The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Operation Finale:" My Movie Review in Taki's Magazine
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Taki’s Magazine:

Bland ‘Finale’
by Steve Sailer

September 05, 2018

Operation Finale is a decently crafted, reasonably accurate retelling of the kidnapping from Argentina of Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley), the most notorious supervisor of the Holocaust still on the loose in 1960, by Israeli Mossad operatives (led by a secret agent portrayed by Oscar Isaac).

Unfortunately, the film never quite takes flight. That’s why Operation Finale was dumped on sunburned audiences on Labor Day Weekend, the notorious Idiocracy slot on the calendar for movies that the studio just wants to forget about. This is the umpteenth film in which Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.

The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories. So perhaps what’s left to be filmed tends to be less than scintillating, such as the Eichmann abduction. The Mossad team leader (played well by Nick Kroll) admitted that this operation was “one of the easiest missions we did.” Director Chris Weitz’s scrupulousness about retelling what actually happened in Buenos Aires without too much invention to heighten the tension keeps it an only mildly exciting thriller.

Still, Operation Finale is a perfectly okay film, although the more interesting aspects of the Eichmann story happened before and after the extraction from Buenos Aires that takes up most of the movie.

Read the whole thing there.

Also covered in this movie review:

- The impressive Operation Nemesis conspiracy by Armenian assassins taking vengeance for 1915 against Ottoman ex-pashas

- Hannah Arendt’s in-depth prejudices against different kinds of Jews

- Historians’ Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate about who came up with the idea for the Holocaust

 
Hide 538 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Who cares. Just when the last couple of Nazis are on death’s door and we were starting to look forward to the end of Nazi hunters, some idiot decides to revive the whole thing in the movies.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @anon
    Actuarial tables do not apply in the Schroedinger Cat universe.
    , @Hail

    some idiot decides to revive the whole thing in the movies.
     
    This is nnot a one-off. The average number of major movies about the Holocaust, directly or indirectly, seems to be several per year.

    And I would also caution against your set up ("Just when the last couple of Nazis are on death’s door..."): The number of Holocaust movies has tended increased with time rather than decreased. Very few Holocaust movies were made in the 1950s or 1960s, AFAIK.

    We passed the "Hitler takes power ,+85 years" mark earlier in 2018, by the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Achilles says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz? Steve, Ron is must-read. Even if you must give up reading something else to fit him in, such as The Hollywood Reporter.

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War. The Pentagon recognized the mistake, and subsequent wars have not been permitted to be so documented by the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    , @Father O'Hara
    The most exhaustively documented event that...never...happened?
    , @Hail

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War
     
    Good point.

    I don't know who began to spread the slogan "The Most Documented Event in History" for something with so little of it (in key areas, none at all, of course, one core Revisionist argument). It really rings hollow for me, anyway.

    I'd love to see an investigative essay into the origin and use of this phrase, as part of the enforcement campaign for the "Big-H Holocaust."

    __________________

    As for the Vietnam War:

    Say Vietnamese Communists controlled Hollywood and the media from the 1970s to the present. It's really not that hard to imagine us all believing that the LBJ- and Nixon governments, via the Army and Air Force, committed genocide against the Vietnamese, at a historically unprecedented level. A steady stream of movies, two or three a year; news pieces that mysteriously always seem to pop up; regular extradition of increasingly elderly figures like Lt. Calley (My Lai); a Vietnamese Simon Wiesenthal (Nguyenthal) emerges and is praised universally for hunting down obscure LBJ- and Nixon-era bureaucrats now living in retirement in foreign countries.

    It's all documented!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. utu says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    "The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event"

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.
     
    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.
    , @Anon
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
    , @BenKenobi
    OberstGruppenFuhrer Sailer’s loyalty is not in question.
    , @Anonymous
    Ron Unz has a history degree from Harvard (as well as physics degrees from Harvard & Stanford) and an IQ about 70+ points above Sailer. Ron’s Jewish and assiduous and writes hyper-researched historical analysis. Steve’s a lazy goy who writes about golf and sports and entertainment. I think I’ll stick with Unz when it comes to research challenging the historical narrative and stick to Sailer on golf course architecture and contemporary Armenian history (the Kardashians).
    , @Lurker
    Well documented - apart from the curious lack of German records, photographic or forensic evidence, the debunked shrunken heads, lampshades and soap. Oh and all that contradictory eye witness testimony.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. That Arendt quote is gold. Great review-turned-essay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    The German Jews were the best, by a mile. They had imbibed the glories of German culture and done their best to make it their own.
    They were so enamored of that miraculous civilisation that they pondered its origins and began, particularly after the awakening of the German nation through the depredations of Napoleon, to so fully identify with it as to convert to its religious impulse, i.e. Christianity. The number was not great, but it was significant, which is to say that the Mendelssohns were not unique.
    All of this was destroyed (like everything else of value) by the defeat (of all of us) in 1918.

    Of course the "German" Jews were not confined to the bounderies of the Second Reich. The best of the Jewish families in Austria, Bohemia & Moravia, and Hungary are certainly worthy of being counted amongst them - and would have expected to be.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. syonredux says:

    Hitler supposedly scoffed in August 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Yet Armenian patriots in the 1920s had contrived to make as memorable as possible their Operation Nemesis conspiracy in which they assassinated many of the perpetrators of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of the Armenians.

    For example, in 1921 an Armenian volunteer who had lost 85 relatives in the massacre gunned down former grand vizier Talaat Pasha in Berlin. As planned, he dropped his weapon and immediately surrendered to the police. The German jury deliberated for only one hour before acquitting him.

    Soghomon Tehlirian. He had a great response to how he felt about assassinating Talaat Pasha: “I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian#Assassination_of_Tal%C3%A2t_Pasha

    RE: Oscar Isaac,

    Interesting to note that he has also made a movie about the Armenian Genocide, The Promise.

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories.

    Indeed. Here are just the Holocaust related films and TV shows that I can remember watching: Schindler’s List, Holocaust, Playing for Time, Triumph of the Spirit, The Pawnbroker, The Stranger, Judgment at Nuremberg , The Pianist, The Odessa File, Marathon Man, Sophie’s Choice , War and Remembrance, Sunshine, The Grey Zone, Defiance, Inglourious Basterds…..And I’m sure that there are more that I just can’t recall at the moment….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Chris Cornell, whose (2nd) wife was Armenian, contributed a song for that movie about the Armenian genocide. I've wondered if thinking about that helped push him over the edge into suicide. Though if you look back at the lyrics of his songs, it seems he'd struggled with depression for a long time.
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    Whenever I’m going through documentaries on Netflix or wherever, I’m always amazed at the steady onslaught of new Holocaust documentaries. Basically, if I see a black and white photo of a person associated with the movie, it’s almost always about the Holocaust in one way or another.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Eichmann's capture itself has a bunch of movies. Per Wikipedia: Eichmann, The Eichmann Show, The House on Garibaldi Street, The Man Who Captured Eichmann, The People vs. Fritz Bauer.

    I'm glad they got the guy (he certainly deserved it more than paper-pusher Oskar Groening), but is there really anything else to say?
    , @Square Wheeled Hot Rod
    In the past 30 years, more people have worn the National Socialist military uniform, more banners with the swastika have hung on walls and building facades, than in the 1933-1945 period. Movie (((producers))) won't let us forget. Ever. Ever. Ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. syonredux says:
    @Achilles

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history
     
    Steve Sailer doesn't read Ron Unz? Steve, Ron is must-read. Even if you must give up reading something else to fit him in, such as The Hollywood Reporter.

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War. The Pentagon recognized the mistake, and subsequent wars have not been permitted to be so documented by the media.

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?

    Ron’s only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though….I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*….

    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles
    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of "documented."

    I've seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn't consider any of those works of art to be "documentation" of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.
    , @Anonymous
    I suppose it depends how one defines "the Holocaust". How do you define it?
    , @Anonymous
    Too much Burger King?

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.
     
    , @bomag

    Ron’s only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime).
     
    It would help if he didn't gloss over certain things, such as the far higher rate of immigrant detention in federal facilities which would significantly change the numbers. Ron leaned on state detention to generate his numbers.
    , @Liza
    You mean you believe the official version of JFK's assassination? Jesus take me now - you are one rare bird, syonredux. Moi, I think that the government made the entire official story up out of whole cloth.
    , @Buster Keaton's Stunt Double
    syonredux confirmed for JIDF shill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Fugit says:

    “The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, ”

    Woah there, are we still allowed to say this on this site?

    Read More
    • LOL: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Anon

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, ”
     
    Yeah, we're exhausted listening about the "holocaust".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.

    I like Yitzhak and I don’t like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there’s no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He’s a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he’s a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo’s Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac’s performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yeah, he needs to lose some weight to get the more chiseled features of a leading man. He'd probably be permanently uncomfortable, though, at the weight he'd need to get down to.
    , @syonredux

    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe.
     
    A truly outstanding King John


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

    , @Alfa158
    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role. He never looks like the same person twice, so in every role he is always starting over again with the audience.
    Stars have distinctive looks but it is pretty much the same one every time and they can build a following even if they aren’t much as actors. Marion Cotillard has the same problem, great actress but the audience is left saying “great performance, by the way, who was that anyway? Really? I would have never guessed!”
    On the other hand someone might be a mediocre performer, but they’ll have a fan base who’ll buy tickets to see “Harry Frabits starring aaaassss.......Harry Frabits!” Think Will Smith or later Jack Nicholson. The actor’s identity overwhelms the role but no one cares.
    , @Ian M.

    He’s a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
     
    Although none of this really stopped Al Pacino from becoming a leading man.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Kirk Douglas chiseled looks? Maybe if you mean "looks like he got punched in the face a lot as a kid."

    Chiseled brings to mind prime Daniel Day Lewis or Jude Law. Actors who appealed to women, not men.

    Besides Mel Gibson does not have chiseled features and he became a star. Stardom has more to do with charisma and personality. And perhaps height.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anon[133] • Disclaimer says:

    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    Shoah is weird. It maybe the most exhaustively written-about event in history. But written-about isn't the same as documented.

    When it comes to documentation, the Shoah has been exhaustively documented and extensively covered up. Any piece of evidence that supports the Narrative has been detailed and discussed. Any piece of evidence that counters the Narrative has been suppressed or hushed up.

    Ron Unz's piece on Holocaust Denial is instructive in showing how difficult it is for anyone to discuss the matter honestly and openly. It can only be talked about in a certain manner in line with certain 'facts' and narrative. Any deviance from that sets off the tripwire, and all hell breaks loose.
    It's like Jews wrote extensively about God in the Talmud, but it had to adhere to the dogma.

    This is why the Holocaust Literature is compromised. There's a lot of it, but not all the documentation is sound because it's generally taboo to raise doubts. As Unz's mention of THE LIBERATORS illustrates, a total fraud like that made it to PBS(and I watched some of it) for millions of viewers. It demonstrated how even 'documentation' could become fraudulent.

    Such one-sided documentation doesn't make for sound academics. People like Deborah Lipstadt are tribal activists, not real scholars.

    The real problem is the craven mousiness of the academics and respectable people in media. They are too nerdy and spineless to raise big questions and seriously look into certain matters because they are too afraid. Because they don't do the job, it is taken up mostly by cranks, nuts, and amateurs with ideological ax to grind, notoriety to gain, and not much to lose.

    It's like the discussion of race in the US. It's been written about endlessly and 'documented' endlessly too. But only one Narrative has been allowed, and only one kind of documentation. David Cole's new Taki piece hits the nail when it comes to discussion of race in America.

    http://takimag.com/article/color-me-raped/

    It's talked and written about endlessly but in ONLY ONE WAY where blacks are always victims(due to economics, history, police, or whatever) whereas white victims are best not talked about.

    We need a culture where we can openly and honestly discuss all matters. As it happens, most respectable people fear losing their respectability among peers than losing self-respect(as man of courage and honor). This is why most normal and nice people remain silent to stay out of trouble. Because deviation from the PC narrative on race can get them in hot water, they choose to nothing, not even to raise certain questions.
    So, naturally those who are willing to discuss race with more honesty tend to those on the fringe. Being less normal and nice by personality traits, they are willing to be risque and say what they really believe. The downside is that people on the fringe tend to be eccentric or extreme in one way or another. David Duke, unlike most respectable white people, was willing to talk more candidly and honestly about race. But his oddball personality was such that he was prone to pushing things too far and doing utterly stupid things like joining the KKK.

    The only way to fix the problem is for respectable people in the middle to show some courage and risk their respectability by speaking honestly and openly about the big issues of the day. But if they stick to the Official Narrative on issues like Shoah and the Race issue, the contrarian positions will often be taken up by cranks, lunatics, and mavericks because they're the only ones with the guts to do so. And the respectable middle has no one to blame but itself because it failed in the area of courage, honesty, and openness.

    Today, the respectable middle is afraid even to say that sodomy is unhealthy & dangerous or that a man is NOT a 'woman' because he feels like it. Respectability is relative to who has the power to set the Narrative and Dogma. So, if the Power says 'gay marriage' is the New Normal, most people in the middle who seek respectability above all else just go along. At all times, what they fear most is the loss of respectability.

    Look at John McCain's funeral. All the respectable people there pretending he was some great humanitarian when he spent most of his career since the 90s as a toady of Zionists and war-monger who championed neo-Nazis in Ukraine and terrorists in Syria. But I guess respectable Liberals like Tom Brokaw(who hardly gave McCain a fair break in the 2008 election) now honor McCain as a Good White Man who chose to lose to atone for 'white privilege'. They want to be so respectable.
    , @MBlanc46
    Taki’s still has readers?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Achilles says:
    @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of “documented.”

    I’ve seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.
     
    I've read that mainstream historians consider camp inmate testimonials to be generally unreliable.
    , @syonredux

    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of “documented.”

    I’ve seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust,
     
    Nor would I.
    , @syonredux
    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that "Butz" fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event
     
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    “The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event”

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Dear boy, never go full retard.
    , @nebulafox
    Hitler didn't. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.
    , @Anonymous
    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @jesse helms think-alike

    Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.
     
    I like Yitzhak and I don't like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there's no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He's a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he's a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo's Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac's performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

    Yeah, he needs to lose some weight to get the more chiseled features of a leading man. He’d probably be permanently uncomfortable, though, at the weight he’d need to get down to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?
     
    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. syonredux says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.
     
    I like Yitzhak and I don't like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there's no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He's a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he's a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo's Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac's performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe.

    A truly outstanding King John

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Every dramatization of King John is racist. The real king was a blond Nordic type but he is always played by a darker colored actor to signal that he is the bad guy. I’m surprised Hollywood hasn’t gotten wise to that. I’m looking forward to a future BBC production that will correct the record by casting Daniel Craig as King John and Idris Elba as Richard Lionheart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous[581] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    Too much Burger King?

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Carl's jr > Burger King
    , @Anon
    Governor Jerry Brown of California lived like that most of his life till he finally got married in his old age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles
    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of "documented."

    I've seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn't consider any of those works of art to be "documentation" of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.

    I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    I’ve read that mainstream historians consider camp inmate testimonials to be generally unreliable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    I also consider them unreliable, one only has to read a few to see the problems springing up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    "The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event"

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.
     
    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.

    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The usual ad hominem response, I see.
    , @Anon
    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole/#axzz5QCeNsSgX

    David Cole is right. The problem has been the focus on Auschwitz. The Narrative made it into THE Nazi camp, and the Holocaust Narrative 'hollywoodized' it as a composite of all the other camps. Like 'Polly Perkins'.

    https://youtu.be/xZmOn5VzwUI?t=2m41s

    It's like Oliver Stone's HEAVEN AND EARTH made three husbands of the woman into one played by Tommy Lee Jones. They were made into a composite.

    So, Auschwitz was made into the Horror of Horrors, the place that epitomized all of Nazi evil.

    But in fact, Auschwitz was mostly a forced labor camp. There were some killings there but not on the scale of other camps and especially in the Eastern plains.

    Because of the need to make Auschwitz into THE Camp, lots of lies and fabrications were told about it. And this turned out to be a huge boon to the Revisionists and Deniers. It was SO EASY to debunk the many claims about Auschwitz(not least because they were concocted after the war by the Soviets). But the Deniers went further and figured that since there were lies about Auschwitz, everything about the OTHER Camps, some of which were real death camps, were lies too.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    There is another problem. Much of the POPULAR Holocaust Narrative was spun when the media and information were tightly held by a few corporations and institutions.
    Generally, the elites have one truth for themselves and another Truth for the hoi polloi. It's like adults have one story for themselves and another for the kids. Popular Narrative on the Holocaust is like books in the Children's section.
    And there was a lot of exaggerations and bogus nonsense in the Popular Narrative of the Shoah. Back then, the elites didn't think much of it because all the means of communication and information were held by powerful institutions.

    But now, there is the internet, via which people can raise all sorts of questions about the Shoah. Clearly, this will draw in a lot of cranks and lunatics, like the commenter Wally for whom codoh.com is the bible. But the internet can draw in a lot of honest people who can debunk the falsehoods of the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust. In a sane world, such people would be allowed to do their thing and revise the Narrative for the popular audience.

    But many Jews fear this. Why? For one thing, the power of the Holocaust Narrative is its quasi-religiosity. And you simply don't question god. It is to be believed as a matter of faith.
    When it comes to most historical events, one is asked, 'What do you know about it?', but on the Shoah, the question is 'Do you BELIEVE or do you DENY?' Even before you know anything about it, you must BELIEVE it. And if you don't believe the Canonical version, you must be a 'denier'. Or even if you do believe what happened, you are still a denier(or soft denier) if you try to explain why it happened in terms of extreme German reaction to equally extreme Jewish radicalism.

    This is why even questioning the dubious 6 million figure can get you in hot water in EU.
    It is perfectly okay to argue that 3 million instead of 7 million died in the Ukrainian famine. But we must stick with the 6 million number.
    Also, many Jews fear that skepticism about the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust will lead to rejection of the entire Narrative. This is paranoid but not entirely unwarranted, as there is a tendency in human nature to reject in whole what has been proven false in part. It's like if there's a fly in your soup, you reject the soup along with the fly.
    Especially because the Holocaust Cult has become sacrosanct as a secular religion, it requires purity of faith to keep it going. It's like many Vietnam Veterans turned against the war totally when they learned they'd been lied to. They felt betrayed like Ron Kovic. True Believers can become the Biggest Desecrators.

    This would not be a problem IF the Holocaust Narrative had been rational over the years. But as Norman Finkelstein(and even Leon Wieseltier) has admitted, it has become an unholy alliance of prophecy and profit-making, rather like Televangelism. And creeps like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel built their entire careers around it. And it's become a perverse meme to justify every crazy thing, such as the notion that illegal aliens are like Jews fleeing from Nazis. Or Michael Cohen is testifying because he's haunted by his grandparent as a Holocaust Survivor.

    Because the Holocaust Industry has become a monstrous kind of neo-religion and neo-casino, a holy cow and a cash cow, the powers-that-be fear the revisionists far more than the deniers. The deniers who insist that NOTHING happened are easy to debunk and ridicule.
    But the revisionists can pick apart some of the more egregious distortions or outright lies in the Popular Narrative. (As a young kid in a neighborhood with lots of Jews, I grew up believing in the Soap and Lamp shade nonsense.)

    At this point, the Holocaust Industry simply cannot allow a middle ground where the event can be treated and discussed like other tragic events in history. The Holocaust Narrative requires that we BELIEVE with quasi-religious intensity and childlike earnestness the Tale that it was the most unique and most evil thing that ever happened , and yes, 6 million died, and anti-Jewish feelings were always entirely irrational.

    David Cole is Jewish and was NEVER a denier. But he's been smeared as such by the Industry because the questions he's raised bring Shoah down to ground as a historical event than some quasi-biblical event.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Kingsley, the Zelig among actors.

    Jew in SCHINDLER, a Nazi in FINALE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. syonredux says:
    @Achilles
    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of "documented."

    I've seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn't consider any of those works of art to be "documentation" of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.

    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of “documented.”

    I’ve seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust,

    Nor would I.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley)

    Now that’s taking “Aryan” a little too literally!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!
    , @Anonymous
    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!
    , @Liza
    Why on earth cast an Asian Indian as Eichmann????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. syonredux says:
    @Achilles
    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of "documented."

    I've seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn't consider any of those works of art to be "documentation" of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles
    It's been said that building the Grande Armada denuded the forests of large parts of Spain.

    One can only imagine the wood required for cremating the 11 million victims (the 6 million Jews plus the 5 million others).

    There must not have been a tree left in Central Europe.
    , @Anonymous

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….
     
    Point and sputter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    I suppose it depends how one defines "the Holocaust". How do you define it?

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Reposting a comment by Kratoklastes:

    Personally, I think the Holocaust occurred substantially as described
     
    When you say ‘as described‘, what version are you talking about?

    Here are some things that were very specifically included in ‘as described‘ at various stages …

    • an electric conveyor belt that vaporised 1000 Jews at a time;
    • 1.5 million killed by lethal injection to the heart;
    • ‘steaming to death’ of ~10,000 Jews at Treblinka in 1942;
    • asphyxiation from carbon monoxide (from diesel engines);
    • babies being thrown alive into burn pits;
    • ethnically colour-coded smoke from crematory chimneys;
    • soap from human fat;
    • lampshades from human skin;
    • various riveting, harrowing, first-person narratives that have been shown to be completely fraudulent

    At various points in history, those things were part of the canonical narrative; in much of Europe you face criminal sanction if you point out that they are all bullshit. (That’s the truly weird bit: you can be imprisoned for saying that known-false parts of the narrative, are false).

    One of the hallmarks of a false narrative, is a variant of Dunning-Kruger: the people who make things up do not possess any competence in the field, and so they make errors that are obvious to those with some training. The notion that crematoria chimneys give off columns of smoke, for example – or that the smoke changes colour depending on the ethnicity of the corpse.

    I have absolutely no doubt that very unpleasant things happened to people who were interned in camps in territory under the control of the Third Reich, particularly in the late stages of the war when logistics became highly problematic. In and of itself, that was a war crime, and there’s no need to gild the lily (or over-egg the pudding) by trying to pretend there was some Rube Goldberg-esque hyper-inefficient institutional arrangement, set up based on super-secret pinkie-swears, solely (or primarily) to exterminate members of one race-cult.

    As I understand it, the current catechism has a few moving parts:

    ① there was a specific policy of extermination due to racial hatred;
    ② that the policy focused on Jews;
    ③ that the policy was implemented through relocation of victims to camps;
    ④ that (some of) those camps were specifically extermination camps;
    ⑤ that the killing happened using cyanide gas in the form of Zyklon B pellets;
    “⑥ million”, and no less, even if the death toll at some camps is reduced by 3 million;
    ⑦ that the remains of most of the victims were cremated – either in purpose built infrastructure, or in ‘burn pits’.

    ⑦ is easiest to deal with: the throughput of a crematorium is a known engineering quantity; it is simply not possible to have cremated the number of victims being discussed, given the crematory capacity of the camps. As for ‘wood fired’ burn pits: anybody who has seen the mess that’s left after a wood-fired open-air cremation, knows that this is simply a non-starter. A full modern cremation leaves 3-5lb or bone (actually as much as 10lb, but let’s assume they were all small people with low bone density): where are the 9-30 million pounds (4,000-13,000 tonnes) of remains? (These are not ‘ashes’, by and large: they are lumps of dried-out bone; to get to the ‘sandy’ texture people associate with ‘cremains’, they are put through a cremulator ).

    ⑤ is problematic, given that such trace evidence as exists, supports the idea that Zyklon B was used for de-lousing (as it was by the Allies); there is insufficient cyanide residue in the ‘extermination chambers’, but ample residue in the ‘de-lousing’ facilities. There is also the problem that War Crimes investigators appointed doctors to perform hundreds of autopsies after liberation of the camps, and found no evidence of gassings of any type. The same is true for British and French investigations.

    ③ the logistics of moving people to camps for the sole (or main) purpose of putting them to death, is the sort of thing that would be thought up by someone with absolutely no understanding of the vast logistical problems associated with moving large numbers of people long distances (especially against their will). The diversion of resources from the main aim (i.e., fighting the war) would have been immense: manpower, materiel including arms and ammunition, fuel… if that was actually part of the ‘system’, the German military deserved to lose the war based solely on its incompetent planning.

    ④ why bother with death camps, particularly ones where a person might be in the camp for months before they were dispatched to the gas chambers? “To keep it from public view” is a poor attempted rationale (again, the sort of thing that would be proffered by someone who was making it up). Why not just drive them a few miles out of each town, line them up alongside a trench in a forest, and shoot them in the head – like the Soviets did? If anything, that would help explain the lack of forensic evidence of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of cremations.

    Even ① is problematic. Show me a policy of a government, anywhere in the world, that is not underpinned by enormous amounts of paperwork prior to the implementation of the policy. I don’t mean personal records of the individuals who later become victims: I mean the drafting of regulations; the circulation of memoranda to refine the institutional framework that will facilitate the putting-into-practice of the policy; the allocation of funds in budget papers… that sort of thing. As an example: the Enabling Act of 1933 was a scant 2 pages, but there are 200 or so pages of background bureaucratic shit that preceded it, and hundreds more pages that were promulgated as a direct result of its passage.

    As to ②: if Jewishness defined as a racial marker was such a big focus, why were there tens of thousands of Jews, half-Jews and quarter-Jews in the German military (including the officer corps at flag rank)?

    I have almost no doubt that awful things happened to people in labour camps, and that people were interned because of their Jewishness – especially since the rhetoric of global Jewish and Zionist leaders was virulently, genocidally anti-German, as far back as Jabotinsky in 1933/34.

    I also have no doubt that some of those awful things were perpetrated by sick minds – being a camp guard is the type of job that attracts sick fucks who relish the notion of having life-or-death control over others (some of the staff of Abu Ghraib are perfect examples of this).

    But this idea that the German leadership were prepared to compromise their ability to achieve strategic (and later, even tactical) objectives, simply to give vent to a genocidal urge… that’s a pretty extraordinary claim.

    I don’t have a dog in the specifics of the fight: I’m a voluntaryist, so the fact that a government did horrific things to people under its thrall validates my view of the world; the idea of Jewishness as a race is beyond stupid, so any policy based on Jewish-raceness is retarded, as is identifying as a Jew on racial grounds.

    So if the evidence aligned with the dominant narrative, I would change my mind. The fact that the evidence doesn’t align with the narrative; that the narrative has been significantly redacted over time; and that the hammer of the State now enforces an orthodoxy… well, that just serves to make me more skeptical.

    I am always highly skeptical of any ‘fact’ that requires legislation to force its acceptance. That Milton quotation again, with appropriate emphasis…

    “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427
    , @Anonymous

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.
     
    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Achilles says:
    @syonredux
    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that "Butz" fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points....

    It’s been said that building the Grande Armada denuded the forests of large parts of Spain.

    One can only imagine the wood required for cremating the 11 million victims (the 6 million Jews plus the 5 million others).

    There must not have been a tree left in Central Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The crematoria of Auschwitz ran on coke (coal), not wood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    Too much Burger King?

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.
     

    Carl’s jr > Burger King

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I find this Shoah talk tedious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anon
    Kingsley, the Zelig among actors.

    Jew in SCHINDLER, a Nazi in FINALE.

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).
     
    Yes, but there is a connecting point. He played a perhaps pro-Nazi Hungarian count in "The English Patient."

    So, Nazi ("Schindler's List") => pro-Nazi Hungarian ("The English Patient") => Hungarian Jews ("Sunshine") => Lord Voldemort ("Harry Potter")/Gay Hungarian concierge ("The Grand Budapest Hotel")
    , @Anon
    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    One key difference. In both movies, he played flawed characters. Amon Goeth was a monster but still recognizably human. There's a sense that under different circumstances, he could have been a good person. And the Jewish characters in SUNSHINE, though sympathetic, are far from perfect. Some of them are deeply compromised, and one even becomes a Red secret police who carries out tortures.

    In contrast, Kingsley was totally saintly in SCHINDLER but now totally diabolical in the new movie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Alfa158 says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.
     
    I like Yitzhak and I don't like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there's no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He's a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he's a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo's Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac's performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role. He never looks like the same person twice, so in every role he is always starting over again with the audience.
    Stars have distinctive looks but it is pretty much the same one every time and they can build a following even if they aren’t much as actors. Marion Cotillard has the same problem, great actress but the audience is left saying “great performance, by the way, who was that anyway? Really? I would have never guessed!”
    On the other hand someone might be a mediocre performer, but they’ll have a fan base who’ll buy tickets to see “Harry Frabits starring aaaassss…….Harry Frabits!” Think Will Smith or later Jack Nicholson. The actor’s identity overwhelms the role but no one cares.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role
     
    His problem is that he has the physique of "Pat" from Saturday Night Live. It's hard to be taken as a leading man that way.
    https://youtu.be/qYKU32YoknE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Twinkie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley)
     
    Now that's taking "Aryan" a little too literally!


    http://facts.zone/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Academy-award-winner-Sir-Ben-Kingsley-real-name-is-Krishna-Pandit-Bhanji..jpg

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!
     
