The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
Lincoln or Lee? What Would Hitler Say?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_700459756
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“Some crazy person just compared President Abraham Lincoln to Hitler. Yes, this just happened on CNN and Brooke Baldwin’s reaction was perfect.”

So scribbled one Ricky Davila on Social Media (Twitter).

Indeed, an elderly Southern gentleman had ventured that President Lincoln, not General Lee, murdered civilians, a point even a Court historian and a Lincoln idolater like Doris Kearns Goodwin would concede.

While the Argument From Hitler is seldom a good one; Ms. Baldwin’s response was way worse. Were she an honest purveyor of news and knowledge; anchor-activist Baldwin would have sought the facts. Instead, she pulled faces, so the viewer knew she not only looked like an angel, but was on the side of the angels.

Pretty, but not terribly bright, Ms. Baldwin would be shocked to hear that the civics test administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recognizes as correct the following answers to questions about the “Civil War”:

If asked to “Name one problem that led to the Civil War,” you may legitimately reply: “States’ right.”

If asked to “Name the war between the North and the South,” you may call it, “the War between the States.”

Brook would wince, but, again, your reply would be perfectly proper if you chose to name “economic reasons” as one of the problems that led to the Civil War.

Not even the government—the USCIS, in this case—will risk denying that the 1861 Morrill tariff was one cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln, a protectionist, was expected to enforce the tariff with calamitous consequences to the “the import-dependent South, which was paying [at the time] as much as 80 percent of the tariff.”

It’s fair to assume that the civics naturalization test (I took it) was not written by pro-South historians. Yet even they did not conceal some immutable truths about the War of Northern Aggression—truths banished from Brooke Baldwin’s network.

And from Fox News.

There, you must tolerate progressive Republicans, like John Daniel Davidson of the Federalist, warning about the dangers of identity politics in a majority-white country like the US. (Davidson should try out identity politics in a minority white country like my birthplace, South Africa, where the lives of white farmers are forfeit.) Another Federalist editor seen on Fox is Molly Hemingway. She has vaporized about the merits of “taking down Confederate statues.” If memory serves, that was a position the oracular Chucky Krauthammer was willing to dignify.

Back to the white, marginalized gentleman, mocked on CNN.

In all, Lincoln’s violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals, including 50,000 Southern civilians, white and black. It maimed thousands, and brought about “the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation’s economy.”

While “in the North a few unfortunate exceptions marred the general wartime boom,” chronicled historian William Miller, “[t]he south as a whole was impoverished. At the end of the war, the boys in blue went home at government expense with about $235 apiece in their pockets.” “[S]ome of Lee’s soldiers had to ask for handouts on the road home, with nothing to exchange for bread save the unwelcome news of Appomattox.”

Many years hence, Americans look upon the terrible forces unleashed by Lincoln as cathartic, glorious events. However, “The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality,” noted Mises Institute scholar David Gordon, in Secession, State & Liberty.

At his most savage, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged “total war” on civilians and did not conceal his intent to so do. On commencing his march through Georgia, in September 1864, Sherman had vowed “to demonstrate the vulnerability of the South and make its inhabitants feel that war and individual ruin [were] synonymous terms.” To follow was an admission (of sorts) to war crimes: “The amount of plundering, burning, and stealing done by our own army makes me ashamed of it.”

For Sherman’s troops sacked and razed entire cities and communities“:

Sherman’s troops exhumed graves to loot the corpses. Sherman’s troops tore up little girls’ dolls and nailed family pets to doors. Sherman’s troops left countless civilians – including the slaves they were supposedly liberating – without food or shelter. Sherman ransomed civilians to armies in the area, threatening to execute them or burn their homes if they did not comply. Sherman had a few contemplative moments and was always careful to maintain plausible deniability, but he knew what was happening and let it happen.

Here’s the brass tacks (via William Miller, Yankee sympathizer) about Lincoln’s brutality and the extent to which the North upended life in the South:

“Confederate losses were overwhelmingly greater, representing a fifth of the productive part of the Confederacy’s white male population. Thousands more died of exposure, epidemics, and sheer starvation after the war, while many survivors, aside from the sick and the maimed, bore the scars of wartime and most war malnutrition and exhaustion all the rest of their lives.”

The South sustained direct damage as the war was fought, for the most, on its soil.

“Land, buildings, and equipment, especially of slaveless farmers … lay in ruins. Factories … were simply forsaken.” “Poor white and planter were left little better than ex-slave. … [A]n every-day sight [was] that of women and children, most of whom were formerly in good circumstances, begging for bread from door to door. In the destruction of southern life few suffered more than the ex-slaves.” By estimations cited in Miller’s A New History of the United States, “a third of the Negroes died” in their freemen, informal, “contraband camps,” from “the elements, epidemics, and crime.”

“The weakening of purpose, morale, and aspiration among the survivors was depressing enough to make many envy the dead,” laments White, noting that “rebel losses in youth and talent were much greater than the devastating total of human losses itself.”

“The men in blue,” said one Southerner late in 1865, “destroyed everything which the most infernal Yankee ingenuity could devise means to destroy: hands, hearts, fire, gunpowder, and behind everything the spirit of hell, were the agencies which they used.”

Still, despite having just fought a civil war, there was a greater feeling of fellowshipamong our countrymen then than there is today.

ORDER IT NOW

Struck by how achingly sad the South was, a northern observer, on a visit to New Orleans in 1873, cried out with great anguish: “These faces, these faces, one sees them everywhere; on the streets, at the theater, in the salon, in the cars; and pauses for a moment struck with the expression of entire despair.”

Today’s America lectures and hectors the world about invading Arab leaders for “killing their own people.” What did the sixteenth American president do if not kill his own people?

Yes, “Emerson’s ‘best civilization’ was about to be ‘extended over the whole country’ with a vengeance.”

Of this, Adolf Hitler wholly approved.

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin will be shocked—OMG! kind of shocked—to know that in his Mein Kampf, Hitler “expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization.”

Hitler vowed that in Germany as well, he and his National Socialists “would eliminate states’ rights altogether,” political decentralization being the greatest obstacle for all dictators. (Primary sources: http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c10.htm & https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt )

In a word, Ms. Baldwin, Hitler liked Abe Lincoln’s impetus and for good reason.

Pull faces all you like. Your guest was right. “Confederate generals, despite hearing news of death and destruction from home, strictly enforced orders protecting the person and property of Northern civilians.”

**

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. An upcoming blog post:

    Sep 1, 2017 – Was the Civil War About Slavery?

    First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln:

    MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861

    Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

    “…I declare that–I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade

    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders' ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

    "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /imercer/lincoln-or-lee-what-would-hitler-say/#comment-1987056
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Sherman and his troops tore up little girls’ dolls, eh? And nailed family pets to doors? Call me a cynic, but I do think that’s just a bit over the top!

    You neglect to mention that in the separate peace that Sherman made when the Southern armies surrendered to him in Carolina, the men in gray were allowed to keep their rifles – whereas Grant at Appomattox would have none of that. For that cause, in the years following the War, Sherman was seen in a favorable light in the South; and it was only later that Southern historians demonized him.

    You might also have noted that Sherman’s body guard was composed entirely of big black ‘buffalo soldiers’ who really liked their chief.

    Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston died of pneumonia after serving in inclement weather as a pallbearer at the funeral of his adversary and later friend, William T. Sherman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I had forgotten the story about Joe Johnson and William Sherman. Can one imagine a finer tribute, or a more noble display of respect for a former adversary?
    , @anonymous
    Sherman was never seen in a positive light in the South. He always was viewed positively by hitler and marx for greatly increasing the power of the centralized government, but never in the South other than maybe a handful of carpet baggers. War criminals who intentionally target civilians who are supposedly fellow citizens don't tend to be held in high regard in the areas where they raped, stole, destroyed, and murdered.

    Of course, you probably repeat the neocon and marxist talking points that lincoln freed the slaves and fought for racial equality against the racist south! Just make sure you don't

    1. actually read the Emancipation Proclamation that exempted slaves down to the county level from being freed
    2. pay attention to the fugitive slave act being enforced by lincoln even during the war
    3. notice lincoln threatening military invasion for not collecting the full tariff rate in his Inaugural address
    4. observe lincoln supporting an amendment that would forever allow slavery that was also passed by the northern controlled house and senate in 1861
    5. grant banning Jews from entire states and running a slave plantation before the war
    6. lincoln favoring removal of all blacks, free or slave, to "haiti, liberia, or anywhere but here" for virtually his entire political career

  3. Your article on Lincoln or Lee is the greatest. Bravo! I am currently writing letters to my local newspaper on the same subject. The truth will prevail I hope.
    Thank you.

    Read More
  4. Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women’s clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    How about the practice of "thumbing"?

    My understanding is that Sherman's troops would nail a negro by the thumbs to nearby trees and let nature take its course.

    Of course, another chapter of Sherman's humanitarian heroics is his attitude regarding, and treatment of, the Plains Indians.
    , @anonymous
    Excellent response. Grandpa's post was so bad that it may have been a parody.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    All I am trying to say is: "Yes, Ilana, there is another side (other than the pro-South side) to the discussion about the Civil War." There are probably even several sides to the history of the Civil War, no one of which can lay an exclusive claim to the truth. For example:,

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

    And, btw, this has nothing to do with the current MSM lies about and DHS agents-provateurs manipulation of events at Charlottesvillle ... or with any of the genocide against white folk ... or, most especially, this Civil War talk has nothing to do with Patriots or with defense of the First Amendment. And, to make myself clear, I doubt that there really is another side (other than Ilana's) to the ongoing genocide in Ilana's home country, South Africa, But this is America, and there really are at least two sides to any valid discussion of the Civil War (notoriously so.)

    Anyway, it seems that I am called upon to defend myself and my comment, so here goes:

    First, about the tearing up of little girls' dolls, I call "booshwah" to that, based on common sense. Sure it could be that there's one instance, or even more, of interviews or memoirs of Confederate widows that recount the supposed desecration of dolls or the crucifixion of family pets. Are we really supposed to believe that it was a policy of Sherman's or a general practice of the men in his command to tear up little girls' dolls ... what? and force the little girls to watch? Or to crucify family pets on the front doors of the mansions of the plantations? In passing here, I note that the standard of proof used by Ilana is cynically expected by Clyde Wilson to be "documented as well as anything in history" - whatever that means, other than that anyone can say anything they want, so long as it's written down somewhere. But does that mean that I have to check my common sense at the gate?

    Second,, about that Grant allowed the vanquished "to keep some rifles for protection on their way home." Would that have included Mosby's Rangers - a guerilla unit whose specialty was hit-and-run harassment of Union troops in Virginia? (As it turned out, yes, Mosby too surrendered peacefully, at the last, and was paroled, which included surrendering firearms.) What they were allowed to keep was their horses, which were their own personal property. Here's something that is "as well documented as anything in history" -

    " three things came out of this meeting [surrender at Appomattox] - each Confederate soldier would be given a printed pass, signed by his officers, to prove he was a paroled prisoner; all cavalrymen and artillerymen would be allowed to retain their horses; and Confederates who had to pass through Federal-occupied territory to get home were allowed free transportation on U.S. government railroads and vessels." (Trevor Plante, published in Prologue Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 1)

    Nothing there about keeping their rifles, and yet Clyde Wilson accuses me of being a liar for saying that Sherman allowed the vanquished to keep their rifles (see below), whereas, "Grant would have none of that."

    Some time after Appomattox, Johnston and Sherman worked out their own post-Appomattox document, in North Carolina, where the last large contingent of the South's armies had been forced to surrender to Sherman. Here is more "documented as well as any history:"


    [Agreement of Johnston and Sherman] went beyond military terms and the surrender of Johnston's army. The agreement applied to any (read all) Confederate armies still in existence. The troops would disband and return to their state capitals, where they were to deposit their arms and public property at the state arsenals. The federal executive would recognize state governments, including their officers and legislatures. Where rival governments existed, the U.S. Supreme Court would decide which one would be recognized.

    Federal courts would be reestablished in southern states, and the people would have their political rights and franchises guaranteed, including their rights of person and property. The war would cease, and a general amnesty would be provided.

    Sherman was convinced his signed agreement with Johnston would end the war. In his cover letter awkwardly addressed to Grant or Halleck, Sherman argued that the agreement, "if approved by the President of the United States, will produce peace from the Potomac to the Rio Grande."

    In a follow-up letter to Halleck the same day, Sherman advised: "please give all orders necessary according to the views the Executive may take, and influence him, if possible, not to vary the terms at all, for I have considered everything."

    Sherman had overplayed his hand. He did not realize that neither the President nor any high-ranking member of the federal government would ever agree to the terms outlined in his accord with Johnston. The plan he worked out with Johnston was quickly rejected by federal authorities.

    Sherman, thinking he ended the war, was surprised by the response he received from Washington. The Union commander had to inform Johnston that unless new military terms were reached, their armistice would end on April 26. That day the opposing army commanders met once again in Durham Station and worked out an agreement limited to military issues. Now that political matters were not included in the terms, Grant, who was sent to make sure Sherman got it right this time, quickly gave his approval, thus accepting the surrender of the largest Confederate force still in existence.
     

    That's the thing that I am saying about how Sherman was well-liked by many Southerners following the Civil War: he was liked because he tried to work out (and, with Johnston, did work out) a comprehensive peace agreement that could have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people if the government in Washington had agreed to it.

    It's very easy to call me names and such, but it's a lot of work to actually dig in and present facts ... so I'll be taking a break in order to compose the rest of my defense against the gang of my accusers and denigrators, a bunch that seems to want to exceed Black Lives Matter in unreasoning and stubborn arrogance.

    , @Rhett Hardwick
    I am just old enough to have ancestors living, in my early youth, who remembered the Civil War; although they were quite young at the time. My early youth was colored by stories of our women being hidden in the woods. Of our house being burned and having to wait three days for the ashes to cool so that the nails could be recovered. Of having to hire black perjury before the Southern War Claims Commission in order to recover for property destroyed, or stolen.
    , @Curle
    Is this Cyde N. Wilson? If so, thank you for an excellent book. And posts.

    https://www.amazon.com/Union-Empire-Essays-Jeffersonian-Tradition/dp/0962384216
    , @Kurtis5
    Every time I read an account of the Civil War or the days of slavery where someone mentions black women, slaves or otherwise, being raped by white slaveowners or other white men, I cannot help but roll my eyes. It is extremely difficult for me to believe an account like that. I don't doubt that some blacks and all slaves in general were treated harshly, but rape is on another level. It is hard to believe that white men at the time were so attracted to black slaves that they would rape them. Tales like this seem like the type of complete fabrications that a race-baiter such as Al Sharpton would make up
  5. @Grandpa Charlie
    Sherman and his troops tore up little girls' dolls, eh? And nailed family pets to doors? Call me a cynic, but I do think that's just a bit over the top!

    You neglect to mention that in the separate peace that Sherman made when the Southern armies surrendered to him in Carolina, the men in gray were allowed to keep their rifles - whereas Grant at Appomattox would have none of that. For that cause, in the years following the War, Sherman was seen in a favorable light in the South; and it was only later that Southern historians demonized him.

    You might also have noted that Sherman's body guard was composed entirely of big black 'buffalo soldiers' who really liked their chief.

    Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston died of pneumonia after serving in inclement weather as a pallbearer at the funeral of his adversary and later friend, William T. Sherman.

    I had forgotten the story about Joe Johnson and William Sherman. Can one imagine a finer tribute, or a more noble display of respect for a former adversary?

    Read More
  6. @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    How about the practice of “thumbing”?

    My understanding is that Sherman’s troops would nail a negro by the thumbs to nearby trees and let nature take its course.

    Of course, another chapter of Sherman’s humanitarian heroics is his attitude regarding, and treatment of, the Plains Indians.

    Read More
  7. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Sherman and his troops tore up little girls' dolls, eh? And nailed family pets to doors? Call me a cynic, but I do think that's just a bit over the top!

    You neglect to mention that in the separate peace that Sherman made when the Southern armies surrendered to him in Carolina, the men in gray were allowed to keep their rifles - whereas Grant at Appomattox would have none of that. For that cause, in the years following the War, Sherman was seen in a favorable light in the South; and it was only later that Southern historians demonized him.

    You might also have noted that Sherman's body guard was composed entirely of big black 'buffalo soldiers' who really liked their chief.

    Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston died of pneumonia after serving in inclement weather as a pallbearer at the funeral of his adversary and later friend, William T. Sherman.

    Sherman was never seen in a positive light in the South. He always was viewed positively by hitler and marx for greatly increasing the power of the centralized government, but never in the South other than maybe a handful of carpet baggers. War criminals who intentionally target civilians who are supposedly fellow citizens don’t tend to be held in high regard in the areas where they raped, stole, destroyed, and murdered.

    Of course, you probably repeat the neocon and marxist talking points that lincoln freed the slaves and fought for racial equality against the racist south! Just make sure you don’t

    1. actually read the Emancipation Proclamation that exempted slaves down to the county level from being freed
    2. pay attention to the fugitive slave act being enforced by lincoln even during the war
    3. notice lincoln threatening military invasion for not collecting the full tariff rate in his Inaugural address
    4. observe lincoln supporting an amendment that would forever allow slavery that was also passed by the northern controlled house and senate in 1861
    5. grant banning Jews from entire states and running a slave plantation before the war
    6. lincoln favoring removal of all blacks, free or slave, to “haiti, liberia, or anywhere but here” for virtually his entire political career

    Read More
  8. Otto Zeit says:

    At least with Brooke Baldwin, we have someone who really IS pretty enough to be that stupid.

    Read More
  9. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    Excellent response. Grandpa’s post was so bad that it may have been a parody.

    Read More
  10. Well, the troubles and resulting horror that Europe, and especially Germany, were plagued with at the onset and aftermath of WWI, were furthered by the new US government generated by Lincoln and his allies in Congress, it makes me wonder whether Hitler and others considered, or would have considered, this. If there had been no Lincoln, no War Between the States, and the states retained their sovereignty, would the US have intervened in the European situation, whatever it may have been ?

    As I try to clumsily suggest, the intervention of the US in 20th century Europe, of course influenced by certain powerful people, would have been very unlikely if there had been no Lincoln and/or no internal conflict that turned our government on its head.

    Also, the European states, their situations, their cultures, their problems were considerably different from their distant cousins on the other side of the water.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    If Ilana wishes to be completely honest, rather than opportunistically reinforce the "Hitler = paragon of evil" meme, she would fully discuss the US Air Force and British Airforce firebombing that imposed "scorched earth" on Germany and Japan.
    Based on the rousing success of that genocidal orgasm, USA/British similarly firebombed Iraq, scorched earth in Syria; Israel regularly destroys Gaza w/ firepower.

    And don't blame it all on the British & Bomber Harris: According to reports by the U S Department of the Interior,
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," as well as Hollywood studios headed exclusively by Jews, collaborated with US Air Force to plan, rehearse, then carry out the firebombing of German civilian workers housing.

    The planning for the firebombing included provision to incinerate "young families with infants in cribs."

    131 German cities -- 75% of Germany -- were reduced to charred rubble; that's the equivalent of flattening and burning up over 14, 500 American cities/towns. The scorched earth destruction that US Air Force, and its Jewish advisors, carried out in Germany made Sherman look like a rookie arsonist.

    It was impossible to determine how many German and other civilians were incinerated -- bodies were reduced to piles of ash.

    Jules Streicher was hanged because he published nasty things about Jews.

    Erich Mendelsohn, who envisioned* and planned the deliberate incineration of untold hundreds of thousands of German civilians, including infants, continues to be celebrated by the Jewish community including in the USA: Mendelsohn designed synagogues and community centers for numerous Jewish communities in the USA.
    Erich Mendelsohn, hero of the kosher dindu muffins.

    ----

    * "But in order to reeducate the people at large, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice."
    Eric Mendelsohn, Berkley, CA, April 22, 1942

  11. It really is time to end the nonsense that the Civil War was about slavery.
    It wasn’t.
    Read Lincolns First Inaugural address, the one they don’t teach you at school. He’s happy with slavery and threatens violence only if the Feds taxes aren’t collected.

    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

    “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

    http://www.bartleby.com/124/pr…

    Read More
  12. Jake says:

    Ilana Mercer is brilliant and brave. Precious few are her equal.

    Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil in the power-worshipping sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    However, Mercer is a Zionist Jew which equals 'Jews uber alles', which begets lie after lie, and most everyone here knows it.

    The same old propaganda is implied about Hitler.

    Simply stated:
    There was Hitler with the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there was Hitler without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg, from https://youtu.be/2q51wqEE1fM
     
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    Jake says, "Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil in the power-worshipping sense."

    Well, Jake, I haven't seen anyone here trashing Lee or lauding Lincoln ... and your purpose is ... what? To add to the confusion?
  13. Thank you for reminding me of this fact. German-Irish, southern descendant of people who fought in and endured the southern war, and a sympathizer of the National Socialists (I’m writing from Germany), es geht mir auf den Sack, wenn Leute sagen sie sind vergleichbar. To believe that, we have to forget what the Fuehrer in Mein Kampf said. If Adolf Hitler wasn’t an expert on Nazis, who was/is; I’m pretty sure it was his movement. The belief systems of the two are totally at odds. To start the Southerners were Federalists, y’all know this already…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    If Adolf Hitler wasn’t an expert on Nazis, who was/is
     
    So, Du hast ein bisschen Deutsch kennengelernt. But Nazi is an English word defined by British war propaganda: a derogatory mispronounciation and abbreviation of the German N.S.D.A.P. If you want to find a true expert, why don't you speak with some of the older Germans around you? If your German is good enough, that is.

    The NS-Zeit was a disaster for Germans as well as Jews. Consider for example the night of the long knives or the fact that the first concentration camps were built for German political prisoners: not Jews in particular. Today National Socialism is an anachronism in Germany with little support from the public there and none here in the USA. The only Nazis I ever met were working in sting operations sometimes without their knowlege.

    There is a reason why the modern German government is called the Federal Republic of Germany. Decentralization makes it more difficult for a popinjay corporal who loved war to push aside the government with a feather.
    , @The Alarmist
    Lese noch mal ... der Vergleich war zwischen die Massnahmen des Lincolns und die Plaene des Hitlers, und hat nichts mit der South zu tun.
  14. The books most mentioned in discussions are the bible, The Quran and Das Kapital.
    Hardly anyone read them.
    The politician most mentioned in discussions is Hitler, hardly anyone knows anything about him, those who speak english do not, they trust the Nuremberg “truths’ of the victors, but also those who read german know nothing.
    This igorance, blindly accepting mainstream history, is no problem for any writer to compare whatever to Hitler, Godwin.
    In the cold civil war now waging in the USA, the poor and the colored against the ruling white elite, comparing anything to Hitler or Mussolini, or the ideologies they represented, just confuses the issues.

    Read More
  15. Yankees have been promoted to merciful and humanitarian by the masters of indoctrination.

    Read More
  16. Regarding another CNN idol and another civil war, Christian Amanpour cited the near total estimated Syrian death toll at the time of her January 2014 interview with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and attributed it all to Assad’s side. “I’ve never heard you (Medvedev)…(or) any Russian official condemn him (Assad) for 100,000-plus deaths.”

    http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/22/full-transcript-dmitry-medvedev/

    CNN still has some foreign correspondents worthy of being considered professional journalists. But the organization’s increasing preference for crude propaganda over nuanced analysis provides ideological scolds like Baldwin and Amanpour with star status and ongoing fora for presenting the simplistic good guy vs. bad guy view of the world.

    Read More
  17. It seems as if we’ve reached the point in time when so much propaganda has been pumped into the discussion from every quarter that narratives are getting confused all over the place. Ilana Mercer has finally broken through the American Lincoln mythology to realize that Lincoln was a mass-murdering, genocidal tyrant (which is true); but because we all know that Hitler is the root of all evil, this makes Lincoln just like Hitler (which is false).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.

    What Mercer stresses is that someone as astute as Hitler in terms of grabbing power and centralizing it and wielding it brutally, no matter the body count, recognized Lincoln's abilities and successes in that very area. Hitler saw in Lincoln a precursor to himself - not in the specifics of political belief but in grasping power, centralizing it, and using it essentially amorally.

    And Hitler certainly loved the the Lincoln myth that grew up, making Abe the sacrificial lamb to American (imperial) democracy. Germanic romanticism has always had a Death Wish/suicide component, and Hitler was no exception. He would have loved to become the German Lincoln - killed only to be remade by his supporters as the nation's secular dying god.

    Until we see those matters, we cannot see that all that centralizing of power in DC under Lincoln, which was necessary to fight his war, has been indispensable to each stage of the growing Leftist horror.
  18. @Karen Carter
    Well, the troubles and resulting horror that Europe, and especially Germany, were plagued with at the onset and aftermath of WWI, were furthered by the new US government generated by Lincoln and his allies in Congress, it makes me wonder whether Hitler and others considered, or would have considered, this. If there had been no Lincoln, no War Between the States, and the states retained their sovereignty, would the US have intervened in the European situation, whatever it may have been ?



    As I try to clumsily suggest, the intervention of the US in 20th century Europe, of course influenced by certain powerful people, would have been very unlikely if there had been no Lincoln and/or no internal conflict that turned our government on its head.



    Also, the European states, their situations, their cultures, their problems were considerably different from their distant cousins on the other side of the water.

    If Ilana wishes to be completely honest, rather than opportunistically reinforce the “Hitler = paragon of evil” meme, she would fully discuss the US Air Force and British Airforce firebombing that imposed “scorched earth” on Germany and Japan.
    Based on the rousing success of that genocidal orgasm, USA/British similarly firebombed Iraq, scorched earth in Syria; Israel regularly destroys Gaza w/ firepower.

    And don’t blame it all on the British & Bomber Harris: According to reports by the U S Department of the Interior,

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” as well as Hollywood studios headed exclusively by Jews, collaborated with US Air Force to plan, rehearse, then carry out the firebombing of German civilian workers housing.

    The planning for the firebombing included provision to incinerate “young families with infants in cribs.”

    131 German cities — 75% of Germany — were reduced to charred rubble; that’s the equivalent of flattening and burning up over 14, 500 American cities/towns. The scorched earth destruction that US Air Force, and its Jewish advisors, carried out in Germany made Sherman look like a rookie arsonist.

    It was impossible to determine how many German and other civilians were incinerated — bodies were reduced to piles of ash.

    Jules Streicher was hanged because he published nasty things about Jews.

    Erich Mendelsohn, who envisioned* and planned the deliberate incineration of untold hundreds of thousands of German civilians, including infants, continues to be celebrated by the Jewish community including in the USA: Mendelsohn designed synagogues and community centers for numerous Jewish communities in the USA.
    Erich Mendelsohn, hero of the kosher dindu muffins.

