “The only statement I care to make …. is that they fit in with what is going on..”
    Henry Ford. (Wry grin)

  283. @Colin Wright

    On the bright side, I suppose this tendency to blame the US for everything and then some is a backhand way of equating us with God.

    Wrong. It’s an up front way of equating your handlers with Satan.

  284. @Rich

    Good grief.

    No matter what Hitler did, the global banking cartels would have wanted to strangle the Germans. You’ve demonstrated that your historical knowledge is so deficient that there is no sense in even beginning to try and reason with you.

  285. @Franklin Ryckaert

    So ultimately it was (((those bankers))) again.

    Like I wrote above, I know next to nothing about Argentina, but I know a bit about US troublemaking in Central America and practically everywhere else, so none of it comes as a surprise. To the contrary, I would be surprised if that were not the case, but Colin ain’t gonna like that! ; )

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  286. @L.K

    Argentine’s decline has NOTHING to do with any supposed decline in the numbers of whites nor with any “Socialist” policies.

    It has to do with its greedy, traitorous and corrupt Oligarchy and its practices, which are supported by the US.

    Like I said, that’s exactly what I suspected, although I’m pretty much a complete ignoramus regarding Argentina.

    Did you see Colin’s sniveling ’bout da poor ‘lil USA being blamed for “everything?”

    It’s a variant on ‘no sparrow shall fall…’ If a sparrow does fall, in the minds of some people, almost necessarily it was the US that killed it.

    I don’t suppose it could be considered that the Argentines, Chileans, etc might be the ones most responsible for their own destiny? Could that be in the cards?

    Typical ‘Merkin….blame the victim.

    PS to Colin: If the foo shitz, it stinks. The foos shit all over the place and it reeks.

  287. @Heros

    Colin Wright is hopelessly mired down inside the overton window. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot pull his head out.

    While it could be classified as a fenestration of sorts, it ain’t no window where the head is stuck.

    • LOL: Z-man
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  288. @Colin Wright

    Well, Churchill was a great man.

    Propaganda. Nothing more.

  289. @Rich

    It’s possible that the Nazis felt pushed into a war, obviously many Jews throughout the world would be opposed to losing out on the wealth they’d accumulated in Germany after WW1.

    That’s a complete inversion of the facts.

    However, rather than waste my time ‘splainin it, I refer to anyone who denies my claim, Douglas Reed’s excellent, “The Controversy of Zion.”

    https://archive.org/stream/TheControversyOfZion/TheControversyOfZion_djvu.txt

    • Replies: @Z-man
  290. @Hank Yobo

    Any more irrelevant questions?

    FYI, nobody but nobody comes here to find answers to the questions you asked, and I’m not a narcissistic wannabe hero exhibitionist like “Winnie” was, so yer outta luck.

    Yours is an especially puerile logical fallacy known as a Circumstantial Ad Hominem and is therefore not worth responding to seriously. You may want to try harder next time.

    PS: Even Winnie the Spineless admitted that WW2 was unnecessary but he went along with it and supported the Stalin variant of Bolshies anyway. As a result, we proles lost, big time.

    Winnie was a party to this…Even a dimwit like The Shrub understands who”won” WW2.

    ‘For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. … The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.’

    Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions(sic), Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Castro murdered their tens of millions.”

    – Patrick J. Buchanan , Was WWII Worth It?, May 11, 2005
    http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5899

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  291. Hank Yobo says:
    @jacques sheete

    Yours is an especially puerile logical fallacy known as a Circumstantial Ad Hominem and is therefore not worth responding to seriously.

    I’ll stand by my puerile logical fallacy. When you get into Churchill’s league, then your criticisms can be taken seriously. I’m still awaiting the erection of a statue in your honor. Please send me an invitation. I will attend at my own expense.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  292. @Hank Yobo

    Hitler also painted pictures. Mediocre, like Churchill’s.

    Churchill “won” the 1953 Lit prize for “his” 6-volume History of the 2nd WW.

    which was in fact written by a group of Oxford history students; WC, at the end of each day, looked over what they wrote and made a few corrections, addits, etc. The award was complete fraud.