    Well.....

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.
     
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    The usual ad hominem response, I see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The usual ad hominem response, I see.
     
    Aquila non capit muscas
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Alfa158 says:
    @syonredux

    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe.
     
    A truly outstanding King John


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

    Every dramatization of King John is racist. The real king was a blond Nordic type but he is always played by a darker colored actor to signal that he is the bad guy. I’m surprised Hollywood hasn’t gotten wise to that. I’m looking forward to a future BBC production that will correct the record by casting Daniel Craig as King John and Idris Elba as Richard Lionheart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    King John may have had light colored hair, but he and his siblings weren’t Nordic at all. Their mother Eleanor was southern French not Frankish German or Norman French from a long line of southern French Dukes.

    Their father Henry 2 was the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou from central, not northern or Norman France.
    So king John and his siblings were 3/4 French 1/8 Scots from Henry 2’s mother and 1/8 Norman English from Henry 1

    There is no record of the hair color of Eleanor and her sons. Supposedly the Plantagenet Count of Anjou brought red and blonde hair into the English Royal family

    Johns French wife Isabella is sometimes pictured with light hair but descriptions state she had black hair.

    There are pictures of John with light blonde browny, reddish and dark brown hair.

    Many of those pictures were made 100 and more years after the kings and queens died.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Twinkie says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    Yes, but there is a connecting point. He played a perhaps pro-Nazi Hungarian count in “The English Patient.”

    So, Nazi (“Schindler’s List”) => pro-Nazi Hungarian (“The English Patient”) => Hungarian Jews (“Sunshine”) => Lord Voldemort (“Harry Potter”)/Gay Hungarian concierge (“The Grand Budapest Hotel”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Don't forget Gay Hollywood director....


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G629a_3MkkI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?
     
    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Reposting a comment by Kratoklastes:

    Personally, I think the Holocaust occurred substantially as described

    When you say ‘as described‘, what version are you talking about?

    Here are some things that were very specifically included in ‘as described‘ at various stages …

    • an electric conveyor belt that vaporised 1000 Jews at a time;
    • 1.5 million killed by lethal injection to the heart;
    • ‘steaming to death’ of ~10,000 Jews at Treblinka in 1942;
    • asphyxiation from carbon monoxide (from diesel engines);
    • babies being thrown alive into burn pits;
    • ethnically colour-coded smoke from crematory chimneys;
    • soap from human fat;
    • lampshades from human skin;
    • various riveting, harrowing, first-person narratives that have been shown to be completely fraudulent

    At various points in history, those things were part of the canonical narrative; in much of Europe you face criminal sanction if you point out that they are all bullshit. (That’s the truly weird bit: you can be imprisoned for saying that known-false parts of the narrative, are false).

    One of the hallmarks of a false narrative, is a variant of Dunning-Kruger: the people who make things up do not possess any competence in the field, and so they make errors that are obvious to those with some training. The notion that crematoria chimneys give off columns of smoke, for example – or that the smoke changes colour depending on the ethnicity of the corpse.

    I have absolutely no doubt that very unpleasant things happened to people who were interned in camps in territory under the control of the Third Reich, particularly in the late stages of the war when logistics became highly problematic. In and of itself, that was a war crime, and there’s no need to gild the lily (or over-egg the pudding) by trying to pretend there was some Rube Goldberg-esque hyper-inefficient institutional arrangement, set up based on super-secret pinkie-swears, solely (or primarily) to exterminate members of one race-cult.

    As I understand it, the current catechism has a few moving parts:

    ① there was a specific policy of extermination due to racial hatred;
    ② that the policy focused on Jews;
    ③ that the policy was implemented through relocation of victims to camps;
    ④ that (some of) those camps were specifically extermination camps;
    ⑤ that the killing happened using cyanide gas in the form of Zyklon B pellets;
    “⑥ million”, and no less, even if the death toll at some camps is reduced by 3 million;
    ⑦ that the remains of most of the victims were cremated – either in purpose built infrastructure, or in ‘burn pits’.

    ⑦ is easiest to deal with: the throughput of a crematorium is a known engineering quantity; it is simply not possible to have cremated the number of victims being discussed, given the crematory capacity of the camps. As for ‘wood fired’ burn pits: anybody who has seen the mess that’s left after a wood-fired open-air cremation, knows that this is simply a non-starter. A full modern cremation leaves 3-5lb or bone (actually as much as 10lb, but let’s assume they were all small people with low bone density): where are the 9-30 million pounds (4,000-13,000 tonnes) of remains? (These are not ‘ashes’, by and large: they are lumps of dried-out bone; to get to the ‘sandy’ texture people associate with ‘cremains’, they are put through a cremulator ).

    ⑤ is problematic, given that such trace evidence as exists, supports the idea that Zyklon B was used for de-lousing (as it was by the Allies); there is insufficient cyanide residue in the ‘extermination chambers’, but ample residue in the ‘de-lousing’ facilities. There is also the problem that War Crimes investigators appointed doctors to perform hundreds of autopsies after liberation of the camps, and found no evidence of gassings of any type. The same is true for British and French investigations.

    ③ the logistics of moving people to camps for the sole (or main) purpose of putting them to death, is the sort of thing that would be thought up by someone with absolutely no understanding of the vast logistical problems associated with moving large numbers of people long distances (especially against their will). The diversion of resources from the main aim (i.e., fighting the war) would have been immense: manpower, materiel including arms and ammunition, fuel… if that was actually part of the ‘system’, the German military deserved to lose the war based solely on its incompetent planning.

    ④ why bother with death camps, particularly ones where a person might be in the camp for months before they were dispatched to the gas chambers? “To keep it from public view” is a poor attempted rationale (again, the sort of thing that would be proffered by someone who was making it up). Why not just drive them a few miles out of each town, line them up alongside a trench in a forest, and shoot them in the head – like the Soviets did? If anything, that would help explain the lack of forensic evidence of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of cremations.

    Even ① is problematic. Show me a policy of a government, anywhere in the world, that is not underpinned by enormous amounts of paperwork prior to the implementation of the policy. I don’t mean personal records of the individuals who later become victims: I mean the drafting of regulations; the circulation of memoranda to refine the institutional framework that will facilitate the putting-into-practice of the policy; the allocation of funds in budget papers… that sort of thing. As an example: the Enabling Act of 1933 was a scant 2 pages, but there are 200 or so pages of background bureaucratic shit that preceded it, and hundreds more pages that were promulgated as a direct result of its passage.

    As to ②: if Jewishness defined as a racial marker was such a big focus, why were there tens of thousands of Jews, half-Jews and quarter-Jews in the German military (including the officer corps at flag rank)?

    I have almost no doubt that awful things happened to people in labour camps, and that people were interned because of their Jewishness – especially since the rhetoric of global Jewish and Zionist leaders was virulently, genocidally anti-German, as far back as Jabotinsky in 1933/34.

    I also have no doubt that some of those awful things were perpetrated by sick minds – being a camp guard is the type of job that attracts sick fucks who relish the notion of having life-or-death control over others (some of the staff of Abu Ghraib are perfect examples of this).

    But this idea that the German leadership were prepared to compromise their ability to achieve strategic (and later, even tactical) objectives, simply to give vent to a genocidal urge… that’s a pretty extraordinary claim.

    I don’t have a dog in the specifics of the fight: I’m a voluntaryist, so the fact that a government did horrific things to people under its thrall validates my view of the world; the idea of Jewishness as a race is beyond stupid, so any policy based on Jewish-raceness is retarded, as is identifying as a Jew on racial grounds.

    So if the evidence aligned with the dominant narrative, I would change my mind. The fact that the evidence doesn’t align with the narrative; that the narrative has been significantly redacted over time; and that the hammer of the State now enforces an orthodoxy… well, that just serves to make me more skeptical.

    I am always highly skeptical of any ‘fact’ that requires legislation to force its acceptance. That Milton quotation again, with appropriate emphasis…

    “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Epic. I wish I knew Mr Kratoklastes IRL. Jefferson said much the same as Milton of course:

    "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -- Letter to William Roscoe

    I presume the statues of Milton are coming down about now??

    , @Liza

    I also have no doubt that some of those awful things were perpetrated by sick minds – being a camp guard is the type of job that attracts sick fucks who relish the notion of having life-or-death control over others
     
    Not just camp guards. Prison guards, police in general, and border guards in all countries, even the nice democratic ones, can be added.

    However, some of the guards in the German camps were not there voluntarily.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).
     
    Yes, but there is a connecting point. He played a perhaps pro-Nazi Hungarian count in "The English Patient."

    So, Nazi ("Schindler's List") => pro-Nazi Hungarian ("The English Patient") => Hungarian Jews ("Sunshine") => Lord Voldemort ("Harry Potter")/Gay Hungarian concierge ("The Grand Budapest Hotel")

    Don’t forget Gay Hollywood director….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I don't know where that fits in the progression. Lord Voldemort is the perfect ending.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Twinkie says:
    @Alfa158
    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role. He never looks like the same person twice, so in every role he is always starting over again with the audience.
    Stars have distinctive looks but it is pretty much the same one every time and they can build a following even if they aren’t much as actors. Marion Cotillard has the same problem, great actress but the audience is left saying “great performance, by the way, who was that anyway? Really? I would have never guessed!”
    On the other hand someone might be a mediocre performer, but they’ll have a fan base who’ll buy tickets to see “Harry Frabits starring aaaassss.......Harry Frabits!” Think Will Smith or later Jack Nicholson. The actor’s identity overwhelms the role but no one cares.

    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role

    His problem is that he has the physique of “Pat” from Saturday Night Live. It’s hard to be taken as a leading man that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Twinkie says:
    @syonredux
    Don't forget Gay Hollywood director....


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G629a_3MkkI

    I don’t know where that fits in the progression. Lord Voldemort is the perfect ending.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t know where that fits in the progression.
     
    Conjoined with the Bisexual concierge.....so to speak.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that "Butz" fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points....

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.
     
    Point and laugh, dear boy. Quite different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @syonredux
    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole/#axzz5QCeNsSgX

    David Cole is right. The problem has been the focus on Auschwitz. The Narrative made it into THE Nazi camp, and the Holocaust Narrative ‘hollywoodized’ it as a composite of all the other camps. Like ‘Polly Perkins’.

    It’s like Oliver Stone’s HEAVEN AND EARTH made three husbands of the woman into one played by Tommy Lee Jones. They were made into a composite.

    So, Auschwitz was made into the Horror of Horrors, the place that epitomized all of Nazi evil.

    But in fact, Auschwitz was mostly a forced labor camp. There were some killings there but not on the scale of other camps and especially in the Eastern plains.

    Because of the need to make Auschwitz into THE Camp, lots of lies and fabrications were told about it. And this turned out to be a huge boon to the Revisionists and Deniers. It was SO EASY to debunk the many claims about Auschwitz(not least because they were concocted after the war by the Soviets). But the Deniers went further and figured that since there were lies about Auschwitz, everything about the OTHER Camps, some of which were real death camps, were lies too.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    There is another problem. Much of the POPULAR Holocaust Narrative was spun when the media and information were tightly held by a few corporations and institutions.
    Generally, the elites have one truth for themselves and another Truth for the hoi polloi. It’s like adults have one story for themselves and another for the kids. Popular Narrative on the Holocaust is like books in the Children’s section.
    And there was a lot of exaggerations and bogus nonsense in the Popular Narrative of the Shoah. Back then, the elites didn’t think much of it because all the means of communication and information were held by powerful institutions.

    But now, there is the internet, via which people can raise all sorts of questions about the Shoah. Clearly, this will draw in a lot of cranks and lunatics, like the commenter Wally for whom codoh.com is the bible. But the internet can draw in a lot of honest people who can debunk the falsehoods of the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust. In a sane world, such people would be allowed to do their thing and revise the Narrative for the popular audience.

    But many Jews fear this. Why? For one thing, the power of the Holocaust Narrative is its quasi-religiosity. And you simply don’t question god. It is to be believed as a matter of faith.
    When it comes to most historical events, one is asked, ‘What do you know about it?’, but on the Shoah, the question is ‘Do you BELIEVE or do you DENY?’ Even before you know anything about it, you must BELIEVE it. And if you don’t believe the Canonical version, you must be a ‘denier’. Or even if you do believe what happened, you are still a denier(or soft denier) if you try to explain why it happened in terms of extreme German reaction to equally extreme Jewish radicalism.

    This is why even questioning the dubious 6 million figure can get you in hot water in EU.
    It is perfectly okay to argue that 3 million instead of 7 million died in the Ukrainian famine. But we must stick with the 6 million number.
    Also, many Jews fear that skepticism about the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust will lead to rejection of the entire Narrative. This is paranoid but not entirely unwarranted, as there is a tendency in human nature to reject in whole what has been proven false in part. It’s like if there’s a fly in your soup, you reject the soup along with the fly.
    Especially because the Holocaust Cult has become sacrosanct as a secular religion, it requires purity of faith to keep it going. It’s like many Vietnam Veterans turned against the war totally when they learned they’d been lied to. They felt betrayed like Ron Kovic. True Believers can become the Biggest Desecrators.

    This would not be a problem IF the Holocaust Narrative had been rational over the years. But as Norman Finkelstein(and even Leon Wieseltier) has admitted, it has become an unholy alliance of prophecy and profit-making, rather like Televangelism. And creeps like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel built their entire careers around it. And it’s become a perverse meme to justify every crazy thing, such as the notion that illegal aliens are like Jews fleeing from Nazis. Or Michael Cohen is testifying because he’s haunted by his grandparent as a Holocaust Survivor.

    Because the Holocaust Industry has become a monstrous kind of neo-religion and neo-casino, a holy cow and a cash cow, the powers-that-be fear the revisionists far more than the deniers. The deniers who insist that NOTHING happened are easy to debunk and ridicule.
    But the revisionists can pick apart some of the more egregious distortions or outright lies in the Popular Narrative. (As a young kid in a neighborhood with lots of Jews, I grew up believing in the Soap and Lamp shade nonsense.)

    At this point, the Holocaust Industry simply cannot allow a middle ground where the event can be treated and discussed like other tragic events in history. The Holocaust Narrative requires that we BELIEVE with quasi-religious intensity and childlike earnestness the Tale that it was the most unique and most evil thing that ever happened , and yes, 6 million died, and anti-Jewish feelings were always entirely irrational.

    David Cole is Jewish and was NEVER a denier. But he’s been smeared as such by the Industry because the questions he’s raised bring Shoah down to ground as a historical event than some quasi-biblical event.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.
     
    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?
    , @syonredux

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns.
     
    Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, has an interesting discussion about our revulsion towards poison gas, how we somehow find the notion of death by inhalation more disquieting than death via bomb, bullet, and bayonet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie
    I don't know where that fits in the progression. Lord Voldemort is the perfect ending.

    I don’t know where that fits in the progression.

    Conjoined with the Bisexual concierge…..so to speak…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event
     
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    True but one must be a masochist to watch another Holocaust Inc production and I doubt he is a masochist. He suffered through the movie just to be able to write the article and virtue signal.
    , @syonredux

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
     

    Does Steve think that? History's full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold's rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ....

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I've never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki....
    , @AnotherDad

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    No. And obviously not--except as a tautology that everything is "unique".

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender. The more compelling "anti" argument to me is whether the same terms were basically available without rushing forward the nuking. (We accepted the emperor which was a sticking point.) But compared with my dad taking part in the invasion of Japan--uh, no thanks!

    ~

    The War was actually "the good war". It was a great anti-imperialist struggle, against two very aggressive imperialists with hideous--hideously muderous--imperalist designs on other people's nations.

    The problem people have just acknowledging that is that the Allies didn't have "clean hands". The British and French had their large empires as did the Soviet Union. The US was much cleaner but did quasi imperial policing in banana republics and had--very unfortunately--dipped it's toe into the imperial sewer colonizing the Phillipines--far and away the sleaziest and most morally vile war the US has been involved in. The Soviet Union had outright abetted the start of the war with the joint imperial grab in Poland. And then after the war gobbled up the Baltic nations and imposed imperial control on Eastern Europe. And the US engaged in quasi-imperial shenanigans to contain the Soviets. Including supporting the anti-communist right by giving back the French their colonies--in North Africa and tragically for us, Vietnam. Heck, even the Jews, immediately went out and kicked around Arabs to grab their own state. So no one comes off looking "clean".

    Because the big victors were the Anglo-sphere, there's been a lot of b.s. tossed up to confuse and deny what is at the foundation of much of the 20th centuries unpleasantness: Germany and later Japan rising into world where most of the territory had already been divied up between the British, French and Russian Empires.

    If the world in 1900 had instead been under the post-1945 American system of independent nations and open trade, Germany and Japan would have had their appropriate place, been very competitive--as they've been post-War--and the big wars would not have happened.

    But despite the victors not having clean hands, it remains the case that the War was a great anti-imperialist struggle.

    Perhaps the single sleaziest piece propaganda of all is the Jews trying to contort this war against pretty naked, explicit and bloodminded German and Japanese imperialism--a war liberating many nations--and make the villain, "nationalism"--i.e. the Jews usual villain, gentiles having and enjoying their own nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Arendt’s book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    Spend any time working inside an American corporation and you will get to know a lot of “Eichmenn.” There is little doubt that many of these company men would do in similar circumstances what Adolf did. Arendt wanted to warn us, so that we could spot this happening in others or in ourselves, but there is little reason to be confident that banal evil would not emerge if the SHTF.

    Appropriately, the capture of the bland manager was dull. It must be hard to make an engaging movie about this. Hollywood must encounter this challenge often, because so much of life is ordinary.

    Not only evil men, but many heroes too live mostly ordinary lives. And some ordinary people are heroes. “The banality of heroism” isn’t quite the right way to describe it, but whatever it might be called, it is hard to translate into a box office hit without adding some fiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    People can find justification for pretty much any evil. That's why the Good Guys could burn heretics of various stripes ('they are enemies of God') or kill babies now ('giving women reproductive choice'). I doubt many abortionists lie awake at night. The Germans doubtless told themselves they were saving their nation by killing people.

    Of course such bad things will also attract those who like killing for its own sake.
    , @keypusher
    Arendt’s book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    That is a crock, and a slander on middle managers and Eichmann both. He was closer to the Elon Musk of genocide than a middle manager. Check out The Origins of the Final Solution for a corrective.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BS34NCY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    One key difference. In both movies, he played flawed characters. Amon Goeth was a monster but still recognizably human. There’s a sense that under different circumstances, he could have been a good person. And the Jewish characters in SUNSHINE, though sympathetic, are far from perfect. Some of them are deeply compromised, and one even becomes a Red secret police who carries out tortures.

    In contrast, Kingsley was totally saintly in SCHINDLER but now totally diabolical in the new movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?
     
    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?
     
    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of '41-'42.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie
    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!

    Well…..

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    That's how Gandhi said India should react to a possible Japanese invasion. After all, what could the Japs do ? Kill everybody? (yep)
    , @Milo Minderbinder
    Harry Turtledove wrote an alternative history story where the Germans win WW2 and occupy India.

    Ghandi tries his non-violence shtick and some random Nazi colonel has a bunch of Ghandi's followers machine-gunned.

    Ghandi is sure that once the colonel's superiors hear of this atrocity, their consciences will get the best of them, setting the Indians on the road to freedom

    It doesn't work out that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. JimB says:

    So now Hollywood is remaking TV movies of the week. Truly we are living in a creative Dark Ages.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dtbb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    The usual ad hominem response, I see.

    The usual ad hominem response, I see.

    Aquila non capit muscas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. BenKenobi says:
    @utu

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event
     
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    OberstGruppenFuhrer Sailer’s loyalty is not in question.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. utu says:
    @Anon
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    True but one must be a masochist to watch another Holocaust Inc production and I doubt he is a masochist. He suffered through the movie just to be able to write the article and virtue signal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.
     
    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..
     
    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of '41-'42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole/#axzz5QCeNsSgX

    David Cole is right. The problem has been the focus on Auschwitz. The Narrative made it into THE Nazi camp, and the Holocaust Narrative 'hollywoodized' it as a composite of all the other camps. Like 'Polly Perkins'.

    https://youtu.be/xZmOn5VzwUI?t=2m41s

    It's like Oliver Stone's HEAVEN AND EARTH made three husbands of the woman into one played by Tommy Lee Jones. They were made into a composite.

    So, Auschwitz was made into the Horror of Horrors, the place that epitomized all of Nazi evil.

    But in fact, Auschwitz was mostly a forced labor camp. There were some killings there but not on the scale of other camps and especially in the Eastern plains.

    Because of the need to make Auschwitz into THE Camp, lots of lies and fabrications were told about it. And this turned out to be a huge boon to the Revisionists and Deniers. It was SO EASY to debunk the many claims about Auschwitz(not least because they were concocted after the war by the Soviets). But the Deniers went further and figured that since there were lies about Auschwitz, everything about the OTHER Camps, some of which were real death camps, were lies too.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    There is another problem. Much of the POPULAR Holocaust Narrative was spun when the media and information were tightly held by a few corporations and institutions.
    Generally, the elites have one truth for themselves and another Truth for the hoi polloi. It's like adults have one story for themselves and another for the kids. Popular Narrative on the Holocaust is like books in the Children's section.
    And there was a lot of exaggerations and bogus nonsense in the Popular Narrative of the Shoah. Back then, the elites didn't think much of it because all the means of communication and information were held by powerful institutions.

    But now, there is the internet, via which people can raise all sorts of questions about the Shoah. Clearly, this will draw in a lot of cranks and lunatics, like the commenter Wally for whom codoh.com is the bible. But the internet can draw in a lot of honest people who can debunk the falsehoods of the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust. In a sane world, such people would be allowed to do their thing and revise the Narrative for the popular audience.

    But many Jews fear this. Why? For one thing, the power of the Holocaust Narrative is its quasi-religiosity. And you simply don't question god. It is to be believed as a matter of faith.
    When it comes to most historical events, one is asked, 'What do you know about it?', but on the Shoah, the question is 'Do you BELIEVE or do you DENY?' Even before you know anything about it, you must BELIEVE it. And if you don't believe the Canonical version, you must be a 'denier'. Or even if you do believe what happened, you are still a denier(or soft denier) if you try to explain why it happened in terms of extreme German reaction to equally extreme Jewish radicalism.

    This is why even questioning the dubious 6 million figure can get you in hot water in EU.
    It is perfectly okay to argue that 3 million instead of 7 million died in the Ukrainian famine. But we must stick with the 6 million number.
    Also, many Jews fear that skepticism about the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust will lead to rejection of the entire Narrative. This is paranoid but not entirely unwarranted, as there is a tendency in human nature to reject in whole what has been proven false in part. It's like if there's a fly in your soup, you reject the soup along with the fly.
    Especially because the Holocaust Cult has become sacrosanct as a secular religion, it requires purity of faith to keep it going. It's like many Vietnam Veterans turned against the war totally when they learned they'd been lied to. They felt betrayed like Ron Kovic. True Believers can become the Biggest Desecrators.

    This would not be a problem IF the Holocaust Narrative had been rational over the years. But as Norman Finkelstein(and even Leon Wieseltier) has admitted, it has become an unholy alliance of prophecy and profit-making, rather like Televangelism. And creeps like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel built their entire careers around it. And it's become a perverse meme to justify every crazy thing, such as the notion that illegal aliens are like Jews fleeing from Nazis. Or Michael Cohen is testifying because he's haunted by his grandparent as a Holocaust Survivor.

    Because the Holocaust Industry has become a monstrous kind of neo-religion and neo-casino, a holy cow and a cash cow, the powers-that-be fear the revisionists far more than the deniers. The deniers who insist that NOTHING happened are easy to debunk and ridicule.
    But the revisionists can pick apart some of the more egregious distortions or outright lies in the Popular Narrative. (As a young kid in a neighborhood with lots of Jews, I grew up believing in the Soap and Lamp shade nonsense.)

    At this point, the Holocaust Industry simply cannot allow a middle ground where the event can be treated and discussed like other tragic events in history. The Holocaust Narrative requires that we BELIEVE with quasi-religious intensity and childlike earnestness the Tale that it was the most unique and most evil thing that ever happened , and yes, 6 million died, and anti-Jewish feelings were always entirely irrational.

    David Cole is Jewish and was NEVER a denier. But he's been smeared as such by the Industry because the questions he's raised bring Shoah down to ground as a historical event than some quasi-biblical event.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    How many bodies of the Great Famine, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields have been recovered. If you wanna play that game and stick only to counted bodies, numbers will go way down for every event.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!
     
    Well.....

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.
     
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)

    That’s how Gandhi said India should react to a possible Japanese invasion. After all, what could the Japs do ? Kill everybody? (yep)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Kill everybody? (yep)

    Like firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    Wiping out civilians in North Korean bombing campaign?

    Dropping more bombs on Vietnam than in WWII?

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    And it wasn't Japan(or Iran or Russia) that turned Middle East in recent yrs into one big hellhole.

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent. They went nuts in China because the Chinese finally put the fight to Japan. Japan lost their heads and decided to teach the Chinese a lesson. Japanese were offended by the Chinese resistance. How care the Sick Man of China dare resist the Japanese. They had to be taught a lesson they'll never forget. I think US reacted the same way with Pearl Harbor. How dare those yellow runts attack us. Who the hell do they think they are? So, it wasn't enough to defeat Japan. It had to be a taught a lesson it would never ever forget.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    There was an article in the FT a few years back on Indians who fought against the Japanese in WWII, and those who fought on the side of the Japanese. If memory serves, the ones who fought for the Japanese were remembered more fondly, because Japan was at war with Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    "...perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history..."

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki's readers

    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    Shoah is weird. It maybe the most exhaustively written-about event in history. But written-about isn’t the same as documented.

    When it comes to documentation, the Shoah has been exhaustively documented and extensively covered up. Any piece of evidence that supports the Narrative has been detailed and discussed. Any piece of evidence that counters the Narrative has been suppressed or hushed up.

    Ron Unz’s piece on Holocaust Denial is instructive in showing how difficult it is for anyone to discuss the matter honestly and openly. It can only be talked about in a certain manner in line with certain ‘facts’ and narrative. Any deviance from that sets off the tripwire, and all hell breaks loose.
    It’s like Jews wrote extensively about God in the Talmud, but it had to adhere to the dogma.

    This is why the Holocaust Literature is compromised. There’s a lot of it, but not all the documentation is sound because it’s generally taboo to raise doubts. As Unz’s mention of THE LIBERATORS illustrates, a total fraud like that made it to PBS(and I watched some of it) for millions of viewers. It demonstrated how even ‘documentation’ could become fraudulent.

    Such one-sided documentation doesn’t make for sound academics. People like Deborah Lipstadt are tribal activists, not real scholars.

    The real problem is the craven mousiness of the academics and respectable people in media. They are too nerdy and spineless to raise big questions and seriously look into certain matters because they are too afraid. Because they don’t do the job, it is taken up mostly by cranks, nuts, and amateurs with ideological ax to grind, notoriety to gain, and not much to lose.

    It’s like the discussion of race in the US. It’s been written about endlessly and ‘documented’ endlessly too. But only one Narrative has been allowed, and only one kind of documentation. David Cole’s new Taki piece hits the nail when it comes to discussion of race in America.

    http://takimag.com/article/color-me-raped/

    It’s talked and written about endlessly but in ONLY ONE WAY where blacks are always victims(due to economics, history, police, or whatever) whereas white victims are best not talked about.

    We need a culture where we can openly and honestly discuss all matters. As it happens, most respectable people fear losing their respectability among peers than losing self-respect(as man of courage and honor). This is why most normal and nice people remain silent to stay out of trouble. Because deviation from the PC narrative on race can get them in hot water, they choose to nothing, not even to raise certain questions.
    So, naturally those who are willing to discuss race with more honesty tend to those on the fringe. Being less normal and nice by personality traits, they are willing to be risque and say what they really believe. The downside is that people on the fringe tend to be eccentric or extreme in one way or another. David Duke, unlike most respectable white people, was willing to talk more candidly and honestly about race. But his oddball personality was such that he was prone to pushing things too far and doing utterly stupid things like joining the KKK.