    —-

    * “But in order to reeducate the people at large, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice.”
    Eric Mendelsohn, Berkley, CA, April 22, 1942

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    I am amused by those who take a Manichean, binary view of historical figures and history. I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires--GB, France--attacked Germany. The roots of WW2 lie in the treaty imposed on Germany after WW1.

    What would any country do if put in that position? To Hitler's credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time.

    Going by the official version, 9/11 was done by a non-state actor (Al Qaeda). Our violent response to that tragedy is ongoing...
    , @Bill Jones
    And let's not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered.
    , @Corvinus
    Not this again. Under the guise of “protecting” Germany from future British and French “bullying” (despite their willingness to appease Hitler’s demands for more land), and under the assumption that German Jews were a barrier to future economic progress (which in essence was a combination of admiration and jealousy their financial prowess), Hitler put forth several nationalistic courses of action to extend the imperialistic zealotry of Otto Von Bismarck, using vengeance as the trigger.

    During any and all wars, morality or ethics or rules or standards may be established, but they are violated. Repeatedly. By human beings. The British, French, and Germans equally had the duty to ensure victory for their people. All sides committed heinous crimes. Why? To win. Period.

    In the end, the British and French, with American aid, vanquished their foes. Methods and strategies were employed to that end. Civilians are casualties. Always have been, always will be.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me, SC.
  19. Few subjects wheeze with exhaustion quite so much as the War of Secession, now more than 150 years in the past.

    Let’s move on. It’s time for war against an inhuman, oppressive, evil oligarchy. Do it, or we will never be free men.

    Read More
  20. Jake says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    It seems as if we've reached the point in time when so much propaganda has been pumped into the discussion from every quarter that narratives are getting confused all over the place. Ilana Mercer has finally broken through the American Lincoln mythology to realize that Lincoln was a mass-murdering, genocidal tyrant (which is true); but because we all know that Hitler is the root of all evil, this makes Lincoln just like Hitler (which is false).

    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.

    What Mercer stresses is that someone as astute as Hitler in terms of grabbing power and centralizing it and wielding it brutally, no matter the body count, recognized Lincoln’s abilities and successes in that very area. Hitler saw in Lincoln a precursor to himself – not in the specifics of political belief but in grasping power, centralizing it, and using it essentially amorally.

    And Hitler certainly loved the the Lincoln myth that grew up, making Abe the sacrificial lamb to American (imperial) democracy. Germanic romanticism has always had a Death Wish/suicide component, and Hitler was no exception. He would have loved to become the German Lincoln – killed only to be remade by his supporters as the nation’s secular dying god.

    Until we see those matters, we cannot see that all that centralizing of power in DC under Lincoln, which was necessary to fight his war, has been indispensable to each stage of the growing Leftist horror.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.
     
    I know exactly what Mercer was saying, and I disagree with it. Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Lincoln's centralization of power are ridiculous on their face. Hitler is simply being retconned so as to appear to be the progenerator of the evil du jour.
    , @World reader
    I applaud your comment on this.
  21. Moi says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    If Ilana wishes to be completely honest, rather than opportunistically reinforce the "Hitler = paragon of evil" meme, she would fully discuss the US Air Force and British Airforce firebombing that imposed "scorched earth" on Germany and Japan.
    Based on the rousing success of that genocidal orgasm, USA/British similarly firebombed Iraq, scorched earth in Syria; Israel regularly destroys Gaza w/ firepower.

    And don't blame it all on the British & Bomber Harris: According to reports by the U S Department of the Interior,
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," as well as Hollywood studios headed exclusively by Jews, collaborated with US Air Force to plan, rehearse, then carry out the firebombing of German civilian workers housing.

    The planning for the firebombing included provision to incinerate "young families with infants in cribs."

    131 German cities -- 75% of Germany -- were reduced to charred rubble; that's the equivalent of flattening and burning up over 14, 500 American cities/towns. The scorched earth destruction that US Air Force, and its Jewish advisors, carried out in Germany made Sherman look like a rookie arsonist.

    It was impossible to determine how many German and other civilians were incinerated -- bodies were reduced to piles of ash.

    Jules Streicher was hanged because he published nasty things about Jews.

    Erich Mendelsohn, who envisioned* and planned the deliberate incineration of untold hundreds of thousands of German civilians, including infants, continues to be celebrated by the Jewish community including in the USA: Mendelsohn designed synagogues and community centers for numerous Jewish communities in the USA.
    Erich Mendelsohn, hero of the kosher dindu muffins.

    ----

    * "But in order to reeducate the people at large, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice."
    Eric Mendelsohn, Berkley, CA, April 22, 1942

    I am amused by those who take a Manichean, binary view of historical figures and history. I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires–GB, France–attacked Germany. The roots of WW2 lie in the treaty imposed on Germany after WW1.

    What would any country do if put in that position? To Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time.

    Going by the official version, 9/11 was done by a non-state actor (Al Qaeda). Our violent response to that tragedy is ongoing…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    "Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time."

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!
    , @Matra
    I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires–GB, France–attacked Germany.

    Can it be a coincidence that Hitler's American fanboys sound just like American conservatives? The British and French were the REAL racists! Just like the Democrats today!

  22. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @DerSohndesAllvaters
    Thank you for reminding me of this fact. German-Irish, southern descendant of people who fought in and endured the southern war, and a sympathizer of the National Socialists (I'm writing from Germany), es geht mir auf den Sack, wenn Leute sagen sie sind vergleichbar. To believe that, we have to forget what the Fuehrer in Mein Kampf said. If Adolf Hitler wasn't an expert on Nazis, who was/is; I'm pretty sure it was his movement. The belief systems of the two are totally at odds. To start the Southerners were Federalists, y'all know this already...

    If Adolf Hitler wasn’t an expert on Nazis, who was/is

    So, Du hast ein bisschen Deutsch kennengelernt. But Nazi is an English word defined by British war propaganda: a derogatory mispronounciation and abbreviation of the German N.S.D.A.P. If you want to find a true expert, why don’t you speak with some of the older Germans around you? If your German is good enough, that is.

    The NS-Zeit was a disaster for Germans as well as Jews. Consider for example the night of the long knives or the fact that the first concentration camps were built for German political prisoners: not Jews in particular. Today National Socialism is an anachronism in Germany with little support from the public there and none here in the USA. The only Nazis I ever met were working in sting operations sometimes without their knowlege.

    There is a reason why the modern German government is called the Federal Republic of Germany. Decentralization makes it more difficult for a popinjay corporal who loved war to push aside the government with a feather.

    Read More
  23. This is rather silly. Ms Mercer says that a book reviewer says that the author of the book he’s reviewing says that Hitler said …

    Read More
  24. George says:

    Hitler vowed that in Germany as well, he and his National Socialists “would eliminate states’ rights altogether,”

    In fairness, I think the Ch. Hitler policy was a continuation of the Ch. Bismark policy. What ever you say about Lincoln he was not a loser, which is why lost causer Hitler liked him. But actually, the US of A, in general, got amazing publicity after the destruction of Slavery by manly force, as opposed to the way say the Empire of Russia did it through edict. Both Lincoln and Alexander ended up going down the same way, but Lincoln always got better press. The French even gave us that nice statue in NY harbor.

    Read More
  25. The Nazi era was not all a disaster for ordinary Germans
    Kai S. Schreyber (Hrsg.), ´Warum wir ADOLF HITLER wählten, Jungwähler von 1933/38 berichten’, 2001 Kiel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    For intellectuals, for anyone who had even the potential to oppose Hitler it was a disaster from the beginning. For ordinary Germans disaster came a bit later than 1938.
  26. @Moi
    I am amused by those who take a Manichean, binary view of historical figures and history. I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires--GB, France--attacked Germany. The roots of WW2 lie in the treaty imposed on Germany after WW1.

    What would any country do if put in that position? To Hitler's credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time.

    Going by the official version, 9/11 was done by a non-state actor (Al Qaeda). Our violent response to that tragedy is ongoing...

    “Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time.”

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    No, illegal Allied civilian terror "bombing brought Germany to ashes".

    If you think you know what you're talking about, and obviously you don't, then bring it here:

    Who started bombing civilians first:Germany or Great Britain?
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    ex.:

    ”the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of "war criminals." The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This "epoch-making event," as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940:
    Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101
    But the "great decision," the "splendid decision" of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight's own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:
    It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs ...102
    One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!
    99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).
    100. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Apppleton: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1953), p. 122.
    101. Spaight, op. cit., p. 7.
    102. C. P. Snow, Science and Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 48.

    and:

    Letter to PBS on fraudulent 'documentary' about the 'Blitz'

    Dr. A.R. WESSERLE
    16 March 1981
    PBS Television "The Blitz"

    Sirs:

    Rarely have I come across a television broadcast more vicious in intent and more warped in execution than your recent "Blitz on Britain." As a survivor of the mass air raid executed against my native city of Prague, Bohemia, on the Christian Holy Day of Palm Sunday, 1945, by the Anglo-American strategic bomber force - a raid that maimed or murdered thousands a few seconds before the conclusion of the Second World War - I say this:

    1. There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other. As the commander of the British strategic air offensive, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947) 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed.

    2. Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain - five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany. The Federal German Government has established the minimum count - not an estimate - of 635,000 German civilians were killed in France, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and elsewhere.

    3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed - the Battle of the German Bight - Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later. Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann. Professor Lindemann, the later Viscount Cherwell, coolly calculated that, by using a force of 10,000 heavy bombers to attack and destroy the 58 largest German cities, one-third of the population of Germany would be "de-housed." The assumption, of course, also was that out of those 25-27 million homeless at least ten percent - 2.5 to 3 million people - would be killed. On this score alone, Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history. In fact, as West German records show, 131 German towns were hit by heavy strategic raids. Only the courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, the effectiveness of the air defense network and the strength of the fire fighting organization worked together to prevent a bloodbath to the extent envisioned by the Prime Minister.

    4. Blood baths did occur when conditions were right. When the Anglo-American bombing policy reached its first grand climax in a raid on Hamburg that stretched over several days and nights in July, 1943, a minimum of 40,000 to 50,000 civilians burned to death. With the defensive power of the Reich worn down in the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Anglo-Saxons indulged in ever more massive extermination raids against Europe. Communities of little or no military value, even if attacked previously, were now pulverized, preferably under conditions of the utmost horror. Christian holy days, and dates and sites of famous art festivals were select occasions for raids. Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig. Little Pforzheim in south-west Germany had 17,000 people killed. Dresden, one of the great art centers and in 1945 a refuge for perhaps a million civilians, was decimated with the loss of at least 100,000 souls. Europe from Monte Cassino to Luebeck and Rostock on the Baltic, from Caen and Lisieux in France to Pilsen, Prague, Bruenn, Budapest and Bucharest reeled under the barbaric blows of the bombers.

    5. Nor did the extermination raids stop with Europe. Cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay demonstrated in. the Far East that record kills could be achieved without resort to atomic weapons. By applying the lessons learned in Europe to the wooden architecture of the Asian mainland and Japan he raised "fire storms" which surpassed even those of Hamburg, n Japanese civilians were killed through bombing. Millions of others fell victim to it, from Mukden, Manchuria, to Rangoon, Burma. It goes without saying that LeMay and his colleagues could not have carried out their campaigns of mass annihilation without the backing of the highest political leaders in the land. In fact, the United States Government had placed orders for the immediate development of four-engined, superheavy, very-long-range bombers (the XB 15, the B-17, the XB 19, the B-24 and the B-29) starting in 1934. Thus, the Roosevelt Administration had begun to lay plans for offensive, strategic, global war back in 1933, the year of its inception. With the later exception of Britain, none of the other "large" powers followed suit: neither France, Italy and Germany, nor Soviet Russia and Japan the latter with extensive holdings in the Pacific. These are sobering facts. PBS, with its record of fine programming, has much to lose if it insists on presenting biassed reports such as "Blitz on Britain" or "UXB." If you care to tap the unplumbed depths of sentimentality, envy and hatred, start a comic strip. In the meantime, we'll change channels.

    Sincerely, Dr. A.R. Wesserle

    Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 381-384.

    In addition:

    “As early as 1953 H.M. Stationary Office published the first volume of a work ‘The Royal Air Force’, 1939-1945 entitled ‘The Fight at Odds’, a book described as “officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch.” The author , Mr. Dennis Richards, states plainly the destruction of oil plants and factories was only a secondary purpose of the British air attacks on Germany which began in May 1940. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it is impossible to carry on a modern war. Mr Dennis Richards writes: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with it’s most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retalliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London “. p. 122

    This passage merely confirmed what Mr. Spaight had so incautiously disclosed in 1944 in his by then forgotten book ‘Bombing Vindicated’. The popular belief that Hitler started unrestricted bombing still persisted and is, in fact, widely held at present day.

    The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued until the end of the war in May, 1945. The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary, it was concentrated on working-class houses because, as professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.
     
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!
     
    read comment #18. again.

    It was NOT Hitler or the German people who "Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!!, it was the "civilized" west, Great Britain and the USA that destroyed 75% of Germany's built infrastructure, the greatest set of crimes against humanity the modern world has ever seen, modeled on Sherman's March to the Sea (from the US side), and Arthur Harris's highly successful bombing raids on intransigent Iraqi villages in the 1920s.
    , @Cavalier
    The NWO Communists often called the Allies brought Germany to Ashes in a short time.
  27. Logan says:

    “the import-dependent South, which was paying [at the time] as much as 80 percent of the tariff.”

    Color me skeptical. The total population of the slave states, not just those that eventually seceded, was 12M. 4M of those were slaves, who consumed very little indeed. The total population of the free states was 19M.

    Yet we’re supposed to believe that the 8M (or 12M) people in the slave states (26% or 39% of the population) consumed not only a majority, but a full 80% of the imported products on which tariffs were paid.

    What exactly were the imported products that were apparently purchased only in the South, leading to this enormous disproportion? For what products was the South more “import-dependent” than the North?

    The South was disadvantaged in a number of ways by the tariff system. But their paying 80% of the tariffs was probably not one of them.

    Commentators on this issue tend to conflate a number of only loosely related factors. One of these being the differential effects on the regions of protective tariffs. But the most common one I’ve seen is conflating 80% of the exports of the US being from the South, mostly cotton, as constituting the South paying that proportion of the tariffs. This is an issue involving balance of trade, not tariffs as such.

    Of course, there never has been a tariff on exported cotton, or any other export, such being specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Squire
    Tariffs aren't paid when goods are sold, they are paid when they enter the country. Geography is very important here. Look at a map from 1860. Most of the ports were in the South. Just about all imported goods used in the South entered through Southern ports. That is a given. But the same is true for the North. In 1860 all Northern states west of the Appalachians would have used Southern ports to import and export goods. The overland infrastructure wasn't good enough to ship a lot of goods by land, so they were shipped by water. And a majority of the Northern states west of the Appalachians were in the Mississippi watershed. Those that weren't, like northern Ohio and northern Indiana, were connected to the Mississippi watershed via canals. So they would naturally use Southern ports. So the figure that 80% of goods entering the US in 1860 come through Southern ports isn't, by any means, a stretch.

    To summarize, Northern ports only imported goods for New England, NY, NJ, and PA. Southern ports imported goods for the rest of the country. And with the tariff being paid upon entry, the South paid a disproportionate share of the tariffs.
  28. Joe Hide says:

    I have long held a similiar opinion of Lincoln in that the U. S. as a whole would be much better off if a better President had been in office. A number of historians believe slavery would have ended without the carnage of the Civil War, even if several decades later, for purely economic reasons.
    Civil War era humans didn’t have the internet then, or smart phones revealing lies the liars lie to lie-believing followers of liars. The liars are much less believable now, in no small part, due to articles like yours.

    Read More
  29. Logan says:

    “Not even the government—the USCIS, in this case—will risk denying that the 1861 Morrill tariff was one cause of the War of Northern Aggression.”

    The Morrill Tariff was a consequence of secession, not its cause. It would never have passed, at least not in its final form, without seven states having seceded and withdrawing their reps from Congress.

    Now you can, if you like, posit that secession was not a cause of the war, but that seems a little silly.

    But, the 85 soldiers in Ft. Sumter were going to aggressively collect taxes from a city defended by many thousands of troops, with huge additional numbers available on call? Forcing the CSA to attack the fort to prevent this collection?

    In 1860 Charleston had only $2M in imports. NYC had $231M.

    https://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/

    The author here plays a neat rhetorical trick.

    1. Claims that the government (or whomever) is touting that the war was ONLY about slavery. As if any war ever has been about a single issue. No semi-informed student of history makes any such claim. (There are of course idiots who do. But they aren’t even semi-informed.)

    2. The author then valiantly demolishes this strawman by showing that there were indeed other factors involved.

    3. The implication being that the other factors were the main ones and the issue of slavery only a minor side issue.

    The problem is that this is utterly contradicted by the history of the decade leading up to the WBTS, and, for that matter, by what the leaders of the South themselves said at the time of secession. Leaving the author in the uncomfortable position of modern apologists for Islam who claim that Islamic terrorism has “nothing to do with Islam” despite the loud and repeated pronouncements to the contrary by the actual terrorists.

    Read More
  30. @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    All I am trying to say is: “Yes, Ilana, there is another side (other than the pro-South side) to the discussion about the Civil War.” There are probably even several sides to the history of the Civil War, no one of which can lay an exclusive claim to the truth. For example:,

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

    And, btw, this has nothing to do with the current MSM lies about and DHS agents-provateurs manipulation of events at Charlottesvillle … or with any of the genocide against white folk … or, most especially, this Civil War talk has nothing to do with Patriots or with defense of the First Amendment. And, to make myself clear, I doubt that there really is another side (other than Ilana’s) to the ongoing genocide in Ilana’s home country, South Africa, But this is America, and there really are at least two sides to any valid discussion of the Civil War (notoriously so.)

    Anyway, it seems that I am called upon to defend myself and my comment, so here goes:

    First, about the tearing up of little girls’ dolls, I call “booshwah” to that, based on common sense. Sure it could be that there’s one instance, or even more, of interviews or memoirs of Confederate widows that recount the supposed desecration of dolls or the crucifixion of family pets. Are we really supposed to believe that it was a policy of Sherman’s or a general practice of the men in his command to tear up little girls’ dolls … what? and force the little girls to watch? Or to crucify family pets on the front doors of the mansions of the plantations? In passing here, I note that the standard of proof used by Ilana is cynically expected by Clyde Wilson to be “documented as well as anything in history” – whatever that means, other than that anyone can say anything they want, so long as it’s written down somewhere. But does that mean that I have to check my common sense at the gate?

    Second,, about that Grant allowed the vanquished “to keep some rifles for protection on their way home.” Would that have included Mosby’s Rangers – a guerilla unit whose specialty was hit-and-run harassment of Union troops in Virginia? (As it turned out, yes, Mosby too surrendered peacefully, at the last, and was paroled, which included surrendering firearms.) What they were allowed to keep was their horses, which were their own personal property. Here’s something that is “as well documented as anything in history” -

    ” three things came out of this meeting [surrender at Appomattox] – each Confederate soldier would be given a printed pass, signed by his officers, to prove he was a paroled prisoner; all cavalrymen and artillerymen would be allowed to retain their horses; and Confederates who had to pass through Federal-occupied territory to get home were allowed free transportation on U.S. government railroads and vessels.” (Trevor Plante, published in Prologue Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 1)

    Nothing there about keeping their rifles, and yet Clyde Wilson accuses me of being a liar for saying that Sherman allowed the vanquished to keep their rifles (see below), whereas, “Grant would have none of that.”

    Some time after Appomattox, Johnston and Sherman worked out their own post-Appomattox document, in North Carolina, where the last large contingent of the South’s armies had been forced to surrender to Sherman. Here is more “documented as well as any history:”

    [Agreement of Johnston and Sherman] went beyond military terms and the surrender of Johnston’s army. The agreement applied to any (read all) Confederate armies still in existence. The troops would disband and return to their state capitals, where they were to deposit their arms and public property at the state arsenals. The federal executive would recognize state governments, including their officers and legislatures. Where rival governments existed, the U.S. Supreme Court would decide which one would be recognized.

    Federal courts would be reestablished in southern states, and the people would have their political rights and franchises guaranteed, including their rights of person and property. The war would cease, and a general amnesty would be provided.

    Sherman was convinced his signed agreement with Johnston would end the war. In his cover letter awkwardly addressed to Grant or Halleck, Sherman argued that the agreement, “if approved by the President of the United States, will produce peace from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.”

    In a follow-up letter to Halleck the same day, Sherman advised: “please give all orders necessary according to the views the Executive may take, and influence him, if possible, not to vary the terms at all, for I have considered everything.”

    Sherman had overplayed his hand. He did not realize that neither the President nor any high-ranking member of the federal government would ever agree to the terms outlined in his accord with Johnston. The plan he worked out with Johnston was quickly rejected by federal authorities.

    Sherman, thinking he ended the war, was surprised by the response he received from Washington. The Union commander had to inform Johnston that unless new military terms were reached, their armistice would end on April 26. That day the opposing army commanders met once again in Durham Station and worked out an agreement limited to military issues. Now that political matters were not included in the terms, Grant, who was sent to make sure Sherman got it right this time, quickly gave his approval, thus accepting the surrender of the largest Confederate force still in existence.

    That’s the thing that I am saying about how Sherman was well-liked by many Southerners following the Civil War: he was liked because he tried to work out (and, with Johnston, did work out) a comprehensive peace agreement that could have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people if the government in Washington had agreed to it.

    It’s very easy to call me names and such, but it’s a lot of work to actually dig in and present facts … so I’ll be taking a break in order to compose the rest of my defense against the gang of my accusers and denigrators, a bunch that seems to want to exceed Black Lives Matter in unreasoning and stubborn arrogance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Continuing my defense against commenter Clyde Wilson and others of his ilk:

    I have addressed two of the four slanders Wilson has made, namely the slander by Wilson that I was out of line to dismiss Ilana's accusation that "Sherman's troops tore up little girls' dolls," and, the slander that I lied when I alluded to the history that while Sherman would have or did allow the vanquished to keep their rifles, "Grant would have none of it."

    That leaves two more issues to take up here.

    1) Wilson says, "Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation." First, I note that it's more than possible both that Sherman and Johnston were friends after the War and that Johnston served as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral as a "gesture of reconciliation.". So, apparently Wilson alleges that I am wrong to state that Johnston and Sherman were friends after the War. In my defense on that point, I quote from Wikipedia article, 'Joseph E. Johnston', as follows:

    Johnston, like Lee, never forgot the magnanimity of the man to whom he surrendered, and would not allow an unkind word to be said about Sherman in his presence. Sherman and Johnston corresponded frequently and they met for friendly dinners in Washington whenever Johnston traveled there. When Sherman died, Johnston served as an honorary pallbearer at his funeral; during the procession in New York City on February 19, 1891, he kept his hat off as a sign of respect in the cold, rainy weather. Someone with concern for the old general's health asked him to put on his hat, to which Johnston replied "If I were in his place and he were standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat." He caught a cold that day, which developed into pneumonia, and he died several weeks later in Washington, D.C

     

    2) Wilson takes issue with my reference to Sherman's bodyguard composed of black soldiers.I guess I should have specified that I was referring to Sherman's bodyguard when he was Commander of the United States Army during the Grant administration, but I thought that would be understood. My information comes from accounts of visitor to Sherman's HQ in St. Louis (in the 1870s). If you think about this, clearly Sherman would have required a bodyguard unit mainly to defend against Wilkes Booth types, i.e., white Southerners bearing a grudge. So a black bodyguard made sense. As for Wlison's accusation that I had said that Sherman "liked" these soldiers (so perhaps was an N-word lover?) - I never said that. I said that they liked him. Troops who served under Sherman generally liked him. They called him "Uncle Billy." He was that kind of general.
  31. TG says:

    I don’t doubt for one moment that the oligarchs in the North cared anything about slavery. Sure, economic reasons were a big – maybe even primary – reason for the Civil War.

    But.

    It remains a fact that the Southern economy WAS based on human slavery. It remains a fact that opposition to slavery in the North was substantial. It remains a fact that both the slave and the ‘free’ states fought bitterly over whether new states would be free or slave, because each felt that if a majority of the nation was the other, then their way of life would be at peril.

    Without slavery, Lincoln would never have been able to start the civil war. If the South had given up slavery, it would have cut the legs out from under the war of northern aggression. But the South couldn’t do that, because their system was based on slavery.

    I and many have thought that Lincoln is unfairly praised for presiding over a bloody brutal war. Give me a ‘boring’ president like Eisenhower any day. But. Many decent and smart people tried their best for decades beforehand to stop a war between North and South, but they could never find a workable compromise over slavery. One way or the other, with Lincoln or without, there likely was going to be no other solution.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    One way or the other, with Lincoln or without, there likely was going to be no other solution
     
    Sure there was, Lincoln could have refrained from invading the Confederate States of America. A free and independent CSA was the only moral option, not 160 years of Yankee occupation.
    , @Alden
    Bloody Kansas Quantrill's raiders and John brown's raids on isolated
    slave owning farms was an entire vicious mini civil war fought in the western territories in the 1850s.

    The southerners were adamant about states rights and that the constitution allowed secession plus slavery, plus enforcement of the fugitive slave act.

    The Puritan abolitionists were anti southern fanatic crusaders. Plus I think a major motive behind the abolitionists was to seize the iron, coal, cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco and the vast forest resources of the south. Also seized were those southern warm weather harbors.
    Almost forgot the cheap labor of the freed slaves and impoverished Whites.

    As always behind Puritan fanaticism was their real motive, money.
  32. Wally says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    An upcoming blog post:

    Sep 1, 2017 - Was the Civil War About Slavery?

    First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln:

    MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861

    Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

    "...I declare that--I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade

    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders’ ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

    “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Japanese has been white washing their crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes in the last 75 years using techniques like questioning the minute details, presenting false evidence, watering down events, outright denial, pointing fingers, accusing the victims, circular arguments, ..., and after 75 year of cradle to grave telling lies education telling lies has become Japanese culture, way of life and part of their DNA.

    You surely is a good student of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, or it is the other way round, the American is the maestro, and the Japanese is the apprentice.
  33. Wally says: • Website
    @Jake
    Ilana Mercer is brilliant and brave. Precious few are her equal.

    Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil in the power-worshipping sense.

    However, Mercer is a Zionist Jew which equals ‘Jews uber alles’, which begets lie after lie, and most everyone here knows it.

    The same old propaganda is implied about Hitler.