    I do admit, however, that as instanced by his actual writings (the 5-vol. WW1 history, fr’instance), Churchill was one of the great wordsmiths in the history of the English language.

    “spent a part of his life in uniform”. Not all that much: after he was kicked out of the gov’t c. May 1915 (members of his own conservative party refused to enter Asquith’s coalition cabinet so long as he was around) Churchill got hisself a bogus commission, went to France, and spent 2 months on a “safe” section of the front. Then he scuttled back to England and spent the next 24 years scribbling, politiking, and arranging Round II of the WorldWar.

    here’s another Churchill bon mot, this time self-reflective:

    “anyone can rat once. Only a real man can do it repeatedly”

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Hank Yobo
  293. @Hank Yobo

    ‘How many cavalry charges have you participated in? How many POW camps have you escaped from? How many times has a price been put on your head? How many times have you been elected to office? How many countries have you governed? How many times have any of your decisions had the potential to change the course of world history? How many of your speeches can still be quoted from memory? How many Nobel Prizes in Literature have you been awarded for your multi-volume histories? [Since your not impressed by prizes, then how many books have you published?] How much are any of your paintings worth? How many statues have been dedicated to your honor and memory?’

    This awakens an overwhelming desire to give a non-zero answer to each of the above. Does encountering Obama in 1980 and deciding he was a superficial twit count?

    …then too, I ruled Gabon for two years as God-Dictator. True story.

  294. @jacques sheete

    ‘Like I wrote above, I know next to nothing about Argentina, but I know a bit about US troublemaking in Central America and practically everywhere else, so none of it comes as a surprise. To the contrary, I would be surprised if that were not the case, but Colin ain’t gonna like that! ; )’

    I’m perfectly open to the notion that the US likes to paddle around. My point would be that you can’t cheat an honest man. If these countries weren’t so eminently corruptible, I doubt if it would pay for us to try to corrupt them. It comes down to somebody is going to do it, so perhaps we should get there first.

    Read ‘The Death of Artemio Cruz.’ It’s primarily concerned with other things, but in passing, it gives a good picture of Latin America and its corruptibility.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  295. @jacques sheete

    ‘While it could be classified as a fenestration of sorts, it ain’t no window where the head is stuck.’

    I wonder if there’s some way I could be reminded you said that the next time I feel inclined to respond politely to one of your (fucking moronic) posts.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  296. Z-man says:
    @jacques sheete

    I just mentioned the great Douglas Reed on another board… just sayin’. (Big grin)

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  297. Z-man says:

    Italian Alpini troops going uphill against Austro Hungarian forces in WWI.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italian_alpine_troops.jpg

  298. @Hank Yobo

    I’m still awaiting the erection …

    I think you meant “an…”

    Just think of the bloody goof, Winnie. That oughta do it for ya!

  299. @Z-man

    It’s one heck of a book, eh?

    • Agree: Z-man
  300. @Colin Wright

    How did you manage to type a response with yer head stuck like that? 😉

    • LOL: Z-man
  301. @Haxo Angmark

    Hitler also painted pictures. Mediocre, like Churchill’s.

    Churchill’s were silly by comparison. He should have just stuck to playing with toy soldiers.

    • Replies: @Heros
  302. Hank Yobo says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    You’ve forgotten his time in India as well as his participation in the charge of the Twenty-First Lancers at Omdurman. As in science, the first author gets all the credit and the Nobel Prize. Perhaps the quote you were looking for was, “anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.”