    The only way to fix the problem is for respectable people in the middle to show some courage and risk their respectability by speaking honestly and openly about the big issues of the day. But if they stick to the Official Narrative on issues like Shoah and the Race issue, the contrarian positions will often be taken up by cranks, lunatics, and mavericks because they’re the only ones with the guts to do so. And the respectable middle has no one to blame but itself because it failed in the area of courage, honesty, and openness.

    Today, the respectable middle is afraid even to say that sodomy is unhealthy & dangerous or that a man is NOT a ‘woman’ because he feels like it. Respectability is relative to who has the power to set the Narrative and Dogma. So, if the Power says ‘gay marriage’ is the New Normal, most people in the middle who seek respectability above all else just go along. At all times, what they fear most is the loss of respectability.

    Look at John McCain’s funeral. All the respectable people there pretending he was some great humanitarian when he spent most of his career since the 90s as a toady of Zionists and war-monger who championed neo-Nazis in Ukraine and terrorists in Syria. But I guess respectable Liberals like Tom Brokaw(who hardly gave McCain a fair break in the 2008 election) now honor McCain as a Good White Man who chose to lose to atone for ‘white privilege’. They want to be so respectable.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @utu
    I want to say I agree with you but I must qualify it. There is a difference between revisionism of history and complete denial combined with attempts of complete exoneration Germany. People who call themselves revisionists here like "Wally" who represents CODOH are not interested in finding the truth but in exoneration of Germany only. They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?
     
    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of '41-'42.....

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?
     
    Hardly suddenly. Starving to death takes a while....

    Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?
     
    Dunno.

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden?
     
    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    Do we have a snappy moniker for British and American atrocities in WW2?I've heard some people say that the Anglo powers had a "Zeus Complex".....

    And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
     
    Since Japanese atrocities in China aren't counted as part of the Holocaust, probably not....
    , @syonredux

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?
     
    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR....


    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-to-open-last-wwii-war-cemetery-in-russia-a-914093.html

    , @Trevor H.

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?
     
    Well, you see, this is the real reason the Germans lost the war. While everyone else was fighting, the Germans were busy triple-cremating tens of millions of corpses, then using ingenious disappearing pulverising devices to turn the billions of bones into a fine white ash, which they then deposited into the bowels of active volcanoes in the tropics so they would be disguised by subsequent eruptions, and also they used some for concrete projects like bridges and tunnels and also a whole lot of Dresden China, which we'd know about for sure if only the Allies hadn't bombed Dresden, and also I think some found its way into whitening toothpaste, so you can see how pretty much everything white is evil to its core, and I hope this comprehensive documentation helps clarify things for you. Because there's nothing worse than a holocaust denier. So don't even go there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. syonredux says:
    @Anon
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    Does Steve think that? History’s full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold’s rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ….

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin's whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco's Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It's like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they've lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don't want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It's too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, "Hey, you raped 2 million German women."
    , @Lot
    "Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan."

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
    , @kaganovitch
    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    For one, Nuclear attack sentenced many of the yet unborn to horrific birth defects. Perhaps nevertheless justifiable but different I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran
    That's how Gandhi said India should react to a possible Japanese invasion. After all, what could the Japs do ? Kill everybody? (yep)

    Kill everybody? (yep)

    Like firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    Wiping out civilians in North Korean bombing campaign?

    Dropping more bombs on Vietnam than in WWII?

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    And it wasn’t Japan(or Iran or Russia) that turned Middle East in recent yrs into one big hellhole.

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent. They went nuts in China because the Chinese finally put the fight to Japan. Japan lost their heads and decided to teach the Chinese a lesson. Japanese were offended by the Chinese resistance. How care the Sick Man of China dare resist the Japanese. They had to be taught a lesson they’ll never forget. I think US reacted the same way with Pearl Harbor. How dare those yellow runts attack us. Who the hell do they think they are? So, it wasn’t enough to defeat Japan. It had to be a taught a lesson it would never ever forget.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.
     
    Anyone say that they were?

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent.
     
    The conqueror's lament...."If only I had not encountered resistance"......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.
     
    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    How many bodies of the Great Famine, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields have been recovered. If you wanna play that game and stick only to counted bodies, numbers will go way down for every event.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps. Where are the mass graves?

    Has Babi Yar been excavated?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:

    - Historians’ Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate about who came up with the idea for the Holocaust

    I had thought these terms were used to distinguish between the theory that the Holocaust came about as a result of (as a function of) the war and the theory that it was an objective all along.

    Steve’s Taki piece uses the terms to distinguish between authorship of it: lower level officials (functionalist) versus Hitler and senior officials (intentionalist).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. syonredux says:
    @Anon
    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole/#axzz5QCeNsSgX

    David Cole is right. The problem has been the focus on Auschwitz. The Narrative made it into THE Nazi camp, and the Holocaust Narrative 'hollywoodized' it as a composite of all the other camps. Like 'Polly Perkins'.

    https://youtu.be/xZmOn5VzwUI?t=2m41s

    It's like Oliver Stone's HEAVEN AND EARTH made three husbands of the woman into one played by Tommy Lee Jones. They were made into a composite.

    So, Auschwitz was made into the Horror of Horrors, the place that epitomized all of Nazi evil.

    But in fact, Auschwitz was mostly a forced labor camp. There were some killings there but not on the scale of other camps and especially in the Eastern plains.

    Because of the need to make Auschwitz into THE Camp, lots of lies and fabrications were told about it. And this turned out to be a huge boon to the Revisionists and Deniers. It was SO EASY to debunk the many claims about Auschwitz(not least because they were concocted after the war by the Soviets). But the Deniers went further and figured that since there were lies about Auschwitz, everything about the OTHER Camps, some of which were real death camps, were lies too.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    There is another problem. Much of the POPULAR Holocaust Narrative was spun when the media and information were tightly held by a few corporations and institutions.
    Generally, the elites have one truth for themselves and another Truth for the hoi polloi. It's like adults have one story for themselves and another for the kids. Popular Narrative on the Holocaust is like books in the Children's section.
    And there was a lot of exaggerations and bogus nonsense in the Popular Narrative of the Shoah. Back then, the elites didn't think much of it because all the means of communication and information were held by powerful institutions.

    But now, there is the internet, via which people can raise all sorts of questions about the Shoah. Clearly, this will draw in a lot of cranks and lunatics, like the commenter Wally for whom codoh.com is the bible. But the internet can draw in a lot of honest people who can debunk the falsehoods of the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust. In a sane world, such people would be allowed to do their thing and revise the Narrative for the popular audience.

    But many Jews fear this. Why? For one thing, the power of the Holocaust Narrative is its quasi-religiosity. And you simply don't question god. It is to be believed as a matter of faith.
    When it comes to most historical events, one is asked, 'What do you know about it?', but on the Shoah, the question is 'Do you BELIEVE or do you DENY?' Even before you know anything about it, you must BELIEVE it. And if you don't believe the Canonical version, you must be a 'denier'. Or even if you do believe what happened, you are still a denier(or soft denier) if you try to explain why it happened in terms of extreme German reaction to equally extreme Jewish radicalism.

    This is why even questioning the dubious 6 million figure can get you in hot water in EU.
    It is perfectly okay to argue that 3 million instead of 7 million died in the Ukrainian famine. But we must stick with the 6 million number.
    Also, many Jews fear that skepticism about the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust will lead to rejection of the entire Narrative. This is paranoid but not entirely unwarranted, as there is a tendency in human nature to reject in whole what has been proven false in part. It's like if there's a fly in your soup, you reject the soup along with the fly.
    Especially because the Holocaust Cult has become sacrosanct as a secular religion, it requires purity of faith to keep it going. It's like many Vietnam Veterans turned against the war totally when they learned they'd been lied to. They felt betrayed like Ron Kovic. True Believers can become the Biggest Desecrators.

    This would not be a problem IF the Holocaust Narrative had been rational over the years. But as Norman Finkelstein(and even Leon Wieseltier) has admitted, it has become an unholy alliance of prophecy and profit-making, rather like Televangelism. And creeps like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel built their entire careers around it. And it's become a perverse meme to justify every crazy thing, such as the notion that illegal aliens are like Jews fleeing from Nazis. Or Michael Cohen is testifying because he's haunted by his grandparent as a Holocaust Survivor.

    Because the Holocaust Industry has become a monstrous kind of neo-religion and neo-casino, a holy cow and a cash cow, the powers-that-be fear the revisionists far more than the deniers. The deniers who insist that NOTHING happened are easy to debunk and ridicule.
    But the revisionists can pick apart some of the more egregious distortions or outright lies in the Popular Narrative. (As a young kid in a neighborhood with lots of Jews, I grew up believing in the Soap and Lamp shade nonsense.)

    At this point, the Holocaust Industry simply cannot allow a middle ground where the event can be treated and discussed like other tragic events in history. The Holocaust Narrative requires that we BELIEVE with quasi-religious intensity and childlike earnestness the Tale that it was the most unique and most evil thing that ever happened , and yes, 6 million died, and anti-Jewish feelings were always entirely irrational.

    David Cole is Jewish and was NEVER a denier. But he's been smeared as such by the Industry because the questions he's raised bring Shoah down to ground as a historical event than some quasi-biblical event.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns.

    Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, has an interesting discussion about our revulsion towards poison gas, how we somehow find the notion of death by inhalation more disquieting than death via bomb, bullet, and bayonet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    our revulsion towards poison gas
     
    It's very unsportsman-like.
    , @Anon
    In war movies, the worst possible death for me seems like being stuck in a submarine that sinks to the bottom of the ocean. That's like being buried alive.

    And there is gassing and there is gassing.

    Carbon Monoxide poisoning will just knock you out. But imagine being hit with mustard gas in war? I once worked with peppers and then rubbed my eyes, and it was the most horrible thing. I sort of understood how it must have been a victim of gas attack in WWI.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    How many bodies of the Great Famine, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields have been recovered. If you wanna play that game and stick only to counted bodies, numbers will go way down for every event.

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps. Where are the mass graves?

    Has Babi Yar been excavated?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps.
     
    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg's estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.

    Where are the mass graves?
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. syonredux says:
    @Anon
    Kill everybody? (yep)

    Like firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    Wiping out civilians in North Korean bombing campaign?

    Dropping more bombs on Vietnam than in WWII?

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    And it wasn't Japan(or Iran or Russia) that turned Middle East in recent yrs into one big hellhole.

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent. They went nuts in China because the Chinese finally put the fight to Japan. Japan lost their heads and decided to teach the Chinese a lesson. Japanese were offended by the Chinese resistance. How care the Sick Man of China dare resist the Japanese. They had to be taught a lesson they'll never forget. I think US reacted the same way with Pearl Harbor. How dare those yellow runts attack us. Who the hell do they think they are? So, it wasn't enough to defeat Japan. It had to be a taught a lesson it would never ever forget.

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    Anyone say that they were?

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent.

    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn't justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it's often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao's forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren't as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan's total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

    , @Reg Cæsar


    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.
     
    Anyone say that they were?
     
    No, but excuses are made for one side, and not the other.

    Side note-- among the few civilians killed in the Pearl Harbor attack were Japanese-American children in Honolulu. Evidently their apartment building looked like a factory. Nice irony there...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Twinkie says:
    @syonredux

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns.
     
    Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, has an interesting discussion about our revulsion towards poison gas, how we somehow find the notion of death by inhalation more disquieting than death via bomb, bullet, and bayonet.

    our revulsion towards poison gas

    It’s very unsportsman-like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..
     
    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of '41-'42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?

    Hardly suddenly. Starving to death takes a while….

    Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Dunno.

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden?

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    Do we have a snappy moniker for British and American atrocities in WW2?I’ve heard some people say that the Anglo powers had a “Zeus Complex”…..

    And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    Since Japanese atrocities in China aren’t counted as part of the Holocaust, probably not….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Byrresheim

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.
     
    You forgot a 0, sir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….
     
    Point and sputter.

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.

    Point and laugh, dear boy. Quite different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Your increasingly bratty comments add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. You are not even trying to change anyone’s mind.

    Why are you driven to insult those who question orthodoxy on this subject? Do you show the thread to someone else whose favor you desire?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    "The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event"

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.
     
    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.
     
    Hitler's brain was supremely operatic....
    , @Anon
    "War? What war? Gott in Himmel!"
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    You're right, Mein Kampf was one page that read "I don't have time for the shit."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. jim jones says:

    I see that there are links to Ron’s Jewish pieces on Zerohedge so we can expect even more nutcases around here soon.

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

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history
     
    Steve Sailer doesn't read Ron Unz? Steve, Ron is must-read. Even if you must give up reading something else to fit him in, such as The Hollywood Reporter.

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War. The Pentagon recognized the mistake, and subsequent wars have not been permitted to be so documented by the media.

    The most exhaustively documented event that…never…happened?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
     

    Does Steve think that? History's full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold's rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ....

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I've never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki....

    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin’s whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco’s Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn’t he stopped? Why didn’t the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It’s like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they’ve lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don’t want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It’s too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, “Hey, you raped 2 million German women.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it.
     
    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially "German" operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.
    , @syonredux

    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow.
     
    I suppose that it's the radiation illness factor....the unease generated by the prospect of surviving a bombing only to die two or three years later due to some inoperable cancer....
    , @utu

    but there was no ideology of targeting a race
     

    Polish Operation of the NKVD
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
    It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 Poles.[3][4] The operation was implemented according to NKVD Order № 00485 signed by Nikolai Yezhov.[5] The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,[1] but not all, wrote Timothy Snyder.[6] The remainder were 'suspected' of being Polish, without further inquiry,[5] or classed as possibly having pro-Polish sympathies.[7] In order to speed up the process the NKVD personnel reviewed local telephone books and arrested persons with Polish-sounding names.
     
    , @utu

    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash.
     
    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe. He did not succeed in Russia thought intended to emancipate Jews there. Hassidic Jew in Russia supported Tsar. The same Lubavitcher Jews who were elected by Putin to represent all Jew in Russia.

    https://forward.com/culture/319002/the-secret-jewish-history-of-napoleon-bonaparte/
    Many Jews of the time believed that Napoleon was their benefactor. Primo Levi has pointed out that in Italy, some Jews named their sons Napoleone in his honor, and in Germany, when Jews adopted family names, some chose Schöntheil, or Bonaparte in German. In France, Jews wrote Hebrew prayers to praise Napoleon during services and called him “Helek Tov” in Hebrew or “good portion” (bona-parte)
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liadi
    During the French invasion of Russia, while many Polish Hasidic leaders supported Napoleon or remained quiet about their support, Shneur Zalman openly and vigorously supported the Tsar.

    While fleeing from the advancing French army he wrote a letter explaining his opposition to Napoleon to a friend, Rabbi Moshe Meizeles:[17]


    “ Should Napoleon be victorious, wealth among the Jews will be abundant. . .but the hearts of Israel will be separated and distant from their father in heaven. But if our master Alexander will triumph, though poverty will be abundant. . . the heart of Israel will be bound and joined with their father in heaven. . . And for God's sake: Burn this letter.
     
    Some argue that Shneur Zalman's opposition stemmed from Napoleon's attempts to arouse a messianic view of himself in Jews, opening the gates of the ghettos and emancipating their residents as he conquered. He established an ersatz Sanhedrin, recruiting Jews to his ranks, and spreading rumors about his conquest of the Holy Land to make Jews subversive for his own ends.[19] Thus, his opposition was based on a practical fear of Jews turning to the false messianism of Napoleon as he saw it.
     
    Before the WWII 85% of 3.3 million of Polish Jews were ultra Orthodox and Hassidim. Most of them did not survive the Holocaust. Majority of them were anti assimilationists and anti Zionist. Would Israel be created if they lived? The 10-15% who survived were assimilationist, Bundist, Communist and Zionists.
    , @Svigor

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.
     
    You mean ignorance + ignorance + ignorance. The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide HANDILY outpaced that of the shoah, and it was carried out by dindus, mostly with machetes. I think the Holodomor did, too (7 to 11m in a year or two, IIRC). So did the most intense phase of the communist genocide in red China. The Chinese exterminated the Dzungars and there are none remaining today. Shoah is fourth-rate to anyone but a Jewish particularist (Jews more valuable than mere human beings) or their stooges.

    The supposed industrial efficiency of the shoah is an absurd Big Media boob tube take. It's for clowns.


    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin’s whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race.
     
    Yeah, just an ideology of targeting one's own kind, which is far worse. Like a mother eating her young.

    P.S., the shoah is supposed to have killed 6m or so non-Jews, targeting them for their communism, homosexuality, disability, etc. So the shoah wasn't really about targeting a race. It's also worth mentioning that Jews aren't a race, and object when you call them one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..
     
    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of '41-'42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-to-open-last-wwii-war-cemetery-in-russia-a-914093.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….
     
    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren't returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Buzz Mohawk
    Arendt's book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    Spend any time working inside an American corporation and you will get to know a lot of "Eichmenn." There is little doubt that many of these company men would do in similar circumstances what Adolf did. Arendt wanted to warn us, so that we could spot this happening in others or in ourselves, but there is little reason to be confident that banal evil would not emerge if the SHTF.

    Appropriately, the capture of the bland manager was dull. It must be hard to make an engaging movie about this. Hollywood must encounter this challenge often, because so much of life is ordinary.

    Not only evil men, but many heroes too live mostly ordinary lives. And some ordinary people are heroes. "The banality of heroism" isn't quite the right way to describe it, but whatever it might be called, it is hard to translate into a box office hit without adding some fiction.

    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount — e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac’s girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie — but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor — Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,” but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm waiting to see what Chazelle and Gosling have done with Armstrong, the modest hero I was thinking about in my comment. I've watched the trailers and read the reviews from the festivals, and it seems they've found a way.

    I see Giamatti as a leading man and I really like him.

    I remember the 1970s as a time when "ethnics" like Pacino became popular. A friend of mine met him in a Manhattan bar just before The Godfather. They shared drinks and Pacino mentioned that he had just been cast in a big movie. Getting up to leave, he told my friend, "Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino."
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Giamatti is a premium cable leading man - he starred in HBO's John Adams miniseries, and he and the British fellow co-star in Billions.
    , @PiltdownMan

    I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,”
     
    PBS aired a German made-for-TV movie titled The Wannsee Conference in the early 1990s. Although the actors are unknown to us, I thought, just as with Downfall, having Germans do Nazi historical reenactments is always a superior approach. And it was. The movie is up on YouTube in its entirety.

    https://youtu.be/sYdIfOkpMos

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Joe Pesci. Usually a character a tornado, but an unforgettable star turn in My Cousin Vinny.
    , @Ian M.
    De Niro is would be in the leading man category, but he's certainly had some memorable character-actor-like roles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
     

    Does Steve think that? History's full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold's rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ....

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I've never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki....

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
     
    I'm quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country's actions.
    , @Anonymous

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
     
    Actually if you are a patriot American with any sense of morality (is there even such a thing as an immoral patriotic American), then these are questions that need to be asked.
    , @Mr. Anon

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
     
    Dead civilians are dead civilians. Dead women and children are dead women and children. It doesn't matter if they are english, japanese, german, or jewish. Killing them is immoral.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. syonredux says:
    @nebulafox
    Hitler didn't. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

    Hitler’s brain was supremely operatic….

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Absolutely. He was, in every sense of the word, a theatrical character.

    Worth pointing out that the cumulative "extremizing" of the Nazi state reached its logical conclusion in the USSR. Not just the anti-Semitism: the bureaucratic chaos, the petty exercising of power for power's sake, the intellectual rigidity, the general megalomania, it seems as though the true *nature* of Hitler and Nazi Germany really became apparent in Russia in 1941. The cumulative process took time: it began to spike in the late 1930s, and Poland served as a test run-as well as a desensitizer for those in the German government and armed forces who might have needed it-for the brutality and ideological fantasies. But for a host of reasons, it was only in the USSR in 1941 where things could truly climax and trends within the Nazi government to reach their logical conclusion.

    As for Hitler personally, he could finally act in the only way which was authentic for him: with the utmost radicality. I guess you say that when Barbarossa started, he sought nothing but final solutions, and made no exception of this when the war turned against Germany. The person who Hitler always was-a personality with a fundamental, innate bent for destruction-behind all the masks he wore since 1919 truly burst forward when the Russian campaign started, not least because when things started to go wrong, the smoke and mirrors that he always excelled with were of no use anymore.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns.
     
    Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, has an interesting discussion about our revulsion towards poison gas, how we somehow find the notion of death by inhalation more disquieting than death via bomb, bullet, and bayonet.

    In war movies, the worst possible death for me seems like being stuck in a submarine that sinks to the bottom of the ocean. That’s like being buried alive.

    And there is gassing and there is gassing.

    Carbon Monoxide poisoning will just knock you out. But imagine being hit with mustard gas in war? I once worked with peppers and then rubbed my eyes, and it was the most horrible thing. I sort of understood how it must have been a victim of gas attack in WWI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Dulce et Decorum Est
    BY WILFRED OWEN

    Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
    Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
    Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
    And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
    Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
    But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
    Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
    Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

    Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
    Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
    But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
    And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
    Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
    As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

    In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
    He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

    If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. syonredux says:
    @Lot
    "Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan."

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions."

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
    , @David In TN
    "I'm quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country's actions."

    Ever heard of the term "context of the times?"
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki precluded the need to invade the Japanese mainland, which was estimated to cause 1 million allied casualties and at least twice as many Japanese casualties.

    From a moral standpoint, I'll take the former.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fugit
    "The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, "

    Woah there, are we still allowed to say this on this site?

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, ”

    Yeah, we’re exhausted listening about the “holocaust”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    "Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan."

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    Actually if you are a patriot American with any sense of morality (is there even such a thing as an immoral patriotic American), then these are questions that need to be asked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?
     
    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR....


    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-to-open-last-wwii-war-cemetery-in-russia-a-914093.html

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?
     
    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps. Where are the mass graves?

    Has Babi Yar been excavated?

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps.

    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg’s estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.

    Where are the mass graves?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.
     
    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness--outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?
    , @Svigor

    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg’s estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.
     
    2.5 million is a lot of corpses in mass graves, or mass grave sites at least, if the Einsatzgruppen was nice enough to dig individual graves.

    You'd think a lot of them would have been found and very publicly documented by now. Ground-penetrating radar is great for this stuff.

    But there's pretty much nothing along these lines for the world's most documented event.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    I’m waiting to see what Chazelle and Gosling have done with Armstrong, the modest hero I was thinking about in my comment. I’ve watched the trailers and read the reviews from the festivals, and it seems they’ve found a way.

    I see Giamatti as a leading man and I really like him.

    I remember the 1970s as a time when “ethnics” like Pacino became popular. A friend of mine met him in a Manhattan bar just before The Godfather. They shared drinks and Pacino mentioned that he had just been cast in a big movie. Getting up to leave, he told my friend, “Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
    I like Paul Giamatti but he is horribly miscast (along with many other actors) in the soso series Billions.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    " Getting up to leave, he told my friend, “Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino.”"

    Did he say it in Soft Pacino Voice from the 1st half of The Godfather or Boisterous Gravely Pacino Voice from Heat?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin's whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco's Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It's like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they've lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don't want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It's too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, "Hey, you raped 2 million German women."

    And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it.

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.
     
    Why would the Nazis want that kind of stuff to fall into enemy hands?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. nebulafox says:
    @syonredux

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.
     
    Hitler's brain was supremely operatic....

    Absolutely. He was, in every sense of the word, a theatrical character.

    Worth pointing out that the cumulative “extremizing” of the Nazi state reached its logical conclusion in the USSR. Not just the anti-Semitism: the bureaucratic chaos, the petty exercising of power for power’s sake, the intellectual rigidity, the general megalomania, it seems as though the true *nature* of Hitler and Nazi Germany really became apparent in Russia in 1941. The cumulative process took time: it began to spike in the late 1930s, and Poland served as a test run-as well as a desensitizer for those in the German government and armed forces who might have needed it-for the brutality and ideological fantasies. But for a host of reasons, it was only in the USSR in 1941 where things could truly climax and trends within the Nazi government to reach their logical conclusion.

    As for Hitler personally, he could finally act in the only way which was authentic for him: with the utmost radicality. I guess you say that when Barbarossa started, he sought nothing but final solutions, and made no exception of this when the war turned against Germany. The person who Hitler always was-a personality with a fundamental, innate bent for destruction-behind all the masks he wore since 1919 truly burst forward when the Russian campaign started, not least because when things started to go wrong, the smoke and mirrors that he always excelled with were of no use anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.
     
    Anyone say that they were?

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent.
     
    The conqueror's lament...."If only I had not encountered resistance"......

    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn’t justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it’s often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao’s forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan’s total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There was a general rule of warfare that seemed fairly global until not long ago: if a besieged city surrendered, it was to be treated okay, but if it resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. A Free French general promised his Moroccan troops 50 hours of lawlessness after they took Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944. That came in for a lot of criticism afterwards, but that was the old way of incentivizing troops.
    , @syonredux

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

     

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2.....like cannibalism....or going berserk in Manila...or committing mass suicide rather than surrender.....
    , @nebulafox
    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren't against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland's anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there's evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler's part that Poland put up a fight and "caused" the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….
     
    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren't returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?
     
    If the bodies weren't returned, we can assume they were buried. Do you really not know this? You are the one who put the Soviet POWs into issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anon
    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn't justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it's often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao's forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren't as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan's total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

    There was a general rule of warfare that seemed fairly global until not long ago: if a besieged city surrendered, it was to be treated okay, but if it resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. A Free French general promised his Moroccan troops 50 hours of lawlessness after they took Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944. That came in for a lot of criticism afterwards, but that was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    If a besieged city resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. That was the old way of incentivizing troops.

     

    And didn't this give us Jesus, the Christ, fathered by the Roman rapist and pillager Pantera? So it can't be all bad.
    , @Hank Yobo
    Didn't Polish, not Moroccan, troops finally capture Monte Cassino? A remarkable achievement for expatriate soldiers whose country was under the Nazi jackboot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps.
     
    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg's estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.

    Where are the mass graves?
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005

    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness–outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.
     
    And?

    And of questionable effectiveness
     
    Dunno. Any experts on cremation hereabouts?

    And difficult to conceal.
     
    From whom? If I were a local, I wouldn't go too near enemy soldiers....
    , @Mr. Anon

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.
     
    So was the V-2 rocket program, which had no military value.

    So was the allied aerial bombing campaign, also of questionable military value.
    , @Trevor H.
    That quote is dumb, even by Wikipedia standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Hitler supposedly scoffed in August 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Yet Armenian patriots in the 1920s had contrived to make as memorable as possible their Operation Nemesis conspiracy in which they assassinated many of the perpetrators of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of the Armenians.

    For example, in 1921 an Armenian volunteer who had lost 85 relatives in the massacre gunned down former grand vizier Talaat Pasha in Berlin. As planned, he dropped his weapon and immediately surrendered to the police. The German jury deliberated for only one hour before acquitting him.
     
    Soghomon Tehlirian. He had a great response to how he felt about assassinating Talaat Pasha: "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian#Assassination_of_Tal%C3%A2t_Pasha


    RE: Oscar Isaac,

    Interesting to note that he has also made a movie about the Armenian Genocide, The Promise.

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories.
     
    Indeed. Here are just the Holocaust related films and TV shows that I can remember watching: Schindler's List, Holocaust, Playing for Time, Triumph of the Spirit, The Pawnbroker, The Stranger, Judgment at Nuremberg , The Pianist, The Odessa File, Marathon Man, Sophie's Choice , War and Remembrance, Sunshine, The Grey Zone, Defiance, Inglourious Basterds.....And I'm sure that there are more that I just can't recall at the moment....

    Chris Cornell, whose (2nd) wife was Armenian, contributed a song for that movie about the Armenian genocide. I’ve wondered if thinking about that helped push him over the edge into suicide. Though if you look back at the lyrics of his songs, it seems he’d struggled with depression for a long time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    there are strong rumors he was suicided (and she had a hand in it).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it.
     
    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially "German" operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.

    Why would the Nazis want that kind of stuff to fall into enemy hands?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Written communication (deliberations and decisions, instructions, approvals) would be essential to coordinate the government in such a massive, sprawling, risky, and efficacious undertaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?
     
    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?

    If the bodies weren’t returned, we can assume they were buried. Do you really not know this? You are the one who put the Soviet POWs into issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    The Soviets tried to bury their mistakes. At least that was their modus operandi after the murders at Katyn Forest. A crime for which they first tried to blame the Nazis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?

    I literally LOL’d at this.

    In Steve’s defense, Ron is a little verbose. And his memoir style of writing buries the lede to an extreme. The trick, as with any current “long form” web writing (Slate, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, New York Times), is to read all articles backwards. Not litteraly backwards, but, start at the 90 percent point paragraph, then go back in 10 percent jumps until you feel you may have found the piece’s nut paragraph.