    Simply stated:
    There was Hitler with the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there was Hitler without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    [MORE]

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

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    - “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg, from https://youtu.be/2q51wqEE1fM

    Read More
  34. @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    I am just old enough to have ancestors living, in my early youth, who remembered the Civil War; although they were quite young at the time. My early youth was colored by stories of our women being hidden in the woods. Of our house being burned and having to wait three days for the ashes to cool so that the nails could be recovered. Of having to hire black perjury before the Southern War Claims Commission in order to recover for property destroyed, or stolen.

    Read More
  35. @Jake
    Ilana Mercer is brilliant and brave. Precious few are her equal.

    Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil in the power-worshipping sense.

    Jake says, “Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil in the power-worshipping sense.”

    Well, Jake, I haven’t seen anyone here trashing Lee or lauding Lincoln … and your purpose is … what? To add to the confusion?

    Read More
  36. Wally says: • Website
    @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    "Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time."

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!

    No, illegal Allied civilian terror “bombing brought Germany to ashes”.

    If you think you know what you’re talking about, and obviously you don’t, then bring it here:

    Who started bombing civilians first:Germany or Great Britain?

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    [MORE]

    ex.:

    ”the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of “war criminals.” The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This “epoch-making event,” as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940:
    Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101
    But the “great decision,” the “splendid decision” of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight’s own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:
    It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs …102
    One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!
    99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).
    100. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Apppleton: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1953), p. 122.
    101. Spaight, op. cit., p. 7.
    102. C. P. Snow, Science and Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 48.

    and:

    Letter to PBS on fraudulent ‘documentary’ about the ‘Blitz’

    Dr. A.R. WESSERLE
    16 March 1981
    PBS Television “The Blitz”

    Sirs:

    Rarely have I come across a television broadcast more vicious in intent and more warped in execution than your recent “Blitz on Britain.” As a survivor of the mass air raid executed against my native city of Prague, Bohemia, on the Christian Holy Day of Palm Sunday, 1945, by the Anglo-American strategic bomber force – a raid that maimed or murdered thousands a few seconds before the conclusion of the Second World War – I say this:

    1. There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other. As the commander of the British strategic air offensive, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947) 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed.

    2. Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and “buzz bombs” on Britain – five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany. The Federal German Government has established the minimum count – not an estimate – of 635,000 German civilians were killed in France, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and elsewhere.

    3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed – the Battle of the German Bight – Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later. Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann. Professor Lindemann, the later Viscount Cherwell, coolly calculated that, by using a force of 10,000 heavy bombers to attack and destroy the 58 largest German cities, one-third of the population of Germany would be “de-housed.” The assumption, of course, also was that out of those 25-27 million homeless at least ten percent – 2.5 to 3 million people – would be killed. On this score alone, Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history. In fact, as West German records show, 131 German towns were hit by heavy strategic raids. Only the courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, the effectiveness of the air defense network and the strength of the fire fighting organization worked together to prevent a bloodbath to the extent envisioned by the Prime Minister.

    4. Blood baths did occur when conditions were right. When the Anglo-American bombing policy reached its first grand climax in a raid on Hamburg that stretched over several days and nights in July, 1943, a minimum of 40,000 to 50,000 civilians burned to death. With the defensive power of the Reich worn down in the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Anglo-Saxons indulged in ever more massive extermination raids against Europe. Communities of little or no military value, even if attacked previously, were now pulverized, preferably under conditions of the utmost horror. Christian holy days, and dates and sites of famous art festivals were select occasions for raids. Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig. Little Pforzheim in south-west Germany had 17,000 people killed. Dresden, one of the great art centers and in 1945 a refuge for perhaps a million civilians, was decimated with the loss of at least 100,000 souls. Europe from Monte Cassino to Luebeck and Rostock on the Baltic, from Caen and Lisieux in France to Pilsen, Prague, Bruenn, Budapest and Bucharest reeled under the barbaric blows of the bombers.

    5. Nor did the extermination raids stop with Europe. Cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay demonstrated in. the Far East that record kills could be achieved without resort to atomic weapons. By applying the lessons learned in Europe to the wooden architecture of the Asian mainland and Japan he raised “fire storms” which surpassed even those of Hamburg, n Japanese civilians were killed through bombing. Millions of others fell victim to it, from Mukden, Manchuria, to Rangoon, Burma. It goes without saying that LeMay and his colleagues could not have carried out their campaigns of mass annihilation without the backing of the highest political leaders in the land. In fact, the United States Government had placed orders for the immediate development of four-engined, superheavy, very-long-range bombers (the XB 15, the B-17, the XB 19, the B-24 and the B-29) starting in 1934. Thus, the Roosevelt Administration had begun to lay plans for offensive, strategic, global war back in 1933, the year of its inception. With the later exception of Britain, none of the other “large” powers followed suit: neither France, Italy and Germany, nor Soviet Russia and Japan the latter with extensive holdings in the Pacific. These are sobering facts. PBS, with its record of fine programming, has much to lose if it insists on presenting biassed reports such as “Blitz on Britain” or “UXB.” If you care to tap the unplumbed depths of sentimentality, envy and hatred, start a comic strip. In the meantime, we’ll change channels.

    Sincerely, Dr. A.R. Wesserle

    Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 381-384.

    In addition:

    “As early as 1953 H.M. Stationary Office published the first volume of a work ‘The Royal Air Force’, 1939-1945 entitled ‘The Fight at Odds’, a book described as “officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch.” The author , Mr. Dennis Richards, states plainly the destruction of oil plants and factories was only a secondary purpose of the British air attacks on Germany which began in May 1940. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it is impossible to carry on a modern war. Mr Dennis Richards writes: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with it’s most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retalliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London “. p. 122

    This passage merely confirmed what Mr. Spaight had so incautiously disclosed in 1944 in his by then forgotten book ‘Bombing Vindicated’. The popular belief that Hitler started unrestricted bombing still persisted and is, in fact, widely held at present day.

    The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued until the end of the war in May, 1945. The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary, it was concentrated on working-class houses because, as professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.

    Read More
  37. The WW2 German propaganda magazine Signal, published in English as well as a number of other languages, presented Sherman’s campaign in the South as a ruthless example of total war targeting civilians. This was published after the USA entered the war and was designed as a riposte to the claims that the Nazis were merciless in waging warfare (of course, they were). The Nazis were not consistent in their approach to the US Civil War – sometimes they insinuated that Lincoln was a great man laid low by a conspiracy set in motion by Guess Who, sometimes they favoured the South and denounced Northern plans to give rights to Blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So show us the 'Nazi gas chambers' and tell us how they supposedly worked.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     


    The Los Angeles Coliseum holds ca 90,000. But according to Jews 2,000,000 Jews were shot which would leave unimaginable amounts of human remains. That equals over 22 times the Los Angeles Coliseum capacity shown here:
    https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3T7gOK-7itKZSDFe79muzQEsDP&pid=15.1&P=0&w=219&h=152
    So where are the necessary human remains? Please show them to us.

    The Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please show us the excavated enormous mass graves that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
  38. Great article, ma’am. Thank you for being on the right side of history. I’ve read articles and books by Thomas DiLorenzo and others along the same subject.
    Thanks again, and I really enjoy reading your work on Gab and elsewhere.

    Dave

    Read More
  39. @Jake
    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.

    What Mercer stresses is that someone as astute as Hitler in terms of grabbing power and centralizing it and wielding it brutally, no matter the body count, recognized Lincoln's abilities and successes in that very area. Hitler saw in Lincoln a precursor to himself - not in the specifics of political belief but in grasping power, centralizing it, and using it essentially amorally.

    And Hitler certainly loved the the Lincoln myth that grew up, making Abe the sacrificial lamb to American (imperial) democracy. Germanic romanticism has always had a Death Wish/suicide component, and Hitler was no exception. He would have loved to become the German Lincoln - killed only to be remade by his supporters as the nation's secular dying god.

    Until we see those matters, we cannot see that all that centralizing of power in DC under Lincoln, which was necessary to fight his war, has been indispensable to each stage of the growing Leftist horror.

    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.

    I know exactly what Mercer was saying, and I disagree with it. Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Lincoln’s centralization of power are ridiculous on their face. Hitler is simply being retconned so as to appear to be the progenerator of the evil du jour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.
    , @Chris Mallory
    On the other hand, Marx was rather happy with Lincoln and his tyrannical war.
  40. @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    "Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time."

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!

    read comment #18. again.

    It was NOT Hitler or the German people who “Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!!, it was the “civilized” west, Great Britain and the USA that destroyed 75% of Germany’s built infrastructure, the greatest set of crimes against humanity the modern world has ever seen, modeled on Sherman’s March to the Sea (from the US side), and Arthur Harris’s highly successful bombing raids on intransigent Iraqi villages in the 1920s.

    Read More
  41. @Grandpa Charlie
    All I am trying to say is: "Yes, Ilana, there is another side (other than the pro-South side) to the discussion about the Civil War." There are probably even several sides to the history of the Civil War, no one of which can lay an exclusive claim to the truth. For example:,

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

    And, btw, this has nothing to do with the current MSM lies about and DHS agents-provateurs manipulation of events at Charlottesvillle ... or with any of the genocide against white folk ... or, most especially, this Civil War talk has nothing to do with Patriots or with defense of the First Amendment. And, to make myself clear, I doubt that there really is another side (other than Ilana's) to the ongoing genocide in Ilana's home country, South Africa, But this is America, and there really are at least two sides to any valid discussion of the Civil War (notoriously so.)

    Anyway, it seems that I am called upon to defend myself and my comment, so here goes:

    First, about the tearing up of little girls' dolls, I call "booshwah" to that, based on common sense. Sure it could be that there's one instance, or even more, of interviews or memoirs of Confederate widows that recount the supposed desecration of dolls or the crucifixion of family pets. Are we really supposed to believe that it was a policy of Sherman's or a general practice of the men in his command to tear up little girls' dolls ... what? and force the little girls to watch? Or to crucify family pets on the front doors of the mansions of the plantations? In passing here, I note that the standard of proof used by Ilana is cynically expected by Clyde Wilson to be "documented as well as anything in history" - whatever that means, other than that anyone can say anything they want, so long as it's written down somewhere. But does that mean that I have to check my common sense at the gate?

    Second,, about that Grant allowed the vanquished "to keep some rifles for protection on their way home." Would that have included Mosby's Rangers - a guerilla unit whose specialty was hit-and-run harassment of Union troops in Virginia? (As it turned out, yes, Mosby too surrendered peacefully, at the last, and was paroled, which included surrendering firearms.) What they were allowed to keep was their horses, which were their own personal property. Here's something that is "as well documented as anything in history" -

    " three things came out of this meeting [surrender at Appomattox] - each Confederate soldier would be given a printed pass, signed by his officers, to prove he was a paroled prisoner; all cavalrymen and artillerymen would be allowed to retain their horses; and Confederates who had to pass through Federal-occupied territory to get home were allowed free transportation on U.S. government railroads and vessels." (Trevor Plante, published in Prologue Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 1)

    Nothing there about keeping their rifles, and yet Clyde Wilson accuses me of being a liar for saying that Sherman allowed the vanquished to keep their rifles (see below), whereas, "Grant would have none of that."

    Some time after Appomattox, Johnston and Sherman worked out their own post-Appomattox document, in North Carolina, where the last large contingent of the South's armies had been forced to surrender to Sherman. Here is more "documented as well as any history:"


    [Agreement of Johnston and Sherman] went beyond military terms and the surrender of Johnston's army. The agreement applied to any (read all) Confederate armies still in existence. The troops would disband and return to their state capitals, where they were to deposit their arms and public property at the state arsenals. The federal executive would recognize state governments, including their officers and legislatures. Where rival governments existed, the U.S. Supreme Court would decide which one would be recognized.

    Federal courts would be reestablished in southern states, and the people would have their political rights and franchises guaranteed, including their rights of person and property. The war would cease, and a general amnesty would be provided.

    Sherman was convinced his signed agreement with Johnston would end the war. In his cover letter awkwardly addressed to Grant or Halleck, Sherman argued that the agreement, "if approved by the President of the United States, will produce peace from the Potomac to the Rio Grande."

    In a follow-up letter to Halleck the same day, Sherman advised: "please give all orders necessary according to the views the Executive may take, and influence him, if possible, not to vary the terms at all, for I have considered everything."

    Sherman had overplayed his hand. He did not realize that neither the President nor any high-ranking member of the federal government would ever agree to the terms outlined in his accord with Johnston. The plan he worked out with Johnston was quickly rejected by federal authorities.

    Sherman, thinking he ended the war, was surprised by the response he received from Washington. The Union commander had to inform Johnston that unless new military terms were reached, their armistice would end on April 26. That day the opposing army commanders met once again in Durham Station and worked out an agreement limited to military issues. Now that political matters were not included in the terms, Grant, who was sent to make sure Sherman got it right this time, quickly gave his approval, thus accepting the surrender of the largest Confederate force still in existence.
     

    That's the thing that I am saying about how Sherman was well-liked by many Southerners following the Civil War: he was liked because he tried to work out (and, with Johnston, did work out) a comprehensive peace agreement that could have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people if the government in Washington had agreed to it.

    It's very easy to call me names and such, but it's a lot of work to actually dig in and present facts ... so I'll be taking a break in order to compose the rest of my defense against the gang of my accusers and denigrators, a bunch that seems to want to exceed Black Lives Matter in unreasoning and stubborn arrogance.

    Continuing my defense against commenter Clyde Wilson and others of his ilk:

    I have addressed two of the four slanders Wilson has made, namely the slander by Wilson that I was out of line to dismiss Ilana’s accusation that “Sherman’s troops tore up little girls’ dolls,” and, the slander that I lied when I alluded to the history that while Sherman would have or did allow the vanquished to keep their rifles, “Grant would have none of it.”

    That leaves two more issues to take up here.

    1) Wilson says, “Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation.” First, I note that it’s more than possible both that Sherman and Johnston were friends after the War and that Johnston served as a pallbearer at Sherman’s funeral as a “gesture of reconciliation.”. So, apparently Wilson alleges that I am wrong to state that Johnston and Sherman were friends after the War. In my defense on that point, I quote from Wikipedia article, ‘Joseph E. Johnston’, as follows:

    Johnston, like Lee, never forgot the magnanimity of the man to whom he surrendered, and would not allow an unkind word to be said about Sherman in his presence. Sherman and Johnston corresponded frequently and they met for friendly dinners in Washington whenever Johnston traveled there. When Sherman died, Johnston served as an honorary pallbearer at his funeral; during the procession in New York City on February 19, 1891, he kept his hat off as a sign of respect in the cold, rainy weather. Someone with concern for the old general’s health asked him to put on his hat, to which Johnston replied “If I were in his place and he were standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat.” He caught a cold that day, which developed into pneumonia, and he died several weeks later in Washington, D.C

    2) Wilson takes issue with my reference to Sherman’s bodyguard composed of black soldiers.I guess I should have specified that I was referring to Sherman’s bodyguard when he was Commander of the United States Army during the Grant administration, but I thought that would be understood. My information comes from accounts of visitor to Sherman’s HQ in St. Louis (in the 1870s). If you think about this, clearly Sherman would have required a bodyguard unit mainly to defend against Wilkes Booth types, i.e., white Southerners bearing a grudge. So a black bodyguard made sense. As for Wlison’s accusation that I had said that Sherman “liked” these soldiers (so perhaps was an N-word lover?) – I never said that. I said that they liked him. Troops who served under Sherman generally liked him. They called him “Uncle Billy.” He was that kind of general.

    Read More
  42. utu says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.
     
    I know exactly what Mercer was saying, and I disagree with it. Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Lincoln's centralization of power are ridiculous on their face. Hitler is simply being retconned so as to appear to be the progenerator of the evil du jour.

    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Raskolnikov is a fictional character, you blithering idiot.

    Shut up and go away.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.
     
    Hitler seemingly was inspired by Napoleon. They both made the same mistake.
  43. @utu
    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.

    Raskolnikov is a fictional character, you blithering idiot.

    Shut up and go away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    99 44/100% of what people think they know about Hitler is fiction.
    , @The Alarmist
    Thanks for that ... I wondered why he was referring to the main character of Crime & Punishment, but was not sure I might have missed something.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    I think the point utu was making is that Raskolnikov believed that the great leader must prove his willingness to take bold action -- like killing somebody. He did not kill the old lady simply to steal her money -- he hid the loot under a rock. He killed because he felt compelled to prove his capacity to be a Great Man.

    If I recall correctly, Sun Tzu includes an anecdote that also states that a great leader must have the capacity to kill or order killing. These three -- Raskolnikov, Napoleon, and Sun Tzu came to mind when Trump OKd the military raid in Yemen in which a soldier was killed: the exercise might well be called "The Blooding of the President."

    imo Lincoln did not quite fit the Great Man description in the same way as Napoleon: Lincoln never marched into the chaos battle, never froze in winter with his troops, never plunged a bayonet into another man's gut and watched him die. Lincoln had "the courage of the knife but not of the blood."

    Both Napoleon and Hitler had been in war and knew its horrors; both had a greater respect for the destructiveness of war, and knew how a man's soul is changed by killing other men.
  44. @DerSohndesAllvaters
    Thank you for reminding me of this fact. German-Irish, southern descendant of people who fought in and endured the southern war, and a sympathizer of the National Socialists (I'm writing from Germany), es geht mir auf den Sack, wenn Leute sagen sie sind vergleichbar. To believe that, we have to forget what the Fuehrer in Mein Kampf said. If Adolf Hitler wasn't an expert on Nazis, who was/is; I'm pretty sure it was his movement. The belief systems of the two are totally at odds. To start the Southerners were Federalists, y'all know this already...

    Lese noch mal … der Vergleich war zwischen die Massnahmen des Lincolns und die Plaene des Hitlers, und hat nichts mit der South zu tun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "...mit der South"?

    I don't wish to be a grammar nazi, but I thought the word was Sud. (I'm too technically-challenged to do umlauts).
  45. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Raskolnikov is a fictional character, you blithering idiot.

    Shut up and go away.

    99 44/100% of what people think they know about Hitler is fiction.

    Read More
  46. @The Alarmist
    Lese noch mal ... der Vergleich war zwischen die Massnahmen des Lincolns und die Plaene des Hitlers, und hat nichts mit der South zu tun.

    “…mit der South”?

    I don’t wish to be a grammar nazi, but I thought the word was Sud. (I’m too technically-challenged to do umlauts).

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Many Germans would prefer to see the umlauts, but they are tolerant of those using the trailing vowel to express the character. Certainly not grammar-nazis like the French. You could have properly knicked me on using der instead of dem.

    You could write Sued to express it in German: I decided since I was dealing with the American South to go with the English formal name, The South. Sued des Amerikas, Sued der Vereinigten Staaten, or Suedstaaten seemed a bit alien, and Sued Amerika is a whole other thing.

  47. @TG
    I don't doubt for one moment that the oligarchs in the North cared anything about slavery. Sure, economic reasons were a big - maybe even primary - reason for the Civil War.

    But.

    It remains a fact that the Southern economy WAS based on human slavery. It remains a fact that opposition to slavery in the North was substantial. It remains a fact that both the slave and the 'free' states fought bitterly over whether new states would be free or slave, because each felt that if a majority of the nation was the other, then their way of life would be at peril.

    Without slavery, Lincoln would never have been able to start the civil war. If the South had given up slavery, it would have cut the legs out from under the war of northern aggression. But the South couldn't do that, because their system was based on slavery.

    I and many have thought that Lincoln is unfairly praised for presiding over a bloody brutal war. Give me a 'boring' president like Eisenhower any day. But. Many decent and smart people tried their best for decades beforehand to stop a war between North and South, but they could never find a workable compromise over slavery. One way or the other, with Lincoln or without, there likely was going to be no other solution.

    One way or the other, with Lincoln or without, there likely was going to be no other solution

    Sure there was, Lincoln could have refrained from invading the Confederate States of America. A free and independent CSA was the only moral option, not 160 years of Yankee occupation.

    Read More
  48. @Intelligent Dasein

    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.
     
    I know exactly what Mercer was saying, and I disagree with it. Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Lincoln's centralization of power are ridiculous on their face. Hitler is simply being retconned so as to appear to be the progenerator of the evil du jour.

    On the other hand, Marx was rather happy with Lincoln and his tyrannical war.

    Read More
  49. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "...mit der South"?

    I don't wish to be a grammar nazi, but I thought the word was Sud. (I'm too technically-challenged to do umlauts).

    Many Germans would prefer to see the umlauts, but they are tolerant of those using the trailing vowel to express the character. Certainly not grammar-nazis like the French. You could have properly knicked me on using der instead of dem.

    You could write Sued to express it in German: I decided since I was dealing with the American South to go with the English formal name, The South. Sued des Amerikas, Sued der Vereinigten Staaten, or Suedstaaten seemed a bit alien, and Sued Amerika is a whole other thing.

    Read More
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Well, of course Hitler liked Lincoln. Lincoln killed massive amounts of white people, both his own and those whites he decided into make his enemies, and so did Hitler. Birds of a feather.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Lincoln killed massive amounts of white people --most of them Christian, both his own and those whites he decided into make his enemies, and so did Jews. Birds of a feather.
     

    10,000 OF STALIN’S International Brigade were Jews. More than one-third of the Jewish volunteers were communist American Jews who called themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

    The International Brigade, comprised mostly of Jews, slaughtered 6,539 Spanish priests, 3000 monks, 300 nuns, and 13 Bishops. Over 20,000 Spanish churches were destroyed by the Bolshevik Jews.
     

    Jewish boys in the Lincoln Brigade wrote letters home to their mammas explaining why they would not be home for the holidays: "We are taking revenge for the time the Spanish expelled us."
  51. Wally says: • Website
    @Uebersetzer
    The WW2 German propaganda magazine Signal, published in English as well as a number of other languages, presented Sherman's campaign in the South as a ruthless example of total war targeting civilians. This was published after the USA entered the war and was designed as a riposte to the claims that the Nazis were merciless in waging warfare (of course, they were). The Nazis were not consistent in their approach to the US Civil War - sometimes they insinuated that Lincoln was a great man laid low by a conspiracy set in motion by Guess Who, sometimes they favoured the South and denounced Northern plans to give rights to Blacks.

    So show us the ‘Nazi gas chambers’ and tell us how they supposedly worked.

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.

    [MORE]

    The Los Angeles Coliseum holds ca 90,000. But according to Jews 2,000,000 Jews were shot which would leave unimaginable amounts of human remains. That equals over 22 times the Los Angeles Coliseum capacity shown here:

    https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3T7gOK-7itKZSDFe79muzQEsDP&pid=15.1&P=0&w=219&h=152

    So where are the necessary human remains? Please show them to us.

    The Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please show us the excavated enormous mass graves that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

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

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? This post said nothing about Jews or the Holocaust. You're like a broken record.
    , @Curle
    How much space would 11 million incinerated, as opposed to buried, bodies take up? And who is actually out looking for them?
  52. @SolontoCroesus
    If Ilana wishes to be completely honest, rather than opportunistically reinforce the "Hitler = paragon of evil" meme, she would fully discuss the US Air Force and British Airforce firebombing that imposed "scorched earth" on Germany and Japan.
    Based on the rousing success of that genocidal orgasm, USA/British similarly firebombed Iraq, scorched earth in Syria; Israel regularly destroys Gaza w/ firepower.

    And don't blame it all on the British & Bomber Harris: According to reports by the U S Department of the Interior,
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," as well as Hollywood studios headed exclusively by Jews, collaborated with US Air Force to plan, rehearse, then carry out the firebombing of German civilian workers housing.

    The planning for the firebombing included provision to incinerate "young families with infants in cribs."

    131 German cities -- 75% of Germany -- were reduced to charred rubble; that's the equivalent of flattening and burning up over 14, 500 American cities/towns. The scorched earth destruction that US Air Force, and its Jewish advisors, carried out in Germany made Sherman look like a rookie arsonist.

    It was impossible to determine how many German and other civilians were incinerated -- bodies were reduced to piles of ash.

    Jules Streicher was hanged because he published nasty things about Jews.

    Erich Mendelsohn, who envisioned* and planned the deliberate incineration of untold hundreds of thousands of German civilians, including infants, continues to be celebrated by the Jewish community including in the USA: Mendelsohn designed synagogues and community centers for numerous Jewish communities in the USA.
    Erich Mendelsohn, hero of the kosher dindu muffins.

    ----

    * "But in order to reeducate the people at large, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice."
    Eric Mendelsohn, Berkley, CA, April 22, 1942

    And let’s not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    "And let’s not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered." -- Bill Jones

    "'million plus Germans who died in Eisenhower's concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered" ?????

    One of the preconditions set by Eisenhower before USA would participate in a summit with the post-Stalin leaders of the USSR was that the Soviets would release the German POWs, captured at Stalingrad, still held in Siberian gulags in 1954. These POWs were released, on orders of Khrushchev, before the Austrian State Treaty, 1955, because of Eisenhower's insistence.

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags. They considered that, but for Eisenhower's insistence on their release (as a precondition for arranging a Summit, which ultimately took place during the Kennedy administration), they themselves would likely have been lost among many details outstanding after World War II ... and they would have been left to fill out their lives and ultimately perish in concentration work camps in Siberia. They extracted a promise from me that I would never forget what Eisenhower had done for them and that I would not let this detail of history be forgotten.

    I don't know and can't imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    So show us the 'Nazi gas chambers' and tell us how they supposedly worked.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     


    The Los Angeles Coliseum holds ca 90,000. But according to Jews 2,000,000 Jews were shot which would leave unimaginable amounts of human remains. That equals over 22 times the Los Angeles Coliseum capacity shown here:
    https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3T7gOK-7itKZSDFe79muzQEsDP&pid=15.1&P=0&w=219&h=152
    So where are the necessary human remains? Please show them to us.

    The Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please show us the excavated enormous mass graves that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? This post said nothing about Jews or the Holocaust. You’re like a broken record.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    . . .Jews & the Holocaust. . . . like a broken record.
     
    irony alert
  54. I can’t hear you with the words “They Practiced Slavery While Most of the Civilized World Had Figured Out It Was Evil!!!” pounding in my ears.

    Read More
  55. Curle says:
    @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    Is this Cyde N. Wilson? If so, thank you for an excellent book. And posts.

    https://www.amazon.com/Union-Empire-Essays-Jeffersonian-Tradition/dp/0962384216

    Read More
  56. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    If Ilana wishes to be completely honest, rather than opportunistically reinforce the "Hitler = paragon of evil" meme, she would fully discuss the US Air Force and British Airforce firebombing that imposed "scorched earth" on Germany and Japan.
    Based on the rousing success of that genocidal orgasm, USA/British similarly firebombed Iraq, scorched earth in Syria; Israel regularly destroys Gaza w/ firepower.