  303. @Anon

    Shipping a bulk cargo by train costs several times as much as by water. Bulk cargoes with almost constant usage rates (such as coal, oil) are usually shipped by water transport when water transport is available, at least according to one commercial source [1].
    Not that sea and rail are the only two transports for bulk goods. Pipelines, for instance, can be cheapest overland for oil or material that an be fluidized.
    I suspect that it would actually have been cheaper to ship from the UK than for France in the AD 1930s. No real data, of course.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://freighthub.com/en/blog/modes-transportation-explained-best/

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Catiline
  304. Heros says:
    @jacques sheete

    David Irving informs us:

    “Churchill of course is no stranger to counterfeit art. In dire financial straits in the 1930s he took to faking the paintings of the deceased French impressionist Charles Maurin because Maurin’s signature sold somewhat better in the Left Bank boutiques in those days than did his own.

    President Franklin D Roosevelt spotted the little deception, and wrote him a joshing letter about it in February 1942. For some reason those letters never made it into the official volumes of Churchill Roosevelt correspondence — an omission I have rectified in “Churchill’s War”, vol. ii: “Triumph in Adversity”. Now that’s Real History. Spreads like Butter.”

  305. @Colin Wright

    My point would be that you can’t cheat an honest man.

    Honest men can be among the easiest to cheat partly because they can be clueless. Another point is that in practice, “leaders” tend to be dishonest as Hell. Also, one can threaten an honest man…

    If these countries weren’t so eminently corruptible, I doubt if it would pay for us to try to corrupt them. It comes down to somebody is going to do it, so perhaps we should get there first.

    There is plenty of obvious evidence that the USA has always been about as corruptible as it gets, and I doubt if the CIA would avoid an attempt to corrupt whether it “pays” or not. The second idea (that “we” should get there first) is so corrupt and naive that it’s not worth responding to beyond mentioning it.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  306. @Anon

    Because Germany morally disgraced and discredited itself by waging genocidal wars, mainly against Slavs.

    Wait — you’re saying that genocide is bad? What happened to ending “whiteness”?

    Counterinsurgency

  307. @Hank Yobo

    … as his participation in the charge of the Twenty-First Lancers at Omdurman.

    I’d like a chance to ask the thrill-seeking fool what he and his country were doing there…

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  308. Hank Yobo says:
    @jacques sheete

    Most young men are or were “thrill-seeking fools.” It is part of the human condition that drives civilization. Don’t you remember? And, yes, you will get the chance to ask Churchill this question if you are of C of E.

  309. @Hank Yobo

    no I didn’t.

    in India, @ Omdurman, & during the Boer War, WC was futzing around as a war correspondent. His commission as a Lieutenant (via mom’s horizontal activities) was as bogus as his Nobel Prize.

    WC, a self-confessed warmonger, wasn’t much good at fighting wars.

    just starting them. And getting other people massacred by the millions.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  310. @Colin Wright

    Also, the good harvest in the Punjab was wheat. The bad harvest in Bengal was rice.

  311. @jacques sheete

    Greatly disagree. The dishonest open up many opportunities for their dishonesty to be used against them. Once labelled as such, the dishonest find it difficult to get a rematch, while the honest are still dealing with each other without incurring search costs for new partners. Small immunities create greater honesty.

  312. Bukowski says:

    One thing Mussolini was successful with was cracking down on the mafia. Organised crime was only able to claw its way back after the advance of the Allied armies.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8177

  313. @jacques sheete

    Gringo intervention in Argentine affairs a la Guatemala-Banana Republics isn’t really evident per se.

    On the other hand international bankster scamming of Argentina is a big deal.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  314. Z-man says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Yep, just look at that blood sucker Singer. The only ‘financier’, actually with another Jew, who wouldn’t settle with the Argentine government over bonds owed. I think its still in litigation. I hope the Argentines don’t give up even if it costs them mucho bucks in lawyers fees.

  315. Hank Yobo says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    OK. Please read Manchester, vol. 1: 179-287 which deals mostly with Churchill’s days at Sandhurst until resigning his commission some years later. If you don’t think that six years in uniform is not military experience, then I don’t know what is. Perhaps you wish that he had served in Starfleet Command instead of the Malakand Field Force and Kitchener’s expedition down the Nile. If you want more information about these events, Churchill wrote two books about these campaigns. We don’t need to recreate Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” sketch any longer.

