The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Cecil Rhodes"
 All Comments / On "Cecil Rhodes"
    Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible. One exception is the late Georgetown history...
  • @German reader
    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the "people" demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson ...

    Amen about the bias against Germany so often displayed on this site.

    Are you sure you haven’t submitted this comment to the wrong website?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] example, Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley was convinced that the proteges of Cecil Rhodes, such as Alfred Milner, had conspired to exercise […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Message: Prepare For Totalitarianism Welcome Aboard, But First US Marshals Will Scan Your Retina Carroll Quigley’s Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda by Carl James Zitate zur Neuen Weltordnung Prof. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] [unz.com] – Carroll Quigley’s Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group [wikipedia.com] – Carroll Quigley [amazon.com] – Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time [amazon.com] – Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment [deepresource] – Britain Masterminded WW1 […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] with the particular piece of work, Steve Sailor did a very useful write up at the Unz review here, but curiously left out some very interesting quotes and opinions of which I will cover […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Murray Rothbard, in 1984, wrote a stunning monograph that traced the Power Elite in the United States in the 20th century; from the Morgan house bankers and the Fed to the rise of the Rockefeller interests in Asia to the post-World War Two solidifying of the new political order.  He recognized that the roots of this order took place with the Fabian socialists in England.  Largely informed by the unofficial historian of the European elite themselves, Bill Clinton’s Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, Murray Rothbard observed that the Fabian circles began to work in unison with the secret societies funded and maintained by John Ruskin’s student Cecil Rhodes, whose gigantic diamond-sourced wealth allowed him to have an impactful influence in British politics.  In describing the influence on the American power elite from the other side of the Atlantic, Rothbard pointed out that Cecil Rhodes had in mind a British re-incorporation with the United States.  And thus, Rhodes took his magnificent riches and funded all sorts of powerful international “groups” and organizations that provided “expertise” on all matters foreign policy and banking and “public policy.”  These groups, labelled by Cecil Rhodes as Round Table Groups included the British versions (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the American versions as well (Council on Foreign Relations).  But they largely reflected the same worldview and the same power elite.  For more on Cecil Rhodes and Carroll Quigley, see Steve Sailer’s overview here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Murray Rothbard, in 1984, wrote a stunning monograph that traced the Power Elite in the United States in the 20th century; from the Morgan house bankers and the Fed to the rise of the Rockefeller interests in Asia to the post-World War Two solidifying of the new political order.  He recognized that the roots of this order took place with the Fabian socialists in England.  Largely informed by the unofficial historian of the European elite themselves, Bill Clinton’s Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, Murray Rothbard observed that the Fabian circles began to work in unison with the secret societies funded and maintained by John Ruskin’s student Cecil Rhodes, whose gigantic diamond-sourced wealth allowed him to have an impactful influence in British politics.  In describing the influence on the American power elite from the other side of the Atlantic, Rothbard pointed out that Cecil Rhodes had in mind a British re-incorporation with the United States.  And thus, Rhodes took his magnificent riches and funded all sorts of powerful international “groups” and organizations that provided “expertise” on all matters foreign policy and banking and “public policy.”  These groups, labelled by Cecil Rhodes as Round Table Groups included the British versions (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the American versions as well (Council on Foreign Relations).  But they largely reflected the same worldview and the same power elite.  For more on Cecil Rhodes and Carroll Quigley, see Steve Sailer’s overview here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Den ausgewogenen Artikel finden Sie hier. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Carroll Quigley is well known for being the historian for the Anglo-American Establishment. Steve Sailer gives an overview of one of Quigley’s Power Groups, called The Milner Group.  Link is here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interesting. Quality research I guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] The theory of conspiracy. Related: Conspiracy in action: the Milner Group. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Milner’s Bright Boys resemble Thomas Cromwell’s ‘Roaring Boys’. Fueled by reformist zeal this layer of gentry cadre infiltrated the institutions of state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Seraphim
    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were "secret dealings", but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.

    Logic tells us that Hiltler had forehand info. Appart from some sources saying so. Everything that happened and what Hitler said and did is in perfect agreement with the thesis. How did the French campaign evolve where the British betrayed their ally and Hitler a little later let them escape at Dunquerk if Hitler and Churchill didnt have a solid understanding about it. As Hitler et al aided the rebels in Spain he later came to ask Franco to join the axis powers but Franco refused knowing Hitler was just a stooge for the British and that the British had payed Hitlers expences. The British had brought Franco from his exile when he was to take over in Spain and Franco knew who was his and Hitlers master.
    Moreover the vast sponsoring of Hitler came with strings attached and that necessitates frequent communication. The money was forehand payment for a share in the natural resources of the USSR. It is absurd to think the british like sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell wouldnt make the conditions perfectly clear. The £20 million said to come from that source are far from the total Hitler must have gotten. In addition the British aithen Germany’s economy by upholding a negative trade balance with them – the economic miracle as it were. Of course the industrious german people worked for it but the usual pattern is never to be fair – if it was there would never have been a WW1.
    As Hitlers cassier gave himself up on the allied side at the end of the war he made sure to destroy 90% of his pedantically kept records in order to improve his chances of a favorable treatment. So the proof of foreign sponsors comes from other sources among other things from logic since his expences cannot be explained by the amounts claimed to come from german sources. In addition most of the money from german businesses were from those which had americans on the board.
    And there are at least two suspects. Edward VIII and Samuel Hoare. Edwards abdication was planned while Britain and the Us were planning for a war in Canada. I dont know the details for Britain in that late phase but the Us had long gone plans up until around 1936. The British discussed recruiting 6 million men to attack the Us before WW1. The Us planned for a british attack during and after WW1 expecting the British force to be 8million. And the planning continued for decades.
    Anyway Edwards abdication is supposed to be about marrying a divorced american woman. How sweet, he married for love. Do you believe that?
    She took the name of Warfields I believe. Just like that. There is a high probability in my view that the abdication was mainly aimed at fooling Hitler to believe that the ‘nazi’ Edward might take over the power in Britain later and that then Germany and Britain would fight shoulder to shoulder against the bolsheviks. Second marrying an american woman might milden the differences between the Us and Britain – extremely well hidden by the court historians. That woman was probably a Us agent. Edward went to Austria but later to Spain which is more likely to have been where Hitlers helper met with Edward.
    Hitler was to believe that there were different teams among the British but that was just a con-game. The british pattern of forming alliances and later betray the ally is so persistent that there is no reason to believe they ever really sympathized with Hitler.
    But it made sense to fool Hitler.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.
     
    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.
     
    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
     
    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.

    “And Wilson was a civilian.”

    He was Commander-in Chief. And he ruled as a dictator. (The Palmer raids, the jailing of Eugene Debs)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    re: start of WWI

    syon, I must say that was an impressive overview of the background of the outbreak of WWI, better, clearer, more comprehensive than anything else I have ever read. What is your background?

    The only thing I would add, or suggest, is a conclusion I came to some years back when I looked into the issue of ultimate responsibility. I decided that it finally came down to the fact that the ultimate decisions to go to war were in the hands of hereditary monarchs who were intellectually and temperamentally incompetent to possess such authority. This was especially true of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a man with an inferiority complex and a lot of other personality defects. I know less about his cousin the Czar, and even less about Austrian emperor. In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.

    Compare those monarchs to our sainted Woodrow Wilson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard."



    You have confused me (posting as anonymous) with someone else (posting as Bad memories). See post 346. It's even possible the site software contributed to your confusion, it's actively under development and that sort of thing happens:


    "346. Bad memories
    says:

    July 30, 2015 at 6:39 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @5371

    ...

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?"

     

    I was not trying to participate in this (sub)-thread in which you were already engaged and was not even aware of it at the time I posted my original comment (post 325) to which you first replied. I was answering a much earlier question, which I took to be a simple question as to what France actually did when Germany invaded Poland. I was not attempting to engage in speculation about who could have done what or why anybody did what they did, or that sort of thing. I just found the history itself interesting, in particular as it is not widely known.

    My knowledge of the Saar Offensivr, prior to looking at the wikipedia article, was sketchy at best. Because it was just a point of interest about history, I was making no argument and had no cause, thus my bewilderment at your replies.

    Yes, 346 originally appeared under the same moniker as your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories
    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.

    The British and French did not try hard to fool anyone that they could mount a serious offensive. When the Poles asked for credits to buy British weapons they were told by HMG that the UK’s economic staying power was a vital factor in war and nothing could be done to impair it. When Gamelin was asked about the allies’ prospects he said that he did not doubt they would win in the end, not that they could do anything in the near term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Grafström
    The reason why Quigley is important is because he told the truth about essential matters entirely hidden by mainstream historians. Unfortunately most comments here simply base their outlook on mainstream history. Quigley explained why you will never find out by that road since the conspirators he described have made sure to control it. It is futile to pose questions from that point of departure. In many cases marginalized historians actually do answer those questions in a logical manner but then all that is left of the mainstream narrative is a conspiracy by the finance and corporate sector causing the main instigator of the war(s) Britain not to try to shorten it, and often not even to try to win battles but sometimes the opposite in order to widen the conflict and to make sure the enemy has the resources needed to continue. None of the facts make sense in the murky construct erected by mainstream historians and only as you realize the financial and corporate elite has investments on both sides it does indeed make sense. But then mainstream historians need to hide lots of facts. In both world wars Sweden remained neutral, but this was convenient for Britain since they exported vital resources to Germany, and used Sweden for cover.
    In WW2 they wanted Germany to have access to swedish iron ore so they pretended they wanted to occupy Norway in an attack setup to fail but made sure the Germans got a hold of their plans and had the time to prevail.
    Example of mainstream historical misrepresentations:
    Steven says 'they screwed up badly appeasing Hitler'. Well not really since that would imply they were interested in peace. Hitler was precious to the British after pooring so much money over him to make sure the german people would look up to him and to allow Hitler the former stateless foreigner(!) to have a payed private army. The purpose was to have the anglophile Adolf bring them the price of conquering the USSR.
    This anomalous situation was what faced the genuine part og Germany's military: A foreign sponsored fanatic protected by a militarized sect. When Chamberlain arrived in Munich he didnt appease a strong partner, he saved him from being removed from power by the real german military elite. The british came to save Hitler because the german generals had already selected german soldiers who were just waiting for the order to attack (on the same day it appears) and the british knew because the germans contacted them and asked for their backing. The generals were caught between two fires: one the very probable defeat waiting for Germany if they followed Hitlers order and conquered Czechoslovakia whereafter Britain and France would strike against Germany; and two: being wiped out by the nazis if they removed Hitler without any seeming threat from Britain and France. Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack but the generals didnt know the full picture and might not have trusted it anyway.
    Therefore Chamberlain acting on behalf of the British elites 'saved' the profitable WW2 for the (indeed international)financial and corporate elites. In both WW1&2 this angle is key while the strategic military angle where opposing nonintertwined entities are struggling to undo the other frustrates those who try to make sense of it.