    And don't blame it all on the British & Bomber Harris: According to reports by the U S Department of the Interior,
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," as well as Hollywood studios headed exclusively by Jews, collaborated with US Air Force to plan, rehearse, then carry out the firebombing of German civilian workers housing.

    The planning for the firebombing included provision to incinerate "young families with infants in cribs."

    131 German cities -- 75% of Germany -- were reduced to charred rubble; that's the equivalent of flattening and burning up over 14, 500 American cities/towns. The scorched earth destruction that US Air Force, and its Jewish advisors, carried out in Germany made Sherman look like a rookie arsonist.

    It was impossible to determine how many German and other civilians were incinerated -- bodies were reduced to piles of ash.

    Jules Streicher was hanged because he published nasty things about Jews.

    Erich Mendelsohn, who envisioned* and planned the deliberate incineration of untold hundreds of thousands of German civilians, including infants, continues to be celebrated by the Jewish community including in the USA: Mendelsohn designed synagogues and community centers for numerous Jewish communities in the USA.
    Erich Mendelsohn, hero of the kosher dindu muffins.

    ----

    * "But in order to reeducate the people at large, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice."
    Eric Mendelsohn, Berkley, CA, April 22, 1942

    Not this again. Under the guise of “protecting” Germany from future British and French “bullying” (despite their willingness to appease Hitler’s demands for more land), and under the assumption that German Jews were a barrier to future economic progress (which in essence was a combination of admiration and jealousy their financial prowess), Hitler put forth several nationalistic courses of action to extend the imperialistic zealotry of Otto Von Bismarck, using vengeance as the trigger.

    During any and all wars, morality or ethics or rules or standards may be established, but they are violated. Repeatedly. By human beings. The British, French, and Germans equally had the duty to ensure victory for their people. All sides committed heinous crimes. Why? To win. Period.

    In the end, the British and French, with American aid, vanquished their foes. Methods and strategies were employed to that end. Civilians are casualties. Always have been, always will be.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me, SC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    "sounds like sour grapes" --

    Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Not this again. Cuckoldry.
  57. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Well, of course Hitler liked Lincoln. Lincoln killed massive amounts of white people, both his own and those whites he decided into make his enemies, and so did Hitler. Birds of a feather.

    Lincoln killed massive amounts of white people –most of them Christian, both his own and those whites he decided into make his enemies, and so did Jews. Birds of a feather.

    10,000 OF STALIN’S International Brigade were Jews. More than one-third of the Jewish volunteers were communist American Jews who called themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

    The International Brigade, comprised mostly of Jews, slaughtered 6,539 Spanish priests, 3000 monks, 300 nuns, and 13 Bishops. Over 20,000 Spanish churches were destroyed by the Bolshevik Jews.

    Jewish boys in the Lincoln Brigade wrote letters home to their mammas explaining why they would not be home for the holidays: “We are taking revenge for the time the Spanish expelled us.”

    Read More
  58. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? This post said nothing about Jews or the Holocaust. You're like a broken record.

    . . .Jews & the Holocaust. . . . like a broken record.

    irony alert

    Read More
  59. @Corvinus
    Not this again. Under the guise of “protecting” Germany from future British and French “bullying” (despite their willingness to appease Hitler’s demands for more land), and under the assumption that German Jews were a barrier to future economic progress (which in essence was a combination of admiration and jealousy their financial prowess), Hitler put forth several nationalistic courses of action to extend the imperialistic zealotry of Otto Von Bismarck, using vengeance as the trigger.

    During any and all wars, morality or ethics or rules or standards may be established, but they are violated. Repeatedly. By human beings. The British, French, and Germans equally had the duty to ensure victory for their people. All sides committed heinous crimes. Why? To win. Period.

    In the end, the British and French, with American aid, vanquished their foes. Methods and strategies were employed to that end. Civilians are casualties. Always have been, always will be.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me, SC.

    “sounds like sour grapes”

    Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?"

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.

  60. J. R. IV says:

    Ilana Mercer please accept a hug of sincere thanks.
    This is the first appeal to history, facts, and original sources I have read in the media since the current circus began. I have spent the last several years researching the Civil War (I am writing a novel), and only today read yet another egregious New York Times gloss that filled me with dismay. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Read More
  61. Curle says:
    @Wally
    So show us the 'Nazi gas chambers' and tell us how they supposedly worked.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     


    The Los Angeles Coliseum holds ca 90,000. But according to Jews 2,000,000 Jews were shot which would leave unimaginable amounts of human remains. That equals over 22 times the Los Angeles Coliseum capacity shown here:
    https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3T7gOK-7itKZSDFe79muzQEsDP&pid=15.1&P=0&w=219&h=152
    So where are the necessary human remains? Please show them to us.

    The Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please show us the excavated enormous mass graves that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    How much space would 11 million incinerated, as opposed to buried, bodies take up? And who is actually out looking for them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    how long would it take to incinerate 11 million bodies? How much manpower required?
  62. @Corvinus
    Not this again. Under the guise of “protecting” Germany from future British and French “bullying” (despite their willingness to appease Hitler’s demands for more land), and under the assumption that German Jews were a barrier to future economic progress (which in essence was a combination of admiration and jealousy their financial prowess), Hitler put forth several nationalistic courses of action to extend the imperialistic zealotry of Otto Von Bismarck, using vengeance as the trigger.

    During any and all wars, morality or ethics or rules or standards may be established, but they are violated. Repeatedly. By human beings. The British, French, and Germans equally had the duty to ensure victory for their people. All sides committed heinous crimes. Why? To win. Period.

    In the end, the British and French, with American aid, vanquished their foes. Methods and strategies were employed to that end. Civilians are casualties. Always have been, always will be.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me, SC.

    Not this again. Cuckoldry.

    Read More
  63. Squire says:
    @Logan
    “the import-dependent South, which was paying [at the time] as much as 80 percent of the tariff.”

    Color me skeptical. The total population of the slave states, not just those that eventually seceded, was 12M. 4M of those were slaves, who consumed very little indeed. The total population of the free states was 19M.

    Yet we're supposed to believe that the 8M (or 12M) people in the slave states (26% or 39% of the population) consumed not only a majority, but a full 80% of the imported products on which tariffs were paid.

    What exactly were the imported products that were apparently purchased only in the South, leading to this enormous disproportion? For what products was the South more "import-dependent" than the North?

    The South was disadvantaged in a number of ways by the tariff system. But their paying 80% of the tariffs was probably not one of them.

    Commentators on this issue tend to conflate a number of only loosely related factors. One of these being the differential effects on the regions of protective tariffs. But the most common one I've seen is conflating 80% of the exports of the US being from the South, mostly cotton, as constituting the South paying that proportion of the tariffs. This is an issue involving balance of trade, not tariffs as such.

    Of course, there never has been a tariff on exported cotton, or any other export, such being specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

    Tariffs aren’t paid when goods are sold, they are paid when they enter the country. Geography is very important here. Look at a map from 1860. Most of the ports were in the South. Just about all imported goods used in the South entered through Southern ports. That is a given. But the same is true for the North. In 1860 all Northern states west of the Appalachians would have used Southern ports to import and export goods. The overland infrastructure wasn’t good enough to ship a lot of goods by land, so they were shipped by water. And a majority of the Northern states west of the Appalachians were in the Mississippi watershed. Those that weren’t, like northern Ohio and northern Indiana, were connected to the Mississippi watershed via canals. So they would naturally use Southern ports. So the figure that 80% of goods entering the US in 1860 come through Southern ports isn’t, by any means, a stretch.

    To summarize, Northern ports only imported goods for New England, NY, NJ, and PA. Southern ports imported goods for the rest of the country. And with the tariff being paid upon entry, the South paid a disproportionate share of the tariffs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Sure, the importer pays the tariff, but he just adds it to his cost and passes it on down the line. The importer doesn't pay the tax, he is simply a tax collector. The eventual consumer is the one left hold the tax bag. This is so obvious it shouldn't even require stating.

    In most states, a retailer "pays" sales tax. But you may have noticed he adds it to what he charges you, making him in reality a tax collector, not a tax payer. He isn't required to, but he almost always does.

    In 1860 all southern ports together produced <$4M of gross tariff revenue. Northern ports collected tariff revenues of about $44M. Here are the actual numbers.

    https://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/

    As far as the infrastructure not being developed in 1860, they had these things called railroads. You may have heard of them.

    By your logic of the state of the point of entry being the state that "pays" the tax, which isn't even true, northern states "paid" about 92% of the of the tariffs. In reality, the consumers scattered across the states paid them.
  64. @Intelligent Dasein
    Raskolnikov is a fictional character, you blithering idiot.

    Shut up and go away.

    Thanks for that … I wondered why he was referring to the main character of Crime & Punishment, but was not sure I might have missed something.

    Read More
  65. Cavalier says:
    @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    "Hitler’s credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time."

    Of course, he also brought Germany to the ashes in a very short time!

    The NWO Communists often called the Allies brought Germany to Ashes in a short time.

    Read More
  66. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Curle
    How much space would 11 million incinerated, as opposed to buried, bodies take up? And who is actually out looking for them?

    how long would it take to incinerate 11 million bodies? How much manpower required?

    Read More
  67. heymrguda says:

    What is with this preoccupation with Lincoln and the civil war? At least two here, one on Zerohedge and another on LRC, which seems obsessed with the subject. It gets more ink than Wilson, FDR and LBJ by half a mile.

    It seems that many on the alt right and paleos feel that if they repeat the myth that slavery had little or nothing to do with the war, it’ll become fact. There were decades of strife – verbal and physical- leading up to the war — bleeding Kansas, dred Scott, fugitive slave, Nat Turner, John Brown, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (or was it Uncle Tom’s Tariff, I can’t remember). Preservation of slavery was stated by the confederate states as their primary rationale for secession. Even the Mises article on Zhedge acknowledges this. Since you don’t want to appear to be defending slavery, your only option is to do away with it as a cause of the war

    Specifying the Morill Act as a cause is absurd, it was passed after many of the states had already seceded. If Tariffs were such an issue why were northern rural farm states not also affected? There was in fact a “Northwest Conspiracy” that gained some traction but it was motivated mostly by opposition to slave abolition, according to Thomas Fleming. Tariffs were a non-issue.

    If you condemn Lincoln for using force to keep the country together, I have no rebuttal for that. But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Facile. The Morill tariff was under consideration well before it was formally passed into law.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    If you condemn Lincoln for using force to keep the country together, I have no rebuttal for that. But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.
     
    use that steam to open your pores, or mind, and check this out

    https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/acton-lee.html

    The Acton - Lee Correspondence
  68. SOL says:

    ” But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.”

    Does the Federal Government have the authority to outlaw slavery? No. So even according to your simplistic view it does reduce to a question of states’ rights.

    Read More
  69. @heymrguda
    What is with this preoccupation with Lincoln and the civil war? At least two here, one on Zerohedge and another on LRC, which seems obsessed with the subject. It gets more ink than Wilson, FDR and LBJ by half a mile.

    It seems that many on the alt right and paleos feel that if they repeat the myth that slavery had little or nothing to do with the war, it'll become fact. There were decades of strife - verbal and physical- leading up to the war -- bleeding Kansas, dred Scott, fugitive slave, Nat Turner, John Brown, Uncle Tom's Cabin (or was it Uncle Tom's Tariff, I can't remember). Preservation of slavery was stated by the confederate states as their primary rationale for secession. Even the Mises article on Zhedge acknowledges this. Since you don't want to appear to be defending slavery, your only option is to do away with it as a cause of the war

    Specifying the Morill Act as a cause is absurd, it was passed after many of the states had already seceded. If Tariffs were such an issue why were northern rural farm states not also affected? There was in fact a "Northwest Conspiracy" that gained some traction but it was motivated mostly by opposition to slave abolition, according to Thomas Fleming. Tariffs were a non-issue.

    If you condemn Lincoln for using force to keep the country together, I have no rebuttal for that. But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.

    Facile. The Morill tariff was under consideration well before it was formally passed into law.

    Read More
  70. @heymrguda
    What is with this preoccupation with Lincoln and the civil war? At least two here, one on Zerohedge and another on LRC, which seems obsessed with the subject. It gets more ink than Wilson, FDR and LBJ by half a mile.

    It seems that many on the alt right and paleos feel that if they repeat the myth that slavery had little or nothing to do with the war, it'll become fact. There were decades of strife - verbal and physical- leading up to the war -- bleeding Kansas, dred Scott, fugitive slave, Nat Turner, John Brown, Uncle Tom's Cabin (or was it Uncle Tom's Tariff, I can't remember). Preservation of slavery was stated by the confederate states as their primary rationale for secession. Even the Mises article on Zhedge acknowledges this. Since you don't want to appear to be defending slavery, your only option is to do away with it as a cause of the war

    Specifying the Morill Act as a cause is absurd, it was passed after many of the states had already seceded. If Tariffs were such an issue why were northern rural farm states not also affected? There was in fact a "Northwest Conspiracy" that gained some traction but it was motivated mostly by opposition to slave abolition, according to Thomas Fleming. Tariffs were a non-issue.

    If you condemn Lincoln for using force to keep the country together, I have no rebuttal for that. But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.

    If you condemn Lincoln for using force to keep the country together, I have no rebuttal for that. But foisting off the war as some idealistic fight for freedom or states rights is frankly a steaming pile of BS.

    use that steam to open your pores, or mind, and check this out

    https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/acton-lee.html

    The Acton – Lee Correspondence

    Read More
  71. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    "sounds like sour grapes" --

    Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?

    “Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?”

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.
     
    Quite so.

    German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust.
    https://justice4germans.wordpress.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=QPaCEFl-Zzg

    German civilians were deliberately targeted for incineration by firebombing, by US Air Force and British bombers, to whom Jewish individuals provided advice as to how to create the most efficient means of killing the greatest number of innocent people, including infants in their cribs.

    United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Incidentally, Corvinus: you argue that killing civilians is inevitable in war; that the only goal is Victory, and Victory by any means necessary.

    But check the dates on the Department of the Interior doc: German Village was built in 1942 - 1943.

    In 2014, Martin Amis and Ron Rosenbaum spoke about their books at the NYC Museum of Jewish Heritage. They concurred that


    "by 1942, Germany was defeated."
     
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 - 1944 - 1945.

    In other words, the goal of the firebombing campaign against German civilians was not to achieve victory, it was pure, unadulterated genocidal rage.

  72. Joe Wong says:
    @Wally
    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade

    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders' ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

    "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."

    Japanese has been white washing their crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes in the last 75 years using techniques like questioning the minute details, presenting false evidence, watering down events, outright denial, pointing fingers, accusing the victims, circular arguments, …, and after 75 year of cradle to grave telling lies education telling lies has become Japanese culture, way of life and part of their DNA.

    You surely is a good student of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, or it is the other way round, the American is the maestro, and the Japanese is the apprentice.

    Read More
  73. @Corvinus
    "Are you suggesting sour grapes on the part of Jews who are still whining about an alleged holocaust?"

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.

    Quite so.

    German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust.

    https://justice4germans.wordpress.com

    German civilians were deliberately targeted for incineration by firebombing, by US Air Force and British bombers, to whom Jewish individuals provided advice as to how to create the most efficient means of killing the greatest number of innocent people, including infants in their cribs.

    United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Incidentally, Corvinus: you argue that killing civilians is inevitable in war; that the only goal is Victory, and Victory by any means necessary.

    But check the dates on the Department of the Interior doc: German Village was built in 1942 – 1943.

    In 2014, Martin Amis and Ron Rosenbaum spoke about their books at the NYC Museum of Jewish Heritage. They concurred that

    “by 1942, Germany was defeated.”

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945.

    In other words, the goal of the firebombing campaign against German civilians was not to achieve victory, it was pure, unadulterated genocidal rage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone's chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that "instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically".

    "United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians..."

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the "just war theory" to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    "And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945"

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as "victors" have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma--as "losers", how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?
  74. Matra says:
    @Moi
    I am amused by those who take a Manichean, binary view of historical figures and history. I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires--GB, France--attacked Germany. The roots of WW2 lie in the treaty imposed on Germany after WW1.

    What would any country do if put in that position? To Hitler's credit, he raised Germany up from the ashes in a very short time.

    Going by the official version, 9/11 was done by a non-state actor (Al Qaeda). Our violent response to that tragedy is ongoing...

    I am no expert on the subject but understand that it was Judea/world Jewry (in 1933) which declared war on Germany, that two racist and violent empires–GB, France–attacked Germany.

    Can it be a coincidence that Hitler’s American fanboys sound just like American conservatives? The British and French were the REAL racists! Just like the Democrats today!

    Read More
  75. I can’t imagine what World War II has to do with this, except, as the admirable Mercer points out, Hitler was a great admirer of Lincoln. (So was Karl Marx, who thought Lincoln was carrying out the first phase of the Communist revolution.) The Germans waged wars of invasion and conquest of other people, accompanied by unprecedented war crimes against civilians. So did Lincoln, who 60% of the American people had voted against.
    It would take several books to unravel all the mistakes about Lee, the tariff, etc., that have been offered here. The War cannot be discussed realistically because for too many Northerners the idea of a righteous crusade is a cherished part of their own self-love. Just remember, the War was essentially a brutal invasion to destroy the liberty and self-government of other Americans who only wanted to be left alone. It destroyed a good 4th or more of the men and more than half the property of the South. And note this: General Lee was loved by his men in a way almost unprecedented in history. General Grant was called by his soldiers “Butcher Grant.”
    A good third of the Americans living today are descendants of Confederate soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    The Germans waged wars of invasion and conquest of other people, accompanied by unprecedented war crimes against civilians.
     
    Where do you get your information? Serious question, in search of an honest answer.

    And are you willing to state your age bracket -- 10 year range.
  76. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    There is nothing alleged about the Holocaust, for it occurred.
     
    Quite so.

    German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust.
    https://justice4germans.wordpress.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=QPaCEFl-Zzg

    German civilians were deliberately targeted for incineration by firebombing, by US Air Force and British bombers, to whom Jewish individuals provided advice as to how to create the most efficient means of killing the greatest number of innocent people, including infants in their cribs.

    United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Incidentally, Corvinus: you argue that killing civilians is inevitable in war; that the only goal is Victory, and Victory by any means necessary.

    But check the dates on the Department of the Interior doc: German Village was built in 1942 - 1943.

    In 2014, Martin Amis and Ron Rosenbaum spoke about their books at the NYC Museum of Jewish Heritage. They concurred that


    "by 1942, Germany was defeated."
     
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 - 1944 - 1945.

    In other words, the goal of the firebombing campaign against German civilians was not to achieve victory, it was pure, unadulterated genocidal rage.

    “German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone’s chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that “instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically”.

    “United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians…”

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the “just war theory” to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    “And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945″

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as “victors” have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma–as “losers”, how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    did you read the HAER doc?
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Corrected for accuracy –> All civilians in war are victims.
     
    If that were an accurate statement, then holocaust museums would memorialize ALL civilian victims, including Germans, Japanese, the Frenchmen who were killed by Allied bombers, the tens of thousands of Italian children killed or orphaned.
    But those holocaust museums memorialize Jews and only Jews.

    By your (skewed) reasoning:

    German civilians were not "victims" because they should have surrendered; they deserved what they got.

    Jews were victims even tho Jewish persons in high places provoked and provoked and provoked and brought about a war that Hitler did not wish to wage -- see Herbert Hoover's "Freedom Betrayed," and Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof's "1939: The War that had Many Fathers" -- Hitler and his government tried until the very last minute to resolve the Danzig question, the precipitating event of the global war.

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

    It was not possible to resolve the Danzig question without violence because Jews enflamed Poles to the extent that Poles positioned troops on German borders and threatened to invade -- see Edwin Black, "The Transfer Agreement."
    Further, FDR and Churchill (and the French) used the Poles as bait -- their guarantees to Poland made the Poles unwilling to negotiate with Germany in good faith.

    At the same time, Poles were killing German nationals within territory that had been Germany until Versailles redrew boundaries.


    Poles and Jews killed each other, in large numbers -- Jews in Poland cheered when Stalin invaded Poland, and they aided Soviets to hunt down Poles see http://www.glaukopis.pl/images/artykuly-obcojezyczne/Mark-Paul-NeighboursEveOfTheHolocaust.pdf

    , @SolontoCroesus

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted.
     
    absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.

    read the documents, Corvinus, don't pull opinion out of your nether region.


    t is called collateral damage.
     
    Building working class civilian's housing, furnishing it, then practicing bombing it with the specific intent to kill civilians is NOT collateral damage, it is an act of cowardice of which any warrior worth his uniform should be ashamed, and it is by definition a war crime.

    human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the “just war theory” to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.
     
    that makes no sense, Corvinus.

    Perhaps YOU need to surrender, inasmuch as you are being so thoroughly defeated that you've lost the ability to form rational arguments.

    , @Alden
    There's collateral damage and there's specifically targeted civilians. For instance when the Germans invaded Poland they captured every Catholic priest they could. A few months later about 5,000 Catholic priests were executed and dumped in mass graves. Later on, Polish Jews, especially in cities were targets for relocation within the city. Streets were blocked off, there were walls and armed guards.

    Between the Russians and Germans, 20 percent of the Polish population was killed but only some groups were specifically targeted.

    It is very, very clear that both sides in WW2 bombed industrial areas. Many civilian residents were killed as collateral damage in those areas.

    But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories.

    Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry.
    Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. Augustus the strong had the money to achieve his artistic vision. He wanted a Protestant Vatican or Ishifan type city and he did it. It was like Venice and Bruges, Florence, Sienna and other cities designed, built and managed to be beautiful.

    And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness. I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war.
  77. @Corvinus
    "German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone's chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that "instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically".

    "United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians..."

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the "just war theory" to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    "And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945"

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as "victors" have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma--as "losers", how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?

    did you read the HAER doc?

    Read More
  78. @Clyde Wilson
    I can't imagine what World War II has to do with this, except, as the admirable Mercer points out, Hitler was a great admirer of Lincoln. (So was Karl Marx, who thought Lincoln was carrying out the first phase of the Communist revolution.) The Germans waged wars of invasion and conquest of other people, accompanied by unprecedented war crimes against civilians. So did Lincoln, who 60% of the American people had voted against.
    It would take several books to unravel all the mistakes about Lee, the tariff, etc., that have been offered here. The War cannot be discussed realistically because for too many Northerners the idea of a righteous crusade is a cherished part of their own self-love. Just remember, the War was essentially a brutal invasion to destroy the liberty and self-government of other Americans who only wanted to be left alone. It destroyed a good 4th or more of the men and more than half the property of the South. And note this: General Lee was loved by his men in a way almost unprecedented in history. General Grant was called by his soldiers "Butcher Grant."
    A good third of the Americans living today are descendants of Confederate soldiers.

    The Germans waged wars of invasion and conquest of other people, accompanied by unprecedented war crimes against civilians.

    Where do you get your information? Serious question, in search of an honest answer.

    And are you willing to state your age bracket — 10 year range.

    Read More
  79. @Corvinus
    "German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone's chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that "instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically".

    "United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians..."

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the "just war theory" to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    "And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945"

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as "victors" have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma--as "losers", how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?

    Corrected for accuracy –> All civilians in war are victims.

    If that were an accurate statement, then holocaust museums would memorialize ALL civilian victims, including Germans, Japanese, the Frenchmen who were killed by Allied bombers, the tens of thousands of Italian children killed or orphaned.
    But those holocaust museums memorialize Jews and only Jews.

    By your (skewed) reasoning:

    German civilians were not “victims” because they should have surrendered; they deserved what they got.

    Jews were victims even tho Jewish persons in high places provoked and provoked and provoked and brought about a war that Hitler did not wish to wage — see Herbert Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed,” and Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof’s “1939: The War that had Many Fathers” — Hitler and his government tried until the very last minute to resolve the Danzig question, the precipitating event of the global war.

    It was not possible to resolve the Danzig question without violence because Jews enflamed Poles to the extent that Poles positioned troops on German borders and threatened to invade — see Edwin Black, “The Transfer Agreement.”
    Further, FDR and Churchill (and the French) used the Poles as bait — their guarantees to Poland made the Poles unwilling to negotiate with Germany in good faith.

    At the same time, Poles were killing German nationals within territory that had been Germany until Versailles redrew boundaries.

    Poles and Jews killed each other, in large numbers — Jews in Poland cheered when Stalin invaded Poland, and they aided Soviets to hunt down Poles see http://www.glaukopis.pl/images/artykuly-obcojezyczne/Mark-Paul-NeighboursEveOfTheHolocaust.pdf

    Read More
  80. @Corvinus
    "German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone's chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that "instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically".

    "United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians..."

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the "just war theory" to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    "And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945"

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as "victors" have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma--as "losers", how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted.

    absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.

    read the documents, Corvinus, don’t pull opinion out of your nether region.

    t is called collateral damage.

    Building working class civilian’s housing, furnishing it, then practicing bombing it with the specific intent to kill civilians is NOT collateral damage, it is an act of cowardice of which any warrior worth his uniform should be ashamed, and it is by definition a war crime.

    human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the “just war theory” to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    that makes no sense, Corvinus.

    Perhaps YOU need to surrender, inasmuch as you are being so thoroughly defeated that you’ve lost the ability to form rational arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Corvinus crows about his love of humanity as such and his commitment to "anti-racism" (most especially when it concerns Jews), but excuses mass murder of the "wrong" kind of civilians. At least when he's not bending over to grant the media the benefit of the doubt. (And also suggesting posters here take direct action against the state that would likely lead to their arrest or worse.) Truly, a revolting piece of human shit.

    But, he loves to be called a cuck, try it!
    , @Corvinus
    "absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS."

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.

    "Tis the Germans who had initially and deliberately bombed into submission Rotterdam.

    http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=rotterdam-4

    In early September 1940, the Luftwaffe engaged in Operation London to target war factories. As "collateral damage", thousands of civilians were killed or wounded. In kind, the British undertook their own efforts.

    It's really simple. War brings out the brutal nature of humankind.

    "German civilians were not “victims” because they should have surrendered; they deserved what they got."

    Strawman.

    "If that were an accurate statement, then holocaust museums would memorialize ALL civilian victims..."

    All civilians in war are victims. The Jews targeted by Hitler have museums in specific remembrance to their hardships, with references to non-Jews who helped them and/or made sacrifices for them. Non-Jews were fell victim to the war machines are remembered in their own museums, with references to Jews as a tribute.