  316. Lurker says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    True. Rail transport is very cheap, point to point, but shipping is even cheaper.

  317. Bukowski says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Stalin supported the Comintern (Communist International) as a way of fomenting world wide revolution and support for his USSR. If he really believed in “socialism in one country” then why support an organisation like the Comintern ?
    Many others apart from Viktor Suvorov agree that Stalin was getting ready to attack Germany in 1941. David Irving is among them – http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
    Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin in November 1940 with a new list of territorial demands which made the 1939 pact out of date. Stalin wanted more territory from Finland and Romania, all of Bulgaria, Soviet bases in Yugoslavia and Turkey etc. Stalin was trying to blackmail Hitler – if he couldn’t get the territory by negotiation then he would get it by war. Hitler asked for a personal meeting with Stalin to try and sort out their differences but Stalin refused.

    Igor Bunich has even discovered the name of Stalin’s invasion of Germany. It was Operatsia Groza which translates as Operation Thunderstorm – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich
    Operation Barbarossa prevented Operation Thunderstorm.
    You wrote “If he really believed that Stalin was about to invade Europe, surely he would have used that in his propaganda”. Hitler did use it in his propaganda. Read Hitler’s Barbarossa Proclamation to the German Nation where he explains in detail why he ordered the preventive attack on the Soviet Union – https://codoh.com/library/document/2948/

  318. The Italian general Rodolpho Graziani’s 200,000 men were brutally defeated by General Wavell’s British

    Mediterraneans defeated by a numerically inferior force of Nortern Europeans? I’m beginning.to notice a pattern here.

    Alexander III of Macedon

    Sack of Rome
    by Brennus king of Gauls … by Visigoths under Alaric … by Vandals under Geiseric … by Ostrogoths under king Totila … by Robert Guiscard’s Normans … by mercenary troops of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V

    Varangian Guard
    Sack of Constantinople

    But these were just flukes, I’m sure. No chance this sort of thing ever occured in prehistory and that the nobility of Classical civilizations could have been descended from invading Northerners.

    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Catiline
  319. Fascism is the most successful ideology of all time. For one example of many, every Republican president since WWII has been a fascist.

    Yes, Donald Trump is a fascist [newrepublic.com]
    Donald Trump is actually a fascist [washingtonpost.com]
    Is Donald Trump a Fascist? [nytimes.com]

  320. Catiline says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    As a matter of fact since the defeat at Hadrianople which was due to the blunders of Valens no very important battle was won by German over Imperial forces during the whole course of the invasions.–J.B.Bury

  321. Catiline says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Not to mention the British were (illegally) interdicting Italian shipping before the onset of hostilities. See Italian Foreign Policy under Mussolini–Luigi Villari.

  322. Catiline says:

    The two armies met on the Raudian plain (or plain of Vercellae) and the Romans won a total victory over the invaders. The Cimbri were virtually wiped out, with the Romans claiming to have killed 65,000–160,000 and captured 60,000, including large numbers of women and children.

    Casualties: Tens of thousands (possibly in the six figures) of barbarians. Three hundred Italians

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

    HAHAHAHAHA

  323. Catiline says:

    After a string of Roman defeats the Romans under Gaius Marius finally defeated the Teutones and Ambrones. The Teutones and the Ambrones were virtually wiped out, with the Romans claiming to have killed 90,000 and captured 20,000, including large numbers of women and children who were later sold into slavery

    Strength: Eighty thousand barbarians. Forty thousand Italians.

    Casualties: Seventy thousand barbarians killed or captured. Less than one thousand Italians.

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

    HAHAHAHAHA

    • Replies: @Avery
  324. Catiline says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Comments #324 and #325 were in direct response to you.

  325. Avery says:
    @Catiline

    Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC:
    Hannibal’s strength: 55,000.
    Roman strength: 30,000.
    Result: total Roman defeat.
    Roman losses: ~15,000 killed. ~15,000 captured.
    Hannibal’s losses: ~2,000 killed.

