The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Wear Archive
Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
We Elected Their Nemesis ... But He Was Ours
🔊 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

Establishment historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable effort to prevent war. This article will show that contrary to what establishment historians claim, Franklin Roosevelt and his administration wanted war and made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.

THE SECRET POLISH DOCUMENTS

The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939. The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. They also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt that pushed for war.[1]Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 , Summer 1983, pp. 136-137, 140.

Some of the secret Polish documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the United States. I quote (a translation of) Ambassador Potocki’s report in full:

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

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

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

This propaganda, this war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce the American people to accept an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements.

Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly. The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.

As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.

ORDER IT NOW

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.[2]Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.

On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were:

1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”[3]Ibid., pp. 32-33.
(Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.)

Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months holiday in America. Meanwhile, I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur Minister on his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy….

The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being in danger of armed conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows: “Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”[4]Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.

On March 7, 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to the Polish government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:

The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.

As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all of this. The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.

The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.” In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.

Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the President who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.

The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and the senators were especially upset over the remarks of the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.

Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but because of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.

Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the emergency 552 million dollars). However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.

In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a war–if one should break out in Europe–is proceeding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.[5]Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , pp. 150-152.

These secret Polish reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany. However, they understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States. The Polish ambassadors realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish leaders in the United States who agitated for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own interests.

ORDER IT NOW

There is no question that the secret documents taken from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic. Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine and stated, “Some months ago I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic.”[6]Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292).

William H. Chamberlain wrote , “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.”[7]Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14). Historian Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”[8]Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.

Edward Raczyński, the Polish ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish documents. He wrote in his entry on June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of the originals and not merely copies.”[9]Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.

The official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939 reconfirmed the authenticity of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz was the Polish ambassador to Paris, who authored several of the secret Polish documents. The collection was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine, and quoted from several of them.

Tyler G. Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also confirmed the authenticity of the secret Polish documents. Kent says that he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents.[10]Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142.

The German Foreign Office published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich Ministry of Propaganda released the documents to strengthen the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak of war. In Berlin, journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release of the documents caused an international media sensation. American newspapers published lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the story large front-page headline coverage.[11]Ibid., pp. 137-139.
(Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142.)

However, the impact of the released documents was far less than the German government had hoped for. Leading U.S. government officials emphatically denounced the documents as not being authentic. William Bullitt, who was especially incriminated by the documents, stated, “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” Secretary of State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government.”[12]New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1. American newspapers stressed these high-level denials in reporting the release of the Polish documents.

These categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost completely eliminated the effect of the secret Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940 trusted their elected political leaders to tell the truth. If the Polish documents were in fact authentic and genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives had lied to the American public, while the German government told the truth. In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public could accept.

MORE EVIDENCE ROOSEVELT INSTIGATED WORLD WAR II

While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against Germany, a large amount of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors. The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s entry on December 27, 1945 stated:

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not….

What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.

Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s belief that Hitler’s attack could have been deflected to Russia….”[13]Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press, 1951, pp. 121-122.

Joseph Kennedy is known to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy’s statements to James Forrestal are accurate. Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.

Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt’s secret policy to instigate war against Germany with the release of a confidential diplomatic report after the war. The report described a secret meeting on September 18, 1938 between Roosevelt and Ambassador Lindsay. Roosevelt said that if Britain and France were forced into a war against Germany, the United States would ultimately join the war. Roosevelt’s idea to start a war was for Britain and France to impose a blockade against Germany without actually declaring war. The important point was to call it a defensive war based on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with a minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would provoke some kind of German military response, but would free Britain and France from having to declare war. Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public to support war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still neutral in a non-declared conflict.[14]Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.). Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.

President Roosevelt told Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could mean Roosevelt’s impeachment. What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution by illegally starting a war. For this and other reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated that during his three years of service in Washington he developed little regard for America’s leaders.[15]Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.

Ambassador Lindsay in a series of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new world war. Roosevelt promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms. This would allow the German ships to be easily seized by the British under circumstances arranged with exactitude between the American and British authorities. Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”

Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.[16]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 518-519.

Roosevelt’s desire to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter from Verne Marshall, former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, to Charles C. Tansill. The letter stated:

President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did not go to Poland’s aid, those countries could expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immediately declared war on Germany, they could expect “all aid” from the United States.

F.D.R.’s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to “Joe” and “Tony,” meaning Ambassadors Kennedy, in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain and Josef Beck to know of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic pouch from Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt’s idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck disappeared, they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The man who wrote the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.[17]Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.

William Phillips, the American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration in late 1938 was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips wrote: “On this and many other occasions, I would have liked to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”[18]Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.

ORDER IT NOW

When Anthony Eden returned to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt that the United States would enter as soon as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion arose. This information was obtained by Senator William Borah of Idaho, who was contemplating how and when to give out this information, when he dropped dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to historian Harry Elmer Barnes by some of Senator Borah’s closest colleagues at the time.[19]Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.

The American ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish government to refuse to enter into negotiations with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle predicted that in April a new crisis would develop, and that moderate British and French leaders would be influenced by public opinion to support war. Biddle predicted a holy war against Germany would break out.[20]Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.

Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt’s chief advisor, scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain that “the outlook in international affairs is tranquil.” Baruch agreed passionately with Winston Churchill, who had told him: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you [the United States] will be in it.”[21]Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.

Georges Bonnet, the French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt’s agent in pushing France into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated March 26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, “One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”[22]Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.

Dr. Edvard Beneš, the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš that the United States would actively intervene on the side of Great Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.[23]Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.

American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International News Service, met with Ambassador William Bullitt at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[24]“Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2. When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”[25]Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.

On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an independent republic. Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British government initially accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain’s guarantee of Czechoslovakia given after Munich was rendered void by the internal collapse of that state. It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been averted.[26]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 250.

However, Bullitt’s response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly unfavorable. Bullitt telephoned Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, Bullitt urged Roosevelt to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and to immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[27]Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.

Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that the British government strongly oppose Germany. Pearson and Allen reported that “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”[28]Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1939, p. 16.

Responding to Roosevelt’s pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany when he made a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of the British “appeasement” policy, stating that from now on Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally committed itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing to go to war against Germany. Ambassador Bullitt reported from Paris in a confidential telegram to Washington on April 9, 1939, his conversation with Polish Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, the Roosevelt administration might be able to supply warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated: “The Polish ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland, but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”[29]U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122.

Bullitt also attempted to bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of Ambassador Bullitt with French Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre, discussed the procurement of airplanes from America for France. Bullitt, who was in frequent telephonic conversation with Roosevelt, suggested a means by which the Neutrality Act could be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt’s suggestion was to set up assembly plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that Canada would not be a formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt also arranged for a secret French mission to come to the United States and purchase airplanes in the winter of 1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes by the French leaked out when a French aviator crashed on the West Coast.[30]Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.

On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace Wilson, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. Kennedy telephoned the State Department and stated: “The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely that we put pressure on the Poles. They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.”

Presented with a possibility to save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. With Roosevelt’s rejection, Kennedy reported, British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope. Chamberlain stated: “The futility of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”[31]Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p. 272.

Conclusion

U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. This is proven by the secret Polish documents as well as numerous statements from highly positioned, well-known and authoritative Allied leaders who corroborate the contents of the Polish documents.


ENDNOTES

[1] Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 , Summer 1983, pp. 136-137, 140.

[2] Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.

[3] Ibid., pp. 32-33.

[4] Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.

[5] Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , pp. 150-152.

[6] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292).

[7] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).

[8] Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.

[9] Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.

[10] Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142.

[11] Ibid., pp. 137-139.

[12] New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.

[13] Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press, 1951, pp. 121-122.

[14] Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.). Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.

[15] Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.

[16] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 518-519.

[17] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.

[18] Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.

[19] Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.

[20] Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.

[21] Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.

[22] Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.

[23] Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.

[24] “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.

[25] Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.

[26] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 250.

[27] Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.

[28] Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1939, p. 16.

[29] U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122.

[30] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.

[31] Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p. 272.

(Republished from Inconvenient History by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 381 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:

    Potocki:

    However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

    the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

    this potocki sounds like jew

  2. Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity.

    It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.

    It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it.

    Lol. Sure, Czechs must have been thrilled at losing their independence and being occupied by a foreign power, at least some of whose representatives eventually developed extremely sinister plans for the future of Czechs (Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case).
    I don’t know why Ron Unz keeps publishing these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).

  3. Take a look at an official US Army document. From my blog:

    Oct 19, 2015 – U.S. Army Mobilization began in 1938?

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and “thrust” into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our “peacetime” Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    “These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups.”

    And just prior to our being “forced” into World War II, lots of construction began:

    “Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers.”

    “During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites.”

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

  4. luke2236 says:

    Interesting…at least the people contemporary to the happening rightly noted the jewish influence and finance. WW2 was planned and instigated by the jew to make ‘the world safe for communism’ – just like they said in the ‘Protocols’…

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  5. Paul says:

    The United States historically has seen allowing any single country — such as Germany — to dominate Europe to be a potential threat to the United States. The fear is that they will then come for us.

    • LOL: L.K
  6. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Lol. Sure, Czechs must have been thrilled at losing their independence and being occupied by a foreign power, at least some of whose representatives eventually developed extremely sinister plans for the future of Czechs (Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case).

    not quite as bad as what jews were planning for Germany prior to WWII

    extremely sinister

  7. L.K says:

    Excellent article.

    • Agree: Wally, republic
  8. truthman says:

    Best book about these events is The Forced War by David Hoggan. He goes over many of these same events with a great attention to detail, though certainly from a pro-German stance.

  9. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    said:
    “It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.”

    – Except there was no threat to bomb Prague as Goring stated:

    “The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

    – Hacha was supported by his fellow Czechs who were also very concerned about Communism, hence the agreement for a ‘protectorate’ status.

    – And from his daughter:

    Hacha’s daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2. As David Hoggan wrote in his definitive work, The Forced War, Hacha’s daughter confirmed after the war that her father was treated courteously and kindly by the Germans, and with all the attention and consideration normally given to a statesman.

    – more:
    Hacha in Berlin, March 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8342

    said:
    “Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case”

    – Heydrich said no such thing, there is no proof or you would have presented it.
    Please present the original German documents where he supposedly said that. You cannot.

    said:
    “I don’t know why Ron Unz keeps publishing these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).”

    – Facts “apologize” for nothing.
    You’re simply upset that your fake Zionist view of “history” is being utterly torn apart.
    If anyone is “retarded” then it is you and those like you.

    – Hitler did not start a war with Poland.
    – Poland seized German land under the forced, illegal blockade mandated treaty of Versailles.
    – Poland was brutalizing Germans in the stolen land, Poland got what they started.
    – Again: Britain & France did nothing against the Communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east and took 60% of Poland though the treaty with Poland said nothing of exempting the USSR.

    And now, with the revelations proven in the article above, please read it, and that have also been covered by CODOH, you are grasping at straws.
    Now, shall we call you a Stalin / Communist apologist?

    http://www.codoh.com

  10. Wally says:
    @Paul

    LOL
    How would the Germans have done that?

    • Replies: @Paul
  11. Sean says:
    @Paul

    It is more of a certainty, because they try even without being a hegemon,

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-s-venezuela-challenge.

  12. Sean says:

    He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland

    Stalin understood that he was freeing Hitler to strike in the west by making a pact with Hitler. In effect he facilitated it. The British considered the Soviet Union to be the real problem. Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Romania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany. The British guarantee to Poland originally covered only their independence not territory; the British thought allowing Germany to take Polish land was acceptable and it would make war between Germany and the USSR quite likely (Chamberlain’s strategy was to let Hitler and Stalin into conflict). Only after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was announced was the guarantee extended to Poland’s territory because at that point the British decided war was necessary; Germany and the USSR being friendly was not acceptable as it meant Hitler was going to go West instead of East.

    Clearly Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.With the the Nazi-Soviet pact the powerful Soviet deterrent to any aggression was out of the equation and the British realized the balance of power had moved against them, which was unacceptable in a way that war between the Nazis and Soviets was not. If Hitler didn’t have to worry about the Soviets at his back that suddenly made all the previous calculations obsolete.

    Although Stalin may have anticipated territorial demands or military pressure such as border incidents he was astounded when Hitler subjected the USSR to an all out attack with the promethean goal of conquering the Soviet state. Everybody underestimated the effectiveness of the combination of Weimar reforms increasing centralised revenue raising for military purposes, Hitler’s decisiveness and the German army’s fighting power.

    • Replies: @MrVoxPopuli
  13. PeterMX says:
    @German_reader

    As thrilled as the Germans were when Bohemia and Moravia was taken from them (Austria) and over three million Germans forcibly became Czech citizens in a newly created state that never existed before.

    This video is banned here in Europe, where the lies are upheld by the law, but it can be viewed in the USA.

    1942 – At a mass meeting in Prague, 200,000 Czechs pledge loyalty to their homeland and to the German Reich. Czech Minister Emanuel Moravec addresses the large rally on July 3, 1942, on Wenceslas Square, near the historic statute of St. Wenceslas. He concludes with an expression of confidence in a better future for the Czech people, and of support for the “new Europe,” the “National Socialist revolution,” “our leader, Adolf Hitler,” and “our state president, Dr. Hacha.” Emil Hacha, head of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia government is present, along with many other officials. The meeting concludes with the crowd singing the Czech national hymn. Three minute newsreel clip, with Czech narration.

    • Replies: @chris
  14. “Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.”

    Which was on the 16th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. “Fell” probably doesn’t describe how he went out. You can read the Navy’s report on his death, called the Willcutts report after the Admiral who headed it, here:
    http://JamesForrestal.ARIwatch.com

    • Replies: @republic
    , @Hans
  15. Alfred says:
    @anon

    the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

    The Wikipedia says that 4,000,000 American soldier were mobilised and 111,000 killed – mostly by disease.

    That is absolutely nothing compared to the losses of Imperial Russia (12,000,000), France (8,900,000) and the British Empire (9,000,000). The demographics of France will never recover.

    The USA entered the war only 18 months before it ended. Of course, it took months before the troops even got there.

    I fear that the average educated American has no idea what war is like when it is fought in their homeland. Putin warned the Americans that the next war will not be fought on Russian soil. The American elites think that he means it will be fought in Europe. LOL

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Republic
  16. The fact is that WW2 in Europe was a tragic and pointless White On White fratricide that the United States had no business being involved in. The only winners of WW2 were the Jews.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  17. @anon

    Obviously the average American wouldn’t have much knowledge of WW1 debt, who owed it and who reneged. But it would have provided some nice big numbers for populists to use amongst people suffering from the Depression.

    Your point about the relatives of those killed in WW1 has superficial merit, but, even if your implicit view of the psychology of relatives is right I think you might have a problem with the figures. I’ve just looked them up and the number of American deaths in WW1 was about 116,000 out of a population nearly a thousand times as large: not much above one tenth of one per cent were killed. That isn’t a knockdown answer but I think it points to the need to question the strength of your observation.

  18. bossel says:

    a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army

    Nonsense. Gruppe Künsberg was sent into Warsaw in October 1939 after the unconditional surrender at the end of September of Warsaw’s defenders.

    U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II.

    Also nonsense. Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it. Unless you can show that the US was behind Hitler breaching the Munich Agreement & later attacking Poland, you have no case.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  19. @Carlton Meyer

    Not really your area is it? That wasn’t “mobilising” for war, as Russia did, critically, in 1914. That was merely preparing a country to fight a war which had pathetically small and underfunded armed forces.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  20. LondonBob says:

    No doubt the Roosevelt administration was agitating for war. Between the Soviets, the Nazis and FDR’s chums what chance did Europe have? Always found the US saving Britain meme particularly offensive.

    Contrary to official historians it is well worth remembering how catastrophic FDR’s domestic economic policies were with the US mired in depression until Truman started reversing his bizarre price controls etc.

    • Replies: @anon
  21. @Alfred

    Your point is in the right direction but your figures are of apples and oranges; American deaths v. total casualties for its allies.

  22. There is a lot of interesting information in the article and reports hitherto not familiar to me but I think the author has too limited a focus and certainly doesn’t justify the big claims that WW2 was aimed for and caused by FDR. You only have to suppose that, in Roosevelt’s judgment Hitler was going to make war and that the US had to be in it for its long term security. He may eell have regarded the Soviet Union as weak and vulnerable enough for their to be no reason to be actively anti Bolshevik. And – maybe alternatively – he would have had the Japanese well in mind and applauded the Soviet Union having recently given them a licking.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
    , @refl
  23. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Where can one find online this “German ‘white paper’”?

    • Replies: @republic
  24. Most of the information in this article was gathered together by Herbert Hoover who wrote it up in long book form in the 1950s. He worked from Polish documents captured in Warsaw as the article says. Hoover’s Ms remained unpublished for many years. After it was published, as Freedom Betrayed a few years ago, I wrote to the editor, Stephen Nash who did not reply. I also called the publisher’s editor who would not discuss it with me. I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed that the tales told by court historians such as Nash, Stephen E Ambrose. “Sir” Michael Howard, Martin Gilbert and so on are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides. The leaders included Roosevelt in a gallery of the guilty running from him through Churchill, and Hitler to Stalin and Henry C Morgenthau, deviser of the infamous Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of the German people.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  25. @Wizard of Oz

    Documents and Evidence not your long suit, eh Wiz?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  26. fnn says:

    If you’re very careful, you can say quite similar things even in Germany:

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @PeterMX
  27. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website
    @Robert Whatever

    The only winners of WW2 were the Jews.

    US and USSR emerged as superpowers.
    Post-war Europe recovered fast and living standards improved greatly.

    Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.

    If Jews emerged victorious, it was because they took over institutions in the US. It would have happened even without WWII though, minus the Shoah narrative, Jewish power would have had less of a moral shield.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
  28. The zionist control of the US with the zionist privately owned FED starting in 1913 has brought America war after war starting with WWI and right on down and through the mideast , all for the profit of the demonic draconian diabolical FED and its satanic zionist owner!

    Wars are a sacrifice to satan from the zionists and a money making formula for the satanic zionist banking kabal and so America is kept in a state of terror from the very same terrorists that the zionist controllers have created ie AL CIADA aka ISIS and all off shoots thereof and thus insures that terror and war go hand in hand, as we goyim are marched towards a zionist NWO!

  29. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website
    @German_reader

    these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).

    These revisionist pieces are 50% kooky but offer up kernels of facts and insights that reveal aspects of the time mostly buried by the Judeo-centric media. It has elements of Nazi apologia, but keep in mind that much of US narrative is Jewish Supremacist propaganda.

    Now, there is something to be learned from the Jewish Narrative as it isn’t all lies either.

    If we can select the truths from the Jewish Supremacist narrative and truths from the Nazi-sympathizing narrative, we can construct a truer narrative. Of course the lies and distortions of both.

    The recent events in Iraq and Syria and the whole Russia Collusion hysteria go to show that the ‘liberal’corporate media can be just as full of BS as any totalitarian press.
    Of course, the difference is Putin and Assad are NOT Hitlers whereas Hitler was truly a hitler, a pathological demagogue.

    Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR’s hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded given Hitler’s actions against Poland and then against the USSR, an ally. Also,Hitler was someone with whom diplomacy was often impossible since he regarded the compromise of others as weakness to exploit.

    But it’s also true that the US, for ideological, imperial, and tribal reasons of its own, believed Germany must be toppled first before its preferred world order could prevail.

  30. This is another great article and both the author and UR deserve to be highly commended.

    Potocki’s reports (according to the translations given) were amazingly perceptive on all points.

    The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition.

    That’s a conclusion that, while obvious, is almost never addressed but should be. It also sounds a lot like the doofus, Woody Wilson, and his fake messianic “idealism.” Both of those clowns were amoral narcissistic fools to the max and menaces to world peace. Both were functionally crazy, cunning and downright evil.

    It’s interesting to note that FDR was taken to task for essentially sitting out WW1 at a desk job by Teddy Roosevelt ( another militaristic, blowhard, self stroking fool) while Teddy’s 4 sons were fighting in Europe, so he took a “playtime” tour of the battlefields to bolster his “war” credentials.
    He also…

    …was enjoying every aspect of being a man of authority in a government at war. Early on he had confided to a friend, “It would be wonderful to be a war president.”Thomas Fleming, The Illusion of Victory, p254 (2003)

    For me, one of the morals of all that is that men cannot be trusted in positions of power and “we” must act accordingly. Another lesson learned is that the US government has long acted against the interests of the American prols, peasants, peons and pissants, and no doubt shall as long as it exists. What to do about it appears to be, at this point, an individual thing.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  31. @German_reader

    It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.

    Credible source, please.

    Now go back and read the article and try to find out who was threatening whom. You could also review the causes of WW1, but that may be asking too much.

    Also, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the report that New York “Jews” declared war on Germany in 1933, years before the Nazis did anything (they were subsequently accused of) to the Jews.

  32. @Paul

    The fear is that they will then come for us.

    What’s your assessment of the validity of that fear and how familiar are you with the concept of pretexts?

    • Replies: @Paul
  33. @james bacque

    I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed that the tales told by court historians… are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides.

    Kindly elaborate on that conclusion, please.

  34. @Sean

    Now THAT makes perfect sense! Kudos!

  35. @German_reader

    The Nazi apologism of these pieces is unfortunate (e.g. casually glossing over the German destruction of Czechoslovakia as you cite), but other than that they’re quite valuable. The standard narrative is that America was completely neutral until the outbreak of war, after which it adopted pro-British neutrality.

    The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war, and once war had broken out its policy was to commit America to the war.

    That obviously does not absolve the Axis powers. If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would’ve accepted German demands. It of course doesn’t follow that this would’ve preserved the peace in Europe.

    This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

  36. @bossel

    Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it.

    Duh.

    That’s a classic straw man fallacy. Unless you can show that the author claimed what you said he did, you have no case. And since the Dizzard agreed with you, it’s almost certain that you have none.

    • Agree: ploni almoni
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  37. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @LondonBob

    No doubt the Roosevelt administration was agitating for war. Between the Soviets, the Nazis and FDR’s chums what chance did Europe have? Always found the US saving Britain meme particularly offensive.

    somehow you left the belligerent Churchill out of this mix

    note that he was on the hook to some jew bankers for the solvency of his entire estate, also note the quip by a Rothschild woman “if my sons didn’t want wars there would be no wars”

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @LondonBob
  38. @Priss Factor

    Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.

    Maybe a few little ones did, but the bigshot moneybag crowd probably did not.

    Here’s an anecdote to ponder.

    The new [Jewish] prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armaments race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and whatnot. The profits from the armaments race will go largely into the pockets of Jews, because of their preponderant share in retail trade… Such is Hitler’s achievement in the cause of antiSemitism.

    I was talking one day to Z, a Jewish journalist expelled from Germany who has settled in Vienna, where he has a pleasant home and a motor car. He talked with bitter resentment of Germany. ‘Ah’, he complained, ‘the Poles murdered us, but the Germans have robbed us’, and it was quite clear from his tone which was the worse thing for him. Then he told me how his son was still working for a big German film company in Berlin and had thrice had his salary raised to induce him not to leave and emigrate, as he desired, wishing to join his father. The Jews. As I write, in Vienna, they are all about me, watching with non-committal, veiled, appraising eyes the comedy that is going on in Insanity Fair. They know that when Hitlerism has passed away they will still be trading in the Kärntnerstrasse.

    -Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938), chapter 17

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  39. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

    more accurate is the other way around – Roosevelt has long been deified by the MSM and the American left.

    The American right just notices he was a flawed man

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  40. @Priss Factor

    Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR’s hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded …

    Hitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist “world revolution” fanatics and their Wall Street backers were. Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities. Long standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of “rabbi” Stephen Wise? G-wd’s messenger on Earth, right?)

    This oughta be depressing…

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  41. @Thorfinnsson

    but other than that they’re quite valuable.

    I don’t think so, imo those pieces without exception are so stupid that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.
    I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

    The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war

    I don’t think the article above demonstrated that, tbh the documents cited in it appear to be totally unremarkable to me and don’t support such a thesis.
    Maybe someone else has made a better case for it, but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

    If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would’ve accepted German demands.

    But the US didn’t really do anything in 1939/40, it was just words. iirc even Lend-Lease was only adopted after the fall of France.
    The backing of Britain and France (still seen as premier world powers at the time, and in the case of France with a large army with modern equipment) was probably enough for Poland, I don’t think the remote possibility of American intervention (which was years away anyway) was decisive.
    A fundamental issue was of course that Hitler had already shown with the destruction of Czechoslovakia (so casually dismissed in the article above) in March 1939 that his ambitions went beyond merely uniting all majority German areas in the Reich and that he wasn’t trustworthy at all.

  42. Historical documents?
    “Galaxy Quest” And we are all Thermians.

  43. Agent76 says:

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

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

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

    *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

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

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  44. from the up-to-date history of the second world war it is now possible to see the utter madness, irrelevance really of white people! from Churchill and the English, to Roosevelt, the Germans, the Russians.. and all others at the top of the white countries..the white elites..what on earth are they, what are they about on planet earth, what do they want?

    they smash, beat, poison, blow up, lie all the time, cheat, steal, draw all human profit off into few hands, bring world economy to a standstill then create wars for all and every socially controlling purpose including the reduction of ordinary people..all working people. war is to protect the money grubbers and economic slavers from the mess they make in their own profit taking and exploitation of the people..to reduce the people to easy captivity, their numbers as a fighting force capable of social revolution and on and on, permitting the restart of another profit taking cycle and the same flow of events again and again and again

    by new information when properly considered Hitler comes of a relatively sane man who did not want war..but look at the things he did himself!

    and over all of this, like mad directors of a horror movie are the fake Jews, the Khazars who collectively must be the devil himself, directing a MADD movie of existence.

    LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE ALL COLLECTIVELY DOING -HAVE DONE. IT IS CONSTANT CENTURIES LONG LUNACY, PURE NAKED INSANITY THAT THEY HAVE MANAGED TO PUT OR PULL A CONSISTENT PATINA OVER, THAT ALLOWS THE REST OF US TO TAKE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS SANE AND TO ACCEPT WHITE PEOPLE AS LOGICAL AND RIGHT IN THE WORLD..THE ACTUAL OPPOSITE OF WHO/WHAT THEY ARE

    I don know of anything historically like the 19 century. from the Japanese Russian war, the first world war, the Russian revolution, the economic games of the years between 1920-39 they call the great crash, the second world war..all the way to currently when white people appear to be finally tired of themselves and are ready to end it all in another explosion of war with nuclear weapons..we have had such a show of absolutely human insanity there are negative words capable of describing that flow of human time and the people involved.

    Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Churchill, Chamberlin, Mussolin, DeGaulle,..all, an endless flow of terrible human beings..and it has not stopped, all the way through the Clintons, Obama, Macron..and on and on and on, the same carnage, the same insanity..it never stops, never ever. nothing depresses me as human history does..the white part of it..the rise of the white man. there is no way out of it..white outlook and socially dominant power, will not allow for anything positive in the human potential to manifest. only genocide, human engineering and the development of social grotesque forms of social organization looms for the human future

    and they say some god made this life..a supreme and good god worked all this out and made ot, let it be. and of course that is more grotesque nonsense that leads to more hell for humanity.

    I dont see the point to life. the ancient Africans had a point. they developed a life in nature, accepted nature as the template and flowed accordingly. in that way they gave us all a chance by developing the basis of survival, of social organization and spiritual sanity. the white man took that and poisoned it, twisted it into all the insane religious nonsense that drives human suicide currently.

    but with the rise of the white male into global power for 500 years now humanity has gone totally insane..impenetrably insane, comprehensively insane. we have all been made nuts by white logic. we have ringed ourselves by that same logic with every conceivable weapon that can kill all humanity. we have actually set the stage for the possible rise out of nature itself organic mutations that may wipe humanity all on their own..mutations changed by what we have routinely thrown into the world as waste for which humanity has no biological defense.

    that is the white mans logic..operating on the principle that there is a free lunch, always looking for on and causing existential chaos in the process. I want to cite the obvious stupidity in that approach..a collectively arsine approach..but it is far, far, far, far….. worse than that. the condition of the white man appears to be irreversible, cannot be changed and with the destructive means the white elites now have it is totally unlikely that humanity comes out of the experience of white power, white global domination, alive..or in one piece. we may crawl out alive but we wont be human anymore

    SCREW ROOSEVELT. HE WAS THE WORST FROM THE START! I KNEW THAT SINCE I WAS MUCH YOUNGER AND COULD CONSIDER REALITY. ROOSEVELT HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A HERO, HE IS A FAKE HERO!.

    I HOPE TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE HIS STATUE TORN DOWN AS LENIN’S STATUE WAS WITH THE FALL OF RUSSIAN STATE CAPITALISM

    • Replies: @anon
  45. Mulegino1 says:

    A wonderful article!