    As an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.

    Some forms of shared beliefs may be a mile wide but an inch deep, and the casual assumptions of individuals who have never actually investigated a given subject may rapidly change.

    – Ronáld Keëva Durian Ackee Unz

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

    Hitler supposedly scoffed in August 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Yet Armenian patriots in the 1920s had contrived to make as memorable as possible their Operation Nemesis conspiracy in which they assassinated many of the perpetrators of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of the Armenians.

    For example, in 1921 an Armenian volunteer who had lost 85 relatives in the massacre gunned down former grand vizier Talaat Pasha in Berlin. As planned, he dropped his weapon and immediately surrendered to the police. The German jury deliberated for only one hour before acquitting him.
     
    Soghomon Tehlirian. He had a great response to how he felt about assassinating Talaat Pasha: "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian#Assassination_of_Tal%C3%A2t_Pasha


    RE: Oscar Isaac,

    Interesting to note that he has also made a movie about the Armenian Genocide, The Promise.

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories.
     
    Indeed. Here are just the Holocaust related films and TV shows that I can remember watching: Schindler's List, Holocaust, Playing for Time, Triumph of the Spirit, The Pawnbroker, The Stranger, Judgment at Nuremberg , The Pianist, The Odessa File, Marathon Man, Sophie's Choice , War and Remembrance, Sunshine, The Grey Zone, Defiance, Inglourious Basterds.....And I'm sure that there are more that I just can't recall at the moment....

    Whenever I’m going through documentaries on Netflix or wherever, I’m always amazed at the steady onslaught of new Holocaust documentaries. Basically, if I see a black and white photo of a person associated with the movie, it’s almost always about the Holocaust in one way or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    You should try reading the New York Times, which I used to do. They have an amazing knack for working holocaust references into every single story in the paper, whether it be road closures on Long Island, the daily commodities report or some j.a.p. complaining about her therapist going on vacation.
    , @kihowi
    That's what "well documented" means. Don't you holocaust deniers know anything?

    Anybody could just come up with physical evidence from the era. But could you get a documentary on Netflix? I don't think so.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @gcochran
    That's how Gandhi said India should react to a possible Japanese invasion. After all, what could the Japs do ? Kill everybody? (yep)

    There was an article in the FT a few years back on Indians who fought against the Japanese in WWII, and those who fought on the side of the Japanese. If memory serves, the ones who fought for the Japanese were remembered more fondly, because Japan was at war with Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. syonredux says:
    @Anon
    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn't justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it's often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao's forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren't as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan's total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    When you're starving, you gotta eat. When logistics broke down, many Japanese soldiers were on the brink of starvation, as powerfully depicted in the film FIRES ON THE PLAIN.

    A lot of people, not just the Japanese, went nuts in Philippines. Filos can be fierce fighters. Americans went crazy in the Philippines War too. Lots of atrocities on both sides. It was like the first Vietnam War.

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    Granted, Japan's honor code was outdated in the 20th century. It's one thing to practice it in the battlefield in feudal times when it involved just 1000s of warriors. But in a total war between nations where millions may die, it does become crazy.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    Also, there was the factor of myth and survival. To the Japanese, their nation wasn't just some island but a sacred homeland with divine spirits. As it had never been invaded and occupied, a US victory and invasion felt like having your mother raped. That was the mythic element. Myth may be 'crazy', but it's powerful. Jews left Palestine 2000 yrs ago but still had to return and carry out massive ethnic cleansing to take it back. And Israel has 200 nukes and says it will blow up EU if Israel were to fall. In other words, the West better back up Israel because Zionists will go for the Samson Option. They won't go down alone.

    There was also the survival element. Japanese had no idea what would happen if they lost the war. Would the US let Japanese even survive? According to John Dower's EMBRACING DEFEAT, there were elements in FDR's government who called for total racial annihilation of the Japanese. Hardly majority opinion, but the Pacific War was a Race War, and there was no telling what might happen. I think one reason why the Soviets fought so desperately against Germany was they feared annihilation. They instinctively understood Hitler wasn't like Napoleon who only sought political hegemony over Russia. Nazis were far more sinister. And that too was a Race War, the most deadly kind of war.

    As it turned out, the US came to value Japan as an ally in the Cold War against China and USSR, but who knows what they were thinking during the war. Everything seemed like a zero-sum game of winner takes all, loser loses everything.
    , @nebulafox
    Well, the MO of atrocities was quite different for the Japanese. Put basically, it was bottom-up whereas the Germans were top-down. The civilians in Tokyo had at the best of times limited influence over what the military did, in part due to the way the Meiji reforms were laid out, and the 1930s were definitely not the best of times in Japanese politics. Political moderates, going up to prime ministers, were regularly assassinated by radicals (gekokujo) throughout the 1930s, to the point where the Japanese government was dubbed "government by assassination" in the US media. Field armies regularly just went off and did their own thing. You had majors and colonels presenting fait accomplis.

    Near as anybody can tell, there was no grand strategic plan behind the Marco Polo Incident. It was just the Kwantung Army chomping at the bit for a fight. It's very hard to envision an analogous situation in Germany. However lazy Hitler could be at times and however intense the bureaucratic inertia was, nobody ever dared question his ultimate authority-he ran the show. Nothing was ever undertaken in contradiction to his known wishes.

    , @Dr Van Nostrand
    Was the Japanese contempt for non Japanese (apart from Koreans) due to their own racial supremacist views built on their xenophobia and insularity as an island nation or was it in imitation of their German partners.
    Interestingly the Japanese surrendered to an African battalion under the British due to the belief that if they were killed and eaten by Africans, they would be shunned by their ancestors.

    As an aside, those who bore the brunt of defeat in WWII- the Japanese and Germans sure have some weirdass porn. Wonder if that has something to do with various repressed emotions about the war.
    , @Anonymous
    Apparently the Japanese troops were high on meth (a Japanese invention) throughout the war. They consumed the stuff like the Brits did tea.

    It would explain a few things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    There was a general rule of warfare that seemed fairly global until not long ago: if a besieged city surrendered, it was to be treated okay, but if it resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. A Free French general promised his Moroccan troops 50 hours of lawlessness after they took Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944. That came in for a lot of criticism afterwards, but that was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    If a besieged city resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. That was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    And didn’t this give us Jesus, the Christ, fathered by the Roman rapist and pillager Pantera? So it can’t be all bad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Pantera was a death metal band. Saw them in the '90s.

    "Panthera" is a twist on "Parthenos" by Romans who didn't believe Jesus was the Son of a Virgin. It is not an actual Roman name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
     
    I'm quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country's actions.

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
     
    My enemy does nasty stuff....therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff...and whatever I do is his fault...

    I'm afraid that I can't get on board with that....
    , @Mr. Anon

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
     
    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
     
    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.
    , @fnn

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
     
    FDR saw the German-Polish disputes over Danzig, the Corridor and mistreatment of ethnic Germans and decided to make sure said disputes resulted in world war and the destruction of Western Civilization.

    Quotes from Herbert Hoover's posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed :
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.
     
    Somewhat celebrated mainstream liberal Zionist Jewish historian backs up Hoover:
    https://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Hitler-Robert-Edwin-Herzstein/dp/1557780218#customerReviews

    For three quarters of a century, scholars have debated President Roosevelt's role in bringing the United States into World War II. But this book goes far beyond that question: It argues that FDR was the mastermind behind the very war itself. From late 1938, Robert Herzstein writes, Roosevelt's agents in Europe were busy at work agitating for a total European war to destroy Germany: They incited Poland and Germany against each other, and at the same time more or less bullied Britain and France into supporting Poland. At the same time, the President set up a virtual police state at home, using the HUAC, the FBI, and other government agencies to spy on, harass, and ultimately annihilate the domestic opposition.

    These are startling claims, to say the least, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of most historical writings on World War II. As summarized above, they sound as though they might even be dismissed as kooky conspiracy theories. But the author who makes them is no marginal figure. Robert E. Herzstein, Professor of History at the University of South Carolina and former consultant to the Jewish World Council and the US Department of Justice, has previously written several other acclaimed books on the Interwar-World War II period, including "The War That Hitler Won" (1978, on propaganda) and "When Nazi Dreams Come True" (1982, on Nazi designs for European integration). Most famously, he authored the best-selling "Waldheim: The Missing Years" (1988), which was glowingly reviewed by Simon Wiesenthal (among others) for exposing the Austrian President's past in the German Wehrmacht. Herzstein is without doubt a respected authority on the subject, and thus we must take him seriously and consider his arguments with care.
     
    , @Svigor
    Raped France? I managed to miss that bit. Elaborate?

    Invaded Poland? Where is the American pariotic duty to fight the Nazis for invading Poland, but ally with the commies for invading Poland?

    Massacred the Jews? That would be news to Americans in 1941, what with the shoah not starting until afterward. Not that there's any patriotic American interest, either way.

    Terror-bombed the English? I seem to recall that it was pretty much a two-way street when it started. Afterward, of course, the Allies gained air supremacy, and their terror-bombings of Germany reached a total that made the Germain terror-bombings of England look like a picnic. Which sort of undermines any bloody shirts the English might wave in this regard, or others might wave on their behalf.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.
     
    Why would the Nazis want that kind of stuff to fall into enemy hands?

    Written communication (deliberations and decisions, instructions, approvals) would be essential to coordinate the government in such a massive, sprawling, risky, and efficacious undertaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    Written communication (deliberations and decisions, instructions, approvals) would be essential to coordinate the government in such a massive, sprawling, risky, and efficacious undertaking.
     
    Here is what Raul Hilberg (1926-2007), orthodox Holocaust historian, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, has to say on the matter:

    "[W]hat began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."

    Raul Hillberg, one of the Chief Rabbis of the Holocaust itself, claims it was all done by "mind reading," you see. That settles it! No more need for any of that pesky documentation... It was mid-reading all along.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.
     
    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness--outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.

    And?

    And of questionable effectiveness

    Dunno. Any experts on cremation hereabouts?

    And difficult to conceal.

    From whom? If I were a local, I wouldn’t go too near enemy soldiers….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    Giamatti is a premium cable leading man – he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries, and he and the British fellow co-star in Billions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    ... he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries...
     
    My favorite scene, one of the reasons I like Giamatti:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YHl_0P2EJ4
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonym says:

    Some musical accompaniment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. syonredux says:
    @Lot
    "I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions."

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…

    I’m afraid that I can’t get on board with that….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…"

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your "nasty stuff" generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don't seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    , @Svigor
    I seem to recall you making that argument vigorously and repeatedly, every time we discussed the War of Northern Aggression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. syonredux says:
    @Anon
    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin's whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco's Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It's like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they've lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don't want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It's too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, "Hey, you raped 2 million German women."

    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow.

    I suppose that it’s the radiation illness factor….the unease generated by the prospect of surviving a bombing only to die two or three years later due to some inoperable cancer….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. utu says:
    @Anon
    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin's whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco's Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It's like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they've lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don't want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It's too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, "Hey, you raped 2 million German women."

    but there was no ideology of targeting a race

    Polish Operation of the NKVD

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

    It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 Poles.[3][4] The operation was implemented according to NKVD Order № 00485 signed by Nikolai Yezhov.[5] The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,[1] but not all, wrote Timothy Snyder.[6] The remainder were ‘suspected’ of being Polish, without further inquiry,[5] or classed as possibly having pro-Polish sympathies.[7] In order to speed up the process the NKVD personnel reviewed local telephone books and arrested persons with Polish-sounding names.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    He meant "a race that mattered."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event
     
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Ron Unz has a history degree from Harvard (as well as physics degrees from Harvard & Stanford) and an IQ about 70+ points above Sailer. Ron’s Jewish and assiduous and writes hyper-researched historical analysis. Steve’s a lazy goy who writes about golf and sports and entertainment. I think I’ll stick with Unz when it comes to research challenging the historical narrative and stick to Sailer on golf course architecture and contemporary Armenian history (the Kardashians).

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Oh my gosh. The K-dashes are the revenge of the Armenians on an indifferent world that permitted the Massacre.

    This explains everything.

    , @academic gossip
    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic "systematizing" tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron's (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the "boy genius" identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

    , @Stan Adams
    There are a few smart goys out there, you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Graham says:

    Very interesting review, Steve. As soon as I saw the picture at the top, though, I started wondering… was Eichmann really Jeremy Corbyn? Check out the sticking out ears and the drooping eyelid. Did anyone ever see them together? You need to get rid of Corbyn’s beard of course. Use the search ‘young Jeremy Corbyn’ in Google images for a picture of him as a schoolboy. That would explain certain controversial views held by the Labour leader.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

     

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2.....like cannibalism....or going berserk in Manila...or committing mass suicide rather than surrender.....

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    When you’re starving, you gotta eat. When logistics broke down, many Japanese soldiers were on the brink of starvation, as powerfully depicted in the film FIRES ON THE PLAIN.

    A lot of people, not just the Japanese, went nuts in Philippines. Filos can be fierce fighters. Americans went crazy in the Philippines War too. Lots of atrocities on both sides. It was like the first Vietnam War.

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    Granted, Japan’s honor code was outdated in the 20th century. It’s one thing to practice it in the battlefield in feudal times when it involved just 1000s of warriors. But in a total war between nations where millions may die, it does become crazy.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    Also, there was the factor of myth and survival. To the Japanese, their nation wasn’t just some island but a sacred homeland with divine spirits. As it had never been invaded and occupied, a US victory and invasion felt like having your mother raped. That was the mythic element. Myth may be ‘crazy’, but it’s powerful. Jews left Palestine 2000 yrs ago but still had to return and carry out massive ethnic cleansing to take it back. And Israel has 200 nukes and says it will blow up EU if Israel were to fall. In other words, the West better back up Israel because Zionists will go for the Samson Option. They won’t go down alone.

    There was also the survival element. Japanese had no idea what would happen if they lost the war. Would the US let Japanese even survive? According to John Dower’s EMBRACING DEFEAT, there were elements in FDR’s government who called for total racial annihilation of the Japanese. Hardly majority opinion, but the Pacific War was a Race War, and there was no telling what might happen. I think one reason why the Soviets fought so desperately against Germany was they feared annihilation. They instinctively understood Hitler wasn’t like Napoleon who only sought political hegemony over Russia. Nazis were far more sinister. And that too was a Race War, the most deadly kind of war.

    As it turned out, the US came to value Japan as an ally in the Cold War against China and USSR, but who knows what they were thinking during the war. Everything seemed like a zero-sum game of winner takes all, loser loses everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    Soon that "Samson Option" will become meaningless because Europe will have destroyed itself in a different way. Though to be sure, aided and abetted by many of the same people.
    , @Anonymous

    Granted, Japan’s honor code was outdated in the 20th century.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.
     
    See also 9/11.
    , @Svigor

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.
     
    It's also a cultural projection thing. When brutality toward prisoners is your cultural norm, you assume it's what you'll face if you're ever captured. Makes fighting to the death a lot more appealing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.
     
    My enemy does nasty stuff....therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff...and whatever I do is his fault...

    I'm afraid that I can't get on board with that....

    “My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…”

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don’t seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Agreed. Forget the Anglo-Saxons for a bit: the Japanese managed to make the *Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution* look comparatively good. Sure, you might get paraded about with a dunce cap or die of famine, but at least bored rogue soldiers wouldn't decide to use you as bayonet practice or randomly decide to ship you off for "experiments" out in Harbin.

    Similarly, the Nazis managed to make the Stalinist gulag and famines look comparatively good. Guys like Erich Koch managed to turn non-Russian minorities in the western USSR-who at first welcomed the Germans as liberators and were eager to see the Russians get squashed-into partisan sympathizers within a year.

    That says all that needs to be said.

    , @Trevor H.

    defensive war against genociders
     
    Translated: the good guys won!

    Funny how it always works out that way.
    , @Svigor

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don’t seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.
     

    WWII was an aggressive war for the USA, not a defensive one. Certainly insofar as the European theater is concerned, anyway. And really, dropping two nukes on Japan and threatening full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland absent unconditional surrender is a pretty far cry from a defensive reaction to Pearl Harbor. Annihilating their fleet, taking control of the Pacific, and maybe reducing a few of their biggest mainland naval bases would have been more than sufficient.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.
     
    And our enemies' actions were far short of those of our friend and ally the USSR, but who's counting?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. utu says:
    @Anon
    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin's whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco's Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It's like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they've lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don't want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It's too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, "Hey, you raped 2 million German women."

    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash.

    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe. He did not succeed in Russia thought intended to emancipate Jews there. Hassidic Jew in Russia supported Tsar. The same Lubavitcher Jews who were elected by Putin to represent all Jew in Russia.

    https://forward.com/culture/319002/the-secret-jewish-history-of-napoleon-bonaparte/
    Many Jews of the time believed that Napoleon was their benefactor. Primo Levi has pointed out that in Italy, some Jews named their sons Napoleone in his honor, and in Germany, when Jews adopted family names, some chose Schöntheil, or Bonaparte in German. In France, Jews wrote Hebrew prayers to praise Napoleon during services and called him “Helek Tov” in Hebrew or “good portion” (bona-parte)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liadi
    During the French invasion of Russia, while many Polish Hasidic leaders supported Napoleon or remained quiet about their support, Shneur Zalman openly and vigorously supported the Tsar.

    While fleeing from the advancing French army he wrote a letter explaining his opposition to Napoleon to a friend, Rabbi Moshe Meizeles:[17]

    “ Should Napoleon be victorious, wealth among the Jews will be abundant. . .but the hearts of Israel will be separated and distant from their father in heaven. But if our master Alexander will triumph, though poverty will be abundant. . . the heart of Israel will be bound and joined with their father in heaven. . . And for God’s sake: Burn this letter.

    Some argue that Shneur Zalman’s opposition stemmed from Napoleon’s attempts to arouse a messianic view of himself in Jews, opening the gates of the ghettos and emancipating their residents as he conquered. He established an ersatz Sanhedrin, recruiting Jews to his ranks, and spreading rumors about his conquest of the Holy Land to make Jews subversive for his own ends.[19] Thus, his opposition was based on a practical fear of Jews turning to the false messianism of Napoleon as he saw it.

    Before the WWII 85% of 3.3 million of Polish Jews were ultra Orthodox and Hassidim. Most of them did not survive the Holocaust. Majority of them were anti assimilationists and anti Zionist. Would Israel be created if they lived? The 10-15% who survived were assimilationist, Bundist, Communist and Zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe.
     
    "Emancipation". Lol. Jews were not slaves, serfs, or even peasants, big guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. utu says:
    @Anon
    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    Shoah is weird. It maybe the most exhaustively written-about event in history. But written-about isn't the same as documented.

    When it comes to documentation, the Shoah has been exhaustively documented and extensively covered up. Any piece of evidence that supports the Narrative has been detailed and discussed. Any piece of evidence that counters the Narrative has been suppressed or hushed up.

    Ron Unz's piece on Holocaust Denial is instructive in showing how difficult it is for anyone to discuss the matter honestly and openly. It can only be talked about in a certain manner in line with certain 'facts' and narrative. Any deviance from that sets off the tripwire, and all hell breaks loose.
    It's like Jews wrote extensively about God in the Talmud, but it had to adhere to the dogma.

    This is why the Holocaust Literature is compromised. There's a lot of it, but not all the documentation is sound because it's generally taboo to raise doubts. As Unz's mention of THE LIBERATORS illustrates, a total fraud like that made it to PBS(and I watched some of it) for millions of viewers. It demonstrated how even 'documentation' could become fraudulent.

    Such one-sided documentation doesn't make for sound academics. People like Deborah Lipstadt are tribal activists, not real scholars.

    The real problem is the craven mousiness of the academics and respectable people in media. They are too nerdy and spineless to raise big questions and seriously look into certain matters because they are too afraid. Because they don't do the job, it is taken up mostly by cranks, nuts, and amateurs with ideological ax to grind, notoriety to gain, and not much to lose.

    It's like the discussion of race in the US. It's been written about endlessly and 'documented' endlessly too. But only one Narrative has been allowed, and only one kind of documentation. David Cole's new Taki piece hits the nail when it comes to discussion of race in America.

    http://takimag.com/article/color-me-raped/

    It's talked and written about endlessly but in ONLY ONE WAY where blacks are always victims(due to economics, history, police, or whatever) whereas white victims are best not talked about.

    We need a culture where we can openly and honestly discuss all matters. As it happens, most respectable people fear losing their respectability among peers than losing self-respect(as man of courage and honor). This is why most normal and nice people remain silent to stay out of trouble. Because deviation from the PC narrative on race can get them in hot water, they choose to nothing, not even to raise certain questions.
    So, naturally those who are willing to discuss race with more honesty tend to those on the fringe. Being less normal and nice by personality traits, they are willing to be risque and say what they really believe. The downside is that people on the fringe tend to be eccentric or extreme in one way or another. David Duke, unlike most respectable white people, was willing to talk more candidly and honestly about race. But his oddball personality was such that he was prone to pushing things too far and doing utterly stupid things like joining the KKK.

    The only way to fix the problem is for respectable people in the middle to show some courage and risk their respectability by speaking honestly and openly about the big issues of the day. But if they stick to the Official Narrative on issues like Shoah and the Race issue, the contrarian positions will often be taken up by cranks, lunatics, and mavericks because they're the only ones with the guts to do so. And the respectable middle has no one to blame but itself because it failed in the area of courage, honesty, and openness.

    Today, the respectable middle is afraid even to say that sodomy is unhealthy & dangerous or that a man is NOT a 'woman' because he feels like it. Respectability is relative to who has the power to set the Narrative and Dogma. So, if the Power says 'gay marriage' is the New Normal, most people in the middle who seek respectability above all else just go along. At all times, what they fear most is the loss of respectability.

    Look at John McCain's funeral. All the respectable people there pretending he was some great humanitarian when he spent most of his career since the 90s as a toady of Zionists and war-monger who championed neo-Nazis in Ukraine and terrorists in Syria. But I guess respectable Liberals like Tom Brokaw(who hardly gave McCain a fair break in the 2008 election) now honor McCain as a Good White Man who chose to lose to atone for 'white privilege'. They want to be so respectable.

    I want to say I agree with you but I must qualify it. There is a difference between revisionism of history and complete denial combined with attempts of complete exoneration Germany. People who call themselves revisionists here like “Wally” who represents CODOH are not interested in finding the truth but in exoneration of Germany only. They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.
     
    Many Holocaust proponents act as much as prosecutors as revisionists act as defense attorneys. Do justice systems produce more truth with defense attorneys than without them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Sunbeam says:

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    What does that even mean? Sure, sure I can do a search. But either that statement has some context, or it is gobbledygook.

    Somebody parse this out. We have the accountant of the Holocaust. WTF relevance does this have to justifying his actions at a trial?

    Know the worst thing about civilization? The fact that I can’t put my foot six inches up the ass of anyone who quotes such a ridiculous statement without irony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. Joe Walker says: • Website

    My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic. Some downright brutal types among them. They would obey any order. And outside the doors, the Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies (sidelocks) and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all reasonable people here.

    I have often wondered why so many Jews were unwilling to move to Israel when they seemed to believe that Europe and the United States were ruled by anti-Semites. Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    No, it's because the ultra-Orthos are nutjobs. Met a woman who was on an archeological dig in Israel, wearing khaki shorts and a camp shirt on a broiling hot day. She wandered into town for a meal. They threw rocks at her for showing too much skin.
    , @Jack D

    Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.
     
    On the eve of the Holocaust, Ashkenazi (European) Jews constituted something like 90% of the Jews in the world, but Hitler "fixed" that. And after Israel was founded, the Moslem world expelled almost all of their Jews. This combination meant that Israel is around 50/50 Ashkenazi/Sephardi. The "true" Sephardim (those whose ancestors were expelled from Spain) also have a lot of European ancestry but a lot of the non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not descended from the Spanish refugees.

    No one beat the German Jews for snootiness - they make WASPs look like pikers. The Nazis made their heads explode because to them German culture was the highest form of civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Pay to Play – Put your money where your mouth is and subscribe for an ad-free experience and to join the world famous Takimag comment board.

    You mean the world famous comment board that Takimag never respected and deliberately killed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Buzz Mohawk
    Arendt's book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    Spend any time working inside an American corporation and you will get to know a lot of "Eichmenn." There is little doubt that many of these company men would do in similar circumstances what Adolf did. Arendt wanted to warn us, so that we could spot this happening in others or in ourselves, but there is little reason to be confident that banal evil would not emerge if the SHTF.

    Appropriately, the capture of the bland manager was dull. It must be hard to make an engaging movie about this. Hollywood must encounter this challenge often, because so much of life is ordinary.

    Not only evil men, but many heroes too live mostly ordinary lives. And some ordinary people are heroes. "The banality of heroism" isn't quite the right way to describe it, but whatever it might be called, it is hard to translate into a box office hit without adding some fiction.

    People can find justification for pretty much any evil. That’s why the Good Guys could burn heretics of various stripes (‘they are enemies of God’) or kill babies now (‘giving women reproductive choice’). I doubt many abortionists lie awake at night. The Germans doubtless told themselves they were saving their nation by killing people.

    Of course such bad things will also attract those who like killing for its own sake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. nebulafox says:
    @syonredux

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

     

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2.....like cannibalism....or going berserk in Manila...or committing mass suicide rather than surrender.....

    Well, the MO of atrocities was quite different for the Japanese. Put basically, it was bottom-up whereas the Germans were top-down. The civilians in Tokyo had at the best of times limited influence over what the military did, in part due to the way the Meiji reforms were laid out, and the 1930s were definitely not the best of times in Japanese politics. Political moderates, going up to prime ministers, were regularly assassinated by radicals (gekokujo) throughout the 1930s, to the point where the Japanese government was dubbed “government by assassination” in the US media. Field armies regularly just went off and did their own thing. You had majors and colonels presenting fait accomplis.

    Near as anybody can tell, there was no grand strategic plan behind the Marco Polo Incident. It was just the Kwantung Army chomping at the bit for a fight. It’s very hard to envision an analogous situation in Germany. However lazy Hitler could be at times and however intense the bureaucratic inertia was, nobody ever dared question his ultimate authority-he ran the show. Nothing was ever undertaken in contradiction to his known wishes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. nebulafox says:
    @Lot
    "My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…"

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your "nasty stuff" generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don't seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    >Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Agreed. Forget the Anglo-Saxons for a bit: the Japanese managed to make the *Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution* look comparatively good. Sure, you might get paraded about with a dunce cap or die of famine, but at least bored rogue soldiers wouldn’t decide to use you as bayonet practice or randomly decide to ship you off for “experiments” out in Harbin.

    Similarly, the Nazis managed to make the Stalinist gulag and famines look comparatively good. Guys like Erich Koch managed to turn non-Russian minorities in the western USSR-who at first welcomed the Germans as liberators and were eager to see the Russians get squashed-into partisan sympathizers within a year.

    That says all that needs to be said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,”

    PBS aired a German made-for-TV movie titled The Wannsee Conference in the early 1990s. Although the actors are unknown to us, I thought, just as with Downfall, having Germans do Nazi historical reenactments is always a superior approach. And it was. The movie is up on YouTube in its entirety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    The superior approach - make up a good story!

    It's notable how reliant the holocaust narrative is on works of fiction.

    Holocaust, Schindler's List, The Boy in the Striped PJs, Sophie's Choice, The Big Red One etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Anon[748] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history,

    Yeah except for that one tiny little thing that is conspicuously non-documented….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    An interesting, if skeptical, analysis by commenter Kratoklastes:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. nebulafox says:
    @Anon
    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn't justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it's often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao's forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren't as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan's total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren’t against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland’s anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there’s evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler’s part that Poland put up a fight and “caused” the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Goebbels wouldn't have liked that. He was involved with Czech actress Lída Baarová for years.
    , @Jack D

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940
     
    What are you referring to? If they were "targeted" , why didn't the Germans act upon it? They had the infrastructure at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, etc. and after they had murdered all of the Jews they could have easily repurposed it. I understand that the Germans did run a few Polish villages thru the Auschwitz gas chambers as a sort of trial run but for the most part there was no great effort made to exterminate the Poles in the way that the Jews were exterminated (although they did manage to kill 3 million non-Jewish Poles anyway, allowed millions of Soviet POWs to starve to death, etc. - if they could kill this many millions of people without really trying, imagine what they could have done if they were).

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to. I have often heard it said that their supposed "long term" plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration - it's something that we will do "mañana" or in 20 years or "when the war is over" and in the meantime you don't do much of anything. Thank God that they didn't do this, but it doesn't appear that they really ever took concerted large scale action on this supposed "targeting".
    , @Anonymous

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940.
     