    Battle of Cannae 216 BC:
    Hannibal’s strength: 50,000.
    Roman strength: 86,400.
    Result: total Roman defeat.
    Roman losses: ~70,000 killed.
    Hannibal’s losses: ~6,000 killed.

    Yes, I know Rome eventually won the Punic wars and raised Carthage to the ground.
    But by the same token, Teutons, a Germanic tribe, and other Germanic tribes eventually coalesced into the German people. Italy today is but a shadow of its great Roman past, and Germany is a European powerhouse, unlike dysfunctional, corrupt Italy.

    One thing though that Italy has going for it: looks like she is waking up from the SorosaComa that afflicts Western Europe, Germany in particular, and elected someone who is not afraid to care about Italy and Italians, instead of everybody else in the world.

    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Catiline
    , @Catiline
  326. Catiline says:
    @Avery

    But by the same token, Teutons, a Germanic tribe, and other Germanic tribes eventually coalesced into the German people. Italy today is but a shadow of its great Roman past, and Germany is a European powerhouse, unlike dysfunctional, corrupt Italy.

    Italy is far from dysfunctional. (It possesses more wealth per capita than your so-called German powerhouse). And Germany never attained the greatness of Rome’s past in it’s own past nor in it’s present.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Avery
  327. Catiline says:
    @Avery

    P.S. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time. No dishonor in losing battles to him.

  328. Catiline says:
    @Avery

    P.P.S. Ancient Rome was plenty corrupt.

    • Agree: Z-man
  329. Z-man says:
    @Catiline

    This ‘Avery’ character has ‘Colin Wright’s’ Italian derangement syndrome. LOL Italy has a modern economy, third after Germany and France in continental Europe.
    Very importantly, as mentioned, it has already taken the lead in western Europe in kicking out invading 3rd World illegal migrants as opposed to the feckless Germans and French. The new government is in solidarity with the Slavs and Hungarians of eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @Avery
  330. Avery says:
    @Catiline

    {…your so-called German powerhouse…}

    Not my Germany: I am not German.
    I just present facts.

    Being great once means what?
    Lots of ‘greats’ today are mere shadows of their great past.
    The sun never set on the British Empire, as they say: today, so-called ‘Great’ Britain is back to its little-island origins, still suffering from delusions of grandeur.
    Mongols had the largest empire in the world at one time: now they are what?

    And I don’t know how you measure ‘…..possesses more wealth per capita…..’, but by the commonly accepted measure of PPP, Germany is ahead:
    Germany PPP: $50,000 (2017).
    Italy PPP: $38,000 (2017).

    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Catiline
  331. Avery says:
    @Z-man

    {This ‘Avery’ character has ‘Colin Wright’s’ Italian derangement syndrome.}
    {Very importantly, as mentioned, it has already taken the lead in western Europe in kicking out…}

    Clearly _you_ are the one who is suffering from some kind of a derangement syndrome, because I was the one who specifically gave kudos to Italians for electing nationalists.

    Stop foaming at the mouth, and take a cold shower, ‘Z-man’ character.

    • LOL: Z-man
  332. Catiline says:
    @Avery

    https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html

    Wealth per capita: Italy $217,787 Germany $214,893

    Debt per capita: Italy $22,559 Germany $30,867

  333. Catiline says:
    @Avery

    Germany PPP: $50,000 (2017).
    Italy PPP: $38,000 (2017).

    Germany has only pulled ahead this far in recent years. Italy has been subject to financial/economic warfare by it’s so-called allies since the end of the Cold War. What capitalists call a “correction” is in the offing.

    P.S. Germany’s industry is complimentary to Italy’s. Germany subcontracts much of it’s production to Italy. They rise and fall together.

  334. Bukowski says:

    Story of a Year – The Time of the Carrot and the Stick is a book which was written by Benito Mussolini. He describes the tumultuous times he lived through after he was overthrown including his rescue by Otto Skorzeny. This book was compiled from newspaper articles which originally appeared in the Corriere della Sera – https://barnesreview.org/product/story-of-a-year/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Colin Liddell Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.