    The myth that the US and their henceforth junior partner UK- along with the Soviet Union- “liberated” Europe ought to be put to rest. There was no “liberation” of Europe from Germany, unless massive civilian deaths and the unprecedented destruction of property and cultural landmarks equates to “liberation.” As an American, this is disturbing to me, but it is the truth.

    FDR was an ignoramus and an ingenue surrounded, in his later years, by communists and their sympathizers. Had he adopted National Socialist economic policies here in the US, he could have ended the depression and brought America to unprecedented prosperity and the ultimate fulfillment of its great providential mission to be an impregnable continental power. Instead, he squandered all that and doubled down on the catastrophically error of his predecessor Wilson.

    In both cases- FDR’s and Wilson’s- Europe lost. Disastrously and tragically.

    • Replies: @anon
  46. Che Guava says:

    That is an interesting article.

    I tend to concetrate on Rosenfeldt’s actions in the Pacific, knew about many non-neutral actions in the Atlantic, non-neutrality of ‘lend-lease’, but most (all )of the content of this article is new to me.

    Very interesting.

    Changing the subject a little for entertainment, I enjoy reading Charles Bukowski (RIP) at times.

    His account of the behaviour of young men post-Pearl Harbour is hilarious, he is drinking (and drunk) on a park bench, suddenly sees them start shouting ‘godawar’ and frantically running around.

    I forget the title, but it is a very laconic and funny description.

    When seeing Starship Troopers by Verhoeven, I always think that at least one of the scriptwriters must have read Bukowski.

    It is so similar.

  47. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

    thanks to those “kooky” revisionists the liars at Auschwitz had to reduce their claimed number from 4 million all the way down to 1 million

  48. Mulegino1 says:
    @fnn

    His book is a must read: “The War that Had Many Fathers”.

  49. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben sampson

    I dont see the point to life. the ancient Africans had a point. they developed a life in nature, accepted nature as the template and flowed accordingly. in that way they gave us all a chance by developing the basis of survival, of social organization and spiritual sanity. the white man took that and poisoned it, twisted it into all the insane religious nonsense that drives human suicide currently.

    good

    go back and live in your mud hut then

    • Replies: @ben sampson
    , @MarkinPNW
  50. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    FDR was an ignoramus and an ingenue surrounded, in his later years, by communists and their sympathizers.

    if you assume people were stupid or for some reason were doing something other than what they intended to do, you let them off the hook for their behaviour

    hold them accountable instead

    • Agree: ben sampson
  51. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In Tansill’s book “Backdoor to war” you find that Roosevelt deliberately supported China against Japan in full knowledge that it would hand China to the USSR. He simply did not see communism as a threat at all, but rather as a complimentary world power. In this of cause he was guided along by the numerous bolshevik agents in his government. So the game was in East Asia as in Eurooe to liberate Communism from the middle sized powers which could have contained it: China and half of Europe for the communists and the whole world scared to death between the two Superpowers.
    The Germans up to the last moment hoped that the western powers would help them out. And to this day it is near impossible to grasp that conquering Europe was an American-communist joint venture.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  52. DFH says:

    Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution

    Why does he say ‘religious persecution’ if he’s talking about Jews? Was that how Jews presented it at the time in their propaganda?

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  53. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor

    said:
    “Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.”

    More of your impossible Zionist nonsense, as has been demonstrated and you still cannot refute.
    You might get away with such absurdities where free speech is banned, but not there.

    “There’s no business like $hoah business.”

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @ben sampson
  54. @anon

    Well I hate FDR, and his foreign policy is one reason.

    And I’m not alone in that.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  55. Type in search engine : 1933 declaration of war ; make your own conclusions

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  56. @German_reader

    … but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

    On what basis?

  57. @anon

    somehow you left the belligerent Churchill out of this mix

    Yes, he sure did. What a piece of work that glory-hound sot was.

  58. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor

    said:
    “These revisionist pieces are 50% kooky but offer up kernels of facts and insights that reveal aspects of the time mostly buried by the Judeo-centric media. It has elements of Nazi apologia, but keep in mind that much of US narrative is Jewish Supremacist propaganda.”

    – Tell us specifically what “50%” of Revisionist research is “kooky”.

    – What’s to apologize for?
    ‘The Nazis” did not do what is alleged of them and you have no proof they did.

    – Talk is cheap. Empty, Pavlovian talk is all we get from you.

    All that while you “apologize” for Communism & Stalin.

    http://www.codoh.com

  59. @Agent76

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

    Thank you in spades for bringing our attention to that truth.

  60. @anon

    aaaah Bwoy! that you don’t know how sweet that can be is clear. but of course you are white and stupid as per your response.

    surely your superior whiteness permits you some ability to understand what I said and come up with something sensible?

    apparently not

    • Replies: @anon
  61. Roosevelt was no incompetent or fool. he knew exactly what he was doing. he was executive and ran his show.

    Roosevelt was elite and smart enough to know how to compromise and neutralize the american socialist cat until he had a war to smash all worker opposition, directing it into war and depopulation of the capitalist opposition.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  62. @German_reader

    I don’t think so, imo those pieces without exception are so stupid that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.
    I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

    The stupid thing about these pieces is the Nazi apologism, which in turn reduces their propaganda value.

    The information about American policy presented in this piece is useful and generally unknown, even among WW2 buffs. American WW2 buffs generally have good knowledge about how the Roosevelt administration worked to maneuver Japan into war, but have much less knowledge about its European diplomacy.

    I don’t think the article above demonstrated that, tbh the documents cited in it appear to be totally unremarkable to me and don’t support such a thesis.
    Maybe someone else has made a better case for it, but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

    Roosevelt worked to gets the Poles to reject all German demands and made an effort to get the French and British to adopt a maximalist position on the German-Polish quarrel by threatening to withdraw economic support if this was not done. That strikes me as seeking to foment war in Europe.

    Roosevelt’s aggressive foreign policy was also noted by contemporary observers and objected to by “isolationist” factions in US politics before war broke out. As early as 1937 M. King Hubbert of Hubbert’s Peak fame and Technocracy denounced FDR for turning to “foreign intrigue”. The administration made a determined effort to weaken or eliminate the Neutrality Acts and sought to gain the power to provide arms to only a particular belligerent side in that year.

    But the US didn’t really do anything in 1939/40, it was just words. iirc even Lend-Lease was only adopted after the fall of France.
    The backing of Britain and France (still seen as premier world powers at the time, and in the case of France with a large army with modern equipment) was probably enough for Poland, I don’t think the remote possibility of American intervention (which was years away anyway) was decisive.

    Anglo-French strategy was predicated from the beginning on the ability to access American resources. This is a major reason why there was no French offensive in September, 1939 (with the benefit of hindsight this probably would’ve been decisive). British and French purchasing agents were inspecting American munitions when their export was still illegal. Deliveries of arms to France began before war broke out.

    It is also a mistake to only look at American munitions. America also had vast natural resources, capital goods, intermediate goods, and financial resources which were on offer to the Entente.

    Lend-Lease, which provided weapons for free, was established in March, 1941 (after the war broke out but none the less indicative of Roosevelt’s policy).

    “Just words” ignores the impact the promise of massive economic support must have had on Entente strategy.

    Hitler for his part took American policy quite seriously. His infamous 1939 speech announcing that the consequence of war would be the end of Jewry in Europe was directed at Roosevelt, whom he viewed as a tool of the Jews.

    A fundamental issue was of course that Hitler had already shown with the destruction of Czechoslovakia (so casually dismissed in the article above) in March 1939 that his ambitions went beyond merely uniting all majority German areas in the Reich and that he wasn’t trustworthy at all.

    Of course.

    The basic problem with many articles like this is that they tend to just gloss over and excuse Germany’s policy, which is absurd. It’s well-known that Germany intended war. If Poland had caved to German demands that almost certainly wouldn’t have been the end of it.

    FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

  63. @Common sense Joe

    Excellent advice.:

    Type in search engine : 1933 declaration of war ;

    But please noooo…!!!! please don’t advocate this…!:

    …make your own conclusions

    Aside from the fact that they’ve already been brainwashed, most have little to no capacity to even start down that road. Most, in fact would conclude that we “oughtta have a law, er sumpin,” and if not that, then some Messiah like the Hillaryena or da tRumpster, or something along that long parade of loathsome fools.

  64. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    – Nothing to apologize for. The Nazis did not do what is claimed of them. You simply cannot produce proof that they did, or your would.
    – Your apologies for Communism & Stalin are noted however.
    – German was wanted in Czechoslovakia, pay attention. Read my comment #9.
    said:
    “It of course doesn’t follow that this would’ve preserved the peace in Europe.”
    – Indeed, Stalin’s planned attack on Germany guaranteed that.
    recommended:
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    said:
    “This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.
    – US patriots dislike FDR for dragging the US into war, as shown, and prolonging The Depression, among many other things.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  65. Jacques sheete has asked for elaboration of this, and here it is: My work shows that all the reasons given to my family and our nation, Canada, for going to war in 1939, were either betrayed or always untrue. The reasons were much more likely to have been the physical and moral destruction of Germany envisaged in about 1895 by Rhodes, Natty Rothschild and the Prince of Wales Edward et al. See Hidden History by Docherty and Macgregor.
    The destruction of Germany was being accomplished in 1945-6 according to one of its prime planners, Henry C. Morgenthau. This is chronicled in my book Crimes and Mercies. Millions more Germans were killed after the war by allied action than during the war itself .

  66. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben sampson

    you sound like the typical supremacist jew, ben (either that or a dumb ngger)

    most of your comments in this thread make no sense, only thing clear is your hatred for whites

    awwww boyyyyy!

  67. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

    why do you keep trotting this out there:

    “FDR policy viewed bitterly by the American right”

    “FDR long been a despised figure on the American right”

    you make the right sound like the bad guys for seeing him for who he really was

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  68. @ben sampson

    Agree, Roosevelt knew to the very hour when Japan would attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen, see the book Day of Deceit by Robert Sinnett, it can be had on Amazon. Roosevelt was in with the zionist banking kabal and they wanted a world war to advance their NWO and they are not through , the next war will be with Russia and China.

    The zionists believe they can survive a nuclear war in their DUMBs aka Deep Underground Military Bases that they have through out the US and Europe, and the hell with the rest of us, in fact they would like a depopulation event!

  69. conatus says:

    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’
    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

    “Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.”

    • Replies: @chris
  70. @Thorfinnsson

    Roosevelt worked to gets the Poles to reject all German demands and made an effort to get the French and British to adopt a maximalist position on the German-Polish quarrel by threatening to withdraw economic support if this was not done.

    If true, that’s indeed interesting, I might have to look into this. The arguments in the article above (referring to a lot of pretty weak sources like newspaper articles or much later reminiscences) don’t seem convincing to me though.
    What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.
    Commenters here would of course argue that he was a mere puppet of the Jews, but I don’t buy that either (during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him).

    FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

    I know about those sentiments…on the other hand his policy made the US the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties among WW2 combatants.
    Personally I’ve come to view US post-war dominance quite negatively (not least because it facilitated the spread of US liberalism with its particularly demented manifestations like Negrophilia, which may well lead to the eventual destruction of the entire pan-European world), but from the point of view of most Americans FDR’s foreign policy must be seen as highly successful imo.

  71. Short article by Chamberlain, who is much more credible than any of the Red and Zio apologists here, listing some of the skunk actions of the warmonger, FDR.

    Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
    The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1… at Rochester, New York, on November 2…at Cleveland on November 3…

    So much for presidential words. What about presidential actions? American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President’s professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:

    William Henry Chamberlin, How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War

  72. @james bacque

    Jacques sheete has asked for elaboration of this…

    Thanks for that highly regarded (by me) info, but I was asking you to elaborate on why you got no response. I am not questioning your veracity, but merely trying to understand what motives they had to snub you.

    Anyway, I’m outta here for a few hours.

    PS I’m already behind at least 8 books, but I now must add the ones you mentioned to the list; they sound very interesting.

  73. @anon

    Too bad “Anja” hasn’t shown up to support that one. They and their ilk provide good examples of some of the evil that the Germans were up against which are of the same type and magnitude that we productive ones in the US and the rest of the world have been subject to for too long.

  74. LondonBob says:
    @anon

    Churchill didn’t become Prime Minister till 1940, Chamberlain is the relevant character, who I thought behaved reasonably and is unfairly demonised now.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golem
  75. LondonBob says:
    @jacques sheete

    Interestingly Reed thought Hitler should have been overthrown or Germany invaded and advocated such. It is possible a coup by the German military could have been instigated in the thirties, certainly in the latter years of the war if unconditional surrender hadn’t been adopted as official policy.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  76. @anon

    Because I’m part of the American right and despise FDR.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @jacques sheete
  77. leftright says:
    @Paul

    More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[24] When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”

    those behind the wars do not serve ideology or democracy. they serve their own interests. then and now. they rule by dividing the rest of the world. by pitting germany against russia, in this case, they worked toward their own domination. their short term goal is the elimination of competitions by all means. their long tern goal is their hegemony and domination of the world. they believe that they are that superior.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  78. @DFH

    ‘religious persecution’ . . . Was that how Jews presented it at the time in their propaganda?

    (apologies in advance for not tracking the full context of your comment; however —)

    Leonard Stein was Chaim Weizmann’s closest assistant as Weizmann maneuvered his way into influential British circles to acquire the Balfour Declaration. Stein wrote a lengthy history of that period, The Balfour Declaration.

    Stein also published, in 1933, two very obscure, small booklets, The persecution of the Jews in Germany. by Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association. and Supplementary bulletin, no. 1 of the same title.

    The booklets are collections of letters written to- and by- persons of influence in British government and institutions. Among the varied complaints voiced, the major complaint constituting “persecution” had to do with limits on Jewish enrollments and/ or positions in German universities.

    This is particularly noteworthy in view of a speech by Samuel Untermeyer, “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,” in August, 1933. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/untermeyer.htm The audience- and purpose- for that speech was to collect pledges to build Hebrew University in Palestine.

    In the midst of the Great Depression, sufficient funds were collected that, by 1936 – 37, Eric(h) Mendelsohn,* “the Jewish architect,” built not only Hebrew University but also luxury residences for Chaim Weizmann and the Schocken family, at Rehovath in Palestine.

    As well, as is explained (~1:44) in the Goy Guide to World History, the New School for Social Research was created to provide a resource for disseminating ideologies of Frankfurt school and others; “throughout the pre-war, war and post-war years, degrees were handed out willy-nilly to Jewish immigrants,” who then became the teaching base in the rapidly growing US college education movement instigated by GI Bill.

    Unz Forum habitués may be aware that the “neocons” evolved from young Trotskyites who argued from separate corners at City College of New York. It has been said that part of their grievance was that they were not enrolled at Harvard or Columbia. Less often noted is that CCNY charged no tuition. They attended college for free.

    *(sidenote: Mendelsohn had hoped to become THE architect for the new Israel, but that didn’t work out. Instead, by the opening of the 1940s he was in USA, teaching at Harvard, and in 1942 he and fellow Jewish architects collaborated with Standard Oil Corp. and US Air Force to design and build “German Village” in the Utah desert. https://www.ksl.com/article/37248295/dugways-german-village-shows-how-far-allies-were-willing-to-go-to-end-wwii

    German Village (and also Japan Village) were exquisitely accurate replications of typical German working-class housing, used by US Air Force to refine and rehearse the most efficient means of creating a firestorm that would consume the buildings and their civilian occupants. )

  79. @anon

    ngger is accurate!

    why no sense?

    you are prolly right man. I am rappin’ off the top of my head and miss the boat entirely..from the start to now. it is time to seek my mud hut and relax. the white world clearly is too much for me

  80. @LondonBob

    Actually up till 1939 War Plan Red was still active – American war with Britain specifically the invasion of Canada (which they failed to annex in 1776 and 1812).

    WWII enriched Kosher America Inc and empowered the Judeo-Bolshevik USSR.

  81. @james bacque

    thanks for the reference.

    iirc David Irving recounts that Churchill was deeply indebted to Nattie Rothschild.

  82. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    you’re not framing things correctly – think like the jew

    we are innocent and pure and righteous and anyone who would oppose us is the scum of the earth

  83. @German_reader

    What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.

    How about you look at the strong sources, for example in the 25 point NSDAP program? I know, its hard to find in German curiously and mysteriously, but english shall do.

    1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

    2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

    8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

    11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

    12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

    19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

    20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

    21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

    22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

    23. [b]We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.[/b] In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

    24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

    Does it answer your question?

    Obviously timeless demands, looking at the situation today.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Tom Welsh
  84. @German_reader

    If true, that’s indeed interesting, I might have to look into this. The arguments in the article above (referring to a lot of pretty weak sources like newspaper articles or much later reminiscences) don’t seem convincing to me though.
    What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.
    Commenters here would of course argue that he was a mere puppet of the Jews, but I don’t buy that either (during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him).

    It may be down simply to politics.

    Roosevelt’s New Deal proved to be a failure, and the Roosevelt Recession was especially damaging to his power and prestige. While it could be a coincidence (or merely a response to increasingly assertive German policy), it’s noteworthy that the aggressive turn in Roosevelt’s foreign policy coincided with the Roosevelt Recession.

    It’s forgotten today, but many of the policies of the New Deal were not Keynesian and were actually inspired by WW1 planning. FDR’s prewar budget deficits were on average lower than American fiscal deficits are today. Thus rearmament appeared to offer a way out of the intractable Depression.

    That Roosevelt himself was a Germanophobe, an Anglophile, a naval enthusiast, and extremely weak on communism no doubt contributed. Biographers have also noted that FDR always wanted to be a wartime President, comparing himself to Lincoln.

    Roosevelt was also influenced by the theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford John Mackinder. Thus he subscribed to the idea that the US needed to prevent any one power from controlling the “heartland”. Wartime American propaganda reflects these ideas by noting the strategic need to prevent the Axis powers from completely controlling two of the world’s three “industrial regions”.

    I know about those sentiments…on the other hand his policy made the US the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties among WW2 combatants.
    Personally I’ve come to view US post-war dominance quite negatively (not least because it facilitated the spread of US liberalism with its particularly demented manifestations like Negrophilia, which may well lead to the eventual destruction of the entire pan-European world), but from the point of view of most Americans FDR’s foreign policy must be seen as highly successful imo.

    This American views FDR’s foreign policy very negatively, and the domestic effects of America’s strategic reorientation must be considered in any assessment. The perceived requirements of WW2 and the subsequent Cold War led to the replacement of America’s “white nationalism” with “civil rights”. It also led to the dismantling of America’s formidable protective barriers and those which existed between the other industrial powers, which in turn allowed them to converge with America’s level of economic development.

    FDR simply converted latent potential into military and diplomatic power. What actually turned America into the world’s greatest power was seizing the best parts of the North American continent, populating it with white people, a good legal and economic system, and a consistent pro-manufacturing policy orientation until 1945.

    WW2 in fact planted the seeds for the end of America (via the destruction of its racial identity) and its eclipse as the world’s foremost power by China (via its unification).

    It’s also worth pointing out that other than the capital expenditures made during the war Americans got nothing out of victory. Just a bunch of vassal states to garrison with troops and propped up with ruinous economic concessions. The only actual gains were German scientists and intellectual property.

    This fundamental reorientation of America has persisted for more than seventy years and is destroying the country. It has also had decidedly negative consequences for Europe as you note.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  85. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    Hitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist “world revolution” fanatics and their Wall Street backers were. Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities. Long standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of “rabbi” Stephen Wise? G-wd’s messenger on Earth, right?)

    The problem with such uber-contextual logic is that everyone can blame the world for all his actions. He can say the World made me do it.

    Yes, there was Versailles Treaty, communism, and British fears of Germany. All of that is true.

    But there was also this. Brits came around to feeling that Germans got a raw deal after WWI. British hostility mostly ebbed away by the time of Hitler’s rise.

    It’s true that World Jewry hated the rise of Hitler and tried to hurt Germany. But Jews back then didn’t have the power to force world governments to strangulate Germany.

    The fact is France and UK let Germany retake the Rhineland. They allowed the unification of Germany and Austria. And they let Germany take Sudetenland. And when Germany overstepped its bounds and took Crezh territory, UK made a deal with Germany.

    But Germans went beyond that and invaded Poland. They didn’t just invade but made a pact with USSR. Now, this was an evil pact but very smart on Hitler’s part. He knew that aggression against Poland could set UK and France against him. So, as backup, it was good to have Russia on his side.
    People say World War II began with invasion of Poland but no so. Poland was quickly quelled, and German-French war ended quickly. With most of Western allied with Germany, occupied by Germany, or neutral and with USSR on his side, the smart thing for Hitler was to wait it out in a war of contrition with UK. But Hitler decided to attack Russia, and that set off the real WWII in 1941, esp sealed after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US into the war.

    Even if FDR wanted war or hostility, the fact is most American didn’t want war, and FDR had run on peace. He couldn’t bring US to war against Germany UNLESS Germans(and their Japanese allies) did something spectacularly foolish.
    If Germany hadn’t attacked USSR and hadn’t emboldened Japan to make a even dumber move against the US, WWII could have been avoided.
    Some argue that Hitler invaded USSR because Stalin planned to attack first, and their evidence is offensive Soviet positions against German lines. But knowing Stalin, it’s difficult to imagine he was willing to risk everything. Stalin was more a scavenger than hunter. He looked for weak spots and easy opportunities. He didn’t like to risk all. If Soviet positions had really been placed offensively against Germany, it was likely a bluff to force Germans into defensive position, making them less likely to take the offensive initiative. Stalin was a mind-gamer like Hitler, who was also a mind-gambler.

    From the article above, it’s instructive to know that the events that led to WWII weren’t entirely Hitler’s fault and that he was working within the context of larger world politics, but as John Lukacs said, HE was the main driver of events that led to WWII. It wasn’t FDR or Stalin or Churchill even though some of their actions made things worse. A more cautious and sensible Hitler could have prevented the war from turning into a total war.

    It’s like events in the Middle East since end of Cold War must be mostly blamed on Jewish Globalists. They were the main drivers. Sure, Iran, Iraq, and etc. did their part to destabilize the region, but the main drivers were Zionists who took the initiative to turn the whole place upside down to serve Zionist supremacism.

  86. PeterMX says:
    @fnn

    This is one of the most informative and interesting presentations I have ever seen. I watched it several years ago. Everyone should watch it.

  87. @Thorfinnsson

    If Poland had caved to German demands that almost certainly wouldn’t have been the end of it.

    How is this hypothetical tested?
    What evidence do you have to support your hypothetical? Put it on the table & let the Forum argue it out.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  88. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @james bacque

    thanks for your work, Mr. Bacque

  89. @Wally

    The Nazis very clearly did dismember Czechoslovakia, which is what destroyed Hitler’s credibility with the British. It’s also what German_reader found objectionable about the original piece.

    I’m not a supporter of the Icebreaker thesis, though obviously Bolshevism had aggressive intentions.

    • Replies: @Wally
  90. By-tor says:
    @anon

    He, ben sampson, or she, is also Ilyana_Rasoumova. Check the similarities in the grammar and syntax by these ‘two’ whose first languages are obviously not English. This person pretending to be two different people is Jen the Ukropian Zio-Nazi maggot, who posted anti-Russian, pro-Israeli and pro-US comments under dozens of monikers on RT English.

    • Replies: @ben sampson
    , @Wally
  91. BADmejr says:
    @German_reader

    Take some time to read the quarterly journal published at inconvenienthistory.com before you judge what is truth on this matter. You will likely learn as many of us did that the “kosher” version of WWII history is largely bullshit.

  92. @Grace Poole

    Testing a hypothetical seems difficult to say the least.

    Reasons to suspect the outbreak of war regardless:

    Zweites Buch
    • Nazi-Soviet tensions
    • German-French enmity
    • The global arms race (soon to develop to Germany’s disfavor)
    • Germany’s economic situation

  93. @Germanicus

    The bolded points were abandoned by the Nazis themselves because they are very stupid.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  94. @Thorfinnsson

    The bolded points were abandoned by the Nazis themselves because they are very stupid.

    Proof?
    How are the bold points stupid? Please elaborate on your stupid assertion.

    These points are hitting the bullseye, to this day, they target Wall Street and CoL, the war mongers. The “gimme this, or I hit you on the head” jews, who destroyed Iraq, Libya, and so many other places with democracy bringing wars.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  95. republic says:
    @Mark Hunter

    “Fell” probably doesn’t describe how he went out.

    defenestration would probably be a more accurate term

  96. @Germanicus

    Proof?
    How are the bold points stupid? Please elaborate on your stupid assertion.

    With pleasure.

    11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

    This means the abolition of capital income. No more dividends, interest, or capital gains. In other words the complete abolition of private ownership of capital and capital markets. This is a call for socialism.

    12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    Ex post facto confiscation of profits lawfully earned by government contractors for fulfilling their contracts. That would obviously have a negative impact on the future initiative of contractors.

    The contractors are hardly to blame for the Kaiserreich’s disastrous fiscal policies, which were a consequence of the weak federal structure the German princes were willing to agree to in 1871.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

    Another call for socialism. Globally, socialized industries have consistently demonstrated themselves to be less efficient.

    In fairness to the Nazis of 1920 socialism had not yet been tried, and some people had the idea it might work well because of the successes of wartime economic planning.

    19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

    This is straight up gibberish. I’m reminded of American “sovereign citizens” and other foggy-headed nonsense.

    These points are hitting the bullseye, to this day, they target Wall Street and CoL, the war mongers. The “gimme this, or I hit you on the head” jews, who destroyed Iraq, Libya, and so many other places with democracy bringing wars.

    This explains why the Soviet Union was such a global force for peace…

    Financiers were largely opposed to the breakout of WW1 and suffered enormous losses as a result of the war. Central Powers bond holders and bank depositors were wiped out by hyperinflation (there goes all that “unearned income). Britain partially defaulted to its creditors when it ended the convertibility of Sterling. The only European country that didn’t default on its war debts to American lenders was Finland. Britain did ultimately repay its American creditors, the value much reduced by inflation, almost a century after the fact.

    I doubt Wall Street or the City of London care much about Iraq and Libya compared to, say, the American securitized mortgage market.

    The Jews didn’t want to destroy Iraq for pecuniary reasons. The Yinon Plan is why.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  97. MarkinPNW says:
    @anon

    I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s observation: “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.”

    When primitive “low IQ” people, say natives of New Guinea or ancient Africans, express their “good” side they live in harmony and flow with nature, etc. and when they express the “other” side they use rocks, sticks, bows and arrows, to kill each other and eat each other.

    When advanced “high IQ” people such as “whites” or “North Asians” express their “good ” side they come up with wonderful art, science, bountiful standards of living with technology for advanced food production, medical science, sanitation, etc. and when they express their “dark” side they come up with maxim machine guns, poison gas, tanks, drones, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. In other words, the same kind of tribal warfare as the primitives, but at a higher level of technology.

    As the once famous philosopher Will Rogers observed, “You can’t say civilization don’t advance…in every war they kill you in a new way.”

  98. republic says:
    @Anonymous

    Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper 1940

    Polish originals seem to have disappeared. In 1940 many newspapers world wide published large sections of this white paper.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  99. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

    the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

    You misunderstand Potocki’s point made in a wire to his colleagues/superior and thus expressed somewhat concisely. The average American at that time was well aware of the personal losses that they and people around themselves had suffered to satisfy Woodrow Wilson’s lust for adventure and power. The average American was also well aware of reparations and other war debts owed by Germany and German entities, because these had been exhaustively discussed in the press in connection with the Versailles treaty.

    Potocki’s point is that Germany’s war debts – much discussed in earlier years – had not even been paid back in full, while Americans were left to bear their personal losses.

    Another key fact – not mentioned in the article – is that at the time of the sinking of RMS Lusitania by a German U-boat in May 1915, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, while Winston Churchill was his opposite number as First Lord of the Admiralty.

    The Lusitania almost certainly carried a secret cargo of armaments bound for Britain, in breach of neutrality rules purportedly followed by the U.S. at the time. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York press warning against travel on the Lusitania. British forces later deployed depth charges in an attempt to put the wreck and cargo of the Lusitania at the bottom of the Atlantic beyond future investigation.