    "Corvinus goes so far as to argue that the “victor” has the “right” to lie about its war crimes, while the vanquished must dwell perpetually in contemplation of its “atrocities.”"

    Strawman. You are making that characterization. There is no "right" here. It is human nature for a group who "win something" to minimize their own immoral actions--if such conduct was employed-- in the process of achieving, and for a group who "lost something" to cast blame on said actions, while ignoring or paying little attention to their own misdeeds.

    If anything, it would appear you are arguing the "victor's" crimes against humanity supersede those of the "loser's" crimes against humanity and minimizing or downplaying the culpability of a particular nation (because Joos).

    Regardless, the loss of life on either side during war is utterly malignant.
  81. @SolontoCroesus

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted.
     
    absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.

    read the documents, Corvinus, don't pull opinion out of your nether region.


    t is called collateral damage.
     
    Building working class civilian's housing, furnishing it, then practicing bombing it with the specific intent to kill civilians is NOT collateral damage, it is an act of cowardice of which any warrior worth his uniform should be ashamed, and it is by definition a war crime.

    human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the “just war theory” to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.
     
    that makes no sense, Corvinus.

    Perhaps YOU need to surrender, inasmuch as you are being so thoroughly defeated that you've lost the ability to form rational arguments.

    Corvinus crows about his love of humanity as such and his commitment to “anti-racism” (most especially when it concerns Jews), but excuses mass murder of the “wrong” kind of civilians. At least when he’s not bending over to grant the media the benefit of the doubt. (And also suggesting posters here take direct action against the state that would likely lead to their arrest or worse.) Truly, a revolting piece of human shit.

    But, he loves to be called a cuck, try it!

    Read More
  82. Alden says:
    @TG
    I don't doubt for one moment that the oligarchs in the North cared anything about slavery. Sure, economic reasons were a big - maybe even primary - reason for the Civil War.

    But.

    It remains a fact that the Southern economy WAS based on human slavery. It remains a fact that opposition to slavery in the North was substantial. It remains a fact that both the slave and the 'free' states fought bitterly over whether new states would be free or slave, because each felt that if a majority of the nation was the other, then their way of life would be at peril.

    Without slavery, Lincoln would never have been able to start the civil war. If the South had given up slavery, it would have cut the legs out from under the war of northern aggression. But the South couldn't do that, because their system was based on slavery.

    I and many have thought that Lincoln is unfairly praised for presiding over a bloody brutal war. Give me a 'boring' president like Eisenhower any day. But. Many decent and smart people tried their best for decades beforehand to stop a war between North and South, but they could never find a workable compromise over slavery. One way or the other, with Lincoln or without, there likely was going to be no other solution.

    Bloody Kansas Quantrill’s raiders and John brown’s raids on isolated
    slave owning farms was an entire vicious mini civil war fought in the western territories in the 1850s.

    The southerners were adamant about states rights and that the constitution allowed secession plus slavery, plus enforcement of the fugitive slave act.

    The Puritan abolitionists were anti southern fanatic crusaders. Plus I think a major motive behind the abolitionists was to seize the iron, coal, cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco and the vast forest resources of the south. Also seized were those southern warm weather harbors.
    Almost forgot the cheap labor of the freed slaves and impoverished Whites.

    As always behind Puritan fanaticism was their real motive, money.

    Read More
  83. This entire article is a smear job. There is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler admired Abraham Lincoln, and a keyword search of Ms. Mercer’s primary sources does not disclose even one single mention of the name “Lincoln.”

    Libertarians, paleo or otherwise, are always propagandists and self-serving liars. It’s the only way their screwy philosophy can be provided with a verisimilitude of substance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I agree. Like most baby boomers I grew up with all those Nazi history books in high school libraries and read some of them.
    In none of the histories of Nazi Germany's nor the endless biographies of Hitler was Lincoln ever mentioned. Hitler admired strong leaders. Lincoln was a strong leader. Big deal, so were Hitlers enemies, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, , Eisenhower, deGualle. Etc.

    Thanks for doing the research to refute Mercer's nonsense.

    Confederate heritage comes under the all encompassing conservative umbrella.
    With the confederate memorials being knocked down the useless impotent perpetual loser conservative movement finally mentions some of Lincoln's dictatorial orders.

    Mercer should go back to S Africa and reap what her ANC father sowed.

  84. Logan says:
    @Squire
    Tariffs aren't paid when goods are sold, they are paid when they enter the country. Geography is very important here. Look at a map from 1860. Most of the ports were in the South. Just about all imported goods used in the South entered through Southern ports. That is a given. But the same is true for the North. In 1860 all Northern states west of the Appalachians would have used Southern ports to import and export goods. The overland infrastructure wasn't good enough to ship a lot of goods by land, so they were shipped by water. And a majority of the Northern states west of the Appalachians were in the Mississippi watershed. Those that weren't, like northern Ohio and northern Indiana, were connected to the Mississippi watershed via canals. So they would naturally use Southern ports. So the figure that 80% of goods entering the US in 1860 come through Southern ports isn't, by any means, a stretch.

    To summarize, Northern ports only imported goods for New England, NY, NJ, and PA. Southern ports imported goods for the rest of the country. And with the tariff being paid upon entry, the South paid a disproportionate share of the tariffs.

    Sorry, but you’re just plain wrong. Sure, the importer pays the tariff, but he just adds it to his cost and passes it on down the line. The importer doesn’t pay the tax, he is simply a tax collector. The eventual consumer is the one left hold the tax bag. This is so obvious it shouldn’t even require stating.

    In most states, a retailer “pays” sales tax. But you may have noticed he adds it to what he charges you, making him in reality a tax collector, not a tax payer. He isn’t required to, but he almost always does.

    In 1860 all southern ports together produced <$4M of gross tariff revenue. Northern ports collected tariff revenues of about $44M. Here are the actual numbers.

    https://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/

    As far as the infrastructure not being developed in 1860, they had these things called railroads. You may have heard of them.

    By your logic of the state of the point of entry being the state that "pays" the tax, which isn't even true, northern states "paid" about 92% of the of the tariffs. In reality, the consumers scattered across the states paid them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Alden
    You're right about the taxes. A landlord is just a pipe. Taxes flow through that pipe to the government.

    Infrastructure? Don't forget the south had one of the greatest riverine transportation ways of the world; the mighty Mississippi and hundreds of tributaries. Plus a lot of east west rivers that went inland from the Atlantic ports.

    Cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, those southern crops, especially cotton were the equivalent of oil today.

    I've read a lot of John Calhoun's arguments that the constitution provides for peaceful succession. They are compelling arguments. But in reality, the constitution is whatever whoever has the most power says it is.
  85. Alden says:
    @Logan
    Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Sure, the importer pays the tariff, but he just adds it to his cost and passes it on down the line. The importer doesn't pay the tax, he is simply a tax collector. The eventual consumer is the one left hold the tax bag. This is so obvious it shouldn't even require stating.

    In most states, a retailer "pays" sales tax. But you may have noticed he adds it to what he charges you, making him in reality a tax collector, not a tax payer. He isn't required to, but he almost always does.

    In 1860 all southern ports together produced <$4M of gross tariff revenue. Northern ports collected tariff revenues of about $44M. Here are the actual numbers.

    https://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/

    As far as the infrastructure not being developed in 1860, they had these things called railroads. You may have heard of them.

    By your logic of the state of the point of entry being the state that "pays" the tax, which isn't even true, northern states "paid" about 92% of the of the tariffs. In reality, the consumers scattered across the states paid them.

    You’re right about the taxes. A landlord is just a pipe. Taxes flow through that pipe to the government.

    Infrastructure? Don’t forget the south had one of the greatest riverine transportation ways of the world; the mighty Mississippi and hundreds of tributaries. Plus a lot of east west rivers that went inland from the Atlantic ports.

    Cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, those southern crops, especially cotton were the equivalent of oil today.

    I’ve read a lot of John Calhoun’s arguments that the constitution provides for peaceful succession. They are compelling arguments. But in reality, the constitution is whatever whoever has the most power says it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The problem is that the South chose not to base its secession on constitutional grounds. They quite openly and proudly chose "an appeal to arms."

    The problem is that if you reject legal or constitutional methods for an appeal to arms, you lose your right to object on legal or constitutional grounds when your appeal is denied.
    , @Alden
    John Calhoun start writing about legal constitutional secession in the 1830s 25 years before the civil war.

    Despite the fact that he was one of the fire eaters and bore a lot of responsibility for starting the civil war he was a great legal scholar and public intellectual. His writings make the pompous pundits who write for The Nation, New Republic, American Spectator, and National Review look like the fools they are.
  86. @Bill Jones
    And let's not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered.

    “And let’s not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered.” — Bill Jones

    “‘million plus Germans who died in Eisenhower’s concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered” ?????

    One of the preconditions set by Eisenhower before USA would participate in a summit with the post-Stalin leaders of the USSR was that the Soviets would release the German POWs, captured at Stalingrad, still held in Siberian gulags in 1954. These POWs were released, on orders of Khrushchev, before the Austrian State Treaty, 1955, because of Eisenhower’s insistence.

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags. They considered that, but for Eisenhower’s insistence on their release (as a precondition for arranging a Summit, which ultimately took place during the Kennedy administration), they themselves would likely have been lost among many details outstanding after World War II … and they would have been left to fill out their lives and ultimately perish in concentration work camps in Siberia. They extracted a promise from me that I would never forget what Eisenhower had done for them and that I would not let this detail of history be forgotten.

    I don’t know and can’t imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags.
     

    Interesting bit of history, Grandpa Charlie; thanks.

    I don’t know and can’t imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.
     
    try this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fXQwc_Wz1c

    based on work by historian Dr. Alfred de Zayas

    and this

    http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html
    Eisenhower's Death Camps, by James Bacque, in Saturday Night magazine, Sept. 1989

    Bacque's work has been ferociously criticized:

    Stephen Ambrose penned this critique, published in NYTimes Review of Books
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html?mcubz=1
    (Ambrose was later accused of plagiarizing).

    The moral of the story, Grandpa, is that basing a judgment on information from one, small side set of 'witnesses' does not give the whole story: Lady Justice holds TWO pans on her balance scale.

    If you include on that balance scale evidence of the Morgenthau plan, which WAS put in place, and also the "instructional" videos US Department of Defense produced to instruct GIs overseeing the occupation -- you have to acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era.

  87. Alden says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This entire article is a smear job. There is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler admired Abraham Lincoln, and a keyword search of Ms. Mercer's primary sources does not disclose even one single mention of the name "Lincoln."

    Libertarians, paleo or otherwise, are always propagandists and self-serving liars. It's the only way their screwy philosophy can be provided with a verisimilitude of substance.

    I agree. Like most baby boomers I grew up with all those Nazi history books in high school libraries and read some of them.
    In none of the histories of Nazi Germany’s nor the endless biographies of Hitler was Lincoln ever mentioned. Hitler admired strong leaders. Lincoln was a strong leader. Big deal, so were Hitlers enemies, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, , Eisenhower, deGualle. Etc.

    Thanks for doing the research to refute Mercer’s nonsense.

    Confederate heritage comes under the all encompassing conservative umbrella.
    With the confederate memorials being knocked down the useless impotent perpetual loser conservative movement finally mentions some of Lincoln’s dictatorial orders.

    Mercer should go back to S Africa and reap what her ANC father sowed.

    Read More
  88. South should have worked with Lincoln.

    Free the slaves and send them back to Africa. Or give them a nation of their own.

    Read More
  89. @Grandpa Charlie
    "And let’s not forget the million plus Germans who died in Eisenhowers concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered." -- Bill Jones

    "'million plus Germans who died in Eisenhower's concentration camps in the years after the Germans had surrendered" ?????

    One of the preconditions set by Eisenhower before USA would participate in a summit with the post-Stalin leaders of the USSR was that the Soviets would release the German POWs, captured at Stalingrad, still held in Siberian gulags in 1954. These POWs were released, on orders of Khrushchev, before the Austrian State Treaty, 1955, because of Eisenhower's insistence.

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags. They considered that, but for Eisenhower's insistence on their release (as a precondition for arranging a Summit, which ultimately took place during the Kennedy administration), they themselves would likely have been lost among many details outstanding after World War II ... and they would have been left to fill out their lives and ultimately perish in concentration work camps in Siberia. They extracted a promise from me that I would never forget what Eisenhower had done for them and that I would not let this detail of history be forgotten.

    I don't know and can't imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags.

    Interesting bit of history, Grandpa Charlie; thanks.

    I don’t know and can’t imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.

    try this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fXQwc_Wz1c

    based on work by historian Dr. Alfred de Zayas

    and this

    http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html

    Eisenhower’s Death Camps, by James Bacque, in Saturday Night magazine, Sept. 1989

    Bacque’s work has been ferociously criticized:

    Stephen Ambrose penned this critique, published in NYTimes Review of Books

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html?mcubz=1

    (Ambrose was later accused of plagiarizing).

    The moral of the story, Grandpa, is that basing a judgment on information from one, small side set of ‘witnesses’ does not give the whole story: Lady Justice holds TWO pans on her balance scale.

    If you include on that balance scale evidence of the Morgenthau plan, which WAS put in place, and also the “instructional” videos US Department of Defense produced to instruct GIs overseeing the occupation — you have to acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Thanks very much for supplying me with the answer to my question as to what Bill Jones was referencing, because Bill Jones did not bother to provide that. Since I don't have the constant attention of Lady Justice, although I sense Her presence from time to time, this will take a while for me to get through: your first reference is an hour-and-half!

    What I can say by way of immediate response: whether Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing, or not, seems to me to be without relevance. Also, I never thought or said that I was giving the whole story, with my first-hand conversations or otherwise. You can't expect me to know the whole story just because I happen to have been awarded a Medal of Occupation and served in Germany during the Occupation.

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime ... if that''s what you are trying to say. As for "videos" prepared by the DoD (you must mean by the Army or by the War Dept.), we called those "films," you know, and we all viewed them as stuff that troops had to try to stay awake (or pretend to be awake) to watch.

    I doubt very much that every film (or even most films) produced by the military for the Occupation were actually shown to occupying troops in Germany, and such films ("troop indoctrination") were never taken seriously by troops anyway. The thing was to try to stay awake, if you were required to watch such films - the Army was never much compared to Hollywood. So your videos are not the strong evidence of anything that you seem to think they are, except that they provide evidence that many soldiers and civilians were employed during WW II in preparing for the Occupation. In any case, NO, I do not have to, and I do not "acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era." Really, like, here's how you hit kids in the head with the butt of your rifle ... okay, let's see you guys do it ... here, we'll bring in some of the Nazi brats for you to practice on" ??? No. Never happened.

    But sure, I'll chase down your references as time allows.

    BTW: I know for sure of US troops who were severely injured by Nazis after Germany surrendered. Would Lady Justice be interested in that? ... because that was scrupulously hidden from the American people as much as was possible.
  90. There are over 90 comments to this article, from 46 separate Identities & 7 “anonymous” comments.

    Raise your hand: How many of those 46 read the links Mercer posted to support her claims?

    Here’s what I discovered:

    1. A word-search for “Lincoln” in “Mein Kampf” produces ZERO hits.

    2. The context of Chapter 10 that Mercer quoted, is far different from the thesis she implied.

    Rather, Hitler mentions “North” and “South” in the context of the Revolution — South vs. North, Bavaria vs Prussia — incited by Jews and led by Kurt Eisner (Jewish).

    Hitler wrote:

    Rather remarkable, too, a ‘federative activity’ which strives to split or divide another federal State. For an honest federalist, to whom citations of the Bismarckian conception of the Reich did not constitute mendacious phrases, could not speak in the same breath of wanting to separate portions from the Prussian State which Bismarck created, or at least completed, could not even publicly support such separatist tendencies.

    How they would have howled in Munich, had a conservative Prussian party favored the separation of Franconia from Bavaria, or even demanded and promoted it by public activity!

    One could really feel sorry for all the honest federally inclined people, who had not seen through this infamous swindlers’ game; for they were the ones primarily betrayed.

    By thus incriminating the federative idea, its own supporters dug its grave. No federalist formation can be propagated for the Reich if the most essential link in such a State structure, that is, Prussia, is herself undermined, outraged, and befouled, in short, eliminated as a federal State if possible.

    This was all the more incredible, inasmuch as, into the bargain, the fight of these so-called federalists was directed precisely against that Prussia which least of all can be linked to the democracy of November. For the vilifications and attacks of these so-called ‘federalists’ were directed not against the fathers of the Weimar Constitution, who were themselves in largest part South Germans or Jews anyway, but against the representatives of the old conservative Prussia, that is, the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution.

    That attacks on the Jews were well warded off thereby should cause no surprise, but, perhaps, rather offers the key to the solution of the whole puzzle.

    In criticizing “federalism,” Hitler was attacking the Jewish-led “revolution” that attempted to sunder Prussia/ North Germans from Bavaria, South Germans.

    If Mercer has a shred of intellectual honesty, she will post a correction to this article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right. There are multiple other factual errors and/or attempts at deceit in the column.

    I also did a couple of word searches on Mein Kampf.

    United States: 5 hits.

    America/American: 33 hits.

    None of them have anything to say about our civil war or Lincoln. It seems very likely AH knew little and cared less about these issues. Nor is there any particular reason he should have.
  91. Logan says:
    @Alden
    You're right about the taxes. A landlord is just a pipe. Taxes flow through that pipe to the government.

    Infrastructure? Don't forget the south had one of the greatest riverine transportation ways of the world; the mighty Mississippi and hundreds of tributaries. Plus a lot of east west rivers that went inland from the Atlantic ports.

    Cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, those southern crops, especially cotton were the equivalent of oil today.

    I've read a lot of John Calhoun's arguments that the constitution provides for peaceful succession. They are compelling arguments. But in reality, the constitution is whatever whoever has the most power says it is.

    The problem is that the South chose not to base its secession on constitutional grounds. They quite openly and proudly chose “an appeal to arms.”

    The problem is that if you reject legal or constitutional methods for an appeal to arms, you lose your right to object on legal or constitutional grounds when your appeal is denied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Logan, southernscholars like Calhoun and others justified the war in their interpretation of the constitution. The democratically elected state legislatures of 11 states voted for succession. The democratically elected governors joyously signed the succession legislation and much of the population cheered.

    Succession was done with no violence and legally by elected representatives.

    When president Lincoln made it clear he interpreted the constitution differently and would use the national army to keep the secession states in the union by force of arms, the southerners attacked Fort Sumter and the war was on.

    The fact is that the southerners first *seceded?? by established standard legislative voting. I'm not going to ask mr Google but I think Fort Sumpter is in S Carolina home of extreme seccionist* sympathy since the 1830s.

    I just use standard legalistic reasoning of separating the issues of secession by the elected state legislators without violence and starting a war to defend seccession *

    Seccession is one issue. Attacking Fort Sumpter and raising an army is another.

    Whatever, sorry if I offended. Don't want to start a fight. Peace.
    * don't know if I spelled it right. Don't care either.
    , @Alden
    John Calhoun was a great legal scholar. As early as the 1820's when he was Vice President he developed the the theory that state laws superseded federal law and that states could nullify federal laws they didn't like.

    Calhoun and other southern senators and some northerners began writing that secession by individual states was legal under the constitution as early as the 1830's 25 years before the civil war.

    The question was settled when the federal government won the civil war.
    But the idea of secession and states rights superseding federal laws was discussed 40 years before the south captured Fort Sumpter
  92. Logan says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    There are over 90 comments to this article, from 46 separate Identities & 7 "anonymous" comments.

    Raise your hand: How many of those 46 read the links Mercer posted to support her claims?

    Here's what I discovered:

    1. A word-search for "Lincoln" in "Mein Kampf" produces ZERO hits.

    2. The context of Chapter 10 that Mercer quoted, is far different from the thesis she implied.

    Rather, Hitler mentions "North" and "South" in the context of the Revolution -- South vs. North, Bavaria vs Prussia -- incited by Jews and led by Kurt Eisner (Jewish).

    Hitler wrote:


    Rather remarkable, too, a 'federative activity' which strives to split or divide another federal State. For an honest federalist, to whom citations of the Bismarckian conception of the Reich did not constitute mendacious phrases, could not speak in the same breath of wanting to separate portions from the Prussian State which Bismarck created, or at least completed, could not even publicly support such separatist tendencies.

    How they would have howled in Munich, had a conservative Prussian party favored the separation of Franconia from Bavaria, or even demanded and promoted it by public activity!

    One could really feel sorry for all the honest federally inclined people, who had not seen through this infamous swindlers' game; for they were the ones primarily betrayed.

    By thus incriminating the federative idea, its own supporters dug its grave. No federalist formation can be propagated for the Reich if the most essential link in such a State structure, that is, Prussia, is herself undermined, outraged, and befouled, in short, eliminated as a federal State if possible.

    This was all the more incredible, inasmuch as, into the bargain, the fight of these so-called federalists was directed precisely against that Prussia which least of all can be linked to the democracy of November. For the vilifications and attacks of these so-called 'federalists' were directed not against the fathers of the Weimar Constitution, who were themselves in largest part South Germans or Jews anyway, but against the representatives of the old conservative Prussia, that is, the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution.

    That attacks on the Jews were well warded off thereby should cause no surprise, but, perhaps, rather offers the key to the solution of the whole puzzle.
     

    In criticizing "federalism," Hitler was attacking the Jewish-led "revolution" that attempted to sunder Prussia/ North Germans from Bavaria, South Germans.

    If Mercer has a shred of intellectual honesty, she will post a correction to this article.

    Quite right. There are multiple other factual errors and/or attempts at deceit in the column.

    I also did a couple of word searches on Mein Kampf.

    United States: 5 hits.

    America/American: 33 hits.

    None of them have anything to say about our civil war or Lincoln. It seems very likely AH knew little and cared less about these issues. Nor is there any particular reason he should have.

    Read More
  93. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "German civilians were THE victims of Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> All civilians in war are victims.

    Only looking at matters in hindsight could one take the position that Germany was “defeated” by 1942. But the fact remains that Germany continued to wage war, with most of their citizens continuing to support their governmental and military leaders in this endeavor. Talk of surrendering was treason. Had German citizens realized that their efforts were futile to overtake the Allied Powers, they would have made consisted, concerted plans to give up through persistent demonstrations and open armed rebellion. The German citizens, much to everyone's chagrin, made their own bed in this particular matter. They should take ownership for THEIR DECISION. It is cute how you sidestep the question of German citizen complicity.

    Furthermore, Amis and Rosenbaum (I thought we are not suppose to trust Jews on anything) state that Hitler’s war against the Jews—“the internal enemy of mankind”—was more important than lebensraum, that "instead of retreating from this genocide he embraced it all the more energetically".

    "United States Department of the Interior documents the persons and plans made to kill German and Japanese civilians..."

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted. It is called collateral damage. Human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the "just war theory" to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.

    "And yet the most ferocious part of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany took place in 1943 – 1944 – 1945"

    Because Germany was still had the will to fight. The campaigns, however, served to provoke the populace to change their attitudes by undertaking courses of action to discredit their leadership as being impotent to protect them.

    Fair or unfair, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the Allied Powers as "victors" have the liberty to avoid directly confronting the more insidious aspects of war. But the Germans are also confronted with a dilemma--as "losers", how do they rectify the atrocities they committed themselves in the face of endangering their progeny by enabling Hitler?

    There’s collateral damage and there’s specifically targeted civilians. For instance when the Germans invaded Poland they captured every Catholic priest they could. A few months later about 5,000 Catholic priests were executed and dumped in mass graves. Later on, Polish Jews, especially in cities were targets for relocation within the city. Streets were blocked off, there were walls and armed guards.

    Between the Russians and Germans, 20 percent of the Polish population was killed but only some groups were specifically targeted.

    It is very, very clear that both sides in WW2 bombed industrial areas. Many civilian residents were killed as collateral damage in those areas.

    But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories.

    Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry.
    Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. Augustus the strong had the money to achieve his artistic vision. He wanted a Protestant Vatican or Ishifan type city and he did it. It was like Venice and Bruges, Florence, Sienna and other cities designed, built and managed to be beautiful.

    And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness. I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories. Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry."

    You mean with advice by the military.

    "Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness."

    Dresden was of strategic importance being a major rail transport and communication hub, with over a 100 factories and tens of thousands of industrial laborers. And the American and British viciousness was no more or no less than the viciousness of their German or Japanese counterparts when it came to bombing cities.

    "I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war."

    You think, huh. Better question--> Do you know for certain?
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    "But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry."
    Why weren't they advised to bomb the tracks to the concentration camps? Wouldn't that have been more to the point?
  94. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The Nazi era was not all a disaster for ordinary Germans
    Kai S. Schreyber (Hrsg.), ´Warum wir ADOLF HITLER wählten, Jungwähler von 1933/38 berichten’, 2001 Kiel

    For intellectuals, for anyone who had even the potential to oppose Hitler it was a disaster from the beginning. For ordinary Germans disaster came a bit later than 1938.

    Read More
  95. @SolontoCroesus

    What is my source for this information?

    In the waning years of the Eisenhower administration, I met some of the released German POWs while I was stationed in Germany. What they told me was that they would be eternally grateful to Eisenhower for their release from the gulags.
     

    Interesting bit of history, Grandpa Charlie; thanks.

    I don’t know and can’t imagine what Bill Jones thinks he is talking about.
     
    try this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fXQwc_Wz1c

    based on work by historian Dr. Alfred de Zayas

    and this

    http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html
    Eisenhower's Death Camps, by James Bacque, in Saturday Night magazine, Sept. 1989

    Bacque's work has been ferociously criticized:

    Stephen Ambrose penned this critique, published in NYTimes Review of Books
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html?mcubz=1
    (Ambrose was later accused of plagiarizing).

    The moral of the story, Grandpa, is that basing a judgment on information from one, small side set of 'witnesses' does not give the whole story: Lady Justice holds TWO pans on her balance scale.

    If you include on that balance scale evidence of the Morgenthau plan, which WAS put in place, and also the "instructional" videos US Department of Defense produced to instruct GIs overseeing the occupation -- you have to acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era.

    Thanks very much for supplying me with the answer to my question as to what Bill Jones was referencing, because Bill Jones did not bother to provide that. Since I don’t have the constant attention of Lady Justice, although I sense Her presence from time to time, this will take a while for me to get through: your first reference is an hour-and-half!

    What I can say by way of immediate response: whether Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing, or not, seems to me to be without relevance. Also, I never thought or said that I was giving the whole story, with my first-hand conversations or otherwise. You can’t expect me to know the whole story just because I happen to have been awarded a Medal of Occupation and served in Germany during the Occupation.