    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were “secret dealings”, but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
    Logic tells us that Hiltler had forehand info. Appart from some sources saying so. Everything that happened and what Hitler said and did is in perfect agreement with the thesis. How did the French campaign evolve where the British betrayed their ally and Hitler a little later let them escape at Dunquerk if Hitler and Churchill didnt have a solid understanding about it. As Hitler et al aided the rebels in Spain he later came to ask Franco to join the axis powers but Franco refused knowing Hitler was just a stooge for the British and that the British had payed Hitlers expences. The British had brought Franco from his exile when he was to take over in Spain and Franco knew who was his and Hitlers master.
    Moreover the vast sponsoring of Hitler came with strings attached and that necessitates frequent communication. The money was forehand payment for a share in the natural resources of the USSR. It is absurd to think the british like sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell wouldnt make the conditions perfectly clear. The £20 million said to come from that source are far from the total Hitler must have gotten. In addition the British aithen Germany's economy by upholding a negative trade balance with them - the economic miracle as it were. Of course the industrious german people worked for it but the usual pattern is never to be fair - if it was there would never have been a WW1.
    As Hitlers cassier gave himself up on the allied side at the end of the war he made sure to destroy 90% of his pedantically kept records in order to improve his chances of a favorable treatment. So the proof of foreign sponsors comes from other sources among other things from logic since his expences cannot be explained by the amounts claimed to come from german sources. In addition most of the money from german businesses were from those which had americans on the board.
    And there are at least two suspects. Edward VIII and Samuel Hoare. Edwards abdication was planned while Britain and the Us were planning for a war in Canada. I dont know the details for Britain in that late phase but the Us had long gone plans up until around 1936. The British discussed recruiting 6 million men to attack the Us before WW1. The Us planned for a british attack during and after WW1 expecting the British force to be 8million. And the planning continued for decades.
    Anyway Edwards abdication is supposed to be about marrying a divorced american woman. How sweet, he married for love. Do you believe that?
    She took the name of Warfields I believe. Just like that. There is a high probability in my view that the abdication was mainly aimed at fooling Hitler to believe that the 'nazi' Edward might take over the power in Britain later and that then Germany and Britain would fight shoulder to shoulder against the bolsheviks. Second marrying an american woman might milden the differences between the Us and Britain - extremely well hidden by the court historians. That woman was probably a Us agent. Edward went to Austria but later to Spain which is more likely to have been where Hitlers helper met with Edward.
    Hitler was to believe that there were different teams among the British but that was just a con-game. The british pattern of forming alliances and later betray the ally is so persistent that there is no reason to believe they ever really sympathized with Hitler.
    But it made sense to fool Hitler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard.”

    You have confused me (posting as anonymous) with someone else (posting as Bad memories). See post 346. It’s even possible the site software contributed to your confusion, it’s actively under development and that sort of thing happens:

    “346. Bad memories
    says:

    July 30, 2015 at 6:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?”

    I was not trying to participate in this (sub)-thread in which you were already engaged and was not even aware of it at the time I posted my original comment (post 325) to which you first replied. I was answering a much earlier question, which I took to be a simple question as to what France actually did when Germany invaded Poland. I was not attempting to engage in speculation about who could have done what or why anybody did what they did, or that sort of thing. I just found the history itself interesting, in particular as it is not widely known.

    My knowledge of the Saar Offensivr, prior to looking at the wikipedia article, was sketchy at best. Because it was just a point of interest about history, I was making no argument and had no cause, thus my bewilderment at your replies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Yes, 346 originally appeared under the same moniker as your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it's not so hard.

    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The British and French did not try hard to fool anyone that they could mount a serious offensive. When the Poles asked for credits to buy British weapons they were told by HMG that the UK's economic staying power was a vital factor in war and nothing could be done to impair it. When Gamelin was asked about the allies' prospects he said that he did not doubt they would win in the end, not that they could do anything in the near term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The reason why Quigley is important is because he told the truth about essential matters entirely hidden by mainstream historians. Unfortunately most comments here simply base their outlook on mainstream history. Quigley explained why you will never find out by that road since the conspirators he described have made sure to control it. It is futile to pose questions from that point of departure. In many cases marginalized historians actually do answer those questions in a logical manner but then all that is left of the mainstream narrative is a conspiracy by the finance and corporate sector causing the main instigator of the war(s) Britain not to try to shorten it, and often not even to try to win battles but sometimes the opposite in order to widen the conflict and to make sure the enemy has the resources needed to continue. None of the facts make sense in the murky construct erected by mainstream historians and only as you realize the financial and corporate elite has investments on both sides it does indeed make sense. But then mainstream historians need to hide lots of facts. In both world wars Sweden remained neutral, but this was convenient for Britain since they exported vital resources to Germany, and used Sweden for cover.
    In WW2 they wanted Germany to have access to swedish iron ore so they pretended they wanted to occupy Norway in an attack setup to fail but made sure the Germans got a hold of their plans and had the time to prevail.
    Example of mainstream historical misrepresentations:
    Steven says ‘they screwed up badly appeasing Hitler’. Well not really since that would imply they were interested in peace. Hitler was precious to the British after pooring so much money over him to make sure the german people would look up to him and to allow Hitler the former stateless foreigner(!) to have a payed private army. The purpose was to have the anglophile Adolf bring them the price of conquering the USSR.
    This anomalous situation was what faced the genuine part og Germany’s military: A foreign sponsored fanatic protected by a militarized sect. When Chamberlain arrived in Munich he didnt appease a strong partner, he saved him from being removed from power by the real german military elite. The british came to save Hitler because the german generals had already selected german soldiers who were just waiting for the order to attack (on the same day it appears) and the british knew because the germans contacted them and asked for their backing. The generals were caught between two fires: one the very probable defeat waiting for Germany if they followed Hitlers order and conquered Czechoslovakia whereafter Britain and France would strike against Germany; and two: being wiped out by the nazis if they removed Hitler without any seeming threat from Britain and France. Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack but the generals didnt know the full picture and might not have trusted it anyway.
    Therefore Chamberlain acting on behalf of the British elites ‘saved’ the profitable WW2 for the (indeed international)financial and corporate elites. In both WW1&2 this angle is key while the strategic military angle where opposing nonintertwined entities are struggling to undo the other frustrates those who try to make sense of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were "secret dealings", but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Boomstick
    There's a fine line between "conspiracy" and "civic mindedness" and there were a lot of civic-minded people in that era. In the prior two centuries empires had been made by re-arranging social orders; who's to say it wouldn't continue?

    On the other side of the fence HG Wells was talking about an "open conspiracy" to implement socialism.

    Then they would say, “What are we to do with our lives?”

    And then, “Let us get together with other people of our sort and make over the world
    into a great world-civilization that will enable us to realize the promises and avoid the
    dangers of this new time.”

    It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we should be
    saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of
    unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient
    governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are
    now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy
    against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be
    willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an
    “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated
    world.
     

    here’s a fine line between “conspiracy” and “civic mindedness”

    rel=”nofollow”>It’s a fine line between pleasure and pain

    It’s a fine line between pleasure and pain
    You’ve done it once you can do it again
    Whatever you’ve done don’t try to explain
    It’s a fine, fine line between pleasure and pain (it’s all the same)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment."

    I didn't make an argument about anything and I wasn't trying to. There is no argument to be found. What are you presuming that I am making an argument for? Were you responding to some other thread? You won't find an argument in that post because I was simply adding some facts to the discussion, what happened and some things said about it. Slightly interesting facts because they are not that commonly known. I even extracted to illustrate that although the French plan called for 40 divisions attacking, they only used 11. (A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)

    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories
    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment.”

    I didn’t make an argument about anything and I wasn’t trying to. There is no argument to be found. What are you presuming that I am making an argument for? Were you responding to some other thread? You won’t find an argument in that post because I was simply adding some facts to the discussion, what happened and some things said about it. Slightly interesting facts because they are not that commonly known. I even extracted to illustrate that although the French plan called for 40 divisions attacking, they only used 11. (A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it's not so hard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization."

    I'm perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don't believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It's a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone'd realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we've never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don't know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn't have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn't fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the "unconditional surrender" that WWI didn't quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.

    “Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation.”

    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] It is really difficult to tell where conspiracy ends and “conspiracy” begins. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    "How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?"

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.

    “Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.”

    I’m perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don’t believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It’s a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone’d realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn’t fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the “unconditional surrender” that WWI didn’t quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation."

    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.
     
    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?

    The Germans seemed able to mount such an offensive with arguably weaker weapons, at least in the tank department and fewer divisions. Of course, they did know maneuver warfare and they did know how to do combined arms warfare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    " In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy."

    How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused? Or did the smashing of the dynasties back in 1918 result in World Peace, and I missed it?

    “How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?”

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization."

    I'm perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don't believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It's a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone'd realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we've never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don't know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn't have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn't fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the "unconditional surrender" that WWI didn't quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18"

    I mistook what was meant by "military dictatorship," I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn't in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.

    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.

    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "And Wilson was a civilian."

    He was Commander-in Chief. And he ruled as a dictator. (The Palmer raids, the jailing of Eugene Debs)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sunbeam
    "Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…"

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don't.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can't think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what's funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, "Three Miraculous Soldiers." I won't bore you with the details, but reading this short story - well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn't make sense, "A Lannister always pays his debts."

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.

    “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.”

    William Faulkner

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials."


    I'm confused as to what you think my case is. If I have one I don't know it. I'm just extracting a few interesting facts about the Saar offensive from two wikipedia articles, one of which repeats two things two German generals said. These are just facts that can be looked up and things that people said.

    My guess is that what the German generals are really saying is that the German Army was in Poland, so it wasn't in the Rhine able to fight the French (and any Allies), and 22 versus about 150 divisions, or something like that on paper, was a very unequal contest.

    There is no cause, case, or point to be made here. It's just an interesting event that is not widely know, that France briefly and tepidly invaded Germany at the start of WWII. These articles are not motivating any particular point of view, as far as I can tell. They just described things that happened, things that pretty much seem to have been the Allied military response to the German invasion of Poland, which someone wondered about.

    Perhaps you are a blogbot? They say AI is taking over...

    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?

    The Germans seemed able to mount such an offensive with arguably weaker weapons, at least in the tank department and fewer divisions. Of course, they did know maneuver warfare and they did know how to do combined arms warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?
     
    Pershing wasn't ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.
     
    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.
     
    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
     
    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.”