  100. @By-tor

    take it easy man. I am not really stressed out at all

    you got me wrong man. I am me..Ben Sampson..only Ben and no one else.you ought to be a better linguist anon..you cant tell the difference between me and whoever else you have me compared with

    you guys are right. I am out of my depth here. I shud find my own level.
    and you know what..I am a nigger but a half white one. so is my wife

    all the best anyway! you guys talk the same talk all the time and not even a boycott planned for Facebook for eg

    you guys here are full of ability but a self satisfied bunch wallowing in your class, education and race. the more erudite you write, and qualitatively brilliant you analyze all data, the better things will get. right?

    so be it

  101. truthman says:

    I agree with much of the revisionist argument about this tragic time in history. However, Hitler still didn’t have to invade Poland, inspite of Polish moves against its remaining German minority in Posen/West Prussia, and the small part of Upper Silesia given to Poland after the plebiscite in the early 1920’s. Sure, by invading he temporarily removed the threat to the German minority still in Poland, but at the huge price of war, and all the risks, and the predictable result. Not saying German defeat was inevitable, but any German move to war should have taken in the strong chance of a final defeat in the cost benefit analysis.
    Italian foreign minster Ciano in August 1939 offered several rationales for not attacking Poland and at least postponing a conflict. 1) get through 1940 with Europe still at peace and FDR likely doesn’t run again. 2) with every passing month Spain will get stronger and continue its recovery from the civil war. 3) the current British French alliance could weaken with events. 4) Japan may see its way out of its quagmire in China, and if that were to happen would be a stronger factor in the geo political balance in favor of Germany and Italy. I’ve often thought about Ciano’s argument, and other factors such as who would have replaced Chamberlain in 1940 after his death that year had Europe still been at peace (not Churchill in this scenario) and who would the next US president have been, and would he have been at least somewhat less anti-German and less pro-Soviet?

  102. @Thorfinnsson

    This means the abolition of capital income. No more dividends, interest, or capital gains. In other words the complete abolition of private ownership of capital and capital markets. This is a call for socialism.

    No, it does not, it is your conjecture, your red mind reads something into it that is not written there. This is not the communist manifesto, which fails to address these points utterly uhm “surprisingly”. The entire points are based on Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto to breaking interest slavery”. It is about interest free money, not created by private jewish banking consortium such as the FED.

    Ex post facto confiscation of profits lawfully earned by government contractors for fulfilling their contracts. That would obviously have a negative impact on the future initiative of contractors.

    So in your red mind, those who instigate wars, engineer them, and make enormous profits from it, from arms sales to “reconstruction”, these self serving people are moral and ethic? Amazing, but it fits the red mind.

    I find it very tedious to further deconstruct your obvious dogma you peddle here, but the aware reader just giggles about the pathetic line of propaganda you people have so desperately trying to maintain. However, the truth is so obvious, because these bold points could applied to the current US and it would fix not only the rotten US, but free the entire planet from these vampires.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  103. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    said:
    “during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him”

    Of course not, the claims are fraudulent. The claims are scientifically impossible.

    Recall that aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz did not show what was laughably alleged.
    In fact there have been attempts to alter the photos such as this laughably drawn in ‘Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers‘, ON A ROOF.

    Then there’s this aerial photo of Babi Yar at exact time of the absurdly alleged shooting of 34,000 Jews into a huge ravine.

    Nothing happening that would necessarily be happening IF the story was factual.

    It’s not complicated.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Hans
  104. @Germanicus

    No, it does not, it is your conjecture, your red mind reads something into it that is not written there. This is not the communist manifesto, which fails to address these points utterly uhm “surprisingly”. The entire points are based on Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto to breaking interest slavery”. It is about interest free money, not created by private jewish banking consortium such as the FED.

    If we use Gottfried Feder’s program instead of the actual definition of earned income, then the program is the nationalization of all banks and the elimination of interest.

    In other words the complete socialization of banking and the elimination of all private lending. What a great idea. I can’t wait to get a mortgage from HUD and a credit card from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Historically interest-free money creation has led to large scale inflation there is nothing to limit the issuer’s monetary emissions. The Continental Dollar and Assignat are classic examples. I will grant that responsible interest-free creation of money is theoretically possible by restricting the quantity of money issued by law.

    Private money creation allows for the expansion of credit based on the demand of borrowers limited by their creditworthiness. The tendency of the payments system to cease clearing in general crises resulted in the creation of central banks. These are also all not privately owned, though many are.

    So in your red mind, those who instigate wars, engineer them, and make enormous profits from it, from arms sales to “reconstruction”, these self serving people are moral and ethic? Amazing, but it fits the red mind.

    In my mind both parties of a contract should fulfill their obligations. That includes the obligation of the government to pay defense contractors. Perhaps the Reich should’ve implemented some taxes during the war.

    I find it very tedious to further deconstruct your obvious dogma you peddle here, but the aware reader just giggles about the pathetic line of propaganda you people have so desperately trying to maintain. However, the truth is so obvious, because these bold points could applied to the current US and it would fix not only the rotten US, but free the entire planet from these vampires.

    You are an idiot.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Germanicus
  105. chris says:
    @PeterMX

    This video is banned here in Europe, where the lies are upheld by the law, but it can be viewed in the USA.

    How funny the video should be censored in Europe. What would the rationale be for doing that ? That the event didn’t happen ? That it was staged? That Europeans are such lemmings, a simple video, or a peak at any nazi parahanaelea is enough to make them jump headlong into Fascism? Or is it that it might undermine the pre-packaged narrative.

  106. chris says:
    @Priss Factor

    … ‘liberal’corporate media can be just as full of BS as any totalitarian press.

    except that it’s becoming apparent even to the least amongst us, that it’s not so much the totalitarian press, which in these instances seems to be ‘full of BS,’ as the other kind of press seems to be.

  107. @Wally

    “It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.”

    – Except there was no threat to bomb Prague as Goring stated:

    “The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

    Here’s what Goering said immediately before the quote you provide here:

    President Hacha arrived and talked first with the Reich Foreign Minister. At night he came to see the Fuehrer; we greeted him coldly. First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in. Then I talked to him in the presence of his ambassador and urged him to meet as quickly as possible the Fuehrer’s demand that trdops be kept back when the Germans marched in, in order that there might be no bloodshed. I told him that nothing could be done about it; the Fuehrer had made his decision and considered it necessary, and there would be only unnecessary bloodshed as resistance for any length of time was quite impossible. And in that connection I made the statement that I should be sorry if I had to bomb beautiful Prague.

    It doesn’t matter whether Goering was willing or able to bomb Prague. It matters only that Hacha feared that Prague would be bombed.

    – Hacha was supported by his fellow Czechs who were also very concerned about Communism, hence the agreement for a ‘protectorate’ status.

    Then why did they form a government in exile?

    – And from his daughter:

    Hacha’s daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2. As David Hoggan wrote in his definitive work, The Forced War, Hacha’s daughter confirmed after the war that her father was treated courteously and kindly by the Germans, and with all the attention and consideration normally given to a statesman.

    – more:
    Hacha in Berlin, March 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8342

    That’s curious. This newspaper article from the time seems to say the exact opposite:

    https://ibb.co/yd9x71F

    • Replies: @Wally
  108. Paul says:
    @jacques sheete

    Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Try to pay attention.

  109. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    If we use Gottfried Feder’s program instead of the actual definition of earned income, then the program is the nationalization of all banks and the elimination of interest.

    In other words the complete socialization of banking and the elimination of all private lending. What a great idea. I can’t wait to get a mortgage from HUD and a credit card from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    whatever Germany was doing it seemed to work quite well you have to admit, no?

    they turned their economy around in the teeth of the Great Depression and a worldwide boycott of their products by international jewry

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  110. Paul says:

    Roosevelt did not invade Poland. That was the Nazis.

  111. chris says:
    @conatus

    Good reference!

    Here also a summary from “the Bionic Mosquito” https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html
    Regrading the denials after the revelation of the released Polish documents, the Mosquito writes:

    When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  112. @anon

    Certainly.

    But Germany did not abolish capital income or nationalize industry.

    Germany’s vigorous recovery was due to its public works and (especially) rearmament programs, which were financed with deficit spending.

    This is why John Maynard Keynes favorably remarked on the German government in his foreword to the German language edition of his famous General Theory.

    I don’t know how effective the Jewish boycott was. In 1933 world trade had already collapsed. Some research here would be useful and interesting.

    • Replies: @L.K
  113. Hans says:
    @German_reader

    The Germans recognized “Czecho-Slovkia” for what it was: an artificial state created by the banking scum at Versailles. The fraud fell apart finally in 1993 when the Czechs and Slovaks divorced each other after decades of enjoying the bankers’ Communism.

    In 1930, the German component was 22%, so the Versailles criminals should have named their creation “Czecho-Germania” and left the third place Slovaks out of the brand name.

    Mr. Unz clearly cares about truth and defending free speech and inquiry. The kvetching of the anti-free speech crowd is educational for a number of reasons.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  114. Paul says:
    @Wally

    By the Nazis declaring war on the United States — which they did do. Try to pay attention.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @jacques sheete
  115. truthman says:

    One question I’ve never found a good answer from the pro-German or revisionist side is why Hitler didn’t allow for the creation of an independent Czechia in March 1939 instead of creating the protectorate. IIRC Hacha asked for that as a fall back position once it was clear that Hitler was insisting on an independent (in theory) and separate Slovakia. Perhaps such a move would have forestalled Chamberlains’ guarantee to Poland.

  116. Begemot says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Preparing to fight a war versus mobilizing to fight a war is a distinction mostly of tempo not of intent.

  117. Hans says:
    @Wally

    “Nothing happening that would necessarily be happening IF the story was factual. It’s not complicated.”

    All true, Wally, but you are overlooking the “geysers of blood” and the “settled science” of “the Holocaust.” Like the “gas chambers,” “the geysers” and “the trembling earth” prove that they happened because they happened, so it’s clearly “anti-semitic” to ask any questions. Perhaps worst of all, it is “deeply offensive.” Please refrain from going on the offensive again.

    Geysers of blood at Babi Yar – Dated: January 1, 1972

    How many Jews were killed at Babi Yar? Exact estimates are hard to come by. Some say seventy thousand, others a hundred and fifty thousand […]

    Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killing the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood.

    Source: Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New York: New American Library, 1972, page 48.

    https://www.historiography-project.org/1972/01/01/geysers-of-blood-at-babi-yar/

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  118. @Thorfinnsson

    You are an idiot.

    Apparently no, but I find it a bit of fun, how the red mind is scare by the thought of interest free money, issued by a national bank, instead of a private jewish vampire bank, such as the FED or BoE, or the Russian (formerly Soviet) “national” bank.

    This is why Marx and the red heros suck so much, and why they have been shills for the usurers. They’ve never targeted these private “national” banks, and they’ve never tried to issue interest free exchange. The only currency is labor, and this is why it is a very bad deal for occupied Germany to export goods for worthless backed-by-nothing Dollars and Euros.
    The moronic thought liberated press celebrates this a “hooray, we are export world champion”.

    And Keynes, oy veh!

    I dislike these endless pilpul attempts and the usual BS you expose here, heard it so often, I could vomit when reading it, because it is plain and simple brain dead repetition.

    The celebrated TUI, is a direct successor to the KdF program, and also GDR’s FDGB used what Hitler created, the first tourism affordable not only for the rich.
    KdF(Kraft durch Freude), was so successful, normal workers able to afford holidays on cruise ships and recreation facilities, that the UK denied harbor entry. Given the utterly poor Brits with almost no middle class, this would have been a dangerous message.

    Another success story, VW Beetle, right? And this after a devastated, corrupted and decadent Weimar period by masonic and jewish forces, who looted German assets.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  119. republic says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    You are correct,about 8 paper copies in US libraries

  120. @LondonBob

    Interestingly Reed thought Hitler should have been overthrown or Germany invaded and advocated such. It is possible a coup by the German military could have been instigated in the thirties, certainly in the latter years of the war if unconditional surrender hadn’t been adopted as official policy.

    Yes to all.

    Reed was not exactly a Hitler supporter and he wrote some good stuff. I am impressed that you brought up the very key issue of unconditional surrender. That was an entirely evil position and both Wilson and FDR advocated and worked for that policy. Utterly disgusting SOBs.

  121. Republic says:
    @Alfred

    The USA entered the war only 18 months before it ended. Of course, it took months before the troops even got there.

    more than 18 months, all of 1942,43,44 plus 5 to 8 months in 1945

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  122. @Thorfinnsson

    Because I’m part of the American right and despise FDR.

    I’m neither left nor right and I despise him. So did a lot of Democrats at the time as well as Republicans. he was despicable by any reasonable measure. Wilson, too. I don’t know how either of them could stand themselves, and they probably couldn’t, which explains a lot about their sick behavior.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  123. refl says:
    @Paul

    This is extremely interesting! John Wear’s article is basically an excerpt from his recent book “Germany’s War”, where he exposes well researched revisionist views on WWII – I cannot evaluate all of his claims right now and will be working on that for quite some time.

    In his book, he claims that on December, 4th, 1941, various American papers exposed, that the US would invade Europe to defeat Germany in 1943 (which they did!). This would give us the following timeline:

    late November 1941: Roosevelt anticipates an imminent Japanese surprise attack (according to Henry Stimsons diary)
    Decmber, 4th: Roosevelts plan to enter the war in Europe is published, the text is cabled by the German embassy to Germany by December, 5th.
    December, 7th: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
    December, 9th: Roosevelt claims during a radio adress that Germany and Japan conduct their military and naval operations with a joint plan. He claims that Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the US without even bothering about a formal declaration (these claims were obviously untrue – indeed it was Roosevelt who had ordered American vessels to shoot at German ships on sight, while the Germans tried to prevent a state of war with the US)
    December, 11th: Hitler declares war on the United States – aknowledging a state of war that Roosevelt had been instigating at least since the destroyer deal with Britain.

    As Roosevelt wanted to use the state of war with Japan as the backdoor to war against Germany and as Japan had been provoked into attacking Pearl Harbour, the timing of the press leaks of December, 4th make sense as deliberate and timed provocation of Germany.

    I have never befor heard of these press leaks, which were published in the Chicago Tribune under the title “F.D.R.’s War Plans” and in the Washington Times Herald. This newspaper’s source was a top secret war plan by the name of “Rainbow Five”.

    Can anyone link these documents here?
    See John Wear, Germany’s War, pp. 95-100

  124. @German_reader

    Yes, the Hitler Fan Club members are so stupid “that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.”

  125. onebornfree says: • Website

    John Wear says: “Conclusion: U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. “

    Er, yes, but so what? Is this supposed to be some sort of revelatory, explosive news?

    This just in: “War is the health of the state” as former establishment historian Randolph Bourne observed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

    If you want government in the first place, unless that government is somehow severely restricted as to what it can, and cannot do, wars are what you will always get – either wars on the citizens inside the country [ eg the war on drugs], or wars on the citizens of other countries. [ Or often, both types of wars at the same time.]

    In the US the supposed means of controlling/limiting the government and preventing it from starting wars on citizens and/or foreign nations was called “the Constitution and Bill of Rights”.

    However by the time FDR came to power, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was obviously a “dead letter”, as evidenced by, among other things the “New Deal”- an enormous, entirely unconstitutional, welfare plan designed to buy off the masses and to further centralize government power in DC.

    So the crook FDR could basically do almost whatever the hell he wanted by then, war wise.

    This also just in:

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

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  126. @Germanicus

    Apparently no, but I find it a bit of fun, how the red mind is scare by the thought of interest free money, issued by a national bank, instead of a private jewish vampire bank, such as the FED or BoE, or the Russian (formerly Soviet) “national” bank.

    The Bank of England has been under public ownership since 1946, and until 1997 monetary policy was set by the elected government.

    The Gosbank, for obvious reasons, was under public ownership.

    It’s true that the regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. That said any profits earned by the Federal Reserve System are remitted to the United States Treasury.

    This is why Marx and the red heros suck so much, and why they have been shills for the usurers. They’ve never targeted these private “national” banks, and they’ve never tried to issue interest free exchange. The only currency is labor, and this is why it is a very bad deal for occupied Germany to export goods for worthless backed-by-nothing Dollars and Euros.
    The moronic thought liberated press celebrates this a “hooray, we are export world champion”.

    There are quite a lot more reasons why communists suck than their alleged failure to support your demented stance against lending money at interest.

    Dollars and Euros are the most demanded currencies in the world and can be used to purchase practically anything–including hard assets. Sounds pretty useful to me.

    I used “worthless backed-by-nothing” Dollars this morning to purchase a cappuccino.

    Though I do agree that Germany’s trade surplus is excessive and not in the nation’s interest. They should correct that by increasing wages, defense spending, and public capital expenditures. The Bundesbahn could use plenty of investment, as can the good old Autobahn network which isn’t looking so hot these days.

    The celebrated TUI, is a direct successor to the KdF program, and also GDR’s FDGB used what Hitler created, the first tourism affordable not only for the rich.
    KdF(Kraft durch Freude), was so successful, normal workers able to afford holidays on cruise ships and recreation facilities, that the UK denied harbor entry. Given the utterly poor Brits with almost no middle class, this would have been a dangerous message.

    How is the TUI Group a successor to the KdF program? It was founded in 1968 as a private enterprise. Are you suggesting that charter tours for the working class were invented by the KdF?

    Package tours were invented in the 19th century, though admittedly I don’t know what working class uptake was. Certainly English workers did visit seaside resorts like Blackpool.

    Another success story, VW Beetle, right? And this after a devastated, corrupted and decadent Weimar period by masonic and jewish forces, who looted German assets.

    The VW Beetle went on to become a great postwar success, but the Germans who deposited funds into VW Beetle accounts (generating substantial financial savings for Volkswagen) never got their cars and simply lost their savings. The Sparkarte holders went to court in 1950 and the case was only settled in 1961. More on this here: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=112678

    I’m reminded of Elon Musk.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
  127. they understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States

    If these Polish diplomats really understood European situation so well, how come they did not foresee that Germany will absorb Poland the same year? Something does not jibe here.

    But there is no doubt that WWII in Europe was in the best interests of the US. It weakened its Western European competitors and USSR. The results of WWII are quite telling: US $ became international reserve currency, many European countries were (and today, almost 75 years later, still are) occupied by the US, which made Europe a subservient vassal of the US, etc. In addition, Japan was defeated with the help of USSR, was (and still is) occupied by the US, and consistently acts as an obedient vassal. From the US perspective, what’s not to like?

  128. Saggy says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Hitler did not destroy Czechoslovakia, that is complete nonsense.

    Czechoslovakia was a Frankenstein monster to begin with.

    Czechoslovakia had been created by the Versailles Treaty and consisted of an unhappy union of Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, Ruthenians, and Germans, all under Czech control. Following the Munich Pact the Sudetenland, populated by Germans, was reunited with Germany in Oct. 1938. The First Vienna Award returned lost lands to Hungary and Poland.

    In March of 1939 the Slovaks obtained their independence, and Ruthenia was returned to Hungary. The remaining Czech area became, at the request of its president Emil Hacha, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, governed by ethnic Czechs, and Hacha remained president. The creation of Czechoslovakia was reverse-engineered by diplomatic means.

    Thus the monster created by Wilson and the Jews was deconstructed by Hitler, purely by diplomatic means.

  129. @AnonFromTN

    WW2 strengthened American’s Western European and Japanese competitors by allowing them to converge with American levels of productivity after the war.

    In the 1930s Germany had only half of America’s productivity in manufacturing. Lower still in services and agriculture.

    An international reserve currency is not to the issuer’s benefit owing to the Triffin Dilemma. It produces a similar effect to the “Dutch Disease”.

    The defeat of Japan resulted in the elimination of a substantial military threat from the USSR’s asian flank and allowed for the unification of China, the only country in the world with the inherent capacity to exceed the United States.

    All in all an unparalleled strategic disaster.

  130. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    I don’t know how either of [Woodrow Wilson and FDR] could stand themselves, and they probably couldn’t, which explains a lot about their sick behavior.

    Would be interested to know what kind of (personal) “sick behavior” we know of on the part of Woodrow Wilson?

    FDR seems to have knowingly surrounded himself with Communist agents to shore up his reign – classic deal with the devil. FDR probably also received financial and sexual favors and/or was blackmailed along with his wife and cousin Eleanor R.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @jacques sheete
  131. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    FDR seems to have knowingly surrounded himself with Communist agents to shore up his reign – classic deal with the devil.

    if he surrounded himself with commies how do you know he wasn’t one himself?

  132. @Grace Poole

    Absolutely to the contrary for coming to conclusions or judging plausibility but I wonder what documents or other hard evidence you would need to remind you that, e.g, Roosevelt was rightly conscious of the threat of Japan, the war in China and America’s exposure in the Asia-Pacific. Did you notice the discussion of those in the article? Indeed did you note discussion of my other points, or don’t you think direct documentary evidence about Roosevelt’s thinking might have been relevant and properly qualified reliance on Potocki?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  133. @German_reader

    What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war?

    Key word, “reasoning.” There was not a shred of reason involved. It was all about satisfying the yearnings of an out 0f control narcissist. The man was sick mentally, physically and spiritually.

  134. truthman says:

    One difference between Wilson and FDR was that Wilson’s second wife Edith was against US intervention in WW1. Can’t remember where I read this, but it always stuck out to me. Also read that the US jewish lobby was for US neutrality in WW1 as long as the Tsar was on the throne. Once he was overthrown US declaration of war against Germany came suspiciously soon after.

  135. @anon

    You’re clueless about Potocki. Potocki was very anti-Jewish, as you could find in comments he made elsewhere.

    I.e.

    For international Jewry — so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race — President Roosevelt’s ‘ideal’ role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

    – Potocki, 1939

    • Replies: @anon
  136. utu says:

    Confirming quotes. The US pushed UK to give guarantees to Poland w/o which Poland would have made a deal with Hitler and the war would have been postponed.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

  137. @Thorfinnsson

    This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

    On the “real” right, perhaps. You and I, and the rest of us. But not the mainstream “right.” Didn’t Reagan celebrate some Roosevelt-themed anniversary?

    Of course I completely agree with the rest of your comments. Roosevelt was a pig who lied his way past the America First movement and into the devastating war.

  138. Andrew Mathis is the Rachel Dolezal of WW2 historiography.

    • LOL: L.K
  139. @Thorfinnsson

    This is a major reason why there was no French offensive in September, 1939 (with the benefit of hindsight this probably would’ve been decisive).

    Decisive how?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  140. @Thorfinnsson

    WW2 in fact planted the seeds for the end of America (via the destruction of its racial identity) and its eclipse as the world’s foremost power by China (via its unification).

    It certainly aggravated the situation but the seeds were planted in 1913 if not before. Speaking of destruction, note that one of the “benefits” of WW2 was the enslavement of Japan so that they could compete cheaply with American labor. For instance, Toyota was down to making a few trucks a year when the US government “rescued” it from bankruptcy when it contracted with Toyota to build trucks for use in the Korean War. We see the results of such “benefits” with the Detroit of today.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  141. @German_reader

    I would only like to add that Thorfinnsson is totally correct.

    I recommend Tom Mahl’s book ‘Desperate Deception.’

    There was, in the early 20th century, a growing divide already in America, between the Anglo-American “establishment” of the northeast, and, well, the rest of the country. Roosevelt’s electoral coalition relied heavily on certain traditionally Democrat blocs like urban Jews and Irish, and of course the Solid South. But his powerful, moneyed backers were from the “establishment” of the East Coast. That’s who he really represented; that’s who he was.And those people were the only “winners” of America’s imperial victory in World War Two. Everyone else lost. The Constitution was ravaged; our form of government began its final death spiral. It may not have been immediately obvious, but that’s the way it is. The blow-up of the 1960s began with Roosevelt’s moves.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  142. @Paul

    Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Try to pay attention.

    I’m trying, but please answer my question. I’ll repeat it.:
    |

    What’s your assessment of the validity of that fear and how familiar are you with the concept of pretexts?

    • Replies: @Paul
  143. @Paul

    Who cares?

    The American state, operating under Roosevelt’s orders, deliberately provoked the Germans by aggressively attacking German military forces in the Atlantic. That, by the way, was totally unconstitutional, but this is FDR we’re talking about.

    The Germans did absolutely nothing to threaten American interests. In fall of 1939, 94% of Americans opposed American entry into any war in Europe. They knew better than FDR.

    If you believe that the Germans provoked America, then you are either a fool or an ignoramus. Or possibly pretending to be a vintage British spy in American public opinion.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  144. @refl

    I would want to read much more than Tansill’s “Backdoor to War” before drawing conclusions on a subject on which I can only achieve interested amateur status. Still, I thank you for setting me off on the trail of Tansill. He doesn’t have friendly editors of Wikipedia!

    I was hoping to find something on Roosevelt, China and the USSR but at this point have only got to bookmarking

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-and-the-back-door-to-war-theory-1688287

    which says nothing about your (to me) surprising view that FDR was happy to see a China-USSR block form. Is there a good source you would recommend on the *most influential” Communist agents in Roosevelt’s government?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  145. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Nope, the Germans were asked and agreed to protect the Czechs.
    Slovakia made it’s own decisions as well. Hence their separation from the Czechs.

    said:
    “obviously Bolshevism had aggressive intentions.”

    There you go. A huge reason why the Czechs desired the protection of Germany.
    Germany also made important economic contributions.

    Please stop dodging and read my comment #9

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  146. @Anonymous

    Would be interested to know what kind of (personal) “sick behavior” we know of on the part of Woodrow Wilson?

    This isn’t the place to write a book, even if anyone would read it.

    Fortunately, however, that’s already been done. It’s full of his crimes, not the least of which was lying about keeping the US out of the war, his (Creel’s) over-the-top hate filled propaganda campaign, and his treatment of American dissenters.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  147. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    You’re clueless about Potocki. Potocki was very anti-Jewish, as you could find in comments he made elsewhere.

    i don’t have time to read all his comments, idiot

    what does it say about you that you do?

    what he said about the billions$$$ sounds like something a jew would say

  148. @chris

    Bionic has written some great stuff about the history of the wars. He has an excellent timeline there as well.

  149. @Paul

    By the Nazis declaring war on the United States — which they did do. Try to pay attention.

    If you had paid attention, you would not have overlooked the fact that some New York, NY Jews declared war on Germany in 1933.

    You also can’t comprehend the easy to grasp concept that FDR had been waging undeclared war on Germany for years prior to Germany’s declaration, so the obvious and correct view is that the Nazis had more respectability than the lying jerk, FDR.

    Unfortunately for you , I doubt that paying attention would do you much good, but try to do so anyway.

    • Replies: @Paul
  150. Anon[288] • Disclaimer says:

    Re-litigating the past, today, is going to be realized as having been pointless when US intelligence eventually releases to the public what it has on the Holocaust, which will reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is one gigantic lie.

    This is what will drive all Jews back to Israel. This is the design.

    The US government may effectively collapse for a period of time after this occurs, allowing for a dark period wherein the pieces can reposition themselves in this nation. But, aside from the inevitable death toll, this is somewhat secondary in importance to the resultant Jewish Exodus to Israel that is dictated in Jewish “scripture”.

    Yes, this Exodus will be a mythological parallel to the Exodus out of Egypt for the Jews. Similar to the angry Egyptians that were trying to kill the fleeing Jewish subverters in Egypt, the rightfully and inevitably angry Americans who attack fleeing, lying Jews will e named “Amalek” by Judaism and condemned to genocide that is justified by their mythological parallel to Amalek in the minds of the Rabbis.

    The Jewish religion is one that depends on a reliving of their myths so that their Messianic period can arrive. Expect the Jews to seek punishment for the “pagan” West on the exact terms that it sought it for Egypt and the Canaanites. This will also be essential to their prophecy fulfillment and, in alignment with those prophecies, during this period is when the Jews will also genocide not only all Palestinians (who they identify as the Philistines) but the rest of the remaining Arabs from the Middle East (per their political instructions to themselves in the Zohar).

    After which, the West (the USA and Europe) will attack Israel. Judaic “prophecy” (self political instruction) then states that the West will be destroyed, in-total, leaving Israel-Judaism as the only world power and heralding in the Jewish messianic era of Jewish world rule.

    Islam and an unnamed Eastern Nation are also slated to be involved (taking part in the total destruction of the West and its non-Jewish peoples). I assume that the outlook for Blacks is similarly terrible (in the Zohar, the Jews actually state that all non-Jews will be genocided at this point in time).

    Cosigning the Big Lie of the Holocaust, and running with it, is what doomed millions of Jews in the quickly approaching future. For gain over only three generations, to include Israel, the Jews essentially gave the gentiles what they needed to bury them in due time. Think about how many Jews, both in power and not, eagerly took to this world destroying lie.

    Holocaust truth is the Jewish Achilles heel and a ticking time bomb, but it may have been engineered to be so with the blessing of the Jewish international superstate.

    I imagine that the only negotiation now is over time. The general realization of the lie has been steadily increasing in rate and percentage over decades now. In the past two decades, the rate has increased tremendously. For anyone to think that US security services (and maybe even Jewish security services) had nothing to do with that, then you are beyond hope. Study the information and its sources. Study the rate of its release for the most popular outlets. It often has the stink of teamwork all over it, instead of the lone truth teller authorship that they all purport. Though, the anti-Jewish information is less than the anti-minority information; likely as a way to more tightly control the rate of public awareness in regard to Jews vs minorities. The anti-minority information is regularly put out at a clip and with a level of sophistication that defies the logic of one man’s labor.