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime … if that”s what you are trying to say. As for “videos” prepared by the DoD (you must mean by the Army or by the War Dept.), we called those “films,” you know, and we all viewed them as stuff that troops had to try to stay awake (or pretend to be awake) to watch.

    I doubt very much that every film (or even most films) produced by the military for the Occupation were actually shown to occupying troops in Germany, and such films (“troop indoctrination”) were never taken seriously by troops anyway. The thing was to try to stay awake, if you were required to watch such films – the Army was never much compared to Hollywood. So your videos are not the strong evidence of anything that you seem to think they are, except that they provide evidence that many soldiers and civilians were employed during WW II in preparing for the Occupation. In any case, NO, I do not have to, and I do not “acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era.” Really, like, here’s how you hit kids in the head with the butt of your rifle … okay, let’s see you guys do it … here, we’ll bring in some of the Nazi brats for you to practice on” ??? No. Never happened.

    But sure, I’ll chase down your references as time allows.

    BTW: I know for sure of US troops who were severely injured by Nazis after Germany surrendered. Would Lady Justice be interested in that? … because that was scrupulously hidden from the American people as much as was possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime … if that”s what you are trying to say.
     
    You are in a minority in not considering the Morgenthau Plan at least idiotically ill-advised, at worst, a war crime: George C. Marshall was appalled at the short-sightedness and craven vengefulness of the Plan.

    As for the propaganda films, Frank Capra was a man of limited talent, used only as a front for a series of hate-filled writers and producers (Seuss wrote "Your Job in Germany;" Communist apparatchiks and zionists wrote several of the "Why We Fight" films). Warner Brothers made a boatload of money off the film/s, but many political and military leaders were shocked and outraged by them; Patton called "Your Job in Germany" "Bullshit" when he walked out of an (enforced) viewing of the film.

    And yes, the film did specifically tag German children as specific targets to be hated by American occupation forces.

    Nevertheless, Capra got one thing right: "Triumph of the Will" was a highly sophisticated, example of filmmaking and morale-building propaganda. Capra's productions, in contrast, set the lowest possible bar in the production of propaganda: their core theme was hatred of the Other, a theme America's propagandists have not been able to move away from ever since.

    , @Alden
    The Morgenthau Plan was a proposal. It was never seriously considered by anyone but Morgenthau and his buddies. FDR rejected it.
  96. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @utu
    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.

    Raskolnikov was inspired by Napoleon. When you read history you can get inspired. Hitler read history. He could get inspired by Lincoln.

    Hitler seemingly was inspired by Napoleon. They both made the same mistake.

    Read More
  97. @Intelligent Dasein
    Raskolnikov is a fictional character, you blithering idiot.

    Shut up and go away.

    I think the point utu was making is that Raskolnikov believed that the great leader must prove his willingness to take bold action — like killing somebody. He did not kill the old lady simply to steal her money — he hid the loot under a rock. He killed because he felt compelled to prove his capacity to be a Great Man.

    If I recall correctly, Sun Tzu includes an anecdote that also states that a great leader must have the capacity to kill or order killing. These three — Raskolnikov, Napoleon, and Sun Tzu came to mind when Trump OKd the military raid in Yemen in which a soldier was killed: the exercise might well be called “The Blooding of the President.”

    imo Lincoln did not quite fit the Great Man description in the same way as Napoleon: Lincoln never marched into the chaos battle, never froze in winter with his troops, never plunged a bayonet into another man’s gut and watched him die. Lincoln had “the courage of the knife but not of the blood.”

    Both Napoleon and Hitler had been in war and knew its horrors; both had a greater respect for the destructiveness of war, and knew how a man’s soul is changed by killing other men.

    Read More
  98. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    who resided in urban industrial districts that would be targeted.
     
    absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.

    read the documents, Corvinus, don't pull opinion out of your nether region.


    t is called collateral damage.
     
    Building working class civilian's housing, furnishing it, then practicing bombing it with the specific intent to kill civilians is NOT collateral damage, it is an act of cowardice of which any warrior worth his uniform should be ashamed, and it is by definition a war crime.

    human history is littered with such examples in war where BOTH sides employ the “just war theory” to their benefit, in effect rendering it moot.
     
    that makes no sense, Corvinus.

    Perhaps YOU need to surrender, inasmuch as you are being so thoroughly defeated that you've lost the ability to form rational arguments.

    “absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.”

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.

    “Tis the Germans who had initially and deliberately bombed into submission Rotterdam.

    http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=rotterdam-4

    In early September 1940, the Luftwaffe engaged in Operation London to target war factories. As “collateral damage”, thousands of civilians were killed or wounded. In kind, the British undertook their own efforts.

    It’s really simple. War brings out the brutal nature of humankind.

    “German civilians were not “victims” because they should have surrendered; they deserved what they got.”

    Strawman.

    “If that were an accurate statement, then holocaust museums would memorialize ALL civilian victims…”

    All civilians in war are victims. The Jews targeted by Hitler have museums in specific remembrance to their hardships, with references to non-Jews who helped them and/or made sacrifices for them. Non-Jews were fell victim to the war machines are remembered in their own museums, with references to Jews as a tribute.

    “Corvinus goes so far as to argue that the “victor” has the “right” to lie about its war crimes, while the vanquished must dwell perpetually in contemplation of its “atrocities.””

    Strawman. You are making that characterization. There is no “right” here. It is human nature for a group who “win something” to minimize their own immoral actions–if such conduct was employed– in the process of achieving, and for a group who “lost something” to cast blame on said actions, while ignoring or paying little attention to their own misdeeds.

    If anything, it would appear you are arguing the “victor’s” crimes against humanity supersede those of the “loser’s” crimes against humanity and minimizing or downplaying the culpability of a particular nation (because Joos).

    Regardless, the loss of life on either side during war is utterly malignant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    “absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.”

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.
     

     
    Dresden was not an industrial center.

    Get your facts straight.

    The Cathedral at Aachen housed the bones of Charlemagne, long dead and not an "industrial target."
    Nevertheless, the Cathedral was the object of six major bombing raids and nearly sixty-five lower-level raids.

    British ethicist A C Grayling called the bombing of German cultural centers -- its cathedrals, libraries, museum, music halls -- "culturecide" and "crimes against humanity."

    Facts.

    I didn't read past the lines of yours quoted above, my bullshit grinder has overheated.

  99. Corvinus says:
    @Alden
    There's collateral damage and there's specifically targeted civilians. For instance when the Germans invaded Poland they captured every Catholic priest they could. A few months later about 5,000 Catholic priests were executed and dumped in mass graves. Later on, Polish Jews, especially in cities were targets for relocation within the city. Streets were blocked off, there were walls and armed guards.

    Between the Russians and Germans, 20 percent of the Polish population was killed but only some groups were specifically targeted.

    It is very, very clear that both sides in WW2 bombed industrial areas. Many civilian residents were killed as collateral damage in those areas.

    But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories.

    Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry.
    Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. Augustus the strong had the money to achieve his artistic vision. He wanted a Protestant Vatican or Ishifan type city and he did it. It was like Venice and Bruges, Florence, Sienna and other cities designed, built and managed to be beautiful.

    And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness. I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war.

    “But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories. Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry.”

    You mean with advice by the military.

    “Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness.”

    Dresden was of strategic importance being a major rail transport and communication hub, with over a 100 factories and tens of thousands of industrial laborers. And the American and British viciousness was no more or no less than the viciousness of their German or Japanese counterparts when it came to bombing cities.

    “I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war.”

    You think, huh. Better question–> Do you know for certain?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war.

    Dresden didn't really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees. Like most large cities world wide, Dresden was a transit center. BFD

    It wasn't bombed just to kill civilians and destroy one of the most beautiful cities in the world but also the irreplaceable contents of the museums.

    It was a vicious war crime.
    The endless re hash of WWs 1&2 and the civil war is ridiculous.

    I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war.

    A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower's murder of almost a million German POWs.

    WW2 is your obsession, not mine.
    , @Alden
    Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people's posts?

    I gather you hate Germany and Germans.
  100. Alden says:
    @Logan
    The problem is that the South chose not to base its secession on constitutional grounds. They quite openly and proudly chose "an appeal to arms."

    The problem is that if you reject legal or constitutional methods for an appeal to arms, you lose your right to object on legal or constitutional grounds when your appeal is denied.

    Logan, southernscholars like Calhoun and others justified the war in their interpretation of the constitution. The democratically elected state legislatures of 11 states voted for succession. The democratically elected governors joyously signed the succession legislation and much of the population cheered.

    Succession was done with no violence and legally by elected representatives.

    When president Lincoln made it clear he interpreted the constitution differently and would use the national army to keep the secession states in the union by force of arms, the southerners attacked Fort Sumter and the war was on.

    The fact is that the southerners first *seceded?? by established standard legislative voting. I’m not going to ask mr Google but I think Fort Sumpter is in S Carolina home of extreme seccionist* sympathy since the 1830s.

    I just use standard legalistic reasoning of separating the issues of secession by the elected state legislators without violence and starting a war to defend seccession *

    Seccession is one issue. Attacking Fort Sumpter and raising an army is another.

    Whatever, sorry if I offended. Don’t want to start a fight. Peace.
    * don’t know if I spelled it right. Don’t care either.

    Read More
  101. @Grandpa Charlie
    Thanks very much for supplying me with the answer to my question as to what Bill Jones was referencing, because Bill Jones did not bother to provide that. Since I don't have the constant attention of Lady Justice, although I sense Her presence from time to time, this will take a while for me to get through: your first reference is an hour-and-half!

    What I can say by way of immediate response: whether Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing, or not, seems to me to be without relevance. Also, I never thought or said that I was giving the whole story, with my first-hand conversations or otherwise. You can't expect me to know the whole story just because I happen to have been awarded a Medal of Occupation and served in Germany during the Occupation.

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime ... if that''s what you are trying to say. As for "videos" prepared by the DoD (you must mean by the Army or by the War Dept.), we called those "films," you know, and we all viewed them as stuff that troops had to try to stay awake (or pretend to be awake) to watch.

    I doubt very much that every film (or even most films) produced by the military for the Occupation were actually shown to occupying troops in Germany, and such films ("troop indoctrination") were never taken seriously by troops anyway. The thing was to try to stay awake, if you were required to watch such films - the Army was never much compared to Hollywood. So your videos are not the strong evidence of anything that you seem to think they are, except that they provide evidence that many soldiers and civilians were employed during WW II in preparing for the Occupation. In any case, NO, I do not have to, and I do not "acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era." Really, like, here's how you hit kids in the head with the butt of your rifle ... okay, let's see you guys do it ... here, we'll bring in some of the Nazi brats for you to practice on" ??? No. Never happened.

    But sure, I'll chase down your references as time allows.

    BTW: I know for sure of US troops who were severely injured by Nazis after Germany surrendered. Would Lady Justice be interested in that? ... because that was scrupulously hidden from the American people as much as was possible.

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime … if that”s what you are trying to say.

    You are in a minority in not considering the Morgenthau Plan at least idiotically ill-advised, at worst, a war crime: George C. Marshall was appalled at the short-sightedness and craven vengefulness of the Plan.

    As for the propaganda films, Frank Capra was a man of limited talent, used only as a front for a series of hate-filled writers and producers (Seuss wrote “Your Job in Germany;” Communist apparatchiks and zionists wrote several of the “Why We Fight” films). Warner Brothers made a boatload of money off the film/s, but many political and military leaders were shocked and outraged by them; Patton called “Your Job in Germany” “Bullshit” when he walked out of an (enforced) viewing of the film.

    And yes, the film did specifically tag German children as specific targets to be hated by American occupation forces.

    Nevertheless, Capra got one thing right: “Triumph of the Will” was a highly sophisticated, example of filmmaking and morale-building propaganda. Capra’s productions, in contrast, set the lowest possible bar in the production of propaganda: their core theme was hatred of the Other, a theme America’s propagandists have not been able to move away from ever since.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Morgenthau Plan was to destroy and de populate Germany. But it was just a plan and never seriously considered.
  102. @Corvinus
    "absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS."

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.

    "Tis the Germans who had initially and deliberately bombed into submission Rotterdam.

    http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=rotterdam-4

    In early September 1940, the Luftwaffe engaged in Operation London to target war factories. As "collateral damage", thousands of civilians were killed or wounded. In kind, the British undertook their own efforts.

    It's really simple. War brings out the brutal nature of humankind.

    "German civilians were not “victims” because they should have surrendered; they deserved what they got."

    Strawman.

    "If that were an accurate statement, then holocaust museums would memorialize ALL civilian victims..."

    All civilians in war are victims. The Jews targeted by Hitler have museums in specific remembrance to their hardships, with references to non-Jews who helped them and/or made sacrifices for them. Non-Jews were fell victim to the war machines are remembered in their own museums, with references to Jews as a tribute.

    "Corvinus goes so far as to argue that the “victor” has the “right” to lie about its war crimes, while the vanquished must dwell perpetually in contemplation of its “atrocities.”"

    Strawman. You are making that characterization. There is no "right" here. It is human nature for a group who "win something" to minimize their own immoral actions--if such conduct was employed-- in the process of achieving, and for a group who "lost something" to cast blame on said actions, while ignoring or paying little attention to their own misdeeds.

    If anything, it would appear you are arguing the "victor's" crimes against humanity supersede those of the "loser's" crimes against humanity and minimizing or downplaying the culpability of a particular nation (because Joos).

    Regardless, the loss of life on either side during war is utterly malignant.

    “absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.”

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.

    Dresden was not an industrial center.

    Get your facts straight.

    The Cathedral at Aachen housed the bones of Charlemagne, long dead and not an “industrial target.”
    Nevertheless, the Cathedral was the object of six major bombing raids and nearly sixty-five lower-level raids.

    British ethicist A C Grayling called the bombing of German cultural centers — its cathedrals, libraries, museum, music halls — “culturecide” and “crimes against humanity.”

    Facts.

    I didn’t read past the lines of yours quoted above, my bullshit grinder has overheated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I didn’t read past the lines of yours quoted above, my bullshit grinder has overheated."

    Because I offered cogent rebuttals. Go figure.

    "Dresden was not an industrial center."

    Dresden picked up the slack in making war equipment with over 120 factories churning out radios, bullets, aircraft engines, and torpedos. Its railroad yards moved these goods to the men in the field.

    The Dresdner Jahrbuch (1942) clearly stated "Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its immortal architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden...one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich."

    English historian A.J.P. Tatylor noted in his work "The Origins Of The Second World War" that Colonel General Heinz Guderian, Chief of the Army General Staff, had designated a Verteidigungbereich (a defensive area).

    So long as Dresden churned out war material, so long as the people living there worked in said factories, so long as the city continued to have military significance, the citizens there were subject to brutality. It's a god damn war. People, including infants, get liquidated. Human beings in war find little to be sacred or off limits. It is epically tragic, similar to German bombing assaults on civilian targets in the early stages. Do you find that appalling, or are you going to continue to play dumb?
  103. Alden says:
    @Alden
    You're right about the taxes. A landlord is just a pipe. Taxes flow through that pipe to the government.

    Infrastructure? Don't forget the south had one of the greatest riverine transportation ways of the world; the mighty Mississippi and hundreds of tributaries. Plus a lot of east west rivers that went inland from the Atlantic ports.

    Cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, those southern crops, especially cotton were the equivalent of oil today.

    I've read a lot of John Calhoun's arguments that the constitution provides for peaceful succession. They are compelling arguments. But in reality, the constitution is whatever whoever has the most power says it is.

    John Calhoun start writing about legal constitutional secession in the 1830s 25 years before the civil war.

    Despite the fact that he was one of the fire eaters and bore a lot of responsibility for starting the civil war he was a great legal scholar and public intellectual. His writings make the pompous pundits who write for The Nation, New Republic, American Spectator, and National Review look like the fools they are.

    Read More
  104. Alden says:

    Mercer’s research is out dated. It was 750,000 White soldiers killed in the civil war.

    Read More
  105. Alden says:
    @Logan
    The problem is that the South chose not to base its secession on constitutional grounds. They quite openly and proudly chose "an appeal to arms."

    The problem is that if you reject legal or constitutional methods for an appeal to arms, you lose your right to object on legal or constitutional grounds when your appeal is denied.

    John Calhoun was a great legal scholar. As early as the 1820′s when he was Vice President he developed the the theory that state laws superseded federal law and that states could nullify federal laws they didn’t like.

    Calhoun and other southern senators and some northerners began writing that secession by individual states was legal under the constitution as early as the 1830′s 25 years before the civil war.

    The question was settled when the federal government won the civil war.
    But the idea of secession and states rights superseding federal laws was discussed 40 years before the south captured Fort Sumpter

    Read More
  106. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories. Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry."

    You mean with advice by the military.

    "Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness."

    Dresden was of strategic importance being a major rail transport and communication hub, with over a 100 factories and tens of thousands of industrial laborers. And the American and British viciousness was no more or no less than the viciousness of their German or Japanese counterparts when it came to bombing cities.

    "I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war."

    You think, huh. Better question--> Do you know for certain?

    Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war.

    Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees. Like most large cities world wide, Dresden was a transit center. BFD

    It wasn’t bombed just to kill civilians and destroy one of the most beautiful cities in the world but also the irreplaceable contents of the museums.

    It was a vicious war crime.
    The endless re hash of WWs 1&2 and the civil war is ridiculous.

    I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war.

    A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs.

    WW2 is your obsession, not mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war."

    Then provide a source.

    "Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees."

    No.

    https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

    "Allied reports indicated the presence of the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and Siemans glass factory (which produced gun sights), and other factories building radar, anti-aircraft shell fuses, gas masks, fighter engines, and various fighter parts. The proponents of the war crimes argument claimed that Dresden was bombed by Allied terror bombing strategy, meanwhile prominent military historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart compared the bombing to the methods of the 13th century Mongols. For years to come, Air Marshal Arthur Harris had been again and again under challenge to justify the attacks. He held fast to the belief that although it was near the end of the war, the military needs at
    that time warranted the bombing of this communications hub."

    "I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war."

    Which one?

    "A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs."

    Which one?

    "WW2 is your obsession, not mine."

    That would be Solonto Croesus.
  107. Alden says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Thanks very much for supplying me with the answer to my question as to what Bill Jones was referencing, because Bill Jones did not bother to provide that. Since I don't have the constant attention of Lady Justice, although I sense Her presence from time to time, this will take a while for me to get through: your first reference is an hour-and-half!

    What I can say by way of immediate response: whether Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing, or not, seems to me to be without relevance. Also, I never thought or said that I was giving the whole story, with my first-hand conversations or otherwise. You can't expect me to know the whole story just because I happen to have been awarded a Medal of Occupation and served in Germany during the Occupation.

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime ... if that''s what you are trying to say. As for "videos" prepared by the DoD (you must mean by the Army or by the War Dept.), we called those "films," you know, and we all viewed them as stuff that troops had to try to stay awake (or pretend to be awake) to watch.

    I doubt very much that every film (or even most films) produced by the military for the Occupation were actually shown to occupying troops in Germany, and such films ("troop indoctrination") were never taken seriously by troops anyway. The thing was to try to stay awake, if you were required to watch such films - the Army was never much compared to Hollywood. So your videos are not the strong evidence of anything that you seem to think they are, except that they provide evidence that many soldiers and civilians were employed during WW II in preparing for the Occupation. In any case, NO, I do not have to, and I do not "acknowledge that US soldiers were drilled in the mistreatment & maltreatment of ALL Germans, even children, in the post-war era." Really, like, here's how you hit kids in the head with the butt of your rifle ... okay, let's see you guys do it ... here, we'll bring in some of the Nazi brats for you to practice on" ??? No. Never happened.

    But sure, I'll chase down your references as time allows.

    BTW: I know for sure of US troops who were severely injured by Nazis after Germany surrendered. Would Lady Justice be interested in that? ... because that was scrupulously hidden from the American people as much as was possible.

    The Morgenthau Plan was a proposal. It was never seriously considered by anyone but Morgenthau and his buddies. FDR rejected it.

    Read More
  108. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories. Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry."

    You mean with advice by the military.

    "Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness."

    Dresden was of strategic importance being a major rail transport and communication hub, with over a 100 factories and tens of thousands of industrial laborers. And the American and British viciousness was no more or no less than the viciousness of their German or Japanese counterparts when it came to bombing cities.

    "I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war."

    You think, huh. Better question--> Do you know for certain?

    Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people’s posts?

    I gather you hate Germany and Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people’s posts?"

    It's called making a comment about someone else's statement or position. Why do you care?

    "I gather you hate Germany and Germans."

    And you would gather wrong.
  109. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “absolutely and categorically incorrect: civilians were targeted AS CIVILIANS.”

    Who resided in industrial centers. Get your facts straight.
     

     
    Dresden was not an industrial center.

    Get your facts straight.

    The Cathedral at Aachen housed the bones of Charlemagne, long dead and not an "industrial target."
    Nevertheless, the Cathedral was the object of six major bombing raids and nearly sixty-five lower-level raids.

    British ethicist A C Grayling called the bombing of German cultural centers -- its cathedrals, libraries, museum, music halls -- "culturecide" and "crimes against humanity."

    Facts.

    I didn't read past the lines of yours quoted above, my bullshit grinder has overheated.

    “I didn’t read past the lines of yours quoted above, my bullshit grinder has overheated.”

    Because I offered cogent rebuttals. Go figure.

    “Dresden was not an industrial center.”

    Dresden picked up the slack in making war equipment with over 120 factories churning out radios, bullets, aircraft engines, and torpedos. Its railroad yards moved these goods to the men in the field.

    The Dresdner Jahrbuch (1942) clearly stated “Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its immortal architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden…one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich.”

    English historian A.J.P. Tatylor noted in his work “The Origins Of The Second World War” that Colonel General Heinz Guderian, Chief of the Army General Staff, had designated a Verteidigungbereich (a defensive area).

    So long as Dresden churned out war material, so long as the people living there worked in said factories, so long as the city continued to have military significance, the citizens there were subject to brutality. It’s a god damn war. People, including infants, get liquidated. Human beings in war find little to be sacred or off limits. It is epically tragic, similar to German bombing assaults on civilian targets in the early stages. Do you find that appalling, or are you going to continue to play dumb?

    Read More
  110. Corvinus says:
    @Alden
    Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war.

    Dresden didn't really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees. Like most large cities world wide, Dresden was a transit center. BFD

    It wasn't bombed just to kill civilians and destroy one of the most beautiful cities in the world but also the irreplaceable contents of the museums.

    It was a vicious war crime.
    The endless re hash of WWs 1&2 and the civil war is ridiculous.

    I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war.

    A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower's murder of almost a million German POWs.

    WW2 is your obsession, not mine.

    “Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war.”

    Then provide a source.

    “Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees.”

    No.

    https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

    “Allied reports indicated the presence of the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and Siemans glass factory (which produced gun sights), and other factories building radar, anti-aircraft shell fuses, gas masks, fighter engines, and various fighter parts. The proponents of the war crimes argument claimed that Dresden was bombed by Allied terror bombing strategy, meanwhile prominent military historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart compared the bombing to the methods of the 13th century Mongols. For years to come, Air Marshal Arthur Harris had been again and again under challenge to justify the attacks. He held fast to the belief that although it was near the end of the war, the military needs at
    that time warranted the bombing of this communications hub.”

    “I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war.”

    Which one?

    “A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs.”

    Which one?

    “WW2 is your obsession, not mine.”

    That would be Solonto Croesus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Who are you to demand sources from me? Are you my editor? Do you pay me? So don't demand sources. I've read hundreds of thousands of history books in my life time. I do very little Internet research because it is so superficial

    When in in San Mateo I use my alumna card at the Curtis Green library. When in Los Angeles I use my retiree card at Powell and the URL

    These are some of the greatest libraries in the world. I also order library of congress books through those libraries

    I certainly can't remember two of probably a hundred thousand or more books I've read in my lifetime.

    You are about 60 years behind Jewish leadership in assigning blame for the holocaust. You are still stuck in the 1950s when the Jewish leadership correctly blamed the Germans for what happened to Jews during WW2.

    You need to get au courant. 1940 to 1960 Jews blamed Germany for the holocaust. 1960 to the late 1980s Jews blamed Popes and the Catholics of Europe for the holocaust. Allegedly back in 1930 the current Pope gave Hitler hundreds of millions of Marks so the Nazis could take over Germany.

    During the Hitler acted on the orders of Pope Pius and set up the concentration camps. Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholics delivered Jews to the gestapo.

    Late 198os the story changed. Currently it's called the "European Holocaust" by Holocaust soi disant " scholars and researchers" LOL

    Currently the people responsible for the holocaust are the ordinary civilians and local government employees of the German occupied nations. The Netherlands, France, Poland, Austria, Hungary did it, not the Germans. It was city police and civilians who rounded up Jews and shipped them off to the ovens; or was it gas chambers?

    Your posts are soooo 1955. Get au courant. Subscribe to Jewish publications and learn the who is currently blamed for the holocaust.

    It's interesting that the foremost haters of Poles and Poland have been German Nazis and Jews. Verrrrry interesting no?
    , @Alden
    You read so few books you can remember every one of the few you've read.
    , @Logan
    Total British civilian dead from air raids in WWII about 40,000.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10454718/Records-of-WW2-civilian-war-dead-published-online.html

    Total dead civilians from air raids in Germany during WWII around 600,000.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/worlddispatch.germany

    Dead civilians in a single attack on Hamburg 42,000, so more than the total for Britain in the whole war.

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

    Dead civilians in the firebombing of Dresden, probably about 25,000.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/02/remembering-dresden-70-years-after-the-firebombing/385445/

  111. Corvinus says:
    @Alden
    Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people's posts?

    I gather you hate Germany and Germans.

    “Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people’s posts?”

    It’s called making a comment about someone else’s statement or position. Why do you care?

    “I gather you hate Germany and Germans.”

    And you would gather wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    No one bothers to read your copies of other people's comments because we've just read the comments you copy. You must think we are as dumb as you are and can't remember the comment you attack.