    I’m confused as to what you think my case is. If I have one I don’t know it. I’m just extracting a few interesting facts about the Saar offensive from two wikipedia articles, one of which repeats two things two German generals said. These are just facts that can be looked up and things that people said.

    My guess is that what the German generals are really saying is that the German Army was in Poland, so it wasn’t in the Rhine able to fight the French (and any Allies), and 22 versus about 150 divisions, or something like that on paper, was a very unequal contest.

    There is no cause, case, or point to be made here. It’s just an interesting event that is not widely know, that France briefly and tepidly invaded Germany at the start of WWII. These articles are not motivating any particular point of view, as far as I can tell. They just described things that happened, things that pretty much seem to have been the Allied military response to the German invasion of Poland, which someone wondered about.

    Perhaps you are a blogbot? They say AI is taking over…

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.
     
    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.
     
    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South's attempt to secede....

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.
     
    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland...

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.
     
    Dear fellow, I'm quite peace-minded.Indeed, that's one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness...

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.
     
    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc

    “Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…”

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don’t.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what’s funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, “Three Miraculous Soldiers.” I won’t bore you with the details, but reading this short story – well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn’t make sense, “A Lannister always pays his debts.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.
     
    “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.”

    William Faulkner
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Man From K Street

    That figure of 113,000+ military deaths by “other” seems very high, and I am not sure what the basis is for distinguishing it from “combat” deaths.
     
    If you're going from a production rate of <3,000 aircraft per year (the US in 1939) to an industrial framework to support building almost 300,000 aircraft (what US factories churned out by 1945), and are training the requisite number of men to pilot and navigate those planes, you can be sure of a hell of a lot of training (and transit) accidents.

    It isn't as "glorious" as knowing your great-uncle died on the beaches of Anzio or in some Solomon Islands jungle, but a lot of those gold stars on peoples' window flags were from crashes on airfields near places like Wichita or Fort Walton Beach, or the thousand and one airstrips built during the war that are now commuter or general aviation airports.

    Details. Details. No good money making movies there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I funny coincidence: Alain Soral’s site over in France has a video and book promotion today for the French translation of Carroll Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment, or “The Secret History of the Anglo-American Oligarchy” as they call it:

    http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Pierre-Hillard-presente-Histoire-secrete-de-l-oligarchie-anglo-americaine-de-Carroll-Quigley-34247.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    “'Appeasement' can only be viewed as a 'massive screw-up' if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success"

    This is accomplished by the insane way we have of severing the war from its outcome, as if all wars were about were winning wars, hence nonsense like "winning the peace." One wonders why you'd start wars in the first place if the only point of war is to win the war. But we can smother that worry by pretending every damn conflict is existential, and that if we weren't fighting and winning we'd all be dead or slaves. Hence nonsense like Churchill saying he'd put in a good word for the devil in parliament if Hitler invaded hell. Why, in the name of sanity? That's not an idle question, for just around the bend was another devil, Stalin, and it's astounding to me that it never occurred to anyone that Hitler and the Japanese weren't the only problems in the world. Of course, everyone knew. They just plugged their ears and charged forward, which makes them fools.

    Russia had actual war aims, besides winning and World Peace. They were the smart ones. Britain lost every damn thing it pretended to be defending, including the demise of Germany, part of which was propped up as a bulwark against Russia shortly after the slaughter, dismemberment, starvation, enslavement, and looting. Gone was Britain's empire, eminence in world power, the balance of power in Europe, even its independence of foreign policy. Then there was the effort, money, blood, and time invested in the losing venture. Churchill himself admitted as much in his memoirs. The only excuse was to pretend like the war and its peace were two different things. Which, as I said, is insane.

    Precisely. It’s very worthwhile to look at the writings and public remarks of those who saw this at the time and who tried to prevent the calamity. Charles Lindbergh and Ezra Pound are two. The defeat of their courageous efforts by mendacious politicians and their usurious owners is tragic, for each of them personally, and for all of us who live in the vile and dysgenic anti-civilization they sought to forestall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917"

    Who wasn't back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18"

    I mistook what was meant by "military dictatorship," I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn't in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    re: start of WWI

    syon, I must say that was an impressive overview of the background of the outbreak of WWI, better, clearer, more comprehensive than anything else I have ever read. What is your background?

    The only thing I would add, or suggest, is a conclusion I came to some years back when I looked into the issue of ultimate responsibility. I decided that it finally came down to the fact that the ultimate decisions to go to war were in the hands of hereditary monarchs who were intellectually and temperamentally incompetent to be given such authority. This was especially true of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a man with an inferiority complex and a lot of other personality defects. I know less about his cousin the Czar, and even less about Austrian emperor. In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.

    ” In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.”

    How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused? Or did the smashing of the dynasties back in 1918 result in World Peace, and I missed it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?"

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    I don’t think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.
     
    I dunno; Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917.I'm far from confident that things would have just reverted back to how they were in 1913....

    Plus, German dominance over the East would have made things highly unstable in the long term.If Germany had won in 1918, another war (10, 15, 20 years down the road) would have been a virtual certainty.

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?
     
    Pershing wasn't ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler's bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN -- their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler's invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn't Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That's why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation -- he wanted EVERYTHING.

    “Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler’s bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938.”

    When people speak of “appeasement” usually they’re talking about 1938. Of course they could’ve gotten rid of Hitler at various previous points. Why not assassinate him back in 1923, for instance? But then you’ve set yourself up for unintended consequences, because there’s always another Hitler to kill, and maybe worse than Hitler. Plus, who wants to be eternally vigilant over such a thing as the Versailles Treaty. Can you imagine Britain and France willing to invade Germany ever time anyone ever threatened any clause of it from then unto forever? It was a ridiculous position to place themselves in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SFG
    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there's a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that's used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    “there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there’s a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important”

    I’m surprised this article didn’t bring up, at least in passing, the telling fact that Chelsea Clinton worked for NBC, considering Bill came up a couple of times. Not that her position was important, nor that it necessarily had anything to do with an ongoing Anglo-American world domination plot, nor necessarily any conspiracy at all. It’s just that there’s no reason apparent reason that in the natural course of events such a thing as becoming a “special correspondent” for a prominent national news outlet would happen to such a person as Chelsea, unless it’s because of the reason we shall not name.

    Speaking of Clintons, is there any other reason we’d be facing the distinct possibility of another Clinton-Bush election, if not for the existence of conspiracies in these modern times? Maybe, but I don’t want to think of how depressing a place the world would have to be if that sort of thing just happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheLatestInDecay
    "Appeasement" can only be viewed as a "massive screw-up" if one views its opposite -- the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain -- as a massive success. We are instructed to so view the situation by today's Establishment, but it is odd to find that position declared incontrovertible in this forum.

    “’Appeasement’ can only be viewed as a ‘massive screw-up’ if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success”

    This is accomplished by the insane way we have of severing the war from its outcome, as if all wars were about were winning wars, hence nonsense like “winning the peace.” One wonders why you’d start wars in the first place if the only point of war is to win the war. But we can smother that worry by pretending every damn conflict is existential, and that if we weren’t fighting and winning we’d all be dead or slaves. Hence nonsense like Churchill saying he’d put in a good word for the devil in parliament if Hitler invaded hell. Why, in the name of sanity? That’s not an idle question, for just around the bend was another devil, Stalin, and it’s astounding to me that it never occurred to anyone that Hitler and the Japanese weren’t the only problems in the world. Of course, everyone knew. They just plugged their ears and charged forward, which makes them fools.

    Russia had actual war aims, besides winning and World Peace. They were the smart ones. Britain lost every damn thing it pretended to be defending, including the demise of Germany, part of which was propped up as a bulwark against Russia shortly after the slaughter, dismemberment, starvation, enslavement, and looting. Gone was Britain’s empire, eminence in world power, the balance of power in Europe, even its independence of foreign policy. Then there was the effort, money, blood, and time invested in the losing venture. Churchill himself admitted as much in his memoirs. The only excuse was to pretend like the war and its peace were two different things. Which, as I said, is insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
    Precisely. It's very worthwhile to look at the writings and public remarks of those who saw this at the time and who tried to prevent the calamity. Charles Lindbergh and Ezra Pound are two. The defeat of their courageous efforts by mendacious politicians and their usurious owners is tragic, for each of them personally, and for all of us who live in the vile and dysgenic anti-civilization they sought to forestall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence”

    Not true. Think of the politics of Medieval Europe, for instance. History then is all courtly intrigue, dynastic struggles, factional infighting, etc. Partly that’s because there’s not much else to go on; your alternatives are big picture stuff, “social” history, or “micro” history (whatever the heck that is) and biography. And people tire of that easily.

    We also are infinitely more likely to talk about courtly intrigue of the relatively recent past if it happens to have been what you might call Evil History. Nazis plotting the Holocaust, for instance, McCarthy plotting McCarthyism (but not communists plotting anything during McCarthyism, no, no, no), or just how in the heck we bungled Vietnam. With unpopular wars it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the Military Industrial Complex.

    Why is that? Why do orthodox historians allow conspiracy theories for olden times and for evil times, but not for regular contemporary times? One reason is because we live in the Democratic Age, when government is by the people, for the people, and blah, blah, blah. Consent of the governed is necessary for at least some things, and there’s only so much backroom, cigar-chomping, incrowd stuff they can afford to let us believe in. We can’t believe in secret forces behind the Civil War or WWII, for instance, because they remain primary justifications for a lot of our domestic and foreign policies. Vietnam or the Robber Barons (so long as we tell the story that they didn’t buy government but were slew by the valiant Roosevelts), for instance, can have hatched or been hatched by as many schemes as conceivable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mr. Anon
    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln's foolishness as a defence of slavery. I don't see anyone here defending slavery. He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.

    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South’s attempt to secede….

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.

    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland…

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…"

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don't.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can't think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what's funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, "Three Miraculous Soldiers." I won't bore you with the details, but reading this short story - well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn't make sense, "A Lannister always pays his debts."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mr. Anon
    "The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry."

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry. And all in defence of blood-letting. You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry.

    Quite the opposite, dear fellow.That’s why I bring up uncomfortable truths like the Cornerstone Speech

    And all in defence of blood-letting.

    Dear fellow, you are the one who is defending the South’s willingness to kill their fellow Americans in the name of owning people….

    You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    MMMM, and here I’ve always thought that I had excellent diction….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?"

    The French invaded Germany, but:


    "...was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armored division, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions....

    ...Eleven French divisions, part of the Second Army Group, advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line...

    ...against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 mi) and captured at least 12 villages and towns...

    ...four Renault R35 tanks were destroyed by mines...

    ...On 10 September there was a small German counter-attack...

    ...The half-hearted offensive was halted after France occupied the Warndt Forest, 3 sq mi (7.8 km2) of heavily-mined German territory...

    ...The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops....

    ...On 12 September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. ... Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland...

    ...German reports acknowledge the loss of 196 soldiers, plus 114 missing and 356 wounded. They also claim that 11 of their aircraft had been shot down as far as 17 October. The French suffered around 2,000 casualties between dead, wounded, and sick."

     

    The Phoney war then lasted for the next 8 months, before the Germans invaded France:


    "...At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."

    General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." ..."

     

    You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?”

    The French invaded Germany, but:

    “…was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armored division, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions….

    …Eleven French divisions, part of the Second Army Group, advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line…

    …against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 mi) and captured at least 12 villages and towns…

    …four Renault R35 tanks were destroyed by mines…

    …On 10 September there was a small German counter-attack…

    …The half-hearted offensive was halted after France occupied the Warndt Forest, 3 sq mi (7.8 km2) of heavily-mined German territory…

    …The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops….

    …On 12 September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. … Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland…

    …German reports acknowledge the loss of 196 soldiers, plus 114 missing and 356 wounded. They also claim that 11 of their aircraft had been shot down as far as 17 October. The French suffered around 2,000 casualties between dead, wounded, and sick.”

    The Phoney war then lasted for the next 8 months, before the Germans invaded France:

    “…At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that “if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions.”

    General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army “could only have held out for one or two weeks.” …”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler's bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN -- their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler's invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn't Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That's why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation -- he wanted EVERYTHING.

    Thanks for the heads-up about the German invasion of Poland. I must have dropped the comic book in the bathtub before I got to that part, and by the time I picked up the thread of the story Sgt. Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos were already on the scene kicking Nazi ass and Winston Churchill was sitting up in bed in his pajamas to make a rousing speech about not judging s man by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

    It sounds as though you’ve learned all you need to know on the subject from the works of Mel Brooks, but if you want to go deeper you can try FREEDOM BETRAYED by conspiracy theorist Herbert Hoover. THE TRIUMPH OF PROVOCATION by Jozef Mackiewicz is also worth a look.

    Far be it from me to suggest that Adolf Hitler was a man without flaws or failings. As an account of what went wrong Drieu La Rochelle’s “Notes sur l’Allemagne” (1945) is astute.

    By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charlie
    Well, as a card-carrying member, let me reassure everyone that conspiracies and deep states don't really work. At least in the US. Rather like why fraternity membership doesn't really make you into a master of business. It may help along the way, but it is very attenutated.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/09/confessions-of-an-american-illuminati/

    If you place Quigley into a broader painting of the 20th century, he looks a lot like Lyndon LaRouche and other Catholic anti-freemasons. I'm pretty sure the Mason's haven't been running the country since 1830 or when Andrew Jackson threw them out. France and Italy -- maybe that happened later.

    That said, this is fun read:

    http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html


    I'd say we all are victims of larger atomic splitting project -- remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I'm not sure what is left. But again I'm pretty sure that isn't the freemasons.

    “— remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I’m not sure what is left”.

    The goal is the centralization of political, economic and military power into smaller blocs of international federations (like the EU) with these groupings able to fight amongst and align themselves for various flavors of dictatorial power not requiring consensus from individual nations. Zbigniew Brzeziński’s book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era reads like an update to Carrol Quigley’s magnum opus. His sons were advisers to both the Obama and McCain 2008 presidential campaigns, and his daughter is one of the AM gatekeepers on MSNBC.

    A strong, moral and traditional USA were the greatest roadblocks to achieving this type of global order, and Cultural Marxism and economic globalization have been the most effective tools for weakening the US and trust in it’s once hallowed institutions. Your list covers most of the things required to effectively bring a nation to it’s knees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cesare
    WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn't been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn't ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the “people” demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Amen about the bias against Germany so often displayed on this site.
     
    Are you sure you haven't submitted this comment to the wrong website?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cesare
    WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn't been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn't ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    No, he fell between fools.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kylie

    Little of this is deeply understood because so few Anglos and as good as no Americans are comfortable with that magnificent instrument which is the German language.
     
    Ein gleiches

    Über allen Gipfeln
    Ist Ruh,
    In allen Wipfeln
    Spürest du
    Kaum einen Hauch;
    Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde.
    Warte nur, balde
    Ruhest du auch.

    Listen to it set to music by Schubert, another of those troublesome German speakers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery. I don’t see anyone here defending slavery. He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.
     
    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.
     
    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South's attempt to secede....

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.
     
    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland...

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.
     
    Dear fellow, I'm quite peace-minded.Indeed, that's one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness...

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.
     
    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry. And all in defence of blood-letting. You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry.
     
    Quite the opposite, dear fellow.That's why I bring up uncomfortable truths like the Cornerstone Speech

    And all in defence of blood-letting.
     
    Dear fellow, you are the one who is defending the South's willingness to kill their fellow Americans in the name of owning people....

    You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.
     
    MMMM, and here I've always thought that I had excellent diction....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Reg Cæsar

    The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo
     
    "Slowly"?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861.

    ““Slowly”?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861.”

    Yeah. As a Southerner I think the antebellum South was doomed. To use a phrases it had all sorts of “Inherent Contradictions” built into it.

    Not that I am a big fan of the busybody North. But my take is the planters were doomed in the not so long run.

    I can also tell you that pre-fertilizer farming in the South was a very untenable thing in some areas. Louisiana and anywhere around the Mississippi have very fertile soil. South Carolina was played out.

    To be blunt though if you are making your living farming, the South isn’t a very good agricultural province. Iowa is a good agricultural province. So is Ohio though we really don’t think of it that way.

    But it wasn’t so easy to make a living doing it in vast areas of the South.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    It’s very hard to make a case that slavery was much of an “economic necessity” in the North.In Massachusetts, for example, slaves never exceeded approx. 2% of the population.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    Without the active participation of Black African rulers, the Atlantic Slave Trade would have been vastly smaller.Vastly.

    As for what the South would have looked like sans huge numbers of Blacks….That’s tricky.The obvious method would be to use “White Man’s Counties” (areas in the backcountry South that had few to no slaves and were frequently actively hostile to slavery) as models, but those areas existed in relation to the slave-holding areas of the South.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stealth
    Did you go for the "quality over quantity" approach yesterday, Mr. Sailer? I guess one could say that this entry covers both, though. Very good.

    I always wanted to read Tragedy and Hope, but never got around to it. Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    I wrote “Tragedy and Hope 101″ for those, like yourself, who don’t have the time to read 1300 pages of small print. You can read it, for free, at http://www.TragedyAndHope.INFO

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn’t been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn’t ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, he fell between fools.
    , @German reader
    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the "people" demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary.

    Because those who went to “the North” (wherever that is) had the sense to choose a climate the Creator made habitable for white men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Iffier for people who are always on the lookout for invidious distinctions and who have some kind of axe to grind against the Germans, sure.
     
    Well, the Germans do make that rather easy:

    Ludendorff was the chief manager of the German war effort, with the popular general von Hindenburg his pliant front man.[citation needed] Ludendorff advocated unrestricted submarine warfare to break the British blockade, which became an important factor in bringing the United States into the war in April 1917. He proposed massive annexations and colonization in Eastern Europe in the event of the victory of the German Reich, and was one of the main supporters of the Polish Border Strip.[10] Ludendorff planned German settlement and Germanization in conquered areas combined with expulsions of the native population, and envisioned an eastern German empire whose resources would be used in future war with Great Britain and United States[11][12] Ludendorff’s plans went as far as making Crimea a German colony,[13] although he explicitly denied ever having advocated the colonisation of Crimea in his memoirs published in 1919.[
     

    No, I would prefer to blame the bloody minded fool who prosecuted the war and in so doing killed 600,000 of (by his own lights) his own countrymen. There would have been no war if the North had let the southern states dissolve the compact that they had voluntarily entered into.
     
    And I prefer to blame bloody-minded lunatics who wanted to wage war and kill Americans in the hundreds of thousands in the name of owning people.To each his own.

    Given your man-crush on bloody tyrants like Lincoln, your protestations about the fate of western civilization are less than convincing.
     
    Dear fellow, I feel nothing but distaste for bloody tyrants like Jefferson Davis.The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo.Thomas Jefferson noted what was happening:

    There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.
     

    The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo

    “Slowly”?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "“Slowly”?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861."

    Yeah. As a Southerner I think the antebellum South was doomed. To use a phrases it had all sorts of "Inherent Contradictions" built into it.

    Not that I am a big fan of the busybody North. But my take is the planters were doomed in the not so long run.

    I can also tell you that pre-fertilizer farming in the South was a very untenable thing in some areas. Louisiana and anywhere around the Mississippi have very fertile soil. South Carolina was played out.

    To be blunt though if you are making your living farming, the South isn't a very good agricultural province. Iowa is a good agricultural province. So is Ohio though we really don't think of it that way.

    But it wasn't so easy to make a living doing it in vast areas of the South.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    The two biggest factors in Japan’s decision to surrender were Russia entering the war against them (raising the prospect of Russia occupying Japan’s home islands) and our agreement to let them keep their emperor. The nukes were for Stalin’s benefit.
     
    People keep on attempting to believe that the atomic bombings had no effect, which is absurd.Imperial Japan had a lot of very bad stuff happen to it in a very short period of time:


    August 6, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

    August 8, 1945
    The Soviet Union declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

    August 9, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

    Japan had a Really Bad Week in early-mid-August 1945.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Loved this essay. Very informative. I cannot help but imagine how amazingly manipulated we are today. And with greater degrees universal social connectivity growing by leaps and bounds inside every culture, worldwide influence is made easier, all the more. It makes me wonder out loud, …..the neocons have this all down, and the history must be hardly surprising, it must be old news to them…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German reader
    Amen about the bias against Germany so often displayed on this site.

    It is almost entirely based on ignorance and something like zero knowledge of what Germany actually was and in many important respects still is: a nation of intellect, of culture, of philosophy, of science, of Technik. The Germans love music, their forests, their local traditions; their painting and sculpture and architecture are the equal of Spain, Italy and France (and beat the philistine English hollow).
    Little of this is deeply understood because so few Anglos and as good as no Americans are comfortable with that magnificent instrument which is the German language.
    A German victory in World War One? I'll tell you what it would have brought about. In sum, the survival of monarchy and Christianity (in other words of Christendom). In detail: the re-emergence of France as a monarchy, the restoration of the same in Portugal, the establishment of an independent and monarchical Poland and Ukraine, both probably under Habsburg kings, renewed vigour for the Papacy, a weakening of the appeal of both republicanism and democracy in favour of the hierarchical and aristocratic principles and finally, as happened after the defeat of Napoleon, an explosion of artistic and scientific creativity throughout Europe, Russian included.

    Compared to what the alternative gave us, I truly cannot imagine why anyone calling himself a conservative hesitates to say "es lebe Deutschland, es lebe der Kaiser".

    Little of this is deeply understood because so few Anglos and as good as no Americans are comfortable with that magnificent instrument which is the German language.

    Ein gleiches

    Über allen Gipfeln
    Ist Ruh,
    In allen Wipfeln
    Spürest du
    Kaum einen Hauch;
    Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde.
    Warte nur, balde
    Ruhest du auch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German reader
    Listen to it set to music by Schubert, another of those troublesome German speakers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dave Pinsen
    MacArthur, as a character in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, explains to a Marine that the Army is different in that, "we have these things called strategy and tactics..."

    If it weren’t for the Marines our armed forces would be totally helpless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sunbeam
    " The best we can hope for is to transmit as much as we can of the the Europoid Enlightenment mentality, and the European culture — which includes but is not restricted to England and Germany — because that’s the only hope for continuity."

    Is there an example anywhere in the world that this has ever occurred? Sure people wear business suits, they operate in an international system that is based on European customs and traditions.

    But my take is at some point in the near future, China becomes recognized as the key linchpin of the world economy (heck it's really close now - some might say it is). You know the drill, deals won't need to be made in dollars, etc.

    Then relatively quickly the international system will change if the Chinese just don't really want some details of it. I kind of expect the business suits to last, but things like copyrights, patents...

    Well there is going to be a new sheriff in town, stirring the waters.

    And you'll see a lot of countries adapt to the new order, and new thinking without skipping a beat or having any angst about it.

    The transmission of Greek culture to the Romans, Eastern Church, and the Arabs is the closest approximation to a successful transfer of culture that I can think of.

    Whether it takes place or not, I don’t know. Call me in 100 years. I am however relatively sure that there is nothing in the current cultural landscape that will survive. I mean, videos of Anglo Saxons like Miley Cyrus playing with inflatable penises on stage will not be the topic of profound academic discussion 100 years from now. We done jumped the shark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
     
    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).For example, Massachusetts ended slavery in the 178os via a series of legal decisions*, but most states followed Pennsylvania in adopting a gradual emancipation scheme**.Of course, ending slavery in the North was a simpler matter than it was in the South, as slaves formed a much smaller percentage of the population.


    *Cf the Quock Walker case:

    Quock Walker, also known as Kwaku or Quok Walker (b. 1753 - d. unknown), was an American slave who sued for and won his freedom in June 1781 in a case citing language in the new Massachusetts Constitution (1780) that declared all men to be born free and equal. The case is credited with helping abolish slavery in Massachusetts, although the 1780 constitution was never amended to explicitly prohibit the practice. Massachusetts was the first state of the union to effectively and fully abolish slavery. By the 1790 federal census, no slaves were recorded in the state.

     

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



    **

    An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Pennsylvania legislature on 1 March 1780, was one of the first attempts by a government in the Western Hemisphere to begin an abolition of slavery.[1]

    The Act prohibited further importation of slaves into the state, required Pennsylvania slaveholders to annually register their slaves (with forfeiture for noncompliance, and manumission for the enslaved), and established that all children born in Pennsylvania were free persons regardless of the condition or race of their parents.

    Those enslaved in Pennsylvania before the 1780 law went into effect remained enslaved for life. Another act of the Pennsylvania legislature freed them in 1847.

    Pennsylvania's "gradual abolition" — rather than Massachusetts's 1783 "instant abolition" — became a model for freeing slaves in other Northern states.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_Gradual_Abolition_of_Slavery

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.

    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary.
     
    Because those who went to "the North" (wherever that is) had the sense to choose a climate the Creator made habitable for white men.
    , @syonredux

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.
     
    It's very hard to make a case that slavery was much of an "economic necessity" in the North.In Massachusetts, for example, slaves never exceeded approx. 2% of the population.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.
     
    Without the active participation of Black African rulers, the Atlantic Slave Trade would have been vastly smaller.Vastly.

    As for what the South would have looked like sans huge numbers of Blacks....That's tricky.The obvious method would be to use "White Man's Counties" (areas in the backcountry South that had few to no slaves and were frequently actively hostile to slavery) as models, but those areas existed in relation to the slave-holding areas of the South.

    , @Mr. Anon
    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln's foolishness as a defence of slavery. I don't see anyone here defending slavery. He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dave Pinsen
    MacArthur, as a character in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, explains to a Marine that the Army is different in that, "we have these things called strategy and tactics..."

    Marines study those things too. The important difference between army and marines is that if the marines dawdle and try to improve their kill/death ratio at the expense of establishing the beach head before the enemy reinforces, their mission has failed and they have to repeat the whole bloody affair twice or more. See Gallipoli for a good example of what not to do.

    This is why Marines are noted for their aggression.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    David, Damn, I ended too quickly. Ask the people of the Philippines, Manchuria, Korea, Burma and Ceylon about Japanese genocide in Asia and Southeast Asia.

    There weren’t any Japanese genocides in Asia and SE Asia. There were atrocities and war crimes, for sure, but no genocides. That’s why Asian countries today complain to Japan about the forced labor, prostitution, and atrocities such as the Nanking massacre, not genocides. If there had been genocides or attempted genocides, they’d be making hay out of that, not about “comfort women”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SPMoore8
    Ask the Israelis. Facts on the ground count for a lot.

    Right, but whereas Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. -- that is, peoples who have a lot in common -- can move easily to and fro among themselves and even live among each other, the same cannot be said for Israelis and Palestinians.

    I mean it's just a different world since 1989 as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. Which was the impetus behind Walesa's well known statement that Germany and Poland should unify.

    It's not that hard to understand historically. Central Europe (i.e., "Germany" or whatever you want to call it) was the gateway for Eastern Europe to the West, and was also tightly bound to Eastern Europe historically. Personally, I would prefer not to look at it as "Germans" vs "Slavs" vs "Magyars"; it's just a reflection of the geographical reality on the ground. The nations in the strip between Estonia down to Rumania were largely "Westernized" by virtue of their contact with "Germany" and ask anyone from the region and, to the extent that the idea of a "Third Way" is impractical they'd much rather be associated with Germany than with Russia, which they all view as dangerous, corrupt, and uncultured.

    Concepts like "revanchism" or "irridentism" or "justifying ethnic cleansing" really have no traction in Central or Eastern Europe today. Yes, there are always some cranky nationalists on all sides who live for grievances, but for most people over there it's not relevant.

    On the other hand, when the Israelis and Palestinians form a common union, I'd like to hear about it.

    Which means that the USA, with 100 million Hispanic Amerinds and Mestizos by 2060, is going to be in really, really bad shape….

    It depends on how they are integrated. It's not in Mexico's interest to see the US degenerated to its level; and it's not in the interest of the Latin immigrants to kill the golden goose. But, racially and ethnically? It's inevitable; Europoids stopped having children after the World Wars and it's all downhill for them now. The best we can hope for is to transmit as much as we can of the the Europoid Enlightenment mentality, and the European culture -- which includes but is not restricted to England and Germany -- because that's the only hope for continuity.

    ” The best we can hope for is to transmit as much as we can of the the Europoid Enlightenment mentality, and the European culture — which includes but is not restricted to England and Germany — because that’s the only hope for continuity.”

    Is there an example anywhere in the world that this has ever occurred? Sure people wear business suits, they operate in an international system that is based on European customs and traditions.

    But my take is at some point in the near future, China becomes recognized as the key linchpin of the world economy (heck it’s really close now – some might say it is). You know the drill, deals won’t need to be made in dollars, etc.

    Then relatively quickly the international system will change if the Chinese just don’t really want some details of it. I kind of expect the business suits to last, but things like copyrights, patents…

    Well there is going to be a new sheriff in town, stirring the waters.

    And you’ll see a lot of countries adapt to the new order, and new thinking without skipping a beat or having any angst about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The transmission of Greek culture to the Romans, Eastern Church, and the Arabs is the closest approximation to a successful transfer of culture that I can think of.

    Whether it takes place or not, I don't know. Call me in 100 years. I am however relatively sure that there is nothing in the current cultural landscape that will survive. I mean, videos of Anglo Saxons like Miley Cyrus playing with inflatable penises on stage will not be the topic of profound academic discussion 100 years from now. We done jumped the shark.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ask the Israelis. Facts on the ground count for a lot.

    Right, but whereas Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. — that is, peoples who have a lot in common — can move easily to and fro among themselves and even live among each other, the same cannot be said for Israelis and Palestinians.

    I mean it’s just a different world since 1989 as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. Which was the impetus behind Walesa’s well known statement that Germany and Poland should unify.

    It’s not that hard to understand historically. Central Europe (i.e., “Germany” or whatever you want to call it) was the gateway for Eastern Europe to the West, and was also tightly bound to Eastern Europe historically. Personally, I would prefer not to look at it as “Germans” vs “Slavs” vs “Magyars”; it’s just a reflection of the geographical reality on the ground. The nations in the strip between Estonia down to Rumania were largely “Westernized” by virtue of their contact with “Germany” and ask anyone from the region and, to the extent that the idea of a “Third Way” is impractical they’d much rather be associated with Germany than with Russia, which they all view as dangerous, corrupt, and uncultured.

    Concepts like “revanchism” or “irridentism” or “justifying ethnic cleansing” really have no traction in Central or Eastern Europe today. Yes, there are always some cranky nationalists on all sides who live for grievances, but for most people over there it’s not relevant.

    On the other hand, when the Israelis and Palestinians form a common union, I’d like to hear about it.

    Which means that the USA, with 100 million Hispanic Amerinds and Mestizos by 2060, is going to be in really, really bad shape….

    It depends on how they are integrated. It’s not in Mexico’s interest to see the US degenerated to its level; and it’s not in the interest of the Latin immigrants to kill the golden goose. But, racially and ethnically? It’s inevitable; Europoids stopped having children after the World Wars and it’s all downhill for them now. The best we can hope for is to transmit as much as we can of the the Europoid Enlightenment mentality, and the European culture — which includes but is not restricted to England and Germany — because that’s the only hope for continuity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    " The best we can hope for is to transmit as much as we can of the the Europoid Enlightenment mentality, and the European culture — which includes but is not restricted to England and Germany — because that’s the only hope for continuity."

    Is there an example anywhere in the world that this has ever occurred? Sure people wear business suits, they operate in an international system that is based on European customs and traditions.

    But my take is at some point in the near future, China becomes recognized as the key linchpin of the world economy (heck it's really close now - some might say it is). You know the drill, deals won't need to be made in dollars, etc.

    Then relatively quickly the international system will change if the Chinese just don't really want some details of it. I kind of expect the business suits to last, but things like copyrights, patents...

    Well there is going to be a new sheriff in town, stirring the waters.

    And you'll see a lot of countries adapt to the new order, and new thinking without skipping a beat or having any angst about it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SPMoore8
    Well, I grew up in Berkeley and went to public schools there and then after my time in the service I attended Berkeley, and got my BA there. But I have been familiar with the campus since about 1965, I am nostalgic for the old Quonset huts in the Eucalyptus Grove behind the Biology building. But I haven't been back in 35 years. I had many fine professors in history and literature. And of course the street scene in those days was quite memorable.

    I don't know if the intellectual niveau back then was at its height, or not. If I say yes, then I will be applying for my curmudgeon license along with Social Security. Not sure I want to do that. I will say that I knew, at Cal, at Stanford, and as my neighbors, and on the East Coast, large numbers of Eastern Europeans, including many Jews, and while they might have had grievances against Germany, they never would have evaluated Germans as simplistically as I see here. On the contrary, they admired them, even when they bore (sometimes understandable) grudges.

    Slottman and Brentano and the openly Fascist professor of Italian history, an Englishman with a bristly mustache and a limp, and a splendid Dutchman who taught us his nation’s exploits (it was while taking his class that we die-hard students watched tear gas float by the classroom windows in 1968), and a brilliant young Jew who had converted to Calvinism and taught diplomatic history (he wasn’t given tenure; perhaps a Calvinist Jew was too much for what was still a very conservative department) – those were the historians I remember best, although the occasional guest professors were unforgettable , like (Sir) John Hale for the Renaissance and a man called Peter Brown with a terrible stutter for St Augustine, and Etienne Gilson for Thomistic thought.
    There was a splendid Englishman in the English department too: was his name Robinson? He loved my use of Kantorowitz’s The King’s Two Bodies, so I have a rosy memory of him.
    There was one wonderful old Polish Jew (who had become a Catholic back in Poland) in both the philosophy and mathematics departments. I took logic from him. Tarski – I wager some of the commentators here will have heard of him.
    Perhaps I didn’t really mean that WE were the best, but that our teachers certainly were.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SPMoore8
    And it also wrote finis to worries about German revanchism.

    On the contrary. You don't get rid of revanchism by getting rid of the people. Kant is still buried in Kaliningrad. In fact, the argument was common 30 years ago that the reason the Soviets moved Poland West was to make them totally dependent on Moscow. But Poland is better off and on better terms with Germany today, which is not surprising because of the historical linkages.

    The big problem in the East has always been the presence of mixed populations.

    Mixed populations are only a problem if you want complete ethnic homogeneity in a modern ethno-nationalist state.

    Ethnic minorities mean trouble, especially when they can appeal to neighboring states where they form the majority.Heck, that’s one of the reasons why the USA should not allow any immigration from Mexico.

    Ethnic minorities are just a marker to denote a disempowered group from an empowered group. In this case, ethnicity, in some other case, religion, in still another case, race. It's all just symbolic for who whom, and if the differences for forming an opposition are insufficient, you gin one up.

    And it also wrote finis to worries about German revanchism.

    On the contrary. You don’t get rid of revanchism by getting rid of the people.

    Yeah, but it’s always good to have your people occupying the territory.Ask the Israelis.Facts on the ground count for a lot.

    The big problem in the East has always been the presence of mixed populations.

    Mixed populations are only a problem if you want complete ethnic homogeneity in a modern ethno-nationalist state.

    Well, yeah.But I’m rather fond of modern, ethno-nation states…

    Ethnic minorities mean trouble, especially when they can appeal to neighboring states where they form the majority.Heck, that’s one of the reasons why the USA should not allow any immigration from Mexico.

    Ethnic minorities are just a marker to denote a disempowered group from an empowered group. In this case, ethnicity, in some other case, religion, in still another case, race. It’s all just symbolic for who whom, and if the differences for forming an opposition are insufficient, you gin one up.

    Of course, race, ethnicity, and religion are usually intertwined to varying degrees.

    And it’s also best to make sure that the “disempowered” are of the same race/ethny/nation as the empowered.

    Which means that the USA, with 100 million Hispanic Amerinds and Mestizos by 2060, is going to be in really, really bad shape….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.
     
    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).For example, Massachusetts ended slavery in the 178os via a series of legal decisions*, but most states followed Pennsylvania in adopting a gradual emancipation scheme**.Of course, ending slavery in the North was a simpler matter than it was in the South, as slaves formed a much smaller percentage of the population.

    *Cf the Quock Walker case:

    Quock Walker, also known as Kwaku or Quok Walker (b. 1753 – d. unknown), was an American slave who sued for and won his freedom in June 1781 in a case citing language in the new Massachusetts Constitution (1780) that declared all men to be born free and equal. The case is credited with helping abolish slavery in Massachusetts, although the 1780 constitution was never amended to explicitly prohibit the practice. Massachusetts was the first state of the union to effectively and fully abolish slavery. By the 1790 federal census, no slaves were recorded in the state.

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

    **

    An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Pennsylvania legislature on 1 March 1780, was one of the first attempts by a government in the Western Hemisphere to begin an abolition of slavery.[1]

    The Act prohibited further importation of slaves into the state, required Pennsylvania slaveholders to annually register their slaves (with forfeiture for noncompliance, and manumission for the enslaved), and established that all children born in Pennsylvania were free persons regardless of the condition or race of their parents.

    Those enslaved in Pennsylvania before the 1780 law went into effect remained enslaved for life. Another act of the Pennsylvania legislature freed them in 1847.

    Pennsylvania’s “gradual abolition” — rather than Massachusetts’s 1783 “instant abolition” — became a model for freeing slaves in other Northern states.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    The two biggest factors in Japan’s decision to surrender were Russia entering the war against them (raising the prospect of Russia occupying Japan’s home islands) and our agreement to let them keep their emperor. The nukes were for Stalin’s benefit.
     
    People keep on attempting to believe that the atomic bombings had no effect, which is absurd.Imperial Japan had a lot of very bad stuff happen to it in a very short period of time:


    August 6, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

    August 8, 1945
    The Soviet Union declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

    August 9, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

    Syon, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believed the Soviets continued to pursue the war against Japan in Manchuria, even after the surrender. So they continued to get an ass kicking even after saying …” no mas.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    It is ignorant rubbish to speak of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine as an outrage to the spirit of the age. Two principles clashed here - the sanctity of established borders and the unification of single nationalities - and the way the conflict between them was resolved to Germany's advantage was no different from what France had done in annexing Savoy and Nice, or was trying to do in annexing Luxemburg.

    It is ignorant rubbish to speak of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine as an outrage to the spirit of the age. Two principles clashed here – the sanctity of established borders and the unification of single nationalities – and the way the conflict between them was resolved to Germany’s advantage was no different from what France had done in annexing Savoy and Nice, or was trying to do in annexing Luxemburg.

    Well, it was different in that it made the French really angry…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Easy if you conflate the nazis with Wilhelmanian Germany, which is exactly what someone – you for example – who argues disingenuously is wont to do.
     
    Better men than I have pointed out the continuity between Hitler and Imperial Germany when it comes to the East....

    And for every awful, brutal policy advocated by Ludendorff you point out (and not without reason), one could mention an equal number of such policies by the British or French – who’s generalship amounted to willful murder of their own soldiers, whose profligate use and wasatage of colonial soldiers, who had no real stake int he outcome of the war, was criminal.
     
    I'm unaware of any studies showing that the Germans were superior to the French and the British when it came to the "willful murder of their own soldiers." Here's a comparative look at losses:

    Britain & Empire: 908,371 (everyone); 997,000 (Paschall)
    Africans: 38,723 laborers and porters died in hospital in East Africa 1917-18 (E&C)
    Australia: 53,560 KIA + 6,300 other deaths = 59,860 (E&C); 60,000 (Eckhardt; Urlanis); 61,720 (AWM)
    Canada: 55,000 (Eckhardt); 61,000 (Urlanis); 58,990 KIA + 3,830 other deaths = 62,820 (E&C)
    India: 25,000 (Eckhardt); 54,000 (Urlanis)
    New Zealand: 16,000 (Eckhardt; Urlanis); 16,710 (E&C)
    UK: 702,410 (E&C); 715,000 (Urlanis); 1,000,000 (Eckhardt)
    South Africa: 7,000 (Urlanis); 7,120 (E&C: whites only)


    France & Empire: 1,327,000 (Urlanis); 1,357,800 (everyone); 1,385,300 (E&C); 1,390,000 (Paschall); 1,630,000 (Eckhardt)
    French Colonies: 58,000 (E&C); 114,000 (Urlanis)

    Germany: 1,773,700 (everyone); 1,850,000 (Paschall); 2,037,000 (E&C, Urlanis); 2,400,000 (Eckhardt)
    Africans: 14,000 (E&C)
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#WW1

    As for the use of colonial troops, do you really imagine that the Germans (assuming that they had them in the same numbers as their enemies) would have balked at using them?

    “And I prefer to blame bloody-minded lunatics who wanted to wage war and kill Americans in the hundreds of thousands in the name of owning people. To each his own.”

    Beneath your outer veneer of a louche old poofter, you really are a mendacious liar, aren’t you?
     
    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    “Dear fellow, I feel nothing but distaste for bloody tyrants like Jefferson Davis.The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo.Thomas Jefferson noted what was happening:”

    The war could have ended in May of 1861, if the Union had simply granted the South what the Founding Fathers had wanted of England.
     
    And the war wouldn't have started at all if the South hadn't tried to secede.As for the Founders, they invoked the Anglo principle of resistance to tyranny.You know, the whole lack of representation in Parliament business.The South, of course, was represented in Congress, indeed, disproportionately so.

    And surely you know that Lincoln would have been content with permitting the continuation of slavery in an intact Union.
     
    Which simply further indicates the insanity of the Southern Fire-Eaters...

    Owning people had nothing to do with it save as a tactice later int he war.
     
    It had a great deal to do with Southern motives, dear fellow.As confederate VP Stephens noted:

    But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

     


    And Jefferson would no doubt have sided with the South in the civil war. But, clearly, dishonesty is something you are quite comfortable with.
     
    It's quite possible that Jefferson would have sided with the Confederacy.When all is said and done, he was a lesser man than Washington, and slavery had badly distorted his mind (cf his own observations on the effects of slavery).

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
     
    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).For example, Massachusetts ended slavery in the 178os via a series of legal decisions*, but most states followed Pennsylvania in adopting a gradual emancipation scheme**.Of course, ending slavery in the North was a simpler matter than it was in the South, as slaves formed a much smaller percentage of the population.


    *Cf the Quock Walker case:

    Quock Walker, also known as Kwaku or Quok Walker (b. 1753 - d. unknown), was an American slave who sued for and won his freedom in June 1781 in a case citing language in the new Massachusetts Constitution (1780) that declared all men to be born free and equal. The case is credited with helping abolish slavery in Massachusetts, although the 1780 constitution was never amended to explicitly prohibit the practice. Massachusetts was the first state of the union to effectively and fully abolish slavery. By the 1790 federal census, no slaves were recorded in the state.

     

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



    **

    An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Pennsylvania legislature on 1 March 1780, was one of the first attempts by a government in the Western Hemisphere to begin an abolition of slavery.[1]

    The Act prohibited further importation of slaves into the state, required Pennsylvania slaveholders to annually register their slaves (with forfeiture for noncompliance, and manumission for the enslaved), and established that all children born in Pennsylvania were free persons regardless of the condition or race of their parents.

    Those enslaved in Pennsylvania before the 1780 law went into effect remained enslaved for life. Another act of the Pennsylvania legislature freed them in 1847.

    Pennsylvania's "gradual abolition" — rather than Massachusetts's 1783 "instant abolition" — became a model for freeing slaves in other Northern states.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_Gradual_Abolition_of_Slavery
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Buffalo Joe
    Art, The Navy paved the way for MacArthur. The island hopping battles allowed for fighter cover for bombers and fighter cover and tactical bombing for landings. MacArthur waded ashore from a US Naval landing craft, launched from a naval transport vessel.

    Art is referring the to divided US command structure for the Pacific war. MacArthur was in command of the Southwest Pacific (New Guinea and the Philippines) while Nimitz commanded both naval and ground forces in the Central Pacific (Mariana Islands, Iwo Jima, Okinowa, Guam, Palau.) Nimitz’s invasion of Peleliu in the Palaus in particular has come in for criticism. It wound up gutting the 1st Marine Division for very little gain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • And it also wrote finis to worries about German revanchism.

    On the contrary. You don’t get rid of revanchism by getting rid of the people. Kant is still buried in Kaliningrad. In fact, the argument was common 30 years ago that the reason the Soviets moved Poland West was to make them totally dependent on Moscow. But Poland is better off and on better terms with Germany today, which is not surprising because of the historical linkages.

    The big problem in the East has always been the presence of mixed populations.

    Mixed populations are only a problem if you want complete ethnic homogeneity in a modern ethno-nationalist state.

    Ethnic minorities mean trouble, especially when they can appeal to neighboring states where they form the majority.Heck, that’s one of the reasons why the USA should not allow any immigration from Mexico.

    Ethnic minorities are just a marker to denote a disempowered group from an empowered group. In this case, ethnicity, in some other case, religion, in still another case, race. It’s all just symbolic for who whom, and if the differences for forming an opposition are insufficient, you gin one up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    And it also wrote finis to worries about German revanchism.

    On the contrary. You don’t get rid of revanchism by getting rid of the people.
     
    Yeah, but it's always good to have your people occupying the territory.Ask the Israelis.Facts on the ground count for a lot.

    The big problem in the East has always been the presence of mixed populations.

    Mixed populations are only a problem if you want complete ethnic homogeneity in a modern ethno-nationalist state.
     
    Well, yeah.But I'm rather fond of modern, ethno-nation states...

    Ethnic minorities mean trouble, especially when they can appeal to neighboring states where they form the majority.Heck, that’s one of the reasons why the USA should not allow any immigration from Mexico.

    Ethnic minorities are just a marker to denote a disempowered group from an empowered group. In this case, ethnicity, in some other case, religion, in still another case, race. It’s all just symbolic for who whom, and if the differences for forming an opposition are insufficient, you gin one up.
     
    Of course, race, ethnicity, and religion are usually intertwined to varying degrees.

    And it's also best to make sure that the "disempowered" are of the same race/ethny/nation as the empowered.

    Which means that the USA, with 100 million Hispanic Amerinds and Mestizos by 2060, is going to be in really, really bad shape....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Steve Sailer
    So what else accounts for 114,000 non-combat deaths? Transport plane crashes? Training accidents? Disease in training camps? Truck crashes? Pilots driving drunk, like in "The Right Stuff?" A peculiar brilliance of Len Deighton's WWII novel "Bomber" about a British raid on a German town is that practically everything that happens isn't exactly what was ordered, and a striking number of the characters die in random non-combat accidents.

    Lots of death from disease. Guadalcanal is not noted for its healthful climate, and tramping around the jungle while living in holes is not a percentage occupation. Historically, prior to WW2 the number of deaths from disease exceeded combat deaths, often by a multiple. I think WW2 was the first war in which this was not the case. Training camp sanitation was not so bad, but out in the field there were all sorts of exotic tropical diseases plus the usual malaria, typhus, and the lot.

    In WW2 the 114K dead was chalked up to “disease and accident.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SPMoore8
    Which is why the Poles, Czechs, etc, wanted the Germans out after 1945.Slavs were tired of being killed in the name of German revanchism

    And, in return, they got 40-50 years of Soviet domination. Good deal.

    But we both know it wasn't that simple. The main benefit of driving out the Germans was to seize their assets, break up the middle class, and facilitate a communist takeover.

    The other problem is that the communists re-drew the map of Europe in 1945, after the victors re-drew the map in 1918.

    For example, the Sudetenland and the South Tyrol had been German speaking since forever. It was the decision of the Allies in 1918 to make those Czech and Italian lands respectively; the Italians have always been tolerant of the locals but the Czechs were not. After V-E Day, Benes seized an opportunity to solve the problem ruthlessly. Even Vaclav Havel apologized for that.

    In the case of Poland, it was even more complicated. After WW1, the Poles got a corridor to the sea (which created the Danzig problem), and they also got West Prussia from Germany, and there were still something like 3-4 MM Germans in post-Versailles Poland, not to mention equivalent numbers of Ukrainians (in the East) and unassimilated, i.e., Yiddish speaking Jews all over. How well did the Poles handle this? Depends on who you read.

    After World War Two, however, it was much more dramatic. The Poles lost their historical cities of Lwow (L'viv) and Wilno (Vilnius) and were moved three steps to the left, obtaining Breslau (Wroclaw) which had been German speaking forever as well as the old Hanseatic city of Stettin (Szczeczin) which had always been German. Of course, this meant not only expelling the ten million or so Germans who had been living there (and, incidentally, seizing all of their assets) and then handing them out to migrants, usually from the Eastern borderlands in Galicia, etc. whose assets were in turn seized and handed over to the Lithuanians and Ukrainians respectively.

    One of the good things about the EU is that Europeans can now live wherever they want, and that includes Alsace and Danzig.

    Which is why the Poles, Czechs, etc, wanted the Germans out after 1945.Slavs were tired of being killed in the name of German revanchism

    And, in return, they got 40-50 years of Soviet domination. Good deal.

    Well, compared to things like the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost:

    Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    In the guise of anti-partisan actions, the Germans killed perhaps three quarters of a million people, about 350,000 in Belarus alone, and lower but comparable numbers in Poland and Yugoslavia. The Germans killed more than a hundred thousand Poles when suppressing the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Had the Holocaust not happened, these “reprisals” too would be regarded as some of the greatest war crimes in history. In fact they, like the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war, are scarcely recalled at all beyond the countries directly concerned. German occupation policies killed non-Jewish civilians in other ways as well, for example by hard labor in prison camps. Again: these were chiefly people from Poland or the Soviet Union.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    But we both know it wasn’t that simple. The main benefit of driving out the Germans was to seize their assets, break up the middle class, and facilitate a communist takeover.

    And it also wrote finis to worries about German revanchism.The big problem in the East has always been the presence of mixed populations.Ethnic minorities mean trouble, especially when they can appeal to neighboring states where they form the majority.Heck, that’s one of the reasons why the USA should not allow any immigration from Mexico.

    The other problem is that the communists re-drew the map of Europe in 1945, after the victors re-drew the map in 1918.

    Cartography is a big issue in the East.Trying to carve out homogeneous states is a difficult bit of business.

    One of the good things about the EU is that Europeans can now live wherever they want, and that includes Alsace and Danzig.

    That’s debatable, as many Britons will be happy to tell you.To my way of thinking, open borders should only exist between nations with roughly equal standards of living.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dave Pinsen
    The two biggest factors in Japan's decision to surrender were Russia entering the war against them (raising the prospect of Russia occupying Japan's home islands) and our agreement to let them keep their emperor. The nukes were for Stalin's benefit.

    The two biggest factors in Japan’s decision to surrender were Russia entering the war against them (raising the prospect of Russia occupying Japan’s home islands) and our agreement to let them keep their emperor. The nukes were for Stalin’s benefit.

    People keep on attempting to believe that the atomic bombings had no effect, which is absurd.Imperial Japan had a lot of very bad stuff happen to it in a very short period of time:

    August 6, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

    August 8, 1945
    The Soviet Union declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

    August 9, 1945
    The United States drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Syon, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believed the Soviets continued to pursue the war against Japan in Manchuria, even after the surrender. So they continued to get an ass kicking even after saying ..." no mas."
    , @Steve Sailer
    Japan had a Really Bad Week in early-mid-August 1945.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mr. Anon
    ""Iffier for people who are always on the lookout for invidious distinctions and who have some kind of axe to grind against the Germans, sure.""

    "Well, the Germans do make that rather easy:"

    Easy if you conflate the nazis with Wilhelmanian Germany, which is exactly what someone - you for example - who argues disingenuously is wont to do.

    And for every awful, brutal policy advocated by Ludendorff you point out (and not without reason), one could mention an equal number of such policies by the British or French - who's generalship amounted to willful murder of their own soldiers, whose profligate use and wasatage of colonial soldiers, who had no real stake int he outcome of the war, was criminal.

    "And I prefer to blame bloody-minded lunatics who wanted to wage war and kill Americans in the hundreds of thousands in the name of owning people. To each his own."

    Beneath your outer veneer of a louche old poofter, you really are a mendacious liar, aren't you?

    "Dear fellow, I feel nothing but distaste for bloody tyrants like Jefferson Davis.The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo.Thomas Jefferson noted what was happening:"

    The war could have ended in May of 1861, if the Union had simply granted the South what the Founding Fathers had wanted of England. And surely you know that Lincoln would have been content with permitting the continuation of slavery in an intact Union. Owning people had nothing to do with it save as a tactice later int he war. And Jefferson would no doubt have sided with the South in the civil war. But, clearly, dishonesty is something you are quite comfortable with.

    Easy if you conflate the nazis with Wilhelmanian Germany, which is exactly what someone – you for example – who argues disingenuously is wont to do.

    Better men than I have pointed out the continuity between Hitler and Imperial Germany when it comes to the East….

    And for every awful, brutal policy advocated by Ludendorff you point out (and not without reason), one could mention an equal number of such policies by the British or French – who’s generalship amounted to willful murder of their own soldiers, whose profligate use and wasatage of colonial soldiers, who had no real stake int he outcome of the war, was criminal.

    I’m unaware of any studies showing that the Germans were superior to the French and the British when it came to the “willful murder of their own soldiers.” Here’s a comparative look at losses:

    Britain & Empire: 908,371 (everyone); 997,000 (Paschall)
    Africans: 38,723 laborers and porters died in hospital in East Africa 1917-18 (E&C)
    Australia: 53,560 KIA + 6,300 other deaths = 59,860 (E&C); 60,000 (Eckhardt; Urlanis); 61,720 (AWM)
    Canada: 55,000 (Eckhardt); 61,000 (Urlanis); 58,990 KIA + 3,830 other deaths = 62,820 (E&C)
    India: 25,000 (Eckhardt); 54,000 (Urlanis)
    New Zealand: 16,000 (Eckhardt; Urlanis); 16,710 (E&C)
    UK: 702,410 (E&C); 715,000 (Urlanis); 1,000,000 (Eckhardt)
    South Africa: 7,000 (Urlanis); 7,120 (E&C: whites only)

    France & Empire: 1,327,000 (Urlanis); 1,357,800 (everyone); 1,385,300 (E&C); 1,390,000 (Paschall); 1,630,000 (Eckhardt)
    French Colonies: 58,000 (E&C); 114,000 (Urlanis)

    Germany: 1,773,700 (everyone); 1,850,000 (Paschall); 2,037,000 (E&C, Urlanis); 2,400,000 (Eckhardt)
    Africans: 14,000 (E&C)

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#WW1

    As for the use of colonial troops, do you really imagine that the Germans (assuming that they had them in the same numbers as their enemies) would have balked at using them?

    “And I prefer to blame bloody-minded lunatics who wanted to wage war and kill Americans in the hundreds of thousands in the name of owning people. To each his own.”

    Beneath your outer veneer of a louche old poofter, you really are a mendacious liar, aren’t you?

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.

    “Dear fellow, I feel nothing but distaste for bloody tyrants like Jefferson Davis.The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo.Thomas Jefferson noted what was happening:”

    The war could have ended in May of 1861, if the Union had simply granted the South what the Founding Fathers had wanted of England.

    And the war wouldn’t have started at all if the South hadn’t tried to secede.As for the Founders, they invoked the Anglo principle of resistance to tyranny.You know, the whole lack of representation in Parliament business.The South, of course, was represented in Congress, indeed, disproportionately so.

    And surely you know that Lincoln would have been content with permitting the continuation of slavery in an intact Union.

    Which simply further indicates the insanity of the Southern Fire-Eaters…

    Owning people had nothing to do with it save as a tactice later int he war.

    It had a great deal to do with Southern motives, dear fellow.As confederate VP Stephens noted:

    But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

    And Jefferson would no doubt have sided with the South in the civil war. But, clearly, dishonesty is something you are quite comfortable with.

    It’s quite possible that Jefferson would have sided with the Confederacy.When all is said and done, he was a lesser man than Washington, and slavery had badly distorted his mind (cf his own observations on the effects of slavery).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories

    The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.
     
    Of course, the North would prefer to forget its legacy of slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Negro-Slavery-NY/dp/0815628943?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I must say that I've never heard of the 'Milner Group' before.
    Neither have I heard of Carroll Quigley.

    By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn't seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for 'home rule'.
    This probably explains Quigley's little penchant more than anything, although I'm inclined to believe that the lofty sentiments and self aggrandizement described by Quigley did in fact exist, as it must be remembered at the time period concerned Britain was absolutely at the top of its game, and the obvious allusion to imperial Greece and Rome held a lot of appeal for the upper echelons of British society. And then the remainder of the 20th century kicked in.
    On a final note, the more or less openly stated plans for world domination propagated by America's god awful neocons are far worse than anything the 'Milner group' might or might not have dreamt up.

    I was a student of Carroll Quigley in the 1960s. He was by no means “tribal” Boston Irish. He held a BA, MA, and PhD from Harvard, and had fully assimilated into the WASP ascendancy. He was hired at Georgetown by Edmund A. Walsh, SJ, an implacable anti-Communist and proponent of the “New American Century,” and his lengthy career at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service (1940-1975) corresponded with the rise and fall of the post-war American foreign policy consensus. He was an adjunct member in good standing of the broader circle of “Wise Men” who guided US policy throughout this era.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Both you and Steve seem to be forgetting that in 1914 it was still considered legitimate to settle differences by declaring wars on people.
     
    Oh, it's a blatantly impossible counter-factual.Still, it's such a pleasant thought, Germany forsaking the miltarism that led her to ruin and embracing the path of economic supremacy...

    Remember that the war that brought German unification was declared by the French, simply because they felt dissed by Bismarck’s diplomatic maneuvers.
     
    Which still doesn't excuse seizing Alsace- Lorraine.It was just too late in the day for that kind of thing in Western Europe.Really, Bismarck should have known better....

    There is also the fact that, at least according to Michael Balfour back in the ’60′s, the British were concerned with losing the war over foreign trade to the Germans. Put simply, the Germans made better products. They still do.

    So the British were looking for an opportunity to slap Germany down,
     

    Then don't hand them a casus belli

    and the French were looking for any excuse to get Alsace and Lorraine back (originally seized by Louis XIV, still heavily German speaking in 1914, but not so much now.) And recourse to force of arms was the way it was done then.
     
    Which just reinforces how stupid seizing Alsace-Lorraine was...

    Of course the pipe dream for the Hapsburgs is that they could work out some kind of harmonious confederation, and the Russian fantasy is that the agricultural reforms of Plekhanov would bring about a peaceful transition to modernity. But that’s a lot of “ifs” to put on the table.
     
    My favorite Russian "What If?" What if Stolypin had lived:


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


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

    It is ignorant rubbish to speak of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine as an outrage to the spirit of the age. Two principles clashed here – the sanctity of established borders and the unification of single nationalities – and the way the conflict between them was resolved to Germany’s advantage was no different from what France had done in annexing Savoy and Nice, or was trying to do in annexing Luxemburg.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It is ignorant rubbish to speak of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine as an outrage to the spirit of the age. Two principles clashed here – the sanctity of established borders and the unification of single nationalities – and the way the conflict between them was resolved to Germany’s advantage was no different from what France had done in annexing Savoy and Nice, or was trying to do in annexing Luxemburg.
     
    Well, it was different in that it made the French really angry.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Steve Sailer
    The German leadership had the ideological problem that a rapprochement with the Republic of France would strengthen the prestige of republican politics within Germany and within their shakier ally Austria, so they preferred a deal with the Czar. But a generous offer to France to patch up old sore spots from 1870 might have swayed opinion in Britain away from an alliance with France and Russia.

    It would have required a vision on the part of the Germans that the road to success was not war but manufacturing Mercedes-Benzes.

    . I am going to quote here from a book. The Kaiser believed Britain, not France or Russia, was the orchestrator of hostility against Germany.
    [quote]Wilhelm sought a new relationship with Russia. He suggested an alliance. Not only would it have undermined the Entente but Germany’s historic enemy, France, would have been left to throw her lot in with Russia, her ally, or abandon Russia and confirm an alliance with Britain. Wilhelm promised Nicholas that once the French realised the British fleet could not save Paris they would accept reality and fall in line behind them:In this way a combination of three of the strongest continental powers would be formed, to attack whom the Anglo-Japanese group would think twice before acting’.[/quote] http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @tbraton
    Upon further examination, I must confess I am confused. Wikipedia's first table lists total American deaths in WWII and gives a figure of 405,000+, and breaks that total down to 291,000+ "combat" deaths and 113,000+ as "other." The second table lists American military deaths during WWII and cites the same overall figure of 405,000+ as the first table. That figure of 113,000+ military deaths by "other" seems very high, and I am not sure what the basis is for distinguishing it from "combat" deaths. If you got wounded on the battlefield but died in a hospital from the wound, would that be characterized as "other"? I would think if you got wounded on the battlefield and ultimately died from that wound that death would fall under the "combat" category. By contrast, the same table shows total deaths in the Korean War as 36,516 with deaths in combat amounting to 33,686 while deaths by "other" are only 2,830. Is the difference attributable to improvements in medical care, so more wounded were saved? Something is out of whack. I would point out the numbers for Vietnam, which occurred later than Korea, are a total of 58,209, of which "combat" deaths were 47,424 and "other" were 10,785. So we have 71.8% of military deaths in WWII attributable to combat, 92.2% of military deaths in Korea attributable to combat and 81.4% of military deaths in Vietnam attributable to combat.

    That figure of 113,000+ military deaths by “other” seems very high, and I am not sure what the basis is for distinguishing it from “combat” deaths.

    If you’re going from a production rate of <3,000 aircraft per year (the US in 1939) to an industrial framework to support building almost 300,000 aircraft (what US factories churned out by 1945), and are training the requisite number of men to pilot and navigate those planes, you can be sure of a hell of a lot of training (and transit) accidents.

    It isn’t as “glorious” as knowing your great-uncle died on the beaches of Anzio or in some Solomon Islands jungle, but a lot of those gold stars on peoples’ window flags were from crashes on airfields near places like Wichita or Fort Walton Beach, or the thousand and one airstrips built during the war that are now commuter or general aviation airports.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Details. Details. No good money making movies there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Joanne Rowling seems to have a sense of how all this works in British high society – Prof. Slughorn in The Half-blood Prince gathers a Milner style coterie of promising, well-connected pupils about him (including the future Lord Voldemort who also assembles his own clique while a pupil at the school to assist him in his later activities. After leaving, he tries to join the faculty on two further occasions in order to recruit more followers) . The Cambridge Five (Burgess, Philby, Maclean, Blunt) circle of traitors also came about through the action of a don. It makes perfect sense to target the people attending elite educational institutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German reader
    I am neither you nor the "German reader" you are referring to. I would therefore agree that the database system here needs improvement. We should be warned when we dream up a pseudonym which has already been used.

    Over to you Steve.

    “We should be warned when we dream up a pseudonym which has already been used.”

    Yes, that would be nice, Mr Unz should definitely look at this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dave Pinsen
    The two biggest factors in Japan's decision to surrender were Russia entering the war against them (raising the prospect of Russia occupying Japan's home islands) and our agreement to let them keep their emperor. The nukes were for Stalin's benefit.

    It was a wise decision of the US to take yes for an answer. Strictly speaking the Japanese statement, since it specified retaining the monarchy, was not the unconditional surrender that had been demanded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.