    Last, study the Tanakh and the Zohar.

    Welcome to the “End Times”. Brought to you by your local Semitic psychopaths, to include Islam and Christianity. All safety harnesses down. You are not likely to enjoy the ride.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Saggy
  151. @Wizard of Oz

    You might be interested in How the Far East was Lost by Kubek. Here is an excellent list of other books:

    https://mises.org/wire/books-world-war-ii

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  152. @Wizard of Oz

    The US ostensibly opposed Japan’s aggression towards China in order to preserve the Open Door Policy and thus protect the China trade.

    Aside from the fact that the Pacific War cost many orders of magnitude more than the volume of prewar China trade, the outcome in China of the Pacific War was the complete end of the China trade as a result of Chinese communists coming to power in China.

    The other major concern was Japanese designs on the Philippines. The Philippines was granted independence along with $800m ($11bn adjusted for inflation) in 1946.

    The only advantage gained was the removal of the Combined Fleet. This proved no benefit since postwar defense spending was ten times prewar defense spending as a share of national resources, and the United States shortly became embroiled in a costly land war with China in previously Japanese territory.

    Whoops.

    • Replies: @anon
  153. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Re-litigating the past, today, is going to be realized as having been pointless when US intelligence eventually releases to the public what it has on the Holocaust, which will reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is one gigantic lie.

    what if the jews control “U.S. Intelligence”?

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  154. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    The French frontier was held by only 14 German divisions and the incomplete fortifications of the Siegfried Line. A French offensive would’ve broken through, and even if it hadn’t made it to Berlin it surely could’ve taken the Ruhr area.

    Game over.

    It was this possibility that led German generals to repeatedly oppose Hitler’s aggressive intentions as premature.

  155. @anon

    I am an idiot because I actually read about the subject of this article before.

    It took me no more than 60 seconds to Google “Ambassador Potocki Jews” to find that exact quote. It probably took you longer to write your totally stupid comments.

    Grow up, or, preferably, find someone dumber to talk with you.

    • Replies: @anon
  156. @jacques sheete

    This is one of my most persistent complaints about the outcome of WW2. In order to maintain our vassal states, we dismantled our protective barriers which had been in place since the age of Lincoln (and, in lesser form, since Washington). This allowed Western Europe and Japan to use our markets and technology to converge and in some cases surpass our producers, something that was simply not possible prewar (as Hitler himself pointed out).

    The case of Japan is even more perverse. The US government actively lobbied European countries to reduce their trade barriers against Japanese products! The State Department was literally working to aid the exports of a foreign competitor. During the Vietnam War the Nixon administration declined to protect the ailing American television manufacturing industry in order to maintain Japanese logistical support.

    Some empire.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  157. @Wally

    Strangely Germany’s allies in Europe didn’t find it necessary to become occupied German protectorates for their protection from Bolshevism.

    I’m not German_reader.

    • Replies: @Wally
  158. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Great comments. All true.

    And those [East Coast establishment schmucks] were the only “winners” of America’s imperial victory in World War Two. Everyone else lost.

    For sure.

  159. Sparkon says:
    @Republic

    Wrong war.

    He and his interlocutors are talking about WWI.

  160. Mulegino1 says:

    FDR’s warmongering was a farrago composed of many elements:

    Jealousy and fear born of Hitler’s wild success at achieving the greatest economic recovery in recorded history without incurring any appreciable international indebtedness – compared invidiously with FDR’s total failure at real economic recovery.

    The international barter trade and the issue of currency based upon physical labor- both daggers aimed at the heart of international finance usury based in the City of London and Wall St., the latter having become FDR’s fifedom. One wonders if the so called “Morgan-Mellon coup attempt against FDR was really an inside job or perhaps a threat to FDR to get with the bankers’ program.

    FDR was particularly outraged when Hitler replied to FDR’s amateurish telegram asking Hitler to pledge not to invade a multitude of foreign nations, including Palestine (then occupied by British troops) Iran, and Ireland. Although he was clearly exasperated at FDR’s rank ignorance, Hitler’s reply was relatively humorous and almost amicable in parts.

    FDR desired the end of the British Empire (and its colonial administration) – not for the sake of “freedom” or “democracy” but so that it could be replaced by the American one. The consequences of this disastrous policy was converting most of what we now refer to as “the Third World” into a shambles and a killing field. How best to accomplish this than to use Britain and its war party as spurs to Polish chauvinism and intransigence?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  161. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The other major concern was Japanese designs on the Philippines. The Philippines was granted independence along with $800m ($11bn adjusted for inflation) in 1946.

    that’s cheap, should have got rid of puerto rico at the same time

  162. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Grow up, or, preferably, find someone dumber to talk with you.

    nah, you’re the dumbest i could find

  163. @onebornfree

    the “New Deal”- an enormous, entirely unconstitutional, welfare plan designed to buy off the masses and to further centralize government power in DC.

    But it didn’t work, not the New Deal and not the scheme to buy off the masses so they would approve a war.

    Until the day before Pearl Harbor, polling — then a new political institution — consistently showed that 70% of the American people were opposed to war with Germany.
    FDR lied and even committed impeachable offenses — he deliberately waged war against Germany without the knowledge or consent of the US Congress or the American people — in order to involve USA in war.

    Jimmy Dore exposes the lying Anti-Venezuela propaganda of Joanna Hausmann in NYTimes:

    https://www.unz.com/video/channel/thejimmydoreshow/

    Dore opens the video with clips of a Canadian journalist who traced the process by which George H W Bush involved USA in war against Iraq in 1991: Iraq & Kuwait had a conflict; polls showed that the American people were “split 50 – 50” on waging war in Iraq; then, emotional testimony evoking outrage was presented; it was false, but it moved the American people.
    War, deaths of millions ensued.

    Dore then points to Bush, Jr., who played out a similar pattern to return to Iraq (Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11).

    Someone linked this Douglas Horne interview earlier:
    https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-007-fdr-and-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/

    It’s a regurgitation of the standard anti-German cant; Horne is so thoroughly propagandized that he does not realize that he presents evidence that displays precisely the same pattern as the (((Joanna Hausmann))) gambit, the incubator babies, Colin Powell’s test tubes.
    Lies, all lies.
    Nothing so totally disproves the holocaust narrative as the subsequent repetition of the same pattern of lying to incite the people to hate some designated Other in order to wage an otherwise illegitimate war.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  164. @Beefcake the Mighty

    That is an excellent list. Full of heavy hitters such as Beard, Barnes, Chamberlain, Taylor, Veale, and many others including Raico (may he rest in peace), who was a fine man, and Pat Buchanan who has shown himself to be an excellent historian.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  165. @Thorfinnsson

    In order to maintain our vassal states…

    And to crush the labor union movement in the US.

    I’m convinced that another subtext to the war was that Germany, despite the tremendous obstacles, actually was ahead of the US in recovering from the great depression and treated its workers very well in marked contrast to the situation of the working classes in the USA, Britain and the USSR, so that’s another reason it had to be stomped.

  166. Zumbuddi says:
    @anon

    what if the jews control “U S intelligence”?

    IF ?

  167. Crimson2 says:

    So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war and then beat him so hard that he killed himself and his bride on their honeymoon?

    Awesome.

  168. After trying to follow up a video rant about Einstein as racist from a UR Comment – and concluding that Einstein sounded as many a German upper middle class academic would have in 1922 I wandered on and found

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/20/we-knew-the-ship-was-doomed-uss-indianapolis-survivor-recalls-four-days-in-shark-filled-sea/?utm_term=.6bb34150c4

    My point is that here is a failure of intelligence in the sense of failing to pass on intelligence *which requires no sinister explanation*.

  169. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Grace Poole

    Grace Poole says: “But it didn’t work, not the New Deal and not the scheme to buy off the masses so they would approve a war.”

    A minor point perhaps, but I didn’t say that the New Deal was supposed to buy off the masses so FDR could get into a war. Just that it was an attempt to buy off the masses , and further centralize power in DC. A slight difference 🙂 .

    Obviously , if that had been the case [ it was to buy off the general public so he could get into a war], he/they would not have needed to orchestrate/manufacture the Pearl Harbor event to sway public opinion.

    As to the rest of your observations: yes, of course, I already know all that stuff. My original point was that if you want governments in the first place , unless the government can be effectively limited in its scope and actions, then all these wars past and future, are inevitable.

    As to FDR’s crimes in perspective, I know, for example that if this author went back and really researched, he’d find [perhaps to his own amazement, but not to mine] that the exact same sort of thing happened with regards to WW1.

    I feel it is important to understand the true nature of all governments , so I’ll repeat [yet again]:

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

    Until this hard-to -swallow truth sinks in and is fully understood by far more people than currently do [ people don’t like truth], I see little chance in effectively reducing the prevalence of war in this world. Most people [ including your self perhaps],are simply not prepared to accept the fact that they are being controlled/ruled by a 100% criminal organization, and that their beloved [by some anyway] president is merely just another murdering crook who is the fake leader of a very large criminal gang of murderers, thieves and counterfeiters, living off of us all.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  170. I actually expected better from the know nothing cucks that dispute this excellent article. Only idiots think WW2 was started by Germany and Japan. Assuming they know any history at all.

  171. Saggy says: • Website
    @Anon

    The general realization of the lie has been steadily increasing in rate and percentage over decades now. ….. It often has the stink of teamwork all over it,

    Good Lord, exactly the opposite is true. It’s a truly ragtag penny-less group that has exposed the holohoax, and many have paid dearly for it.

    And while there has been some penetration on the internet, I don’t think there is even a hint of awareness anywhere off the internet.

    I’d be happy to be wrong.

  172. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    No strange at all. They didn’t ask to be a protectorate.

    I know you are not German-reader, and you did dodge my comment #9.

    http://www.codoh.com

  173. Wally says:
    @Hans

    said:
    “How many Jews were killed at Babi Yar? Exact estimates are hard to come by. Some say seventy thousand, others a hundred and fifty thousand […]”

    – Indeed they say all kinds of absurdities about Babi Yar, however there’s ton’s more on the debunking impossible claims about it.

    Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar … of course: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314
    former Einsatzgruppen Members Reject Bizarre Claims of Mass Shootings / Babi Yar, etc.: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11396
    ‘What Happened at Babi Yar?. Fact vs. Myth’, Using air photos and wartime newspapers, Ukrainian writer MICHAEL NIKIFORUK attacks a few myths about a wartime atrocity.: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/BabiYar/Nikiforuk.html
    ‘ Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments’: http://codoh.com/library/document/920/?lang=en
    Bodies at Babi Yar, John Gibbons Reporting: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7302
    ‘Babi Yar ‘massacre’ debunked’: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41

  174. @onebornfree

    Awright already, I get your point: here’s another way it might be stated:

    Because the FED can create money that the Congress can borrow with no risk and no accountability, there is no means of popular or even representative control on the power of government to wage war.

    I was going to toss in the argument that the inability of citizens to harness their government is one very important reason why the Charlottesville rally should have been handled better and more focused on the statue of Robert E Lee: in his correspondence with Lord Acton, the two agreed that maintaining states sovereignty was crucial: without the ability of individual states to pressure the Union, the central government could, and has, aggregated so much power that there is no means to curtail it. Robert E Lee stood for the only means he knew of that could limit the power of the central government which otherwise would inevitably use that power to wage war.

    Obviously , if that had been the case [ it was to buy off the general public so he could get into a war], he/they would not have needed to orchestrate/manufacture the Pearl Harbor event to sway public opinion.

    Could torture this further, but it’s not really the main point.

    As to the rest of your observations: yes, of course, I already know all that stuff. My original point was that if you want governments in the first place , unless the government can be effectively limited in its scope and actions, then all these wars past and future, are inevitable.

    See Lord Acton correspondence with Robert E Lee.

    And dismantle the FED.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  175. Trupright says:

    A crippled mind in a crippled body.

  176. Wally says:
    @Hans

    said:
    “Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killing the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood.
    Source: Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New York: New American Library, 1972, page 48.”

    Eichmann in his bizarre, conflicting and impossible statements borrowed the ‘geysers of blood’ fantasy from Wiesel.

    Eichmann claims at places near Minsk and Lemberg, mass shootings were taking place, including one mass grave from which he said blood was gushing out … like a geyser.

    Remember, Eichmann is treated as solid proof of the impossible ‘6M Jews’ by “The Holocaust Industry”.

    see more on Eichmann here:
    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz : http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    – Comments 1492, 1076, are particularly revealing
    and;
    ‘from Inconvenient History: ‘The Adolf Eichmann Trial’, another farce’ : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12179
    The Adolf Eichmann Trial, By John Wear: https://codoh.com/library/document/6316/?lang=en

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  177. @jacques sheete

    one of the morals of all that is that men cannot be trusted in positions of power and “we” must act accordingly. Another lesson learned is that the US government has long acted against the interests of the American prols, peasants, peons and pissants, and no doubt shall as long as it exists.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Not only can men not be trusted in positions of power, but the types of men attracted to positions of power are the types who should be prevented, at all costs, from obtaining power.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  178. @jacques sheete

    This is what he simply won’t and can’t admit without the wiki like “but…” trying to weaken it. It simply does not fit the ideology and what he supposedly learned, it goes counter to programming.
    The entire usage of the word “nazi” suggests he hasn’t really done his homework.

    James Baker, US foreign minister said in Der Spiegel 13/1992:

    We made a monster of Hitler, a devil, therefore we could not say otherwise after the war.

    We had personally mobilized the masses nevertheless against the devil. Thus we were forced to play along with this devil scenario after the war.

    We could not possibly have made our people clear (to them), that the war was only an economic preventative measure.

    In my view, Baker admitted high treason and conspiracy against peace out of extremely low motives. He was speaking for his money masters.

    The essence of WWI&II were economic/financial motives, greed, to control the heart of Europe in order to destroy it, which is ongoing.
    Just like General Washington exchanged with Lafayette, they dreamed of a “United States of Europe”, which is a terrible illusion and utopian idea by the masons.

    An often overlooked player is the french Grand Orient lodge, who love Lenin very much.
    They are a driving force behind the entire European state project, which started with the french jewish Robert Schumann plan to access the German steal and coal industry “after” WWI. This has morphed into the vile creature EU we have today.

    As Mitterand said to traitor Bnai Brith Helmut Kohl,

    the Euro is Versailles without war

  179. @Grace Poole

    Thanks, Grace, I would have to agree with her assessment of Wilson. He, like so many others in positions of power are little more than privileged 3 year old children in biologically mature bodies.

    Form the excellent article, above,

    Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”

    Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.[16]

    Glee? Doesn’t that remind one of the Cackling Hyena? Childish? Doesn’t that describe tRump to a tee?

    Also, infantilism isn’t merely an American thing; Varoufakis’ highlighted the defect in his perceptive Adults in the Room.. (OT, but the one flaw in his otherwise superb work is Varoufakis’ rather naive faith in “democracy.”)

    Unmündigkeit:

    Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature.

    – Immanuel Kant, What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

    Unfortunately, the most immature seek to validate themselves by fighting for positions of power over their obvious betters, and too many whose main goal is to remain forever on the teat, support the wretches.

  180. @Crimson2

    So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war…

    No, dumbass, FDR and the East Coast moneybag international bankster Reds forced him into fighting for his nation’s life, get it? Read the article a couple of times until you get it.

    FYI, in this entire article and thread up to your comment, the word “tricked” was used only once and here it is.:

    Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.

    Hitler was not tricked; “WE” were. So who do you suppose were the dumbasses, dolt?

    See if you can figure out what this means…

    Better to remain silent and be unknown as a fool than write and remove all doubt.

    • Replies: @Crimson2
  181. @AnonFromTN

    Good comment except for this.:

    From the US perspective, what’s not to like?

    You should visit this bankrupt, mostly third world political cesspool some time. You’ll quickly find out what’s not to like.

    Only a handful of international gangsters, many based in New York, could be realistically viewed as benefiting from the war.

    But there is no doubt that WWII in Europe was in the best interests of the US. It weakened its Western European competitors and USSR.

    It not only weakened them but enslaved the leading competition. It also put atomic weapons and American money in the hands of the USSR, according to Maj Jordan and D.H. Dubrowsky, How Stalin Steals Our Money, in 4 parts.:

    Fraud on an international scale

    A vicious racket and how it can be stopped

    There’s profit in misery

    A racket that never ends

    Collier’s Weekly, May 18, 1940, p. 23

  182. Cowboy says:
    @Hans

    The Germans recognized “Czecho-Slovkia” for what it was: an artificial state created by the banking scum at Versailles.

    Actually it should have been Suteden-Bohemia-Moravia-Slovakia. It was, as you said, a fraud from the very beginning, but in ways you may not be aware of.

    Sure, it was an artificial construct of jews at Versailles, but it goes much deeper than rich banker jews.

    The first president of “czechoslovakia” was Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

    Masaryk was given this position as a reward for being a faithful zionist, but more importantly for his role in covering up jewish blood sacrifice.

    Anežka Hrůzová was a 19-year-old Czech Catholic girl, living in the village of Věžnička. She worked as a seamstress in Polná, 2 miles (3.2 km) away. On the afternoon of 29 March 1899, she left her place of employment as usual, but did not return to her home. Three days later (1 April) her body was found in a forest, her throat having been cut and her garments torn. Nearby was a pool of blood, some blood-stained stones, parts of her garments, and a rope with which she had been either strangled to death or dragged, after the murder, to the place where the body was found. Because of the little amount of blood found near the body, and the fact that Anežka Hrůzová’s disappearance had taken place during the Jewish holiday of Passover, authorities and population began speculating this was a case of Jewish ritual murder.

    The prominent Czech nationalist scholar Tomáš Masaryk, professor of the Charles University in Prague, intervened on behalf of Hilsner; he filed an appeal to the supreme court, citing technical errors in the trial. The supreme court ordered a new trial, to be held at Písek

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

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @anon
  183. Cowboy says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were all high level Freemasons, Roosevelt being 32 degree already in 1930:

    There are hundreds of pics of Stalin doing Masonic hidden hand poses, and loads of evidence about Churchill.

    The freemasons were pushing these genocidal world wars for Israel already from the prior century. Albert Pike laid it all out. Lloyd George famously said at Versailles that there would be another world war in 20 years.

    Aangirfan has a great piece out today:

    THE BRITISH MILITARY – SEX AND MASSACRES

    It details British military abuse and genocides going back nearly 200 years. It really drives home what kind of sadists the Freemasons really are, since most of the officers were masons. What is incredible is the descriptions of how the British treated their own soldiers:

    “In the UK, many soldiers had already heard the stories of betrayal and disappointment from their own fathers, who had returned from World War I only to find their government failing on the promise to support them, their widows, and orphans.

    “They’d grown up with the misery of the global economic Depression.

    “After the poor treatment of its WWI veterans and survivors, there was widespread mistrust of the state…

    “Generals were so worried about dropping morale and the threat of both insubordination and desertion, that they requested the return of the death penalty for deserters.”

    The UK military kills its own young people.

    Tobruk was one in a series of disasters for the British that included “the retreat from Dunkirk, the botched Norwegian campaign, the shameful fall of Singapore, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, and the doomed raid on Dieppe.”

    General Montgomery’s battle at El Alamein may have been just a pointless bloodbath.

    Not only did the Freemasons send troops charging to attack German bonesaw MG34’s, they also tortured and murdered their own soldiers:

    Lt Colonel S C Marriott wrote:

    “The last time we went down for a rest I had as many as 31 men tied to the wheel (the crucifiction punishment) at the same time…

    “Even Eckes, my second in command, had his faithful servant strung up for forgetting to put his anti-gas helmet over his shoulder one day…”

    During World War I, Britain executed many its own soldiers, some as young as 14 years of age.

    (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/shot-n16.shtml)

    From an article by Harvey Thompson at WSWS 16 November 1999:

    A typical case is that of Harry Farr, who joined the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and fought in the trenches.

    His position was repeatedly shelled, and in May 1915 he collapsed with strong convulsions.

    In hospital, his wife Gertrude – who was denied a widow’s pension after the war – recalled, “he shook all the time.

    “He couldn’t stand the noise of the guns.

    “We got a letter from him, but it was in a stranger’s handwriting. He could write perfectly well, but couldn’t hold the pen because his hand was shaking.”

    It is now thought that Farr was possibly suffering from hypacusis, which occurs when the eardrums are so damaged that the auditory nerve becomes exposed, making loud noises physically unbearable.

    Despite this, Farr was sent back to the front and fought at the Somme.

    After several months of fighting, he requested to see a medical orderly but was refused.

    In Farr’s Court Martial papers, the Sergeant Major is quoted as saying “If you don’t go up to the f*****g front, I’m going to f*****g blow your brains out” to which Farr simply replied “I just can’t go on.”

    The Court Martial was over in 20 minutes. Harry Farr had to defend himself.

    General Haig signed his death warrant and he was shot at dawn on October 16, 1916.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  184. @jacques sheete

    Ditto World War 1, which was also used as a pretext to nationalize the railroad industry, a long-held dream of centralizing Progressives.

    There were two types of Progressives when it comes to concepts of the nature of the American state in the industrial age

    On the one hand were the Progressives, et al, who generally believed in government at the state and local level. Think Battlin’ Bob La Follette. The sort of people who viewed “Bigness” – concentration of power – in business or government as being a source of evils. These guys are at least somewhat amenable to our interests as Europeans and Christians. Time has shown that the industrial age Popes were all correct to condemn bigness – economic concentration is obviously why Ron Unz had to start this site in the first place, for example!

    On the other hand were people like Herbert Croly, who was a very articulate spokesman for what became FDR’s super-state. Croly and other centralizers explicitly thought the American form of government outmoded. If there was really any one true “fascist” in America in the 1930s, it was Rex Tugwell, who worked for – you guessed it – the Roosevelt administration. These people were the enemies of freedom, who dreamed of completing what Wilson could not.

    Also, John Dewey was a turd.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  185. @Cowboy

    People might want to look a bit closer at Edvard Benes, whose Benes decrees are still in place today.

    He was responsible for this

    The ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Germans.

  186. Tom Welsh says:
    @anon

    “American losses in World War I were modest compared to those of other belligerents, with 116,516 deaths and approximately 320,000 sick and wounded of the 4.7 million men who served. The USA lost more personnel to disease (63,114) than to combat (53,402), largely due to the influenza epidemic of 1918”.

    https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_usa

  187. Tom Welsh says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    See also “Day of Deceit”, Robert Stinnett’s exhaustive, compelling account of how FDR planned secretly to provoke the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while making sure the naval and military commanders on the sport knew and suspected nothing. Once the US government’s dead hand was removed from the records, and once survivors felt able to speak honestly of their experiences, Stinnett was able to accumulate a vast mass of evidence, all pointing one way.

    While the Japanese task force was heading directly towards Pearl, not only did FDR know their plans and the time of the attack – he was even seeing transcripts of their intercepted radio traffic.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  188. Tom Welsh says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Robert Stinnett also states that FDR was already preparing to order vast numbers of warships and aircraft as early as 1940. Among them 100 aircraft carriers – Japan started the war with about a dozen, and gradually lost them all, while the USA ended the war with well over 100.

    That led inevitably to one-sided naval battles such as the Battle of the Philippine Sea, referred to by Americans as “The Marianas Turkey Shoot” because of the numbers of Japanese aircraft they shot down.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  189. Tom Welsh says:
    @luke2236

    It’s striking that Potocki, the Polish ambassador to Washington, was just as outspoken in his denunciation of the Jewish influence as Ribbentrop, Goebbels or any of the top Nazis.

    Incidentally, it’s doubtful if any of them could have rivalled Joe Kennedy in the fanatical extremism of his remarks about the Jews. Before 1941, that is.

  190. Tom Welsh says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    “Well I hate FDR, and his foreign policy is one reason.

    “And I’m not alone in that”.

    It does seem to be the case that, the more you learn about such “great” men, the more you come to dislike and despise them.

    Your comment reminded me of this famous paragraph from 130 years ago:

    “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it”.

    – Lord Acton (Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887)

    • Replies: @anon
    , @jacques sheete
  191. Tom Welsh says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    “Lend-Lease, which provided weapons for free…”

    That turns out not to be the case. As a British citizen, whose father spent 1941-5 fighting in Persia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, and whose mother was prepared to go to the hills of Scotland with a rifle and take at least one German with her before she died, I bitterly resent American lies about how the USA “saved Britain”. To be told that the USA “saved Britain” free of charge adds insult to injury.

    The American insistence on repayment of every penny lent resulted in Britain having austerity until 1954 – long after other European nations (even Germany) had returned to something resembling peacetime conditions. You might like to consult one of the books about the period of austerity from 1940-54; you would learn something. During all those years food was rationed rigorously; in 1945, after VE Day, rations were actually reduced yet again.

    Generally speaking, the USA has never done anything free of charge, or without making a considerable return on its investment. Wikipedia:

    ‘Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on September 2, 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on December 31, 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years and during a sixth year not allowed), was made on December 29, 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

    ‘Tacit repayment of Lend-Lease by the British was made in the form of several valuable technologies, including those related to radar, sonar, jet engines, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and plastic explosives as well as the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Many of these were transferred by the Tizard Mission. The official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: “When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores.”‘

  192. Tom Welsh says:
    @leftright

    “America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it”.

    Yeah – two years, three months after they entered it. After Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece had been conquered, Britain had had a near-death experience, and the Wehrmacht had reached the Moscow tramlines.

    Of course time is a relative concept, especially to lying politicians. And Washington never intended to join the war until Germany had shot its bolt. December 1941 was the moment: well-informed military analysts could predict that the Third Reich had reached its maximum extent, and would be rolled back by the huge latent power of the USSR. And that was the time for the USA to enter the fray. Three years to prepare, and they would be ready to invade Europe and stab Germany in the back as she was fighting for her life against the Soviets.

    Even then, the USA did not declare war on Nazi Germany: it waited until Hitler declared war on it.

    As Robert A Heinlein, a fanatical American patriot, frankly admitted, “…the American Eagle eats carrion, never tackles anything its own size, and will soon be extinct”.

    The really striking thing about the fine article is how little things have changed since 1939. The White House is still stirring up hatred of imaginary enemies for two reasons: 1. to distract attention from the catastrophic situation at home; 2. to feed the armament manufacturers’ lust for money.

    And Washington is still pursuing the Big Lie policy – which Goebbels and Hitler copied from the USA.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @anon
  193. Tom Welsh says:
    @Germanicus

    I am reminded of the words of that much-maligned (but tuneful) march, the Horst Wessel Lied.

    “Der Tag der Freiheit und der Brot bricht an”.

    (“The day of freedom and bread is breaking”).

    What ghastly totalitarian sentiments.

  194. Tom Welsh says:
    @Crimson2

    “So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war and then beat him so hard that he killed himself and his bride on their honeymoon?”

    No, you didn’t. Although your comment is absolutely typical of the crass, ignorant, prejudiced, arrogant American stereotype.

    It wasn’t US troops who were a mile or so away when Hitler committed suicide. It was Soviet troops. The Soviets killed 80% of the German forces who died in WW2. The Battle of Kursk was by far the biggest tank battle in history, and the Soviets won it. Operation Bagration was a far bigger battle in every way than the Normandy landings, and effectively destroyed an entire German army group.

    If Germany hadn’t gone to war with the USSR and the USA had invaded Europe, the Americans would have been utterly wiped out. (Not that they could have invaded Europe if three-quarters of the best German forces hadn’t been pinned down in the East).

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Crimson2
  195. Tom Welsh says:
    @Grace Poole

    I am delighted to see your mention of Lord Acton – I quoted his “power corrupts” passage in a different comment.

    General Lee was one of the good guys.

  196. @Kratoklastes

    Not only can men not be trusted in positions of power, but the types of men attracted to positions of power are the types who should be prevented, at all costs, from obtaining power.

    I have also reached that conclusion.

  197. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Damned awesome comments there, sir, and thanks for naming a few of the criminals.

  198. @Germanicus

    I consider your comments of extremely high value, and I thank you. You are a real asset to this site.

  199. @Germanicus

    The essence of WWI&II were economic/financial motives, greed, to control the heart of Europe in order to destroy it, which is ongoing.

    There can be no question about that. None whatsoever. Marxism and Bolshevism were no doubt created toward that end. In fact, if they had not been useful tools, they would never have seen the light of day; no one would have heard of Marx and he would have slithered off into the dustbin of history with nary a peep out of anyone.

    But back to your point; agreement sometimes comes from astonishing sources.:

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…
    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    Wars are inevitable, Dickinson declared, for they arise out of commercial competition between nations…

    Overall, from 1915 to 1917, the export department of J.P. Morgan and Co. negotiated more than $3 billion of contracts to Britain and France. By early 1915, Secretary McAdoo was writing to Wilson hailing the “great prosperity” being brought by war exports to the Allies, and a prominent business writer wrote the following year that “War, for Europe, is meaning devastation and death; for America a bumper crop of new millionaires and a hectic hastening of prosperity revival.”

    Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
    By Murray N. Rothbard
    This first appeared in World Market Perspective (1984)
    https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41125186/

    All of the above apply in spades to the continuation of “WW1” known as “WW2.”

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Germanicus
  200. @Tom Welsh

    Without exculpating FDR, there was nothing particularly sinister about the Two-Ocean Navy Act. Japan gave notice it would withdraw from the London Naval Treaty in 1934, and withdrew at the end of 1936 while Britain and Japan remained in the treaty. In the late 1930s a global naval arms race broke out, and when war broke out the treaty was a dead letter.

    In this strategic context it was completely appropriate to commence a naval building program, and this was also supported by most members of the America First Committee who supported armed neutrality.

    Charles Lindbergh for instance supported either heavily fortifying the Philippines (in contravention of the treaty) or withdrawing from the islands completely.

  201. @Tom Welsh

    Tom,

    Many years after the war, Winston Churchill’s son Randolph recounted a moment in 1940 in which his father called him into his room while he shaved and got dressed for some function. Winston told Randolph that he was thinking of a way to defeat the Germans.

    Randolph writes that he, at the moment, thought it was “credible” that Britain could stop the Germans – that is, stop them from invading the island and possibly force a negotiated peace – but totally “incredible” that Britain could win decisively.

    He asked his father if he really believed Britain could “beat the bastards,” and, if so, how.

    Winston paused his shaving, looked at Randolph, and said, “I’m going to drag the United States in.”

    This was in 1940, in the summer.

    If you’d like, I can dig into my collection of books and find the exact quote.

    The point is: The British leaders themselves knew that they could not defeat Germany without America. End of discussion. Whether or not that’s the same thing as “saving” Britain is a different train of thought, I suppose.

  202. @Tom Welsh

    “General Robert E. Lee freed the slaves.”

    – Bol, from ‘Lonesome Dove’

  203. @Tom Welsh

    British technological transfers and, to a lesser extent, “Reverse Lend-Lease” were obviously useful. Their value was however much lower than that of Lend-Lease (or, if we want to account for it, American combat forces once America entered the war). Accepting “repayment” at a 90% loss was an obscene waste of American resources.

    The British Loan was not Lend-Lease, and because it was granted by the newly Republican Congress thankfully repayment at least a somewhat attractive interest rate was insisted upon.

    My general objection to FDR’s foreign policy is that he pursued an expensive, interventionist foreign policy which was not intended to advance America’s material or territorial interests. All America got out of it was some British technology and a 99 year lease on bases.

    Some of the things America might have asked for, but didn’t:

    • Sovereignty over Newfoundland, Bermuda, Jamaica, and other British colonies in the Western Hemisphere (and perhaps the Pacific as well)
    • Tariff-free access to all markets in the British Commonwealth
    • Ownership interests in prominent British corporations like Vickers, John Brown, Avro, de Havilland, Austin, GEC, Marconi, etc.
    • British acquiescence to the annexation of the disgusting Canuckist Entity

    You seem to be resentful that America insisted on any repayment at all. That’s ridiculous. The entire purpose of an expansionist foreign policy to to strengthen your own state at the expense of other states. If Britain objected to paying a hefty price for aid to a non-cucked America then peace with Germany was always an option.

    Likewise after the war neither America nor Britain got much out of Germany and Japan. Why, for instance, are Daimler-Benz and Siemens still under German ownership? Why does Japan, which had no significant motor vehicle industry before the war, today have one of the largest in the world? Logically ownership of these valuable assets should’ve been transferred to the victors. All we got was some scientists and patents.

    If you’re not willing to insist on gains for intervention because you’re a cuck, then the best approach is armed neutrality unless there is an existential security threat. That clearly wasn’t the case for America owing to geography. Britain of course was in a more difficult situation so refusing to make peace with Germany was understandable.

  204. @Thorfinnsson

    In this strategic context it was completely appropriate to commence a naval building program, and this was also supported by most members of the America First Committee who supported armed neutrality.

    Hence why I roll my eyes at my more extremist libertarian friends who insist against pretty much any form of military defense.

    As some of us discussed at length in one of Karlin’s open threads, the American Civil War showed the truth of this.

    If Britain had intervened on behalf of those black-drivers down South (whose shortsighted goal in life was to hamper real white nationalism by importing blacks onto the rich prairies – only by understanding this can modern right-wing people understand how racist Northern whites were so pissed off by Kansas-Nebraska), our navy of “white nationalist” Anglo officers and formerly-starving Irish enlisted men, on their outnumbered boats, would have been wiped off the seas by the RN. And then, as even the Confederate-at-heart Pat Buchanan admits, our hemisphere would have been troubled, and we would not have become the strong white nation that we were before the Second World War.

    The America First people instinctively understood the crucial importance of our nation being able to blast anything out of the waters around us.

    America, in its ideal state, should be isolationist and heavily, heavily armed. This is truly the American ideal. It is even captured by our popular culture, like when the character Shane, from the famous Western, says, “A gun is a tool, Miriam – no better or worse than the man using it.”

    Otherwise those [Scottish accent] English bastards [/Scottish accent] can too easily meddle in the affairs of our hemisphere.

    Oh, and as for the Philippines, wasn’t there a segment of the American military that thought the islands indefensible even if well-fortified?

  205. @Tom Welsh

    FDR wanted to enter the war as soon as possible.

    He was not able to owing to public opinion being overwhelmingly opposed to it and the presence of powerful political forces in favor of neutrality.

    He did what he could to aid Britain in other ways, up to and including violating US law and concealing this from Congress.

    And why exactly should America have entered the war earlier? Because it would have made things easier for Britain?

    If you’re not attacked by someone else the entire point of going to war is to get something out of it.

  206. @Cowboy

    THE BRITISH MILITARY – SEX AND MASSACRES

    George Washington was guilty of similar atrocities against his own men even before the USA existed. In the Continental Army manpower had limited commitments to service and were supposedly free to leave when the time was up. It wasn’t rare, however, to punish men who left before their “superiors” saw fit to let them go as promised. Also, everyone ought to read about Shays’ rebellion and what Washington did to the rebels in the “land of the free.” We’ll skip over the treatment of combatants and non-combatants alike by Lincoln’s beasts in the War of the East Coast Bankers against the Southern Planters and mention another relevant anecdote…

    In the Fall of 1918 US Gen Pershing also authorized officers in France to shoot any soldiers retreating, and there were as many as 100,ooo of them. To add injury to injury, Pershing’s men were often poorly equipped, poorly fed and untrained; many were sent into battle without ever having fired a rifle!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Cowboy
  207. @jacques sheete

    Regarding the mentioned KdF and Beetle. These are quite interesting things.
    I just dislike talking to someone, who somehow feels obliged to answer every little sentence with some deflection and half truth. I like to form coherent sentences that build upon each other.

    The beetle was a brainchild of Ferdinand Porsche and Adolf Hitler, design works started 1934, produced in 1938 and domestically sold affordably. Volkswagen, the people’s car, just as the name says, Autobahn was also needed for these beetles. We can’t have that, giving credit to Hitler, Porsche gets it, and every foreign speed junky dreams of 160mph on the Autobahn.

    Even wiki has to admits some facts.

    The Strength Through Joy program was designed to attract the working class – who had during the Weimar Republic been the power base of the Social Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Communists – to the Nazi Party by offering numerous cultural events and mass tourism at affordable prices.

    Founded in November 1933, in the year 1934, 400,000 people took Strength Through Joy package tours, a number which rose to 1.7 million by 1937, not to mention 7 million who availed themselves of weekend excursions and 1.6 million who participated in organized hikes.

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

    Kind of modern tourism, I would think.

    KdF had in summer 1934 already 7 ships, and demand was increasing, 1937 9 ships, in 1938 it had 2 more ships built, the Gustloff and Ley. The program ended with the outbreak of the war for obvious reasons.

    The Russians try to this day to rid themselves from the US dictated “constitution” under Yeltsin and try to nationalize the central bank. This might explain some actions of the Russians and why they are target. There are Russian MPs openly talking about this on YT with Germans, and state, they fight the same fight for liberation the Germans do.

    The Soviet central bank was in name already not Russian, not controlled by the Russian people, soviet means council. And these councils were almost exclusively made up of Jews, not even from Russia.

    The Soviets, and for that matter the satellites produced cheaply for the other side for “hard currency” dollar or west german marks. The vampires slowly moved production and cheap labor after the SU to Mexico, Asia wherever, and some of the cheap labor stayed in Eastern Europe of course.
    In communism, there is enough money but an artificial shortage of goods, in capitalism, there is an artificial shortage of money, but enough goods. Two sides of the same coin, controlled by the same private banks.

    It was all a big secret, but on another day, I probably tell a little about Alexander Schalck Golodkowski, the only GDR functionary tried by allied military law. He was GDR’s foreign exchange collector, who could pass through iron curtains or walls like a jelly fish.

    Wink wink, Merkel and her regime could face such military trial, basically any FRG official.

    My original point was simply, that the NSDAP program was one big cause for the conspirators to wage war, because it’s economic policies went in a direction, that did not suit neither the US/UK side, nor the SU side. Gadaffi and Saddam kind of tried a similar approach, suited for their countries, Iran does.

    One can find tons of British admittance, Lord Vansittart, a german hater, who wrote “Black Record”, and others clearly stated that the German Reich was the enemy, not National Socialism in itself.
    This has to do with the Roman Law point raised, which tied banking and insurance together, with the CDM, Capitis deminutio (maxima), a roman law, literally meaning the decrease of head. The thing with the Strawman and ALL CAPITALS.

  208. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    The Philippines could certainly be defended, the only question is at what cost.

    Japan conducted its entire Centrifugal Offensive with only eleven divisions. Certainly America could’ve fielded more divisions had it so chosen on the Philippines. The strategic disadvantage of that, other than cost, was that in the event of a victory over the USN Japan could blockade the islands which would prevent the divisions from being supplied. Presumably this threat could have been dealt with by amassing large war stocks of munitions in the Philippines itself (again, at additional cost).

    The Washington Naval Treaty also prohibited the further fortification of the Philippines, a major Japanese diplomatic victory.

    Appropriate American defenses in the Philippines throughout the 1930s could have led to the victory of Japan’s “Strike North” faction in Japanese internal politics. Japan then would have directed its expansion against the Soviet Union instead of China and the Western powers. Of course, American leaders had no way of knowing what the internal divisions of Japanese politics and officer cliques were.

    One of the great What Ifs.

  209. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crimson2

    So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war and then beat him so hard that he killed himself and his bride on their honeymoon?

    Awesome.

    yeah, “we” did

  210. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cowboy

    re jewish blood sacrifice

    where there’s smoke there’s fire

  211. @jacques sheete

    Lincoln’s East Coast bankers profited from slavery.

    More like Lincoln’s War of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers against the Southern Planters…

    Executing deserting troops is as old as warfare itself and essential to good military discipline in high intensity combat. The Wehrmacht executed 15,000 deserters in the final desperate two years of warfare. This is a major reason it never crumbled unlike the German Army in 1918.

  212. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Welsh

    It does seem to be the case that, the more you learn about such “great” men, the more you come to dislike and despise them.

    i find that most of these “great” men were created by the (((media))) – Churchill, FDR, Kennedy

  213. @Germanicus

    I just dislike talking to someone, who somehow feels obliged to answer every little sentence with some deflection and half truth

    Correction, you dislike talking to someone who does not allow you to persist in your delusions.

    For some reason every one of these discussions with “revisionists” devolves into a discussion about central banking, which like most opponents of central banking you have zero understanding of.

    The completely innocent Adolf Hitler was destroyed by the Jews because he planned to END THE FED.

    “Lebensraum” is German for, “Only gold is money.”

    After the war Hitler moved to America, changed his name to Ron Paul, and began to practice medicine.

  214. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it”.

    Yeah – two years, three months after they entered it. After Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece had been conquered, Britain had had a near-death experience, and the Wehrmacht had reached the Moscow tramlines.

    Of course time is a relative concept, especially to lying politicians. And Washington never intended to join the war until Germany had shot its bolt. December 1941 was the moment: well-informed military analysts could predict that the Third Reich had reached its maximum extent, and would be rolled back by the huge latent power of the USSR. And that was the time for the USA to enter the fray. Three years to prepare, and they would be ready to invade Europe and stab Germany in the back as she was fighting for her life against the Soviets.

    why should Americans have had to bail you out again?

    you created the circumstances for WWII with the Versailles Treaty and you had Churchill, a tool of the jew banker, pushing for WWII anyway

    sound like a crybaby

    also, i’m not responsible for jew hollywood putting out propaganda to make Americans believe they won the war all by themselves. jews wanted us in that war just like they wanted us in WWI

  215. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Welsh

    If Germany hadn’t gone to war with the USSR and the USA had invaded Europe, the Americans would have been utterly wiped out.

    you don’t know this though, it depends how bad the U.S. wanted to win

    they would have had to suffer huge casualties but they might have had the manufacturing base to pull it off

  216. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    The America First people instinctively understood the crucial importance of our nation being able to blast anything out of the waters around us.

    The current situation is though, the US mainland is defenseless against advanced missile strikes, none of the US ABM systems can defend properly, and its surface fleet is almost obsolete and easy prey for hypersonic missiles.
    Electronic warfare capabilities of Russia, China and Iran are a more than proper match, thanks to Israeli “allies” transferring knowhow.
    The general US military is in a poor state. Despite the insane “defense” budget, it is not capable of fighting a powerful state military of an enemy. Instead, they got 70000 special forces only capable to instigate conflicts, who are practically unaccountable, their wars are privatized.
    It is all by design in my view.

    I would warn, the next US war will be the last war the US waged. These people in Washington are absolutely deluded and removed from any reality, they are highly dangerous.

  217. @Germanicus

    Another excellent and info packed comment and I agree fully with all. Thank you!

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  218. @Tom Welsh

    It does seem to be the case that, the more you learn about such “great” men, the more you come to dislike and despise them.

    For sure.

    Here’s a classic example and Beveridge’s book is well worth a read for any potential hagiographers out there.

    The more research that [would be hagiographer] Beveridge did the more disgusted he became with the “slush and rot” that had been—and was being—written about Lincoln. [14] There were a few exceptions…

    He dismissed [almost all “histories about Lincoln] as largely “rubbish.” Lord Charnwood’s readable and popular Abraham Lincoln (1916) was “spotted with errors of fact so plain that they are glaring.” Ida Tarbell’s two-volume Life of Abraham Lincoln (1900) was a mid-Victorian attempt “to fumigate” Lincoln. Henry B. Rankin’s Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln (1916) and Intimate Character Sketches of Abraham Lincoln(1924) were “utterly untrustworthy” attempts to make Lincoln into “an impossible and unhuman angel who could not possibly make a mistake and who was without any human weakness whatever.”

    ” Not only had the “last word” on Lincoln not been written, he complained, but “the first word has not been penned.”[16]

    – JOHN BRAEMAN, Albert J. Beveridge and Demythologizing Lincoln, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Volume 25, Issue 2, Summer 2004, pp. 1-24

  219. @Thorfinnsson

    Lincoln’s East Coast bankers profited from slavery.

    Yeah, that’s one way they got rich and powerful, but chattel slavery was becoming outdated. Time for plan B.

    Take it away, Count Tolstoy!

    “But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of slavery was only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary, and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds a greater number of people in bondage.”

    – Leo Tolstoy

    A few typos, but otherwise a fine summary: Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times, Chap 8, 11 July, 1900

    Wage, tax, debt and monetary slavery is so much more convenient and efficient, no?

    PS: Do you think that women’s suffrage in the US was all about liberating women? Think again. Hint:”…holds a greater number of people in bondage.”

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  220. @jacques sheete

    James Baker, loyal consigliere to the Bush Crime Family.

  221. Cowboy says:
    @jacques sheete

    Pershing was a freemason, a member of lincoln lodge no 19 in Lincoln Nebraska. He even has a dedicated lodge named after him in Holland. I could not determine what degree he was.

    However, Brother Pershing worked closely with Brother Teddy Roosevelt in the Spanish American war, where he commanded a regiment of black freemasons, the old buffalo soldiers. That is why he is called “Black Jack” Pershing. I wonder if all these black soldiers decided to become masons on their own, or if perhaps thier white officers were masons who would only recruit black masons?
    http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/images/buffalo_soldiers_joppa_lodge_150_2.jpg.jpg

    http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/buffalo_soldiers.htm

    Such was the nature of Military Lodges. Most over time just ceased to exist without the benefit of written records to pass on to future generations the history of that Lodge. It was a result of the Military Life, constantly on the move and the large number of wounded Brethren and those who died in the service of their country.

    Here we have something on Pershings tactics in WWI, it appears that he was in competition with Brother Haig and Brother Foch to kill more Americans in one battle than they had their own at the Somme or Verdun:

    [MORE]

    Pershing believed British and French armies had become bogged down in trench warfare. His solution was “open warfare.” The concept involved using large divisions of 28,000 men – roughly the size of an Allied corps — to punch through German defenses and maneuver in enemy’s rear echelon. The general emphasized open-order formations and the rifle. In attack, American regiments were to advance in columns of three battalions, assault, follow-up and support. Similarly, each of these battalions were to advance in lines of three companies. In his defence,

    Americans were great shots and their marksmanship proved devastating. But open-order formations were no more effective for the AEF on the Marne and Meuse then they were for the British at the Somme. The result was a slaughter. As the AEF gained experience American commanders wisely dropped Pershing’s open warfare tactics and mimicked the Allies “quick rushes.”

    Pershing and Foch also differed greatly on strategy. The French marshal wanted the AEF to attack into the southern belly of the Germans’ great salient in France. Pershing wanted to push east, on his own, into Germany.

    On Sept. 26, Pershing launched his grand offensive in the Meuse-Argonne sector. Unfortunately for the American general and the Doughboys who would fight there, the region was hilly, wooded, untouched by war and cut by four separate layers of German fortifications. The first two weeks of the offensive were a disaster for the AEF. Of the nine divisions participating in the opening assault, only three had any appreciable experience in France. In fact, the 79th Division, tasked with taking the lynchpin of German defences at Montfaucon, had only been in the country for seven weeks. Inexperienced Doughboys were slaughtered wholesale by German machine guns, pinned down in the open, and hammered by expertly laid German artillery. The AEF suffered 26,000 casualties in just four days of fighting.

    Pershing was poised to invade Germany itself
    In the north of the Meuse-Argonne sector Hunter Liggett’s 1st Army of nine divisions had made several bridgeheads across the Meuse and was preparing to advance east toward the fortress city of Metz. In the south General Robert Lee Bullard was being reinforced by five fresh divisions for his own push east across the Woevre Plain. Behind the Meuse, Pershing was activating the 3rd Army. But the grand push to the Rhine and beyond was not to be. Berlin capitulated before the AEF could unleash this final attack. Until the end of his days in 1948, Pershing wondered what might have been.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  222. @Wally

    This comment was directed at German_reader, but for some reason Wally keeps asking me to reply to it.

    Okay.

    “It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.”

    – Except there was no threat to bomb Prague as Goring stated:

    “The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

    – Hacha was supported by his fellow Czechs who were also very concerned about Communism, hence the agreement for a ‘protectorate’ status.

    Germany pledged at Munich to respect Czechoslovak sovereignty.

    It failed to do so, whether or not the bombing and invasion threats actually occurred. I assume these threats did occur since it’s not very common for states to sign away their independence out of concern for Bolshevism. A military alliance would be more typical–such as the alliances Germany formed with other states.

    The Czechs apparently loved their protectorate status so much that they assassinated Reinhard Heydrich.

    – Hitler did not start a war with Poland.

    Germany issued a formal declaration of war and its forces crossed the Polish frontier. What qualifies as starting a war in your view?

    – Poland seized German land under the forced, illegal blockade mandated treaty of Versailles.
    – Poland was brutalizing Germans in the stolen land, Poland got what they started.

    A number of plebiscites were held in the lands transferred to Poland.

    Germany lost WW1, sued for peace, and accepted the Versailles Treaty. And yes, the British blockade was illegal. So was the German u-boat blockade and the German violation of Belgian neutrality.

    There were Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans, but these started in response to Polish-German tensions other than one incident in 1928 if memory serves.

    After invading Poland, Germany simply eliminated the Polish state and occupied the entire country other than the part given to the Soviet Union. The Germans also began settling Germans in occupied Poland.

    – Again: Britain & France did nothing against the Communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east and took 60% of Poland though the treaty with Poland said nothing of exempting the USSR.

    True, though I’m not sure why this is supposed to be exculpating.

    This entire HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG line is embarrassing.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Wally
  223. @jacques sheete

    Outdated for manufacturers, perhaps. Slaves after all are a major capital cost and can’t be fired in a business downturn. Same problem with robots today which is why auto factories are only 40% automated.

    Certainly not outdated for bankers who enjoyed profits in financing the domestic slave trade.

    And while apparently not a concern to the Union side, the replacement of chattel slavery with wage labor and tenant farming (sharecropping) actually caused Southern agricultural productivity to plummet. Southern agricultural productivity didn’t reach its 1860 level again until 1890.

    It was also demonstrated in the British West Indies as a result of the “great experiment” that chattel slavery was more efficient on sugar and coffee plantations than free labor.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  224. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Maybe you are misconstruing what Shane represented?

    Perhaps Shane personified a much more hallowed American ideal: the proposition that an individual, or a group of individuals, in a voluntary and consensual manner, have an absolute right to defend themselves against thuggish and violent predators.

    Another American virtue manifested in Shane: the right of self-defense necessarily includes the right to use firearms without having to register the same with the local marshal, sheriff, soviet, five-o, or other armed government workers.

    Collective defense is a breeding ground for parasites and for the craven who would wear Caesar’s uniform for life.

  225. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    though i wish you were wrong on some of these things i suspect you’re not

    revisionists will only triumph if they stay with the truth

    • Replies: @Wally
  226. Cowboy says:
    @Liberty Mike

    Collective defense is a breeding ground for parasites, freemasons and for the craven who would wear Caesar’s uniform for life.

    From Paine to Washington to Jefferson, they were Freemasons, and the entire US constitution is masonic. Brother Washington was involved in warfare and murder his entire life. This is why they so hated the Articles of Confederation and later the Confederacy, because they allowed secession. Freemasons hate secession, their oaths are for life, and they expected all the signers to have signed for life too.

    Shane’s biggest crime was secession. He seceded from the Masonic warrior’s life of gunslinging. The Masonic gunslingers came to get him. It is the history of the South in a nutshell, and the history to Germany too.

  227. @Cowboy

    Here we have something on Pershings tactics in WWI, it appears that he was in competition with Brother Haig and Brother Foch to kill more Americans in one battle than they had their own…

    Thanks for bringing that up and mentioning another mediocrity and glory hound, “Teddy” Roosevelt, who was so enthralled with the thrills that he had 4 of his sons in the military. They began training 2 summers before Wilson betrayed the American people big time. He lost one clown in an inadequate French airplane (the Americans had none there at the time) that got shot down while trying to play hero, and another was torn up badly I think. The goofies will even sacrifice their won sons for their greater “glory.”

    The AEF (American Expeditionary Force) was infected with more than one high level goofus, for example, one General Summerall who told MacArthur on the eve of an attack on Chantillon, “Give me Chantillon or five thousand caualties.”

    There are more tales like that than anyone could believe. Sick, sick, sick.

  228. @Thorfinnsson

    And while apparently not a concern to the Union side, the replacement of chattel slavery with wage labor and tenant farming (sharecropping) a

    ctually caused Southern agricultural productivity to plummet.

    Southern agricultural productivity didn’t reach its 1860 level again until 1890.

    Most probably true and I wonder who benefited from all of the plummeting going on. Could it be that a gaggle or two of rich SOBs bought up all they could at fire sale prices?

    The bankers won, again, and we chumps keep paying for it.

  229. Crimson2 says:
    @jacques sheete

    Lol, are you still crying about your hero killing himself? Get over it, lady.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  230. @Cowboy

    Now that puts an interesting twist on things.

    I never could figure out why the great freedom pamphleteer, Paine, became a constitutionalist, and I’m still wondering why Washington abandoned him when he was imprisoned in the Luxemburg Frech prison and scheduled to be hanged by French revolutionaries.

    I’m gonna hafta look into this Masonic thingy about which I know nothing. Thanks.

  231. Crimson2 says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “If…”

    Aw, poor baby! You Nazis were so close to world domination. Now look at you–weak, scared and paranoid. And too stupid to realize that it’s your own fucking fault.

    Your tears are entertaining. Please proceed…

    • Troll: jacques sheete
  232. L.K says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Germany’s vigorous recovery was due to its public works and (especially) rearmament programs, which were financed with deficit spending.

    Pure BS.

    In “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind”, Stephen M. Goodson, a former director of the South African Reserve Bank, writes:

    By 1939 Germany had become the most powerful country in the history of Europe. Its Gross Domestic Product at an annual average growth rate of 11% per annum had doubled in the short space of six years of quasi-state banking. The Germans were now the happiest and most prosperous people in the world, fully employed and enjoying one of the highest standards of living. This success was achieved by the hard work of the German people and with the support of an honest money system not based on usury or the gold standard.

    One of the myths propagated by establishment historians is that Germany’s economic renaissance was based on armaments production. The following table reveals modest levels of defence expenditure which only picked up in 1938/1939 when Germany started to feel threatened by her neighbours. …

    Henry C.K Liu, in “Nazism and the German economic miracle”, writes:

    Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.
    In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  233. L.K says:
    @jacques sheete

    I’m convinced that another subtext to the war was that Germany, despite the tremendous obstacles, actually was ahead of the US in recovering from the great depression and treated its workers very well in marked contrast to the situation of the working classes in the USA, Britain and the USSR, so that’s another reason it had to be stomped.

    Yes, and have you noticed how financier propagandist, “Debt is Good” Thorfinnsson had to rear his ugly head in the comments?

    In her highly recommended book, The Public Bank Solution, author Ellen Brown has a chapter titled:
    JAPAN AND GERMANY BREAK THE SHACKLES OF INTEREST – AND PAY THE PRICE

    “[It is] a war of financiers and fools, though most people, on the Allied side at any rate, do not yet see very clearly how financiers come into it.”
    ― Hasting W. S. Russell, Duke of Bedford

    Germany and Japan have been heavily stigmatized for the aggressions of World War II, but there are two sides to every story. In the 1930s, both countries funded their economies with interest-free national credit rather than borrowing from international banks. Thus freed from the debt trap, they became economic powerhouses. Some historians of the period say they threatened international banking interests. …

    Bolton also cites Hasting W. S. Russell, Marquis of Tavistock and later 12th Duke of Bedford, writing at the beginning of World War II. A pacifist and money reformer, he saw the impetus for the war in the threat Germany posed to the “financial racket” of the international bankers. He said:

    “Financiers . . . desired war as a means of overthrowing their rivals and consolidating still further their immense power. . . . Hitler not only engaged in barter trade which meant no discount profits for bankers arranging bills of exchange, but he even went so far as to declare that a country’s real wealth consisted in its ability to produce goods; nor, when men and material were available, would he ever allow lack of money to be an obstacle in the way of any project which he considered to be in his country’s interests. This was rank heresy in the eyes of the financiers of Britain and America, a heresy which, if allowed to spread, would blow the gaff on the whole financial racket”.369

    Goodson[ former director of the South African Reserve Bank] agrees with this version of events. He writes:
    “Both the Bank of Japan and the German Reichsbank, with their systems of state creation of the money supply at zero interest, and the inevitability that those systems of finance would be replicated by other countries, in particular those of the proposed Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, posed such a serious threat to the private investors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, that a world war was deemed to be the only means of countering it”.370

  234. @jacques sheete

    I’m gonna hafta look into this Masonic thingy about which I know nothing. Thanks.

    Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was a mason too, released by Hitler in 1939, arrested in 1944, suspected to be involved with traitor Stauffenberg.
    Schacht was not put on these Stalinist show trials in Nuremberg.

    The “Weimar Republic” was/is a mason construct, black-red-gold colors, same as GDR with obvious masonic insignia, and FRG, both are corporate continuations of Weimar.
    WWII is about reinforcing Versailles Hitler peacefully repealed.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Cowboy
  235. @L.K

    Mefo bills were introduced in 1934. The army’s medium tank specifications were drawn up in 1934. The MG34 machine gun was introduced in 1934. Conscription was reintroduced in 1935. The Me-109’s first flight was in 1935. The Scharnhorst-class battleships had their keels laid down in 1935. The Rhineland was remilitarized in 1936. Bismarck, Tirpitz, and the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin (never finished) were all laid down in 1936. The Ju-88 first flew in 1936.

    But sure, defense expenditures only picked up in 1938.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Cowboy
    , @James Forrestal
  236. @L.K

    Monetary crank cites fellow monetary crank that Mefo bills were the reason for WW2.

    Compelling.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @L.K
  237. @Germanicus

    Schacht was tried but acquitted at Nuremberg.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  238. Johan says:

    It is probably inevitable that even on unz.com, my favorite medium, which to my estimation consists of independent writers with a remarkable level of common sense and insight, the propaganda strategy from/affected by the neo-Nazi sphere kicks in at some point.
    I don’t know whether the popular and obliged Churchill slandering already has affected unz.com.., but the highly speculative Roosevelt bashing was to be expected I guess. I.o.w. a worthless highly speculative article which has an origin and intent..

  239. @Thorfinnsson

    Schacht was tried but acquitted at Nuremberg.

    How generous of the masonic thieves, that they didn’t kill their fellow masonic brother in this disgraceful theater and mockery of justice.

  240. @Liberty Mike

    Collective defense is a breeding ground for parasites and for the craven who would wear Caesar’s uniform for life.

    Tell it to George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and U.S. Grant.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  241. @Thorfinnsson

    Thorfinnsson, I admire the stamina you have shown in trying to bring knowledge and understanding to the willfully ignorant.

    Your facts and reasoning are quite sound, but attempting to impart that to some of the commenters here amounts to casting pearls before swine.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  242. @Thorfinnsson

    More like Lincoln’s War of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers against the Southern Planters…

    As a Pennsylvanian, I do not understand this comment.

    Pennsylvania’s only contribution to the White House was the President (Buchanan) who allowed those hot-headed “Southern Planters” to effectively arm themselves at federal expenses, by way of confiscating arms from arsenals.

    This is in keeping with was then the more moderate and quiet political tradition of Pennsylvania. We have a fairly diverse population of whites, and were capable of producing such divergent figures as Buchanan (pro-Southern Democrat), Thaddeus Stevens (radical, crazy abolitionist), David Wilmot (anti-slavery Democrat), and Simon Cameron (amusingly corrupt mainstream Republican). Our manufacturing section had no vested interest in a civil war. Pennsylvania was busy conquering the Allegheny Mountains with railroads, and selling goods to the South and the burgeoning West.

    And certainly the prosperous free farmers of our southern counties (especially Franklin) did not enjoy the war, as they suffered several rebel incursions. They learned of Southern hospitality quite unhappily in Chambersburg, PA.

    Braxton Bragg, in a letter to his friend William Sherman, said that the hotheaded youths of the South would “waste” the legacies of their fathers in a fit of bloodlust. Indeed, Braxton. Indeed.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  243. @Thorfinnsson

    LOL

    These Wehraboos here are dreadfully boring.

    I know one – a neo-fascist – in real life who’s much more interesting. Because he has a functioning mind, he openly admits that Adolf Hitler planned a war for living space, and an extermination of the Polish intelligentsia, etc, etc.

    Ala Solzhenitsyn, he considers a great mistake the brutality of the German occupation of occupied eastern Slavic territories.

    It may be dumb or misplaced to be a neo-fascist, but the ones back then at least were honest about their plans for the East.

    For us, as Americans, the point is that America shouldn’t have been involved.

    • Replies: @fnn
  244. @Cowboy

    Shane’s biggest crime was secession. He seceded from the Masonic warrior’s life of gunslinging. The Masonic gunslingers came to get him. It is the history of the South in a nutshell, and the history to Germany too.

    I have no idea what the heck you’re talking about, but I’d love to buy you a beer sometime.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  245. @jacques sheete

    This is really what you need

    The Catholic Church’s condemnations of Freemasonry, taken together, are very respectably systematic.

    Here is a list:

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

    And they’re also totally based, in that they used to openly admit the connections to Talmudic Judaism.

    These guys on Unz are fun, but they aren’t systematic.

    Random fact about Freemasonry: Kerensky and the other February Revolutionaries were all Masons. This confirms the supposition of Dostoevsky, which was that imported “liberal” ideologies from the West (Masonry) would destroy Russia and lead to a harder form of despotism (turned out to be Leninism and Stalinism).

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  246. @Johan

    Outright Neo-Nazi revisionism is usually dumb

    Hating Roosevelt is not dumb

    Perfectly mainstream people in the 1940s absolutely hated Roosevelt

    For goodness sake, John F. Kennedy donated money to the America First Committee

  247. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Lincoln was able to secure the GOP nomination for President because he convinced the Pennsylvania and New York delegations that he was the candidate post committed to protection. A Pennsylvanian, David Wilmot, was the chairman of the party’s convention. The party’s platform strongly promoted protectionism.

    The Southern planters, of course, favored free trade.

    The destruction of Southern power in the Civil War finally ended the controversy over protection and internal improvements and made them bedrocks of American economic policy.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  248. crimson2 says:
    @L.K

    In “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind”, Stephen M. Goodson, a former director of the South African Reserve Bank, writes:

    Nice try, but Nazi historians are pretty stupid.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @jacques sheete
  249. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Mefo bills were introduced in 1934. The army’s medium tank specifications were drawn up in 1934. The MG34 machine gun was introduced in 1934. Conscription was reintroduced in 1935. The Me-109’s first flight was in 1935. The Scharnhorst-class battleships had their keels laid down in 1935. The Rhineland was remilitarized in 1936. Bismarck, Tirpitz, and the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin (never finished) were all laid down in 1936. The Ju-88 first flew in 1936.

    why do you know so much about this?

    what is your angle?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  250. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johan

    I don’t know whether the popular and obliged Churchill slandering already has affected unz.com.., but the highly speculative Roosevelt bashing was to be expected I guess.

    so why don’t you debunk it?

    was Churchill on the hook big time to jewish bankers or wasn’t he?

  251. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:
    @crimson2

    Nice try, but Nazi historians are pretty stupid.

    i’ll take your word for it, you sound like an expert on stupidity

  252. @L.K

    Another fine comment, as usual, L.K.!!

  253. @Crimson2

    Lol, are you still crying about your hero killing himself? Get over it, lady.

    Are you still gloating over it? Get over it joker.

  254. @L.K

    Thanks for that!

    And regarding Thorfinnsson, it’s just here to amuse itself with sappy pedantry. I’ll avoid wasting any further time on that one.

    • Replies: @L.K
  255. @PV van der Byl

    Thorfinnsson, I admire the stamina you have shown…

    Either you don’t know what “stamina” means, you have low standards, or you really meant sappy sophistry.

  256. @Johan

    With what do you disagree?
    Can you name two or three or four claims the article made that are not correct?

  257. @Johan

    I.o.w. a worthless highly speculative article which has an origin and intent..

    Naw, what’s worthless is your poorly worded comment “which has an origin and intent..”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    Try again, troll.

    • Agree: L.K
  258. @crimson2

    Nice try, but Nazi historians are pretty stupid.

    There you go, projecting again. Whatchoo so PO’d about,anyway? Mama kick you outta the trailer er sumpin?

  259. @anon

    I watched the History channel a lot as a kid back when it was mostly WW2 documentaries, which led to a lifelong interest in military matters.

    Conveniently for this discussion, I’m also keenly interested in finance.

  260. @Thorfinnsson

    Monetary crank cites fellow monetary crank that Mefo bills were the reason for WW2.

    Compelling.

    Mouthy, ignorant, troll denies reality again. Compelling.

    Amusing, too.

  261. @Johan

    Poor lil thang!

    Here, Crimson2 has a message for you.:

    Lol, are you still crying about your heroes getting “slandered?” Get over it, lady.

  262. @Thorfinnsson

    The destruction of Southern power in the Civil War finally ended the controversy over protection and internal improvements and made them bedrocks of American economic policy.

    Wait a minute. It seems you claimed that chattel slavery was a bedrock of American economic policy.

  263. L.K says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Monetary crank cites fellow BLAH, BLAH

    When you wrote the above you were thinking of yourself and your buddies.
    You are a fool, and a dishonest one at that.

    Armament programs did not create the German economic recovery, rather, as economist Henry Liu and others have noted, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament.
    The following data reveal this reality quite well:

    Source: Deutsche Reichsbank

    Year 1933/34
    Defence Expenditure RM(Reichsmark) – 1.9 billion
    National Income – 4%

    Year 1934/35
    Defence Expenditure RM – 1.9 billion
    National Income – 4%

    Year 1935/36
    Defence Expenditure RM – 4.0 billion
    National Income – 7%

    Year 1936/37
    Defence Expenditure RM – 5.8 billion
    National Income – 9%

    Year 1937/38
    Defence Expenditure RM – 8.2 billion
    National Income – 11%

    Year 1938/39
    Defence Expenditure RM – 18.4 billion
    National Income – 22%

    Goodson correctly notes that:

    Even expenditure of 22% of national income on defence just before World War II started may be deemed as not being too excessive, when one bears in mind that Germany’s borders possess few natural boundaries and at that time she was surrounded by hostile neighbours – Czechoslovakia, France and Poland. Germany also had to replenish the armaments, which she had been forbidden to possess in terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

    The English historian, A J P Taylor, writes that “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all.”[273]

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  264. L.K says:
    @jacques sheete

    Thanks for the flowers, my friend.

    This ‘debt is good’ Thorfinnsson reminds of that Zionist troll, Sam the sham, remember?

    These types are better understood in the context of what Reed Simpson wrote in the foreword to Web of Debt:

    REED SIMPSON, M.Sc., Banker and Developer

    I have been a banker for most of my career, and I can report that even most bankers are not aware of what goes on behind closed doors at the top of their field. Bankers tend to their own corner of the banking business, without seeing the big picture or the ramifications of the whole system they are helping to perpetuate. I am more familiar than most with the issues raised in Ellen Brown’s book Web of Debt, and I still found it to be an eye-opener, a remarkable window into what is really going on.
    The process by which money comes into existence is thoroughly misunderstood, and for good reason: it has been the focus of a highly sophisticated and long-term disinformation campaign that permeates academia, media, and publishing. The complexity of the subject has been intentionally exploited to keep its mysteries hidden.

    Henry Ford said it best: “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

    In banking schools and universities, I was drilled in the technology of money and banking, clearing houses, the Federal Reserve System, money creation through the multiplier effect, and the peculiar role of the commercial banker as the guardian of the public treasure. This idealized vision contrasted sharply with what I saw as I worked in the U.S. banking sector. …

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  265. L.K says:

    In his Military History of the Western World (1957), British General and military historian J. F. C. Fuller wrote:

    Hitler held that, as long as the international monetary system was based on gold, a nation which cornered gold could impose its will on those who lacked it. This could be done by drying up their sources of exchange, and thereby compelling them to accept loans on interest . . . .
     
    He decided: (1) To refuse foreign interest-bearing loans, and base German currency on production instead of on gold. (2) To obtain imports by [barter]. (3) To put a stop to what was called “Freedom of the exchanges” — that is, license to gamble in currencies and shift private fortunes from one country to another according to the political situation. And (4) to create money when men and material were available for work instead of running into debt by borrowing it.
     
    Because the life of international finance depended upon the issue of interest-bearing loans to nations in economic distress, Hitler’s economics spelt his ruination. . . . [I]n 1936 Winston Churchill is reported to have said to General Robert E. Wood of America, “Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her.”8

  266. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    “WWII is about reinforcing Versailles Hitler peacefully repealed.”

    Hitler never “repealed” Versailles, he seceded from it. Putin hasn’t really seceded, he is trying to get Russia thrown out of the Versailles Masonic lodge, but they won’t do it. In the end he will be forced to abrogate numerous secret agreements.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  267. Cowboy says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I’d go for it too. What is “John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan” all about? Are you really that proud of all that the Yankees have done to the world?

  268. Cowboy says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The problem here is that you draw no distinction between borrowed capital and saved capital. Whereas a jew would have looked at Germany in 1933 and tried to figure out how to get them to borrow more, Hitler looked at Germany and figured out how to get the economy on its feet without accepting the talmudic chains of usury.

    Those German armaments plants did not belong to the Rothschilds, and the armaments programs were not financed with debt to jewish banks. Instead it represented the savings and increased productivity of the German people who were willing to sacrifice to save their people from Talmudic/Masonic Communism.

    You also conveniently ignore what was going on in the Masonic Entente, where jewish banks were lending money hand over fist to jewish armaments companies like Vickers and the entire USSR aggressive war industry in order to finance their military buildup. The masonic slaves in these countries were not willing to sacrifice and save to bolster the Freemasons, who the people were slowly figuring out owned everything.

    This is why Germany flourished while in the US and the UK people were starving and in the USSR jews and masons were stealing all the Russian assets and shipping their owners off to the gulag.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  269. Cowboy says:

    Benjaman Shapiro’s final solution to the Palestinian problem. Imagine saying that openly about any minority in Europe, or the US. Imagine saying that about JEWS.

    This is why jews are so obsessed with the “final solution” “discussed” at the Wannsee convention.

    https://www.trunews.com/podcast/rick-wiles-warns-about-dangerous-views-of-ben-shapiro-s-mentors-trunews

  270. Ron Unz says:
    @L.K

    When you wrote the above you were thinking of yourself and your buddies.
    You are a fool, and a dishonest one at that.

    Yes, I’d be quite cautious in taking any of the statements of “Thorfinnson” at face value. Maybe he believes what he is saying, but it’s quite likely that he doesn’t.

    Back a few months ago, I had an extended exchange with him on one of my articles. He freely admitted that I was correct about Hispanics not committing much crime, but he argued that it was important to claim that they did for reasons of political propaganda:

    Hispanic crime seems useful to exploit politically despite not really being true. Playing on people’s primal fears is excellent electioneering. And we can point to the actual truth of significant violence south of the Rio Grande.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/#comment-2622337

    Obviously, lots of people lie for political reasons. But people who publicly boast about lying for political reasons probably do so much more than others…

  271. Cowboy says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Obviously, lots of people lie for political reasons. But people who publicly boast about lying for political reasons probably do so much more than others…”

    Jews publicly boast among themselves about lying to goyim, they even boast in front of their children. That is why lying has become genetic for jews. The Kol Nidre performed once yearly at Yom Kippur absolves jews of all lies and broken contracts made to goyim:

    “All vows [], obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called ‘ḳonam,’ ‘ḳonas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”

    The leader and the congregation then say together:

    “And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them, seeing all the people were in ignorance”

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9443-kol-nidre/

  272. @L.K

    4% of gross domestic product immediately after the Nazis came to power (quadruple the Weimar figure), followed by more than doubling again in 1935 and reaching 7% of national income.

    Considerably before 1938 in other words, and from your own figures.

    As you can see German spending on armaments soared immediately from the Nazis coming to power.

    The Öffa bills used for civilian reconstruction reached a circulation of 1.26bn Reichsmarks. By comparison RM 12bn in Mefo bills for rearmament were issued.

    It should also be noted that even if Liu’s claims are true (which they aren’t), in economic terms it amounts to the same thing. Keynesian stimulus.

    Hitler’s own generals consistently opposed his suggestions of war in 1938 and 1939 on the grounds that Germany was not yet prepared for a general war. Hitler’s point of view was that the outbreak of a global arms race after 1937 meant that the armaments situation would only develop to Germany’s disfavor from that point as it had begun its rearmament earlier than Britain and France.

    I don’t have a problem with 1930s’ Germany’s defense expenditures and don’t consider them “excessive”. The Germans had an ambitious strategic program requiring extensive armaments, and of course the country is surrounded by enemies and has no strategic depth.

    • Replies: @anon
  273. @L.K

    Many countries in the 1930s went off the gold standard. Britain did so as early as 1931. Germany in fact maintained the Reichsmark at an overvalued level throughout the 1930s (owing to the size of its foreign debts) and compensated by providing subsidies to exporters.

    The “refusal” of foreign loans and the pursuit of barter trade were based on the fact that the Reich was not creditworthy. It was heavily indebted to foreign creditors and generally had no more than one week of foreign exchange reserves.

    Germany’s credit creation via Oeffa and Mefo bills was novel and highly successful.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  274. @Cowboy

    Borrowed capital comes from saved capital.

    In the absence of interest payments, other methods of finance include inflation, redeeming bills of exchange at discount, and equity ownership.

    The Reich pursued all of these–including interest payments to German banks and bond holders–so “usury” continued, just not to any Rothschild banks for obvious reasons.

    No such thing as a free lunch.

    The US enjoyed a robust economic recovery until the second Roosevelt administration inappropriately attempted to balance the budget and increased bank reserve requirements. This led to the “Roosevelt Recession”.

    Britain’s depression was never as bad as America’s to begin with, and it recovered earlier thanks to the decision to abandon the gold standard in 1931. This made British exports more competitive and also led to a home building boom in the Home Counties as interest rates dropped from 6% to 2%.

    The Soviet Union in the 1930s was creating assets, not stripping them. This was the era of the first two Five Year Plans which caused a tremendous increase in industrial output.

    It is true that Germany enjoyed the most robust economic recovery, and Keynes’ theories explain why.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  275. @Ron Unz

    Ron, I’d appreciate your assistance in a matter. You reprimanded Wally and me a week or so about spam postings and personal attacks. I woke up this morning to the below post:

    http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/#comment-3144725

    Here, Wally attacks me in response to a poster who is not me (I assume you have IP addresses and can confirm this point) and reverts to spamming.

    Normally, I would respond in kind, but you’ve made your position clear, so I’d appreciate your stepping in this time.

    Thanks.

    • Troll: L.K
  276. @Ron Unz

    What do you think I’m lying about in this thread?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  277. @L.K

    [Thorfinnsson] are a fool, and a dishonest one at that.

    Very dishonest. I know its game and how to deal with it.

  278. @L.K

    This ‘debt is good’ Thorfinnsson reminds of that Zionist troll, Sam the sham, remember?

    Who could forget?

    In fact, I too have been struck by the similarities between the two, but I much preferred the Mave. He did have a few reasonable qualities, wasn’t quite as dissembling and had an occasional sense of humor. He wasn’t quite the specious know-it-all of the current freak, either.

  279. @L.K

    Hitler held that, as long as the international monetary system was based on gold, a nation which cornered gold could impose its will on those who lacked it. This could be done by drying up their sources of exchange, and thereby compelling them to accept loans on interest . . .

    Genius. Pure genius. No wonder all the little money grubbers were jealous of the man.

  280. @Thorfinnsson

    The “refusal” of foreign loans and the pursuit of barter trade were based on the fact that the Reich was not creditworthy.

    You forgot the part where an honest person would explain why it wasn’t creditworthy and in what sense it wasn’t. Hint: Versailles.

    PS: Hitler’s undeniable economic successes reveal that he was “creditworthy” enough where it counted and your denials just make you laughable.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  281. Ron Unz says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    What do you think I’m lying about in this thread?

    I can’t really say because I haven’t researched the subject. But perhaps a dozen years ago, I do recall reading several quite persuasive articles pointing out that Germany was probably the first major country to make a full recovery from the worldwide depression, and it did so before its armament effort scaled up. The articles also noted (as I vaguely recall) that France and Britain began massive rearmament efforts around the same time as Germany, without similar benefits.

    I think it was widely acknowledged that by the mid-1930s German civilians had become much more prosperous than those in most other Western countries, despite having started from such a dreadful low point. Isn’t that why Time Magazine put Hitler on the cover several times, and former British WWI PM David Lloyd George was so impressed by his achievements, as were so many other top Western figures?

    But the point I made about you was a more general one. People who publicly boast about being dishonest not unreasonably develop a reputation for dishonesty, and sensible people have to consider that factor when weighing conflicting claims.

    Here’s another thing to consider. Most people are far, far more honest than you might ever expect based on naive arguments of crude self-interest. But doesn’t that strongly suggest that from an evolutionary perspective honesty is far more beneficial a trait in the long-run than might be immediately apparent?

    After all, if dishonesty were really beneficial, why didn’t the dishonesty genes move to fixation thousands of generations ago?

  282. @Cowboy

    Hitler never “repealed” Versailles, he seceded from it.

    Give the guy a break. His English is probably a lot better than your German. Anyway, pedantry is out of place here; leave it to Thorfinnsson and the rest of the trolls.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Germanicus
  283. @Ron Unz

    His lying is glaringly apparent, but don’t tell him why. I’ve found it best to keep the type guessing. At a minimum it drives them nuts and it occupies them thus reducing their chances to cause more trouble.

    Also, the more they keep lying, the more apparent it becomes and fewer and fewer believe them. Besides it’s amusing to watch them spin their tales to the point that they contradict themselves and don’t even know it.

  284. @Thorfinnsson

    The Soviet Union in the 1930s was creating assets, not stripping them. This was the era of the first two Five Year Plans which caused a tremendous increase in industrial output.

    Creating assets or transferring from one pocket to another? That’s “creative” alright. Took some “creativity” to come up with that bilge-water as well.

    Please keep ’em coming!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  285. fnn says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Of course the fixation on Lebensraum long predated Hitler. That was back when Germans still gave birth to German babies. The issue took on a special urgency after the WW1/post-WW1 hunger blockade. Nevertheless, AH at least briefly had some second thoughts about invading the USSR. He met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to get the Soviets to become in effect full members of the Axis. Molotov made what Hitler thought were outrageous demands and the meeting did not go well. He probably should have tried for a follow-up meeting. 🙂

  286. Cowboy says:
    @jacques sheete

    If Hitler had “repealed” Versailles, then the repeal would have affected Austria and the entire ex-Austrian empire, the Rhineland, Tyrolia and even Alsace Lorraine. But most of all a “repeal” would have given back to Germany both Danzig and the Polish Corridor and made the entire second world war unnecessary.

    So no, it isn’t pedantry. Germany seceded from the masonic Versailles treaty the same way the South seceded from the masonic Union. That is my point, and it just won’t float if I say that at fort Sumter the South repealed the Constitution.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  287. @jacques sheete

    I was speaking with iirc Lord Vansittart’s words, or was it Churchill or Halifax.
    Let me dig it up.
    Repealing was used by the British to complain.

    Domestically, repeal is in my view the proper term, since Versailles, specifically article 231 was built in the so called “Weimar constitution”.
    The FRG finished paying WWI “reparations” in 2010 btw.

    With the “Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich” (enemy propaganda calls it “enabling act”), he in fact got rid of the Weimar “constitution” that had Versailles clauses, which caused the misery. Once day later on 24. March 1933, after Reichstag debate with the social democrats on 23. March 1933, Judea declared war.

    It is a sound conclusion, that Judea was responsible for Versailles and the Weimar puppet regime.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @jacques sheete
  288. fnn says:

    Check Google News and you’ll find multiple stories about Hitler and the Holocaust every single day. No surprise, since fanatical anti-Hitlerism (aka ‘cultural marxism”) has become the state religion of the West.

  289. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    In 1933 Hitler also left the League of Nations. This was a secession which was also related to Versailles. But when he stopped paying the reparations and marched into the Rhineland, the act was complete. This would be pretty similar to South Carolina kicking the greedy Yankees out of Fort Sumpter.

    Another way the treatment of the Southern Secession resembles NSDAP Germany is the never ending demands for reparations. Apparently jews have now convinced their black pets that not only do they too “deserve” reparations from whitey, but that white is the new n*gger:

    https://twitter.com/V8POW/status/1115634894816915457/photo/1

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  290. This paper and Suvorov’s book ” The Chief Culprit ” let me believe that both Roosevelt and Stalin wanted the war and Hitler was just the pretext to start it.

    It raises the question whether Roosevelt and Stalin were working together knowingly or were managed by some external pressure.

    As Roosevelt pushed Joseph Beck to intansigence towards Hitler, did he made that to induce Hitler to fall into Stalin’s trap and partition Poland ? The fact that war was declared only to Germany and not also to USSR could be an indication of the cooperation between Stalin and Roosevelt.

    What was probably not expected was the collapse of France and Germany and also Hitler’s anticipation of Stalin’s plan to kick the conquest of Europe in July 1941.

    I wander whether both Stalin and Roosevelt were not working together to expand the world-wide communist revolution ? If so without Hitler Europe would be still Under communist’s rule.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Uncle Sam
  291. @Cowboy

    I am not here to argue over semantics, and you cannot compare a war between two nations, the Union and the Confederates, with the situation in Germany after WWI. Yes, the same people behind it, but different situation. There is nothing to secede from Versailles, it was a dictate, but no union treaty. But you can repeal Weimar “constitution” articles.

    Versailles dictated the single guilt of Germany on WWI and implemented crushing devastating conditions, not only by the Versailles dictate, but also by the masonic “constitution”. Hitler simply played by their own rules and put an end to it, which enraged them. The FRG’s “basic law” is nothing but the Weimar “constitution” reinforced by war.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  292. In 1933 Hitler also left the League of Nations. This was a secession which was also related to Versailles.

    No German state seceded, the Saar was french occupied after WWI and Hitler made them leave.

    H.R. 1205 (114th): American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1205/text

    Is it secession or what the name of the bill says?
    Depends where you stand.

    Don’t forget the St Germain “treaties”, which gets us to the entire unresolved issue of South Tyrol, which made the alliance with Italy not as easy as many think.
    St Germain denied the German(that’s Austrians too) peoples the right of self determination, it prohibited Austria reuniting with Germany, without LoN approval.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  293. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    Interesting map, Germanicus. Malmedy was given to Belgium at Versailles. During the occupation of the Rhineland, Belgium invaded Germany.

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

    The Occupation of the Ruhr (German: Ruhrbesetzung) was a period of military occupation of the German Ruhr valley by France and Belgium between 11 January 1923 and 25 August 1925.

    After much deliberation, Poincaré decided to occupy the Ruhr on 11 January 1923 to extract the reparations himself. The real issue during the Ruhrkampf (Ruhr campaign), as the Germans labelled the battle against the French occupation, was not the German defaults on coal and timber deliveries but the sanctity of the Versailles Treaty.

    Secession from Masonic obligations is verboten. Later, in 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans are accused of murdering 120 allies at Malmedy:

    The armoured column led by Peiper continued west toward Ligneuville. The German troops left behind assembled the American prisoners in a field along with other prisoners captured earlier in the day. Many of the survivors testified that about 120 troops were standing in the field when, for unknown reasons, the SS troops suddenly opened fire with machine guns on the prisoners.[1][2]

    As soon as the SS machine gunners opened fire, the POWs panicked. Some tried to flee, but most were shot where they stood. Some dropped to the ground and pretended to be dead.[2] SS troops walked among the bodies and shot any who appeared to be alive.[2][7] A few sought shelter in a café at the crossroads. The SS soldiers set fire to the building and shot any who tried to escape.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre#Peiper_advances_west_2

    IMO there are too many coincidences here. To me it looks like Judaic vengeance. Germanicus, do you, or anyone else, have an alternative, more believable explanation?

  294. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    You are trying to refute my comments by arguing details. Please take a step back and try to recognize a masonic framework at work here.

    Surely you can see many similarities between the Jacobian revolution in 1789 to the Bolshevic revolution in 1917? Times change, tactics change, but the Schlieffen plan was pretty much valid in both wars.

    There are so many similarities, like a post war invasion of DP’s (carpetbaggers), starvation (turnip winter), Genocide (Burning of Dresden and Atlanta) and even fake subsumed postwar resistance movements (KKK, Greywolves), we also have things like reparations. destruction of historical monuments and even “holocaust museums”. It seems misguided to ignore these common threads to me.

    What I sense is that you somehow think that the NSDAP and the 3rd Reich were superior or more moral than the Confederates in some way. If so, please explain.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  295. @Cowboy

    What I sense is that you somehow think that the NSDAP and the 3rd Reich were superior or more moral than the Confederates in some way. If so, please explain.

    Quite frankly, I have no idea why you think that. Seems to be a very US centric view on WWI.

    I view the so called “civil war” as a war between two sovereign countries.
    I am aware the South still has no peace treaty, was looted and raped, yup, a similarity to Germany, and I don’t really care for the slavery stuff, this was not about freeing slaves but to install a centralized masonic administration that deprived the sovereign states of their power. Kind of similar thing they try with the EU, which will fail.
    Washington DC and US inc was created in 1871.

    As for Malmedy, I haven’t really looked into this, what I do know, there were quite many Belgian SS volunteers, and there were Belgian SS divisions. The SS worked a bit like the french foreign legion.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @jacques sheete
  296. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    “what I do know, there were quite many Belgian SS volunteers,”

    Revenge for Degrelle? That could be part of it. I think that there is something far more significant, or shall we say esoteric, about it.

    As far as slavery goes, it was converso jews running it top-to-bottom. They call it a “full stack” these days in the computer business. From extraction of slaves in Africa all the way to exploitation of slaves in America.

  297. I will add: If Roosevelt was working together with Stalin to implement the world revolution, the plan may have been the following:

    1) trigger another European war in which France, Germany and England would exhaust them selves. To achieve such a goal Hitler was necessary and as Suvoro claims Satin helped Hitler to win the 1933 election. At any time before June 1941 Stalin could have stopped the war in Europe by cutting greman access to Romanian oil and to Suede steel.

    2) Then Stalin would move in western Europe to add all european countries as new soviet to the URSS.

    3) US role was help to trigger the war and provide Stalin with what was needed but not to have foot soldiers in Europe. US foot soldiers were supposed to be sent only to Asia against Japan

    As Hitler revealed himself harder to kill than expected, the US had to be involved in the european theater and as such they could not any more let Stalin to reach the Atlantic. The compromise was to let half of Europe to Stalin poland included. ( the country for which the war was supposed to have been justified)

  298. @Andrew E. Mathis

    You’re complaining about something your sock puppet wrote?

    • LOL: L.K, Iris
  299. @Cowboy

    You are correct about all, including this,

    So no, it isn’t pedantry.

    However, the pedantry was correcting him in a nit picking manner. Germanicus is a valuable contributor here and should be accommodated, as in clarifying the terms in a somewhat civil fashion, that’s all.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  300. Hans says:
    @Mark Hunter

    DC Dave’s Who Killed James Forrestal? is a MUST.

    One to archive and share – http://dcdave.com/article4/021110.html

  301. @jacques sheete

    However, the pedantry was correcting him in a nit picking manner.

    I think that’s resolved in civil manner.

    I find it kind of truly amusing, this comparison between NSDAP and the Confederates was brought up. I really have no clue, crazy americans, why would I morally judge the “civil war”? I come across data and try to make sense of it. 🙂

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  302. @Germanicus

    It is a sound conclusion, that Judea was responsible for Versailles and the Weimar puppet regime.

    No doubt. They even put an “official” translator in place, who could, of course, “flavor” (fabricate) things practically at will.

    I’m going to try inserting a “MORE” tag here, but it may not work. If not, I apologize for the length, but I think it’s illustrative of the way things were done at Versailles.

    [MORE]

    When misunderstandings arose as to what had been said or done it was the official translator, M . Paul Mantoux one of the most brilliant representatives of Jewry at the Conference-who was wont to decide, his memory being reputed superlatively tenacious . In this way he attained the distinction of which his friends are justly proud, of being a living record-indeed, the sole available record of what went on at the historic council . He was the recipient and is now the only repository of all the secrets of which the plenipotentiaries were so jealous, lest, being a kind of knowledge which is in verity power, it should be used one day for some dubious purpose. But M. Mantoux enjoyed the esteem and confidence not only of Mr. Wilson, but also of the British Prime Minister, who, it was generally believed, drew from his entertaining narratives and shrewd appreciations whatever information he possessed about French politics and politicians . It was currently affirmed that, being a man of method and foresight, M . Mantoux committed everything to writing for his own behoof . Doubts, however, were entertained and publicly expressed as to whether affairs of this magnitude, involving the destinies of the world, should have been handled in such secret and unbusinesslike fashion .

    A defective rendering made a curious impression on the hearers once, when a delegate said “My country, unfortunately, is situated in the midst of states which are anything but peace-loving-in fact, the chief danger to the peace of Europe emanates from them .” M. Mantoux’s translation ran, “The country represented by M . X. unhappily presents the greatest danger to the peace of Europe .” On several occasions passages of the discourses of the plenipotentiaries underwent a certain transformation in the well-informed brain of M . Mantoux before being done into another language. They were plunged, so to say, in the stream of history before their exposure to the light of day. This was especially the case with the remarks of the English-speaking delegates, some of whom were wont to make extensive use of the license taken by their great national poet in matters of geography and history .

    -Dillon, The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, (1920),

  303. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Back a few months ago, I had an extended exchange with him on one of my articles. He freely admitted that I was correct about Hispanics not committing much crime, but he argued that it was important to claim that they did for reasons of political propaganda:
    “Hispanic crime seems useful to exploit politically despite not really being true. Playing on people’s primal fears is excellent electioneering. And we can point to the actual truth of significant violence south of the Rio Grande.”

    Why am I not surprised… thanks for that. You are right. I also recall this person bragging about making some money in the financial sector, though I don’t remember the details.
    The individual may even be somewhat brainwashed but he is certainly dishonest.

    Also, thank you for your articles about Hispanic crime. I must admit, not being an US American, that I had been largely convinced of Hispanic crime in the US from reading some right wing, mainly alt-right I think, US websites that constantly make that kind of point. I did once briefly live in the US, but in an area where there were very few Hispanics. I imagine the negative effect that such websites may have on white Americans unfamiliar – and perhaps already prejudiced against – with Mexicans and other Hispanics.
    Your well written articles provided me with a good corrective on my then distorted perceptions.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  304. @Jean de Peyrelongue

    I wander whether both Stalin and Roosevelt were not working together to expand the world-wide communist revolution ?

    There can be nary a shred of doubt about it. FDR had his beady little eyes on Germany since at least the time he was Assistant Secretary to the Navy during ww1 and it appears that his unhinged Germanophobia increased over time. There is no doubt in my mind that he was jealous that not only was Hitler the real deal ( a true war hero), but Hitler was anti-Communist and highly successful in many ways against ineffable odds, while the child-like, games-playing mediocre half-wit FDR couldn’t get the US out of the Great Depression with virtually unlimited resources and no foreign threats. I’ve known more than a few bozo snobs of his type and I know how they think and it ain’t purdy.

    If so without Hitler Europe would be still Under communist’s rule.

    Actually it still is under Commie rule, only we don’t call it that any more. In fact, the Commies were used as dupes and tools by the usual suspects to create chaos and bring down the existing order so the One World money bag crowd could operate at will. We don’t hear much about them any longer because their usefulness has run out. I suspect and hope that the hideous gangster state of Israel with follow a similar course of history.

  305. @Germanicus

    Quite frankly, I have no idea why you think that.

    I think Cowboy adds a lot of substance here, but I don’t get where he came up with that either. My hope is that he’ll begin to approach you in a somewhat less confrontational manner since anything less would be a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  306. @Germanicus

    Thanks for hanging in there. Your English is so excellent that he may have thought that you were an American and would have an opinion on that.

    Both of you have good stuff to add, so I’m happy to see that it’s been resolved.

  307. @jacques sheete

    I think Cowboy adds a lot of substance here, but I don’t get where he came up with that either. My hope is that he’ll begin to approach you in a somewhat less confrontational manner since anything less would be a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

    I have no hard feelings. The precise quote is by Lord Halifax:

    Now we have forced Hitler into war, so that he can no longer neutralise one part of the Versailles Treaty after another by peaceful means.

    I come across a translation that used repeal instead of neutralize, so its somewhat lost in translation. Yup, no need to argue over this.

    Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland — of that very Poland which with hyena appetite only six months before, joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak state.

    Winston Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. 1, pp 311/312

  308. @jacques sheete

    You forgot the part where an honest person would explain why it wasn’t creditworthy and in what sense it wasn’t. Hint: Versailles.

    I thought Versailles was assumed by the readers of this thread.

    PS: Hitler’s undeniable economic successes reveal that he was “creditworthy” enough where it counted and your denials just make you laughable.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Throughout the 1930s Germany teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. There were foreign exchange crises in 1936 (which led to the Four Year Plan) and in 1938 (which led to a cut in the armaments boom).

    Robust domestic growth is not the same thing as being creditworthy to foreign lenders.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  309. Mr. Wear does a fascinating weave with lots of cherry picking. Wm Bullitt and Lukasiewicz were close friends for decades. In fact, they were buddies in both America and Europe.

    I read Ambassador Juliusz Łukasiewicz’s book. It’s a decent account of Eurocide II. Ambassador Joseph Lipski’s book was also consumed. He obtained his university sheep shin in Germany. Like Lukasiewicz, he could function in German, Polish, English and other languages. However, he didn’t appear to be a superior author. Readers of Mr. Wear’s cherry picking piece should consider these two books.

    As a history buff, for over half a century I’ve absorbed research on Eurocide II, in various languages, in European capitals. Thus, I’m surprised that Ron Unz, an intellectual and a man of many qualities bought into this play on words. Perhaps it was to increase readership. Mr. Wear doesn’t know his stuff. Otherwise, he never would have spent so much time on foolishness.

    In brief, Hitler sought to have an alliance with Warsaw. He deemed that adding an extra 100 Polish divisions to his dreams of eradicating the USSR could enhance all possibilities.

    I’m too busy to adequately type on this, however, suffice to say that when Hitler did not obtain his wish of extra divisions, he planned war on Warsaw. This fact is adequately documented. Readers of this piece should consider reading Prof Richard J. Evens three excellent research books on WWII. Also, Prof. Stephen Kotkin’s nearly 1,154 page classic, entitled Stalin, is a decent read. Perhaps if Ron had read Prof. Evens and Kotkin’s labour Wear’s labour would never have found space.

    Eurocide II was unnecessary. After the Sudetenland fiasco the Czechs lost their lands and were subjugated to oppression. The destroying of Warsaw in 1944 was a travesty and the rapes of Polish little girls there has been written about by noble Germans who were sickened by the Birlewanger Brigade … The Stuka strafing of European civilians and bombing of Minsk and numerous other cities, resulted in the 1945 revenge on Hitler’s Fortress Berlin and its females, the elderly and others (such as children troops). Think about it: Fortress Berlin vs millions of hardened Russian troops. Yeah, he’d get demands. Pure insanity.

    Mr. Wear’s white washing on who was responsible for Eurocide II borders on an interesting mentality. It is especially fascinating in view of Hitler’s build up of war industries, in which every 4th man was employed, prior to 1939…

    • Replies: @Hans
  310. @Thorfinnsson

    Robust domestic growth is not the same thing as being creditworthy to foreign lenders.

    You simply don’t get it.
    They did not want “foreign lenders”, they did barter, without the useless middleman, and this was the reason, these lenders, the debt vultures waged this war.

    Its kind of you want to force to play monopoly, but we want to play chess, we don’t want your game with this stupid bank that only wins.

    Are you a bit thick? Seriously.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  311. @Ron Unz

    Germany did indeed enjoy the most robust recovery from the Great Depression of any major economy, something I’ve stated many times in this comments thread. The fundamental reason was massive deficit spending by the government, which was largely driven by the rearmament boom.

    Below is a table from Adam Tooze’s book The Wages of Destruction, which helpfully declares its sources as well:

    As you can see there was major growth in military spending. In 1935 civilian spending by the government even declined.

    Take a look at charts posted by me earlier in this thread to see that German military spending soared far before Western–though not Soviet.

    It’s also not true that German civilians were more prosperous than civilians in most other Western countries, though unemployment had been driven to near zero which was not the case in Britain or America.

    Germany was more prosperous than many Western countries, but not all of them (and certainly not Britain and America). Admittedly knowledge that one’s nation had a very high per capita GDP was cold comfort to unemployed men.

    As for myself, I understand your general point. I’ve stated before (to German_reader) that I support a Straussian strategy in politics. Telling the truth to each other, but using appropriate propaganda on the masses. Usually this involves concealing “radical” views, though in the case of hispanic crime I suggested exaggeration. H.L. Mencken noted nearly a century ago the political utility of hyping nonexistent threats.

  312. @jacques sheete

    Some assets created in the USSR in the 1930s:

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

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

    Total industrial output during the first Five Year Plan increased 118%.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  313. @L.K

    I am employed in the nonfinancial business sector but have a long-time interest in finance.

    As you can see from charts and tables posted in this thread, including your own, armaments spending surged long before 1938.

  314. Uncle Sam says:

    One hundred years from now history will affirm that Franklin D. Roosevelt was primarily responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War. He will go down in history as one of the greatest warmongers who ever lived.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  315. @Germanicus

    Foreign lenders weren’t an option regardless, so it makes little difference what they “wanted”.

    The barter trade employed the same “useless” middlemen as trade always does. There were salesmen, brokers, shippers, warehousers, etc. In fact an additional middlemen were added–the respective states that coordinated the barter trade.

    Germany was plenty interested in non-barter trade as well during this period, sufficiently so that it outright paid a cash subsidy to exporters.

    Some period information from the always excellent Axis History Forum: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=112949

    Note the complaints from the British motor industry about competing with German cars.

  316. Paul says:
    @jacques sheete

    New York Jews did not invade Poland. As I already told you, try to pay attention! Don’t make me repeat myself!

  317. Paul says:
    @jacques sheete

    I already did. Again, try to pay attention!

  318. @Uncle Sam

    One hundred years from now history will affirm that Franklin D. Roosevelt was primarily responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War. He will go down in history as one of the greatest warmongers who ever lived.

    He’ll have tough competition from St. Winston of Churchill, kinglet of the Jews

    Wish I had a dollar for every Judeophilic clunker and error of omission in this CBN hagiography of St. Churchill.

  319. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    As you can see German spending on armaments soared immediately from the Nazis coming to power.

    “Soared” is relative.
    With the exception of a spurt in ~1923, for 12 years German martial expenditures were less than half the next lowest armed neighbor.
    A more appropriate description might be, “Germany began to regain parity with its neighbors ‘immediately from the Nazis coming to power.’ “

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  320. fnn says:

    Speaking of Churchill:

  321. @anon

    Sure.

    I don’t have a problem with Nazi Germany’s rearmament program. Had I been a German then I would’ve fully supported it. It made good sense.

    There was also more continuity between the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany than is generally supposed. The earliest public works programs in Nazi Germany were developed by the last Weimar government. The first Autobahn was built in the Rhineland and opened by Konrad Adenauer (then Mayor of Cologne) in 1932. Every Weimar government secretly violated the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty, and it was thanks in part to this that Nazi Germany was able to rearm so effectively.

  322. Uncle Sam says:
    @Jean de Peyrelongue

    Roosevelt, while he was sympathetic to communism, was more interested in preserving the international financial and trading system than he was in furthering communism. In other words, he represented the interests of Wall Street and the City in London. From 1920 to 1928 when he was elected governor of New York state, he made quite a bit of money as a Wall Street banker, investor, speculator, gambler and all-around money junkie.

    Just as he deceived the American about not wanting to go to war, he was just as deceptive in being anti-banker and anti Wall Street. In actuality his first concern was the preservation of Wall Street, because he knew perfectly well that had the Axis won the war there would be no more Wall Street.

    That was why he among the 3 allied leaders was the most insistent on unconditional surrender of the Axis. A negotiated end to the war would have left intact the financial and barter trading systems of the Axis, the destruction of which was obviously the purpose of the war. Even Stalin was willing to accept a negotiated end to the war which would have meant the survival of Nazi Germany. That is hard to believe but it is true.

  323. Paw says:
    @Wally

    Wally ,do not believe those Hags. . Dr.Hacha was wery old a ill man. He fainted twice when terorized by threats Hitler and Goering.
    He was Czech and fought back bravely.

    • Replies: @Wally
  324. Sparkon says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Herr Hitler was not named German chancellor until 1933, but comrade Stalin’s first Five Year Plan began in 1929, which, if nothing else, demonstrates the virtue of planning ahead.

    Soviet industrial gains during the 1st 5 year plan were substantial, but the cost was millions of Soviet deaths, primarily among Ukrainian and Russian peasants, Kulaks, and Nepmen, but also Kazakhs and other Soviet nationalities, whose lives were torn apart and crushed so the Red Army could modernize.

  325. JP says:

    The Churchill election was probably rigged. David Irving in Hitler’s War mentioned wire taps in Germany uncovering Czechoslovak government funds being funneled to Churchill’s campaign before their government collapsed. He definitely has strong support behind the scenes, especially considering who ran the Bank of England.

    In a similar manner, the American election of 1940 was also rigged, by replacing the Republican candidate with a lifelong Democrat who was a warmonger. Faced with no choice, Roosevelt was reelected by default, and his “opponent” worked for him soon after.

    War was extremely unpopular in all the major powers. Few people wanted it in Britain, France, Germany, or the USA. They all had to be swindled into it, and only after a mountain of lies had been shoveled at them did they begrudgingly accept it. Lothrop Stoddard in his book “Into the Darkness” described the German civilians as having a grumbling acceptance of the war, seeing it as being foisted upon them by the rest of the world, and they just had to bear it. This would not be the attitude one would expect out of an aggressive conquerer, but it is what you’d expect of people caught up in a sudden siege.

    Doubly so when you consider how light their stockpiles were; already in early 1940 they were desperately short of butter, soap, and gasoline. They only had enough fuel reserves to get through about September of 1941. Barbarossa was only possible because in their initial assault they captured Russian fuel depots, and even then they only made it until December. Where all of their opponents were using trucks, they were using horses, and the rest of their war they scraped by on synthetic fuel and wood gas.

    Hitler didn’t want war, for if he did he would’ve been far more prepared, but he had a tendency (which it seems Germans in general had) to attack rather than surrender when surrounded and outnumbered. It almost worked.

    • Replies: @Anon
  326. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    “you cannot compare a war between two nations, the Union and the Confederates, with the situation in Germany after WWI”

    You most certainly can, and it is important that you do. What is happening in Venezuela is the same playbook that was used in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. By comparing these events, you can discern (important word here) similarities and trends and use them to filter out fake narratives. Even more important, with enough understanding you can even predict or anticipate the next attack.

    The exact same thing applies to “terrorist” attacks. Breivik in Norway and Tarrant in New Zealand were both claimed “lone wolf” attacks, but were they really? Can we compare the events and gather evidence and to use as proof that both were staged events? Can we then take any new knowledge and use it as a lens to deconstruct the “harvest festival” terrorist attack in Las Vegas?

    One of the reasons I enjoy reading your comments is that you will discuss the masons and you know about them. Both WWI and the War of Northern Aggression were seeped in masonry. You may not be aware of the degree of Masonic involvement in the destruction of the South, but I am very aware of their involvement in both wars, and as I have pointed out there are so many similarities you could drive a locomotive through on top of them.

    Versailles dictated the single guilt of Germany on WWI and implemented crushing devastating conditions

    What do you think happened at Appomattox? Are you aware that the carpetbaggers sent to loot the South after the war were Jews? Did you know that Grant banned all jews from his area of operations because of their lies, corruption and fraud? Do you somehow think that the starvation of Germany in 1919 is different than the South in 1866?

    How about Shermans looting of the Shenandoa and his march to the sea, could these genocidal campaigns have served as a masonic blue print for future wars? Above JS and I were discussing Pershing’s mad desire to invade Germany in November 1918. Brother Sherman and Brother Pershing were both horny to kill Christians, one in Virginia the other in Germany. Wirz the camp commandant of Andersonville where many union soldiers died was tried and hung after the war in a sham trial, precursor to Nuremburg.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  327. @Cowboy

    You most certainly can, and it is important that you do. What is happening in Venezuela is the same playbook that was used in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. By comparing these events, you can discern (important word here) similarities and trends and use them to filter out fake narratives. Even more important, with enough understanding you can even predict or anticipate the next attack.

    Look, I am not your enemy, but seriously, the entire continent America is really far away from Europe. The “civil war” is rather a side show in my research, though an important one, but I am in no way deep into details of the “civil war”. I just have an idea what happened there.
    I told you, there are many parallels, but if you do not only view it from the outside, you will realize the NSDAP introduced out of necessity a certain centralization, which is what the Confederates fought. That’s my point, but you are right, the method is always the same, they are not very creative, and it repeats over and over again. All conflicts after 1945 follow the very same pattern that brought the “civil war”, WWI+II, but also the “french” & “russian” revolution, Cromwell and a few other things. It reaches further back than the US civil war, my research is not limited on WWI&II, I track the long term scheming.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  328. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    Look, I am not your enemy, but seriously, the entire continent America is really far away from Europe.

    I am not fighting with you, I am merely trying to carry on a discussion. You are right, centralization and socialism are important differences, and I would have enjoyed discussing them. I realize that I am very blunt, it comes from 35 years of computer programming. I like tight code and terse prose, and I like both to be very readable and accurate. So I write what is on my mind. There was never any offense intended about “repeal” vs. “secede” to either you or JS.

    I track the long term scheming.

    Me too.

    Noch etwas. Ich spreche Deutsch und habe vor der Wende 3 Jahre in Deutschland gelebt.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Germanicus
  329. @Cowboy

    I am not fighting with you, I am merely trying to carry on a discussion. You are right, centralization and socialism are important differences, and I would have enjoyed discussing them. I realize that I am very blunt, it comes from 35 years of computer programming. I like tight code and terse prose, and I like both to be very readable and accurate. So I write what is on my mind. There was never any offense intended about “repeal” vs. “secede” to either you or JS.

    Excellent, I love to write clean and readable code as well.

    I just think, you expect probably too much from Europeans. I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of this so called civil war, and I may suggest, you got more straight answers than most Germans or Europeans happen to know about it, or Americans for that matter.

    Ich spreche Deutsch und habe vor der Wende 3 Jahre in Deutschland gelebt.

    So you one of the few Americans who understand something about Europe.

  330. @Cowboy

    What was be the most important lesson for you, that you would love to be heard in the US, in terms of how things works in Europe culturally and daily life compared to the US?

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  331. Cowboy says:

    I just stumbled across this article that illustrates what was going on in Poland after WWI.
    Concentration Camps for Captured Soviet (Russian) soldiers:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/10/19/russian-victims-of-polish-concentration-camps.html

    More than 150 thousand Red Army soldiers became prisoners of war (POWs) as Poland unleashed an attack against Soviet Russia. In total, together with political prisoners and civilian internees, there were over 200,000 Red Army soldiers, civilians, White Guards, members of anti-Bolshevik and nationalist (Ukrainian and Belarusian) formations – all held in Polish concentration camps.

    Second, Rzeczpospolita created a vast «archipelago» of concentration camps, stations, prisons, and fortress prison cells located in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. It included dozens of concentration camps, including «death» or internment camps such as Stshalkovo, Szczypiorno, Łańcut, Tuchola, as well as railway interchange yards, points of concentration, and various military installations like Modlin and Brest Fortress including the four camps – Bug-Schuppe, Fort Berg, Graevskii barracks and the camp for commissioned officers….. The islands and islets of the archipelago were located in cities and populated areas like: Pikulice (near Peremyshl), Korosten, Zhitomir, Alexandrov, Lukov, Isle-Lomzhinsky, Rombertov, Zdunskaya Volya, Torun, Dorogusk, Plotsk, Radom, Przemyśl, Lvov, Fridrihovka (on the Zbruch River), Zvyagel, Dąbie (near Krakow), Deblin, Petrokow, Wadowice, Bialystok, Baranovichi Molodechino, Vilno, Pinsk, Ruzhany, Bobruisk, Grodno, Luninets, Volkovysk, Minsk, Pulawy, Povonzki, Stry (Western Ukraine), Kovel …

    These figures also should include the labor units of prisoners working in the area. Often they served neighboring landowners. In their case the death rate exceeded 75%.

    Yes, Poles make the Ultimate Nazi’s. Just look how Poland is so horny for war with Russia that they are talking about first strikes.

  332. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    I have never really lived in a city in Europe, although I worked in several of them. I raised my family living in villages of 500-2000 on the land in the outskirts of the cities.

    As a “Native” Californian I was always snooty because the majority of the residents of California already in the 80’s were not born there, but I was.

    In Europe you have villages laced with common family names everywhere, in the bars, community centers, war memorials, churches, graveyards, etc. Families have old plots of land and artifacts going back generations. The tie to blood and soil is so much deeper than anything on the west coast of America anyway.

    The people dress the same, speak the same dialect, and even have the same mannerisms and expressions. Outsiders who can’t speak the local dialect flawlessly are instantly recognizable, as I always was. Even my children were never really accepted as true locals, likely because they never spoke flawless dialect.

    I think that ultimately this will be Europe’s greatest strength. Not from the mulattoized cities, but from the grass roots in the country. Whether it ends up as a civil war between the jewed cities and the traditional villages in the countryside that still are somewhat unadulterated remains to be seen.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  333. @Cowboy

    Would you say, you nicely summed up the reasons why the EU will never work?
    The Eu has been driven by US interest, and these masonic morons in cahoots with Brussels think, they could create a US in Europe. Its never gonna work, main reason, language, different cultures. “White” plays basically no big role, a white Frenchman is absolutely foreign in white Greece. Our identity is not “white” but along ethnic lines, white would be totally indistinctive, and yes, a big strength. “White” would be like saying fruit for the apples, peaches and oranges, all fruit, but very different, to a point they nurse age old antipathies.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  334. Cowboy says:

    Robert Sepehr has a new video out on the 1943 French Classic Forces Occultes (Occult Forces – subtitled The mysteries of Freemasonry unveiled for the first time on the screen) is a French film of 1943, notable as the last film to be directed by ex-Freemason Paul Riche (the pseudonym of Jean Mamy) who was executed for this production after WW2. The film recounts the life of a young member of parliament who joins the Freemasons in order to relaunch his career. He thus learns of how the Freemasons are conspiring to encourage France into a war against Germany.

    This is a great film made over 60 years ago that cost the life of its director Paul Riche, a pseudonym of Jean Mamy, who was shot dead at the fortress of Montrouge on 29th March 1949 for what the Masonic courts termed; “Collaboration with the enemy”.
    1. The film’s writer, Jean-Marie Riviere was imprisoned.
    2. The producer (Robert Muzard) and director (Paul Riche, pseudonym for Jean Mamy) were killed.
    3. Mamy was part of the Renan Lodge of the Grand Orient de #France from 1931-1939. Some believe the film is based off his own initiation into freemasonry, realizing the evil, then trying to expose it.
    4. The movie shows the main character (a #deputy) joining freemasonry in order to relaunch his career, pledges an oath that if he reveals anything he “will not escape the #vengeance of his brothers spread out across the world.”
    5. Eventually he realizes he has to cut down good people and good ideas because they are in opposition to freemasonry, he disagrees and stands up to his ‘brothers’ in the lodge.
    6. MOST INTERESTING is the reference to freemasonry wanting war with #Germany. “Why would you want a war between France and Germany? The statements made on the army of Germany are lies. All of you masons are pushing for war so that this country can be governed by your laws, by the Jews, and masonry above all.”
    7. Eventually he is tricked into thinking another member will give him actual documents to show the public, in which he is stabbed by other masons once he arrives.

    Today, the film is viewed as nazi propaganda but does not explain why after the war was over, the people involved in making the film were persecuted as an act of revenge.

    This is well worth watching not only because it so vividly portrays what the freemasons are about, but at 44min the masons go into their “project” to start a second world war by forcing Germany to invade Poland in 1939. Oh yeah, secret handshakes at 27min.

  335. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    You will be hard pressed to find someone who despises the EU more than me. However, I do have contact with Brits living in Europe, and they are all against Brexit. I can understand their selfish concerns, but I think that in the end they are selfish.

    Back in 2008 I was a believer in splitting the EU and the Euro into north and south. With Macron and Merkel calling for an EU army, I fear that they are preparing for an EU civil war where they can reshape Europe once again. This time white ethnic Europeans will be an underclass to a muslim/mulatto overclass with Indo-asians serving as their technocracy. Of course the new UN and the world court will be in Jerusalem and we will all be chipped and living under Noahide laws.

  336. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    You mean the same NY Times that praised Stalin.

    You ignore Goering’s testimony.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-14-46.asp

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  337. Wally says:
    @Paw

    There were no threats. Hacha wanted, needed Germany’s help.

  338. @Wally

    On the contrary, I quoted directly from Goering’s testimony. And it is identical to the story in the times. It’s far more likely that Dugan lies and you (and Wear) never bothered to check.

    • Replies: @Wally
  339. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    – Now you’re engaging in wishful thinking and not presenting proof.
    – I remind you that Poland invaded and seized parts of Czechoslovakia.
    – Poland threatened an invasion of Lithuania upon delivering an ultimatum to Lithuania.
    – I remind you that Slovakia separated from ‘Czechoslovakia’, there was no Czechoslovakia. Hence there was Slovakia AND the Czech Republic in which Hacha asked Germany for assistance.
    – Heydrich was assassinated by Communists.
    – Germany signed the illegal / coerced Versailles ‘Treaty’ under formal protest.
    It was renounced from day one, and further renounced by Hitler when he came into power.
    – And the plebiscites were ignored by Poland.
    recommended:
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    In lieu of the illegal blockade, U-boat warfare was a legal & necessary response.
    The [Illegal] Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany: https://mises.org/library/blockade-and-attempted-starvation-germany

    – Belgium was not neutral: France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    – The point is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the British claims of peaceful intentions.
    – Indeed, to someone who makes claims of Hitler which they cannot backup, it’s easy to see why they are embarrassed.
    – I also suggest that you actually read the article above.

    Cheers.
    http://www.codoh.com

  340. Wally says:
    @anon

    LOL
    You’re no Revisionist. Quite the opposite.

    What have I said that you think you can refute?
    Come on, bring it.

    You’re all talk.

    http://www.codoh.com

  341. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    And that testimony said he would have been sorry if Prague was bombed and said:

    “The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

    There it is.
    Ignore it if you wish.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  342. @Wally

    Again, it doesn’t matter whether Goering actually intended to bomb Prague; it matters only that Hacha thought he would.

    • Replies: @Wally
  343. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Classic Zionist logic. Hilarious

    A rational Hacha thought no such thing since there was no reason to think so, as Goering made perfectly clear.

    And if Hacha was truly that demented it’s no wonder the Czechs welcomed the Germans.

    No alleged immense human remains to be seen in alleged known locations, no ‘holocaust’.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  344. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Nope, I was responding to ‘dronesclub’, not you.

    But yeah I know:
    Jews: the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral”

    “Personal attacks”?

    LOL It was YOU, among your endless other acts of sick desperation, who posted a video of a woman absurdly claiming it was my wife. I’ll leave it to the others here to decide why you would even try such scummy stuff, regardless of it’s inaccuracy.

    It’s you who attacks Revisionists:
    Andrew Mathis of ‘Holocaust Controveries’ makes threats against a Swedish Revisionist.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12409

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  345. @Wally

    I’m pretty sure Hacha couldn’t tell the future, unless you think Goering mentioned in the conversation with Hacha that it would be a shame to be bomb Prague but that he wouldn’t actually do it.

    So do you actually think that?

    • Replies: @Wally
  346. @Wally

    Jonathan Andersson is a neo-Nazi, and he certainly deserves to die, but I never threatened, as Breker, i.e., you, certainly know.

    • Replies: @Wally
  347. Looks like the Wally/Mathis shit-show is going to try to bury another revisionist article.

    • Agree: Iris
  348. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    – Your own words are what they are.
    To anyone that can read, it certainly appears that you are threatening this man just because you do not like free speech. And big guy, that’s certainly not your first anti free speech rodeo.

    – BTW, what they hell is a “neo-Nazi” & why do they “deserve to die”?
    Oh, I forgot, because you don’t like free speech.
    Ain’t that just like a Zionist.

    – So now you’re saying that I’m also this ‘Breker’?
    What’s that now, about eight people you’ve said I am? LOL
    You’re becoming quite strange in the head there ole boy.

    – And where’s you proof for your claimed but scientifically impossible ‘gas chambers’?
    And where’s are your alleged millions upon million of human remains in supposedly known locations?
    recommended:
    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    and: American Pravda: Amazon Book Censorship, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-amazon-book-censorship/

    http://www.codoh.com

  349. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Therefore what Goering said was correct.

    “The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

    Simple stuff.

    http://www.codoh.com

  350. Back in 2008 I was a believer in splitting the EU and the Euro into north and south. With Macron and Merkel calling for an EU army, I fear that they are preparing for an EU civil war where they can reshape Europe once again.

    Hmm, I have never believed a split. If at all, there will be a German mark, it only depends that we get rid of the US occupation. The EU is practically irrelevant, much booha, but hot air, without the German paymaster, its gonna vanish.
    Currently, they try to create a new people for their EU with this invasion, they kind of play out the US creation again.
    But, if Sultan Erdogan gets involved in a war, he will recall his soldier subjects back home to serve in his army. It would be helpful, if we had proper German government if that happens to deport these Turks who fled turkish army service. It would generally be helpful if were not run be enemies.

    Something for “debt is great” Thorfinnson to listen to.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  351. Cowboy says:
    @Germanicus

    It would be helpful, if we had proper German government if that happens to deport these Turks who fled turkish army service

    That is why so much of Europe has been flooded by Eritreans, Somalians and Etheopians too. They are allowed to claim refugee status to dodge the draft and get free gibsme’s. I guess it works for Turks too, and in reality any People of Color. Just not for whites, especially those whites fleeing South Africa

    The EU is practically irrelevant, much booha, but hot air, without the German paymaster, its gonna vanish.

    I would agree to that up until the ECB and the Euro were created. Now, as Griffin certainly would have said, the ECB and its European slaves are merely tentacles on the Octopus of judaic usury.

  352. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @JP

    @ JP 337

    “The Churchill election”
    “Churchill’s campaign”

    When were those elections?

  353. @Priss Factor

    Too late. You have shown what you really are. Both of you.

  354. @Tom Welsh

    That radio traffic from the Japanese ships in the Pacific was fake and from land based transmitters to which the normal operators had been transferred from the ships so their radio traffic retained their familiar signatures. The ships themselves were silent according to “Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy.” Some Americans listening to the traffic realized that the location of the “ships” was not moving, that they were stationary. The ships, were not transmitting to keep their position hidden, but also they would not be giving away any secrets for the world to listen in on.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  355. Sparkon says:
    @ploni almoni

    Really? Do you have a source for that please?

    I ask because I have what I think is much better information:

    Grogan’s entry for 1 December at 3:30 AM described the signals he heard on the evening of 30 November:

    The Japs are blasting away on the lower Marine Radio frequency – it is all in Japanese Code, and continues for several hours. Some of the signals were loud, and others weak, but in most every case, the repeat-back was acknowledged verbatum [sic] It appears to me that the Jap is not using any deception of ‘Signal Detection’ and boldly blasts away, using the Call letters JCS and JOS, and other Japanese based stations that have their transmitting keys all tied-in together, and controlled from a common source, presumably Tokio…So much of the signals reaching us on the SS Lurline were good enough to get good R.D.F. We noted that signals were being repeated back, possibly for copying by crafts with small antennas. The main body of signals came from a Northwest by West area, which from our second night from Los Angeles bound for Honolulu – would be North and West of Honolulu. Having crossed the Pacific for 30 years, never heard JCS Yokohama before 9 P.M. our time on the lower Marine Frequency, and then rebroadcast simultaneously on the lower Marine Frequency from some point in the Pacific. If anyone should ask me, I would say it’s the Jap’s Mobilization Battle Order.

    […]
    He was able to evaluate, with absolute certainty, that the Japanese had perpetrated a hoax. Signals transmitted from Japan during the daylight hours there can not be picked up by a ship at sea during the hours of 8 P.M. and 9 P.M. (ship’s time) in the Pacific…Grogan instinctively knew that he could not pick up a signal from the Japanese homeland between 8 and 9 P.M. Lurline time, and this aroused him to action. Then he went to his direction finder, and located the Japanse ships. It was only on the second and third nights of his continued search with the D-F that he found he was receiving signals from a moving target, and that the movement was away from Japan and towards the east (Hawaii).
    […]
    On 3 December Lurline’s radio officers submitted a full report to the 14th Naval District intelligence office in Honolulu.

    Warning at Pearl Harbor: Leslie Grogan and the tracking of Kido Butai
    Brian Villa and Timothy Wilford

  356. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515R8Q8T5QL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_.jpg

    Thomas PM Barnett is an imperial mouthpiece.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._M._Barnett

    The ultimate goal is the coordination of all countries in the world, … by the mixing of races, with the aim of a light brown race in Europe, to be taken from the Third World in Europe annually 1.5 million immigrants.
    The result is a population with an average IQ of 90, too stupid to comprehend, but smart enough to work

    Yes, I acknowledge the irrational arguments of our opponents, but should they resist the global world order, I urge We Shall Kill Them

    And there are still people, who try to argue with a straight face, that WWI & II would have been different from the wars post 1945.

  357. The revolution and the Zionism are like the left and the right arm of one entity whose objective is the fulfilment of the messianic promise: the Messiah’s comeback to Jerusalem and the destruction and enslavement of the gentiles. The Zionism is in charge of gathering the dispersed community, of fighting assimilation and digging a trench between them and the gentiles; using antisemitism as a tool to achieve its goal. The revolution is the weapon to destroy the strutures of the nation-states to be able to enslave their population.

    Since the first world war, the USA have been infiltrated by the agents of the revolution coming from Russia. The President Roosevelt worked with Stalin to trigger the war to expand the revolution which had to become world-wide, if it was to last. Roosevelt was supposed to crush Japan and to bring material and money supply to Stalin who was supposed to take over Europe, Britain included.

    Stalin’s plan probably shared with Roosevelt was to use Hitler to start a war in Europe in which France, England and Germany would exhaust them selves making it easy for Stalin to come and take control over all Europe as ” the man bringing peace and liberating the workers from the capital”.

    Roosevelt on his side applied pressure on Beck, Chamberlain and Daladier and order them to stop any arrangement with Hitler letting them understand that should they trade another time with Germany after Munich, he would not be there to help them anymore. Then Stalin lit the fuse in agreement with Roosevelt. He offered Hitler to partition Poland and Hitler fell into the trap. Britain then France declared war to Germany as they had been ordered to do, but not to the URSS. Now Stalin had the common border with Germany required for his plan.

    In Roosevelt and Stalin’ plan, Poland was a fuse and Germany the scapegoat. Actually, the plan did not worked as forecast. France and Britain were supposed to be able to reduce significantly Germany’s strength and not to collapse so quickly. Stalin underestimated Hitler’s daring and he lost the first leg between June 1941 and July 1942, and with it around 5 millions men. The overall picture was changed, Roosevelt would have to send to Europe some foot soldiers to allow Stalin to eliminate Hitler. Stalin could no more fulfil the objective of the revolution to conquer all Europe. He had to share it with Roosevelt and this was the beginning of the end of the Communism.

    The cold war period was a time when the way to carry the world revolution had to be revisited. Those who had triggered the world revolution had choose in 1917 the Bolcheviks with the Communism. The experience and the failure of Staline with its brute force and the exposure that Stalin, in the same way as Constantin took control over the Christianism, could take the control of the revolution, led them to understand that a world revolution on the type of a Menchevik socialism could yield better results.

    The Bolchevik method relied on gathering the masses and turn them in a sort of a steamroller to crush everything in front. The Menchevik method uses poisons to divide people, corrupt them, pervert them, sheer them, blackmail them, generate confusion and destroy their roots. That is the method used today

    Today the quarrel between Trump and the Democrats is a quarrel between the Zionism and the Revolution. Those in favor of the revolution are thinking that the cart must not be put before the horse and that the nation-states have to be destroyed and their population enslaved to allow the comeback of the Messiah to Jerusalem. For them the Zionism’s rôle is to weld the judaiste community, to fight assimilation and segregate the Jews from the gentiles. The Zionism have to be the Doctrine’s guardian, it is not to the Zionists to submit or destroy the gentiles. As such those in favor of the revolution are probably against starting a major war in the Middle-East when the task in the Far-East has not yet found any solution.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  358. Cowboy says:

    Who started the Second World War? The same ones who started the first.

  359. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    When was Churchill elected?
    What date were those 1940 elections?

  360. George says:

    “1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.”

    Probably Poland was totalitarian t00. Not usually noted is that Europe in the 30s consisted of Empires, like Britain and France, openly Fascist states, , military governments, and Communist USSR, with a couple of maybe non-totalitarians like Sweden and Switzerland, and maybe Bulgaria. That wasn’t much to work with and it is not clear why the USA should back any one of them and in 1939 it is not entirely clear what was so bad about Nazi Germany that was so good about the Belgian Empire.

    1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_in_Poland

    The 1928 parliamentary elections were still considered free and fair, although the pro-Piłsudski Nonpartisan Bloc for Cooperation with the Government won them. The following three parliamentary elections (in 1930, 1935 and 1938) were manipulated, with opposition activists sent to Bereza Kartuska prison (see also Brest trials). As a result, pro-government party Camp of National Unity won huge majorities in them. Piłsudski died just after an authoritarian constitution was approved in the spring of 1935. During the last four years of the Second Polish Republic, the major politicians included President Ignacy Mościcki, Foreign Minister Józef Beck and the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Army, Edward Rydz-Śmigły. The country was divided into 104 electoral districts, and those politicians who were forced to leave Poland, founded Front Morges in 1936. The government that ruled Second Polish Republic in its final years is frequently referred to as Piłsudski’s colonels.[13]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Polish_Republic#Politics_and_government

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_customs_war

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

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  361. @George

    Good points. Unlike Czechoslovakia, Poland was a legitimate historical nation but the Polish government of the interwar period was a nasty military dictatorship with a serious minorities problem (e.g. many Jews had to flee to Germany, much to the consternation of the German government). They also harbored delusions of Great Power status, in part because of their sheer luck in turning back the Bolsheviks in the 1920 war. Britain’s 1939 guarantee was classic “our SOB” thinking, akin to giving a gun to a child.

  362. Christo says:

    The IHR, such an interesting revisionist historical organization , the ADL fire-bombed their building.
    That gives them more “bona fides” than even making the SPLC Hate -list. LOL

    A little trick , when dealing with “gate-keepers” of history , especially ones working for the US government – mention the IHR , and if they try to dismiss you out of hand , you know (who) they are working for.

  363. @jacques sheete

    Childish? Doesn’t that describe tRump to a tee?

    No, not in the slightest.

  364. @Paul

    ‘…The United States historically has seen allowing any single country — such as Germany — to dominate Europe to be a potential threat to the United States. The fear is that they will then come for us…’

    You will have difficulty producing any evidence to support this theory dating from earlier than 1917.

  365. @Thorfinnsson

    1. Source for spending figures?

    2. Assuming for the moment that your figures are correct — what baseline was Germany starting from in terms of their capacity for self-defense, compared to the other countries in your chart? How big was its army, air force, and navy compared to potential adversaries — and how did their weapons compare? Might a land power in the center of Europe have some sort of… reason to maintain adequate defense capabilities?

    3. It’s not as if anyone had already declared war on Germany in 1933, or anything…

    4. What’s this?

    Surely this doesn’t represent a massive arms buildup by a country that might have some sort of imperialist ambitions with respect to Europe…

    Oh. I see.

    The Rhineland was remilitarized in 1936.

    Gosh, why ever would the Germans want to “remilitarize” the Rhineland? Sounds like a very aggressive, totally unwarranted move on their part, eh?

    It’s not as if the French had “remilitarized” the Rhineland themselves a few years earlier, with their invasion of the Ruhr:

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

    Or as if the French attempted to “remilitarize” the Rhineland again just a couple of years later, in 1939, with yet another attempted invasion of the Rhineland…

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

    The Saar Invasion of September 7, 1939, when the French launched 40 Divisions, with 4,700 artillery pieces and 2,400 tanks, at Germany’s Western borders.

    The Germans had only 22 divisions to defend against the French attack. What stopped the French invasion?

    The Siegfried Line — AKA “German remilitarization.”

  366. @German_reader

    It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.

    You say ‘blackmail’, yet you clearly don’t know what that word means. Hitler never made such a threat. And Hacha himself never mentioned such intimidation https://archive.is/5UsDF . You’re referring to the comment made by Goring which has been interpreted in many different ways. Even being attributed to Hitler because Hitler himself co-opted it at a dinner conversation in 1942. Hacha himself puts the quote like this

    [I have a difficult task. I would be extremely sorry if I had to destroy this beautiful city. But I would have to do it for the English and the French to know that my Luftwaffe is always 100% ready. They still do not want to believe it and I would like to convince them.] – H. Goring

    You could interpret this as a threat, but you could also interpret it as genuine sincerity and sorrow if he had to bomb prague at some point. And sincerity seems to be the surest sense. After all, Goring was recalled as he was on holiday in Switzerland by Hitler, and Goring was against the idea of incorporating Czechia in this more semi-aggressive way, because as he saw it Czechia was bound to come under German protection at some point anyway. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Nuremberg trial which backs up both of my claims.

    [MORE]

    DR. STAHMER: On the 15 March 1939 a conversation took place between Hitler and President Hacha. Were you present during that conversation? And what was your part in it?

    Goering: That was the beginning of the establishment of the Protectorate in Czechoslovakia. After Munich — that is, after the Munich Agreement and the solution of the Sudeten German problem — a military decision had been reached by the Fuehrer and some of his collaborators to the effect that, if there should be new difficulties after the Munich agreement, or arising from the occupation of the zones, certain measures of precaution would have to be taken by the military authorities, for, after the occupation of the zones, the troops which had been in readiness for “Case Green” (Schmundt File) had been demobilized. But a development might easily take place which at any moment could become extremely dangerous for Germany. One needs only to remember what an interpretation was given at that time by the Russian press and the Russian radio to the Munich agreement and to the occupation of the Sudetenland. One could hardly use stronger language. There had been a liaison between Prague and Moscow for a long time. Prague, disappointed by the Munich agreement, could now strengthen its ties with Moscow. Signs of that were seen particularly in the Czech officers’ corps and we were informed. And in the event of this proving dangerous to Germany, instructions had been issued to the various military offices to take preventive measures, as was their duty. But that order has nothing to do with any intention of occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia after a short time.

    I myself went to the Riviera at the end of January for my first long vacation and during that time I dropped all business affairs. At the beginning of March, much to my surprise, a courier came from the Fuehrer with a letter in which the Fuehrer informed me that developments in Czechoslovakia were such that he could not let things go on as they were with impunity. They were becoming an increasing menace to Germany, and he was determined to solve the question now by eliminating Czechoslovakia as a source of danger right in the center of Germany, and he therefore was thinking of an occupation.

    During that time I had met many Englishmen in San Remo. I had realized that they had made the best of Munich and even found it satisfactory, but that any other incidents, or demands on Czechoslovakia would cause considerable excitement.

    I sent a letter back by courier. Maybe it is among the many tons of documents in the possession of the Prosecution. I could also understand if they do not submit it, for it would be a document of an extenuating character as far as I am concerned. In this letter I communicated these views to the Fuehrer and wrote to him somewhat as follows: That if this were to take place now, it would be a very serious loss of prestige for the British Prime Minister, Chamberlain, and I hardly believed that he would survive it. Then probably Mr. Churchill would come in, and the Fuehrer knew Churchill’s attitude toward Germany. Secondly, it would not be understood, since just a short time previously we had settled these things to general satisfaction. Thirdly, I thought I could calm him by telling him the following: I believed that what he wanted to eliminate at the moment in the way of danger, by the occupation of Czechoslovakia, could be achieved in a somewhat lengthier manner, at the same time avoiding anything which might excite Czechoslovakia as well as other countries. I was convinced that since the Sudetenland had been separated and Austria was a part of Germany an economic penetration of Czechoslovakia would be only a matter of time. That is to say, I hoped by strong economic ties to reach a communications, customs, and currency union, which would serve the economic interests of both countries. If this took place, then a sovereign Czechoslovakia would be politically so closely bound to Germany and German interests that I did not believe that any danger could arise again. However, if Slovakia expressed her desire for independence very definitely we should not have to counteract that in any way. On the contrary, we could support it, as then economic co-operation would naturally become even much closer than otherwise; for, if Slovakia were to secede, both countries would have to look to Germany in economic matters, and in such matters both countries could be made interested in Germany and could be most closely bound to Germany.

    This letter — I have just given the gist of it — the courier took back. Then I heard nothing for some days.

    Goering: I was then called to Berlin on very short notice. I arrived in Berlin in the morning and President Hacha arrived in the evening of the same day. I presented orally to the Fuehrer the views which I had already expressed in my letter. The Fuehrer pointed out to me certain evidence in his possession to the effect that the situation in Czechoslovakia had developed more seriously. This state had, for one thing, disintegrated because of the detachment of Slovakia, but that was not the decisive question. He showed me documents from the Intelligence Service which indicated that Russian aviation commissions were present at the airfields of Czechoslovakia, or certain of them, undertaking training, and that such things were not in keeping with the Munich agreement. He said that he feared that Czechoslovakia, especially if Slovakia were detached, would be used as a Russian air base against Germany.

    He said he was determined to eliminate this danger. President Hacha had requested an interview, so he told me at the time, and would arrive in the evening; and he wished that I too should be present at the Reich Chancellery.

    President Hacha arrived and talked first with the Reich Foreign Minister. At night he came to see the Fuehrer; we greeted him coldly. First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in. Then I talked to him in the presence of his ambassador and urged him to meet as quickly as possible the Fuehrer’s demand that trdops be kept back when the Germans marched in, in order that there might be no bloodshed. I told him that nothing could be done about it; the Fuehrer had made his decision and considered it necessary, and there would be only unnecessary bloodshed as resistance for any length of time was quite impossible. And in that connection I made the statement that I should be sorry if I had to bomb beautiful Prague. The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect, for even in the case of resistance that would not have been necessary — resistance could always be broken more easily without such bombing. But a point like that might, I thought, serve as an argument and accelerate the whole matter.

    I succeeded then in getting a telephone connection between him and his Government in Prague, he gave the order, and the occupation and the march into Prague took place the next day. – https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-14-46.asp

    You must understand the situation at the time. In Europe Czechoslovakia was a 20 year old state considered artificial that came about through Benes lying about minorities in his proposed orbit and subsequently oppressing them. There’s also no reason to think Hitler’s fears of Communist interference in Czechoslovakia weren’t valid https://codoh.com/library/document/2010/?lang=en

    The Czechs initiated the conflict with Slovakia by dismissing them from the cabinet and declaring martial law, the Slovaks came to Hitler and after so did the Czechs. Hitler was given his opportunity and unfortunately this is considered to be one of Hitler’s fatal blunders. Hitler biographer John Toland explains.

    It also revealed that Hitler had made his first serious miscalculation. Czechoslovakia was his by threat of force but in time it would inevitably have fallen peaceably into his orbit; and by breaking an international agreement, freely entered into by his own government, he had completely reversed official and public opinion in both France and England. No longer would Chamberlain and his followers take Hitler at his word. He had broken the rules of the game—and not for a good enough cause.
    How, then, had the Führer come to make such an obvious blunder? First, he had not expected his move to provoke such a violent reaction. Hadn’t the West accepted the same excuses for restoring law and order in Austria? Hadn’t they been satisfied with just as specious arguments at Munich? He had been convinced he must seize the territory Germany needed to guarantee the future of the Teutonic race while he still had his physical vigor and Germany’s military strength was still superior to that of its enemies.
    When he marched into Czechoslovakia he was not certain where he would strike next or against whom, only that he must have Bohemia and Moravia before launching (or threatening to launch) any further military action. And so in Hitler’s eyes he had committed no blunder, only sustained a public relations setback. What concerned him was the next step. – Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pp. 520

    As for the Czechs. How did they feel? What did Hitler do to Czechoslovakia? Well. Nothing. They were a protectorate and were to remain as one.

    According to Mallet, these were Hitler’s peace terms:

    “1-The British Empire retains all its Colonies and delegations
    2- The fundamentals of Germany’s continental sphere of interest must be recognized
    3- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion
    4- Poland. A Polish state must exist
    5- The Czechos state (formerly part of Czechoslovakia before Slovakia separated) will remain independent but under German protection”

    Weissauer didn’t go into details, but Ekeberg understood that implied that all European states occupied by Germany would see their sovereignty restored. Germany’s occupation was only due to the present military situation.

    Reference: The Hitler Hess Deception by Martin Allen

    How did Hacha himself feel? Well. He was fine and even sympathetic to Hitler.

    Hacha hardly needed inducement. He signed as required; and harboured so little resentment that he served as a faithful German subordinate until the end of the war. – AJP Taylor, Origins of the Second World War, Chapter 9

    Hitler himself in private described Hacha’s unusual obstinacy and sympathy as follows:

    On the following day, in Prague, Hacha asked me what we had done to make such a different man of him. He was himself astonished to have suddenly shown such obstinacy. It was probably the result of the injection Morell had given him to build him up again. His renewed energy turned against us ! At present I receive from Hacha the warmest messages of sympathy. I don’t publish them, so as not to create the impression that we need the support of an underdog. – Adolf Hitler, 13th January 1942, Hitler’s Table Talks, pp. 205

    Hitler also viewed the Czechs in a very very positive light.

    Hitler himself thought Himmler’s race mysticism was impractical, and while hostile to serbs and Russians in general, he felt differently about other groups of Slavs. He praised the Czechs as “industrious and intelligent workers’ and speculated that blue eyed Ukranians might be peasant descendants of German tribes who never migrated’. In fact, he came round to the view – common among German anthropologists – that there was, racially speaking, no such category as ‘Slavs’: it was a linguistic term, nothing more. That did not stop it continuing to be used. But it helps explain why the Fuhrer allowed Himmler and Forster each to define Germanness in his own way. – Hitler’s Empire by Mark Mazower page 198

    Also see Hitler’s full speech on April 28th 1939 for his praise of the Czechs.

    As for the Czech state, what became of it? Here’s some quotes from books and periodicals.

    Surprisingly, the ‘protectorate’ brought blessings for the Czechs as well. Their economy was stabilised and unemployment vanished. Their menfolk were not called upon to bear arms in Hitler’s coalition. Their armed forces were dissolved, and their officers were given state pensions on Hitler’s orders, to purchase their dependence and complicity. The industrious Czechs accepted rich contracts from the Reich and learned eventually to cherish the pax teutonica enforced by Reinhard Heydrich in 1941. It was the peace of the graveyard, but Heydrich won the affection of the Czech workers to such an extent – for instance, by introducing the first ever Bismarckian social security and pension schemes – that 30,000 Czechs thronged into Wenceslas Square in Prague to demonstrate against his murder in 1942. The Czechs had not been required to sell their souls, and this was what Hitler had promised Hácha in Berlin. Hácha himself never felt any grievance. – David Irving, Hitler’s War and The War Path Millenium Edition, Focal Point Publications 2002, pp. 163

    Nevertheless, in Prague, Von Neurath Retained the Fuhrer’s ear while hewing a more moderate course. He was an old-fashioned conservative, not a Nazi, and Hitler was happy to allow him to do whatever kept the peace politically and the factories working. The Government managed to continue to fund the Czech Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Czech rations remained as high as if not higher than those in the Reich itself” Hitler’s Empire by Mark Mazower Page 75

    “This dire fate. however, faced the Poles in particular rather than the Slavs as a whole. Despite the Nazis’ rhetoric, in theory, and increasingly in practice, racial scientists and policy advisors distinguished between groups of Slavs. The Slovaks were allowed to govern themselves, and even in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia the Germans ruled through a Czech bureaucracy and a figurehead Czech president – something denied to the Poles. The principles applied to the Bohemian-Moravian space could not be apllied to the Polish space owing to the unbridled Polish character, which was sharply revealed during the Polish campaign as an element which requires a different method of domination,’ explained a German journalist in Poland later on – Hitler’s Empire by Mark Mazower Page 74-5

    “The Germans were reduced to promoting their own bizarre brand of Czech nationalism. They founded a new youth organization and tried to foster what they called “Reich-loyal Czech Nationalism”. Schoolchildren marched along under the swastika sining Czech songs and spent their vacations on “Heydrich’s Summer Relaxation Camps’. By the summer of 1944, they were helping organize a week of Czech youth in Prague.”* Hitler’s Empire by Mark Mazower Page 188-189

    What does seem to be clear is that there was nothing in the behaviour of the Czech Government which lent itself to a change in Hitler’s policy. Indeed he was remarkably kind (for him) to the Czech Cabinet after the march into Prague, keeping its members in office for a time and then paying their pensions, which he would hardly have done if they had offended him. – D.C. WATT, How War Came, pp. 145

    When one examines the early writings of Adolf Hitler and other Nazi leaders, however, one finds few signs of intentions toward Slavs. Especially noticeable in Hitler’s writing is an absence of hostility toward Poles. If any Slavic people provoked Hitler’s ill will it was the Czechs, about whom he had formed opinions as a young man in Austria.9 Yet as will be shown, the Czechs survived the war in relative peace. – John Connelly, Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice, pp. 3

    In the Czech lands there was no initial spark of defiance; German troops moved unopposed into border areas in the fall of 1938, and completed their occupation without a shot in March of the following year. Neither Czechs nor Germans had an incentive to upset the relative calm; the Germans valued the steady production of war materials from Czech industry, and the Czechs the significant spaces that remained for pursuit of economic and cultural interests. So powerful was the dynamic of mutual accommodation that even the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in 1942 could not upset it. After the Germans had obliterated two villages and executed hundreds of suspected and actual opposition members, both sides returned to a strained coexistence which lasted until shortly before Russian and American troops liberated the Czech lands in the spring of 1945. – John Connelly, Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice, pp. 3

    Conveniently forgotten is Hitler’s reasonableness and his limited demands.

    In any case, my demands are not exorbitant. I’m only interested, when all is said, in territories where Germans have lived before. Adolf Hitler, September 17th 1941, Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 35

    Also see:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8342

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9569&p=92104&hilit

  367. FDR had some kinda messiah complex. Makes Stalin and Hitler look humble

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 John Wear Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?