    It's obvious you hate Germany and Germans
  112. John C. Calhoun was not a “legal scholar.” He was a Constitutional interpreter and political philosopher. He did not invent State rights; it was implicit in the nature of a Union as a creation of the states and was fully expounded by Jefferson and Madison. Lincoln was absurd when he said that the Union was older than the States. How could a union among states be older than the states creating it?
    Tariff. Let’s get straight what was at issue if we are going to discuss this. The Constitution forbids taxes on exports. It allows taxes on imports for the purpose of raising revenue for the govt., not for the purpose of excluding the foreign competitors of domestic manufacturers. Estimates differ, but the South produced through out history up to 1861 about 80% of all the U.S. exports. The Yankees had little that the world wanted. These Southern exports were sold on the world market with the producer at its mercy. From the 1820s there were constant efforts to raise the tariff on imports so that it would exclude foreign products. Meaning Yankee capitalists had a guaranteed profit, a captive market, and could charge more than market value for their products. Crony capitalism. Since the South made possible the U.S.’s international trade, it was de facto being taxed for its exports which should have produced a return trade. Yankees were vicious and violent in their intent to make the tariff law enforced. Almost 50% with the Lincoln regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    John Calhoun is known as a legal scholar and political theorist. We're he around today he would be like Buckeley, Kissenger and Buchanan cranking out best sellers.

    In 1957 the senate decided to create a list of the 5 greatest senators of all time. Calhoun is one of them. Even when he was a teenager at Yale he was considered a genius by his professors

    The civil war destroyed the legal secession theory once and for all. But it was a well reasoned excellent constitutional theory. But the President disagreed.

    I'm certainly not a Confederate Heritage person. But I can appreciate a great mind.
    , @Alden
    The great legal scholar Calhoun died before the civil war, but from the 1820s on he wrote the same things you just did about tariffs. King Cotton ruled. It was the equivalent of oil today.
    But the exporters could have just raised the price to cover the export taxes? That's what usually happens. Wouldn't the Europeans and the rest of the world have gladly paid enough to cover the export tax?
  113. Gentlemen, if we are going to discuss these things, please use the term SECESSION and make an effort to understand what it precisely means.

    Read More
  114. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war."

    Then provide a source.

    "Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees."

    No.

    https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

    "Allied reports indicated the presence of the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and Siemans glass factory (which produced gun sights), and other factories building radar, anti-aircraft shell fuses, gas masks, fighter engines, and various fighter parts. The proponents of the war crimes argument claimed that Dresden was bombed by Allied terror bombing strategy, meanwhile prominent military historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart compared the bombing to the methods of the 13th century Mongols. For years to come, Air Marshal Arthur Harris had been again and again under challenge to justify the attacks. He held fast to the belief that although it was near the end of the war, the military needs at
    that time warranted the bombing of this communications hub."

    "I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war."

    Which one?

    "A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs."

    Which one?

    "WW2 is your obsession, not mine."

    That would be Solonto Croesus.

    Who are you to demand sources from me? Are you my editor? Do you pay me? So don’t demand sources. I’ve read hundreds of thousands of history books in my life time. I do very little Internet research because it is so superficial

    When in in San Mateo I use my alumna card at the Curtis Green library. When in Los Angeles I use my retiree card at Powell and the URL

    These are some of the greatest libraries in the world. I also order library of congress books through those libraries

    I certainly can’t remember two of probably a hundred thousand or more books I’ve read in my lifetime.

    You are about 60 years behind Jewish leadership in assigning blame for the holocaust. You are still stuck in the 1950s when the Jewish leadership correctly blamed the Germans for what happened to Jews during WW2.

    You need to get au courant. 1940 to 1960 Jews blamed Germany for the holocaust. 1960 to the late 1980s Jews blamed Popes and the Catholics of Europe for the holocaust. Allegedly back in 1930 the current Pope gave Hitler hundreds of millions of Marks so the Nazis could take over Germany.

    During the Hitler acted on the orders of Pope Pius and set up the concentration camps. Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholics delivered Jews to the gestapo.

    Late 198os the story changed. Currently it’s called the “European Holocaust” by Holocaust soi disant ” scholars and researchers” LOL

    Currently the people responsible for the holocaust are the ordinary civilians and local government employees of the German occupied nations. The Netherlands, France, Poland, Austria, Hungary did it, not the Germans. It was city police and civilians who rounded up Jews and shipped them off to the ovens; or was it gas chambers?

    Your posts are soooo 1955. Get au courant. Subscribe to Jewish publications and learn the who is currently blamed for the holocaust.

    It’s interesting that the foremost haters of Poles and Poland have been German Nazis and Jews. Verrrrry interesting no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Who are you to demand sources from me? Are you my editor? Do you pay me? So don’t demand sources."

    In a conversation where one makes a claim, and then is asked to cite sources, it is courtesy to offer such materials.

    "I’ve read hundreds of thousands of history books in my life time."

    That's a rather tall claim. One could assume that besides history books, you have read non-history books. I gather you are retired. So, for fun, let us assume that you are 80 years old AND you began reading at age 4 since you were a prodigy. 76 x 365 = 27740 days of your life. Let us now assume you read 200000 HISTORY books, since that was YOUR claim. 200000 divided by 27740 = 7.20. So, your average number of books a day is 7.

    Considering that the average number of books people read over the course of a year is 12...

    For the sake of argument, let us say the books you read averaged 100 pages, which would be on the low end. That would be 700 pages to read in a day. Consider that the average reading speed is 200-250 words a minute for non-technical material, (roughly 2 minutes per page). But assuming you were that prodigy, I will grant you for non-technical AND technical material, you would average 1 page in two minutes and meaningfully comprehend the information. That would mean 30 pages in 60 minutes/1 hour.

    Do you see where the math is leading us? Had you stated that you read thousands of history books in your lifetime, while highly unlikely, at least this possibility is more digestible than your claim of reading hundreds of thousands of history books.

    Maybe you should be in contact with this lady...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5932159/Britains-most-avid-reader-91-has-borrowed-25000-library-books.html

    "You are about 60 years behind Jewish leadership in assigning blame for the holocaust. You are still stuck in the 1950s when the Jewish leadership correctly blamed the Germans for what happened to Jews during WW2. You need to get au courant. 1940 to 1960 Jews blamed Germany for the holocaust. 1960 to the late 1980s Jews blamed Popes and the Catholics of Europe for the holocaust. Allegedly back in 1930 the current Pope gave Hitler hundreds of millions of Marks so the Nazis could take over Germany."

    I would surmise that within the Jewish community, there are disagreements as to whether those leaders taking alternative positions on who is to blame for the Holocaust are indeed legitimate leaders, represent mainstream Jewish thought, and make relevant arguments.

  115. Alden says:
    @Clyde Wilson
    John C. Calhoun was not a "legal scholar." He was a Constitutional interpreter and political philosopher. He did not invent State rights; it was implicit in the nature of a Union as a creation of the states and was fully expounded by Jefferson and Madison. Lincoln was absurd when he said that the Union was older than the States. How could a union among states be older than the states creating it?
    Tariff. Let's get straight what was at issue if we are going to discuss this. The Constitution forbids taxes on exports. It allows taxes on imports for the purpose of raising revenue for the govt., not for the purpose of excluding the foreign competitors of domestic manufacturers. Estimates differ, but the South produced through out history up to 1861 about 80% of all the U.S. exports. The Yankees had little that the world wanted. These Southern exports were sold on the world market with the producer at its mercy. From the 1820s there were constant efforts to raise the tariff on imports so that it would exclude foreign products. Meaning Yankee capitalists had a guaranteed profit, a captive market, and could charge more than market value for their products. Crony capitalism. Since the South made possible the U.S.'s international trade, it was de facto being taxed for its exports which should have produced a return trade. Yankees were vicious and violent in their intent to make the tariff law enforced. Almost 50% with the Lincoln regime.

    John Calhoun is known as a legal scholar and political theorist. We’re he around today he would be like Buckeley, Kissenger and Buchanan cranking out best sellers.

    In 1957 the senate decided to create a list of the 5 greatest senators of all time. Calhoun is one of them. Even when he was a teenager at Yale he was considered a genius by his professors

    The civil war destroyed the legal secession theory once and for all. But it was a well reasoned excellent constitutional theory. But the President disagreed.

    I’m certainly not a Confederate Heritage person. But I can appreciate a great mind.

    Read More
  116. Alden says:
    @Clyde Wilson
    John C. Calhoun was not a "legal scholar." He was a Constitutional interpreter and political philosopher. He did not invent State rights; it was implicit in the nature of a Union as a creation of the states and was fully expounded by Jefferson and Madison. Lincoln was absurd when he said that the Union was older than the States. How could a union among states be older than the states creating it?
    Tariff. Let's get straight what was at issue if we are going to discuss this. The Constitution forbids taxes on exports. It allows taxes on imports for the purpose of raising revenue for the govt., not for the purpose of excluding the foreign competitors of domestic manufacturers. Estimates differ, but the South produced through out history up to 1861 about 80% of all the U.S. exports. The Yankees had little that the world wanted. These Southern exports were sold on the world market with the producer at its mercy. From the 1820s there were constant efforts to raise the tariff on imports so that it would exclude foreign products. Meaning Yankee capitalists had a guaranteed profit, a captive market, and could charge more than market value for their products. Crony capitalism. Since the South made possible the U.S.'s international trade, it was de facto being taxed for its exports which should have produced a return trade. Yankees were vicious and violent in their intent to make the tariff law enforced. Almost 50% with the Lincoln regime.

    The great legal scholar Calhoun died before the civil war, but from the 1820s on he wrote the same things you just did about tariffs. King Cotton ruled. It was the equivalent of oil today.
    But the exporters could have just raised the price to cover the export taxes? That’s what usually happens. Wouldn’t the Europeans and the rest of the world have gladly paid enough to cover the export tax?

    Read More
  117. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "Why do so many of your posts consist of clip and pastes of other people’s posts?"

    It's called making a comment about someone else's statement or position. Why do you care?

    "I gather you hate Germany and Germans."

    And you would gather wrong.

    No one bothers to read your copies of other people’s comments because we’ve just read the comments you copy. You must think we are as dumb as you are and can’t remember the comment you attack.

    It’s obvious you hate Germany and Germans

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No one bothers to read your copies of other people’s comments because we’ve just read the comments you copy. You must think we are as dumb as you are and can’t remember the comment you attack."

    It's called context and analysis. Give it an honest try sometime.

    "It’s obvious you hate Germany and Germans."

    It's obvious you employ strawmen.
  118. Alden says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Certainly, I know a lot about the Morgenthau Plan, which I do not consider to have ever been a war crime … if that”s what you are trying to say.
     
    You are in a minority in not considering the Morgenthau Plan at least idiotically ill-advised, at worst, a war crime: George C. Marshall was appalled at the short-sightedness and craven vengefulness of the Plan.

    As for the propaganda films, Frank Capra was a man of limited talent, used only as a front for a series of hate-filled writers and producers (Seuss wrote "Your Job in Germany;" Communist apparatchiks and zionists wrote several of the "Why We Fight" films). Warner Brothers made a boatload of money off the film/s, but many political and military leaders were shocked and outraged by them; Patton called "Your Job in Germany" "Bullshit" when he walked out of an (enforced) viewing of the film.

    And yes, the film did specifically tag German children as specific targets to be hated by American occupation forces.

    Nevertheless, Capra got one thing right: "Triumph of the Will" was a highly sophisticated, example of filmmaking and morale-building propaganda. Capra's productions, in contrast, set the lowest possible bar in the production of propaganda: their core theme was hatred of the Other, a theme America's propagandists have not been able to move away from ever since.

    The Morgenthau Plan was to destroy and de populate Germany. But it was just a plan and never seriously considered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    The Morgenthau Plan . . .to destroy and de populate Germany. . . was just a plan and never seriously considered.
     
    I don't think that is correct.

    There's an extensive collection of photos after (about) pg. 525 of Jean Edward Smith's biography of FDR
    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/0812970497

    One photo shows FDR sitting in an open car, Churchill standing next to the car talking to Roosevelt.
    The legend says:
    "A beaming Churchill greeds FDR at Quebec for the OCTAGON conference, September 14, 1944. It was here that Roosevelt and Churchill initially approved the Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany." - Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration"

    Text on pg. 624 expands:

    "Secretary of the Treasury [Henry Morgenthau, Jr.] accompanied the president at Quebec, where he and Churchill endorsed the Morgenthau Plan . . . Churchill was initially aghast. "I am all for dis-arming Germany, but we ought not prevent her living decently. There are bonds between the working classes of all countries, and the English people will not stand for the policy you are advocating. . . You cannot indict a whole nation." But when Morgenthau agreed to write off Britain's Lend Lease debt and proposed a $3 billion postwar loan for the British economy, Churchill relented. "When I have to choose between my people and the German people, I am going to choose my people," he told an incredulous Eden. . . .

    Back in Washington the responsible cabinet officers heaped scorn on the proposal. "I have yet to meet a man who is not horrified at the 'Cartheginian' attitude of the Treasury," said Stimson. "It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds for another war in the next generation." In Stimson's view, the industrial capacity of the Ruhr and the Saar were essential for the recovery of Europe. Hull told Roosevelt it would lead to last-ditch, bitter-end German resistance that would cost thousands of American lives. When the Republicans appeared ready to make the Morgenthau Plan a campaign issue, FDR backed off. "Henry Morgenthau pulled a boner," he told Stimson on Oct. 3. The president was frankly staggered by the plan to convert Germany into an agricultural and pastoral country and "had no idea how he could have initialed this."

    That Roosevelt did not remember may have been his way of disassociating from an unpopular position."
     
    It may be the case that the Morgenthau Plan was not fully implemented, but in a conference sponsored by the Marshall Foundation in 2014, "eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg" explained that to the extent that was so, it was because Morgenthau was "too soft" on the German people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4

    (29 min.) "The plan was to turn Germany into a country like Holland and Denmark, with a high standard of living but no heavy industry. As Churchill put it, quote "Fat but impotent." Mythmakers have refrained from looking at the original document published decades ago: Its four pages and map illustrate the obvious: if such a change were to be made, Germany would need the bulk of its eastern agricultural land. One could not take it away, push the Germans there into the remainder, and expect the country to survive without vast export industries.
    The project was abandoned because of Stalin's insistence on the Oder-Neisse Line . . The proposal Roosevelt and Churchill preferred was too soft, not too hard on the Germans.
     
    Weinberg reconfirmed and expanded his interpretation of the Morgenthau plan and whether or not, or why or why it was not implemented, in response to a question from the audience:

    (@ 1:17} "Churchill was in favor of it [Morgenthau plan].

    The critical point here was an effort to prevent what everybody at the time was terrified of -- we forget this today: Twenty years after Germany's World War I defeat, they were running around the globe again. And everybody was terrified that in another twenty years those folks would be at our throats again.

    Now you and I know that between them the Red Army and the strategic bombing offensive taught the Germans that, 'If you don't want your house to burn, don't set the world on fire.' They have learned that lesson.

    But during World War II we tend to forget how concerned people in all countries -- The main reason Stalin agreed to United Nations organization, interestingly enough, Soviets had been thrown out of League of Nations -- was because he saw it as prospective barrier against a new German effort at a third world war. Under those circumstances the notion, having Germany, as I said and as was said at the time, brought in like Denmark and Holland -- high standard of living but no heavy industry -- looked quite attractive, and certainly looked very attractive to Winston Churchill. But that would mean that Germany had to keep the surplus agricultural lands that it had. It was Stalin -- not at that point really friendly to the Germans -- who torpedoed the possibility by insisting that the Eastern part of Germany be taken away and turned over to Poland and a piece of it to the Soviet Union, and all of the people in it shoved out into the rest of Germany. I have sometimes wondered whether the additional 5 - 6 million people who lost their homes because the Morgenthau plan was eventually scuttled, are really quite that happy about having that drop. As I said, whether it was right or wrong, the reason it was dropped was that it was too soft on the Germans, not too hard on them. "
     
    Readers will note that the comments that Smith quoted of Churchill's, Roosevelt's, Stimson's and Hull's revulsion to the Morgenthau plan directly contradict Weinberg's assertions.

    [Editorial comment: Weisberg is a nasty piece of work: the way he screws up his face as he speaks reflects the ugly distortions he overlays on his interpretation of the history. ]

    Whether or not, or to what extent Germany was de-industrialized or "taught a lesson," the chronology tells a story of its own:

    On June 5, 1947 -- more than two years after Germany surrendered, George C Marshall spoke at the Harvard commencement ceremony.

    "Marshall presented a picture of a European economy in a state of disintegration. The costs of World War II, in terms of physical destruction, the liquidation of assets, and general economic dislocation, threatened to cause a complete breakdown of normal social and commercial life. . . . goods needed for production and exports were virtually nonexistent. Food shortages confronted large segments of urban populations with undernourishment and even starvation . . . Governments were quickly exhausting their last reserves in order to import the necessities of life for their populations.

    "It is logical," Marshall continued, "that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." http://marshallfoundation.org/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/05/The_Marshall_Plan_Origins_and_Implementation_000.pdf
     
    The USA eventually invested $13 billion in the Marshall Plan for post-war recovery of Europe. According to wikipedia,

    While Germany struggled to recover from the destruction of the War, the recovery effort began in June 1948, moving on from emergency relief. . . .

    During the first three years of occupation of Germany, the UK and US vigorously pursued a military disarmament program in Germany, partly by removal of equipment but mainly through an import embargo on raw materials, part of the Morgenthau Plan approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
     
    Of that $13 billion,
    $3,501 billion went to Italy;
    $3,391 billion went to (west) Germany;
    $3,190 billion to United Kingdom;**
    $2,714 billion to France.
    with smaller amounts to 13 other countries.
    http://marshallfoundation.org/library/documents/marshall-plan-payments-millions-european-economic-cooperation-countries/


    **U S Lend-Lease loans to Britain had already amounted to $4.5 billion
  119. Alden says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war."

    Then provide a source.

    "Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees."

    No.

    https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

    "Allied reports indicated the presence of the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and Siemans glass factory (which produced gun sights), and other factories building radar, anti-aircraft shell fuses, gas masks, fighter engines, and various fighter parts. The proponents of the war crimes argument claimed that Dresden was bombed by Allied terror bombing strategy, meanwhile prominent military historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart compared the bombing to the methods of the 13th century Mongols. For years to come, Air Marshal Arthur Harris had been again and again under challenge to justify the attacks. He held fast to the belief that although it was near the end of the war, the military needs at
    that time warranted the bombing of this communications hub."

    "I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war."

    Which one?

    "A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs."

    Which one?

    "WW2 is your obsession, not mine."

    That would be Solonto Croesus.

    You read so few books you can remember every one of the few you’ve read.

    Read More
  120. Alden says:
    @Logan
    Quite right. There are multiple other factual errors and/or attempts at deceit in the column.

    I also did a couple of word searches on Mein Kampf.

    United States: 5 hits.

    America/American: 33 hits.

    None of them have anything to say about our civil war or Lincoln. It seems very likely AH knew little and cared less about these issues. Nor is there any particular reason he should have.

    Thank you for doing the research.

    Read More
  121. @Alden
    The Morgenthau Plan was to destroy and de populate Germany. But it was just a plan and never seriously considered.

    The Morgenthau Plan . . .to destroy and de populate Germany. . . was just a plan and never seriously considered.

    I don’t think that is correct.

    There’s an extensive collection of photos after (about) pg. 525 of Jean Edward Smith’s biography of FDR

    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/0812970497

    One photo shows FDR sitting in an open car, Churchill standing next to the car talking to Roosevelt.
    The legend says:
    “A beaming Churchill greeds FDR at Quebec for the OCTAGON conference, September 14, 1944. It was here that Roosevelt and Churchill initially approved the Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany.” – Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration”

    Text on pg. 624 expands:

    “Secretary of the Treasury [Henry Morgenthau, Jr.] accompanied the president at Quebec, where he and Churchill endorsed the Morgenthau Plan . . . Churchill was initially aghast. “I am all for dis-arming Germany, but we ought not prevent her living decently. There are bonds between the working classes of all countries, and the English people will not stand for the policy you are advocating. . . You cannot indict a whole nation.” But when Morgenthau agreed to write off Britain’s Lend Lease debt and proposed a $3 billion postwar loan for the British economy, Churchill relented. “When I have to choose between my people and the German people, I am going to choose my people,” he told an incredulous Eden. . . .

    Back in Washington the responsible cabinet officers heaped scorn on the proposal. “I have yet to meet a man who is not horrified at the ‘Cartheginian’ attitude of the Treasury,” said Stimson. “It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds for another war in the next generation.” In Stimson’s view, the industrial capacity of the Ruhr and the Saar were essential for the recovery of Europe. Hull told Roosevelt it would lead to last-ditch, bitter-end German resistance that would cost thousands of American lives. When the Republicans appeared ready to make the Morgenthau Plan a campaign issue, FDR backed off. “Henry Morgenthau pulled a boner,” he told Stimson on Oct. 3. The president was frankly staggered by the plan to convert Germany into an agricultural and pastoral country and “had no idea how he could have initialed this.”

    That Roosevelt did not remember may have been his way of disassociating from an unpopular position.”

    It may be the case that the Morgenthau Plan was not fully implemented, but in a conference sponsored by the Marshall Foundation in 2014, “eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg” explained that to the extent that was so, it was because Morgenthau was “too soft” on the German people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4

    (29 min.) “The plan was to turn Germany into a country like Holland and Denmark, with a high standard of living but no heavy industry. As Churchill put it, quote “Fat but impotent.” Mythmakers have refrained from looking at the original document published decades ago: Its four pages and map illustrate the obvious: if such a change were to be made, Germany would need the bulk of its eastern agricultural land. One could not take it away, push the Germans there into the remainder, and expect the country to survive without vast export industries.
    The project was abandoned because of Stalin’s insistence on the Oder-Neisse Line . . The proposal Roosevelt and Churchill preferred was too soft, not too hard on the Germans.

    Weinberg reconfirmed and expanded his interpretation of the Morgenthau plan and whether or not, or why or why it was not implemented, in response to a question from the audience:

    (@ 1:17} “Churchill was in favor of it [Morgenthau plan].

    The critical point here was an effort to prevent what everybody at the time was terrified of — we forget this today: Twenty years after Germany’s World War I defeat, they were running around the globe again. And everybody was terrified that in another twenty years those folks would be at our throats again.

    Now you and I know that between them the Red Army and the strategic bombing offensive taught the Germans that, ‘If you don’t want your house to burn, don’t set the world on fire.’ They have learned that lesson.

    But during World War II we tend to forget how concerned people in all countries — The main reason Stalin agreed to United Nations organization, interestingly enough, Soviets had been thrown out of League of Nations — was because he saw it as prospective barrier against a new German effort at a third world war. Under those circumstances the notion, having Germany, as I said and as was said at the time, brought in like Denmark and Holland — high standard of living but no heavy industry — looked quite attractive, and certainly looked very attractive to Winston Churchill. But that would mean that Germany had to keep the surplus agricultural lands that it had. It was Stalin — not at that point really friendly to the Germans — who torpedoed the possibility by insisting that the Eastern part of Germany be taken away and turned over to Poland and a piece of it to the Soviet Union, and all of the people in it shoved out into the rest of Germany. I have sometimes wondered whether the additional 5 – 6 million people who lost their homes because the Morgenthau plan was eventually scuttled, are really quite that happy about having that drop. As I said, whether it was right or wrong, the reason it was dropped was that it was too soft on the Germans, not too hard on them. ”

    Readers will note that the comments that Smith quoted of Churchill’s, Roosevelt’s, Stimson’s and Hull’s revulsion to the Morgenthau plan directly contradict Weinberg’s assertions.

    [Editorial comment: Weisberg is a nasty piece of work: the way he screws up his face as he speaks reflects the ugly distortions he overlays on his interpretation of the history. ]

    Whether or not, or to what extent Germany was de-industrialized or “taught a lesson,” the chronology tells a story of its own:

    On June 5, 1947more than two years after Germany surrendered, George C Marshall spoke at the Harvard commencement ceremony.

    “Marshall presented a picture of a European economy in a state of disintegration. The costs of World War II, in terms of physical destruction, the liquidation of assets, and general economic dislocation, threatened to cause a complete breakdown of normal social and commercial life. . . . goods needed for production and exports were virtually nonexistent. Food shortages confronted large segments of urban populations with undernourishment and even starvation . . . Governments were quickly exhausting their last reserves in order to import the necessities of life for their populations.

    “It is logical,” Marshall continued, “that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” http://marshallfoundation.org/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/05/The_Marshall_Plan_Origins_and_Implementation_000.pdf

    The USA eventually invested $13 billion in the Marshall Plan for post-war recovery of Europe. According to wikipedia,

    While Germany struggled to recover from the destruction of the War, the recovery effort began in June 1948, moving on from emergency relief. . . .

    During the first three years of occupation of Germany, the UK and US vigorously pursued a military disarmament program in Germany, partly by removal of equipment but mainly through an import embargo on raw materials, part of the Morgenthau Plan approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

    Of that $13 billion,
    $3,501 billion went to Italy;
    $3,391 billion went to (west) Germany;
    $3,190 billion to United Kingdom;**
    $2,714 billion to France.
    with smaller amounts to 13 other countries.

    http://marshallfoundation.org/library/documents/marshall-plan-payments-millions-european-economic-cooperation-countries/

    **U S Lend-Lease loans to Britain had already amounted to $4.5 billion

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Lend-Lease was intended to help the British stay in the fight, not to rebuild.
  122. Corvinus says:
    @Alden
    No one bothers to read your copies of other people's comments because we've just read the comments you copy. You must think we are as dumb as you are and can't remember the comment you attack.

    It's obvious you hate Germany and Germans

    “No one bothers to read your copies of other people’s comments because we’ve just read the comments you copy. You must think we are as dumb as you are and can’t remember the comment you attack.”

    It’s called context and analysis. Give it an honest try sometime.

    “It’s obvious you hate Germany and Germans.”

    It’s obvious you employ strawmen.

    Read More
  123. Logan says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yes I know for a fact that as many German civilians were killed in just one Hamburg raid than all the British civilians killed in air raids during the war."

    Then provide a source.

    "Dresden didn’t really have large factories. They were more like workshops, an owner and 5 to 20 employees."

    No.

    https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

    "Allied reports indicated the presence of the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and Siemans glass factory (which produced gun sights), and other factories building radar, anti-aircraft shell fuses, gas masks, fighter engines, and various fighter parts. The proponents of the war crimes argument claimed that Dresden was bombed by Allied terror bombing strategy, meanwhile prominent military historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart compared the bombing to the methods of the 13th century Mongols. For years to come, Air Marshal Arthur Harris had been again and again under challenge to justify the attacks. He held fast to the belief that although it was near the end of the war, the military needs at
    that time warranted the bombing of this communications hub."

    "I read that book that claimed Eisenhower murdered hundreds of thousands of German POWs in detention camps after the war."

    Which one?

    "A few years later I read the book that totally refuted the book about Eisenhower’s murder of almost a million German POWs."

    Which one?

    "WW2 is your obsession, not mine."

    That would be Solonto Croesus.