    The Poles were never targeted by Germany for genocide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Dave Pinsen
    Giamatti is a premium cable leading man - he starred in HBO's John Adams miniseries, and he and the British fellow co-star in Billions.

    … he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries…

    My favorite scene, one of the reasons I like Giamatti:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Completely agree about the scene, one of the best on cable to date. What makes it is the intensity between both Giamatti as Adams, and Tom Hollander (a very competent Cambridge grad character actor probably more well-known as the East India Trading Company bad-guy heavy in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise) as King George III.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't have cable, and I would like some clarification of the subtext in this scene. A lot more is being implied than said (brilliant acting and scriptwriting). Obviously, things are awkward when the U.S. has so recently gained its independence, and the king is trying to find out whether the US intends an alliance with traditional British enemy France. What else is going on?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.
     
    Point and laugh, dear boy. Quite different.

    Your increasingly bratty comments add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. You are not even trying to change anyone’s mind.

    Why are you driven to insult those who question orthodoxy on this subject? Do you show the thread to someone else whose favor you desire?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Hank Yobo says:
    @Steve Sailer
    There was a general rule of warfare that seemed fairly global until not long ago: if a besieged city surrendered, it was to be treated okay, but if it resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. A Free French general promised his Moroccan troops 50 hours of lawlessness after they took Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944. That came in for a lot of criticism afterwards, but that was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    Didn’t Polish, not Moroccan, troops finally capture Monte Cassino? A remarkable achievement for expatriate soldiers whose country was under the Nazi jackboot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Hank Yobo says:
    @Anonymous

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?
     
    If the bodies weren't returned, we can assume they were buried. Do you really not know this? You are the one who put the Soviet POWs into issue.

    The Soviets tried to bury their mistakes. At least that was their modus operandi after the murders at Katyn Forest. A crime for which they first tried to blame the Nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So what did Germany do with the 2+ million Soviet corpses they had on their hands that winter?
    , @Hank Yobo
    I don't know. Perhaps they left them for the wolves or other scavengers to devour because the Germans considered their Soviet opponents to be Untermenschen and, therefore, not entitled to a Christian burial.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Another holocaust movie?

    I guess Jews must be starting to realize that fewer and fewer people believe in it, or care, so they had to try to milk that (cash) cow yet again before it’s too late. Perhaps another dozen or so “holocaust” memorials are in the works too?

    Still waiting for the scores of movies about the hundred million killed by (((communism)))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. jim jones says:

    Given that Japan is now a peaceful and productive country I think the actions that the Allies took are completely justified.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot
    "Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan."

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    Dead civilians are dead civilians. Dead women and children are dead women and children. It doesn’t matter if they are english, japanese, german, or jewish. Killing them is immoral.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Then a large fraction of human history is immoral.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    "The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event"

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.
     
    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.

    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Camp inmates witnessed millions of Jews being put into gas chambers?

    Why is it that mainstream historians consider survivor testimony generally to be unreliable?
    , @Hail

    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.
     
    Investigate this just a little more and see what you find.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @syonredux

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.
     
    I'm quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country's actions.

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    Ever heard of the term “context of the times?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot
    "I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions."

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot
    "I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions."

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.

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

    If memory serves the Israeli Court when questioned on the Court’s legal right to try Eichman relied on the extremely doubtful English precedent of the Lord Haw Haw case ( DPP v Joyce )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous
    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.
     
    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness--outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.

    So was the V-2 rocket program, which had no military value.

    So was the allied aerial bombing campaign, also of questionable military value.

    Read More
    • Troll: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Imagine thinking that a corpse could be cremated with a single layer of wood, in an oven, much less on an open air pyre.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Svigor says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    LOL.

    The Clone Wars are fairly well-documented. Much more so than the War of Polish Succession, for example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. Trevor H. says:
    @Anonymous

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..
     
    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of '41-'42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?

    Well, you see, this is the real reason the Germans lost the war. While everyone else was fighting, the Germans were busy triple-cremating tens of millions of corpses, then using ingenious disappearing pulverising devices to turn the billions of bones into a fine white ash, which they then deposited into the bowels of active volcanoes in the tropics so they would be disguised by subsequent eruptions, and also they used some for concrete projects like bridges and tunnels and also a whole lot of Dresden China, which we’d know about for sure if only the Allies hadn’t bombed Dresden, and also I think some found its way into whitening toothpaste, so you can see how pretty much everything white is evil to its core, and I hope this comprehensive documentation helps clarify things for you. Because there’s nothing worse than a holocaust denier. So don’t even go there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Trevor H. says:
    @Lot
    "My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…"

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your "nasty stuff" generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don't seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    defensive war against genociders

    Translated: the good guys won!

    Funny how it always works out that way.

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

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    It’s easy to understand if you have an example. Here’s a maxim that doesn’t work: “Everybody has to give me respect, otherwise I’ll punch them, but I don’t have to respect anyone”. That’s the morality of the street thug and all the bullies at my old school. You can’t will it to become a universal law because it grants one person special status.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Trevor H. says:
    @Anonymous
    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.
     
    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness--outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?

    That quote is dumb, even by Wikipedia standards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Trevor H. says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax
    Whenever I’m going through documentaries on Netflix or wherever, I’m always amazed at the steady onslaught of new Holocaust documentaries. Basically, if I see a black and white photo of a person associated with the movie, it’s almost always about the Holocaust in one way or another.

    You should try reading the New York Times, which I used to do. They have an amazing knack for working holocaust references into every single story in the paper, whether it be road closures on Long Island, the daily commodities report or some j.a.p. complaining about her therapist going on vacation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Trevor H. says:
    @utu

    but there was no ideology of targeting a race
     

    Polish Operation of the NKVD
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
    It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 Poles.[3][4] The operation was implemented according to NKVD Order № 00485 signed by Nikolai Yezhov.[5] The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,[1] but not all, wrote Timothy Snyder.[6] The remainder were 'suspected' of being Polish, without further inquiry,[5] or classed as possibly having pro-Polish sympathies.[7] In order to speed up the process the NKVD personnel reviewed local telephone books and arrested persons with Polish-sounding names.
     

    He meant “a race that mattered.”

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

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
     

    Does Steve think that? History's full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold's rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ....

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I've never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki....

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    For one, Nuclear attack sentenced many of the yet unborn to horrific birth defects. Perhaps nevertheless justifiable but different I think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Trevor H. says:
    @Anon
    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    When you're starving, you gotta eat. When logistics broke down, many Japanese soldiers were on the brink of starvation, as powerfully depicted in the film FIRES ON THE PLAIN.

    A lot of people, not just the Japanese, went nuts in Philippines. Filos can be fierce fighters. Americans went crazy in the Philippines War too. Lots of atrocities on both sides. It was like the first Vietnam War.

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    Granted, Japan's honor code was outdated in the 20th century. It's one thing to practice it in the battlefield in feudal times when it involved just 1000s of warriors. But in a total war between nations where millions may die, it does become crazy.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    Also, there was the factor of myth and survival. To the Japanese, their nation wasn't just some island but a sacred homeland with divine spirits. As it had never been invaded and occupied, a US victory and invasion felt like having your mother raped. That was the mythic element. Myth may be 'crazy', but it's powerful. Jews left Palestine 2000 yrs ago but still had to return and carry out massive ethnic cleansing to take it back. And Israel has 200 nukes and says it will blow up EU if Israel were to fall. In other words, the West better back up Israel because Zionists will go for the Samson Option. They won't go down alone.

    There was also the survival element. Japanese had no idea what would happen if they lost the war. Would the US let Japanese even survive? According to John Dower's EMBRACING DEFEAT, there were elements in FDR's government who called for total racial annihilation of the Japanese. Hardly majority opinion, but the Pacific War was a Race War, and there was no telling what might happen. I think one reason why the Soviets fought so desperately against Germany was they feared annihilation. They instinctively understood Hitler wasn't like Napoleon who only sought political hegemony over Russia. Nazis were far more sinister. And that too was a Race War, the most deadly kind of war.

    As it turned out, the US came to value Japan as an ally in the Cold War against China and USSR, but who knows what they were thinking during the war. Everything seemed like a zero-sum game of winner takes all, loser loses everything.

    Soon that “Samson Option” will become meaningless because Europe will have destroyed itself in a different way. Though to be sure, aided and abetted by many of the same people.

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

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!
     
    Well.....

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.
     
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)

    Harry Turtledove wrote an alternative history story where the Germans win WW2 and occupy India.

    Ghandi tries his non-violence shtick and some random Nazi colonel has a bunch of Ghandi’s followers machine-gunned.

    Ghandi is sure that once the colonel’s superiors hear of this atrocity, their consciences will get the best of them, setting the Indians on the road to freedom

    It doesn’t work out that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Germans had neither the resources nor desire to invade India.

    If they had invaded nonetheless they would have been on their best behavior, given their stretched resources and precarious position due to long supply lines back to Germany. (The Brits would presumably still control the sea.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @syonredux

    Hitler supposedly scoffed in August 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Yet Armenian patriots in the 1920s had contrived to make as memorable as possible their Operation Nemesis conspiracy in which they assassinated many of the perpetrators of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of the Armenians.

    For example, in 1921 an Armenian volunteer who had lost 85 relatives in the massacre gunned down former grand vizier Talaat Pasha in Berlin. As planned, he dropped his weapon and immediately surrendered to the police. The German jury deliberated for only one hour before acquitting him.
     
    Soghomon Tehlirian. He had a great response to how he felt about assassinating Talaat Pasha: "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian#Assassination_of_Tal%C3%A2t_Pasha


    RE: Oscar Isaac,

    Interesting to note that he has also made a movie about the Armenian Genocide, The Promise.

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories.
     
    Indeed. Here are just the Holocaust related films and TV shows that I can remember watching: Schindler's List, Holocaust, Playing for Time, Triumph of the Spirit, The Pawnbroker, The Stranger, Judgment at Nuremberg , The Pianist, The Odessa File, Marathon Man, Sophie's Choice , War and Remembrance, Sunshine, The Grey Zone, Defiance, Inglourious Basterds.....And I'm sure that there are more that I just can't recall at the moment....

    Eichmann’s capture itself has a bunch of movies. Per Wikipedia: Eichmann, The Eichmann Show, The House on Garibaldi Street, The Man Who Captured Eichmann, The People vs. Fritz Bauer.

    I’m glad they got the guy (he certainly deserved it more than paper-pusher Oskar Groening), but is there really anything else to say?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @nebulafox
    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren't against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland's anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there's evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler's part that Poland put up a fight and "caused" the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

    Goebbels wouldn’t have liked that. He was involved with Czech actress Lída Baarová for years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Hitler was seriously not amused, especially when Goebbels attempted to commit suicide over it. One reason Goebbels pushed hard for Kristallnacht was the need to regain political ground after the fallout from the Baarova affair.

    Goebbels in his younger days was something of a pseudo-Slavophile. An avid Dostoevsky fan, he was initially was prominent in the northern German faction in the Nazi Party that advocated an alliance with the USSR against the Western powers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Joe Walker
    My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic. Some downright brutal types among them. They would obey any order. And outside the doors, the Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies (sidelocks) and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all reasonable people here.

    I have often wondered why so many Jews were unwilling to move to Israel when they seemed to believe that Europe and the United States were ruled by anti-Semites. Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews' non-European origins.

    No, it’s because the ultra-Orthos are nutjobs. Met a woman who was on an archeological dig in Israel, wearing khaki shorts and a camp shirt on a broiling hot day. She wandered into town for a meal. They threw rocks at her for showing too much skin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    It's seldom observed that Islam has much in common with Orthodox Judaism. Even if you look at the origins and early days of the faith, it's clear the amount of late antiquity-era Judaic influence: Moses is mentioned more than any other figure in the Qu'ran, Constitution of Medina, conversion to Judaism (and Christianity) among Arabs in the centuries before Muhammad, etc.

    Especially worth noting is that the early Rashidun Arabs stressed their descent from Abraham and their worship of the one true God of Abraham far more than the Prophet.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley)
     
    Now that's taking "Aryan" a little too literally!


    http://facts.zone/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Academy-award-winner-Sir-Ben-Kingsley-real-name-is-Krishna-Pandit-Bhanji..jpg

    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!
     
    Consecutive, or concurrent?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Hitler didn't. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

    “War? What war? Gott in Himmel!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Ian M. says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.
     
    I like Yitzhak and I don't like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there's no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He's a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he's a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo's Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac's performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

    He’s a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.

    Although none of this really stopped Al Pacino from becoming a leading man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    This is in no way a denunciation of his acting abilities, which are (or were) very good, but Pacino was a right place, right time beneficiary.

    Isaac needs a role in a movie about a 2nd Gen Guatemalan crime family in the US struggling to adapt to a fast changing world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    When you're starving, you gotta eat. When logistics broke down, many Japanese soldiers were on the brink of starvation, as powerfully depicted in the film FIRES ON THE PLAIN.

    A lot of people, not just the Japanese, went nuts in Philippines. Filos can be fierce fighters. Americans went crazy in the Philippines War too. Lots of atrocities on both sides. It was like the first Vietnam War.

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    Granted, Japan's honor code was outdated in the 20th century. It's one thing to practice it in the battlefield in feudal times when it involved just 1000s of warriors. But in a total war between nations where millions may die, it does become crazy.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    Also, there was the factor of myth and survival. To the Japanese, their nation wasn't just some island but a sacred homeland with divine spirits. As it had never been invaded and occupied, a US victory and invasion felt like having your mother raped. That was the mythic element. Myth may be 'crazy', but it's powerful. Jews left Palestine 2000 yrs ago but still had to return and carry out massive ethnic cleansing to take it back. And Israel has 200 nukes and says it will blow up EU if Israel were to fall. In other words, the West better back up Israel because Zionists will go for the Samson Option. They won't go down alone.

    There was also the survival element. Japanese had no idea what would happen if they lost the war. Would the US let Japanese even survive? According to John Dower's EMBRACING DEFEAT, there were elements in FDR's government who called for total racial annihilation of the Japanese. Hardly majority opinion, but the Pacific War was a Race War, and there was no telling what might happen. I think one reason why the Soviets fought so desperately against Germany was they feared annihilation. They instinctively understood Hitler wasn't like Napoleon who only sought political hegemony over Russia. Nazis were far more sinister. And that too was a Race War, the most deadly kind of war.

    As it turned out, the US came to value Japan as an ally in the Cold War against China and USSR, but who knows what they were thinking during the war. Everything seemed like a zero-sum game of winner takes all, loser loses everything.

    Granted, Japan’s honor code was outdated in the 20th century.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    See also 9/11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. fnn says:
    @Lot
    "I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions."

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    FDR saw the German-Polish disputes over Danzig, the Corridor and mistreatment of ethnic Germans and decided to make sure said disputes resulted in world war and the destruction of Western Civilization.

    Quotes from Herbert Hoover’s posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed :

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Somewhat celebrated mainstream liberal Zionist Jewish historian backs up Hoover:

    https://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Hitler-Robert-Edwin-Herzstein/dp/1557780218#customerReviews

    For three quarters of a century, scholars have debated President Roosevelt’s role in bringing the United States into World War II. But this book goes far beyond that question: It argues that FDR was the mastermind behind the very war itself. From late 1938, Robert Herzstein writes, Roosevelt’s agents in Europe were busy at work agitating for a total European war to destroy Germany: They incited Poland and Germany against each other, and at the same time more or less bullied Britain and France into supporting Poland. At the same time, the President set up a virtual police state at home, using the HUAC, the FBI, and other government agencies to spy on, harass, and ultimately annihilate the domestic opposition.

    These are startling claims, to say the least, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of most historical writings on World War II. As summarized above, they sound as though they might even be dismissed as kooky conspiracy theories. But the author who makes them is no marginal figure. Robert E. Herzstein, Professor of History at the University of South Carolina and former consultant to the Jewish World Council and the US Department of Justice, has previously written several other acclaimed books on the Interwar-World War II period, including “The War That Hitler Won” (1978, on propaganda) and “When Nazi Dreams Come True” (1982, on Nazi designs for European integration). Most famously, he authored the best-selling “Waldheim: The Missing Years” (1988), which was glowingly reviewed by Simon Wiesenthal (among others) for exposing the Austrian President’s past in the German Wehrmacht. Herzstein is without doubt a respected authority on the subject, and thus we must take him seriously and consider his arguments with care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    "startling claims" - nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Lurker says:
    @utu

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event
     
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Well documented – apart from the curious lack of German records, photographic or forensic evidence, the debunked shrunken heads, lampshades and soap. Oh and all that contradictory eye witness testimony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Germans undertook to carry out the Holocaust as a covert operation under cover of "Night and Fog" and purposely did not maintain records. Nevertheless, there is more than enough documentary, photographic and forensic evidence (not to mention 6 million missing Jews) to convince anyone who is not predisposed to deny the obvious. For those who are so disposed, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn't happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.
    , @Anonymous
    The lack of documentary evidence wouldn't mean that the wholesale slaughter of Jews didn't occur, although it may suggest that the circumstances of the slaughter may have been different.

    If Germany was able to prevail in Europe, Japan was somehow capable of landing troops in California, and both countries were blockading America, what would have happened to all those Japanese in the internment camps? The American government identified and quarantined what it regarded as foreign hostiles just as the Germans and other nations did during the war.

    Sure, they were treated fine when the war was thousands of miles away and America was exporting food, but if push came to shove, if Americans were starving and blockaded, if domestic bases had to be abandoned in the face of an enemy offensive, the Japanese-Americans would probably have been slowly starved out and/or exterminated lest they serve as assets to their captors. Something similar may have happened in occupied Europe during the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Anonymous
    Ron Unz has a history degree from Harvard (as well as physics degrees from Harvard & Stanford) and an IQ about 70+ points above Sailer. Ron’s Jewish and assiduous and writes hyper-researched historical analysis. Steve’s a lazy goy who writes about golf and sports and entertainment. I think I’ll stick with Unz when it comes to research challenging the historical narrative and stick to Sailer on golf course architecture and contemporary Armenian history (the Kardashians).

    Oh my gosh. The K-dashes are the revenge of the Armenians on an indifferent world that permitted the Massacre.

    This explains everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash.
     
    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe. He did not succeed in Russia thought intended to emancipate Jews there. Hassidic Jew in Russia supported Tsar. The same Lubavitcher Jews who were elected by Putin to represent all Jew in Russia.

    https://forward.com/culture/319002/the-secret-jewish-history-of-napoleon-bonaparte/
    Many Jews of the time believed that Napoleon was their benefactor. Primo Levi has pointed out that in Italy, some Jews named their sons Napoleone in his honor, and in Germany, when Jews adopted family names, some chose Schöntheil, or Bonaparte in German. In France, Jews wrote Hebrew prayers to praise Napoleon during services and called him “Helek Tov” in Hebrew or “good portion” (bona-parte)
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liadi
    During the French invasion of Russia, while many Polish Hasidic leaders supported Napoleon or remained quiet about their support, Shneur Zalman openly and vigorously supported the Tsar.

    While fleeing from the advancing French army he wrote a letter explaining his opposition to Napoleon to a friend, Rabbi Moshe Meizeles:[17]


    “ Should Napoleon be victorious, wealth among the Jews will be abundant. . .but the hearts of Israel will be separated and distant from their father in heaven. But if our master Alexander will triumph, though poverty will be abundant. . . the heart of Israel will be bound and joined with their father in heaven. . . And for God's sake: Burn this letter.
     
    Some argue that Shneur Zalman's opposition stemmed from Napoleon's attempts to arouse a messianic view of himself in Jews, opening the gates of the ghettos and emancipating their residents as he conquered. He established an ersatz Sanhedrin, recruiting Jews to his ranks, and spreading rumors about his conquest of the Holy Land to make Jews subversive for his own ends.[19] Thus, his opposition was based on a practical fear of Jews turning to the false messianism of Napoleon as he saw it.
     
    Before the WWII 85% of 3.3 million of Polish Jews were ultra Orthodox and Hassidim. Most of them did not survive the Holocaust. Majority of them were anti assimilationists and anti Zionist. Would Israel be created if they lived? The 10-15% who survived were assimilationist, Bundist, Communist and Zionists.

    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe.

    “Emancipation”. Lol. Jews were not slaves, serfs, or even peasants, big guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Lurker says:
    @Anonymous

    I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.
     
    I've read that mainstream historians consider camp inmate testimonials to be generally unreliable.

    I also consider them unreliable, one only has to read a few to see the problems springing up.

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

    Yeah except for that one tiny little thing that is conspicuously non-documented….

    What’s really trippy to me is how, after 50 years of their propaganda blasting from every corner of Big Media, huge percentages of Jews have literally never heard of the other 6m; the goyish victims of the shoah. Seriously, anytime this topic comes up with a Jew, ask how many victims there were; very good odds you’ll hear “6 million” or “6 million Jews.”

    Lulz:
    holocaust.askdefine.com

    1 an act of great destruction and loss of life
    2 the Nazi program of exterminating Jews under Hitler [syn: final solution]

    Lulz. Goys are chopped liver, goy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    I want to say I agree with you but I must qualify it. There is a difference between revisionism of history and complete denial combined with attempts of complete exoneration Germany. People who call themselves revisionists here like "Wally" who represents CODOH are not interested in finding the truth but in exoneration of Germany only. They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.

    They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.

    Many Holocaust proponents act as much as prosecutors as revisionists act as defense attorneys. Do justice systems produce more truth with defense attorneys than without them?

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

    If a besieged city resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. That was the old way of incentivizing troops.

     

    And didn't this give us Jesus, the Christ, fathered by the Roman rapist and pillager Pantera? So it can't be all bad.

    Pantera was a death metal band. Saw them in the ’90s.

    “Panthera” is a twist on “Parthenos” by Romans who didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of a Virgin. It is not an actual Roman name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    Chris Cornell, whose (2nd) wife was Armenian, contributed a song for that movie about the Armenian genocide. I've wondered if thinking about that helped push him over the edge into suicide. Though if you look back at the lyrics of his songs, it seems he'd struggled with depression for a long time.

    there are strong rumors he was suicided (and she had a hand in it).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anon
    In war movies, the worst possible death for me seems like being stuck in a submarine that sinks to the bottom of the ocean. That's like being buried alive.

    And there is gassing and there is gassing.

    Carbon Monoxide poisoning will just knock you out. But imagine being hit with mustard gas in war? I once worked with peppers and then rubbed my eyes, and it was the most horrible thing. I sort of understood how it must have been a victim of gas attack in WWI.

    Dulce et Decorum Est
    BY WILFRED OWEN

    Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
    Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
    Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
    And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
    Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
    But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
    Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
    Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

    Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
    Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
    But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
    And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
    Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
    As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

    In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
    He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

    If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. nebulafox says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Goebbels wouldn't have liked that. He was involved with Czech actress Lída Baarová for years.

    Hitler was seriously not amused, especially when Goebbels attempted to commit suicide over it. One reason Goebbels pushed hard for Kristallnacht was the need to regain political ground after the fallout from the Baarova affair.

    Goebbels in his younger days was something of a pseudo-Slavophile. An avid Dostoevsky fan, he was initially was prominent in the northern German faction in the Nazi Party that advocated an alliance with the USSR against the Western powers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    Joe Pesci. Usually a character a tornado, but an unforgettable star turn in My Cousin Vinny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Actor*

    %©®€ autocorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Lurker says:
    @PiltdownMan

    I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,”
     
    PBS aired a German made-for-TV movie titled The Wannsee Conference in the early 1990s. Although the actors are unknown to us, I thought, just as with Downfall, having Germans do Nazi historical reenactments is always a superior approach. And it was. The movie is up on YouTube in its entirety.

    https://youtu.be/sYdIfOkpMos

    The superior approach – make up a good story!

    It’s notable how reliant the holocaust narrative is on works of fiction.

    Holocaust, Schindler’s List, The Boy in the Striped PJs, Sophie’s Choice, The Big Red One etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Some stories are true that never happened.
    --Elie Wiesel
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. nebulafox says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    No, it's because the ultra-Orthos are nutjobs. Met a woman who was on an archeological dig in Israel, wearing khaki shorts and a camp shirt on a broiling hot day. She wandered into town for a meal. They threw rocks at her for showing too much skin.

    It’s seldom observed that Islam has much in common with Orthodox Judaism. Even if you look at the origins and early days of the faith, it’s clear the amount of late antiquity-era Judaic influence: Moses is mentioned more than any other figure in the Qu’ran, Constitution of Medina, conversion to Judaism (and Christianity) among Arabs in the centuries before Muhammad, etc.

    Especially worth noting is that the early Rashidun Arabs stressed their descent from Abraham and their worship of the one true God of Abraham far more than the Prophet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Jack D says:
    @Joe Walker
    My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic. Some downright brutal types among them. They would obey any order. And outside the doors, the Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies (sidelocks) and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all reasonable people here.

    I have often wondered why so many Jews were unwilling to move to Israel when they seemed to believe that Europe and the United States were ruled by anti-Semites. Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews' non-European origins.

    Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.

    On the eve of the Holocaust, Ashkenazi (European) Jews constituted something like 90% of the Jews in the world, but Hitler “fixed” that. And after Israel was founded, the Moslem world expelled almost all of their Jews. This combination meant that Israel is around 50/50 Ashkenazi/Sephardi. The “true” Sephardim (those whose ancestors were expelled from Spain) also have a lot of European ancestry but a lot of the non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not descended from the Spanish refugees.

    No one beat the German Jews for snootiness – they make WASPs look like pikers. The Nazis made their heads explode because to them German culture was the highest form of civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The native indigenous Jews of the Middle East are the Mizrahi. They are not Sephardi who went to Europe with the moorish invasions.

    Persian Jews are not Mizrahi. They are a different group.
    , @Joe Walker
    So German-born Jews practiced cultural appropriation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Rosamond Vincy
    Joe Pesci. Usually a character a tornado, but an unforgettable star turn in My Cousin Vinny.

    Actor*

    %©®€ autocorrect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox
    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren't against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland's anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there's evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler's part that Poland put up a fight and "caused" the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940

    What are you referring to? If they were “targeted” , why didn’t the Germans act upon it? They had the infrastructure at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, etc. and after they had murdered all of the Jews they could have easily repurposed it. I understand that the Germans did run a few Polish villages thru the Auschwitz gas chambers as a sort of trial run but for the most part there was no great effort made to exterminate the Poles in the way that the Jews were exterminated (although they did manage to kill 3 million non-Jewish Poles anyway, allowed millions of Soviet POWs to starve to death, etc. – if they could kill this many millions of people without really trying, imagine what they could have done if they were).

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to. I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything. Thank God that they didn’t do this, but it doesn’t appear that they really ever took concerted large scale action on this supposed “targeting”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to.
     
    Large scale massacres take no particular organization or skill. Rwandan Hutu civilians killed 800K Tutsis in less than a month, using weapons from before the age of gunpowder. Genghis Khan's men killed entire cities numbering in the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, through the simple expedient of assigning a headcount target to every soldier.

    Hitler's henchmen went through the whole rigamarole of the Holocaust in order to obscure what they did. The Nazis understood that discovery of the atrocity would blacken their names for posterity. They were right - that is indeed what has happened, and rightly so. The Holocaust was unique among atrocities - it (1) targeted a group living in territory under the ruler's control that had offered no armed resistance, and (2) gave the targeted group no way to redeem itself, either by religious conversion or the pledging of fealty. It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany's largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities that caused them to have to return to the land of their ancestors, only to succumb to, in practical terms, the end phase of Germany's Final Solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Jack D says:
    @Lurker
    Well documented - apart from the curious lack of German records, photographic or forensic evidence, the debunked shrunken heads, lampshades and soap. Oh and all that contradictory eye witness testimony.

    The Germans undertook to carry out the Holocaust as a covert operation under cover of “Night and Fog” and purposely did not maintain records. Nevertheless, there is more than enough documentary, photographic and forensic evidence (not to mention 6 million missing Jews) to convince anyone who is not predisposed to deny the obvious. For those who are so disposed, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.
     
    Murder is a very serious charge, Jack. Mass murder and genocide are also very serious charges. We should expect reasonably high standards of proof before they are leveled.

    When, a few months ago, you were politely asked in the comment section how you know what you assert to know about your own family's experience in Eastern Europe, you were vague and evasive, and eventually non responsive. The evidence you did offer was remarkably thin and inconclusive, and the sequence of events hard to follow.

    I'd rather not that your own comments on this subject be a source of doubt of the official story. Could you therefore please explain to us better in detail what specifically you believe happened to members of your own family and how you know it?

    , @Svigor
    Bit of pilpul here. I'd take substantial amounts of real forensic evidence of death as proof. E.g., bodies or their remains, or proportionate amount of ash.

    But "missing Jews" is fairly lame. For one thing it relies on inherently dubious census figures (you couldn't even get a count of American Jews based on the most recent American census). Further, it relies on the dubious idea that missing = murdered, something they won't even allow for a run of the mill murder case in any proper, 1st world court (prosecuting a murder without a corpse, or sufficient parts of a corpse to prove death, or some other actual evidence that the supposed victim is actually dead, is basically a non-starter); never mind 12 million murders.

    Note that I am not denying anyone's claim here. I'm simply accurately characterizing the claim.

    For all we know, the Soviets got their hands on them and disappeared them in Siberia.

    , @International Jew

    go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers
     
    +1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. keypusher says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Arendt's book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    Spend any time working inside an American corporation and you will get to know a lot of "Eichmenn." There is little doubt that many of these company men would do in similar circumstances what Adolf did. Arendt wanted to warn us, so that we could spot this happening in others or in ourselves, but there is little reason to be confident that banal evil would not emerge if the SHTF.

    Appropriately, the capture of the bland manager was dull. It must be hard to make an engaging movie about this. Hollywood must encounter this challenge often, because so much of life is ordinary.

    Not only evil men, but many heroes too live mostly ordinary lives. And some ordinary people are heroes. "The banality of heroism" isn't quite the right way to describe it, but whatever it might be called, it is hard to translate into a box office hit without adding some fiction.

    Arendt’s book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    That is a crock, and a slander on middle managers and Eichmann both. He was closer to the Elon Musk of genocide than a middle manager. Check out The Origins of the Final Solution for a corrective.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BS34NCY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    If you don't think evil resides like bacteria inside all of us, then you don't know anything. You haven't lived, or you haven't worked inside any human organization.

    No matter what your referenced book says (and you don't quote or reference anything from it) we who have lived and worked with others understand what Hannah Arendt was getting at.

    Watch out. Follow what is happening right now. White gentiles are now the victims, under attack from people who reside within the structures of our governments and corporations. If you are white, you should be especially concerned. Jews have no monopoly on the victimhood that many other human groups have suffered, and with which we are now threatened.

    Arendt was warning us about what is happening to us now.

    We are the new Jews.
    , @Jack D
    Browning's work is NOT a corrective, but confirms Arendt's basic premise. See his other book,

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062303023/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

    Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

    Ordinary Men is the true story of Reserve Police Battalion 101 of the German Order Police, which was responsible for mass shootings as well as round-ups of Jewish people for deportation to Nazi death camps in Poland in 1942. Browning argues that most of the men of RPB 101 were not fanatical Nazis but, rather, ordinary middle-aged, working-class men who committed these atrocities ...

    In real life, "monsters" don't exist. Those who are responsible for the greatest crimes in history are just ordinary humans like those you see every day.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. I much prefer apocalypse-themed movies which is probably why I like zombie flicks. Holocaust films tend toward caricature and moralizing. Apocalypse scenarios are often more value neutral; the devastated may be somewhat to blame for their own punishment/consequences. And, if creating order after civilizational collapse, such fiction offers insights into the building of healthy vs unhealthy societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. nebulafox says:

    Um, because the Germans had a war to complete? The Nazis understood full well that they needed to finish the war first, which they initially expected to have over by 1942 before executing their full plans. When that didn’t pan out, they had to pretty quickly alter their plans for something more realistic that allowed them to tap into the labor supply until the war could be won.

    That lasted until about a year after the December 11th Reich Chancellery meeting, when the 6th Army was getting destroyed at Stalingrad, i.e, they couldn’t even get around to being able to murder all the Jews with the time and resources they had at their disposal-it took time to build the Reinhard camps and install the gas chambers in the first place. They also needed laborers to replace all the men headed to the front. Ergo, the more fantastic plans got shelved and German propaganda started to emphasize the whole “defend the continent against the rampaging Cossack and his GPU Jew politruk enabler” schtick.

    > I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything.

    No. The Nazis had pretty specific, detailed plans on what they planned on doing to the Slavs-the NSDAP’s racial departments and the SS regularly coordinated memorandum and abstracts that refer to the GPO in the East prior to 1943. Given that, Goering’s Green Folder from the Nuremberg trials, the state of mind of the German leadership in 1941-1942, etc, I think it is safe to presume they were dead serious about Generalplan Ost. Hitler himself was far from shy about his intention to turn the conquered Ukraine into Germany’s version of the American heartland, cleansed of natives-he even makes the comparison in his Table Talk.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier. Slavs weren’t considered that bright by the Germans, so they felt they could afford to wait until the war was over, and maybe leave a remnant over for a helot’s existence-eventually to be worked to death-in the mines or factories. But to accomplish the goal of obtaining Lebensraum and making Germany into a hegemonic world power on the scale of the USA, which was the whole, existential point behind Operation Barbarossa in the first place, the natives would have to be replaced en masse. There was no way around it.

    If Hitler was not serious about obtaining Lebensraum, then he wasn’t serious about his own ideology going back to the Mein Kampf days, and given his personality-that would have basically required him to have been not Hitler in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier.
     
    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I've read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    Hence deporting Jews to ghettos and camps and keeping them alive for some time, as opposed to (only) the much simpler, faster and cheaper method of just shooting them. It's also why the Holocaust took priority over trying to win the war — in their minds it was necessary to win the war.
    , @Jack D
    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler's stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi's may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can't do it today - maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn't.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father's shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war - in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

    , @Anonymous
    A bunch of bunk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Ibound1 says:

    WW2 will fade in memory and importance as that generation passes and as we change demographically. Do the Muslim immigrants to the UK care about Hitler? I would guess that they admire him, if they know about him at all. Dunkirk will not quite have the same meaning for these “Englishmen”. And our educational system is so biased now, the kids are undoubtedly taught that the US and the British Empire were on a moral par with Nazi Germany, if not actually below it.

    Anyway, Germany has decided to abolish itself. 1.5 children per mother and that includes the immigrants. The ethnic Germans are having children at a level far below replacement. Meantime Israel is having a baby boom. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-hospitals-witness-record-breaking-baby-boom/

    It is hard to predict how things will all turn out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “Hitler gratuitously declared war on the mighty United States in support of his honorary Aryan ally’s attack on Pearl Harbor.”

    I saw that coming. No matter what, you will always blow the horn of America. Fact is, in 1941 America wasn’t “mighty “at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that’s about it. America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World. Of course, America had an enormous industrial capacity which could be turned to the war effort, but just having a large industrial capacity does not necessarily translate into a large military industrial capacity. Obviously, Japan declaring war on America turned out to be a bad decision, but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany. When america entered the European war theater on D Day, Germany was already pretty much defeated: the Red Army was already in western Poland by then. America, at the most, hastened Germany’s defeat by 6 months. The Soviets would have won alone anyway.

    “a patriotic capitalist”

    The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. A patriotic capitalist is an oxymoron. The maxim of capitalism is that you maximize profits by doing business with as many people as possible, regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or nationality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Soviet Union did most of the heavy lifting, sure, but the Western Allies made a big contribution. More and more of the Luftwaffe had to be kept home for defense against air attacks, lots of 88s also. Plus troops that to be kept against a possible invasion, plus troops lost in North Africa and Italy, etc. Plus Lend-Lease. Plus the struggle in the Atlantic.


    By the way, having a a large industrial capacity did indeed translate into a large military industrial capacity, pretty rapidly.
    , @Hank Yobo
    American forces were involved in the July 1943 invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) and two months later carried the offensive over to Italy. Thus, they had thousands of troops fighting in Europe's "soft underbelly" almost a year before D-Day.
    , @AnotherDad

    Fact is, in 1941 America wasn’t “mighty “at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that’s about it. America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World...
    but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany.
     
    Seriously Nick, get a clue. Really this sort of stupidity is pretty much beyond words. At least bother to learn the basic chronology so you don't utter nonsense like:

    When america entered the European war theater on D Day ...

     

    Ironically your take here--"America, muh"--is the same as Hitler's. He thought our joint was too racially corrupted (i.e. diverse) and so of no account. (Becoming more and more true, but wasn't true then.)

    In contrast, a somewhat smarter operator, Churchill, heard about Pearl Harbor and was estatic. America's in ... we're going to win.

    The bottom line:
    America out--The Axis probably should win.
    America in--The Axis is certain to lose.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "When america entered the European war theater on D Day..."

    The US entered the European war theater in 1943 with the invasion of Italy.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World
     
    Thanks for demonstrating how breathtakingly stupid you are. Only a world class idiot would mistake being perceived as a great military power of the World for actually being a great military power.

    Once again, you remind us of the Leftist inability to reason, to think, or to learn from experience. And BTW, you have, all by yourself, disproved Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest.'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Buzz Mohawk

    ... he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries...
     
    My favorite scene, one of the reasons I like Giamatti:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YHl_0P2EJ4

    Completely agree about the scene, one of the best on cable to date. What makes it is the intensity between both Giamatti as Adams, and Tom Hollander (a very competent Cambridge grad character actor probably more well-known as the East India Trading Company bad-guy heavy in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise) as King George III.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Thank you. Two important lines from this scene:

    John Adams: "Yes well, I avow to Your Majesty that I have no attachment to any country but my own."

    King George III: "An honest man will never have no other."

    Think about what this truth means today, in this country we inherited from John Adams and his compatriots. We are their posterity, referred to in The Constitution they wrote for us. Anyone here who has any attachment to any country but our own is NOT American.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Sir Ben Kingsley. Best Actor winner for his portrayal of Ghandi in the movie of the same name. Then there’s this Sir Ben Kingsley, who, well, I don’t know, must have needed a paycheck or something…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. @Anonymous
    Ron Unz has a history degree from Harvard (as well as physics degrees from Harvard & Stanford) and an IQ about 70+ points above Sailer. Ron’s Jewish and assiduous and writes hyper-researched historical analysis. Steve’s a lazy goy who writes about golf and sports and entertainment. I think I’ll stick with Unz when it comes to research challenging the historical narrative and stick to Sailer on golf course architecture and contemporary Armenian history (the Kardashians).

    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic “systematizing” tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron’s (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the “boy genius” identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/
    , @utu

    Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.
     
    The divergence of a trajectory from the point of plausibility is caused by an invalid extrapolation. Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.
    , @Anonymous

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world
     
    What is Steve's "mental model of the Jewish Angle"? I don't think Steve has ever proposed any sort of model with respect to Jews. He writes about Jewish issues and figures, and he can be critical of Jewish figures, especially in the media and political punditry, but he doesn't claim to have some theory that explains the "Jewish Angle".
    , @Old Palo Altan
    Perhaps Anonymous is taking Ron Unz's own reporting of his IQ as 214 at face value. 214-70 is 144, which is about what I have always assumed Steve's IQ to be.

    But if Ron is actually only at 180 say, then a 110 for Steve would be manifestly absurd.
    , @Hail

    now off the rails
     
    Off the rails socially, perhaps.

    Off the rails legally, yes, as Ron is now liable to arrest in Germany and many other countries, for the Crime of Denying the Holocaust. Quite a few have spent years in prison over this.

    But in what way is skepticism of the gas chambers off the rails logically, scientifically, intellectually?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @syonredux

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.
     
    Anyone say that they were?

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent.
     
    The conqueror's lament...."If only I had not encountered resistance"......

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    Anyone say that they were?

    No, but excuses are made for one side, and not the other.

    Side note– among the few civilians killed in the Pearl Harbor attack were Japanese-American children in Honolulu. Evidently their apartment building looked like a factory. Nice irony there…

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Falling anti-aircraft shells.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. bomag says:
    @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    Ron’s only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime).

    It would help if he didn’t gloss over certain things, such as the far higher rate of immigrant detention in federal facilities which would significantly change the numbers. Ron leaned on state detention to generate his numbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. snorlax says:
    @nebulafox
    Um, because the Germans had a war to complete? The Nazis understood full well that they needed to finish the war first, which they initially expected to have over by 1942 before executing their full plans. When that didn't pan out, they had to pretty quickly alter their plans for something more realistic that allowed them to tap into the labor supply until the war could be won.

    That lasted until about a year after the December 11th Reich Chancellery meeting, when the 6th Army was getting destroyed at Stalingrad, i.e, they couldn't even get around to being able to murder all the Jews with the time and resources they had at their disposal-it took time to build the Reinhard camps and install the gas chambers in the first place. They also needed laborers to replace all the men headed to the front. Ergo, the more fantastic plans got shelved and German propaganda started to emphasize the whole "defend the continent against the rampaging Cossack and his GPU Jew politruk enabler" schtick.

    > I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything.

    No. The Nazis had pretty specific, detailed plans on what they planned on doing to the Slavs-the NSDAP's racial departments and the SS regularly coordinated memorandum and abstracts that refer to the GPO in the East prior to 1943. Given that, Goering's Green Folder from the Nuremberg trials, the state of mind of the German leadership in 1941-1942, etc, I think it is safe to presume they were dead serious about Generalplan Ost. Hitler himself was far from shy about his intention to turn the conquered Ukraine into Germany's version of the American heartland, cleansed of natives-he even makes the comparison in his Table Talk.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who'd sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier. Slavs weren't considered that bright by the Germans, so they felt they could afford to wait until the war was over, and maybe leave a remnant over for a helot's existence-eventually to be worked to death-in the mines or factories. But to accomplish the goal of obtaining Lebensraum and making Germany into a hegemonic world power on the scale of the USA, which was the whole, existential point behind Operation Barbarossa in the first place, the natives would have to be replaced en masse. There was no way around it.

    If Hitler was not serious about obtaining Lebensraum, then he wasn't serious about his own ideology going back to the Mein Kampf days, and given his personality-that would have basically required him to have been not Hitler in the first place.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier.

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    Hence deporting Jews to ghettos and camps and keeping them alive for some time, as opposed to (only) the much simpler, faster and cheaper method of just shooting them. It’s also why the Holocaust took priority over trying to win the war — in their minds it was necessary to win the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.
     
    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.
     
    So the Germans surely made sure to advertise to the Allies this killing of hostages, right? And there'd be lots of documentary evidence of it, right? Because if the Allies didn't know about it, there'd be no leverage.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Jews-as-Hostages-in-Hitler's Mind theory is interesting, but I have a hard time evaluating it.

    If there was a hostage trade plan, did the Nazis ever get around to publicly mentioning to the outside world that they were murdering Jewish civilian hostages en masse behind the front lines?

    Did the Germans ever get around to informing, say, FDR that they were holding Jews as hostages and were willing to make a strategic deal over them by say trading the Jews of Europe for USA's withdrawal from the war?

    Did Hitler just expect FDR's theorized Jewish masters to do Hitler's work for him by informing FDR of the logic of the situation?

    Did it not occur to Hitler that the Jews of America agreed, on the whole, with FDR's strategy of crushing Nazi Germany as the highest national priority?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Clyde says:
    @academic gossip
    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic "systematizing" tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron's (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the "boy genius" identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

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

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940
     
    What are you referring to? If they were "targeted" , why didn't the Germans act upon it? They had the infrastructure at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, etc. and after they had murdered all of the Jews they could have easily repurposed it. I understand that the Germans did run a few Polish villages thru the Auschwitz gas chambers as a sort of trial run but for the most part there was no great effort made to exterminate the Poles in the way that the Jews were exterminated (although they did manage to kill 3 million non-Jewish Poles anyway, allowed millions of Soviet POWs to starve to death, etc. - if they could kill this many millions of people without really trying, imagine what they could have done if they were).

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to. I have often heard it said that their supposed "long term" plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration - it's something that we will do "mañana" or in 20 years or "when the war is over" and in the meantime you don't do much of anything. Thank God that they didn't do this, but it doesn't appear that they really ever took concerted large scale action on this supposed "targeting".

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to.

    Large scale massacres take no particular organization or skill. Rwandan Hutu civilians killed 800K Tutsis in less than a month, using weapons from before the age of gunpowder. Genghis Khan’s men killed entire cities numbering in the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, through the simple expedient of assigning a headcount target to every soldier.

    Hitler’s henchmen went through the whole rigamarole of the Holocaust in order to obscure what they did. The Nazis understood that discovery of the atrocity would blacken their names for posterity. They were right – that is indeed what has happened, and rightly so. The Holocaust was unique among atrocities – it (1) targeted a group living in territory under the ruler’s control that had offered no armed resistance, and (2) gave the targeted group no way to redeem itself, either by religious conversion or the pledging of fealty. It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities that caused them to have to return to the land of their ancestors, only to succumb to, in practical terms, the end phase of Germany’s Final Solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IBC

    Hitler’s henchmen went through the whole rigamarole of the Holocaust in order to obscure what they did.
     
    Such as how the Nazis made use of the Swiss banking system to shelter stolen Jewish assets.

    The Holocaust was unique among atrocities – it (1) targeted a group living in territory under the ruler’s control that had offered no armed resistance, and (2) gave the targeted group no way to redeem itself, either by religious conversion or the pledging of fealty.

     

    But if the Holocaust was a unique case where there was truly no way out for the German and Polish Jews except death, doesn't that suggest that for most of the rest of the 3,500-or-so-year-long history of Anti-Semitism, the physical persecution of Jews wasn't fundamentally different from that of other groups? What eventually happened to the followers of Zeus and Zoroaster; the Huguenots or Tibetan animists after the arrival of Buddhism? How many Jews abandoned their old identities over the years, whether voluntarily or otherwise; and how was that so different from the choices other historical groups have faced? And didn't the ancient Jews themselves, stone apostates to death?

    So I can see how that would have been a good way to put a dent in dissent, but it doesn't seem all that much better than what other religious or political establishments have done over the years.


    It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities that caused them to have to return to the land of their ancestors,

     

    You still believe in "An eye for an eye"? And would you say that that's more of a Jewish religious thing, or is it just a case of basic human instincts?
    , @Hail

    It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities
     
    Pure madness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Jack D says:

    Snorlax – This is an interesting theory but I see no evidence to support it. Do you have any sources? There were some deals made late in the war to trade Hungarian Jews for cash, but this was very late in the game.

    It should have been clear to the Nazis from their pre-war persecution of the German Jews that no Allied government was prepared to lift a finger to help the Jews, so I don’t know what would have made them think that things would be different during the war (and in fact nothing changed). And bank robbers who kill hostages announce the killings in order to raise the stakes – the Germans HID their killings of the hostages. So it’s a cute theory but I don’t think it matches the facts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox
    Um, because the Germans had a war to complete? The Nazis understood full well that they needed to finish the war first, which they initially expected to have over by 1942 before executing their full plans. When that didn't pan out, they had to pretty quickly alter their plans for something more realistic that allowed them to tap into the labor supply until the war could be won.

    That lasted until about a year after the December 11th Reich Chancellery meeting, when the 6th Army was getting destroyed at Stalingrad, i.e, they couldn't even get around to being able to murder all the Jews with the time and resources they had at their disposal-it took time to build the Reinhard camps and install the gas chambers in the first place. They also needed laborers to replace all the men headed to the front. Ergo, the more fantastic plans got shelved and German propaganda started to emphasize the whole "defend the continent against the rampaging Cossack and his GPU Jew politruk enabler" schtick.

    > I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything.

    No. The Nazis had pretty specific, detailed plans on what they planned on doing to the Slavs-the NSDAP's racial departments and the SS regularly coordinated memorandum and abstracts that refer to the GPO in the East prior to 1943. Given that, Goering's Green Folder from the Nuremberg trials, the state of mind of the German leadership in 1941-1942, etc, I think it is safe to presume they were dead serious about Generalplan Ost. Hitler himself was far from shy about his intention to turn the conquered Ukraine into Germany's version of the American heartland, cleansed of natives-he even makes the comparison in his Table Talk.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who'd sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier. Slavs weren't considered that bright by the Germans, so they felt they could afford to wait until the war was over, and maybe leave a remnant over for a helot's existence-eventually to be worked to death-in the mines or factories. But to accomplish the goal of obtaining Lebensraum and making Germany into a hegemonic world power on the scale of the USA, which was the whole, existential point behind Operation Barbarossa in the first place, the natives would have to be replaced en masse. There was no way around it.

    If Hitler was not serious about obtaining Lebensraum, then he wasn't serious about his own ideology going back to the Mein Kampf days, and given his personality-that would have basically required him to have been not Hitler in the first place.

    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler’s stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi’s may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can’t do it today – maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn’t.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father’s shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war – in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    When did your father leave the shtetl?
    , @AnotherDad
    Jack--the obvious--if you don't agree with Nebulafox, with Hitler's own pretty well stated goals, then what the heck was the point of invading the Soviet Union?

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, turning Hitler's invasion/obliteration of Poland into a real World War. But the Soviet Union was a co-conspirator in the invasion.

    There are really on two plausible answers:

    1) That Hitler feared/expected the Soviet Union would attack Germany. Not ridiculous--but when revisionists bring this up it is pooh-poohed.

    2) Lebesraum. Hitler really does intend to grab up living space for the Germans in the East and at the very least turn the East into a giant German argicultural and resource colony.

    (Note: I'm not arguing that they were going to explicitly do X,Y or Z; exactly follow every paragraph and subsection of Generalplan Ost. That's all subject to "events" and "whatever works". But the general thrust was clear.)

    That Hitler has a serious bug up his butt with the Jews and--not inaccurately--sees them as at the vanguard of communist subversion, that's a given. But that Hitler isn't serious about lebensraum--colonizing the East either for slave labor or new territory for Germans--doesn't make any sense.
    , @academic gossip
    Even with full cooperation of all the German troops, the logistics of exterminating a large nation on its own territory would be orders of magnitude more difficult than isolating and then killing the Jews. Killing 10 percent of the population to scare the rest into submission (while they wait for the Allies to win the war) is one thing, but a program of genocide and slavery would lead to total, implacable, endless resistance. Vietnam times ten.

    Thanks for the information from your father. One of the odd things about Holocaust revisionism is that it never bothers to account for the perfect consistency in all the thousands of camp prisoners' memories of "selection at the ramp". If something other than immediate guaranteed death were the destination of the un-selected, then in some percentage of the stories a prisoner would be separated from a family member (or someone they know) who was sent toward the presumed gas chamber, but later on meet them again or discover that they were alive. Unfortunately in the actual stories that never happens, the non-selected just disappear.
    , @nebulafox
    (This is late, sorry, I've been having some personal issues offline.)

    It is true that the main gist of Generalplan Ost was to be undertaken over the course of a few decades after the war, but is worth pointing out they actually did, on a limited scale, attempt the beginnings of Generalplan Ost in the Hunger Plan. And if the Germans managed to take Leningrad and Moscow (the ideological centers of Bolshevism and Russianness in Nazi thought) in 1941, the result would have been clearly genocidal for the populace-the Army Command North communiques couldn't be clearer about that. The Germans couldn't have cared less that most Leningraders weren't Jewish-that only meant they didn't have to go to the trouble of specifically eliminating them as saboteurs preemptively.

    Look, if we were talking about any dictator-or any politician-other than Adolf Hitler, in the modern era, I would fully agree with you. But I do not think Hitler was capable, in terms of basic mental processes, of not attempting his plans in full rigor. He was capable of delaying them when it made tactical sense, because with tactics, he was endlessly flexible, or when he didn't have the requisite control or resources needed. But he was not capable of altering them, let alone being cynical about them. Other people in the way of his expansion? He'd replace them. People in his government squeamish about what he was going to order them to do? He'd persuade, bribe, socially pressure, kill them, do whatever he needed. Races not fitting his conception of what they should be? He'd breed, fit, exterminate until reality fit his conception. He said it himself-he was not one for adjusting his ideas to circumstances, but circumstances to his ideas. And this was a guy who liked war to the point that he wanted nothing more than a perpetual war in the Urals to serve as a constant cauldron to improve the Nordic peasants he'd settle there. Vietnam x 10? Hitler would have *welcomed* that. He genuinely got his driving energy from chaos. The comparisons to Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon miss the mark: in another era, Hitler would have made a fine Mongol khan, or more accurate yet, a pre-Acaemenid Assyrian warlord.

    Would it have been possible for Hitler to do what he planned to do? Probably not, for a whole bunch of reasons: not least because the system of government he had going on in Germany was going to implode sooner or later. But that wouldn't have stopped him from trying: and he was planning for much more than just getting rid of the Jews. He would have unquestionably attempted to found his "Mississippi on the Volga" had he won the war in the East somehow, and that by necessity entailed the mass deportation/extermination of the majority of the natives, with a small amount left to be worked to death as slaves. The contempt for reality that animated Hitler was deeply embedded in his personality to the point that, if you take away this characteristic, Hitler would be such a fundamentally different human being that comparisons wouldn't be germane. I'd also argue that if you took away his disturbed relationship with reality, he would have never achieved power in the first place.

    Hitler never conquered the USSR: that meant he couldn't implement Generalplan Ost for the time-being. That's why Backe's Hunger Plan was, at least officially, abandoned. That's why the mass starvation of Soviet POWs was ended. Hitler needed them for manpower with the war clearly not ending-how would the German factories, under increasing strain, cope with less supplies of forced labor? And where was he going to deport all the Slavs as planned, if the unconquered USSR stood in the way? Where would he get the manpower needed for the operations, with men busy fighting and dying in Rhzev? Etc, etc.

    The Holocaust, on the other hand, was achievable, at least in Hitler's thinking.. That (and here's where I'm not disagreeing with you), and he viewed the Jews as the primary, biggest threat to mankind rather than a bunch of useless obstacles to be exploited if necessary and removed if possible.

    >Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I rather doubt this, because along with all the Ostjuden, the SS and Wehrmacht were capable of exterminating fully assimilated European Jews in the name of a perverted moral energy. Those that originates from Mitteleuropa spoke their own language, the older men would have fought for the Central Powers in the last war, and if they were from Germany proper, might have voted for Hitler in 1932 if he didn't view them as a disease. There's no question that encountering Ostjuden for the first time allowed for a desensitizing effect, but that was a desensitizing effect that applied eventually to Jews who fit the notions of what was civilized in German culture far more than mud-booted Slavic peasants.

    I don't think the Nazis would have cared about the Slavs being Christian: especially considering that Hitler wanted to get rid of Christianity, too, after the war. But I think it is worth pointing out something interesting here: the invasion of Poland in 1939 was viewed with trepidation by most in in the German government (even if that was primarily due to the Western powers getting involved and a presumable repeat of WWI being viewed with understandable horror), and the atrocities against non-Ostjuden* being viewed with distaste-even if that distaste was muted-by army commanders and bureaucrats. However, things changed over the next two years in Poland: just as the cumulative radicalization tendencies of the German state under Hitler got more intense, there was also something of a densitizing effect on Germans who were stationed in the East. By 1941, mass slave labor, forced brothels, deportation, mass executions had just become normalized in a way they weren't in 1939.

    (Who many German soldiers were encountering for the first time-the only Ostjuden in pre-Nazi Germany being immigrants in places like Berlin. And who, as you already probably know, more or less occupied their own seperate society in prewar Poland, in contrast to Germany. For many Poles or Ukranians or Lithuanians, Yiddish might as well have been Mandarin Chinese.)

    In this way, Poland kind of served as a vital stop-gap period. Throw in the fact that the USSR was a far more backward country on the whole (serving as a great backdrop for the "Asiatic Cossack horde" that had filled European thought as a whole about Russia for centuries) and that this time around, the whole German establishment was positively gigging for Barbarossa. Not the people themselves-they just wanted the war over with for the most part. But it did mean that the German government was ready to go to unprecedented steps and that people were more receptive to carrying them out by 1941: and this spilled over into treatment of other undesireables outside the USSR.

    I'm not denying that this hit the Jews first and foremost-that the Jews were a unique threat to the German people, that needed to be gotten rid of one way or another ASAP, was made clear in Hitler's said and did. What I am saying is that the innately "self-radicalizing" nature of Hitler and the Third Reich didn't solely hit Jews, and if we extrapolate to a successful victory over the USSR what happened in German governmental thought in 1941 after two years of running things in Poland, it isn't hard to see them attempting Generalplan Ost. It would actually be necessary to have justified Barbarossa-and the way they carried out Barbarossa in not exploiting the genuine hatred felt toward Communism (though they did exploit the hatred toward Jews quite successfully-when it came to destruction, the Nazi bureaucracy was efficient. Governing, not so much. In this, it reflected its master.) in much of the Western USSR-in the first place, as AnotherDad mentioned. Hitler would have attempted it, damn all obstacles, moral or physical. That's why the Soviets fought so hard: they quickly realized that Hitler quite meant what he said when he talked about a "Vernichtungskrieg".

    Note that Hitler's personal prestige-the lodgestone of his charismatic authority, to wax Weberian for a bit-would also have been completely undamaged if he captured Moscow and had Stalin hanged in front of the Kremlin before he blew it up. He wouldn't have slunk off to East Prussia to play army commander for good and have Bormann hide him from the people and from reality. So, his influence, rather than being curtailed, would have been more intense than ever.

    Side note:

    I remember once reading a memorandum from the German high command in WWI about the treatment of Jews in the occupied East. I can't recall exactly what it said, but it essentially stated something along the lines of "the Jews aren't like the Slavic peasants in that they value education, they hustle like nobody's business, they are thrifty and don't just blow all their money on vodka, are very clever if devious, value culture, and they speak something akin to our own language. We could use them. They should be fastly civilizable. If they look filthy, lie, and steal right now like the Ostjuden stereotype, then that is a result of centuries of Russian incompetence and mistreatment, and will change with time."

    So, more or less, they still viewed themselves as an old-style colonial power-but during this period, they viewed the people as redeemable, not just the soil. Stereotypes, sure, but far from genocidal, or even negative. I wonder what changed? Even Hitler himself probably didn't become the anti-Semite that we knew him as until the war and the aftermath. The advent of "Judeo-Bolsheivism"? There was something deeper to the German-Jewish relationship (and the influence of the bourgeois culture of the Hapsburg Empire was critical here) that was lacking with other European nations, IMO.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren't against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland's anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there's evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler's part that Poland put up a fight and "caused" the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940.

    The Poles were never targeted by Germany for genocide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Films are so boring.

    Sailer should review Wolfenstein: The New Colossus.

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

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?
     
    Hardly suddenly. Starving to death takes a while....

    Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?
     
    Dunno.

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden?
     
    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    Do we have a snappy moniker for British and American atrocities in WW2?I've heard some people say that the Anglo powers had a "Zeus Complex".....

    And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
     
    Since Japanese atrocities in China aren't counted as part of the Holocaust, probably not....

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    You forgot a 0, sir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    No, he's right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Who cares. Just when the last couple of Nazis are on death's door and we were starting to look forward to the end of Nazi hunters, some idiot decides to revive the whole thing in the movies.

    Actuarial tables do not apply in the Schroedinger Cat universe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler's stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi's may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can't do it today - maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn't.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father's shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war - in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

    When did your father leave the shtetl?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Jews of Przytyk (including my father) were sent to other towns in March of 1941.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker
    The superior approach - make up a good story!

    It's notable how reliant the holocaust narrative is on works of fiction.

    Holocaust, Schindler's List, The Boy in the Striped PJs, Sophie's Choice, The Big Red One etc.

    Some stories are true that never happened.
    –Elie Wiesel

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. MBlanc46 says:
    @anon
    "...perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history..."

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki's readers

    Taki’s still has readers?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Anon
    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    No. And obviously not–except as a tautology that everything is “unique”.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender. The more compelling “anti” argument to me is whether the same terms were basically available without rushing forward the nuking. (We accepted the emperor which was a sticking point.) But compared with my dad taking part in the invasion of Japan–uh, no thanks!

    ~

    The War was actually “the good war”. It was a great anti-imperialist struggle, against two very aggressive imperialists with hideous–hideously muderous–imperalist designs on other people’s nations.

    The problem people have just acknowledging that is that the Allies didn’t have “clean hands”. The British and French had their large empires as did the Soviet Union. The US was much cleaner but did quasi imperial policing in banana republics and had–very unfortunately–dipped it’s toe into the imperial sewer colonizing the Phillipines–far and away the sleaziest and most morally vile war the US has been involved in. The Soviet Union had outright abetted the start of the war with the joint imperial grab in Poland. And then after the war gobbled up the Baltic nations and imposed imperial control on Eastern Europe. And the US engaged in quasi-imperial shenanigans to contain the Soviets. Including supporting the anti-communist right by giving back the French their colonies–in North Africa and tragically for us, Vietnam. Heck, even the Jews, immediately went out and kicked around Arabs to grab their own state. So no one comes off looking “clean”.

    Because the big victors were the Anglo-sphere, there’s been a lot of b.s. tossed up to confuse and deny what is at the foundation of much of the 20th centuries unpleasantness: Germany and later Japan rising into world where most of the territory had already been divied up between the British, French and Russian Empires.

    If the world in 1900 had instead been under the post-1945 American system of independent nations and open trade, Germany and Japan would have had their appropriate place, been very competitive–as they’ve been post-War–and the big wars would not have happened.

    But despite the victors not having clean hands, it remains the case that the War was a great anti-imperialist struggle.

    Perhaps the single sleaziest piece propaganda of all is the Jews trying to contort this war against pretty naked, explicit and bloodminded German and Japanese imperialism–a war liberating many nations–and make the villain, “nationalism”–i.e. the Jews usual villain, gentiles having and enjoying their own nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The war isn't conceived of as a simple "anti-imperialist struggle". Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.
     

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren't.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Ian M. says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount -- e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac's girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie -- but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor -- Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn't watch Stanley Tucci's version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of "Conspiracy," but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

    De Niro is would be in the leading man category, but he’s certainly had some memorable character-actor-like roles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
    De Niro and Pacino are both terribly over rated . They are memorable due to their iconic roles in some classics. But really they pretty much play the same character repeatedly.

    The only two movies I could appreciate De Niro doing something different and doing it really well were Taxi Driver and Once Upon A Time in America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    The Germans undertook to carry out the Holocaust as a covert operation under cover of "Night and Fog" and purposely did not maintain records. Nevertheless, there is more than enough documentary, photographic and forensic evidence (not to mention 6 million missing Jews) to convince anyone who is not predisposed to deny the obvious. For those who are so disposed, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn't happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    Murder is a very serious charge, Jack. Mass murder and genocide are also very serious charges. We should expect reasonably high standards of proof before they are leveled.

    When, a few months ago, you were politely asked in the comment section how you know what you assert to know about your own family’s experience in Eastern Europe, you were vague and evasive, and eventually non responsive. The evidence you did offer was remarkably thin and inconclusive, and the sequence of events hard to follow.

    I’d rather not that your own comments on this subject be a source of doubt of the official story. Could you therefore please explain to us better in detail what specifically you believe happened to members of your own family and how you know it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I repeat my suggestion that you F.O.A.D. I'm not going to debate gravity with you either or whether the earth is round.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Um, because the Germans had a war to complete? The Nazis understood full well that they needed to finish the war first, which they initially expected to have over by 1942 before executing their full plans. When that didn't pan out, they had to pretty quickly alter their plans for something more realistic that allowed them to tap into the labor supply until the war could be won.

    That lasted until about a year after the December 11th Reich Chancellery meeting, when the 6th Army was getting destroyed at Stalingrad, i.e, they couldn't even get around to being able to murder all the Jews with the time and resources they had at their disposal-it took time to build the Reinhard camps and install the gas chambers in the first place. They also needed laborers to replace all the men headed to the front. Ergo, the more fantastic plans got shelved and German propaganda started to emphasize the whole "defend the continent against the rampaging Cossack and his GPU Jew politruk enabler" schtick.

    > I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything.

    No. The Nazis had pretty specific, detailed plans on what they planned on doing to the Slavs-the NSDAP's racial departments and the SS regularly coordinated memorandum and abstracts that refer to the GPO in the East prior to 1943. Given that, Goering's Green Folder from the Nuremberg trials, the state of mind of the German leadership in 1941-1942, etc, I think it is safe to presume they were dead serious about Generalplan Ost. Hitler himself was far from shy about his intention to turn the conquered Ukraine into Germany's version of the American heartland, cleansed of natives-he even makes the comparison in his Table Talk.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who'd sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier. Slavs weren't considered that bright by the Germans, so they felt they could afford to wait until the war was over, and maybe leave a remnant over for a helot's existence-eventually to be worked to death-in the mines or factories. But to accomplish the goal of obtaining Lebensraum and making Germany into a hegemonic world power on the scale of the USA, which was the whole, existential point behind Operation Barbarossa in the first place, the natives would have to be replaced en masse. There was no way around it.

    If Hitler was not serious about obtaining Lebensraum, then he wasn't serious about his own ideology going back to the Mein Kampf days, and given his personality-that would have basically required him to have been not Hitler in the first place.

    A bunch of bunk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. utu says:
    @academic gossip
    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic "systematizing" tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron's (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the "boy genius" identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

    Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    The divergence of a trajectory from the point of plausibility is caused by an invalid extrapolation. Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    "Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it."

    You're applying metaphors here, which is ok as long as one realizes that (in making this remark, I'm not implying, that you don't).

    Except for that -

    - it's much simpler to understand foreign failures than one's own.

    If I may add one more thought:

    Since the neurotic defense mechanisms called rationalizations, for example, become less penetrable (=ever denser), the more material they consist of, those thinking of more stuff -maybe even about more subjects - than others are structurally more prone to rationalizations than the others.

    (Btw. - I did answer your modernity/postmodernity-question on Sunday evening).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier.
     
    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I've read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    Hence deporting Jews to ghettos and camps and keeping them alive for some time, as opposed to (only) the much simpler, faster and cheaper method of just shooting them. It's also why the Holocaust took priority over trying to win the war — in their minds it was necessary to win the war.

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    So the Germans surely made sure to advertise to the Allies this killing of hostages, right? And there’d be lots of documentary evidence of it, right? Because if the Allies didn’t know about it, there’d be no leverage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?
     
    Apparently you are confusing the situation in 1939 with (your imaginary view of) the situation in 2018. The fact that Roosevelt did not, even after being informed about the Holocaust, lift a finger to do anything about it (other than win the war, which he was trying to do anyway), may give you an idea about the influence of the Jews at that time. The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way - it's not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. gcochran says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.
     
    Anyone say that they were?
     
    No, but excuses are made for one side, and not the other.

    Side note-- among the few civilians killed in the Pearl Harbor attack were Japanese-American children in Honolulu. Evidently their apartment building looked like a factory. Nice irony there...

    Falling anti-aircraft shells.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. gcochran says:
    @Nick Diaz
    Steve Sailer:

    "Hitler gratuitously declared war on the mighty United States in support of his honorary Aryan ally’s attack on Pearl Harbor."

    I saw that coming. No matter what, you will always blow the horn of America. Fact is, in 1941 America wasn't "mighty "at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that's about it. America wasn't even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World. Of course, America had an enormous industrial capacity which could be turned to the war effort, but just having a large industrial capacity does not necessarily translate into a large military industrial capacity. Obviously, Japan declaring war on America turned out to be a bad decision, but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany. When america entered the European war theater on D Day, Germany was already pretty much defeated: the Red Army was already in western Poland by then. America, at the most, hastened Germany's defeat by 6 months. The Soviets would have won alone anyway.

    "a patriotic capitalist"

    The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. A patriotic capitalist is an oxymoron. The maxim of capitalism is that you maximize profits by doing business with as many people as possible, regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or nationality.

    Soviet Union did most of the heavy lifting, sure, but the Western Allies made a big contribution. More and more of the Luftwaffe had to be kept home for defense against air attacks, lots of 88s also. Plus troops that to be kept against a possible invasion, plus troops lost in North Africa and Italy, etc. Plus Lend-Lease. Plus the struggle in the Atlantic.

    By the way, having a a large industrial capacity did indeed translate into a large military industrial capacity, pretty rapidly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Jack D
    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler's stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi's may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can't do it today - maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn't.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father's shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war - in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

    Jack–the obvious–if you don’t agree with Nebulafox, with Hitler’s own pretty well stated goals, then what the heck was the point of invading the Soviet Union?

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, turning Hitler’s invasion/obliteration of Poland into a real World War. But the Soviet Union was a co-conspirator in the invasion.

    There are really on two plausible answers:

    1) That Hitler feared/expected the Soviet Union would attack Germany. Not ridiculous–but when revisionists bring this up it is pooh-poohed.

    2) Lebesraum. Hitler really does intend to grab up living space for the Germans in the East and at the very least turn the East into a giant German argicultural and resource colony.

    (Note: I’m not arguing that they were going to explicitly do X,Y or Z; exactly follow every paragraph and subsection of Generalplan Ost. That’s all subject to “events” and “whatever works”. But the general thrust was clear.)

    That Hitler has a serious bug up his butt with the Jews and–not inaccurately–sees them as at the vanguard of communist subversion, that’s a given. But that Hitler isn’t serious about lebensraum–colonizing the East either for slave labor or new territory for Germans–doesn’t make any sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Most historians claim Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union was for the oil, gasoline iron coal and minerals of the Soviet Union and slave labor
    , @Jack D
    I suspect that even if (God forbid) the German had won the war they would not have ultimately genocided the Slavs in the way that they did the Jews, to the point of extinction. As a.g. points out, this would have been a whole 'nother order of magnitude (maybe even exponentially) more difficult than killing the Jewish minority. They might have killed the most pesky troublemakers, exiled others to an area outside the Reich and kept the rest as labor. Maybe there would have been a program to make the most loyal Slavs into "honorary Aryans". (The Ukrainian nationalists got along swimmingly with the Nazis). It's not like the Germans had enough of their own people to instantly populate all of Poland and Ukraine. Maybe in Hitler's view, the German race would have filled up the East in two or three hundred years, the scale of time it took for the Americans to fill the continent but in the meantime they would have needed someone else to operate the breadbasket.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Hank Yobo says:
    @Nick Diaz
    Steve Sailer:

    "Hitler gratuitously declared war on the mighty United States in support of his honorary Aryan ally’s attack on Pearl Harbor."

    I saw that coming. No matter what, you will always blow the horn of America. Fact is, in 1941 America wasn't "mighty "at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that's about it. America wasn't even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World. Of course, America had an enormous industrial capacity which could be turned to the war effort, but just having a large industrial capacity does not necessarily translate into a large military industrial capacity. Obviously, Japan declaring war on America turned out to be a bad decision, but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany. When america entered the European war theater on D Day, Germany was already pretty much defeated: the Red Army was already in western Poland by then. America, at the most, hastened Germany's defeat by 6 months. The Soviets would have won alone anyway.

    "a patriotic capitalist"

    The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. A patriotic capitalist is an oxymoron. The maxim of capitalism is that you maximize profits by doing business with as many people as possible, regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or nationality.

    American forces were involved in the July 1943 invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) and two months later carried the offensive over to Italy. Thus, they had thousands of troops fighting in Europe’s “soft underbelly” almost a year before D-Day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. gcochran says:
    @Byrresheim

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.
     
    You forgot a 0, sir.

    No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.
     
    Citation needed.
    , @utu

    Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.
     
    Nazis did not use their high losses as propaganda tool. It was bad for the morale. The death tolls of city bombings were available only to the insiders.

    It is possible that the 25k number arrived at by German and British historians in the spirit of reconciliation to make Coventry bombing on par with Dresden bombing is too low.
    , @David In TN
    "No, he's right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda."

    Yes, the East German Communist regime played up the Dresden bombing partly to counter the Soviet atrocities in 1945. Also a stick to beat the Americans and British with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    No. And obviously not--except as a tautology that everything is "unique".

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender. The more compelling "anti" argument to me is whether the same terms were basically available without rushing forward the nuking. (We accepted the emperor which was a sticking point.) But compared with my dad taking part in the invasion of Japan--uh, no thanks!

    ~

    The War was actually "the good war". It was a great anti-imperialist struggle, against two very aggressive imperialists with hideous--hideously muderous--imperalist designs on other people's nations.

    The problem people have just acknowledging that is that the Allies didn't have "clean hands". The British and French had their large empires as did the Soviet Union. The US was much cleaner but did quasi imperial policing in banana republics and had--very unfortunately--dipped it's toe into the imperial sewer colonizing the Phillipines--far and away the sleaziest and most morally vile war the US has been involved in. The Soviet Union had outright abetted the start of the war with the joint imperial grab in Poland. And then after the war gobbled up the Baltic nations and imposed imperial control on Eastern Europe. And the US engaged in quasi-imperial shenanigans to contain the Soviets. Including supporting the anti-communist right by giving back the French their colonies--in North Africa and tragically for us, Vietnam. Heck, even the Jews, immediately went out and kicked around Arabs to grab their own state. So no one comes off looking "clean".

    Because the big victors were the Anglo-sphere, there's been a lot of b.s. tossed up to confuse and deny what is at the foundation of much of the 20th centuries unpleasantness: Germany and later Japan rising into world where most of the territory had already been divied up between the British, French and Russian Empires.

    If the world in 1900 had instead been under the post-1945 American system of independent nations and open trade, Germany and Japan would have had their appropriate place, been very competitive--as they've been post-War--and the big wars would not have happened.

    But despite the victors not having clean hands, it remains the case that the War was a great anti-imperialist struggle.

    Perhaps the single sleaziest piece propaganda of all is the Jews trying to contort this war against pretty naked, explicit and bloodminded German and Japanese imperialism--a war liberating many nations--and make the villain, "nationalism"--i.e. the Jews usual villain, gentiles having and enjoying their own nations.

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.
     
    As i said, no one had clean hands.

    But the Germans and Japanese launched the war with clear imperialist designs.

    And it was resisted by the people of many nations who did not want to submit to their imperial designs--i.e. lose their nations. Sure there were a few nations like Britain, France, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United States, where either the Germans or Japanese invaded some piece of their empires. But it also includes honest legitimate distaste for expanding empire--definitely in the US, with the case of Japanese behavior in China and Germany's occupation of European nations. And, of course, all these nations being gobbled up--Korea, China, Austria (mixed), Czechslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Vietnam ... certainly felt their struggle was legitimate and anti-imperialist and victory "liberation".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @27 year old

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history,
     
    Yeah except for that one tiny little thing that is conspicuously non-documented....

    An interesting, if skeptical, analysis by commenter Kratoklastes:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran
    No, he's right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Citation needed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @academic gossip
    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic "systematizing" tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron's (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the "boy genius" identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world

    What is Steve’s “mental model of the Jewish Angle”? I don’t think Steve has ever proposed any sort of model with respect to Jews. He writes about Jewish issues and figures, and he can be critical of Jewish figures, especially in the media and political punditry, but he doesn’t claim to have some theory that explains the “Jewish Angle”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Anonymous
    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!

    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!

    Consecutive, or concurrent?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @oddsbodkins
    That Arendt quote is gold. Great review-turned-essay.

    The German Jews were the best, by a mile. They had imbibed the glories of German culture and done their best to make it their own.
    They were so enamored of that miraculous civilisation that they pondered its origins and began, particularly after the awakening of the German nation through the depredations of Napoleon, to so fully identify with it as to convert to its religious impulse, i.e. Christianity. The number was not great, but it was significant, which is to say that the Mendelssohns were not unique.
    All of this was destroyed (like everything else of value) by the defeat (of all of us) in 1918.

    Of course the “German” Jews were not confined to the bounderies of the Second Reich. The best of the Jewish families in Austria, Bohemia & Moravia, and Hungary are certainly worthy of being counted amongst them – and would have expected to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Conversion had some popularity among the most successful German Jews because it was the path to advancement and not (in most cases) because of any serious love for Jesus. There was a sort of glass ceiling for Jews which you could break by converting. They became Christians for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren is "an Indian".

    But most German Jews didn't feel it was necessary to convert - the joke about German Jews is that they were exactly like other Germans except that they went to church on Saturday.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @AnotherDad

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.
     
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    No. And obviously not--except as a tautology that everything is "unique".

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender. The more compelling "anti" argument to me is whether the same terms were basically available without rushing forward the nuking. (We accepted the emperor which was a sticking point.) But compared with my dad taking part in the invasion of Japan--uh, no thanks!

    ~

    The War was actually "the good war". It was a great anti-imperialist struggle, against two very aggressive imperialists with hideous--hideously muderous--imperalist designs on other people's nations.

    The problem people have just acknowledging that is that the Allies didn't have "clean hands". The British and French had their large empires as did the Soviet Union. The US was much cleaner but did quasi imperial policing in banana republics and had--very unfortunately--dipped it's toe into the imperial sewer colonizing the Phillipines--far and away the sleaziest and most morally vile war the US has been involved in. The Soviet Union had outright abetted the start of the war with the joint imperial grab in Poland. And then after the war gobbled up the Baltic nations and imposed imperial control on Eastern Europe. And the US engaged in quasi-imperial shenanigans to contain the Soviets. Including supporting the anti-communist right by giving back the French their colonies--in North Africa and tragically for us, Vietnam. Heck, even the Jews, immediately went out and kicked around Arabs to grab their own state. So no one comes off looking "clean".

    Because the big victors were the Anglo-sphere, there's been a lot of b.s. tossed up to confuse and deny what is at the foundation of much of the 20th centuries unpleasantness: Germany and later Japan rising into world where most of the territory had already been divied up between the British, French and Russian Empires.

    If the world in 1900 had instead been under the post-1945 American system of independent nations and open trade, Germany and Japan would have had their appropriate place, been very competitive--as they've been post-War--and the big wars would not have happened.

    But despite the victors not having clean hands, it remains the case that the War was a great anti-imperialist struggle.

    Perhaps the single sleaziest piece propaganda of all is the Jews trying to contort this war against pretty naked, explicit and bloodminded German and Japanese imperialism--a war liberating many nations--and make the villain, "nationalism"--i.e. the Jews usual villain, gentiles having and enjoying their own nations.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
    From a humanitarian perspective, I feel nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified

    1) The Emperor recommended mass suicide of the Japanese nation. This compelled many men to commit seppuku and many women calmly walked into the sea with their infants .Not run, not scream hysterically but walked. Let that sink in.

    2) Not an insignificant number of U.S troops died in Okinawa alone. About 50000 casulties, including more than 10000 dead.110000 Japanese troops and perhaps equal number of civilians.

    3) An A bomb was useful to show Russia who was boss and prevent any further aggression and designs on its part
    , @AnotherDad

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.
     
    This is a good, legitimate point. And I'm not a knowledgeable enough historian to debate the issue in any great detail.

    However there is some evidence that this new form of warfare, allowed Hirohito to--against tradition--intervene with the cabinet and the surrender faction to gain a clear upper hand. If i remember correctly--don't quote me, knowledgeable folks can comment--in the aftermath of that cabinet meeting, at least one and i believe a few of the hardliners went home and committed seppuku.


    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren’t.
     
    Who? Whom?

    They are all war crimes. Credit to Curtis LeMay that he was forthright about this.


    My take here is pretty straightforward:

    The Japanese made their play to acquire a resource and slave labor empire. It failed. In 1945 they--Japan's military junta that was it's architect--can either face that failure and surrender or fight on. But at that point, if you're asking me as an American, who should die because the Japanese imperialists are fighting on? My answer is: Japanese should die rather than Americans.

    Combatants and non-combatants is generally a good distinction in a fight. But Japanese civilians--women and children included--are no more "innocent" than American boys. Neither of them started the war. If those Japanese civilians do not want to be incinerated--then resist, protest, stage a coup. Japan--Japanese policy--is ultimately their responsibility not mine.

    So yeah, chosing between the lives of American soldiers--innocent--and Japanese civlians--mostly innocent, but *of* and responsible for their nation--i chose the Japanese to die. The ultimate responsibility for their deaths rests with the Japanese architects of their imperial adventure and their refusal to surrender when defeated.
    , @Craken
    The A-bombs were necessary to end the war before the Soviets could invade northern Japan and split yet another strategic nation between the two Cold War blocks. The Japanese position had been hopeless for some time, yet they refused to surrender. How many do you suppose would have died in the event of a joint Russo-American invasion?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?
     
    Why do you think deserts ought to determine what happens in war?

    Did the young Americans that died in WW2 deserve to die? How about the ones at Pearl Harbor? Did the victims of the atrocities of the Bataan Death March deserve what the Japanese meted out to them? Did the victims of the Rape of Nanking deserve the vicious and vile actions the Japanese visited upon them?

    Perform a simple thought experiment. Suppose there was no Atomic Bomb. Would there have been fewer or more Japanese dead? Will you say fewer, because Okinawa and Saipan prove you would be wrong. If you say more, then why are you complaining about the Atomic Bomb?

    In war, deserts and outcomes have no relationship. You want to take an 'is' and turn it into an 'ought' and Hume showed there is no path between them.

    The Japanese started the war. We finished it in a manner as kind and gentle as possible. And Japan has flourished in the postwar period. Your perspective is false, dishonest, and worst of all, pernicious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hank Yobo
    The Soviets tried to bury their mistakes. At least that was their modus operandi after the murders at Katyn Forest. A crime for which they first tried to blame the Nazis.

    So what did Germany do with the 2+ million Soviet corpses they had on their hands that winter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    I don’t know. Perhaps they left them for the wolves or other scavengers to devour because the Germans considered their Soviet opponents to be Untermenschen and, therefore, not entitled to a Christian burial.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.

    Camp inmates witnessed millions of Jews being put into gas chambers?

    Why is it that mainstream historians consider survivor testimony generally to be unreliable?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.
     
    So was the V-2 rocket program, which had no military value.

    So was the allied aerial bombing campaign, also of questionable military value.

    Imagine thinking that a corpse could be cremated with a single layer of wood, in an oven, much less on an open air pyre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Imagine thinking that a corpse could be cremated with a single layer of wood, in an oven, much less on an open air pyre.
     
    Yes, that's why the Vikings and the Indians always used industrial furnaces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm waiting to see what Chazelle and Gosling have done with Armstrong, the modest hero I was thinking about in my comment. I've watched the trailers and read the reviews from the festivals, and it seems they've found a way.

    I see Giamatti as a leading man and I really like him.

    I remember the 1970s as a time when "ethnics" like Pacino became popular. A friend of mine met him in a Manhattan bar just before The Godfather. They shared drinks and Pacino mentioned that he had just been cast in a big movie. Getting up to leave, he told my friend, "Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino."

    I like Paul Giamatti but he is horribly miscast (along with many other actors) in the soso series Billions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Nick Diaz
    Steve Sailer:

    "Hitler gratuitously declared war on the mighty United States in support of his honorary Aryan ally’s attack on Pearl Harbor."

    I saw that coming. No matter what, you will always blow the horn of America. Fact is, in 1941 America wasn't "mighty "at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that's about it. America wasn't even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World. Of course, America had an enormous industrial capacity which could be turned to the war effort, but just having a large industrial capacity does not necessarily translate into a large military industrial capacity. Obviously, Japan declaring war on America turned out to be a bad decision, but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany. When america entered the European war theater on D Day, Germany was already pretty much defeated: the Red Army was already in western Poland by then. America, at the most, hastened Germany's defeat by 6 months. The Soviets would have won alone anyway.

    "a patriotic capitalist"

    The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. A patriotic capitalist is an oxymoron. The maxim of capitalism is that you maximize profits by doing business with as many people as possible, regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or nationality.

    Fact is, in 1941 America wasn’t “mighty “at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that’s about it. America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World…
    but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany.

    Seriously Nick, get a clue. Really this sort of stupidity is pretty much beyond words. At least bother to learn the basic chronology so you don’t utter nonsense like:

    When america entered the European war theater on D Day …

    Ironically your take here–”America, muh”–is the same as Hitler’s. He thought our joint was too racially corrupted (i.e. diverse) and so of no account. (Becoming more and more true, but wasn’t true then.)

    In contrast, a somewhat smarter operator, Churchill, heard about Pearl Harbor and was estatic. America’s in … we’re going to win.

    The bottom line:
    America out–The Axis probably should win.
    America in–The Axis is certain to lose.

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

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

     

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2.....like cannibalism....or going berserk in Manila...or committing mass suicide rather than surrender.....

    Was the Japanese contempt for non Japanese (apart from Koreans) due to their own racial supremacist views built on their xenophobia and insularity as an island nation or was it in imitation of their German partners.
    Interestingly the Japanese surrendered to an African battalion under the British due to the belief that if they were killed and eaten by Africans, they would be shunned by their ancestors.

    As an aside, those who bore the brunt of defeat in WWII- the Japanese and Germans sure have some weirdass porn. Wonder if that has something to do with various repressed emotions about the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DH
    All weirdass porn is jewish. Make that all porn is Jewish. Period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Ian M.
    De Niro is would be in the leading man category, but he's certainly had some memorable character-actor-like roles.

    De Niro and Pacino are both terribly over rated . They are memorable due to their iconic roles in some classics. But really they pretty much play the same character repeatedly.

    The only two movies I could appreciate De Niro doing something different and doing it really well were Taxi Driver and Once Upon A Time in America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    Agree on Pacino. I like him in The Godfather, but not so much in other stuff I've seen him in (he overacts).

    I like De Niro though; however, I do agree he plays the same character a lot (Casino, Goodfellas, Heat, etc.).

    But I think he's done some memorable character roles too, at least earlier in his career. And I tend to appreciate his character roles more than the actual movies in which he plays them (Taxi Driver is a good example: don't care for the movie much). Other roles of his that I think are memorable are Bang the Drum Slowly and Awakenings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @academic gossip
    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic "systematizing" tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron's (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the "boy genius" identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

    Perhaps Anonymous is taking Ron Unz’s own reporting of his IQ as 214 at face value. 214-70 is 144, which is about what I have always assumed Steve’s IQ to be.

    But if Ron is actually only at 180 say, then a 110 for Steve would be manifestly absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    The guy who mentioned IQ might have been trolling, or not. There are no reliable IQs in that range (from standard tests anyway), especially childhood IQ, which is the only way to get absurd extrapolations like 200. Ability above, say, 3 standard deviations is better assessed by actual performance history.

    Ron was in a selective gifted-students program, won the Westinghouse competition back in the old days (minimum 140, very variable, some winners are a lot higher) and did well as a Harvard physics undergrad (guess 140-145 is required). He dropped out of his PhD program, receiving some sort of courtesy master's degree, leaving no research trail to evaluate. So he did a bunch of things that reliably signal 14o+, but Steve must also be in that range.

    Ron's math skills as demonstrated in the Hispanic crime, Asian admission, and Holocaust analyses, are far below what usually is left over after a youth full of upper tier physics training. Winging it based on a quantitative "feeling" or suspicion is totally in line with theoretical physicist culture, but his actual math ability has rusted more so than I would expect from people who had huge ability in the first place. On the other hand he does show undiminished tendencies, that he would call Jewish, toward hyper-verbalization, ambition, financial enterprise, ownership of media, political activism, argumentation, and "value transference" (he made his money on software to enable the mortgage bubble, cashing in just before the bubble popped). His academic history is also that of the stereotypical Jewish whiz kid, with the early accomplishment and Ivy League degree followed by graduate study in the most speculative and experiment-free part of theoretical physics (quantum gravity). I wonder if Ron recognizes the number of Jewish stereotypes that he embodies even as he argues that the true blood libel was against Gentiles. I say that as someone grateful that he has established a site for heterodox material even if some of it is completely insane.

    It seems to me that Ron and Steve have similar levels of underlying ability, with Ron better at math (in a striving ambitious Jewish verbal-derived way, as he might put it) while Steve is better at some hard to measure things like "noticing" but in the end actually posts sharper quantitative/statistical analysis, in addition to his other strengths.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Reg Cæsar

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.
     

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren't.

    From a humanitarian perspective, I feel nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified

    1) The Emperor recommended mass suicide of the Japanese nation. This compelled many men to commit seppuku and many women calmly walked into the sea with their infants .Not run, not scream hysterically but walked. Let that sink in.

    2) Not an insignificant number of U.S troops died in Okinawa alone. About 50000 casulties, including more than 10000 dead.110000 Japanese troops and perhaps equal number of civilians.

    3) An A bomb was useful to show Russia who was boss and prevent any further aggression and designs on its part

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    So the end justifies the means?

    Congratulations. You're Machiavellian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Svigor says:
    @Jack D
    The Germans undertook to carry out the Holocaust as a covert operation under cover of "Night and Fog" and purposely did not maintain records. Nevertheless, there is more than enough documentary, photographic and forensic evidence (not to mention 6 million missing Jews) to convince anyone who is not predisposed to deny the obvious. For those who are so disposed, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn't happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    Bit of pilpul here. I’d take substantial amounts of real forensic evidence of death as proof. E.g., bodies or their remains, or proportionate amount of ash.

    But “missing Jews” is fairly lame. For one thing it relies on inherently dubious census figures (you couldn’t even get a count of American Jews based on the most recent American census). Further, it relies on the dubious idea that missing = murdered, something they won’t even allow for a run of the mill murder case in any proper, 1st world court (prosecuting a murder without a corpse, or sufficient parts of a corpse to prove death, or some other actual evidence that the supposed victim is actually dead, is basically a non-starter); never mind 12 million murders.

    Note that I am not denying anyone’s claim here. I’m simply accurately characterizing the claim.

    For all we know, the Soviets got their hands on them and disappeared them in Siberia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    JackD wrote:
    6 million missing Jews
     

    Svigor wrote:
    it relies on the dubious idea that missing = murdered
     
    Consider this:

    White non-Hispanic population of Washington, D.C. (U.S. Census)
    1940: 473,606
    1950: 510,000 [ca.] ('Hispanic' category not included; 'Whites' at 517,865)
    1970: 200,656
    1980: 164,244

    345,000 Whites of Washington, D.C., vanished between the 1950 and 1980.

    Where are these missing Whites?

    ____________________

    This is not meant to be insulting to anyone. It is meant to propose that showing population numbers between two fixed points, with no other explanation given could give certain false impressions. Very, very few of those 345,000 missing Whites were actually killed, 1950-1979; few were even assaulted or otherwise victimized; some fair number suffered property damage (the April 1968 riots destroyed or damaging thousands of buildings). We all know the story of what happened to these Whites; they left because they saw better prospects elsewhere and the political climate no longer suitable to stick around. There are certainly parallels with what happened to many of the Jews of Eastern Europe.

    Who would want to stick around communist Poland (or Washington, D.C.) with people who hate you glowering at you every day, anyway?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Reg Cæsar

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.
     

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren't.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    This is a good, legitimate point. And I’m not a knowledgeable enough historian to debate the issue in any great detail.

    However there is some evidence that this new form of warfare, allowed Hirohito to–against tradition–intervene with the cabinet and the surrender faction to gain a clear upper hand. If i remember correctly–don’t quote me, knowledgeable folks can comment–in the aftermath of that cabinet meeting, at least one and i believe a few of the hardliners went home and committed seppuku.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren’t.

    Who? Whom?

    They are all war crimes. Credit to Curtis LeMay that he was forthright about this.

    My take here is pretty straightforward:

    The Japanese made their play to acquire a resource and slave labor empire. It failed. In 1945 they–Japan’s military junta that was it’s architect–can either face that failure and surrender or fight on. But at that point, if you’re asking me as an American, who should die because the Japanese imperialists are fighting on? My answer is: Japanese should die rather than Americans.

    Combatants and non-combatants is generally a good distinction in a fight. But Japanese civilians–women and children included–are no more “innocent” than American boys. Neither of them started the war. If those Japanese civilians do not want to be incinerated–then resist, protest, stage a coup. Japan–Japanese policy–is ultimately their responsibility not mine.

    So yeah, chosing between the lives of American soldiers–innocent–and Japanese civlians–mostly innocent, but *of* and responsible for their nation–i chose the Japanese to die. The ultimate responsibility for their deaths rests with the Japanese architects of their imperial adventure and their refusal to surrender when defeated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Anonymous
    The war isn't conceived of as a simple "anti-imperialist struggle". Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.

    As i said, no one had clean hands.

    But the Germans and Japanese launched the war with clear imperialist designs.

    And it was resisted by the people of many nations who did not want to submit to their imperial designs–i.e. lose their nations. Sure there were a few nations like Britain, France, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United States, where either the Germans or Japanese invaded some piece of their empires. But it also includes honest legitimate distaste for expanding empire–definitely in the US, with the case of Japanese behavior in China and Germany’s occupation of European nations. And, of course, all these nations being gobbled up–Korea, China, Austria (mixed), Czechslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Vietnam … certainly felt their struggle was legitimate and anti-imperialist and victory “liberation”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There were also nationalists in Europe and Asia who were pro-Axis for anti-imperialist reasons:

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

    Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945)[1][a] was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,[2][b][3][c][4][d] but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left an ambivalent legacy.[5][e][6][f][2][g] The honorific Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the name granted to him in the early 1940s by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, was later used throughout India.[7][h]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @utu

    Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.
     
    The divergence of a trajectory from the point of plausibility is caused by an invalid extrapolation. Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.

    “Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.”

    You’re applying metaphors here, which is ok as long as one realizes that (in making this remark, I’m not implying, that you don’t).

    Except for that -

    - it’s much simpler to understand foreign failures than one’s own.

    If I may add one more thought:

    Since the neurotic defense mechanisms called rationalizations, for example, become less penetrable (=ever denser), the more material they consist of, those thinking of more stuff -maybe even about more subjects – than others are structurally more prone to rationalizations than the others.

    (Btw. – I did answer your modernity/postmodernity-question on Sunday evening).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an “operation finale” to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an “operation finale” to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?
     
    Is the title Operation Finale a dog whistle by the filmmakers to their correligionists about the final solution to the White Gentile Problem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Again, you’re assuming dropping the bombs in the center of cities– on Christian cathedrals, for Christ’s sake– saved lives that dropping them outside and in view of those cities would not have.

    The easy way to find out would have been to try the less lethal method first. That evidently didn’t occur to anybody, after taking out a million civilian lives elsewhere in the country with “conventional” aerial bombs. (Aerial bombing of any kind hadn’t been around that long.)

    The other case you could make is that the use we made of them exposed us as at least as amoral as they were, and our claims to moral superiority were naught but hot volcanic air. That was probably true.

    As a future teenager might have written about a later war, “Genocide is painless, it brings on many changes, and I can take or leave it if I please.”

    At any rate, Truman said the buck stopped with him. Tell that to Lt. Calley., who was made to answer for far smaller sins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. J.Ross says: • Website

    I have an idea for a movie, it’s called “Untersturmbannfuhrer Schmitt Eats a Sandwich.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  220. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.
     
    Murder is a very serious charge, Jack. Mass murder and genocide are also very serious charges. We should expect reasonably high standards of proof before they are leveled.

    When, a few months ago, you were politely asked in the comment section how you know what you assert to know about your own family's experience in Eastern Europe, you were vague and evasive, and eventually non responsive. The evidence you did offer was remarkably thin and inconclusive, and the sequence of events hard to follow.

    I'd rather not that your own comments on this subject be a source of doubt of the official story. Could you therefore please explain to us better in detail what specifically you believe happened to members of your own family and how you know it?

    I repeat my suggestion that you F.O.A.D. I’m not going to debate gravity with you either or whether the earth is round.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are leveling one of the most monstrous charges imaginable against an entire group of people. You'd better be able to back it up.

    You must know that you don't have much evidence for it. Otherwise, you would state it here. I can't imagine it would require more than three paragraphs. You've been asked about as civilly as possible. (And it cannot be that the subject is too painful for you, as you regularly take the initiative in bringing it up here, even mentioning close relations of yours.)

    Bring the evidence and reasoning or cease the defamation.
    , @Svigor
    Imagine thinking some historical event (that it's very much in your ethnic interest to do so is just a coincidence, I'm sure) is as unassailable a fact as gravity.

    LOL.

    That's not history, Jack. It's religion. Not all of us share it.

    , @anonymous
    You see? Doubting muh holocaust narrative is equivalent to doubting gravity or that the earth is round--except that for one you can go to prison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Jack D
    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler's stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi's may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can't do it today - maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn't.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father's shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war - in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

    Even with full cooperation of all the German troops, the logistics of exterminating a large nation on its own territory would be orders of magnitude more difficult than isolating and then killing the Jews. Killing 10 percent of the population to scare the rest into submission (while they wait for the Allies to win the war) is one thing, but a program of genocide and slavery would lead to total, implacable, endless resistance. Vietnam times ten.

    Thanks for the information from your father. One of the odd things about Holocaust revisionism is that it never bothers to account for the perfect consistency in all the thousands of camp prisoners’ memories of “selection at the ramp”. If something other than immediate guaranteed death were the destination of the un-selected, then in some percentage of the stories a prisoner would be separated from a family member (or someone they know) who was sent toward the presumed gas chamber, but later on meet them again or discover that they were alive. Unfortunately in the actual stories that never happens, the non-selected just disappear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Killing a whole country wouldn't be very difficult: civilians don't have much of a chance against soldiers with modern weapons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. utu says:
    @gcochran
    No, he's right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Nazis did not use their high losses as propaganda tool. It was bad for the morale. The death tolls of city bombings were available only to the insiders.

    It is possible that the 25k number arrived at by German and British historians in the spirit of reconciliation to make Coventry bombing on par with Dresden bombing is too low.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    In this case, late in the war, they sure did [ Kershaw's 'The End', p 238-239.] Goebbels and other Nazi leaders used the bombing of Dresden to emphasize the need to fight on. I don't think it worked: many Germans were petrified at what the Russians might do, but few worried about what the US or GB would do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an "operation finale" to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?

    Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an “operation finale” to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?

    Is the title Operation Finale a dog whistle by the filmmakers to their correligionists about the final solution to the White Gentile Problem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.
     
    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.
     
    So the Germans surely made sure to advertise to the Allies this killing of hostages, right? And there'd be lots of documentary evidence of it, right? Because if the Allies didn't know about it, there'd be no leverage.

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Apparently you are confusing the situation in 1939 with (your imaginary view of) the situation in 2018. The fact that Roosevelt did not, even after being informed about the Holocaust, lift a finger to do anything about it (other than win the war, which he was trying to do anyway), may give you an idea about the influence of the Jews at that time. The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way – it’s not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Puleeeeze! Had Roosevelt bombed the camps or the rail lines he would be villified as a partner of Hitler who bombed the camps and slaughtered helpless Jews.
    Bombing rail lines is pretty useless. Rail lines are very fast and easy to fix. Just put tracks, ties, gravel and workers on a train. Drive to the damaged section and it can be fixed in a day.

    During the civil war*, the Yankees had to destroy the train tracks continually because railroad tracks are so fast and easy to fix.

    Yeah yeah, I know it’s really the WONA.

    , @Johann Ricke

    The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way – it’s not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.
     
    Pointless to bomb. The camps were an elaborate charade to obscure an atrocity that could have been accomplished in days. The camps probably prolonged the lives of the Jews ensconced within.

    I don't understand the motives of the people playing up the decision to avoid bombing the camps or the rail lines that led to them. German soldiers, Wehrmacht or SS, had no issues summarily executing millions of Jews and other civilians using guns or whatever weapons were at hand without the roundabout legerdemain of camps.
    , @Johann Ricke
    The exquisite irony of the death camps is that an expensive and logistically-complicated method of large-scale massacre, created in order to obscure atrocity, actually became a bigger symbol of man's inhumanity to man than numberless mass graves of Jews and other civilians who had been summarily shot, grenaded or bayoneted to death, whose only crimes were their ethnicity and their locations in the path of Germany's advancing armies. There's a lot of pathos to be derived from people who are rounded up and sent to labor and, eventually, death camps, because the process takes years. But very little from people who are just assembled, killed and buried where they stand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Too much Burger King?

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.
     

    Governor Jerry Brown of California lived like that most of his life till he finally got married in his old age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I repeat my suggestion that you F.O.A.D. I'm not going to debate gravity with you either or whether the earth is round.

    You are leveling one of the most monstrous charges imaginable against an entire group of people. You’d better be able to back it up.

    You must know that you don’t have much evidence for it. Otherwise, you would state it here. I can’t imagine it would require more than three paragraphs. You’ve been asked about as civilly as possible. (And it cannot be that the subject is too painful for you, as you regularly take the initiative in bringing it up here, even mentioning close relations of yours.)

    Bring the evidence and reasoning or cease the defamation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jack D is under no obligation to list all his murdered family members by name because that would make it simple to dox his own identity. I strongly favor iSteve commenters taking steps to protect their own identities.
    , @Jack D
    It's an honor to defame Nazis. I owe you nothing - visit Yad Vashem if you have any questions. Visit Auschwitz. Even an idiot like you will be moved. FOAD.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Jack D says:
    @anon
    When did your father leave the shtetl?

    The Jews of Przytyk (including my father) were sent to other towns in March of 1941.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    The holocaust is for Jews, including atheists what the cruxifixion and Easter is for Christians and the battle of Karbala is for shiite Muslims. The big difference is that the Christians and Muslims commemorate their events a few days a year but the Jews commemorate the holofraud 365 days a year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  229. Jack D says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    The German Jews were the best, by a mile. They had imbibed the glories of German culture and done their best to make it their own.
    They were so enamored of that miraculous civilisation that they pondered its origins and began, particularly after the awakening of the German nation through the depredations of Napoleon, to so fully identify with it as to convert to its religious impulse, i.e. Christianity. The number was not great, but it was significant, which is to say that the Mendelssohns were not unique.
    All of this was destroyed (like everything else of value) by the defeat (of all of us) in 1918.

    Of course the "German" Jews were not confined to the bounderies of the Second Reich. The best of the Jewish families in Austria, Bohemia & Moravia, and Hungary are certainly worthy of being counted amongst them - and would have expected to be.

    Conversion had some popularity among the most successful German Jews because it was the path to advancement and not (in most cases) because of any serious love for Jesus. There was a sort of glass ceiling for Jews which you could break by converting. They became Christians for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren is “an Indian”.

    But most German Jews didn’t feel it was necessary to convert – the joke about German Jews is that they were exactly like other Germans except that they went to church on Saturday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    That joke would be better if it were:

    "German Jews were exactly like other Germans except that they went to church."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?
     
    Apparently you are confusing the situation in 1939 with (your imaginary view of) the situation in 2018. The fact that Roosevelt did not, even after being informed about the Holocaust, lift a finger to do anything about it (other than win the war, which he was trying to do anyway), may give you an idea about the influence of the Jews at that time. The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way - it's not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

    Puleeeeze! Had Roosevelt bombed the camps or the rail lines he would be villified as a partner of Hitler who bombed the camps and slaughtered helpless Jews.
    Bombing rail lines is pretty useless. Rail lines are very fast and easy to fix. Just put tracks, ties, gravel and workers on a train. Drive to the damaged section and it can be fixed in a day.

    During the civil war*, the Yankees had to destroy the train tracks continually because railroad tracks are so fast and easy to fix.

    Yeah yeah, I know it’s really the WONA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Bombing rail lines is pretty useless.

    In "Lawrence of Arabia" the blowing up of rail lines in the desert looks spectacular, but it's main effect was to force the Turks to repair them over and over at some cost. Lawrence tried to keep his attacks from getting too numerous because he didn't want to cause the Turks to abandon their outpost in Medina, which would have saved the Turks a lot of resources.

    Yes, although bombing rail bridges is potentially useful. For example,the USAF tried to bomb a critical rail bridge over a canyon in North Vietnam from 1965 onward, but never succeeded in touching it until the introduction of smart bombs in 1972.

    The Smart Bomb Era can lead people nowadays to underestimate how hard it was to hit any one target from high altitude before 1972.

    One exception was that low level fighter bombers like the armored P-47 had a field day blowing up rail connections to Normandy in 1944, but that was because they had air supremacy and could fly low over the countryside and shoot and bomb infrastructure at their leisure. Auschwitz in contrast was far too far away from English air bases to allow that kind of tactic, so attacks would have had to come from heavy bombers at, say, 20,000 feet. So the chance of hitting any particular rail bridge would have been modest and blasting rail lines on flat land is easily repaired.
    , @Ian M.

    During the civil war*, the Yankees had to destroy the train tracks continually because railroad tracks are so fast and easy to fix.
     
    In his personal memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant relates the following anecdote:

    [L]ike ourselves, the rebels had become experts in repairing such damage [to railroads]. Sherman… relates an anecdote of his campaign to Atlanta that well illustrates this point. The rebel cavalry lurking in his rear to burn bridges and obstruct his communications had become so disgusted at hearing trains go whistling by within a few hours after a bridge had been burned, that they proposed to try blowing up some of the tunnels. One of them said, “No use, boys, Old Sherman carries duplicate tunnels with him, and will replace them as fast as you can blow them up; better save your powder.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Jack--the obvious--if you don't agree with Nebulafox, with Hitler's own pretty well stated goals, then what the heck was the point of invading the Soviet Union?

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, turning Hitler's invasion/obliteration of Poland into a real World War. But the Soviet Union was a co-conspirator in the invasion.

    There are really on two plausible answers:

    1) That Hitler feared/expected the Soviet Union would attack Germany. Not ridiculous--but when revisionists bring this up it is pooh-poohed.

    2) Lebesraum. Hitler really does intend to grab up living space for the Germans in the East and at the very least turn the East into a giant German argicultural and resource colony.

    (Note: I'm not arguing that they were going to explicitly do X,Y or Z; exactly follow every paragraph and subsection of Generalplan Ost. That's all subject to "events" and "whatever works". But the general thrust was clear.)

    That Hitler has a serious bug up his butt with the Jews and--not inaccurately--sees them as at the vanguard of communist subversion, that's a given. But that Hitler isn't serious about lebensraum--colonizing the East either for slave labor or new territory for Germans--doesn't make any sense.

    Most historians claim Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union was for the oil, gasoline iron coal and minerals of the Soviet Union and slave labor

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad
    Jack--the obvious--if you don't agree with Nebulafox, with Hitler's own pretty well stated goals, then what the heck was the point of invading the Soviet Union?

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, turning Hitler's invasion/obliteration of Poland into a real World War. But the Soviet Union was a co-conspirator in the invasion.

    There are really on two plausible answers:

    1) That Hitler feared/expected the Soviet Union would attack Germany. Not ridiculous--but when revisionists bring this up it is pooh-poohed.

    2) Lebesraum. Hitler really does intend to grab up living space for the Germans in the East and at the very least turn the East into a giant German argicultural and resource colony.

    (Note: I'm not arguing that they were going to explicitly do X,Y or Z; exactly follow every paragraph and subsection of Generalplan Ost. That's all subject to "events" and "whatever works". But the general thrust was clear.)

    That Hitler has a serious bug up his butt with the Jews and--not inaccurately--sees them as at the vanguard of communist subversion, that's a given. But that Hitler isn't serious about lebensraum--colonizing the East either for slave labor or new territory for Germans--doesn't make any sense.

    I suspect that even if (God forbid) the German had won the war they would not have ultimately genocided the Slavs in the way that they did the Jews, to the point of extinction. As a.g. points out, this would have been a whole ‘nother order of magnitude (maybe even exponentially) more difficult than killing the Jewish minority. They might have killed the most pesky troublemakers, exiled others to an area outside the Reich and kept the rest as labor. Maybe there would have been a program to make the most loyal Slavs into “honorary Aryans”. (The Ukrainian nationalists got along swimmingly with the Nazis). It’s not like the Germans had enough of their own people to instantly populate all of Poland and Ukraine. Maybe in Hitler’s view, the German race would have filled up the East in two or three hundred years, the scale of time it took for the Americans to fill the continent but in the meantime they would have needed someone else to operate the breadbasket.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I suspect that even if (God forbid) the German had won the war they would not have ultimately genocided the Slavs in the way that they did the Jews, to the point of extinction.
     
    Germany needed the manpower because there would have been other wars to win. Japan, with 500m Orientals in its empire, would eventually have challenged Germany for the position of top dog.
    , @gcochran
    With modern farm machinery, you don't need many farmers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. I would deny neither that conversions were few, nor that they were not always disinterested.

    It is the second generation which shows whether the conversion has taken or not. Mendelssohn pere probably had little real faith, but his son Felix was unaffectedly pious, and learned too.
    Wittgenstein was a tortured Catholic, but a real one nevertheless.

    And since grace builds upon nature, I have no doubt that the more serious even of the first-generation converts died closer to their new beliefs than when they first solemnly professed them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  234. @Jack D

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?
     
    Apparently you are confusing the situation in 1939 with (your imaginary view of) the situation in 2018. The fact that Roosevelt did not, even after being informed about the Holocaust, lift a finger to do anything about it (other than win the war, which he was trying to do anyway), may give you an idea about the influence of the Jews at that time. The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way - it's not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

    The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way – it’s not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

    Pointless to bomb. The camps were an elaborate charade to obscure an atrocity that could have been accomplished in days. The camps probably prolonged the lives of the Jews ensconced within.

    I don’t understand the motives of the people playing up the decision to avoid bombing the camps or the rail lines that led to them. German soldiers, Wehrmacht or SS, had no issues summarily executing millions of Jews and other civilians using guns or whatever weapons were at hand without the roundabout legerdemain of camps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    They did have some problems with SS in the Einsatzgruppen, never mind ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, being traumatized. Things got messy at the scale they operated, and the soldiers were sometimes standing in pools of blood and guts. Combined with the shooting of women and children and people who looked or spoke German, it did affect morale for a considerable number of them, and Himmler became interested in alternatives to the mass shootings.

    Death camps were more impersonal and required fewer Germans per murder, which was useful for secrecy and made it easier to select personnel who were suited to the job.

    re: Rwanda, it was not a random uprising using whatever tools were available. The machetes were imported in the preceding year as "farm equipment" and distributed to the Hutu militias.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @Old Palo Altan
    Perhaps Anonymous is taking Ron Unz's own reporting of his IQ as 214 at face value. 214-70 is 144, which is about what I have always assumed Steve's IQ to be.

    But if Ron is actually only at 180 say, then a 110 for Steve would be manifestly absurd.

    The guy who mentioned IQ might have been trolling, or not. There are no reliable IQs in that range (from standard tests anyway), especially childhood IQ, which is the only way to get absurd extrapolations like 200. Ability above, say, 3 standard deviations is better assessed by actual performance history.

    Ron was in a selective gifted-students program, won the Westinghouse competition back in the old days (minimum 140, very variable, some winners are a lot higher) and did well as a Harvard physics undergrad (guess 140-145 is required). He dropped out of his PhD program, receiving some sort of courtesy master’s degree, leaving no research trail to evaluate. So he did a bunch of things that reliably signal 14o+, but Steve must also be in that range.

    Ron’s math skills as demonstrated in the Hispanic crime, Asian admission, and Holocaust analyses, are far below what usually is left over after a youth full of upper tier physics training. Winging it based on a quantitative “feeling” or suspicion is totally in line with theoretical physicist culture, but his actual math ability has rusted more so than I would expect from people who had huge ability in the first place. On the other hand he does show undiminished tendencies, that he would call Jewish, toward hyper-verbalization, ambition, financial enterprise, ownership of media, political activism, argumentation, and “value transference” (he made his money on software to enable the mortgage bubble, cashing in just before the bubble popped). His academic history is also that of the stereotypical Jewish whiz kid, with the early accomplishment and Ivy League degree followed by graduate study in the most speculative and experiment-free part of theoretical physics (quantum gravity). I wonder if Ron recognizes the number of Jewish stereotypes that he embodies even as he argues that the true blood libel was against Gentiles. I say that as someone grateful that he has established a site for heterodox material even if some of it is completely insane.

    It seems to me that Ron and Steve have similar levels of underlying ability, with Ron better at math (in a striving ambitious Jewish verbal-derived way, as he might put it) while Steve is better at some hard to measure things like “noticing” but in the end actually posts sharper quantitative/statistical analysis, in addition to his other strengths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @gcochran
    No, he's right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    “No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.”

    Yes, the East German Communist regime played up the Dresden bombing partly to counter the Soviet atrocities in 1945. Also a stick to beat the Americans and British with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.
     
    On the eve of the Holocaust, Ashkenazi (European) Jews constituted something like 90% of the Jews in the world, but Hitler "fixed" that. And after Israel was founded, the Moslem world expelled almost all of their Jews. This combination meant that Israel is around 50/50 Ashkenazi/Sephardi. The "true" Sephardim (those whose ancestors were expelled from Spain) also have a lot of European ancestry but a lot of the non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not descended from the Spanish refugees.

    No one beat the German Jews for snootiness - they make WASPs look like pikers. The Nazis made their heads explode because to them German culture was the highest form of civilization.

    The native indigenous Jews of the Middle East are the Mizrahi. They are not Sephardi who went to Europe with the moorish invasions.

    Persian Jews are not Mizrahi. They are a different group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Liza says:
    @syonredux

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?
     
    Ron's only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though....I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*....


    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories....

    You mean you believe the official version of JFK’s assassination? Jesus take me now – you are one rare bird, syonredux. Moi, I think that the government made the entire official story up out of whole cloth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.
     
    As i said, no one had clean hands.

    But the Germans and Japanese launched the war with clear imperialist designs.

    And it was resisted by the people of many nations who did not want to submit to their imperial designs--i.e. lose their nations. Sure there were a few nations like Britain, France, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United States, where either the Germans or Japanese invaded some piece of their empires. But it also includes honest legitimate distaste for expanding empire--definitely in the US, with the case of Japanese behavior in China and Germany's occupation of European nations. And, of course, all these nations being gobbled up--Korea, China, Austria (mixed), Czechslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Vietnam ... certainly felt their struggle was legitimate and anti-imperialist and victory "liberation".

    There were also nationalists in Europe and Asia who were pro-Axis for anti-imperialist reasons:

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

    Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945)[1][a] was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,[2][b][3][c][4][d] but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left an ambivalent legacy.[5][e][6][f][2][g] The honorific Netaji (Hindustani: “Respected Leader”), the name granted to him in the early 1940s by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, was later used throughout India.[7][h]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Craken says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.
     

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren't.

    The A-bombs were necessary to end the war before the Soviets could invade northern Japan and split yet another strategic nation between the two Col