    Total British civilian dead from air raids in WWII about 40,000.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10454718/Records-of-WW2-civilian-war-dead-published-online.html

    Total dead civilians from air raids in Germany during WWII around 600,000.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/worlddispatch.germany

    Dead civilians in a single attack on Hamburg 42,000, so more than the total for Britain in the whole war.

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

    Dead civilians in the firebombing of Dresden, probably about 25,000.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/02/remembering-dresden-70-years-after-the-firebombing/385445/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Thank you for taking time to research and offering up the numbers.
  124. Logan says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The Morgenthau Plan . . .to destroy and de populate Germany. . . was just a plan and never seriously considered.
     
    I don't think that is correct.

    There's an extensive collection of photos after (about) pg. 525 of Jean Edward Smith's biography of FDR
    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/0812970497

    One photo shows FDR sitting in an open car, Churchill standing next to the car talking to Roosevelt.
    The legend says:
    "A beaming Churchill greeds FDR at Quebec for the OCTAGON conference, September 14, 1944. It was here that Roosevelt and Churchill initially approved the Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany." - Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration"

    Text on pg. 624 expands:

    "Secretary of the Treasury [Henry Morgenthau, Jr.] accompanied the president at Quebec, where he and Churchill endorsed the Morgenthau Plan . . . Churchill was initially aghast. "I am all for dis-arming Germany, but we ought not prevent her living decently. There are bonds between the working classes of all countries, and the English people will not stand for the policy you are advocating. . . You cannot indict a whole nation." But when Morgenthau agreed to write off Britain's Lend Lease debt and proposed a $3 billion postwar loan for the British economy, Churchill relented. "When I have to choose between my people and the German people, I am going to choose my people," he told an incredulous Eden. . . .

    Back in Washington the responsible cabinet officers heaped scorn on the proposal. "I have yet to meet a man who is not horrified at the 'Cartheginian' attitude of the Treasury," said Stimson. "It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds for another war in the next generation." In Stimson's view, the industrial capacity of the Ruhr and the Saar were essential for the recovery of Europe. Hull told Roosevelt it would lead to last-ditch, bitter-end German resistance that would cost thousands of American lives. When the Republicans appeared ready to make the Morgenthau Plan a campaign issue, FDR backed off. "Henry Morgenthau pulled a boner," he told Stimson on Oct. 3. The president was frankly staggered by the plan to convert Germany into an agricultural and pastoral country and "had no idea how he could have initialed this."

    That Roosevelt did not remember may have been his way of disassociating from an unpopular position."
     
    It may be the case that the Morgenthau Plan was not fully implemented, but in a conference sponsored by the Marshall Foundation in 2014, "eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg" explained that to the extent that was so, it was because Morgenthau was "too soft" on the German people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4

    (29 min.) "The plan was to turn Germany into a country like Holland and Denmark, with a high standard of living but no heavy industry. As Churchill put it, quote "Fat but impotent." Mythmakers have refrained from looking at the original document published decades ago: Its four pages and map illustrate the obvious: if such a change were to be made, Germany would need the bulk of its eastern agricultural land. One could not take it away, push the Germans there into the remainder, and expect the country to survive without vast export industries.
    The project was abandoned because of Stalin's insistence on the Oder-Neisse Line . . The proposal Roosevelt and Churchill preferred was too soft, not too hard on the Germans.
     
    Weinberg reconfirmed and expanded his interpretation of the Morgenthau plan and whether or not, or why or why it was not implemented, in response to a question from the audience:

    (@ 1:17} "Churchill was in favor of it [Morgenthau plan].

    The critical point here was an effort to prevent what everybody at the time was terrified of -- we forget this today: Twenty years after Germany's World War I defeat, they were running around the globe again. And everybody was terrified that in another twenty years those folks would be at our throats again.

    Now you and I know that between them the Red Army and the strategic bombing offensive taught the Germans that, 'If you don't want your house to burn, don't set the world on fire.' They have learned that lesson.

    But during World War II we tend to forget how concerned people in all countries -- The main reason Stalin agreed to United Nations organization, interestingly enough, Soviets had been thrown out of League of Nations -- was because he saw it as prospective barrier against a new German effort at a third world war. Under those circumstances the notion, having Germany, as I said and as was said at the time, brought in like Denmark and Holland -- high standard of living but no heavy industry -- looked quite attractive, and certainly looked very attractive to Winston Churchill. But that would mean that Germany had to keep the surplus agricultural lands that it had. It was Stalin -- not at that point really friendly to the Germans -- who torpedoed the possibility by insisting that the Eastern part of Germany be taken away and turned over to Poland and a piece of it to the Soviet Union, and all of the people in it shoved out into the rest of Germany. I have sometimes wondered whether the additional 5 - 6 million people who lost their homes because the Morgenthau plan was eventually scuttled, are really quite that happy about having that drop. As I said, whether it was right or wrong, the reason it was dropped was that it was too soft on the Germans, not too hard on them. "
     
    Readers will note that the comments that Smith quoted of Churchill's, Roosevelt's, Stimson's and Hull's revulsion to the Morgenthau plan directly contradict Weinberg's assertions.

    [Editorial comment: Weisberg is a nasty piece of work: the way he screws up his face as he speaks reflects the ugly distortions he overlays on his interpretation of the history. ]

    Whether or not, or to what extent Germany was de-industrialized or "taught a lesson," the chronology tells a story of its own:

    On June 5, 1947 -- more than two years after Germany surrendered, George C Marshall spoke at the Harvard commencement ceremony.

    "Marshall presented a picture of a European economy in a state of disintegration. The costs of World War II, in terms of physical destruction, the liquidation of assets, and general economic dislocation, threatened to cause a complete breakdown of normal social and commercial life. . . . goods needed for production and exports were virtually nonexistent. Food shortages confronted large segments of urban populations with undernourishment and even starvation . . . Governments were quickly exhausting their last reserves in order to import the necessities of life for their populations.

    "It is logical," Marshall continued, "that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." http://marshallfoundation.org/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/05/The_Marshall_Plan_Origins_and_Implementation_000.pdf
     
    The USA eventually invested $13 billion in the Marshall Plan for post-war recovery of Europe. According to wikipedia,

    While Germany struggled to recover from the destruction of the War, the recovery effort began in June 1948, moving on from emergency relief. . . .

    During the first three years of occupation of Germany, the UK and US vigorously pursued a military disarmament program in Germany, partly by removal of equipment but mainly through an import embargo on raw materials, part of the Morgenthau Plan approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
     
    Of that $13 billion,
    $3,501 billion went to Italy;
    $3,391 billion went to (west) Germany;
    $3,190 billion to United Kingdom;**
    $2,714 billion to France.
    with smaller amounts to 13 other countries.
    http://marshallfoundation.org/library/documents/marshall-plan-payments-millions-european-economic-cooperation-countries/


    **U S Lend-Lease loans to Britain had already amounted to $4.5 billion

    Lend-Lease was intended to help the British stay in the fight, not to rebuild.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Yes indeed.

    Then the British got an additional $3.-- billion to rebuild.

    The point is that the British got more support to attack/destroy Germany, in addition to aid in rebuilding, than Germany got to rebuild.

    So all the noxious virtue signaling about how "US rebuilt Germany" is bogus and dishonest, tho it's likely Grampa Charlie drinks it up every morning with his prune juice and stool softener.
  125. Corvinus says:
    @Alden
    Who are you to demand sources from me? Are you my editor? Do you pay me? So don't demand sources. I've read hundreds of thousands of history books in my life time. I do very little Internet research because it is so superficial

    When in in San Mateo I use my alumna card at the Curtis Green library. When in Los Angeles I use my retiree card at Powell and the URL

    These are some of the greatest libraries in the world. I also order library of congress books through those libraries

    I certainly can't remember two of probably a hundred thousand or more books I've read in my lifetime.

    You are about 60 years behind Jewish leadership in assigning blame for the holocaust. You are still stuck in the 1950s when the Jewish leadership correctly blamed the Germans for what happened to Jews during WW2.

    You need to get au courant. 1940 to 1960 Jews blamed Germany for the holocaust. 1960 to the late 1980s Jews blamed Popes and the Catholics of Europe for the holocaust. Allegedly back in 1930 the current Pope gave Hitler hundreds of millions of Marks so the Nazis could take over Germany.

    During the Hitler acted on the orders of Pope Pius and set up the concentration camps. Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholics delivered Jews to the gestapo.

    Late 198os the story changed. Currently it's called the "European Holocaust" by Holocaust soi disant " scholars and researchers" LOL

    Currently the people responsible for the holocaust are the ordinary civilians and local government employees of the German occupied nations. The Netherlands, France, Poland, Austria, Hungary did it, not the Germans. It was city police and civilians who rounded up Jews and shipped them off to the ovens; or was it gas chambers?

    Your posts are soooo 1955. Get au courant. Subscribe to Jewish publications and learn the who is currently blamed for the holocaust.

    It's interesting that the foremost haters of Poles and Poland have been German Nazis and Jews. Verrrrry interesting no?

    “Who are you to demand sources from me? Are you my editor? Do you pay me? So don’t demand sources.”

    In a conversation where one makes a claim, and then is asked to cite sources, it is courtesy to offer such materials.

    “I’ve read hundreds of thousands of history books in my life time.”

    That’s a rather tall claim. One could assume that besides history books, you have read non-history books. I gather you are retired. So, for fun, let us assume that you are 80 years old AND you began reading at age 4 since you were a prodigy. 76 x 365 = 27740 days of your life. Let us now assume you read 200000 HISTORY books, since that was YOUR claim. 200000 divided by 27740 = 7.20. So, your average number of books a day is 7.

    Considering that the average number of books people read over the course of a year is 12…

    For the sake of argument, let us say the books you read averaged 100 pages, which would be on the low end. That would be 700 pages to read in a day. Consider that the average reading speed is 200-250 words a minute for non-technical material, (roughly 2 minutes per page). But assuming you were that prodigy, I will grant you for non-technical AND technical material, you would average 1 page in two minutes and meaningfully comprehend the information. That would mean 30 pages in 60 minutes/1 hour.

    Do you see where the math is leading us? Had you stated that you read thousands of history books in your lifetime, while highly unlikely, at least this possibility is more digestible than your claim of reading hundreds of thousands of history books.

    Maybe you should be in contact with this lady…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5932159/Britains-most-avid-reader-91-has-borrowed-25000-library-books.html

    “You are about 60 years behind Jewish leadership in assigning blame for the holocaust. You are still stuck in the 1950s when the Jewish leadership correctly blamed the Germans for what happened to Jews during WW2. You need to get au courant. 1940 to 1960 Jews blamed Germany for the holocaust. 1960 to the late 1980s Jews blamed Popes and the Catholics of Europe for the holocaust. Allegedly back in 1930 the current Pope gave Hitler hundreds of millions of Marks so the Nazis could take over Germany.”

    I would surmise that within the Jewish community, there are disagreements as to whether those leaders taking alternative positions on who is to blame for the Holocaust are indeed legitimate leaders, represent mainstream Jewish thought, and make relevant arguments.

    Read More
  126. Corvinus says:
    @Logan
    Total British civilian dead from air raids in WWII about 40,000.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10454718/Records-of-WW2-civilian-war-dead-published-online.html

    Total dead civilians from air raids in Germany during WWII around 600,000.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/worlddispatch.germany

    Dead civilians in a single attack on Hamburg 42,000, so more than the total for Britain in the whole war.

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

    Dead civilians in the firebombing of Dresden, probably about 25,000.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/02/remembering-dresden-70-years-after-the-firebombing/385445/

    Thank you for taking time to research and offering up the numbers.

    Read More
  127. @Logan
    Lend-Lease was intended to help the British stay in the fight, not to rebuild.

    Yes indeed.

    Then the British got an additional $3.– billion to rebuild.

    The point is that the British got more support to attack/destroy Germany, in addition to aid in rebuilding, than Germany got to rebuild.

    So all the noxious virtue signaling about how “US rebuilt Germany” is bogus and dishonest, tho it’s likely Grampa Charlie drinks it up every morning with his prune juice and stool softener.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Yeah. This is somehow surprising? That an ally is given more support than an enemy?

    The traditional approach in war is to loot an enemy country, not help it to rebuild.
  128. Logan says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Yes indeed.

    Then the British got an additional $3.-- billion to rebuild.

    The point is that the British got more support to attack/destroy Germany, in addition to aid in rebuilding, than Germany got to rebuild.

    So all the noxious virtue signaling about how "US rebuilt Germany" is bogus and dishonest, tho it's likely Grampa Charlie drinks it up every morning with his prune juice and stool softener.

    Yeah. This is somehow surprising? That an ally is given more support than an enemy?

    The traditional approach in war is to loot an enemy country, not help it to rebuild.

    Read More
  129. The racism of the Confederacy was not remotely like that of Nazi Germany. For instance, it was common for white children in the pre-War South to have black wet-nurses, a practice depicted in GWTW as well as Gwen Bristow’s Plantation Trilogy. This might indicate that the slaves’ own black children got short rations and less attention (witness the song “All The Pretty Little Horses), but it was exploitation that involved social as well as nutritional mixing of the races.
    Nazi Germany would have considered lactation from untermenschen (-frauen?) as contamination, not nourishment. Had such a thing been reported, the government might well have had the wet-nurse (and anyone responsible for hiring her) arrested for Rassenschande. In addition, if they were unable to do what the ancient Roman matron in the legend did–forcing her own infant to vomit up the milk of an “inferior” person before it could be digested–one hesitates to guess what they might do to the contaminated “Aryan” baby.
    Slavery in the South seems closer to Feudal Europe than Nazi Germany. Manorial lords may have exploited their peasants, but they also had certain responsibilities towards them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Nazi Germany would have considered lactation from untermenschen (-frauen?) as contamination, not nourishment. Had such a thing been reported, the government might well have had the wet-nurse (and anyone responsible for hiring her) arrested for Rassenschande.
     
    how do you know this?

    can you prove it through methods Socrates or Aristotle or the intellectual foundation of vaunted 'western civilization' would have relied upon?

    if you can prove your statement in that fashion, why didn't you?

    if you can't prove your statement, then why did you bother to write it?
  130. @Alden
    There's collateral damage and there's specifically targeted civilians. For instance when the Germans invaded Poland they captured every Catholic priest they could. A few months later about 5,000 Catholic priests were executed and dumped in mass graves. Later on, Polish Jews, especially in cities were targets for relocation within the city. Streets were blocked off, there were walls and armed guards.

    Between the Russians and Germans, 20 percent of the Polish population was killed but only some groups were specifically targeted.

    It is very, very clear that both sides in WW2 bombed industrial areas. Many civilian residents were killed as collateral damage in those areas.

    But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry. Düsseldorf, center of metal manufacture and iron and steel mills for a thousand years was a legitimate target to destroy the mills and factories.

    Dresden on the other hand had no heavy industry and little light industry.
    Dresden was of absolutely no use to the German war effort. Augustus the strong had the money to achieve his artistic vision. He wanted a Protestant Vatican or Ishifan type city and he did it. It was like Venice and Bruges, Florence, Sienna and other cities designed, built and managed to be beautiful.

    And the Americans and British killed most of the Dresden population just out of cruelty and viciousness. I think more German civilians were killed in just one raid on Hamburg than in all the English killed in air raids during the entire war.

    “But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry.”
    Why weren’t they advised to bomb the tracks to the concentration camps? Wouldn’t that have been more to the point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Why weren’t they advised to bomb the tracks to the concentration camps? Wouldn’t that have been more to the point?
     
    Quick response, inasmuch as this thread is nearly exhausted --

    1. Allied firebombing of Germany and Japan was a deliberate, planned, rehearsed strategy to terrorized and kill as many German civilians as possible, and to destroy as much of Germany's civilian/cultural legacy as could be destroyed. This is documented unambiguously, unlike the alleged holocaust of Jewish people.

    2. There was and continues to be a vigorous debate between conflicting Jewish groups about whether Jews wanted Allies to bomb Auschwitz, or whether major Jewish leaders specifically refrained from requesting Allies to bomb Auschwitz.

    The Exec Summary = top level zionist Jews refused to request that Auschwitz or railroads be bombed. Lots of documentation, from highest level incl. Ben Gurion himself, to support that position. In a memo of a Jun 11, 1944 meeting of Jewish Agency Executive (JAE), Ben Gurion, Director, Ben Gurion reports the "consensus opinion" that the JAE "believed Auschwitz was a labor camp," and that they "did not want to be responsible for the death of a single Jew."
    The story continues that a few days later JAE got word of the April, 1944 escape from Auschwitz of Vrba and Wetzler, and that "changed the perspective" of JAE.
    Nevertheless, no documents have so far been uncovered that demonstrate that Ben Gurion & JAE reversed course and requested that Allies bomb Auschwitz.

    However, a Univ. of Haifa prof, Dr. Ruth Linn, argues that the higher-ups in Zio-sphere knowingly refused to rescue Hungarian Jews or even to allow their rescue or protection, i.e. by requesting bombing of Auschwitz OR of train tracks, in preference for padding the pockets of same muckety-mucks who were paid off to secure a few wealthy Hungarian Jews. Linn further claims that the Vrba report was withheld from leaders in Palestine & elsewhere "until it was too late;" and further, that Vrba's information has NOT been translated into Hebrew and NOT made known to the larger Jewish community in Israel.
    http://rlinn.edu.haifa.ac.il/publications/books/escaping-auschwitz

    3. Cycle back to #1, above: Jews were pretty thoroughly informed of the extensive firebombing and destruction of Germany. Jews helped to plan it, and "Ritchie Boys" -- about 2000 German Jews trained as spies & subversives at Fort Ritchie, MD, were all over Germany -- one Ritchie Boy knew beforehand about the planned USAF firebombing of Nordhausen that was blamed on Germans -- his job was to ensure that equipment and facilities at Nordhausen be preserved because they had been promised to the Russians.

    https://codoh.com/library/document/4055/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox7lmr2XDOI

    The real question that should be asked is, How many Jews died as a result of Allied firebombing of Germany?
  131. @Rosamond Vincy
    The racism of the Confederacy was not remotely like that of Nazi Germany. For instance, it was common for white children in the pre-War South to have black wet-nurses, a practice depicted in GWTW as well as Gwen Bristow's Plantation Trilogy. This might indicate that the slaves' own black children got short rations and less attention (witness the song "All The Pretty Little Horses), but it was exploitation that involved social as well as nutritional mixing of the races.
    Nazi Germany would have considered lactation from untermenschen (-frauen?) as contamination, not nourishment. Had such a thing been reported, the government might well have had the wet-nurse (and anyone responsible for hiring her) arrested for Rassenschande. In addition, if they were unable to do what the ancient Roman matron in the legend did--forcing her own infant to vomit up the milk of an "inferior" person before it could be digested--one hesitates to guess what they might do to the contaminated "Aryan" baby.
    Slavery in the South seems closer to Feudal Europe than Nazi Germany. Manorial lords may have exploited their peasants, but they also had certain responsibilities towards them.

    Nazi Germany would have considered lactation from untermenschen (-frauen?) as contamination, not nourishment. Had such a thing been reported, the government might well have had the wet-nurse (and anyone responsible for hiring her) arrested for Rassenschande.

    how do you know this?

    can you prove it through methods Socrates or Aristotle or the intellectual foundation of vaunted ‘western civilization’ would have relied upon?

    if you can prove your statement in that fashion, why didn’t you?

    if you can’t prove your statement, then why did you bother to write it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Read their own propaganda at Calvin.edu. During the war, there were German prisoners who refused blood transfusions from Allied medics rather than take the chance of receiving non-Aryan blood.
  132. @SolontoCroesus

    Nazi Germany would have considered lactation from untermenschen (-frauen?) as contamination, not nourishment. Had such a thing been reported, the government might well have had the wet-nurse (and anyone responsible for hiring her) arrested for Rassenschande.
     
    how do you know this?

    can you prove it through methods Socrates or Aristotle or the intellectual foundation of vaunted 'western civilization' would have relied upon?

    if you can prove your statement in that fashion, why didn't you?

    if you can't prove your statement, then why did you bother to write it?

    Read their own propaganda at Calvin.edu. During the war, there were German prisoners who refused blood transfusions from Allied medics rather than take the chance of receiving non-Aryan blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    your response is lame.

    if you have a link, post it. It's not my job to prove your claims.
    Pointing vaguely to Calvin.edu or even http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ is like saying, "There's a word in the dictionary . . ."

  133. @Rosamond Vincy
    "But only the British and Americans with Jewish advice bombed densely populated areas where there was no war industry."
    Why weren't they advised to bomb the tracks to the concentration camps? Wouldn't that have been more to the point?

    Why weren’t they advised to bomb the tracks to the concentration camps? Wouldn’t that have been more to the point?

    Quick response, inasmuch as this thread is nearly exhausted –

    1. Allied firebombing of Germany and Japan was a deliberate, planned, rehearsed strategy to terrorized and kill as many German civilians as possible, and to destroy as much of Germany’s civilian/cultural legacy as could be destroyed. This is documented unambiguously, unlike the alleged holocaust of Jewish people.

    2. There was and continues to be a vigorous debate between conflicting Jewish groups about whether Jews wanted Allies to bomb Auschwitz, or whether major Jewish leaders specifically refrained from requesting Allies to bomb Auschwitz.

    The Exec Summary = top level zionist Jews refused to request that Auschwitz or railroads be bombed. Lots of documentation, from highest level incl. Ben Gurion himself, to support that position. In a memo of a Jun 11, 1944 meeting of Jewish Agency Executive (JAE), Ben Gurion, Director, Ben Gurion reports the “consensus opinion” that the JAE “believed Auschwitz was a labor camp,” and that they “did not want to be responsible for the death of a single Jew.”
    The story continues that a few days later JAE got word of the April, 1944 escape from Auschwitz of Vrba and Wetzler, and that “changed the perspective” of JAE.
    Nevertheless, no documents have so far been uncovered that demonstrate that Ben Gurion & JAE reversed course and requested that Allies bomb Auschwitz.

    However, a Univ. of Haifa prof, Dr. Ruth Linn, argues that the higher-ups in Zio-sphere knowingly refused to rescue Hungarian Jews or even to allow their rescue or protection, i.e. by requesting bombing of Auschwitz OR of train tracks, in preference for padding the pockets of same muckety-mucks who were paid off to secure a few wealthy Hungarian Jews. Linn further claims that the Vrba report was withheld from leaders in Palestine & elsewhere “until it was too late;” and further, that Vrba’s information has NOT been translated into Hebrew and NOT made known to the larger Jewish community in Israel.

    http://rlinn.edu.haifa.ac.il/publications/books/escaping-auschwitz

    3. Cycle back to #1, above: Jews were pretty thoroughly informed of the extensive firebombing and destruction of Germany. Jews helped to plan it, and “Ritchie Boys” — about 2000 German Jews trained as spies & subversives at Fort Ritchie, MD, were all over Germany — one Ritchie Boy knew beforehand about the planned USAF firebombing of Nordhausen that was blamed on Germans — his job was to ensure that equipment and facilities at Nordhausen be preserved because they had been promised to the Russians.

    https://codoh.com/library/document/4055/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox7lmr2XDOI

    The real question that should be asked is, How many Jews died as a result of Allied firebombing of Germany?

    Read More
  134. @Rosamond Vincy
    Read their own propaganda at Calvin.edu. During the war, there were German prisoners who refused blood transfusions from Allied medics rather than take the chance of receiving non-Aryan blood.

    your response is lame.

    if you have a link, post it. It’s not my job to prove your claims.
    Pointing vaguely to Calvin.edu or even http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ is like saying, “There’s a word in the dictionary . . .”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    How many specific texts do you need to see? The idea of German blood being sacred is pervasive in their writing. If you won't believe what the Nazis said about themselves, what will you believe?
  135. @SolontoCroesus
    your response is lame.

    if you have a link, post it. It's not my job to prove your claims.
    Pointing vaguely to Calvin.edu or even http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ is like saying, "There's a word in the dictionary . . ."

    How many specific texts do you need to see? The idea of German blood being sacred is pervasive in their writing. If you won’t believe what the Nazis said about themselves, what will you believe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    provide a link Rosamond, or withdraw the claim as unsupported.
  136. Kurtis5 says:
    @Clyde Wilson
    Grandpa Charlie has let his imagination run away with him. Wonder what source he is channeling for his false information? Or possibly reading comic books. Sherman did not have black Buffalo soldiers as a bodyguard. They did not even exist at the time. The notion of powerful black men protecting and liked by Sherman is pure fantasy and could not have been possible at the time. Sherman is on record as saying that he would be happy if the blacks could have been gotten rid of. Yes, Yankee soldiers did tear up dolls and nail pets to the door, as well as put guns to the heads of women, shoot 13 and 14 year old boys and black men, and rape black women. They also danced around in women's clothes while they burned houses, schools, churches, libraries, convents, etc. It is all documented as well as anything in history. At Appomattox Grant allowed the Confederates some rifles for protection on their way home. So that statement is false. Joe Johnston served as a pallbearer for Sherman not because they were great friends but as a gesture of reconciliation. Grandpa, put down those comic books and read some actual history.

    Every time I read an account of the Civil War or the days of slavery where someone mentions black women, slaves or otherwise, being raped by white slaveowners or other white men, I cannot help but roll my eyes. It is extremely difficult for me to believe an account like that. I don’t doubt that some blacks and all slaves in general were treated harshly, but rape is on another level. It is hard to believe that white men at the time were so attracted to black slaves that they would rape them. Tales like this seem like the type of complete fabrications that a race-baiter such as Al Sharpton would make up

    Read More
  137. @Rosamond Vincy
    How many specific texts do you need to see? The idea of German blood being sacred is pervasive in their writing. If you won't believe what the Nazis said about themselves, what will you believe?

    provide a link Rosamond, or withdraw the claim as unsupported.

    Read More
  138. @Jake
    Mercer is far less simplistic than your assessment.

    What Mercer stresses is that someone as astute as Hitler in terms of grabbing power and centralizing it and wielding it brutally, no matter the body count, recognized Lincoln's abilities and successes in that very area. Hitler saw in Lincoln a precursor to himself - not in the specifics of political belief but in grasping power, centralizing it, and using it essentially amorally.

    And Hitler certainly loved the the Lincoln myth that grew up, making Abe the sacrificial lamb to American (imperial) democracy. Germanic romanticism has always had a Death Wish/suicide component, and Hitler was no exception. He would have loved to become the German Lincoln - killed only to be remade by his supporters as the nation's secular dying god.

    Until we see those matters, we cannot see that all that centralizing of power in DC under Lincoln, which was necessary to fight his war, has been indispensable to each stage of the growing Leftist horror.

    I applaud your comment on this.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored