The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Darkest Hour
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Darkest Hour

“History is on every occasion the record of that which one age finds worthy of note in another.”
―Jacob Burckhardt

What is one to make of “Darkest Hour”? Is it only yet another chance to bathe in nostalgia for the Second World War, and to dredge up an old story, out of which the British come out smelling of roses, unlike in some other conflicts? Or is it a story which is too good to be false, and which needs re-working in order to be fully understood?

Rarely have two men been so savagely opposed, and so different in their formative experiences, though each had war experiences . Hitler (1889-1945) rose from nothing to absolute dominion over Europe, and fell like a stick; Churchill (1874-1965) started high, aimed higher, and after years in the wilderness achieved greatness. Within a year of the actual conflict beginning the worst was over, and after Barbarossa in June and Pearl Harbour in December 1941 the balance of power tilted. Even the D-Day invasion might have failed, but the Allies managed to win through. In retrospect it was only a matter of time before the Nazi regime collapsed, though it took millions with it as it did so.

So, the battle of wits between an ascendant 51-year-old Hitler and a last-choice, embattled 66-year-old Churchill is a story always worth telling, perhaps worth telling for ever. Churchill turned the course of history. The very first German biography of Hitler, by Joachim Fest, made the telling point that, for all his oratory, Hitler left little of note in the German language. Art Historian Burckhardt again: “The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity”. Churchill, on the other hand, lifted English to the sunlit uplands. He was a most quotable man. Does any of this matter, in the cold calculation of war? Yes. Rhetoric is worth many battalions. Language can move hearts because it is the supreme tool of thinking, putting the Olduvai tool set in the shade, though that collection of implements lasted 600,000 years.

Joachim Fest observed that of Hitler it could be said: “Here was a man who changed history”. As biographers of Churchill have noted: “Churchill also”. A truly titanic struggle. The film itself is carried by Gary Oldman, whose performance is a triumph. He becomes the part, from the first strike of a match, and never fails to convince. The rest of the cast is brilliant, a delight, but the star shines through. Lest it seem churlish not to mention it, I liked everything which established the feel of that distant time, known to me mostly from the picture of a relative who left Uruguay to die in the Pathfinders Squadron, and from the guarded recollections of a Spitfire pilot shot down and kept in near starvation in a German prison camp. The film costumes were fine, and so were the hairstyles. Everyone smoked, just like my parents did.

The film itself has to deal with a pressing issue. All this has been done before, and every Second World War film starts with the same shots of London streets, gas masks, bomb shelters and screaming sirens. Director Joe Wright and Director of Photography Bruno Delbonnel shoot the obligatory panning shots of Londoners, but these shots are themselves deliberately panned, as if in stylised slow-motion the director mockingly says: “This is a romantic re-creation, just like in all the other war films, but it really was something like this”. A crafty move, which keeps them in touch with a potentially sceptical war-film-weary audience.

The story is worth telling because to many it is forgotten or was never known. Schoolchildren now struggle to say who fought on which side. Will it be watched in Europe? It will be interesting to see the results. There is much they would wish to forget. The film has taken $131 million so far. It must seem strange to teenagers in Britain that their university studies or working lives could be interrupted by a request to fight a war and possibly die. An inconvenient death, not yet midway through the journey of their lives, all for a distant country of which they knew nothing, and cared less. Almost as much of a shock as being deprived of internet connectivity. Although the war is vicariously quite vivid to me, I still find it difficult to believe that I might have had to serve, and to be tested as that generation were tested.

Overall, this is a good film, worth seeing, and worth thinking about. Joachim Fest again: although Marxist historians have sometimes argued that historical events are inevitable because of major economic forces, and that historical biography is no more than courtly flattery, Hitler proves them wrong. His capture of the German soul and his face-saving explanation for their lost first world war proved all too powerful, with dreadful results. He was the spark in the methane swamp. In my view, if only the bloody, resentful man had been accepted into Art College we might have been spared oceans of misery. We are all allowed counter-factual speculations, are we not?

And on that point, historian Robert Tombs has put forward a good argument that Britain should have ducked out of the war, kept the Empire, and let the Nazi regime fail under its own dreadful contradictions. Conquering with lightening war is one thing, governing for the long term another. Empires are costly. Even subjugated peoples rebel from time to time. Policing them takes time, and saps profits. Ask the English. The audience was not convinced by this championing of prudent self-interest in the face of a barbaric regime, but it was a reasonable position in 1940, as the film, perhaps too vividly, depicts.

As per usual, you will expect me, in the midst of all this praise, to raise a quibble. There is a romantic lapse in the commitment to giving a truthful account, which the team excuse as something which might have happened. Of course, anything might have happened. The truth is that they made it up, in order to convince us about something. They imagined that Churchill would have gone down into the Underground tube system to get an impromptu democratic mandate for his policies from a random carriage-full of passengers. Nope. His mandate came from the House of Commons, where Members had been properly elected to represent their constituents. Britain was democratic, but it was not yet usual to canvas ordinary opinions on matters of foreign policy. Mass Observation was designed to measure morale, not yet to pander to lay opinion. If the ruling class had any interest in what the people thought outside of elections, they consulted their taxi driver. The scene in the Underground is a fiction designed to flatter the audience, and it has dramatic flair. Everyone has a Churchill story, and would like to have met him. The film cleverly caters to that all-too-human wish. In doing so, they try to fiddle a bit with history, but for noble reasons, you may say. It may be a dramatic bridge too far, a contemporary urge to rewrite history in the modern idiom.

It is hard to calculate the odds for an event which did not take place, but here is an attempt to do so. Imagine that Churchill did go down to an Underground station, rather than to visit the house of a friend in Richmond. What is the probability that a person drawn at random from the tube train passengers of 1940 will be of African descent, as depicted in the film? The population of Greater London in 1940 was 7,987,936. I cannot find estimates for the African descent population of London in that year, but it is asserted that in 1950 the total non-white population for the whole of Britain was not above 20,000. Given that that estimate is for the whole country, and would cover Indians as well as Africans, and is a decade later, an estimate of 10,000 Black Londoners is generous. The estimate for London, Liverpool and Cardiff at the beginning of the war is 10,000. Even if one assumes they were all in London, the chance of Churchill having met an African on his one visit to the Tube, as depicted in this film, is 1 in 800 at very best, and probably less. I have not worked out the chance of any Londoner having memorised Macaulay’s “Horatius at the Bridge”, though it must be rather low. The chance of it being a Black Londoner who recites that poem word for word must be infinitesimal.

In effect, the directors are telling us: “This is what we in this age wish you to believe about another age, so as to make a point”. A harmless move, you may say, but in other matters they strove to tell the truth. In 1940, what they did in this film would have been called Propaganda.

Perhaps Churchill versus Hitler is the best story ever told, and will be told again and again, long after Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander are all forgotten. It will enter world history as the greatest confrontation ever: two men fighting for Europe in a battle that spread across the whole world, dragging in others till the death toll reached 50 million. And, perhaps by chance, that was the last world war. Germany and Japan became democracies. France became France again, and not a German province with a dash of Vichy water. Peace reigned, sort of, so much so that Germany and France forgot what Britain gave them: their own freedom back, and in time their own dignity. The sorrow and the pity. All this at a cost that Britain may now, in view of recent ruptures, regret.

With a tow row row row row for the British Grenadiers.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Multiculturalism, World War II 
Hide 331 CommentsLeave a Comment
331 Comments to "Darkest Hour"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Peter Hitchens had a different take on this movie, only agreeing with you about the implausibility of the Tube scene (Not Their Finest Hour):

    [MORE]

    May I explain something important here, to forestall some of the responses I know I will receive? I think Winston Churchill was right to refuse to make terms with Hitler in 1940.

    Everything else about the film is, more or less, rubbish. We are supposed to admire the fashionable actor Gary Oldman for impersonating Churchill, but I am really not convinced that this is such a great feat. Growl a bit, and smoke a huge cigar, and you’re halfway there. Someone will come along and plaster you with makeup and latex to make you look like a big baby. The good lines are all written for you.

    [...]

    This time, there would be a reckoning. If we in Britain wanted American help, we must accept American desires. To stay in the war, Britain must cease forever to be an empire and independent world power. Of course this prospect was far better than the alternative. Churchill had the global and historical understanding to grasp this fact, and enough American in him to reckon that America’s chilly mercy would be better than Germany’s smiling triumph.

    This story is largely unknown to this day in Britain, where a childish fable of brotherhood and love is widely believed. I would welcome a motion picture that finally dispelled this twaddle and introduced British public opinion to the grown-up world. In this world, the Finest and Darkest Hours were in fact reluctant but necessary steps down the crumbling staircase of national decline. They would end with our far-called navies melting away, our power and wealth gone, our government in the hands of the European Union, and the force and mind of our culture all too accurately represented by Sid Vicious and Joe Orton.

    I would go farther, and point out that the 1939 conflict was a war of choice, on poor ground and at a bad time, which we then lost in all but name, handing it over to others—the USA and the USSR—to finish in ways that did not much suit us. Oddly enough it was Lord Halifax, portrayed in Darkest Hour as a feeble peacemonger, who had actively maneuvered us into a war with Germany ten days after Hitler had signed a pact with Stalin which completely undermined our whole strategy.

    All this matters, above all, because the mistaken belief that the war was fought to save the Jews of Europe (which we failed to do) or “stand up to tyranny” (which cannot accurately describe handing half of Europe to Stalin) still haunts the national and international mind. And by doing so it feeds new and dangerous adventures, such as the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Yet a film that told the truth about it, even now, would not just fail to win applause. It would probably provoke angry walk-outs.

  2. “In 1940, what they did in this film would have been called Propaganda.”

    Just as in The King’s Speech, the very correct churchwarden who treated George VI’s stammer would not have used four-letter words in front of anyone, yet alone the King. The screenwriter inserted his own 1950s New York stammer cure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seidler#Early_life_and_family

  3. Churchill destroyed the English people to please his masters (i.e. those who held his loans – who owned him).

    Through three different wars, he was a thoroughly detestable scoundrel who glorified in the death and suffering of the lower classes.

    He should have ended up like Mussolini.

    Those wars were brother wars meant to destroy the European peoples, and they largely succeeded.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    , @pyrrhus
  4. @Dave Pinsen

    I saw this somewhere else but I think it’s applicable here. After seeing a 2050 showing of this film, the following comment was heard. “We had to fight the Nazis or we’d be speaking German today,” said the British man in Arabic.

  5. jim jones says:

    Time for some patriotic music

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Alden
  6. llloyd says: • Website

    Churchill’s meeting with a black man quoting Macaulay’s Horatio’s poem would be unusual but not impossible. Schools in Africa taught British education in the 1930s. Barry Obama who changed his name to Barack Obama and was Kenyan born went to a school with an English education in Kenya. He completed his education in Hawaii University where his classmate was Anne Dunham. Churchill would not have been allowed by his security to enter a subway in the war years. He was often booed by Londoners before his rehabilitation as a right wing socialist after the war.

  7. dearieme says:

    Britain, Germany, and Sweden find themselves on the same side nowadays. Doomed, probably.

    Whether the USA is doomed too may depend on whether forty-nine states secede, leaving only California.

  8. @llloyd

    Certainly possible, though an Indian would be more likely, in the statistical sense, because of the greater number of Indian troops.

  9. So … many Churchills have appeared in European history…

    • Replies: @Alden
  10. VICB3 says:

    Hitler was a product of his times. Even if he had been throttled in his crib, someone else would have arisen to take his place.

    If you want to see the roots of WWII, you need only study the politics of WWI. (And, no, I don’t mean just the Versailles Treaty.) All the things you see in the history of WWII – deportations, ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilians, annexations, political arrests, expansionist politics, race theory and so on – one can discover easily in the actions of *all* the participants in WWI, and on a large scale. Indeed, it can be argued that all Hitler and the Third Reich were following the plans laid out before and during WWI by, variously, the Second Reich, Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, Russia and, to a lesser degree, Britain. It’s fair to assert that all Hitler was doing was following somebody else’s blueprint, and with the full support of German Speakers everywhere who didn’t want to repeat the privations, deaths, rapes and destruction of recent memory.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere and above, Churchill was to a large degree an indebted fraud with a good PR machine. One very much doubts if all that “Stirring Oratory” was actually written by him at all. (Ditto the books. And that “We Will Fight Them…” speech was made by an actor on the radio.) Pretty much drunk most of the time – a high functioning alcoholic – a deep analysis of Churchill reveals a manipulative and superficially charming Psychopath who managed to drag both his country (and the United States) into a bankrupting war that pretty much destroyed the Empire he purported to be saving. It’s worth noting that in a different time and place he would be considered a War Criminal.

    In contrast, Hitler’s writings – pretty much dictated – are pedantic and plodding to be sure. Where he shined brightly was in oratory. Working only with basic notes – bullet points – He would begin a speech, stop and pause, begin again, stumble then start, all the while reading the audience. Moving ahead extemporaneously, he soon had them mesmerized. If you ever watch one of his speeches from beginning to end – and not the Allied Propaganda middle excerpts where too often in he’s shown screaming and gesticulating wildly – you quickly realize that this guy made one hell of a speech. And that, along with making concrete the fears (born of experience) and desires of his audiences, was what made him so successful.

    (It’s also worth noting that rarely do they tell you what he’s saying. Instead, you usually get a solemn announcer talking about “These Words of Hate.”)

    This is all revisionist of course. And the takeaway is that in history the more a personage is presented as a cardboard cutout – saintly or demonic as (((circumstances and pressures))) dictate – the further you are from the truth of that person (and the forces and politics around him) you actually are. That’s where reading deeply into history becomes important.

    History is not about a bunch of old dead guys.
    It’s about cycles of human stupidity.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

  11. El Dato says:

    Perhaps Churchill versus Hitler is the best story ever told, and will be told again and again, long after Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander are all forgotten.

    Actually Hitler vs. Stalin was the real cage match, with all talons out, sharpened.

    Looking abroad, Chiang Kai-Check vs. the Tojo vs. Mao was an even bigger deal.

    And Churchill had a history before WWII. A history of politicial ambition and miscalculation and looking for aggro on the continent.

    • Replies: @Azrael the car
  12. Cranky says:

    One forgets that Hitler not only managed to unite all of Germany, repel the French out of occupying the Saar, and integrate Austria and Sudeten into a Germany larger than any in history.

    And yes, his propaganda was about as bad as much of the screed published today- but he was a master orator, and a master of the political rally.

    The movie made by Leni Riefenstahl is still shown as a master stroke of propaganda.

    The popular support from his base appeals and results shown in his economic program further pushed his support among the masses.

    In contrast, as pointed out above, the English ruling class was so damned idiotic that they began to fear their own little homegrown fascists- who were totally ineffective in reality.

    But the Empire was going to end because of the fiscal mismanagement of 1925 that stuck all the way until 1931- the revaluation of the pound.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_in_politics,_1900%E2%80%931939#Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer

    Baldwin’s Government was a great example of Imperial idiocy, complete with the strengthening of the labor movement through total tone deaf reactionary policies.

    • Replies: @llloyd
  13. llloyd says: • Website
    @Cranky

    Hitler was actually the German national socialist Fidel Castro. I mean national socialist in its generic meaning. All ethno leaders are national socialists and Hitler from a defeated and broken country was the German version. His misfortune was he came slap bang against the global Jewish community while Castro came up against the Cuban oligarchs and their American allies. In Hitler’s case unlike Castro the (((tail))) waved the dog. Hitler’s banking policies, international barter and employment policies effected the greatest recovery of an economy in history. When the Bengla Desh economist Yannis brought into Asia the same economic policies, Yannis won the Nobel Peace Prize, wrong one, it should have been the Nobel economics prize.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  14. “It must seem strange to teenagers in Britain that their university studies or working lives could be interrupted by a request to fight a war and possibly die.”

    They’re already dying in the streets at the hands of a threat that SJW-Bootcamp never instilled on them was an enemy, an enemy the politicians never allowed them to stop at the beaches.

    “In effect, the directors are telling us: “This is what we in this age wish you to believe about another age, so as to make a point”. A harmless move, you may say, but in other matters they strove to tell the truth. In 1940, what they did in this film would have been called Propaganda.”

    Harmless? A painting is made one Brushstroke at a time.

  15. LondonBob says:

    Thought it was a poor film. Gary Oldman did the best he could under all that make up etc. but really this is a subject best left to a documentary.

  16. Randal says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Noticeable that Hitchens chooses discretion as the better part of valour, by ignoring the noxious lecturing of making the educated exemplar on the tube, absurdly, a black man.

    I think Winston Churchill was right to refuse to make terms with Hitler in 1940.

    Despite this Hitchens goes on to make the case for such a deal fairly well, only justifying his opposition to it by making rather speculative assumptions about the negative consequences of making the deal.

    It’s true to say that it was WW1 that all but destroyed Britain as a world power, but surrender to the Americans was basically a counsel of despair (as Hitchens makes clear), not some kind of glorious fighting to the end against hopeless odds – that would have been making peace with Germany in 1940 (or better still of course, not declaring a literally stupid war on Germany in 1939 supposedly for the benefit of Poles on the other side of Europe, in the first place) followed by trying to get the British Empire back on its feet again, in some way.

    The stupidity of declaring war on Germany for Poland is of course paralleled today by our NATO membership and the determination on the part of our elites (under US tutelage of course) to “prepare for war with Russia”, as though that country represents some kind of threat to us or to our interests.

    As a dual loyalty half American by birth, it was presumably not so great a hardship for Churchill to surrender the county to permanent US domination as it might have been for a true patriot.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @utu
    , @CK
  17. @jim jones

    Did you notice in the film that when the marchers swung their arms the sun highlighted their sleeves in unison and this generated a yin/yang color-light strobe effect that was mesmerizing? The marchers maintained the uniformity of their spacing as they rounded the corner, kept in step. How the crowd is drawn to the power generated by humans joined together in a group effort? Whether this be a chorus, an orchestra or a rowing crew of eight oarsman, it has an instinctive appeal to the onlooker who senses the POWER on display.

    It’s just this power through uniformity that the contemporary culture of critique strives to break up. Modern couples dance to their own inner beat, each interpreting the music in their own way, gyrating as the impulse moves them. Same with modern Art–each person is supposed to invent their own interpretation and see the piece in their unique, solipsistic way.

    The culture of critique throws a spanner into the works, tries to make the marchers miss a beat, fall out of step and make the whole thing collapse out of order. (((They))) don’t have to make everyone misstep to ruin the process, just a few will do. (((They))) are terrified that we will ever find our rhythm again and march with bearing and pride. The fact that onlookers were instinctively drawn to this display of Power must strike fear in the hearts of today’s wreckers. Ergo, they must tamper with the instincts of the masses of people, make them hesitant and self doubting. When half a step out of beat people are crippled by feelings of vulnerability and isolation, i.e. helpless.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @JoeFour
  18. Unless one has studied a bit of 20th century physics it is hard to grasp the significance of the concept of “coherence”. All sub-atomic particles organize themselves in whole number, multiple-integer waveforms. Just like the wave traveling down the tube of flute, a subatomic particle resonates at whole integer frequencies; to do otherwise would be to be incoherent. So coherence, in which the tail of a waveform coincides with the beginning of the next, is what gives “things” their identity. Something that lacks coherence can not “be”. Only that which has internal positive feedback and is thus self reinforcing can endure in Time. Lacking coherence it will immediately disrupt and disintegrate.

    A “thing” is a complex association of coherent, charged-particle waveforms. The particles themselves can in tern be resolved into coherent charged waveforms.

    The implications are obvious. For a society to be a “thing”, for it to subsist through Time, it must possess internal coherence. Too much internal inconsistency, too much friction or static (as the beatniks called it) will decompose an individual or society.

    The trick then, to mastery over a people, is to disrupt their solidarity, their internal resonance. One tool to achieve this end is political correctness, which disrupts the normal flow of conversation between members of a group, the type of communication that indicates and solidifies membership. It makes the target circumspect and “guilty”; splits him off from the herd, easy prey for the pursuing wolves.

    As I said above, demonstrations of Strength through Unity used to be common among people of the West. Now they are derided and met with scorn. The one permissible arena in which people are allowed to demonstrate unity is when they are cheering at organized (by their Masters) sports–a hollow consolation.

  19. Bliss says:

    Perhaps Churchill versus Hitler is the best story ever told, and will be told again and again, long after Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander are all forgotten. It will enter world history as the greatest confrontation ever

    Only a delusional Brit megalomaniac could write the above. Churchill is well on the way to be forgotten already. Perhaps he will be remembered as the war criminal who carpet bombed civilians in Dresden and willfully caused the Bengal Famine in British India that killed millions.

    WWII will be long-remembered as the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. It will be remembered as a brutal, barbaric Battle Royale between Hitler and his nemesis Stalin. And it will be remembered for the first ever use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    And, perhaps by chance, that was the last world war

    You are writing this at a time when WWIII has become a distinct possibility? You are so out of touch with reality.

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @annamaria
    , @RobinG
  20. Bliss says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Peter Hitchens:

    I would go farther, and point out that the 1939 conflict was a war of choice, on poor ground and at a bad time, which we then lost in all but name, handing it over to others—the USA and the USSR—to finish in ways that did not much suit us.

    And then, in 1942, came the humiliating defeat of the British Empire in Southeast Asia at the hands of Imperial Japan. The cowardly surrender of Singapore after only a week of fighting was called by Churchill “the worst disaster” in the history of the British Army. The British were finished as a Great Power, having been exposed as paper tigers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  21. @Diversity Heretic

    It is not commonly known or spoken of but Great Britain had citizens from its vast colonies that assimilated into the culture and polity quite well.

    Unfortunately, out in the colonies, they failed to deliver on promises.

    But I am not in the least surprised by that comment – even if it evokes a laugh juxtaposed against assumptions.

    appreciate your observation.

    I enjoyed this film as well — though I thought the pacing a tad slow.

    Helps to have some background on Lord Churchill, his contemporaries, circumstances and events pre and post WWI.

    • Replies: @Alden
  22. Bliss says:

    It is pathetic to see James Thompson quibbling about seeing an african in this movie. This is the mentality that has whitewashed history. For the reality is that millions of non-whites, including at least a million Africans, fought in WWII on the Allied side against the Axis.

    http://www.dw.com/en/africa-in-world-war-ii-the-forgotten-veterans/a-18437531

    From 1939 hundreds of thousands of West African soldiers were sent to the front in Europe…..In France, Germany and Italy, in India, Burma or on the Pacific islands, African soldiers died for their European colonial masters.

    During the war the African soldiers saw their so-called rulers from Europe lying in mud and filth, they saw them suffering and dying, says German journalist Karl Rössel who spent 10 years researching the topic in West Africa. “As a result, they realised that there are no differences between people,” he said. This in turn led to many former soldiers joining independence movements in their home countries.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8344170.stm

    The 70th anniversary of World War II is being commemorated around the world, but the contribution of one group of soldiers is almost universally ignored. How many now recall the role of more than one million African troops? Yet they fought in the deserts of North Africa, the jungles of Burma and over the skies of Germany. A shrinking band of veterans, many now living in poverty, bitterly resent being written out of history.

    Joe Culverwell, who went on to fight for the liberation of Zimbabwe, volunteered the day war was declared in 1939. “Don’t forget in those days we were very loyal Brits – stupid as that may sound now,” Mr Culverwell says. “We were brainwashed into being little brown Britishers.”

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @German_reader
  23. Who was the better painter?

    Churchill?

    Or Hitler?

  24. Randal says:
    @Bliss

    This is the mentality that has whitewashed history.

    History hasn’t been significantly “whitewashed”, but there certainly has been a massive ongoing leftist effort, which you are doing your small bit for here, to “blackwash” it.

    According to the BBC story you linked, the colonial powers in total (including France and Italy) called up 1,355,347 African soldiers. Just over one million from the whole of Africa! The overwhelmingly white UK alone mobilised some 4-6 million (exact numbers depend on definitions). So there was a relatively small percentage of black soldiers serving mostly in Africa.

    Of course, the fight with Germany over who ruled Poland or over who would win between Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union was no more the personal concern of white Brits than it was of black Africans who were ruled by the same government. They all just did their duty. If the blacks now want to argue that they are inherently different and separate, that’s fine with me. Just reinforces the need to stop too many of them coming here.

    As for:

    It is pathetic to see James Thompson quibbling about seeing an african in this movie.

    Thompson’s point was a perfectly valid one – the sheer absurdity of the situation reinforces the fact that it was inserted purely for propaganda purposes, in order to “blackwash history” and promote the ongoing anti-white racism indoctrination that you represent.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  25. Churchill was a rather mediocre man. It is typical of the English to rhapsodize about their contribution to WWII but the truth is that Britain was a has-been empire at the time who got their clocks cleaned by the Japanese and were forced to flee in a dreadfully shameful display of cowardice from the beaches of Dunkirk.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  26. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Looking at Churchill’s history I’d say he was an alcoholic incompetent who pretty much wrecked everything he was in charge of. Good speaker though. The PR bs has been nonstop all these years though, extolling the British as the noblest people of all. They did not defeat the Germans. Other people did but I can’t remember who they might have been because I get my history lessons from movies.

  27. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @George Orwell

    “George Orwell” – please tell us about the bravest thing you ever did in difficult circumstances.

    Please give the details which might make us think that you are a better man than those you just criticized.

    In particular, tell us how you would have behaved at Dunkirk. Thanks!

    • Replies: @Alden
  28. @ThreeCranes

    Churchill, based on this works..

  29. Churchill was a fat sack-o-shit and the original mass murdering war pig. Did I mention he was an actual bastard as well?

    If I ever watch this movie you can scrape me off this computer desk put me in your mouth and say… “nice chewy flavor”.

    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
  30. @El Dato

    It is entirely true that Churchill was the butcher of Gallipoli, and foremost amongst the upper-class politicians and generals that bore the blood of the most horrendous and unnecessary war that ever stay into the earth. The 20th century – the century of tyrannical bureaucracy, fascism and communism – was created by the bloodied mud of the Somme, and jibes about French cowardice in World War II overlook too often that the French in WW1 defied all theories about how much of a population a country can lose without surrender or internal collapse (they also overlook the French squadrons of the Dunkirk evacuation, who upon learning of the Vichi betrayal in Paris, took it upon themselves to reverse the orders from Whitehall – that the English soldiers were to help the French remnants evacuate, and instead formed a protective ring around the retreating English, and once the last ship departed, used their final hours to dismantle their vehicles and artillery, hoisting the burning flag of the regiment as the German troops arrived rather than see it join those on the Vichi walls – all in the knowledge that, due to the Vichi surrender, they were not protected by the Geneva Convention and most were executed soon after (the Germans being quite angry at the surprise evacuation – the not yet General Rommel saw it coming, and nearly prevented it through encirclement, only to be overruled by his superiors , who forced him to wait 2 full days because they thought that they had the enemy trapped against the coast).

    But there is at least one sign that the Churchill of Gallipoli was either the source of a monumental miscalculation rather than a butcher, or that the butcher spent his intervening years, slowly admitting to himself the blood on his hands and felt genuine remorse to the point of becoming a very different Churchill by World War II. The least discussed of the famous Churchill stories is his one embarrassingly public failure of morale in the 24-hours before D-day. D-Day invasion was heavily planned around correcting Churchill’s mistakes and Gallipoli – especially his failure to realise the importance of contemporaneous Intel, and the consequent ability of the defending Turks to prevent or delay critical pushes by bluffing with only a handful of men until reinforcements arrived with which to pin the invaders on the beaches (hence D-day’s emphasis on high casualty paratrooper and air reconnaissance tactics – to avoid Churchill’s error, they needed to know what was happening beyond the beachfront).

    After several years of everything a public image of unflappable confidence, Churchill spent the day slowly disintegrating , emotionally and intellectually, until in the last few hours he began insisting that the invasion had to be delayed, with increasingly spurious excuses. He even to get on the phone to FDR and any American general in his Rolodex, until his minders and American liaisons essentially blocked him for fear that in his hysterical state, Churchill would completely violate communications secrecy and give away the invasion date.

    In retrospect, we now know that Churchill was subject to mood swings throughout his life. But it certainly looks a lot like the old man was human enough, and suffered enough guilt for his role in the First World War, that he had a near breakdown over the thought of being responsible for a 2nd Gallipoli.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
  31. @Randal

    – the sheer absurdity of the situation reinforces the fact that it was inserted purely for propaganda purpose

    But, for crying out loud, the whole damned movie is surely a propaganda film! No?!?! (I do have to admit I have not seen it, but still, I assume that it is entirely propaganda.)

    The entire anglo-zionist version of WW2 is largely false. However, Thompson believes it the same way any village priest believes in his Bible stories. The entire film is propaganda, yet the only bit that these people object to is the scene with the black guy in the subway!

    This is a perfect example of the kind of bounded awareness I talked about in one of my articles. These people can see the PC propaganda for what it is, but when it comes to the GW (Good War) component, they are total shit eaters.

    If you’re going to see through the bullshit, you have to see through ALL of it.

    (And, yes, you have to realize that hundreds of women cannot be sexually assaulted in a wide open public place in 2015 and for the there to be no visuals. You’ve had half a year to reflect on that and figure it out, no?)

    In any case, you have to be able to see through ALL the propaganda. These sorts of WW2 movies glorifying a scoundrel like Winston Churchill are propaganda through and through, not just the obligatory scene with a black guy inserted in there (independently of whether he is portrayed by Morgan Freeman or not…)

    • Agree: L.K, ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Randal
    , @Mr. Anon
  32. Hibernian says:
    @VICB3

    “– bullet points –”

    An interesting choice of words.

  33. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    (And, yes, you have to realize that hundreds of women cannot be sexually assaulted in a wide open public place in 2015 and for the there to be no visuals. You’ve had half a year to reflect on that and figure it out, no?)

    Still on your campaign against white women, you vile creep? Nobody gives a sh*t what you think, you demented, bloviating loser.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  34. Bliss says:
    @Azrael the car

    Churchill was very good with words but an abject failure in military strategy. He failed at Gallipoli, he failed in Norway, he failed at Anzio, he was wrong about the Normandy Invasion (an American plan) etc

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-disaster-of-norway-1940-anatomy-of-a-campaign-reviewed/

    The Norwegian campaign, though hastily improvised, was meant to play to Britain’s maritime strength. In this there were strong echoes of the Dardanelles and Gallipoli, not least in that Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during both.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-normandy-landings-d-day-an-operation-that-filled-the-british-with-dread-richard-overy-professor-1420222.html

    For Churchill, the ghost of Gallipoli was never far away. That disaster from the First World War had cost him his job and almost cost him his reputation. There were more recent debacles to recall. Britain had been expelled not once, but three times, from the European mainland by German armies: in Norway, at Dunkirk and in Greece.

    Another defeat would not only end Churchill’s career, but would spell the collapse of British military and political credibility. For America there were no defeats to redeem: for Britain, another defeat in France would have been a catastrophe.

    The brits performed poorly in WWII, they rode the coattails of America and Russia to victory. It is ridiculous to see them thumping their chests and pretending as if Churchill was the hero of WWII.

    • Replies: @Alden
  35. Bliss says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3602939/How-Churchill-nearly-lost-WW2-version-history-hard-stomach-greatest-hero-fuelled-alcohol-self-doubt-refused-sign-D-Day-forced-President.html

    Churchill was back at the Oval Office on May 24 for the final terms of what was now called the Trident agreement. However, ‘the PM,’ Brooke recorded with exasperation, ‘entirely repudiated the paper we had passed, agreed to, and been congratulated on at our last meeting!!’

    Brooke had known his Prime Minister to be an occasionally maddening individual, but to behave like a spoiled adolescent in front of a US President not only directing a global war but furnishing the materials and fighting men to win it, seemed the height of folly.

    Though the Prime Minister meant well, his doctor was worried he might be approaching a mental breakdown, or ‘a gradual waning of his powers, brought on… by… doing the work of three men.’

    In the President’s Map Room after dinner, Roosevelt pulled no punches. The President sternly told the Prime Minister he had better shut up. The date for the cross-Channel invasion was now set. Period. With that, the Trident Conference was over, and D-Day, to be called Operation Overlord, would take place, come hell or high water, in the spring of 1944.

  36. Randal says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    But, for crying out loud, the whole damned movie is surely a propaganda film! No?!?! (I do have to admit I have not seen it, but still, I assume that it is entirely propaganda.)

    Only to the extent it contains propaganda, and one of the most relevant and obvious pieces of propaganda, in relation to currently important issues, is the blatant antiracist indoctrination referenced.

    Now I understand that so far as antiracist (ie anti-white racism) indoctrination is concerned, you seem to be part of the problem rather than pushing any plausible solution, so it’s hardly any surprise that you should object to antiracist propaganda being called out.

    (And, yes, you have to realize that hundreds of women cannot be sexually assaulted in a wide open public place in 2015 and for the there to be no visuals. You’ve had half a year to reflect on that and figure it out, no?)

    That issue was more than adequately explained to you at the time, and nothing’s arisen to change it that I’m aware of. You were simply incorrect in your assertion, because you wilfully interpreted “sexually assaulted” so it would fit your desire for it to require visual evidence, just as you wilfully fantasised about some “racist conspiracy” when all there was, and is, is an unusually honest recognition of the undoubted fact that the immigrants in question are rowdy and disreputable in their behaviour when they have the opportunity, and so should not be given the opportunity to misbehave en masse in civilised countries.

    In any case, you have to be able to see through ALL the propaganda. These sorts of WW2 movies glorifying a scoundrel like Winston Churchill are propaganda through and through, not just the obligatory scene with a black guy inserted in there (independently of whether he is portrayed by Morgan Freeman or not…)

    Clearly there is plenty of propaganda around WW2 (this film is nothing unusual in that regard), but mass immigration and the anti-white racism that enables it is not a secondary issue, but rather one of existential importance and the utmost urgency.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  37. @Mr. Anon

    Revultsky,
    If this specific en masse assault happened or not it doesn’t matter at all because Roterham is there as well entire body of sexual crimes which has been commited against european women AND sponsored by your beautifool peepoo…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  38. @Randal

    I assume that it is entirely propaganda.)

    Only to the extent it contains propaganda,

    Huh??? WTF???

    The point is that the movie is primarily WW2, a.k.a. GW (Good War) propaganda. That they sprinkle a tiny bit of PC propaganda into the GW propaganda is clearly the case, as they do with practically any movie nowadays, but the movie is primarily propaganda relating to the second world war, NOT multi-culturalism or anti-racism or whatever.

    Thus, my comment relates to the fact that people like Thompson (or Derbyshire, I think, elsewhere) watch this movie and the only propaganda that they are aware of is the little smidgen of PC propaganda and fail to perceive the real bulk of it, which is the GW propaganda. In fact, Thompson states above that he considers the movie to be broadly truthful. (Which is ridiculous, obviously…)

    Now I understand that so far as antiracist (ie anti-white racism) indoctrination is concerned, you seem to be part of the problem

    Uh, no, the truth of the matter is that you do not understand anything. You are a classic useful idiot.

    What you don’t understand is that there is such a thing as a purely factual question. The issue is not how “uncivilized” you think a certain demographic is or whether you approve of them being in Germany. I don’t take issue with that. The issue is that you can’t assert that events took place that clearly did not.

    In other words, things aren’t true or false because they are ideologically useful to you. The events I related in that essay, as fake news, are clearly things that simply did not happen. To glom onto these fake news events because they are ideologically useful to you and then get enraged because somebody points out (quite correctly) that these things are hoaxes — this is pathetic.

    In any case, the other thing you failed to understand is that the article is not a pro-immigration piece at all. It is about the propaganda machine. The fake news stories that I mention there are news stories that anti-immigration types would consider ideologically useful, that is true, but the primary issue is that these are propaganda things that simply did not happen. The article is about seeing through propaganda, not about advocating immigration. You’re not even able to see that apparently. (Though you’re not the only one.)

    That issue was more than adequately explained to you at the time

    Randall, I’m not going to treat you with kid gloves any more, as I did somewhat before. I really don’t like lies and I don’t like liars.

    Here is where it is at. That article I wrote where I butted heads with you and the other numbnuts, was one of the most commented articles on this site ever. I think certainly in the top 10, maybe top 5 ever. Not all of that was me debating with you and the other shitheads of your ilk, but a lot was.

    It is my considered opinion, having looked through the whole exchange carefully afterwards, that you never laid a glove on me in the debate. Not you or German Reader or any of the other mentally deficient people there. Not once. You never scored a debating point against me, on either factual or logical grounds.

    The same cannot be said in reverse. I repeated drew blood in the debate, pointing out the absurd logical fallacies that you guys were engaging in.

    Now, okay, I could be wrong about this. Maybe you did score some debating points against me. You clearly think you did, yet I am not aware of it.

    But there is an easy way to resolve this no? After all, there is a full electronic record of the entire exchange. If you sincerely believe that you ever scored a debating point against me in that debate, refuting anything I said on factual or logical grounds, just point out where it was.

    It’s not just you and the other assorted cranks there. Ron Unz was in there trying to take shots at me and I am certain that Ron never laid a glove on me in the debate either.

    It is hard to know what is going on in somebody else’s mind, but I looked at it and the “debate” (if it can be called that, more like a spanking) was utterly lopsided. If it was a boxing match, as I said, it would be me repeatedly hitting you and you never managing to touch me.

    But if you sincerely think it was something different than that, you should be able to point out where you scored any debating point against me. If you cannot do that, and also, if you know perfectly well that you cannot do that, it means that you are just lying.

    Well, okay, I dunno, I’m talking to you as if I’m talking to somebody who is minimally engaged with the truth, and finds being called out as a liar very unpleasant. It occurs to me suddenly that you don’t even care. At one point, you openly said that lying is more or less okay, but… grist to the mill… whatever… but look, if you are lying and I point out that you are lying, you don’t have much of a legitimate grievance, do you?

    So, again, where did this happen? Where did you score all sorts of points in a debate against me?

    You were simply incorrect in your assertion

    Well, in case you don’t understand this, to score a debating point, it is not sufficient simply to assert that the other person is wrong. You have to demonstrate it. When did you ever do that?

    To me, this whole discussion has almost nothing to do with immigration or any of it. It’s about basic truthfulness. You can’t receive a drubbing in a debate like you and the other misfits, and Ron Unz himself, received under my last article and then show up claiming that you had won the debate and clearly demonstrated something.

    It wasn’t even a debate. It was just a spanking. Li,ke consider my response to you here, comment #382: http://www.unz.com/article/the-muslim-rape-army-is-coming-to-getcha/#comment-1948078

    That’s me really drawing blood in the debate, pointing out that your whole “argument” was logically fallacious. That was my last response to you and you never contributed another comment to the discussion. You were tapped out. It was a knock-out blow basically.

    To me, that you are trying to represent that you prevailed in a debate after receiving that kind of ass-kicking, it’s just ridiculously brazen.

    And it’s really clownish, so stop already.

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @Mr. Anon
    , @L.K
  39. @Santoculto

    Revultsky,
    If this specific en masse assault happened or not it doesn’t matter at all because Roterham is there

    So, let me get this straight…

    If you were accused of raping somebody, it wouldn’t matter whether you really raped anybody or not, as long as somebody who looks a bit like you, even in an entirely different country, actually did rape somebody.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Alden
  40. Randal says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Randall, I’m not going to treat you with kid gloves any more, as I did somewhat before. I really don’t like lies and I don’t like liars.

    LOL! You really do live in a fantasy world of your own.

    I’ve made my points and I’m not interested in wasting time repeating them in response to your delusional screeds. As I’ve pointed out, to the extent you have chosen to align yourself with the anti-white racist pro-immigration side, you are part of the main problem facing the world today. Fortunately you aren’t a particularly significant part.

  41. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Why write a sentence, when ten thousand words will do?

    Whatever it is you wrote there, I certainly didn’t read it. I don’t imagine anyone else did either. Nothing you write is worth spending 1/100th the time it would take to read it.

    White women won’t give you the time of day, so you are hostile towards them. We get it.

    • Agree: German_reader
  42. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    These people can see the PC propaganda for what it is, but when it comes to the GW (Good War) component, they are total shit eaters.

    Your copraphagic obsession is weird and creepy. But I guess that weird and creepy is to be expected from a weird creep like you.

  43. Mr. Anon says:
    @Randal

    Oh boy, you have angered the internationally reknowned genius known as Jonathan Revusky. How will you live with yourself now?

    • Replies: @Randal
  44. Randal says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I imagine I’ll cope somehow.

    He’s not the first internationally renowned genius I’ve annoyed, and I doubt he’ll be the last….

  45. @Randal

    I’ve made my points and I’m not interested in wasting time repeating them in response to your delusional screeds.

    Look, this is probably my last comment in this thread, because it just gets too distasteful to talk to somebody who is such a liar. But I respond to make certain key points.

    First of all, surely everybody knows that the reason you don’t respond when I ask you to provide an example of your ever scoring a debating point against me is because you CANNOT. Because you never did score a debating point against me. Ever. So who the hell do you think you’re kidding? You guys remind me of a little child who covers himself with a blanket and thinks nobody can see him. You are so utterly pathetic….

    As I’ve pointed out, to the extent you have chosen to align yourself with the anti-white racist pro-immigration side, you are part of the main problem facing the world today.

    What I actually said in my essay was the following:

    I anticipate that people will then simply assume that I believe in “multiculturalism” and “diversity” and so on. No, not really. In fact, I am somebody who is increasingly sympathetic to the ethno-nationalist position. Certainly, I believe it would be greatly preferable if countries in Europe remain demographically dominated by their founding peoples. …(snip)… I sympathize with the ethno-nationalist viewpoint, but the case has to be made honestly.

    Somehow idiots like you are capable of reading the above (or maybe not even bothering to read what I wrote) and then start screaming at me that I am an advocate of mass immigration.

    But that is not the full manifestation of your insufferable idiocy and dishonesty. You’re too stupid to realize that if you build your anti-immigration case on top of a bunch of fake news events that never really happened, the people behind the hoaxes can pull the rug out from you whenever they feel like it.

    That’s why you have to build an honest case, not just because honesty is the moral route.

    Look, I have a friend here (in Spain) who is half German. His mother is German, and he speaks German fluently. He told me that he had been to various parties full of Germans during the summer and he had broached the “Muslim Rape Army” topic with various German women he met there, I mean to say, with people who live in Germany.

    None of them knew WTF he was even talking about! “Germany is completely safe! I go about my city any time of the night and there is no problem!”

    The thing is, I think, that these were not very political people who don’t read Breitbart or “Save-Europe-from-the-Muzzie-Savages-dot-com” or whatever of these sites, so they didn’t know there was some “Muslim Rape epidemic” going on in Germany. Frightfully uninformed. They just live there, so what do they know, eh?

    But look, the whole story that white German girls are being raped right left and center in the heart of Europe is, to all intents and purposes, a hoax. It just is. That doesn’t mean, by the way, that no Arabs ever misbehave. Sure, out of hundreds of thousands or millions of people, some do. But the whole idea that it is part of Arab culture to go to the train station en masse and start molesting women randomly is just some synthetic narrative that these professional Islamophobes (almost invariably Zionist Jews) have come up with, and they push these things via things like Breitbart or whatever other vehicles they control.

    But, I mean, if you guys build your whole anti-immigration argument on top of things that the people who really live in Germany know are nonsense, all you’re doing is coming across as a bunch of cranks. Ordinary, middle-of-the-road people know this stuff is bullshit for the most part.

    I mean, what you guys want to do is equivalent to trying to resist the Zionist power structure by propagating a bunch of nonsense about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children. If I tell you that you have to reject that kind of retrograde BS, by your reasoning, that amounts to me aligning with the Zionists, right? I suppose so…

    If I tell you that you have to make an honest anti-immigration case, and reject these hoaxes, that is NOT at all the same as me advocating immigration. But the lot of you are too bloody stupid to understand that apparently.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Alden
  46. @Randal

    Noticeable that Hitchens chooses discretion as the better part of valour, by ignoring the noxious lecturing of making the educated exemplar on the tube, absurdly, a black man.

    Hitchens doesn’t even believe in evolution (I assume he’s some sort of creationist), so he thinks race/ethnicity is completely superficial anyway (iirc he prefers to use terms like “skin color”). He’s pretty useless on the truly important issues imo.

    • Replies: @ThereisaGod
  47. @Bliss

    How many now recall the role of more than one million African troops? Yet they fought in the deserts of North Africa, the jungles of Burma and over the skies of Germany.

    Sounds dubious. There were some black West Indians in Bomber command, and of course a significant number of Indians serving in North Africa and the Mideast, but claiming that hundreds of thousands of Africans fought in the British army against the Germans seems like myth-making, just another manifestation of Anglo negro worship.
    West Africans did play some role in Burma, but that campaign has been pretty much forgotten anyway (and not without reason since the British reconquest proved ephemeral).
    There were of course other “Africans” like Ian Smith who served enthusiastically but I assume they aren’t the ones to be remembered nowadays.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @for-the-record
  48. utu says:
    @Randal

    The stupidity of declaring war on Germany for Poland

    Perhaps it was stupid but this was what was planned from the very beginning. Otherwise Britain would not has given guarantees to Poland in March 1939. Britain wanted Hitler to attack Poland. Britain did not want Poland to negotiate with Hitler and come to some agreement and possibly an alliance. When Poland accepted British guarantees the war was unavoidable.

  49. Bliss says:
    @German_reader

    Sounds dubious.

    Of course everything that conflicts with the narrative your kind clings to will sound “dubious”. Or a “conspiracy”. Even photos and videos of africans fighting in Europe during WWI and WWII will be dismissed as forgeries. Right? People like you are hopelessly brainwashed by the whitewashing of history.

    http://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/en/senegalese-tirailleurs-campaign-france-1940

    On the eve of the French campaign, which began on the 10th May 1940 with the German offensive in the West, the total number of mobilised Senegalese was estimated at 179,000 men, and the number of Senegalese engaged in fighting on mainland France at some 40,000. Up until the 25th June 1940 when the French campaign ended as the ceasefire came into effect, three days after the signing of the Franco-German armistice, the Senegalese Tirailleurs had fought bravely on all fronts against Nazi Germany.

    During the French campaign (10th May – 25th June 1940) the Senegalese Tirailleurs fought with determination against German units that were often better equipped. They were present in all sectors of the front: the Ardennes, the Somme, the Meuse, the Aisne, in Champagne and along the Loire and the Rhône etc.

    During the battles of the French campaign, losses amongst the Tirailleurs Senegalese were estimated at around 17,000 men. Many were victims of dreadful reprisals on the part of German troops, in particular the summary executions of prisoners, often on the battlefield itself. Many cases have come to light, in the Côte-d’Or, the Oise, the Somme and in the Lyon area etc.

    https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/forgotten-african-soldiers-wwii-celebrations

    Each colonial power had a different method of conscription but the end result was the same. In his book, ‘Fighting For Britain: African Soldiers in the Second World War’, historian David Killingray says more than half a million African troops served with the British forces between 1939 and 1945 — 289,530 of them with the King’s African Rifles from Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Malawi.

    The number of West African troops serving under French command in World War I comprised about 170,891 men, and approximately 30,000 of them were killed. In Senegal alone more than a third of all males of military age were mobilized and sent to France to fight.

    During World War II these African troops played an important role. The Tirailleurs Senegalais troops were used in even greater numbers, initially by Vichy France and later by the Free French. In 1940, African troops comprised roughly 9 percent of the French army. The French recruited more than 200,000 black Africans during the war. Approximately 25,000 were killed in battle. Many were also interned in German labour camps and thousands of black African Prisoners of War (POWs) were murdered by the Wehrmacht in 1940.

    He ended up in Front Stalag 230 at Poitiers, which was reserved for colonial troops. It was there that the Germans engaged in mass executions of African prisoners-of war. The main sport of the German guards at that camp was to randomly pick out their African prisoners almost daily and take them out to a field for target practice. Literally thousands were killed that way. Senghor escaped “by the skin of his teeth”. Senghor was lucky to avoid the daily executions.

    I am guessing the last highlighted section put a huge smile on your face….

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Alden
  50. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    But look, the whole story that white German girls are being raped right left and center in the heart of Europe is, to all intents and purposes, a hoax. It just is.

    It just is. Oh, that settles it, then.

    Is THAT your evidence?

    Dipshit.

  51. Alden says:
    @flyingovertrout

    His parents were married when he was born so he was not a bastard.

    Legitimate, born of a married woman.

    Bastard, born of an unmarried woman.

    Doesn’t matter if the natural father is not the husband of a married woman

    Doesn’t matter when the mother married her husband, 2 years or 2 hours before the birth.

    The sexual chastity and virtue on this site is just overwhelming.

  52. Alden says:

    I can’t stand WW2 movies. One of the first old movies I ever saw on TV was propaganda to lure America into getting involved. The movie was Mrs Miniver. Will the British propaganda never end? Probably not.

    I can’t stand any of them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @republic
  53. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Didn’t your 4th grade teacher teach you to stick to one topic?

    False medieval tales about Jews, denial of sex assaults in 2016, WW2, denunciations of those who disagree with you, your comment is symptomatic of meth and cocaine use.

    Do you have any Vicodin? Take several calm down and get a good sleep. Even NyQuil would help bring you down.

  54. @Dave Pinsen

    if hitler partnered with stalin genuinely, the world would be very different today.

  55. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Lay off the drugs and then read your last incoherent sentence that makes no sense at all.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  56. Alden says:
    @Bliss

    You’re right, it’s sickening. The rest of Europe was occupied by Germany and Russia. But it was only the British who suffered the horrors of war.

    And the sneering at the French surrender when the British army just ran and abandoned all their allies.

    It was years before I figured out that Dunkirk was a disorganized rout, not an orderly retreat. My high school history books and all the popular histories claimed Dunkirk was a glorious victory.

  57. Alden says:
    @Azrael the car

    He was probably more worried that his reputation would suffer than about sending thousands of men to die climbing up the cliffs under the pounding of the German guns.

  58. Alden says:
    @Azrael the car

    France lost 1/3 of its male population in WW1. Not just military age males, but all males.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    , @res
  59. renfro says:

    From my readings of Churchill I can’t say I admire him . To me he was a froggy, ambitious fellow with not much to recommend him except for his carefully cultivated politico speech…and only if you think unpin downable political speech is a admirable talent.

    Some men think they are made great by war, he was one of that kind imo. ….he had his moment in history courtesy of the war and 75 million dead people

    But then I am one who thinks that yes, he should have negotiated with Hitler. Germany was being bled to death for its part in WWl….the situation was deserving of a compromise and some respite and that might have avoided the war to begin with. We don’t know if Hitler would have accepted a compromise but we know Churchill wouldn’t.

  60. Alden says:
    @Azrael the car

    Then there was the raid on the harbor town of Dieppe France. He sent Australians to be slaughtered at Gallipoli. He sent Canadians to be killed at Dieppe.

    Probably his worst slaughter was his attack in the French navy May 1940. The French admirals sent the entire fleet to Algeria to save it from the Germans.

    The admirals had plans to sail to either Senegal or the Americas and wait till the allies were organized to retake Europe from the Germans. He sent planes to bomb the navy and killed 1,200 French sailors and sank the fleet.

    They were combatants and far, far fewer than the civilians of Dresden. But they were allies against the Germans. He must have been very drunk when he ordered that.

    Then there was his “ set Europe aflame” operations. He sent British operatives to the occupied countries to kill Germans. The result was the Germans killed 10 for every German killed.

    Churchill epitomizes the power of propaganda.

  61. Seraphim says:

    “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it” – Winston Spencer Churchill.
    or
    “For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history”.
    His ghost wrote the script of the movie.

  62. Raised in an Irish family in Battersea, South London i was amazed to discover as a teenager when I entered the world of work and started mixing with the English working classes that middle-aged and older Brits LOATHED this man who had led them through the war years.
    The man had recently had a State Funeral and was, of course, a hero of the media yet many of these people told me that Churchill wouldn’t dare show his face in Battersea because “We’d be out there throwing bricks at the c***”.

    He had wanted to set the army on striking miners to shoot them. This was no friend of the Englishment. He was a friend of and slave to the bankers he served.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
  63. Alden says:
    @Santoculto

    Like his ancestor Jack who looted 14 entire shiploads of art rugs furniture and valuable objects from Belgium Netherlands and N France during one of England’s endless invasions of Europe.

    You can see the loot proudly displayed at Blenheim Palace.

  64. Alden says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Who is Lord Churchill? His father was Lord Randolph, Lord Randolph being the title, Churchill being only the family last name

    Winston was an honorable until he was knighted after WW2.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  65. Seraphim says:
    @Bliss

    He should be remembered as the man who conspired with his American counterparts to provoke two wars which engulfed the whole world in order to bring about the American ‘hegemony’.

  66. Wally says:
    @VICB3

    The problem with all the silly & juvenile Hitler assertions, along with the absurdly claimed ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’, is that they are filled with laughable, impossible, easily debunked Zionist propaganda & lies.

    That is why free speech on the so called ‘holocau$t’ is illegal in much of Europe and why Revisionists are persecuted, harassed, and attacked in the US and other ‘western’ countries. The claims do not withstand rational and scientific scrutiny. It’s really no contest.

    Even Zionist & purveyor of the fake ‘holocaust’ storyline, Raul Hilberg said:

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

    Clearly Zionist Jews are not troubled by lack of evidence, lack of proof.

    See the impossible ‘holocaust’ scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Cheers.

  67. @ThreeCranes

    Very thoughtful – and thought provoking comment.

  68. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    athEist asked:

    Meant by whom?

    Meant by the cosmopolitan transnational clique who own most our media, control our treacherous, venal politicians, advocate mass 3rd world immigration to our countries while forbidding it to their own and use working class whites as cannon fodder in their wars in the Middle East.

    Was that dog-whistley enough?

  69. JA139 says:

    I have not seen any of these WW2 war films and think Churchill was as despotic with as many deaths on his charge sheet as Stalin and Hitler. However, with regard to black people in Britain, London, like Liverpool and Cardiff, for example, was a port where a proportion of the population was mixed race due to local women getting pregnant by foreign sailors.

  70. I’m unlikely to see this film since I’ve never been an admirer of Churchill, but it does resemble the kind of hero creation myth that was advanced for Lincoln. As late as the 1960s, there were still American writers in the mainstream media who regarded Churchill as a pompous ass and a false hero.

    I remember a dig at him by Robert Ruark in one of his safari books, describing someone as being as self important as Churchill on one of his begging missions to the US before the war. Anyway, I’m not much for worshiping heroes, especially not heroes of the political class, which is the sort invented by the film industry.

  71. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Churchill was a drunken, savage butcher, who got lucky that his history is being written by the victors.

    As First Lord of the Admiralty, he was responsible for putting munitions on the Lusitania that made it a legit target for German subs, in his effort to draw the USA into the Brits bungled handling of the ‘Great War.’
    He was also the sadist who sent mostly Australian and New Zealand troops charging into fixed Turkish machine gun positions during the Gallipoli campaign, which failed miserably.

    As PM, he was the one who first started bombing civilians and German cities and was the one who gave ‘Bomber’ Harris the order to firebomb Dresden, a civilian target filled with refugees fleeing the advancing Russian Army in the closing days of WW II, savagely murdering over 100,00 people, mostly women and children.

    My only hope is that the drunken buffoon has a especially hot place in Hell to reside for all eternity.

  72. @VICB3

    VICB3′s a dreadnought
    Who can’t be bamboozled or bought.
    His bracing refresher
    Independent of (((pressure)))
    Was instructive indeed. Just a thought.

  73. @German_reader

    Sounds dubious.

    In the years I lived in France I saw numerous programmes focusing on the large Senegalese presence on the western front in both wars, and how they were subsequently maltreated (in terms of pensions, etc., as well as a “massacre” of protesting demobilised soldiers by the French in late 1944).

    • Replies: @German_reader
  74. @Alden

    France lost 1/3 of its male population in WW1. Not just military age males, but all males.

    Population of France in 1914 is estimated at 39.6 million. Pre-war male population would have been approximately 19 million.

    Total military deaths (including non-combat) were 1.4 million. The highest total I have seen for civilian deaths is 300,000 (and that includes indirect causes, such as malnutrition).

    Assuming half of the civilian deaths were males, that would be a total of 1.55 million male deaths, or about 8% of the pre-war male population.

  75. Jake says:

    Churchill hopped right into Stalin’s bed. Churchill and FDR together made certain that Stalin and Marxist would emerge from WW2 as big winners. Churchill never cared how many underlings died, as long as the British Elites were saved, along with the Empire or at least some semblance of it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  76. @German_reader

    You don’t seem to understand that one can believe in both evolution and creationism.
    That the Theory of Evolution accurately describes development within a species (survival of the fittest etc) cannot be denied. In fact this is obvious science. The suggestion by some believers in ETheory that new species can appear via random mutations is much more contentious, even among professional scientists**.

    Evolution has NOTHING useful to say about the creation of life as Darwin himself admitted. Nothing.
    The idea that 1.5 GB of self-replicating DNA can pop into existence as a result of random variations or collisions of simpler molecules is laughably improbable to the point that any sensible person will admit this method of creation is implausible, indeed impossible, using the simplest calculations of probability**. The only theory that renders such a suggestion superficially plausible is that there are an infinite number of meaningless universes where the impossible doesn’t happen and that we live on the one miracle of creation … but, of course, if this universe is a miracle then, infinity being infinity, there must be an infinite number of “lucky” universes too. Believe such nonsense if you wish.

    i.e. the only idea that makes sense is that the data necessary for the creation of intelligent life and many other aspects of the physical universe can ONLY have been created by the usual creator of data … an intelligent consciousness.

    Darwin is used within the education system to proliferate the most absurd b*llox imagineable. The motive for this is political. Faith in God in the individual undermines their susceptibility to the programs of enslaving brain-washing to which we all are routinely subjected.
    (PS The Protocols of Zion boasts about the great advances made by the use of Darwinism:
    “think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism (Evolution), Marxism (Communism), Nietzsche-ism (Socialism)” …. this Tsarist fraud also includes the following:
    IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS.)

    is this the reason so few understand Darwinism?

    ** See professional scientists cover this issue in depth here:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  77. I haven’t seen this movie, or “The Phantom Thread”, but either way I can’t imagine that Oldman’s performance is superior to that of Daniel Day Lewis. Both are superb character actors, but Oldman always seems at his best in supporting roles, where DDL is almost always lead or co-lead. In addition, DDL consumes all the energy on the screen in every scene he is in. Oldman has never had anywhere near that kind of presence. If anything I’d describe Oldman as little more that a poor man’s Gene Hackman.

  78. @ThreeCranes

    Actually, to me, they look pretty similar. The only major difference I notice is the medium: Churchill is using either oils or acrylics, whereas it’s obvious that Hitler is using watercolors here.

    Another similarity: both eschew any depiction of the human form–or animal form, for that matter.

  79. Churchill is fondly remembered by the neocons for the same reason Trotsky is: he was a great writer and orator. As statesmen, however, both were utter failures. In the case of Churchill, his signature achievement (if I may call it that) in WWII was dragging the US into the war. Ultimately, this cost Britain its empire–definitely not something that Churchill would have wanted.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  80. CK says:
    @Randal

    Again proving the foolishness of allowing dual nationals to have any say in anything. Neither fish nor fowl, no skin in the game, always a bolt hole in some other country that they soon will betray.
    As guests or tourists fine, as a voice in the affairs of a country not theirs not so fine.

  81. @Alden

    He is exemplifying a high IQ-”idiot’….

  82. TheJester says:

    The final judgment of Churchill might be whether, in the final analysis, the British Empire was worth it as one weights its gifts to humanity against its crimes against humanity.

    This is a close call. Great Britain, more than any other country, created the modern world of democracy, reason, science, medicine, and mass production. It also pieced together the largest colonial empire the world has ever seen.

    Ironically, it is the British view of government, human rights, and morality that the “victimized” Third World now throws back at the modern world for the crime of colonialism in order to garner reparations, foreign aid, affirmative action, and disparate gap resolutions in the name of (British) justice and equity. The irony is deeper if one reflects on the fact that Britain led the worldwide movement to eliminate slavery … only to lament that most of the slaves still extant in the modern world reside in sub-Saharan Africa, India, and other countries in Southwest Asia that today use Western values to attack Western Civilization. It seems there that was a practical limit on the positive impact of British culture on these countries.

    https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/index/

    I’ll go with the well-reasoned conclusion of the eminent historian, Carroll Quigley, that in the final analysis, the British Empire was worth it. The benefits outweigh the costs. Therefore, Churchill, an unabashed and unrepentant advocate of the British Empire and the values it represented, deserves his acclaimed place in history.

    Cf: “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time” by Carroll Quigley.

    • Replies: @T. J.
    , @Hibernian
  83. Mr. Anon says:
    @Alden

    I can’t stand WW2 movies. One of the first old movies I ever saw on TV was propaganda to lure America into getting involved. The movie was Mrs Miniver. Will the British propaganda never end? Probably not.

    I can’t stand any of them.

    I don’t believe there was a single american movie made between 1939 and 1945 that expressed an isolationist line or was anti-war or even just lukewarm on the subject. That’s how you know when a country is free – when all the opinions that are publicly expressed are the same.

    • Replies: @Alden
  84. I wonder what the enigmatic end of the article means. I don’t see how “Germany and France forgot what Britain gave them”. Or what he means by “recent ruptures”. I cannot think of any event in European history since 1945, and certainly not recently, that could be so described.

  85. @VICB3

    “deep analysis of Churchill reveals a manipulative and superficially charming Psychopath who managed to drag both his country (and the United States) into a bankrupting war that pretty much destroyed the Empire he purported to be saving.”

    Well, ending imperialism was just another of his benefits, then. You won’t convince the left that this wasn’t a feature, not a bug, and you won’t convince the right that it was Stalin who put an end to Hitler, not the roastmaster Churchill, whose firebombings of ancient cities should be the first charge in his historical trial.

    The fundamental fact of the 20th century’s first half was the decline and fall of the British Empire, and the efforts by that empire’s leaders to cling to power. First, they set Russia against Germany to prevent Russia from sweeping down into India and depriving them of their prize colony. After WW1, they seized the oil lands of the Middle East to make up for the fact that their coal production peaked in the early 20s (and it was inability to supply enough coal to Mussolini that drove him into the arms of Hitler). They capped it off by taking down Mossadegh with the US to preserve the profits of the Anglo-Iranian oil company which was a major source of funding for the government.

    That story is obvious but untold. Thanks for seeing it.

  86. Alden,

    “Probably his worst slaughter was his attack in the French navy May 1940. The French admirals sent the entire fleet to Algeria to save it from the Germans.

    The admirals had plans to sail to either Senegal or the Americas and wait till the allies were organized to retake Europe from the Germans. He sent planes to bomb the navy and killed 1,200 French sailors and sank the fleet.”

    Total bollocks the British navy gave them all the right to surrender but they didn’t. When the French collapsed like in the first week of the invasion when 3 divisions of Panzers or around 1000 tanks crashed through the Ardennes into France they did nothing to remedy the situation, Churchill flew into France a number of times ( very gutsy ) to discuss with their hopeless leadership and got nothing from them. The French fleet and the RAF was at the top of their discussions. The French wanted the English to use whatever the RAF had to provide them air support – Churchill refused because he saw their quality of leadership and refused to expend the last planes he had for a lost cause – history vindicates him because the Germans lost the battle of Britain – he also asked them to surrender the French Navy to the British because after Norway the Germans barely had a surface fleet standing. He’s totally right in destroying the French fleet which otherwise would have fallen into German hands. A brilliant military mind.

    You have to read the first volume of this momentous event WW2 – the ‘Gathering Storm’ which is an heart pounding political thriller describing the carnage it’s ‘pants on the edge of the seat thriller’ which narrates the buildup to WW2 written by one of the men in the center of this epic battle. The Gathering Storm is of course written by Churchill – how many history books do you have written by men in the eye of the storm.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Alden
  87. Boilz says:

    yeah …..Winnie fought WWII with American money, brains and blood. He should have been hung for Galipoli….

    • Replies: @Alden
  88. annamaria says:
    @VICB3

    Thank you.
    The tender treatment of Churchill leaves a strong taste of propaganda.

  89. @Greg Bacon

    I have been reading John Toland’s book “The Last 100 Days” (yes I know, proper usage is underlined but I don’t know how on a computer). Anyway, if the book is accurate–and he makes the claim that every quote was taken from actual transcripts made at the time–then neither Churchill nor Roosevelt come across as eminently worthy men.

    Churchill as has been noted in the comments above, zealously ordered the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians but at least he realized that the Soviet’s setting up a communist government in Poland during the Spring of 1945 presaged disaster for Eastern Europe. Of course, this, is exactly what Hitler and his minions had been trying to get the British and Americans to realize for the previous 15 years.

    Roosevelt was clueless right up to the end of his life–either that or completely under the thrall of the Jewish crypto Bolsheviks/German-haters in his administration or himself a communist.

    Things are a little complicated though. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill wanted to antagonize the Soviets to the extent that they would withdraw from battle. The western powers needed the second front. Also, Roosevelt had been apprised that there was a secret bomb in the works and this would have entered into his calculations with respect to Russia. Roosevelt may have felt that he could string Uncle Joe along till the end of the war and then use the threat of nuclear war to keep the Russkies in line.

    • Replies: @res
  90. mh505 says:
    @VICB3

    How right can you get?

  91. I am the mother of all simplicity. (I do like to point of human insanity)
    Bridge over river Kwai. Why the bridge was built? Well? People figured out that trains cannot go through river.
    Lenin did give Germany Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
    Allies redraw the map of Europe in Trianon agreement.
    In that agreement Allies did give Poland German port city of Danzing.
    They give Poland access corridor to Danzing.
    German territory was split in half.
    There was only one road for Germans to cross from one side to other.
    In Trianon agreement there was no clause if bridge should be built and by whom.
    So there was an intersection where Polish traffic cap was standing.
    He did give preference to Polish cars.
    German cars had to wait sometimes all through the night.
    Hitler got pissed-off.
    SECOND WORLD WAR JUST STARTED.

  92. Boilz,

    “Winnie fought WWII with American money, brains and blood”

    Lol go watch more of your stupid movies – all intelligent critical readers of History know who beat the crap of the Nazis, the Russians where the Wehrmacht one of the finest militiarys in history got their asses kicked and around 75% of the Wehrmacht died or got wounded or captured there – The Red Army ripped of the guts of the Wehrmacht – which’s why they controlled half of Europe proper and had a cold war – pathetic, neither Winnie or Roosie would have dared enter continental Europe without the Red Army led by ‘Uncle Joe.’

    • Replies: @Alden
  93. nickels says:

    Ask the Chinese about Britain.

    The Treaty of Nanjing was the trial run for the Treaty of Versailles.
    How dare those Chinese turn their back on our Opium!!!!!

    Number of wars in the 100 years before ww 1*:
    England: 10
    Germany: 3

    * Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.

  94. post scriptum.

    I do not know history enough. And I do not know if Hitler did complain to France and Britain about the problem. So I only suspect that Hitler did complain.

  95. annamaria says:
    @ThereisaGod

    “He was a friend of and slave to the bankers he served.”
    True. And the bankers were very generous to Churchill, for their own reasons of course. — Nothing to do with Britannia.

  96. Mulegino1 says:

    Instead of some leonine heroic figure, the real Churchill- absent the hagiography and panegyrics of the court historians – more closely resembles a Cromwell – Boris Yeltsin hybrid. He embodied all of the former’s bloodthirstiness and murderous legacy and the all of the latter’s incompetence and drunken buffoonery.

  97. res says:
    @Alden

    France lost 1/3 of its male population in WW1. Not just military age males, but all males.

    Are you including wounded? I think that’s what is usually meant by people who (accurately) cite that statistic: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=21202

    This map gives percentage of population WWI casualties (deaths) by country: http://brilliantmaps.com/ww1-casualties/

    I was surprised by how large the losses were in Africa, but after double checking German East Africa against casualty figures (order 65k) at

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914_borders

    and population figures (order 3.5M) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1907
    I think a grain of salt might be in order for the African statistics. Those numbers give a little less than 2% while the map indicates 4-10%. If anyone has better numbers please post.

    • Replies: @Wally
  98. Wally says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    That’s pretty funny.
    As if a “heart pounding political thriller” is reliable history.

    Britain started bombing civilians first

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

    ex.:
    Churchill wanted to drop poison gas and anthrax on German cities – https://codoh.com/library/document/2143/
    Tobias Grey from the UK newspaper The Spectator reviews The Bombing War 1939-45 by Richard Overy. He makes his conclusions clear with the name of the article “Hitler Didn’t Start Indiscriminate Bombings – Churchill Did” -

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

    Hitler’s Peace Offers Vs Unconditional Surrender

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10192

    http://www.codoh.com

  99. RobinG says:
    @Bliss

    WWII will be long-remembered as the bloodiest war in the history of mankind.

    You hope. (Maybe there won’t be so much “blood” in the next one, if we’re all fried.)

  100. res says:
    @ThreeCranes

    I have been reading John Toland’s book “The Last 100 Days” (yes I know, proper usage is underlined but I don’t know how on a computer).

    Does anyone here know how to do underlining in this forum? I tried an HTML u tag which did not work (and is not recommended anyway): https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_u.asp

    The Last 100 Days

    The u tag is actually stripped so I don’t think you can even see it in the page source.

    More on underlining. I am amazed at how complicated they are making it now. I guess trying to discourage the usability issue of confusing underlined text with a hyperlink.

    http://www.html.am/html-codes/text/html-underline-code.cfm

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  101. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @athEIst

    Quite. He has such a low grade literacy problem that it would be masochistic to seek what otherwise be thought needed elaborations and explanations. I daresay there is mad and madly anachronistic anti Semitism undrlying that rant. (What might he say about Disraeli’s debts…?).

  102. @Three Cranes
    Great question and my answer is that Hitler was the better painter, but you should show Hitler paintings from Hoffmann’s book,Hitler Aquarelle just to be sure we are comparing authentic AH’s to compare with Churchill’s. Hitler’s paintings had an edginess to them which captured the times in which he painted. Winston’s were mere decorative art.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @ThreeCranes
  103. @Alden

    Getting there. His father was indeed Lord Randolph Churchill, being a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough and Winston Churchill never accepted a peerage, prsumably because he preferred to remain in the House of Commons and also had a historian’s understanding that being just Winston Churchill forever would make him much more memorable than he might be as say the Duke of Chartwell. Cf. Disraeli not being referred to as the Earĺ of Beaconsfield.

    As to his being The Honorable till he was knighted, for many years he would hsve been The Right Honorable because he was a Privy Councillor. And after being knighted The Rt Hon Sir Winston Churchill KG OM CH. (I once handled sime of the correspondence of a Rt Hon Sir X Y OM GCMG which is why I can teĺl you, for example, that addressing someone as The Rt Hon Sir John Smith PC would be a solecism because The Right Honourable is sufficient indication of membership of the Privy Council without more… as I am sure you anxious to know for when you customise your family Trivial Pursuits).

    • Replies: @Alden
  104. Joe Wong says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Britain was a ruthless global tyrant, but the author seems to believe that all the crimes against humanity and peace and war crimes British committed around the world can be forgiven and glossed over by claiming Britain a democracy; what a morally defunct double think evil psychopathic expression. People said British imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, no wonder the American is adopting the same double think logic to white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and peace they have been committing around the world.

    Winston Churchill was a classic imperialist with no moral bearing, he believed for the empire everything goes. WWII is nothing but a dog-eat-dog play rough over the monopoly to plunder the rest of the world; they squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing, looting and murdering hundreds of millions of people all over the world in that scrabbling.

    “Darkest Hour” is just another obfuscation in a long series of fake news fabricated by the Anglo since WWII to portray there was some kind of morality in those war mongers and greedy imperialists.

    • Replies: @Longinus
  105. @res

    Does anyone here know how to do underlining in this forum?

    The easiest (and preferred) solution for book titles is italics. Thus from the Penguin site:

    ABOUT THE LAST 100 DAYS

    A dramatic countdown of the final months of World War II in Europe, The Last 100 Days brings to life the waning power and the ultimate submission of the Third Reich. To reconstruct the tumultuous hundred days between Yalta and the fall of Berlin, John Toland traveled more than 100,000 miles in twenty-one countries and interviewed more than six hundred people—from Hitler’s personal chauffeur to Generals von Manteuffel, Wenck, and Heinrici; from underground leaders to diplomats; from top Allied field commanders to brave young GIs. Toland adeptly weaves together these interviews using research from thousands of primary sources.

  106. “In my view, if only the bloody, resentful man had been accepted into Art College we might have been spared oceans of misery”

    We might have been spared oceans of misery if Hitler did not invade other countries. National Socialism was supposed to stay inside German borders.National socialism had reached it’s peak and would slowly die if Hitler did not try to conquer other lands.On ward and upward never stagnation in the mind of Hitler.
    Hitler found out that his Super Men were not so super after all. Yes he had his blitzkrieg surprise attacks where speed and power gained the day. It’s almost like if one gets sucker punched and goes to the ground for a ten count.The surprise puncher had better watch out because hell fire will rain down on him eventually.Even if Russia did not have numerical advantage the thought of a slug fest between two, more or less, equal armies would have been disastrous in terms of European male deaths.
    World War two was Europe’s greatest disaster. We have not recovered since then.The crazy thing is that these days there are some people actually talking about WWIII. Insane.It will be the death of Europe. Let the other races bleed out.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  107. @Seamus Padraig

    The only way Briitain. Was not going to lose its empire as quickly and chaotically as it did was for Britain tol have either rearmed earlier and, with the French, put the Naxis in their place, or not to have given the guarantee to Poland (or not to have honoured it so Germany would ultimately be desttoyed (even if many years later) by its war on the Soviet Union. One still has to factor in Japan.

  108. @Bliss

    Yes, I know that the French had lots of black colonial troops, and that the Germans supposedly massacred many of them in 1940. To be honest, I don’t really care. I know from the recollections of my English grandfather how France’s Moroccan troops behaved in Italy and what the locals thought about them (“worse than the Germans”), so all this selective memorializing of the sufferings of “people of color” doesn’t affect me at all.
    Besides, it’s not even like the Germans were racist to all coloured servicemen, West Indian or black American airmen shot down over Germany weren’t treated worse than white ones.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Bliss
  109. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    Peter Hitchens, so much less articulate than his brilliant brother the late Christopher Hitchens, and with, presumably, a so much lower IQ, nevertheless manages often to come to grips with an important aspect of reality, as in the excellent film review to which you refer — something his brother was rarely able to do.

  110. @flyingovertrout

    This post wins the thread, hands down.

  111. @ThereisaGod

    As you appear to believe in s Creator god who presumably can and does communicate with hominids as all the Abrahamic faiths teach. If so can you answer my question as to how this can be a deity who cares about human beings and what we do, and which we should obey or just pay respect to, given that he/it has given so many different inconsistent versions to different peoples – and has left billions of Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus and animist with no version of the one loving creator deity at all?

  112. @for-the-record

    Yes, but I was referring to the British, and they didn’t employ large numbers of African infantry in Europe (Indians are another matter).

  113. @Jake

    What is your evidence for Churchill being callous about the lives of “underlings” allowing for the fact that virtually *everyone* had somewhat different attitudes to death and misfortune before the spread of prosperity after WW2, modern medicine’s huge advnces in recent decades and the likelihood of families now havimg one or two children?

    • Replies: @Alden
  114. How anyone can change history is beyond my comprehension.
    History is simply what happened, such as that in June 1944 the allies landed in France, or that today was a very cold day in the Netherlands.

    What can be changed about history is the way the historic facts described.
    Historians know that a history book tells more about the period it was written in than about the time it describes.
    Churchill indeed is a good example, Churchill still is a hero in GB.
    That he was the undertaker of the British empire because of refusing to make peace with Hitler, it cannot be true.

    And so the book describing this by the British historian Charmley, as far asI know, never was published in original english, just in a German translation:
    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005
    Translation ‘the sinking of the British empire, Roosevelt – Churchill and the USA’s road to world power’.
    ‘Sinking’ is not the right translation, but I cannot think of anything better.
    Maybe ‘disappearance’, or ‘going under’.

  115. @europeasant

    Hitler was deliberately provoked by GB and Poland, possibly with help of FDR, to attack Poland.
    Then GB and France declared war.

    Nothing much happened until GB and France prepared to occupy neutral Norway and the north of neutral Sweden.
    This made it clear there was no intention to get peace.
    In a very daring operation Germany occupied Norway a few days before the planned allied operation.

    In order to force GB to make peace Hitler decided to beat France.
    To do this it was necessary to occupy neutral Netherland and Belgium.
    As gesture of good will Hitler let the British Expedionary Force escape at Dunkirk.
    But even after bombing British harbours and factories, and the May 1941 flight of Hess to Scotland, Churchill refused peace.

    Having stabilised the situation in the west Hitler could attend to the threat in the east, probably without knowing it he attacked Russia just three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack.
    Had not the winter in 1941 begun early and very cold, Germany might perhaps have beaten Russia.

  116. @German_reader

    Massacred where and when ?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  117. republic says:
    @Alden

    In regard to British propaganda efforts in the pre World II era, such as the film, Mrs.Miniver

    Charles Lindbergh’s, American First Committee speech in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941
    Alluded to those influences which was leading the US to enter WWII.

    “When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.
    ……

    National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.
    ….
    We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war.
    They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak”.

  118. The concept of changing history is hardly a complicated idea. Brian throws a rock at a car. The rocks trajectory and speed is set to hit and smash the right side drivers window, That is the course of history set. However, Sue Smith walking home having left early than is her normal course, steps in front os said rock and is hit in the head. The driver of the car carries along unnoticed.

    Miss Smith however, suffers brain damage and the course of her prescribed path in life is changed.

    That five second travel of rock from Brian has changed history for Miss Smith. She will not have a job to walk home from. Her income will change. Her entire projected course of life has been shifted by that five seconds and ending with a rock hitting her skull, fracturing it in several places. Subsequently the peripherals of her life, relations with family, friends, husband children will be changed.

    That rock changed the course of history.

    The advent of Chancellor Hitler changed the course of Lord Winston Churchill’s career. Until then, Lord Churchill was most likely destined to be rated a faulted up and comer and perhaps something far less notable. Many wanted to seek a peace with Chancellor Hitler – Lord Churchill’s revolve prevented that course.

    History is not static, hence the expression, changed the course of history. The direction of a thing impacted by another may change the entire set direction. Tesla handing his patents over to Westinghouse — changed the course of electricity’s impact on the population.

    • Replies: @Alden
  119. @jilles dykstra

    There was a book about this a few years ago:

    https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-African-Victims-Massacres-Soldiers/dp/0521730619

    Probably true that German forces did kill quite a few Senegalese soldiers in 1940 in circumstances which could be described as war crimes. On the other hand, given today’s “antiracist” and pro-black intellectual climate I don’t trust mainstream historians to research this issue without bias. German claims that the Africans themselves had committed war crimes (cruelly mutilating and killing German prisoners and the like) are always dismissed as “myths”…but given the savagery of French colonial forces in Italy and south-west Germany in 1945 I have my doubts.
    Anyway, whatever the truth, I still don’t want any more Africans immigrating to Europe today.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @europeasant
  120. L.K says:
    @flyingovertrout

    So true, never a war that warmongering pig didn’t like.

  121. Joe Wong says:
    @VICB3

    “All the things you see in the history of WWII – deportations, ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilians, annexations, political arrests, expansionist politics, race theory and so on”

    It is the essence of European civilization since the beginning of the Greek and Roman time, it was a plan laid out in the European gene not just before and during WWI, such destructive and moronic plan is still being faithfully followed by the European and their offshoots, i.e. the American led West, nowadays since WWII.

    China has proposed the world a plan to depart from that destructive and moronic Western path, the new plan is to live in a rapidly change world that peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefits to become the trend of our time. It seems Russia, Africa, SE Asia, and Latin Americas have opted for the new plan. Will the European continue to follow their harmful tradition or will separate from the Anglo to join rest of the world to peace and prosperity?

  122. L.K says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey Revusky,

    Thus, my comment relates to the fact that people like Thompson (or Derbyshire, I think, elsewhere) watch this movie and the only propaganda that they are aware of is the little smidgen of PC propaganda and fail to perceive the real bulk of it, which is the GW propaganda. In fact, Thompson states above that he considers the movie to be broadly truthful. (Which is ridiculous, obviously…)

    Exactly. But do you really think that people like this brit, Randal, does not get this?

    J.R to randal:

    In any case, the other thing you failed to understand is that the article is not a pro-immigration piece at all. It is about the propaganda machine. The fake news stories that I mention there are news stories that anti-immigration types would consider ideologically useful, that is true, but the primary issue is that these are propaganda things that simply did not happen. The article is about seeing through propaganda, not about advocating immigration. You’re not even able to see that apparently. (Though you’re not the only one.)

    Again, I think this Randal gets it, the problem being, the propaganda in this case is ideologically useful to his cause and he, and others like him, get quite hysterical when you disrupted the story with inconvenient facts/ ideas.

    As you know, there are many solid and honest arguments against mass immigration…
    However, these logical, solid arguments tend not to marshal much support from the average joe, like a good atrocity propaganda story does.

    Think about it; that is why many of these anti-immigration types, never question any of the terrorist acts allegedly perpetrated by Muslims, even in cases like 9-11, where any reasonable person, after looking at the evidence, can tell tell the “bin Laden/Al Qaeda did it” propaganda tale is simply false.

    But ‘Muslims are a bunch of violent terrorists’ fits nicely into their anti-immigration rhetoric and, as atrocity propaganda garners more support from people than those logic, sound, honest, but bland arguments, they tend to use it and not question it.
    So, in the end, at least for the smarter ones – there many who are indeed just useful idiots -, it is a matter of choice; the one about being intellectually honest or dishonest.
    The path taken is obvious.

  123. JoeFour says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Fabulous comment! Thank you!

  124. @L.K

    I don’t believe the stories of Muslim terrorism.

    I do believe that they have raped lots of our young girls, engage in electoral fraud, are huge welfare parasites, loathe our culture and are completely incompatible with our civilisation.

  125. Joe Webb says:

    Churchill beat folks out of their money. Did not pay his debts, and was on payroll of the jews.

    HIs actual record you need to read about elsewhere. This article and the movie are junk, pee-cee, and the rest of it. He helped start the war, etc. read some revisionist history. Try Harry Barnes. Irivng may be ok, I dunno. He’s a nazi type but might be reliable if you have other sources.

    Movies about politics are always pee-cee and therefore crap.

    My favorite line somewhere in Main Kampf: HItler running around dodging bullets as a courier in WWI trenches and worrying …” that he might catch a nigger bullet.” The French used mercenaries from Africa, etc.

    Joe Webb

  126. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Chase Manhattan? Barclays? These were exciting times – industrial production to kill people in vast quantities. Do what the British and now Americans had always done – supply both sides.

    Hollywood-propaganda typically make romantic films dedicated to the World War Mongers before another major war starts. War is always being waged in America of course. But before the really big show the propagandists put out films like Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan to prepare the sheep for their eventual sacrifices. Young Putsch basking in the glory of 9/11 mumbled over and over about “the great ones of doubleya doubleya 2″ before returning to the old British stomping ground to murder vast quantities.

    Eventually the great second war of US propaganda will lose its panache. Maybe after 80 years. By that time the sun will have set on another empire including the legend of master statesman and British Bullfart fiction.

  127. @llloyd

    Winnie might’ve got consolation from an abused woman.
    “It took all the strength I had but I knew I had to do it!”
    “Madame you-!?”
    “Left him. I left him for good. You know what I did? I slapped his face! And I told him ‘ You lose!’”
    “As I must slap Hitler…”

  128. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bliss

    And then, in 1942, came the humiliating defeat of the British Empire in Southeast Asia at the hands of Imperial Japan.

    Which would never have happened if the British had had the sense to maintain the very sensible Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

  129. Seraphim says:
    @Greg Bacon

    A detail that evaded attention for a long time (and still does) is that at the time of the Lusitania ‘incident’ (when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty) the Assistant Secretary of the Navy in USA was Franklin Delano Roosevelt! Another detail is that at the time of the ‘Maine incident’ in Havana harbour (the reason invoked for the initiation of the American-Spanish War) the Assistant Secretary of the Navy was Theodore Roosevelt! Churchill visited America in 1895 when he forged his deep relations with the American ‘elites’, especially with the Roosevelts. It is hard to escape the feeling that the plans for ‘drawing America’ into European conflicts was devised then.

  130. Alden says:
    @jim jones

    I’ve always liked bagpipes.

  131. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Im familiar with Debretts and Burke’s because my English relatives are in them.

  132. @llloyd

    Oh come on. The movie might be a good one but that scene is pure bullshit. It’s corny,lame and lachrymose.
    The black guy quoting the piece,being there at the right time,right car,right seat,it’s ridiculous!
    Go on the train today find a black guy and recite Horatio to him. Know what will happen? You’ll get a good hard smack in the face,and probably be in someway sexually misused.
    It might’ve worked–tho still cornball– if a teenage schoolboy,books in hand had responded. English! Better, Irish.

    • Replies: @llloyd
  133. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Gallipoli, Dieppe, murdering 1,200 French sailors and destroying the French naval fleet, Dresden bombing, agreeing to send Russian POWs back to Russia where they were all killed by Stalin. That’s just off the top of my head.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  134. Alden says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Winston Churchill was never a Lord either by birth or a title given by the sovereign.

  135. @Winnetou1889

    True. Good point. By the time I realized that my selection was biased and thought to include more paintings of elaborate buildings by Hitler, I figured everyone had lost interest in the thread and put it aside. Now I’ll dig it up. Below. Or perhaps you could insert a painting from Hoffman’s book (to which I don’t have ready access).

  136. Alden says:
    @German_reader

    After WW1 in the 1920s France and Belgium occupied the Rhineland Ruhr area of Germany. The Germans didn’t like it and there were riots.

    The French occupation forces had some Senegalese and other African troops. The Germans always claimed that the French sent African troops just to humiliate the Germans. The Germans always claimed that the Senegalese raped a lot of German women and mistreated the locals.

  137. Bliss says:
    @German_reader

    To be honest, I don’t really care.

    Of course you don’t. No surprise there. At least you are being honest.

    If the white European Slavs were untermenschen/subhumans to the Germans and deserved to be killed or enslaved then what’s wrong with black african POWs who are even lower in the Nazi racial hierarchy being shot on the spot or used later for target practice. Right?

    Besides, it’s not even like the Germans were racist to all coloured servicemen, West Indian or black American airmen shot down over Germany weren’t treated worse than white ones.

    You conveniently ignore the fact that the German war crimes against the colonial african soldiers on the western front were committed when victory for the aryan “master race” looked certain. It was when defeat became imminent and their own future as POWs of the Allies became the likelihood that the germans saw fit to apply the Geneva Convention to black POWs.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @utu
    , @Wally
  138. Alden says:
    @anonymous

    It would have been horrible to be on the beach at Dunkirk. But most were evacuated by the merchant and civilian boats because Churchill decided to keep the navy safe in England.

    But the way the propagandists turned the defeat and rout into a triumph is disgusting.

    There was a joke during both wars.
    “England will fight to the last Frenchman”

    It doesn’t matter. The EU is ruled by German money and Germany is ruled by Merkel.

  139. @Winnetou1889

    Better paintings by Hitler, the frustrated art student; paintings which may have been out of style or behind the times but which don’t deserve the odium today’s critics have heaped upon them. They really are good watercolors, a tight style that isn’t appreciated today, but technically good. But people wanted to see Picasso or Klimpt type stuff and poor Adolf was too provincial.

  140. Alden says:
    @ThereisaGod

    The author of A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess wrote an autobiography. He was in the army at the time. In his book he explained how the Labor party beat Churchill in the 1945 election.

    The majority of soldiers were enlisted men, not officers, the working class deplorable. Many officers were also working class deplorables. So the labor party soldiers did political work all during the war. After Dunkirk, much of the British army just stayed in Britain and Egypt waiting for the Americans to come in. So there was plenty of time for political work.

    Plus, the government introduced socialist measures during the war which alleviated poverty immensely. There were second clothes and furniture warehouses where things were free. So people who had never had warm winter coats got them from the warehouses.

    Between labor political activity in the military and the socialistic benefits during the war labor won in 1945 and Churchill was out

  141. pyrrhus says:
    @Maple Curtain

    Agreed. Churchill was a one man engine of destruction for Britain and its Empire, pressing to intervene in WW1 for no sane reason, WW2 the same.Churchill was only bailed out of his WW2 folly by the US, and Japan… Furthermore, Churchill starved several million Indians in Bengal to death to pile up some food for Britain, which makes him a criminal.
    Foyle’s War gives a much more realistic view of wartime, and post war England.

  142. llloyd says: • Website
    @Father O'Hara

    It was the subway and was in London in 1940. George Orwell wrote in 1940s that it is universally agreed that the best behaved Americans in London were their Negro soldiers. Fifteen years ago, in South Korea, when I went into a internet café, if there were no women, I would sit among the black American soldiers. Most of the other males would be engaged in various noisy war and killing games. The black Americans did not play them. I guess they joined the army to escape mayhem.

  143. Alden says:
    @ThereisaGod

    He also organized a nasty occupation force in Ireland after the war known as the Black and Tans. I don’t know how bad they actually were, but the Irish considered them monsters.

    It didn’t work, Ireland got free. Churchill is like Obama and Hildabeast, a thing made of propaganda

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  144. @Bliss

    All sides occasionally killed pows in WW2…seems it is claimed German troops massacred about 3000 black troops in 1940. This is a minor detail in the context of WW2, hardly comparable to the three million Soviet pows starved to death in 1941…it’s only played up because blacks are sacred in today’s West and there is a push to create narratives with blacks as victims, to declare resistance to African mass immigration as illegitimate. If one pays any attention at all to France’s colonial troops in WW2 (it’s not like they contributed much to the defeat of Germany…nor did white Frenchmen), the focus should be on the appalling mass rapes and murders committed by Moroccans in Italy and southwest Germany. It’s time France apologizes for that.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @utu
  145. Alden says:
    @Mr. Anon

    There was a poem in my middle school English book about a 14 year old English boy who took his family sailboat to Dunkirk and saved soldiers. After the war they made even more movies glorifying WW2 than they did during the war.

    The best movie made after WW2 was The Victors. An American platoon lands at Anzio, fights it’s way to Berlin. They remain in Berlin for a year or so and realize that another war the Cold War against Russia is beginning. The rest were just propaganda.

    All during the 1930s Hollywood churned our movie after movie set in the 1500 through 1700 conflicts between Spain and England. Spain was always the big evil meanie. England was always the plucky little guy. Spain of course represented Germany and Hitler. The brave ER 1 and her swashbuckling sailors represented the brave little England saving the world from the big evil meanie. Even as a kid I knew those movies were one sided propaganda. I just didn’t realize that 1600 Spain represented 1930s Germany.

    They were good movies though.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  146. @ThreeCranes

    Adolf der Kunstler’s admired
    As meticulously uninspired.
    And far from drawn deft
    Is the column at left:
    Leaning leftward, as though it were tired.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  147. Alden says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Actually, I did read the Gathering Storm and many other books by Churchill. I was in high school and didn’t realize it was all false propaganda. My parents had his WW2 series. I read them all.

    But then I learned not to believe propaganda by Churchill. Then I learned the truth about Churchill.

    He murdered 1,200 sailors and sunk the French fleet when Britain and France were allies. It was a war crime and he should have been tried and served time for it.
    The French fleet was safe in Algeria from the Germans. The admirals would have left Algeria for Senegal and the America’s as soon as the very lukewarm Vichy government made a move to turn the fleet over to the Germans.

    Churchill murdered the sailors and sunk the fleet. He didn’t kill as many as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor but what he did was much much worse and criminal.

    Pearl Harbor was Japan’s declaration of war against the US.

    France was an ally of Britain. The French protected the Dunkirk rout, not retreat. And Churchill betrayed Britian’s ally and murdered 1,200 sailors.

    Why didn’t Churchill ask the French admirals to sail to England? They were allies. It would have made sense. Remember that in spring of 1940 he went over to France and proposed a Union of France and England.

    Who knows what was in the mind of the megalomaniac. Maybe he wanted to reclaim all the territory brought to England by Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Fulke and Margaret of Anjou.

    Credulous and naive readers of Churchill’s self aggrandizing self glorifying books might admire him. But why believe a self glorifying book. Did you believe Obama’s book Dreams of my Father? Do you believe Hildabeast and Bill’s numerous books?

    Here’s a joke that was common on all sides during both world wars. “ England will fight to the last Frenchman”

  148. Alden says:
    @Boilz

    Add the slaughter of 1,200 French sailors, the allies of England. It’s comprable to Pearl Harbor and the Israeli attack on Gallipoli.

    The real question is what was wrong with the English military that they let Churchill run 2 world wars?

    • Replies: @Alden
  149. Alden says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    It’s a joke. You are right that the Russians won the war in Europe.

  150. Dan Hayes says:
    @Alden

    Alden:

    In addition to siccing the Black & Tans and Auxiliaries onto Ireland in the Irish War of Independence, Churchill played a major role of initiating the later Irish Civil War by pressuring Michael Collins into shelling Irish Free State dissidents.

    In Ireland Churchill displayed the ruthlessness which was the hallmark of his political career!

  151. Alden says:
    @Bliss

    It’s well known that the “ Black Cats” of Senegal were excellent fighters. The French acknowledged it at the time. That’s why they brought so many Senegalese rather than other Africans to the front lines.

    They deserve their reputation unlike Churchill.

  152. utu says:
    @Bliss

    Your argument are simplistic. Are you by any chance black? I know that Blacks would like to jump on the gravy train by being also victims of Nazis. It is easier to get some dough form German Nazis than from American slave owners, right? Blacks liberating Buchenwald and Blacks the victims of Nazi atrocities and Holocaust. Yeah, Holocaust, that’s a ticket. Confabulation and fiction. But nobody will check because who would dear to “defend” Nazis, right? But believe my this a futile approach. The Jewish god of Holocaust does not like non-Jewish pretenders in the suffering olympics. Jews got the gold, silver and bronze medals in the suffering olympics and you won’t get form them any sympathy.

    You know nothing about realities in Germany before and during WWII. If you were German citizen you had nothing to worry if you were Black. German Blacks were joining Hitlerjugend and Wehrmacht. Sure there was racism but certainly not as intense as in the US. Keep in mind that many Blacks in Germany were children of mix race liaisons of German women and French Black soldiers after WWI.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  153. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/churchills-first-world-war

    Sir Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1911-15 and 1939-40 and as such the civilian Cabinet minister ultimately responsible for Admiralty

    http://www.admiraltyarch.co.uk/winston-churchill/

    however,

    l’est one fall into apoplectic fits over my use of the term ,

    PM or First Lord of the Admiralty is fine with me.

    First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill who at the period in question is Prime Minister Winston Churchill did change the course of British history.

    • Replies: @Alden
  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    There is a romantic lapse in the commitment to giving a truthful account, which the team excuse as something which might have happened. Of course, anything might have happened. The truth is that they made it up, in order to convince us about something. … They imagined that Churchill would have gone down into the Underground tube system to get an impromptu democratic mandate for his policies from a random carriage-full of passengers.

    LOL. What a load of bunk. And you call it a “good film.”

    Actually, Churchill left no room for doubt as to his assessment of the value of public opinion:

    “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

    As for Churchill speaking with a random African down the Tube in the middle of the war. Yeah suuuuuure. Pure PC anachronism, to put it politely.

  155. @utu

    If you were German citizen you had nothing to worry if you were Black. German Blacks were joining Hitlerjugend and Wehrmacht.

    That’s a bit of an exaggeration, the Nazis were anti-black, and a few blacks did end up in concentration camps and were murdered there (even if there wasn’t a really systematic persecution of blacks…there weren’t many in Germany at the time anyway). But then the Nazis murdered lots of people, so there’s no reason to focus especially on their comparably few black victims, unless one intends to create yet more propaganda for the inevitability of a black planet.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @utu
  156. Wally says:
    @Bliss

    Please give us a German National Socialist, original source for use of the phrase “master race”.
    You cannot, you’re reciting propaganda.

    What war crimes by Germany against blacks? Where’s your proof?
    BTW, Jesse Owens, a black Olympic athlete, debunked the lies that Hitler snubbed him because of his race at the 1936 Olympic where Germany was the overwhelming medals winner.

    Jesse Owens, after winning his events, said:

    “When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.”

    and:

    “Hitler didn’t snub me, it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”

    Hitler and other heads of state were forbidden by Olympic officials from visiting any athletes after their events.
    Hence the lie that Hitler deliberately avoided Owens is debunked.
    Another fact, Jesse Owens was never invited to the White House nor bestowed any honors by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) or Harry S. Truman during their terms.
    http://www.codoh.com

  157. @Eustace Tilley (not)

    With your thoughts I do agree
    That his columns diverged a degree.
    His bete noire,
    the Left drew his ire.
    So straight he couldn’t see.

  158. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    “seems it is claimed German troops massacred about 3000 black troops in 1940″

    Except they did not, there is no proof, just the typical Zionist propaganda …. which you faithfully recite.

    http://www.codoh.com

  159. utu says:
    @German_reader

    All sides occasionally killed pows in WW2

    And some were doing it routinely. Though they came up with an excuse that the wannabe POW’s were only pretending to surrender. Towards the end of the war they were offered ice cream for desert to incentives them not to kill POW’s on the way back to headquarters.

  160. Wally says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    It was predictable that acting great Gary Oldman would make a WWII propaganda film after the heat he got for speaking truthfully about Jews controlling ‘Hollywood’ and other not PC statements in a Playboy magazine interview.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10921952/Gary-Oldmans-outrageous-Playboy-interview-best-quotes.html

    Make amends Gary, or else.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @John Kirby
  161. Alden says:
    @Alden

    Spell check turned USS Liberty into Gallipoli I spend as much time correcting the automatic spelling feature as I do typing original comments.

  162. T. J. says:
    @TheJester

    Britain has never been a democratic country. Britain has always been based on MONEY, WARS, LIES, and COLONIALISM.

    The BBC and its Canadian cousin the CBC (BBC’s) both venerate Churchill. The next G7 in Sagard, Quebec, will occur near the military base where German POWs were imprisoned in barraks, and where Churchill used to go fishing like a hero. Near the military base they want to use for Iran maybe…

    • Replies: @Anon
  163. Alden says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Yeah, he turned 11 Central European countries over to the horrors of atheistic anti Christian communism that outlawed your favorite book the King James Bible.

    And he gave up the British Empire in exchange for American money to fight the war.

    And Germany now rules the EU. Well, it always did since the common market.
    WW2 was supposed to prevent a takeover of Europe by Germany . It’s happened only not according to Hitker’s schedule.

  164. Alden says:
    @German_reader

    Joining Hitler Youth was mandatory. So was the draft.

  165. I am 80, born in 1937. and grew up in England during WWII.

    Do not think that the determination and patriotism shown in the film are false. If anything the common people were even more determined than Churchill.

    My Father worked in a steel foundry making artillery guns. He was a hard working man and was on directed labour, posted to Tynside to work at Vickers. Before the war he was a communist, really an anti-fascist. When Churchill came to power he became a conservative. He used to say he went from left wing to right wing overnight, without stopping at any intermediate stage. He knew every one of Churchill’s speeches by heart, and after a few beers would recite them.

    Later in life Dad had a German friend who had been in the Hitler youth and was captured after D-Day. He was a wonderful man and was so grateful to Britain that he never went back to live in Germany. They had been told by the German officers that they would be shot by the Brits if captured. Instead they were given the first good meal in weeks and shipped back to England where they were well treated and educated. The tragedy of what happened to Germany must never be repeated.

    Never underestimate the spirit of that age. It really was an inspiration and I hope showed every threatened population that it is vital to not lose hope, to “Keep calm and carry on”

    Incidentally it has been pointed out that the poster bearing that phrase was never issued, but I clearly remember people saying it, or words very close to it, duringthe war. So it seems the poster followed the people’s catchprase. I still remember people saying “Have you got your gas mask and torch?

    • Agree: jim jones
  166. utu says:
    @German_reader

    That’s a bit of an exaggeration, the Nazis were anti-black, and a few blacks did end up in concentration camps and were murdered there (even if there wasn’t a really systematic persecution of blacks…there weren’t many in Germany at the time anyway).

    You don’t need to be more Catholic than Pope. Not “a few” but only 20 and not for being black.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/what-happened-to-black-germans-under-the-nazis-a6839216.html

    http://www.cambridge.org/gl/academic/subjects/history/twentieth-century-european-history/black-germany-making-and-unmaking-diaspora-community-18841960?format=PB#3WqKRfOwLmkBe2EY.97

    Research in camp records and survivor testimony has so far thrown up around 20 black Germans who spent time in concentration camps and prisons – and at least one who was a euthanasia victim. The one case we have of a black person being sent to a concentration camp explicitly for being a Mischling (mulatto) – Gert Schramm, interned in Buchenwald aged 15 – comes from 1944.

    Only one was sent to camp because of race as being Mischling. The question is was he half-Jewish? For which half was he sent there? The other 20 were there for anti-social and criminal offenses not for being black.

    Wiki has this: Gert Schramm (28 November 1928 in Erfurt, Thüringia – 18 April 2016 in Erfurt) was a survivor of Buchenwald concentration camp, where he was the only black prisoner.

    And here is Gert Schramm’s martyrology: “He was interrogated several times, denied food and drink and was hit in the face.” How does it compare with Alabama?

    Wiki
    there was no coherent Nazi policy towards African Germans.[13] In one instance, when local officials petitioned for guidance on how to handle an Afro-German who could not find employment because he was a repeat criminal offender, they were told the population was too small to warrant the formulation of any official policy and to settle the case as they saw fit

    Yes, Nazis were anti-black but nothing like Americans then or now at iSailer next-door. Blacks in Germany were not stigmatized for being a threat. Germans’ attitude towards Blacks was somewhere on the scale somewhere between benevolent paternalistic and patronizing. Most Germans never saw a black person. There were 25,000 Blacks in Germany. And when they saw them they found them interesting and could not restrain their curiosity. In 1940 soldiers were taking pictures with French black POW’s on which soldiers look happy, friendly and amused. A Wehrmacht soldier and a black POW both smiling. Probably they wanted to send pictures to their families: “Look Mom, you want believe it. I met a real Negro. He is just like the ones I saw in the movies.”

  167. For Hitler, Churchill was always a sideshow. From the outset Hitler was focused on Russia. Both world wars n the Cold War were actually one long war, which was all about the rise of Russia. The Tsar triggered WW1 by ordering mobilisation first, far more important than a formal declaration of war. The Bolsheviks made a new hot war with Germany inevitable by flooding Central Europe with Comintern agents n fomenting street battles even while helping train a new Wehrmacht in secret bases inside Russia, n by building the largest military in the world, the Red Army, n training it for offensive operations against Europe.

    Churchill only wanted to keep Germany broken up, n keep it divided n weak in line with long standing British n French policy. The Soviet Union was a military n existential threat not just to German culture n the German people but to the rest of Europe also. In 1814 Russian troops reached Paris. In 1848 Russian troops entered Vienna n Berlin. In 1877-8 Russian troops almost seized Istanbul. If not for Hitler’s preemptive strike, Russian troops would have occupied all those capitals in the 1940′s. Churchills maniacal rejection of every one of Hitler’s many peace initiatives, even starting indiscriminate bombing of German civilian populations in response, n Churchill’s hypocritical failure to declare war on Russia for invading Poland like Britain’s declaration of war on Hitler for the same invasion, accomplished nothing but the destruction of the British Empire n Europe n returned the historical initiative to Russia. If not for Churchill’s mania, peace would have come to Europe earlier n there would have been no Cold War with the SUnion.

  168. @utu

    Hmm, interesting, thanks for those links. That actually reinforces my position that the relatively limited Nazi crimes against blacks are deliberately given exaggerated attention by pro-mass immigration activists.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
    , @utu
  169. Mr. Anon says:
    @Alden

    That’s an interesting take on all the movies about the Elizabethan/Jacobite era and the conflict between Spain and England. Of course, it could be that it was just an interesting topic (it is, after all), the stuff of which movies are made, so movies were made. But you may have a point. As one gets older, one comes to realize that everything is propaganda. Certainly, everything that is written down has an agenda behind it. Ultimately, it’s just a question of finding the propaganda that: a.) you like, and (if you’re somewhat honest) b.) that kind of comports with the truth.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  170. utu says:
    @German_reader

    And probably the book by Scheck (see below) may get more attention now. Professors at universities do not just research what they want. There are long term goals. Books like Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” or J.T. Gross “Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland” are like artillery barrage to soften the defenses before the main attack. When you take over universities in the process of “the long march through the institutions” you expect results. The Holocaust Industry is one of the chief clients or sponsor of it.

    Raffael Scheck, Katz Distinguished Teaching Professor of Modern European History at Colby College at in Jewish Studies was the one who wrote the book

    Hitler’s African victims: the German Army massacres of black French soldiers in 1940

    and published article titled:

    “They Are Just Savages”: German Massacres of Black Soldiers from the French Army in 1940

    From the review (below) it seems that he did go beyond the easy path usually taken by the so-called Holocaust studies historians.

    https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/112/2/611/44050

    Having identified the easy explanation, Scheck goes on to explore others. He finds that, in addition to racial prejudice, a number of situational factors contributed to the Germans’ willingness to murder. The French adopted tactics that left units in the Wehrmacht’s rear, where their continued resistance brought out the Germans’ fear of irregular warfare. The effort to clear out such pockets led to fighting that was confused and close. African units often fought tenaciously, sometimes in the belief that they would be offered no quarter. German soldiers found comrades who appeared to have been mutilated, as occasionally they had been. Scheck explains that these circumstances acted as triggers for racial prejudice—and then goes even further to point out that not all German units acted consistently, even in the presence of both racist and situational factors. Some Germans, including some in highly indoctrinated units such as the SS Totenkopf Division or the army’s GroßDeutschland Regiment, refused to act barbarously, even under the extreme stress of combat. (Most of the approximately 75,000 West African troops in France survived, in stark contrast to the experience of Soviet POWs a year later.) Thus the work reflects the reality on the ground, in all its complexity, while not shying away from broad conclusions.

    The “broad conclusions” are obviously attributions to racism and Nazi ideology and that the alleged massacres own 1940 were just the warm up for what took place on the Eastern front.

    Somewhere else I read that Tirailleurs Senegalais who were caught with their machetes that presumably were used in mutilations often were shot. Likewise in 1943/45 American soldiers caught with shot guns were shot by Germans. OTOH Germans taken POW in possession of American cigarettes were often shot by Americans.

  171. utu says:
    @German_reader

    I this a Wehrmacht soldier?

  172. utu says:
    @Sin City Milla

    For Hitler, Churchill was always a sideshow.

    He was not radical enough in his Jewish and Bolshevik conspiracy theories. He did not realize that the road to Moscow lead through London. If he did not screw up Dunkirk and if he did not take Churchill’s bait to bomb cities during the Battle of England he would have taken London in 1940 and then Moscow would be easy.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @dfordoom
  173. @utu

    The “broad conclusions” are obviously attributions to racism and Nazi ideology and that the alleged massacres own 1940 were just the warm up for what took place on the Eastern front.

    I don’t really buy that either.
    Interestingly enough, in a review of Scheck’s book in a far left German newspaper they mentioned that according to Scheck treatment of African prisoners improved in the fall of 1940. Apparently the Germans had hopes for reestablishing a colonial empire after the fall of France and wanted to find potential collaborators among their black pows (apparently not with much success). And even Scheck has to admit there was no order or consistent policy of killing black prisoners during the battle of France.
    So while German forces probably did kill an unknown number of black soldiers (Scheck’s estimate of 3000 seems to be the maximum number), I stand by my comment that this is a minor detail in the context of WW2.

    • Replies: @utu
  174. utu says:
    @German_reader

    Nazi crimes against blacks are deliberately given exaggerated attention by pro-mass immigration activists.

    You should know by now that Nazis are good for every season. Has Hitler’s sweet tooth already been used by the dental association to discourage children from eating sweats? I am surprised that the neoliberals haven’t used anti-Nazi arguments to dismantle the social welfare programs yet.

    With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of National Socialist People’s Welfare (NSV) by 1939, the agency “projected a powerful image of caring and support.”[4] The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[5]

    The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”[7] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising “social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance,” and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency.[8]

    One of the NSV’s premier activities was Winter Relief of the German People, which coordinated an annual drive to collect charity for the poor under the slogan: “None shall starve or freeze.” These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.”

    Known as “Law number five”, this Denazification decree disbanded the NSV, like all organizations linked to the Nazi Party. The social welfare organizations had to be established anew during the postwar reconstruction of both West and East Germany.

  175. @Alden

    I-m glad to know you have never had anything important to do or agonisingly difficult decisions to make. Try reading some good history and biography. And BTW what does your reply have to do with his de haut en bas indifference that was alleged?

  176. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @T. J.

    I’m not sure I should take the risk with a shouter WHO USES CAPS but let me ask about your standards and why this or that country qualifies – if any. I suppose you have to allow some countries to be high on the multi criteria democratic scale if it is to mean anything but which criteria you emphasise obviously matters enormously. My own ranking would put the US so low that “democracy” would give way to “plutocracy” and in the UK (“Britain” whatever you mean by it) I would take note of the measures of devolution to Scotland and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland. In Australia nearly all adults are registered and actually vote – unlike the US. In China most citizens support what their President is doing and that too is very different from the US….

  177. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    That’s an interesting take on all the movies about the Elizabethan/Jacobite era and the conflict between Spain and England. Of course, it could be that it was just an interesting topic (it is, after all), the stuff of which movies are made, so movies were made. But you may have a point. As one gets older, one comes to realize that everything is propaganda.

    I’ve actually watched a couple of those movies recently. They really are insane propaganda. Apparently the Spanish were exactly like the Nazis and Philip II was Hitler.

  178. @utu

    Scheck, Jewish studies, can one find one jew prepared to write anything positive about Hitler Germany ?; yet I read about the book:
    ” The treatment of black French POWs remained, however, suprisingly inconsistent, with abuses often triggered by certain combat situations. ”

    Then there is Goldhagen, “willing helpers’.

    Pity for him that a German jew in in his WWII diaries gives a quite different picture.
    Victor Klemperer, ‘I will bear witness, A diary of the Nazi years, 1942-1945’, New York 1999

    He was never bothered by German civilians, except once a by few teenage boys.
    He did not know about gas chambers, and even writes that he understands why Hitler persecuted jews: an article by Weizmann, stating that after GB made war with Germany ‘any jew would become a British agent’.

  179. @Sin City Milla

    We still are not allowed to know with what peace proposals Rudolf Hess in May 1941 flew to Scotland.
    What we do know is that Churchill had the landing light turned off on the private airstrip of the Scottish count Hess had met during th 1936 Olympic Games.
    Hess’s plane did crash, but without Hess, at the age of 45, or so, in the dark, he made his first parachute jump.
    He landed near a Scottish farm, where the farmer and his wife summoned the local police agent.
    The possibility of murdering Hess thus was over.
    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002

    Churchill loved war, as is made clear in his first book
    Winston Churchill, ‘The Story of the Malakand Field Force’, 1898, 2004, New York
    The genocide perpetrated there by the British did not bother him at all.
    And he blamed Islam for resisting British colonialism.

    Churchill’s racism is made clear in how he called Ghandi ‘half naked fakir’.

    Churchill’s military stupidity is made clear in
    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, ‘TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963
    Ironside was British army commander until shortly after Dunkirk, then he was replaced.
    I suppose the criticisms in his diary about politicians he did not hide in meeting with them.

    Gallipoli characterises Churchill, I suppose, a blunder that cost tens of thousands of lives, if not more.

    I read, long ago, Churchill’s praise of himself of what he did in WWII.
    At the time I knew very little, yet, what surprised me that he never made any mistake.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  180. @Sin City Milla

    Churchill wanted Germany encapsulated in a European union.
    We also see here see his bad judgment, Berlin is the capital of the continent, what Hitler wanted.
    GB has become a third rate country.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  181. Bliss says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Looks pretty good to me. The buildings look quite photorealistic.

  182. @Wally

    You can get into serious trouble nowadays for stating the truth. Garry Oldman was correct, that Jews control Hollywood, and in fact most of the other media.

    It is the double standards that get me. Discussing any other group is not taboo.

    • Replies: @Wally
  183. Seraphim says:
    @Sin City Milla

    There is little hope to understand the ‘long war’ when we operate with fantasist history meant only to regurgitate the theme of the permanent ‘Russian threat’ to the German ‘Kultur n people’ and, of course to ‘Europe’. In 1848 Russians did occupy neither Vienna nor Berlin. Where did you get that? Russian troops put down the masonic Hungarian Revolution. Neither did Russia ‘trigger’ WW1, but Austro-Hungary and Germany who wanted to ‘stop the rise of Russia’ and eventually to carve it between themselves.
    Churchill followed the policy of the British Empire of preventing an alliance between Germany and Russia and provoke a war between them which would exhaust them both. His objectives were to tackle them separately, Germany being the most immediate threat. His Gallipoli expedition was actually meant to take Constantinople before the Russians could reach it. But the final objective was ‘to stop the rise of Russia’.
    Prevention of a German-Russian ‘get together’ remained the primary objective of Britain and after the Soviet-German Non Aggression Pact. Germany and Russia have been again pushed to a destructive war which would exhaust them both.
    In both wars the intervention of America was intended to bring a final decision and arrange a ‘New World Order’.
    Of course, in both cases it was a miscalculation of Russia’s weakness. Germany refused to head Bismarck advice. The Anglo-Americans were more cautious, but continued to underestimate Russia. Their surprise at the Russian atomic bomb must have been the same as the revelation of the new weaponry of Russia by Putin.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  184. Apparently so as he’s wearing a German “blouse”, but I don’t recall having seen a German soldier wear puttees–I thought that was a British thing. It looks as though he is being employed as a muleskinner, waterboy.

    • Replies: @utu
  185. @utu

    “Nazis were anti-black but nothing like Americans then or now at iSailer next-door..”

    We at iSteve are not anti-black. Rather, we are not blind to nor are we willing to expose ourselves to the pernicious effects blacks have upon a free society.

    And this goes beyond bare criminality. When a consistent 93% of blacks believe O.J.should not have been found guilty, believe the L.A. riots were justified, believe Rodney King, Trayvon, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were innocent lambs being led to the slaughter, vote black or Democratic irrespective of candidates’ specific politics, refuse to acknowledge that their own daily living habits make them bad neighbors whose reputation drives down the value of Real Estate in whatever neighborhood they take up, then the ripple effect of their racism goes far beyond the gratification of their immediate self interest.

    We don’t necessarily despise them; we are wary of them. We no longer trust them and cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths. It is no longer worth the effort it takes to accommodate them. They should be allowed to pursue their own goals unimpeded by us, we whites. They are free. They may leave or stay, but no more gibs. Let them make their own way.

    • Replies: @europeasant
    , @utu
  186. polskijoe says:

    Hitler = Massive Mass Murderer.
    Churchill = Mass Murderer who in his latter years was weaker. Roosevelt and Stalin had more power.

    Churchill was a 32 or 33nd degree Freemasons (just like Roosevelt).
    He didnt like Catholics.

    In the end he fell to Jewish influence. Just like every US president since at least Wilson.

    What came first Jewish banking in Britain or British Empire? Anyone know?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @R. McM.
    , @ThreeCranes
  187. “You know, not many people knew it, but the Führer was a terrific dancer. (now shouting with rage) That is because you were taken in by that verdammte Allied propaganda! Such filthy lies! They told lies! But nobody ever said a bad word about Winston Churchill, did they? No! “Win with Winnie!” Churchill! With his cigars, with his brandy. And his ROTTEN painting! Rotten! Hitler, THERE was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! TWO COATS! Churchill. He couldn’t even say “Nazi”. He would say “Nooooozeeehz, Nooooozeeehz!” It wasn’t NOSES, it was NAZIS! Churchill! Let me tell you THIS! And you’re hearing this straight from the horse – Hitler was better looking than Churchill. He was a better dresser than Churchill. He had more hair! He told funnier jokes! And he could dance the PANTS off of Churchill!” (‘The Producers’- now there was a good film!)

  188. @German_reader

    “I still don’t want any more Africans immigrating to Europe today”

    Same with the Moslems. Europe for Europeans.

  189. Wally says:
    @John Kirby

    Who runs Hollywood & the media?:

  190. Wally says:
    @polskijoe

    “Hitler = Massive Mass Murderer.”

    Except he wasn’t. There is no proof, only Zionist propaganda.

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

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @polskijoe
  191. Wally says:
    @res

    Seriously? Laughable Zionist controlled Wikipedia?
    It’s amazing why anyone would cite Wikipedia as a reference for anything which Jews have a special interest in promoting. It’s rather like asking the wolf to guard the chicken coop.

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @res
  192. Hibernian says:
    @TheJester

    “This is a close call. Great Britain, more than any other country, created the modern world of democracy, reason, science, medicine, and mass production.”

    That’s debateable. The Germans and the post- Independence USA have at least as good a claim. An argument can be made for the French.

  193. Longinus says:
    @Joe Wong

    American imperialism gives British imperialism a bad name. Don’t kid yourself that you are comparing like with like

  194. utu says:
    @ThreeCranes

    His uniform is of Legion Freies Arabian. The same picture is here

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

  195. Sparkon says:
    @utu

    … and then Moscow would be easy.

    Yes, I agree with most of what you said, but I don’t think taking Moscow could ever be easy.

    I’ve argued before that the Wehrmacht probably did have a chance to crash into Moscow in the first few months of the war, but only if the German high command did everything exactly right, including staying north of the Pripet Marshes, and delaying any assault on Leningrad until the railheads at Moscow had been seized.

    At the outset of the war, the German Army or Heer had a tactical superiority over its foes, but it did not have adequate heavy weapons to defeat the Red Army’s T-34s and KVs. In the early months of Barbarossa, the Soviets and Red Army were off balance, staving off disaster only by feeding into the breach untold numbers of the huge Red Army reserves of up to 15 million by some accounts.

    So the only chance for the Germans was to take advantage of the Heer’s tactical superiority, and strike with everything the Wehrmacht had straight to the heart of the enemy capital, with the plausible objective of decapitating the Bolshevik leadership.

    Slim chance, but the only chance.

    Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were all towering scoundrels in my view. Hitler remains enigmatic, but in the final analysis, results are what counts, and Hitler’s leadership led Germany into a two-front war it shouldn’t have waged, where it threw away every possible chance for victory, and which ended with German cities in ruins. But even that wasn’t the end of it, as we know.

  196. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    If he did not screw up Dunkirk and if he did not take Churchill’s bait to bomb cities during the Battle of England he would have taken London in 1940

    Considering the massive preparation the Allies made before the Normandy landings, floating harbors, cross channel pipelines, a fleet of landing craft all backed by massive US/UK air power, it seems impossible that the Germans, lacking significant preparation, without a landing fleet, lacking air superiority, without first sinking the Royal Navy, could have invaded Britain in 1940.

    • Replies: @utu
  197. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Churchill’s racism is made clear in how he called Ghandi ‘half naked fakir’.

    LOL. Ghandi was for Indian independence, Churchill was for the Indian empire. They were political opponents. You cannot expect Churchill to have been effusive in praise of Ghandi. But his description, “half naked fakir”, was absolutely correct. Ghandi was often half-naked, and he was a fakir, i.e., an ascetic.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  198. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    GB has become a third rate country.

    It’s silly blaming Churchill for what was inevitable. And it is silly calling Britain a third-rate country, if by that you mean a minor power? What else could Britain have become in a world where much larger and more populous nations gained the industrial revolution? How could it ever have been possible for Britain to remain a “Great Power”, when contesting Russia with three times the population and 70 times the land area, or China with twenty times the population and 40 times the land area?

    Why could it ever have been possible for Britain without the empire to remain vastly more powerful than countries such as Korea, Japan, Vietnam, indonesia, and many many others? Only a racist could imagine that on a level playing field, Britain alone could have remained a “Great Power.”

    In fact, the only way Britain could have remained a great power, would have been the Churchillian way, i.e., by retaining the empire, industrializing India and making India the center of the Empire. But then it would have been, in effect, an Indian Empire, albeit an English-speaking one. Instead, Britain pursued the long held aim, as spelled out in Thomas Macaulay’s minute on Indian education, dated February 2, 1835, to prepare India for prosperity and self-government. With that, Britain’s decline from great power status was inevitable.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  199. @ThreeCranes

    They are a problem any where in the world where there are large numbers of them concentrated in one area. That is why our government is using the unique idea of dispersing them through out the land in the vain hope of minimizing their destructive way of life. Destructive in a modern world but of course in Africa it would be standard operating procedures.

    The problem is that some other community will be visited by this destructive force of nature. These communities have spend time moving away from the destruction so as to stake a claim of being non-racist. Little do they know what awaits them.

    Do not feed them, do not send them money, do not dig wells for them. Their worldwide population is growing at fantastic rates. There are an estimated one billion of them just in Sub-Saharan Africa, soon to be two billion. If even ten percent of Sub-Saharan Africans were allowed to emigrate in Europe of USA it would mean the destruction of society.

  200. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Greg Bacon

    Churchill … got lucky that his history is being written by the victors.

    There was no luck about it. As Churchill stated, “History will be kind to me, because I intend to write the history.”

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  201. Sparkon says:

    lacking air superiority,

    Yes, I agree a sea invasion was not likely, but the Luftwaffe probably had a real chance to gain air superiority over the island nation by all-out prosecution of the air campaign against Fighter Command, which by some accounts, was running on its last legs by late August 1940. At that point, according to the going narrative, Hitler was baited into a retaliatory city bombing campaign that took the heat (bombs) off Fighter Command, and allowed it fight on.

    So again, the frustrated artist man with the mustache and swastikas snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  202. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    Neither did Russia ‘trigger’ WW1

    Technically, Russia did ‘trigger’ WW1. Their mobilization against Austria-Hungary prompted Germany to initiate the Schlieffen Plan.

    Austro-Hungary and Germany who wanted to ‘stop the rise of Russia’ and eventually to carve it between themselves.

    Every one of the European great powers had a motive for war. The Russian Empire had expanded under the rule of every one of Nicholas’s Romanov ancestors, and in 1914, Russia had clear ambitions on Turkish territory and control of the Straits.

    Britain wanted Germany, its greatest European rival crushed.

    The French wanted revenge against Germany for the Franco-Prussian war and the return of Alsace-Lorraine.

    Germany, rapidly overtaking Britain as Europe’s leading industrial power, but facing the Triple entente of Britain, France and Russia, had most to lose by a war and they lost it, which is why the Kaiser panicked when Russia mobilized and made futile last minute efforts to call the war off.

    Churchill followed the policy of the British Empire

    It was simply standard balance of power politics. And in 1914, Churchill was not leading the government. He was just a rather pro-active head of the Naval Department, aka, the Admiralty.

    As for

    preventing an alliance between Germany and Russia and provok[ing] a war between them which would exhaust them both.

    That was apparently Chamberlain’s policy. Hence, the diplomacy compelling the Czechs to abandon their defensive line, thereby opening the way for Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia and take over that country’s formidable defense industry, and its fleet of tanks that were said to be far superior to any that the Germans had at the time. And it launched the Germans in the right direction, eastward.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  203. polskijoe says:
    @Wally

    blah blah.

    We Slavic are not effected by Zionist propaganda. We dont care about filthy Nazis, or Zionists.

    There is more evidence for Nazi crimes slaughering tens of millions of Slavic people, then “2 milllion” dead Germans after the war. Nazi Germany was the aggressor.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @L.K
  204. @CanSpeccy

    What Churchill said, not a shred of any respect for an Indian nationalist.
    Ghandi understood this, when he was asked ‘what do you think of western civilisation’, he seems to have answered ‘that would be nice’

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  205. @CanSpeccy

    How UK, or the empire, would have fared without the stupid WWII, anybody’s guess.

    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  206. utu says:
    @ThreeCranes

    If comments like the one you have just written or passionate discussions about “the pernicious effects blacks have upon a free society” at iSteve could have been found anywhere in Germany I am sure prof. Raffael Scheck would have no problems explaining the alleged killings of Senegalese surrendering soldiers and POWs by Germans in 1940 in terms of anti-black racism. This was the thesis he badly wanted to prove. But he failed. He did not find anything. That’s why I stand by what I have said. Nothing like iSteve comments existed in Nazi Germany. Nobody there was consumed with what Blacks were or not or what they did or not. For one simple reason there were only 25,000 Blacks in Germany and Germans did not have a history of slavery like Americans.

    Raffael Scheck had to admit that killings were taking place in the heat of battle and mostly stemmed from belief that Senegalese were mutilating German soldiers bodies with machetes. He also said that the well disciplined troops who were actually more indoctrinated in Nazi ideology like “SS Totenkopf Division or the army’s GroßDeutschland Regiment, [did not act] barbarously, even under the extreme stress of combat.” One may think that what took place there was no different than what routinely was taking place for four years on Pacific Island where less trained and much more undisciplined than Germans American GI’s were engaging in butchery on daily basis. All kinds of excuses, some based on facts and some based on rumors, were used to justify it. Raffael Scheck estimates the numbers of killed to be between 1,500 and 3,000. This is at least 2 orders of magnitude less than what took place on Pacific islands. But the book by some Jewish professor is written about this German atrocity but there is no single book that deals with what actually was happening on Pacific island which was at least two orders of magnitude larger.

    The book of Jewish professor Raffael Scheck is used to keep beating Germans over the head to weaken their defense system. In this case as pointed out by German_reader it is about accepting immigrants from Africa. Germans are guilty, they must feel guilty and the only way to atone is to take more immigrants from Africa. And all this can be accomplished with a help of some unknown Jewish professor from obscure college in America who is very cheap to maintain. Is it about $150k/year or so?

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  207. @CanSpeccy

    Not all history is kind to Churchill

    John Charmley, ‘Churchill, The end of glory, A political biography’, London 1993

    David Irving, ‘Churchill’s War’, 1987, New York

    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, ‘TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963

    Günther W.Gellermann, ‘Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England…, Ausgewählte Initiativen zur Beëndigung des Krieges 1940/1942’, Bonn 1995

    David Irving, ‘The destruction of Convoy PQ.17’, London, 1968, 1980

    David Irving, ‘Accident – The death of General Sikorsky’, 1979, München (German translation)

    Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet’, Paris, 2004

    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998

    I’m just an amateur historian, but for me Churchill is the undertaker of the British empire, responsible for tens of millions of unnecessay deaths, and for misery even now hardly described.
    What motivated him ?
    Some assert just love of power and war.

  208. @utu

    ” The book of Jewish professor Raffael Scheck is used to keep beating Germans over the head to weaken their defense system. In this case as pointed out by German_reader it is about accepting immigrants from Africa. Germans are guilty, they must feel guilty and the only way to atone is to take more immigrants from Africa. ”

    Correct
    just one change
    ” weaken their moral defense system. ”

    And to destroy the Germans as a people and a culture.
    Why ?
    Revenge ?

    • Agree: utu
  209. R. McM. says:
    @polskijoe

    Re: ”What came first Jewish banking in Britain or British Empire? Anyone know?”

    I’d say the British Empire, as usual.

    1199 – … International bankers decide to back the crusades for the Temple of Solomon, which caused their downfall.

  210. res says:
    @Wally

    I welcome better numbers. As I said in my original comment.

    Snarky responses lacking in information content, not so much.

  211. utu says:

    Revusky is correct. Here with my edits:

    But, for crying out loud, the whole damned movie is surely a propaganda film! [...]

    The [...] anglo-zionist version of WW2 is largely false. [...] The entire film is propaganda, yet the only bit that these people object to is the scene with the black guy in the subway!

  212. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    lacking air superiority, without first sinking the Royal Navy

    They would have air superiority if they have won Battle of England and then Luftwaffe would sink the Royal Navy or keep it at bay. Why the Royal Navy was not deployed during Dunkirk evacuation? They feared Luftwaffe.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @CanSpeccy
  213. annamaria says:

    How independent and upright is England?
    Well, a picture worth a thousand words — such as a picture of the former salesmen of ceramic countertops Mr. Gavin Williamson (BS in political sciences), who currently occupies a post of Secretary of State for Defence in the UK. Mr. Gavin Williamson has zero (0) military experience. This committed opportunist is a dream come true for international war profiteers – the banksters, national (in)security apparatus’ brass and private contractors, and weapon manufacturers/dealers.
    Here is more on the “uprightness:” http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/03/syria-leaks-suites-propaganda-and-dividends-presented-by-publius-tacitus.html#more
    “Dated January 12, 2018, the British Diplomatic Telegram (TD) – signed by Benjamin Norman (who tracks Middle East issues at the British Embassy in Washington) – has circulated a lot behind the scenes of the Wehrkunde, the last Munich Security Conference (16-18 February). Why? Because this document reveals the content of a meeting (of the “Small Group on Syria”, bringing together high-ranking diplomats from the United States, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), which should have been kept strictly confidential.
    Why? Because it reveals, by the menu, the “Western strategy” concerning the war in Syria: to feed and multiply the hostilities by any means to prevent a Pax Russiana; to continue an intense communication campaign on the Russian and Syrian bombings that kill civilians; frame the UN Special Representative for Syria – Staffan de Mistura – with a binding roadmap; sabotage the Sochi peace conference to return to Geneva in a tripartite format: Syrian opposition, Syrian government and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDS – mainly made up of Kurdish deputies on the orders of the Pentagon). …
    In announcing the formation of a corps of 30,000 combatants (a few days before the Sochi summit), the Pentagon deliberately pressed the red button of a new Turkish military intervention. Not only did Washington implicitly give Ankara its green light, but as a bonus, the American strategists created an undeniable feud between Kurdish factions to consolidate their FDS allies, whose presence they intend to impose in Geneva ..
    Significant accuracy: still in Munich, the document in question was the subject of scrupulous authentication by two experts of European intelligence services, as well as by the head of the security forces of one of the Arab countries participating in the Bavarian meeting. …
    Benjamin Norman’s TD [Diplomatic Telegram] announces “an endless war” in Syria and more widely in the Near and Middle East, illustrating to perfection Cecil Rhodes’ edifying observation: “money is the blood of others …”
    Benjamin Norman is a British “diplomat” in DC.
    Perfidy. Bloody perfidy.

  214. utu says:
    @German_reader

    that according to Scheck treatment of African prisoners improved in the fall of 1940. Apparently the Germans had hopes for reestablishing a colonial empire after the fall of France and wanted to find potential collaborators among their black pows (apparently not with much success)

    This is all according to Scheck. The question would be whether the treatment got worse once Afrika Korps was pushed out of Africa and there was no more any hopes for “reestablishing a colonial empire”? According to Scheck it should, yes? Because Germans can behave decently only when they have some evil interest, right? This is how you create the narrative and you stick to it. God forbid to admit and show any evidence of Germans behaving normally like Germans behave most of the time in their history.

    Why not go for a simple explanation? The POW’s got treated better once the fighting stopped and the standard operating procedure of treating POWs was implemented.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  215. @utu

    The Navy was very busy guarding the empire’s life lines, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and blocking the German navy from reaching the Atlantic.
    Any German navy ship was hunted down relentlessly, Germany could just operate submarines.
    These submarines made it necessary to escort convoys.
    FDR even (mis)used the USA navy for convoying before the USA was at war, from May 1940 on.

  216. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    How UK, or the empire, would have fared without the stupid WWII, anybody’s guess.

    Not so. Britain had been committed for more than a century to Indian independence, had taken many steps to that end and it was only a matter of timing as to when independence would be achieved. Churchill was in a minority in his opposition to Indian independence.

    Without India, Britain was just a small off-shore island with little in the way of resources, other than coal that is too expensive to mine. Other than India, the empire was a drag, the African colonies cost, they did not pay.

    And as for the war, who do you think started it? It certainly wasn’t Britain. The Germans repeatedly breached the terms of the settlement of WW1, the Versailles Treaty, but Britain and France were too feeble to do anything about it, which allowed Germany to re-arm.

  217. How about a review of ‘The Death of Stalin’ by Armando Iannuci, a black comedy that is apparently banned in Russia?

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  218. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    They would have air superiority if they have won Battle of England

    But they didn’t win the Battle of Britain, which in any case came after Dunkirk. So why didn’t the Luftwaffe prevent the Dunkirk evacuation? Partly, no doubt because the RAF were running interference, although RAF operations were limited by palls of smoke created by the Germans lighting vast fires of Diesel fuel.

    Why the Royal Navy was not deployed during Dunkirk evacuation? They feared Luftwaffe.

    The Royal Navy was deployed during the Dunkirk evacuation: 39 destroyers, plus four Canadian destroyers plus 750 odd sundry other vessels.

  219. dfordoom says: • Website
    @utu

    If he did not screw up Dunkirk and if he did not take Churchill’s bait to bomb cities during the Battle of England he would have taken London in 1940 and then Moscow would be easy.

    A seaborne invasion of England would still have been a huge risk. Seaborne invasions can go very badly wrong (Gallipoli being an obvious example). I don’t think Hitler ever intended to invade. He assumed that the threat of invasion would be enough to persuade the British to make peace.

    And I’m not sure how an invasion of England would have made Moscow easy. Germany was simply not strong enough to defeat the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  220. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Yes, I agree a sea invasion was not likely, but the Luftwaffe probably had a real chance to gain air superiority over the island nation

    Agreed, but if an invasion was not seriously intended then gaining air superiority over southern England would have been fairly pointless. And the Luftwaffe was paying a heavy price for what was essentially a bluff.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  221. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Ghandi understood this, when he was asked ‘what do you think of western civilisation’, he seems to have answered ‘that would be nice’

    Except that Gandhi never said any such thing.

  222. Sparkon says:
    @dfordoom

    if an invasion was not seriously intended then gaining air superiority over southern England would have been fairly pointless.

    No, not at all. If the Luftwaffe had been able to defeat Fighter Command, either by killing the pilots, shooting down the fighters, cratering the airfields, knocking out the workshops and warehouses, killing the technicians, and destroying the Chain Home radars, then the day would have arrived, possibly by September 1940 already, when the skies over Blighty would have been swept of the Hurricanes and Spitfires, and the island nation would have been at the mercy of the Luftwaffe, which could then have set about destroying the factories building the aircraft, and other military assets of the U.K.

    Why do you think modern air forces like to declare no-fly zones?

  223. @CanSpeccy

    Britain (and France) declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Britain fought to prevent the rise of an economic competitor, not out of some idealistic commitment to internationalist treaties. And it should never be forgotten, that Britain could not defeat Germany in two wars without someone else (be it the Soviets or Americans) doing their dirty work for them.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @CanSpeccy
  224. Dr. Doom says:

    The gist of this phony triumphalism is to remind the English now denuded of their land, language and culture that “it was somehow worth it”. The English girls pimped and gang-raped owe their perils and humiliation to this drunken whoremonger who killed the Aussies at Gallipoli and sold his soul for a chance to be a prancing popinjay for the Rothschilds and their War against ANYONE WHO WOULD UNSHACKLE FROM THEIR USURY.
    My takeaway is simply this. The Only Rule of War is YOU HAVE TO WIN.
    ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
    THE GOOD GUYS ALWAYS WIN. THE WINNERS WRITE THE HISTORIES.

    Like Ghenghis Khan, “CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND LISTEN TO THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR WOMEN AS THEY KNOW YOU ARE A REAL MAN!”

    ACT THREE IS ABOUT TO START. LET’S PARTY.

    THE KING OF THE MONGOLS HAS RETURNED.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  225. Wally says:
    @polskijoe

    Really? I call BS.
    Your claims are laughable.
    Just because you say so doesn’t make it so.

    Other than combat deaths, present your “evidence” for your “slaughtered tens of millions of Slavic people”.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @polskijoe
  226. @polskijoe

    Neither.

    What came first was the steam engine and the concomitant development of precision machine metal working. With these as a base, Britain built a mercantile, industrial economy. The capital for early industrialization was generated internally, at times wealthy families even mortgaged their estates to finance their inventor relative during financial squeezes.

    Once the economy became prosperous, the bankers moved in like jackals to a lion kill. Eventually (((they))) take over the nation’s central bank and loan themselves money with which they buy all the wealth-producing assets in the nation, hollowing it out and leaving it an empty shell; at which point they move on to their next plum target.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  227. Wally says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Britain and France also did not declare war on the communist USSR, who invaded Poland from the east.

    http://www.codoh.com

  228. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Britain (and France) declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

    Not so.

    The Arch Duke Ferdinand, heir to the Austro Hungarian throne was assassinated on June 23 by Gavrilo Princip who had been armed and trained by Serbian Military Intelligence.

    Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia on July 23.

    Serbia appealed to Russia, whose council of ministers met on July 24 and ordered four military districts to prepare for mobilization, i.e., the Austro Hungarian ultimatum had been rejected and Russia was preparing to fight with its ally, Serbia.

    Serbia began mobilization of its armed forces on July 25.

    Russia began full mobilization on July 31.

    Germany, allied with Austria Hungary, began mobilization on August 1, a process which, once begun, could not be terminated, since the whole intent of the German plan for mobilization was to take advantage of Germany’s highly developed rail system to deliver a huge army into France (via Belgium), on very short notice; knock France out of the war; then turn all guns on Russia.

    (Because the German mobilization could not be paused or reversed, the Kaiser’s hysterical attempts to call the war off after the mobilization had begun were simply ignored by the military brass.)

    Germany and France Declared war on one another on August 3, i.e., France declared war once it was obvious that the Germans were coming for them.

    The German army invaded Belgium on its way to France on August 4.

    Britain declared war on August 4.

    So it was clearly the Serbs and Russians who started the ball rolling. Germany reacted to Russian mobilization in the only rational way, which was to launch a knock-out assault on Russia’s French ally before turning to face Russia’s vase army.

    Britain dithered only because of a number of pacifists in the Liberal Government whom Prime Minister, Asquith wished to bring on side before announcing Britain’s belligerent intentions. But as a member of the triple entente, Britain had no alternative but to enter the war against Germany once Russia began its mobilization.

  229. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dr. Doom

    At least, I agree with your first sentence.

    The rest of your spiel makes much less sense.

    Germany was going for European hegemony. How long do you think the British would have been allowed to enjoy the benefits of their overseas empire, if Germany has beaten Russia and established an empire from the Urals to the Pyrenees or the Atlantic?

    So Britain had the choice: subjugation by Germany, or alliance and near certainty of victory with America. In fact, that was not even a choice. It was a no brainer.

    Churchill’s may have erred in being too anxious to gain an American alliance, since America was already embarked on an imperialistic career and could not, therefore, allow Germany to dominate Eurasia. Had Churchill showed more inclination to dicker with Hitler on the terms of a deal, America might have treated the Brits more generously.

    But in any case, Britain was bound to play only a minor role, and in fact, although the cost of war to Britain was colossal, it was very much smaller than the cost to Germany and Russia. Overall, Churchill played what hand he had reasonably, well.

    Of course there were many mistakes. Bombing German cities may have contributed nothing to victory and may have delayed victory as some, since the war, have argued. But war is just one disaster after another so inevitably all kinds of dumb, hideous mistakes are made. But Churchill had a pretty clear strategic vision as the result of which, Britain came out of the war a free country, not a colony of the German empire or the Soviet Union.

  230. @Wally

    Yes, pretty much proof-positive that Britain’s claims to be on the “good side” were pure bunk.

  231. @CanSpeccy

    In addition to taking more care about whom you are replying to, you need to be more clear about which world war your posts are about. My comment was directed towards something you said about the second, not the first.

  232. @CanSpeccy

    And as long as we’re on the subject, it should be mentioned once again (given your intimations to the effect), that few things are more gruesomely laughable than Britain’s protestations of someone else committing a violation of neutrality.

  233. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So, what your little lesson in history tells us is that Russia was the aggressor, the perpetual aggressor at that, yesterday, today, tomorrow. The Balkan wars which preceded the aggression of Austria against Serbia were not wars of liberation against the centuries old Ottoman oppression, but the dark designs of Russia against the Turks, who were the darlings of both Germany and England and who felt compelled to jump to their rescue! The only thing was that Germany and England were racing for the same newly discovered oil fields in Mesopotamia and Persia (and the oil fields of Baku as well).
    Russia had no aggressive intentions against Germany (or ‘Europe’) whereas Germany’s intentions were barely concealed. In what way was Russia a ‘threat’ to ‘German Kultur n people’ when the Russian dynasty was more German than Russian, related to the Princely Houses of Germany, when the administration, army, navy, academia were chock full of Germans, when German colonists in Russia were striving, when Russian philosophers were swearing on Kant and Schelling and Hegel?
    It would be naive to believe that the Russians had no knowledge of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 which discussed the attack against Russia, postponed only because Germany was not yet fully prepared. And even that was no news for them. The famous advice of Bismarck not to mess with Russia, was given precisely in the conditions of an aggressive surge of the Triple Alliance (the Bulgarian crisis of 1885-88, in which Russia was not a supporter of Bulgaria). Russia could not have been but on alert after the unilateral denunciations of the security agreements she had with Germany and Austro-Hungary, after the dismissal of Bismarck. And the refusal by Austro-Hungary backed by Germany of the offer of international mediation to solve the Serbian crisis proposed by Britain and Russia, were a clear indication who was the aggressor. In actual fact
    Austria mobilized Russian frontier on the 26 July 1914, Russian mobilization followed after two days – 28 July, after the declaration of war to Serbia. Anyhow, it was Germany which declared war on Russia on 1 August, followed by Austro-Hungary on the 6th.
    Russia had always a control of the straits. Britain always wanted to block Russia from reaching the ‘warm seas’.
    Britain wanted to see revolution in Russia and worked underhand to subvert her ally.
    Churchill was not leading the government. But as Lord of Admiralty he was instrumental in the switch of the Navy from coal to petrol and really was an initiator of the race for oil. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the war.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  234. @CanSpeccy

    But Churchill had a pretty clear strategic vision as the result of which, Britain came out of the war a free country, not a colony of the German empire or the Soviet Union. Churchill had a pretty clear strategic vision as the result of which, Britain came out of the war a free country, not a colony of the German empire or the Soviet Union.

    Britain became a vassal state of the USA, her former colony, essentially.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  235. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Britain (and France) declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

    You are basically wrong about WW2, for the reasons I expressed at #220.

    Germany had clear plans for imperial expansion. Hitler’s Mein Kampf made that clear, as did von Ribbentrop in 1937, while visiting Churchill at Chartwell, where he showed him a map of Germany’s intended conquest in the East.

    Britain could either accept Germany hegemony in Europe from the Urals to the Pyranees and likely British subjugation, or they could fight. It was certainly not just a matter of commercial rivalry.

    As for Britain declaring war, that is essentially bollocks. Britain guaranteed the independence of Poland, not that that meant much. But by invading Poland Germany effectively put itself in a state of war with Britain.

  236. @CanSpeccy

    You’re very naive.

    GB of course wanted to keep India as a colony, what GB said about indepence, hogwash.
    The atrocities between Muslims and Hindus when India became free were to a large extent caused by GB, that had hoped to prevent indepence by internal strife.
    Louis Fischer, ´The life of Mahatma Ghandi’, London 1951, Bombay 1995

    Versailles, there was no settlement, it was what Hitler said: Diktat.
    Historians agree that it was one of the most stupid things politicians ever did.
    The British blockade on sea of Germany continued until the Weimar Republic signed in the Hall of Mirrors, the blockade hadd cost 90.000 German lifes after the capitulation.
    The food situation in Germany was so bad that British occupation troops began to rebel.
    And so, virtually, Hitler was born in the Hall of Mirrors when the German prime minister signed.
    David Sinclair, ‘Hall of Mirrors’, London, 2001

    Who started the war ?
    As Churchill said ‘one can best see the whole 1914 1945 period as one long war’.
    That Britain caused WWI, no doubt about it, the pre 1914 secret agreements between GB, France and the tsar prove it.
    GB was unable to compete economically with the Germany unified in 1870 by the French attack.
    See
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008, Balfour, to US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  237. @Jonathan Revusky

    The price for GB of LendLease was to open the empire to trade.
    Do not think the British public ever knew, not even now.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  238. @Seraphim

    ” It would be naive to believe that the Russians had no knowledge of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 which discussed the attack against Russia, postponed only because Germany was not yet fully prepared ”

    This is, I suppose the conference invented by Morgenthau that never was.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  239. @CanSpeccy

    Hitler admired the British empire, and wanted to cooperate with it.
    A few days after Dunkirk he held a speech for his generals praising the empire.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  240. @CanSpeccy

    The Serajevo murder was just igniting the fuse attached to the European powder keg.
    As Tansill demonstrates, the objectives of WWI were to dismember three empires: German, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman
    Charles Callan Tansill, ‘Amerika geht in den Krieg’, Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  241. @dfordoom

    The German army advanced to 100 kilometres of Moscow.
    Had not the winter begun early, and had been very severe, I do not know what would have happened.
    Anyone in the world at the time expected a Russian defeat.

  242. @ThreeCranes

    Britain’s problem was the tariff walls of the empire.
    Thus it fell asleep, economically.
    There was no outside competition, until Lendlease demanded the end of protection.
    In the late thirties GB had to import German machinery to produce weapons and ammunition.

  243. @utu

    As Bismark, Hitler was not at all interested in colonies.
    They just cost money.
    But Hitler kept the colonial issue for bargaining.

    I now stop making comments.
    As Keynes said ‘ideas are the most powerful in the world’, I then add ‘even if these ideas are nonsense’.

  244. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Besides the quite amazing affirmation that “Germany reacted to Russian mobilization in the only rational way, which was to launch a knock-out assault on Russia’s French ally before turning to face Russia’s vase army” the chronology of the acts of war you suggest omits essential facts.

    1914 26 July – Russia asks Germany to exert moderating influence on Austria-Hungary; Germans try to localize war
    1914 26 July – Grey proposes Four-Power conference of Ambassadors in London
    1914 26 July – Austria mobilises on Russian frontier
    1914 27 July – Bethmann-Hollweg rejects idea of Four Power conference
    1914 28 July – Grey hopes that Austria-Hungary and Russia can be brought to negotiate
    1914 30 July – Austria-Hungary orders general mobilization including men up to 50 years old
    1914 30 July – Russian general monilization ordered for 31 July; Russian Government takes control of railways
    1914 31 July – Vienna rejects international conference and orders general mobilization
    1914 31 July – Kaiser proclaims ‘state of imminent war’ at 1 PM (one hour after Russian mobilization learned of); martial law declared and Kaiser makes speeches
    1914 31 July – Germany refuses to mediate and issues ultimatum to Russia to halt demobilization within 24 hours
    1914 31 July – Germans send ultimatum to Paris demanding to know if France will stay neutral and if so, to hand over forts at Toul and Verdun; given 18 hours to reply
    1914 1 August – German ultimatum to Russia expires at noon; Germany declares war on Russia at 12:52 PM and begins mobilization at 5 PM when announcement made to crowd at Imperial palace gates
    1914 2 August – (afternoon) Tsar formally declares war on Germany
    1914 3 August – Germany declares war on France and German Ambassador leaves Paris; French Ambassador leaves Berlin

  245. polskijoe says:
    @Wally

    present your claims for millions of Germans killed?
    where at the bodies of Dresden?
    were are those “missing Germans” after the war?
    where is the proof of millions raped Germans?

    sodoh.net

    I can play the same game. There is no reasoning with genocide deniers like you.
    You wont change your mind regardless of any evidence.
    About as good as a Zionist and Shekelgruber.

  246. @CanSpeccy

    ” Hitler’s Mein Kampf made that clear, ”
    Alas not to me.
    Von Ribbentrop’s visit to Churchill’s mansion ?
    Never heard of, highly improbable.
    And even if he did, is Churchill a witness to be trusted ?
    Churchill’s propaganda studio manufactured the world chart that FDR accepted as proof of Hitler’s designs, if he believed it.
    About the guarantee
    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
    True is that Poland did not trust France and GB to declare war, rumor says that in August 1939 FDR added his guarantee.

  247. @CanSpeccy

    As jilles has already noted, Hitler was a big admirer of the British Empire and certainly had no designs on it, he just reasonably wanted reciprocity in respect for spheres of influence, something Britain would not tolerate. And like jilles I find this claim about Ribbentrop to be apocryphal, what’s your source?

    The context in which Hitler spoke about Lebensraum in the 20’s had absolutely nothing to do with the situation faced by the Germans in late 1940 and early 1941, when Soviet actions indicated a clear hostile intent. A Soviet invasion was probably only weeks away, but the actual timing is irrelevant as the Soviets had more than enough forces to put the Germans in an untenable position re. Romanian oil supplies, as Molotov’s visit to Berlin in late 1940 made clear. Hitler admitted to Mannerheim that Germany was unprepared for a protracted conflict and could only hope to take advantage of the Soviet forces arrayed in vulnerable offensive salients. This was no long-existing plan for domination of the East but one dictated by circumstances.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  248. @polskijoe

    Military dead lie in known cemeteries throughout Europe, no?

    Re. things like Dresden, the issue does not concern whether or not it happened, but its justification and number of casualties. On the latter point, depending on who you ask, we are talking about an order of 10’s K killed, many of whom were incinerated during the actual bombing. Thus any claims by the German government at the time (who would have cremated remaining corpses as a public health measure) are believable, without having to actually see individual bodies.

    This is to be contrasted with the claims against the Germans in the East, where millions of murders are said to have taken place, with almost all such evidence having been destroyed so that only (usually unreliable) eyewitness testimony remains as an account. This is the official storyline, keep in mind, and unlike the case of Dresden, say, it is simply not believable. (I agree some revisionists go too far in whitewashing real German crimes, but that is a different issue.)

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  249. H. T. says:

    The intention of the ”West” (i.e. Britain and France) to occupy Eurasia in order to control the world’s natural resources, as per Zbigniew Brzezinski and John Mackinder geostrategy, dates back to more than 150 years:

    Michael Faraday

    ”Having provided a number of various service projects for the British government, when asked by the government to advise on the production of chemical weapons for use in the Crimean War (1853–1856), Faraday refused to participate citing ethical reasons.”

    {Emphasis added}

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

    Crimean War

    ‘The Crimean War [...] was a military conflict fought from October 1853 to February 1856[5] in which the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics, while Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. -The longer term causes involved the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power at Ottoman expense.”

    {Emphasis added}

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

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  250. @H. T.

    If the causes of any war are difficult to understand it is the Crimean war.
    Some historians do not even bother to try to explain.
    It was a disaster on both sides, that accomplished nothing but death and misery, and Florence Nightingale.

  251. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Justification, to impress Stalin with western military might.

  252. @polskijoe

    Dresden bodies, burned improvised in fires on pieces of railway.

  253. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    That Britain caused WWI, no doubt about it, the pre 1914 secret agreements between GB, France and the tsar prove it.

    Just about everything you say is either tendentious, nonsensical or mere drivel.

    The immediate causes of WW1 are clear, as I stated at #232. The war was initiated by a Serbian-directed assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.

    Serbia was client of Russia and when Austria made demands on Serbia in response to the assassination, both Serbia and Russia mobilized for war. The effect was catalytic. Germany had to respond and its long prepared plan of response was to attack France, which was Britain’s ally, hence Britain’s obligation to fight Germany with France and Russia.

    It was Russian and Austrian ambitions for territorial gain at the expense of the disintegrating Turkish empire that underlay the animus between Serbia and Austria Hungary, which was the underlying and immediate cause of war.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  254. @Shakesvshav

    Yeah, saw it, probably should have reviewed it, but too late now.

  255. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    As jilles has already noted, Hitler was a big admirer of the British Empire and certainly had no designs on it, he just reasonably wanted reciprocity in respect for spheres of influence, something Britain would not tolerate.

    LOL. That’s not how politics works.

    Hitler did not want a repeat of WW1, when Germany fought a two-front war, so naturally he hoped to talk Chamberlain, who he considered a whimp, into standing aside while Germany dealt with Russia. Then it would have been time enough for “England to have her neck wrung like a chicken” as Hitler put it.

    The context in which Hitler spoke about Lebensraum in the 20’s had absolutely nothing to do with the situation faced by the Germans in late 1940 and early 1941, when Soviet actions indicated a clear hostile intent.

    By 1939 Hitler had lost interest in Lebensraum, eh! And he knew Stalin was about to attack him, you say. And that Russia was clearly hostile to Germany, you say. Notwithstanding that Russia had enabled Germany to get around the Versailles treaty by not only by allowing the training of German troops on Russian soil, but the construction of German armaments factories on Russian soil.

    Why was that? To help the Germans invade Russia?

    And if Russia was such a formidable threat to Hitler’s Germany, how come Russia was so horrible mauled by Germany, with ten to 20 million dead?

    And like jilles I find this claim about Ribbentrop to be apocryphal, what’s your source?

    Clive Ponting.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  256. @CanSpeccy

    Stalin let his ambitions get the better of him, no doubt, and while he certainly rejected Trotsky’s desire to violently export revolution to the West, he did share the Leninist vision of stepping in to pick up the pieces after the West exhausted itself in war and was not opposed to facilitating matters. Hence surreptitious Soviet support of German rearmament proves nothing.

    Please humor me with a bit more detail than an appeal to Ponting.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  257. Wally says:
    @polskijoe

    Well, that was easy.

    Your silly dodge is noted, predictable actually.

    Understandable since you have no proof for your claims.

    Bye now.

    http://www.codoh.com

  258. @CanSpeccy

    Indeed, my father also told me that the Serajewo murder caused a world war.

    He did not know about the Ems(er ?) telegram published by Bismarck in 1870, or he would have seen the cause of the 1870 war that changed the world as a piece of paper with less than a hundred words.
    read

    Emil Ludwig, ‘Bismarck, Geschichte eines Kämpfers’, Berlin 1927

    A.J.P. Taylor, ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848 – 1918′, 1954, 1971, Oxford

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  259. @polskijoe

    The raped German girls:
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
    Genocide deniers, denying is about a fact ‘the suspect denies to have committed the murder’, usually there is a dead body, and death caused by violence.
    There just can be genocide denial if the genocide has been proved.
    Alas, genocide defenders state ‘we know a lot we cannot prove’.
    You see this in
    Elie Wiesel, ‘La Nuit’, 1958, 2007
    He never saw a gas chamber, just assumed they were there.
    What he did see were crematoria chimneys.
    As the Auschwitz death number now is one million these crematoria had something to do.
    Why they died, undernourishment, caused by the camp autonomous management, that ate quite well, this also describes Wiesel.
    Most of the others, 75% writes Rassinier, died within six months from undernourishment.

  260. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Please humor me with a bit more detail than an appeal to Ponting.

    Pretty certain it was” 1940: Myth and Reality”.

    But here it is, from the Churchill’s own lips.

    The meeting actually took place at the German embassy, not, as I had thought, at Churchill’s home, Chartwell. Otherwise, my recollection was exactly correct.

    Re: WW1, Ponting apparently confirms my contention that it arose over a territorial dispute in the Balkans and that Serbia and Russia provided the trigger for war.

    We can say, therefore, that WW2 arose because of the unjust Versailles Treaty, the failure of Britain to back France in preventing the rearmament of Germany and the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and Germany’s determination to both regain lost territories, and to destroy the Russian menace by driving the Russians East, beyond the Urals.

    During the 30′s, Churchill correctly warned of the danger of a resurgent Germany, but as a back-bench MP had no power to dictate the course of events. When his warnings proved correct, the British establishment adopted him as the only credible leader, a leader who was backed, throughout the war, by both left and right.

    Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was likely a ruse, to give Britain time to rearm. Britain in fact was on a full war footing while Chamberlain was engaging in futile negotiation with Hitler. As a result, when war broke out, Britain had superior planes to Germany and they also had, in radar, a great technological edge.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  261. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Interesting: I had not come across the Ems Dispatch and its role in the origins of the Franco-Prussian war.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  262. annamaria says:
    @Wally

    You mean, this “innocent” and “good” Poland? — http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm
    “Poland is often called the first victim of World War II — invaded and divided by Hitler and Stalin in 1939. Almost forgotten is the startling fact that, only months before Hitler invaded Poland, Poland joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia!

    The Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia -1938 year: https://www.debatepolitics.com/history/169189-polish-occupation-czechoslovakia-1938-year.html
    “Section and the destruction of Czechoslovakia as an independent state with the participation of Germany, Hungary and Poland in the years 1938-1939. These events are not officially included in the history of the Second World War, but is closely associated with it and it may be the first step in this war.” [See the accompanied pics]
    1. Polish soldiers posing with deposed Czechoslovak coat of arms during “Operation Zaluzha”
    2 Handshake between Polish Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigla and the German Colonel Bogislav fon Studnitz . November 11, 1938″
    3. Poles replace Czech name on the Polish station Tesín.”
    – oops!

  263. L.K says:
    @polskijoe

    Hmm… polskiTrolls, such as yourself, actually imitate the filthy Zionists very well.

    The war between Germany and Poland was NOT merely a case of naked German aggression, as you must know, right polskiTroll? I mean, even a lying, chauvinist pig like you, cannot pretend not to know about all the German land stolen at the end of WW1 and given to a recently created Poland, a country created after WW1 with totally inappropriate and unsustainable borders?
    Today, Poland sits on even more stolen German lands.
    Had the stupid Polish junta accepted the fair German proposal for a return of the German Danzig corridor so the country could be reconnected to its East Prussia province, war could have been avoided. Instead, Poland went on to become WW2 useful Idiot.
    Let’s take a look at what some prominent figures from the winning side in WW1 had to say about those things:

    Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, during the Paris negotiations:
    “I tell you once more, we would never have thought of giving to Poland a province that had not been Polish for the last 900 years…
    The proposal of the Polish Commission that we should place 2,100,000 Germans under the control of a people which is of a different religion and which has never proved its capacity for stable self-government throughout its history, must, in my judgment, lead sooner or later to a new war in the East of Europe…” 11)

    “France is not so much concerned with what is important to Poland, rather the French position is determined solely by the aim of weakening Germany.”12)

    “To surround Germany with small states, many of which are composed of peoples that have never governed themselves and that comprise large numbers of Germans who are demanding reunion with their homeland, such plans would be, it seems to me, a breeding ground for the most terrible reason for a future war.” 13)
    “I was as sincere an advocate of Polish independence as any member of the Commission, but I was convinced that to add to Poland populations which would be an alien and hostile element inside its boundaries would be a source of permanent weakness and danger and not of strength to this resurrected State.
    I knew that a time would come when Germany would respond to the cry of its exiled people and restore them to the Fatherland by force of arms.
    For that reason I renewed my pressure in the conference to reject the recommendations which incorporated in Poland towns and territories which were overwhelmingly German by language, race and inclination…” 14)

    Woodrow Wilson’s words of 7 April 1919 also went unheeded:
    “France’s only real interest in Poland was to weaken Germany by giving the Poles areas to which they had no claim.” 15)

    U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, remarked on 8 May 1919:
    “Do examine the treaty and you will find that whole populations, against their will, were delivered into the power of those who hated them, while their economic resources were snatched away and handed over to others. The result of such directives has to be hatred and bitterness, if not despair. It may take years until these oppressed nations are able to shake off the yoke, but as sure as night follows day, the time will come when they will try to break free. We have a peace-treaty, but it will not bring lasting peace, as it was founded on the quicksand of selfishness.” 16)

  264. L.K says:
    @polskijoe

    You are a dishonest moron pushing idiotic apples x oranges comparisons.

    Btw, here is what the foreign minister of that predominantly “Slavic” country, the Soviet Union, had to say after the Soviet invasion of Poland in Sep. 39;

    Stalin’s Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav M. Molotov, stated before the Supreme Soviet on October 31, 1939:
    A single blow against Poland, first by the Germans, and then by the Red Army, and nothing remained of this misbegotten child of the Versailles Treaty, which owed its existence to the repression of non-Polish nationalities.’

    After being WW2 useful idiot, has Poland learned anything, or will it become the ZUSA’s useful idiot against the Russian Federation?

    Time will tell…

    • Replies: @Wally
  265. @CanSpeccy

    Fair enough, I assume you are referring to something like this:

    http://ur-fascism.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-1937-meeting-of-ribbentrop-and.html?m=1

    It’s hard to view Ribbentrop’s proposals as unreasonable, from Great Britain’s view. At any rate this was an informal discussion and against, has little to do with the situation in 1941.

  266. L.K says:

    Jewish-American scholar, Paul Gottfried, has researched WWI for many years.
    Regarding England’s decisive contribution in bringing about that war, he writes in his article ‘How England Helped Start the Great War’:

    “A vastly underexplored topic is the British government’s role in greasing the skids for World War I.[...]Supposedly the British only got involved after the Germans recklessly violated Belgian neutrality on their way to conquering “democratic“ France.

    But British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey had done everything in his power to isolate the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies, who were justified in their concern about being surrounded by enemies. The Triple Entente, largely constructed by Grey’s government and which drew the French and Russians into a far-reaching alliance, encircled Germany and Austria with warlike foes. In July 1914 German leaders felt forced to back their Austrian allies in a war against the Serbs, who were then a Russian client state. It was clear by then that this conflict would require the Germans to fight both Russia and France.

    The German military fatalistically accepted the possibility of England entering the struggle against them. This might have happened even if the Germans had not violated Belgian soil in order to knock out the French before sending their armies eastward to deal with a massive Russian invasion. The English were anything but neutral. In the summer of 1914 their government was about to sign a military alliance with Russia calling for a joint operation against German Pomerania in case of a general war. The British had also given assurances to French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé that they would back the French and the Russians (who had been allied since 1891) if war broke out with Germany.

    Full article @ http://takimag.com/article/how_england_helped_start_the_great_war_paul_gottfried/print#axzz4dgTHNQ1v

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @CanSpeccy
  267. @CanSpeccy

    It did not.
    It was just the French pretext.
    Wars are not fought over a telegram.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  268. @L.K

    Poland wanted war.
    It took me a long time to find out why, it was because the divisions of Poland were after a war in which Poland had remained neutral.

    The Warsaw government foresaw two possibilities:
    1 the Hitler government would collapse in a few days after the German attack, and Polish troops would add Berlin to Poland
    2 the German attack would succeed, but Germany would lose the war in the end, GB and France, maybe the USA, and the Polish territory would be enlarged.

    Thus the Polish provocations, such as firing by Polish navy at German passenger planes between Berlin and Königsberg, now Kalingrad.

    Comte Jean Szembek, Ancien sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères de Pologne, ‘Journal, 1933 – 1939’, Paris 1952

  269. @L.K

    I wonder if he mentions
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York

    In my opinion THE reason the British engineered war, they feared German economic influence in the ME, the line was to run through Mosul, with a concession of ten miles or km at both sides, and was intended do be extended to Basra.
    Mosul then was the region considered to have most oil.
    It was further feared that German products would be smuggled from Basra to India, bypassing the monopoly of British industry.
    In 1916 the first oil fired British battleship, turbine driven, was operational.

    And of course there was the Austria-Hungarian fleet in the Med.
    On top of all this the Ottoman empire, under German influence.
    Hellmuth von Moltke, ‘Kriege und Siege’, 1938, Berlin
    He advised the Ottoman sultan.

    In the thirties the same situation, this time the Italian navy feared to cooperate with Germany, threatening British control of the Med, the way to India and the Far East.
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975

  270. @L.K

    Indeed
    Alice Teichowa, ‘An economic background to Munich, International business and Chechoslovakia, 1918- 1938′, London 1974
    writes
    ‘in the thirties a substantial part of the national income of Chechoslovakia went to GB’.
    The Habsburg empire had been carved up in such a way that most of the industries and mines were in this newly created country.
    German ownership and management were gradually pushed out.

  271. @L.K

    Any trust in Lloyd George ?
    read
    Donald McCormick, ‘The mask of Merlin, A Critical Study of David Lloyd George’, London, 1963

  272. Wally says:
    @L.K

    The not so innocent Poland:

    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    also:
    Polish war mongering in 1938

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11335

    http://www.codoh.com

  273. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    It was just the French pretext.

    What are you talking about? French pretext? It wasn’t the French who instigated the war, and they certainly did not want war and they lost heavily as a result of the war.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  274. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    No, your supposition is wrong. It was the informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire, summoned by the Kaiser in December 1912 to discuss and debate the tense military and diplomatic situation in Europe after the Serbian victories in the first Balkanic War which greatly pissed off the Austrians and attracted the German disclosure of the existence of the Triple Alliance and the inconsiderate declarations of ‘the German support under any circumstances’ for Austria, which in turn pissed off the British, who demanded explanations and declared to the German Ambassador to Britain Prince Max von Lichnowsky, that the British would not remain passive in the case of an Austro–Hungarian attack on Serbia, nor would they tolerate any aggression of Germany against France on that occasion.
    Linchowsky’s report left Wilhelm furious, lamenting that in the ‘Germanic struggle for existence’ the British, blinded by envy and inferiority feelings, join the Slavs (Russia) and their Romanic accessories (France). He immediately summoned the ‘war council’ for 11 AM that same day (8 Dec. 1912).
    The conference ‘invented’ by Morgenthau took place (or not, if you want) in 1914.

  275. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @L.K

    Jewish-American scholar, Paul Gottfried, has researched WWI for many years.
    Regarding England’s decisive contribution in bringing about that war

    This is an idiotic perspective. Obviously, the British sought the alliances that best enhanced their security, and the greatest threat to their security was Germany. Hence the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia.

    That doesn’t make England responsible for the war.

    Neither does it mean that Germany was responsible, directly.

    However, Germany made the fatal mistake of backing a weak Austia Hungary in launching a war against Serbia and Russia, although it must have been obvious that this would lcommit Germany to the two fronts war for which it had long prepared. Hence the Sclieffen plan of mobilization that required the breach of Belgian neutrality (neutrality supposedly guaranteed by, among others, Germany) and a preemptive strike on France, prior to a war on the Eastern front..

    Thus, Germany’s breach of Belgian neutrality (also guaranteed by Britain) obliged Britain, both by virtue of the Treaty of London (1839) and its agreement under the Triple Entente to wage war against Germany.

    Blaming England for the war when the evidence so clearly contradicts your spin is simply silly.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @L.K
  276. @CanSpeccy

    So why did they (along with the British) declare war?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  277. @L.K

    Hi, L.K

    How goes it? It is a relief to converse with one of the people around here I judge to be sane.

    But do you really think that people like this brit, Randal, does not get this?

    Well, he must have understood my point but was playing at being willfully obtuse.

    Anyway, I understand perfectly well why people would find the scene of the black guy in the subway annoying. I get that, but, finally, to my way of looking at things, this kind of thing is pretty silly. It’s like: “What’s this little dab of PC propaganda doing in the middle of my WW2 propaganda? I vociferously protest!”

    It’s like complaining that there is a tiny bit of dog shit in your bullshit sandwich. LOL.

    Again, I think this Randal gets it, the problem being, the propaganda in this case is ideologically useful to his cause and he, and others like him, get quite hysterical when you disrupted the story with inconvenient facts/ ideas.

    Well, yeah, that’s part of what is going on, but I’m not sure it’s the whole thing, the way people get so emotionally committed to whatever narrative. Like, with this Rurik character, he’d launch into his whole “angry white man” rant where he’d run through all these things that don’t seem to have much to do with one another. He’d go on about Rotherham (which I assume really happened) and then that white Swedish girls are getting raped en masse by the swarthy savages (which is basically nonsense, I’m sure) and then somehow he’d tie that in with the white settlers in Rhodesia. And then some other things that he gets off of Breitbart or whatever other “angry white man” site (that may or may not have actually happened…)

    But, what I mean to say about this is that it’s not as if Rurik really made some cynical calculation that the “Muslim Rape Army” nonsense was useful to his cause so he was going to go with it even knowing it was bullshit. (Though that is likely more the case with Randal.) It’s really more like this “angry white man” liturgy he constructed was part of his identity or something, so if you challenged any of it, from his POV, it was like a personal attack or something. So, when I said to him, “Rurik, do you really think it’s possible for hundreds of women to be sexually assaulted in a setting analogous to Grand Central Station and there is no photographic or video evidence at all”, he just couldn’t even deal with the question on some emotional level. Typically, he’d respond to my question by simply repeating his “angry white man” rant.

    Well, that’s kind of my wooly-headed take on that. What I say above is based on an attempt to understand the psychology of the whole thing but I have to admit that I find the whole thing just pretty hard to relate to. To me, factual reality is pretty central, so my emphasis has been the whole question of seeing through propaganda, i.e. synthetic narratives.

    I came up with this thing I immodestly called “Revusky’s Razor”, the idea that, in the current context, the last few years anyway, anything of a certain scale that occurs in a crowded place, full of people, that’s going to leave a visual record. And if there are no visuals, well… then it didn’t happen.

    I think it’s hard to argue with that, but finally, Revusky’s Razor is a specific case of a more general principle which is:

    If something is impossible, then it didn’t happen.

    Period. So, if somebody tells you that Donald Trump walked on water, you say: “No, he didn’t, because it’s impossible.” And then, you know, they could say: “Oh, you must love Hillary then… blah blah”. And then it’s: “No, the reason I don’t believe Donald Trump walked on water is because it’s physically impossible.” “You must be a cuck… you’re anti-white” And so on.

    If you study the Holocaust revisionist authors and conclude that they are right, the story is largely physically impossible, that is because you are an anti-semite. “No, I don’t believe the story because it’s impossible. It has nothing to do with liking Jews or not.” “No, admit it. You’re a Jew hater.”

    But you see what I mean? In deep structure, it’s always the same game. “You deny that hundreds of women were sexually assaulted in Cologne on NYE 2015 because you love Muslims and you want to bring in millions of Muslims to Europe.”

    “No, I don’t believe that hundreds of women can be sexually assaulted in a wide open space full of people and for it to produce zero visuals. Therefore, it just didn’t happen.”

    But, I mean, the problem is that if we all just agreed to the basic principle that if something is impossible, it didn’t happen, then we’d overall be way ahead of the game, no? “Why don’t you believe in the 9/11 story? It must be because you hate America.” “Uhh, no, I don’t believe it because it’s physically impossible, so it didn’t happen.”

    And, on the same principle, we could dispense with the JFK magic bullet or any of the rest of it. And Bruce Jenner is a man because he’s got a dick between his legs. And so on…

    Well, this is getting to be a rant, speaking of rants. The point is that if the Randals of the world think they are going to get all kinds of tactical advantage for their cause by positioning themselves in opposition to factual truth, I’m pretty sure they’re mistaken.

    And the thing about all these Islamophobic narratives is that they aren’t even something that these white nationalists came up with themselves! No, these things are all the creation of the Zionist propaganda machine. The whole “Sweden is the rape capital of the world” stuff comes from Gatestone Institute which is a Zionist outfit. So these guys think they are going to get all kinds of advantages by jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon created by these Zionists. It’s a very weak analysis. Their idea is that they are going to resist these forces by embracing propaganda narratives that were put out precisely by those very people!

    My view currently is that the most promising central organizing principle of resistance is that things that are impossible never happened and that’s that. At any rate, I anticipate that this will remain the central theme of any writing that I manage to do in the near future.

  278. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    So why did they (along with the British) declare war?

    Some crossed wires here. I was talking about the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, referred to by jd. Brits had nothing to do with that.

  279. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Blaming Russia is even sillier.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @CanSpeccy
  280. L.K says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Obviously, the British sought the alliances that best enhanced their security, and the greatest threat to their security was Germany.

    Pure BS. In fact, your entire post is basically nonsense.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  281. L.K says:
    @Seraphim

    Britain was the greatest culprit for WW1, but Russia had its share of responsibility for it too.

    The Russian Origins of the First World War

    https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Origins-First-World-War/dp/0674072332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520188133&sr=8-1

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  282. L.K says:

    Given that several historians have recognized that WW2 was a continuation of WWI, or, as British historian A.J.P.Taylor put it; “Germany fought specifically in WW2 to reverse the verdict of the first and to destroy the settlement[extremely unjust] which followed it.” – it follows that, for the anti-German propaganda crowd, WWI, the original sin, must also be blamed on Germany(and or Austria-Hungary), even though this canard has long been debunked.

    In reality though, members of the British ‘deep state’ were the key masterminds of WWI and Churchill and the British “war party” were later also heavily responsible for WWII.

    For a new take on British responsibility for WWI, I highly recommend people read “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War”, a new study by Scottish historians Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor.

    https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

    The history of the First World War (1914–1918) is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war.
    Had the truth become widely known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.1

    To the victors go the spoils, and their judgment was reflected in the official accounts. At Versailles in 1919 Britain, France and the United States claimed that Germany had planned the war, deliberately started it, and rejected all Allied proposals for conciliation and mediation. Millions of documents were destroyed, concealed or falsified to justify that verdict. Germany rightly protested she had been forced into war by Russian aggression. German delegates at Versailles, under threat of occupation, dismemberment and starvation, were left with little choice but to accept the blame and agree to massive reparations. As The Economist put it, the Treaty of Versailles was the final crime whose harsh terms would ensure a second war.2[The Economist, 31 December 1999]

    Our research proves that the true origins of the war are to be found not in Germany, but in England. In the late nineteenth century a secret society of immensely rich and powerful men was established in London with the stated aim of expanding the British Empire across the entire world. They deliberately caused the South African War of 1899–1902 in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold from the Boers. Their responsibility for that war, and the horror of British concentration camps in which 20,000 children died,3 have been airbrushed from official histories. The second stage of their global plan was the destruction of the rapidly developing industrial and economic competitor, Germany.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  283. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @L.K

    Pure BS. In fact, your entire post is basically nonsense.

    Are you autistic or something, or you just don’t have any arguments worth putting forward to refute the facts I presented .

  284. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @L.K

    In reality though, members of the British ‘deep state’ were the key masterminds of WWI and Churchill and the British “war party” were later also heavily responsible for WWII.

    But no facts to be offered in support of this airy assignment of responsibility.

    And no facts offered to rebut the evidence for clear Slavic responsibility for WW1, and obvious Russo-German responsibility for WW2, like the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Russia’s invasion of Finland, then the joint German-Russian carve up of Poland. That was all Winston Churchill’s doing was it? Then Churchill got his puppet Adolph to turn on Uncle Joe?

    Either you’re stupid or you think others here are.

    But don’t bother to reply. You evidently have nothing but bollocks to offer.

  285. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    Blaming Russia is even sillier.

    Blaming Russia for what?

    Backing Serbia to reject Austria Hungary’s ultimatum in 1914.

    For mobilizing its army in support of Serbia (the country responsible for the terrorist attack that killed the Archduke Ferdinand), which prompted Germany to launch the unstoppable Slieffen plan of mobilization for the invasion of Belgium and A preemptive assault on France?

    Or are you talking of WW2, and the prelude to it, including Russia’s invasion of Finland, and its carve of Poland in collaboration with Uncle Joe’s bud, Adolph?

    No, we mustn’t blame the tyrants of Europe. It must have been those British bastards who somehow controlled both Russia and Germany.

    Why is it that people who know nothing are so aggressive in asserting their ignorance?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @L.K
  286. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Churchill’s may have erred in being too anxious to gain an American alliance

    The United States was a much more deadly rival than Germany. Britain’s only long-term hope of genuine independence would have been an alliance with Germany (aqnd Japan) against the US.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @CanSpeccy
  287. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    The price for GB of LendLease was to open the empire to trade.
    Do not think the British public ever knew, not even now.

    The British ruling class has never seen any necessity for informing the British people about anything, or asking the British people for their opinion. Britain has never had anything even faintly resembling democracy.

  288. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    Hitler admired the British empire, and wanted to cooperate with it.
    A few days after Dunkirk he held a speech for his generals praising the empire.

    It was the United States which was determined to destroy the British Empire, and destroy Britain as a world power, not Germany.

    • Replies: @Longinus
  289. Seraphim says:
    @L.K

    I hope you understood that it is precisely the conclusions of this book that are defective (to put it mildly). It is a piece of unabashed ‘Russophobia’. It has the same value as the ‘Russia hacking, meddling, annexation of Crimea, threat to Europe, etc’. The disgusting way he treats the Armenian genocide put it squarely in the category of trash. The fact that Sean McMeekin is (was?), assistant professor of international relations at Bilkent University in Turkey shows what the intent of the book was: painting Turkey as a victim in WW1, supporting the raising fumes of Erdogan’s Neo-Ottomanism, of Turkey’s denial for the Armenian genocide (and the German responsibilities) and puting the blame for the bête noire of the Muslim grievances in the ME, the Sykes-Picot agreement, on Russia. The book was released concomitantly with the launching of the soap opera “Magnificent Century”, a piece of aggressive Neo-Ottomanist propaganda for which the demise of the Ottoman Empire was a tragedy that must be corrected.

    • Replies: @L.K
  290. @dfordoom

    Interesting idea, but at the time politically impossible.
    Japanese were just little yellow men, who on top of that threatened the Empire in the Far East.
    Germans were militarists.
    USA was seen as some sort of brother, same language, same religion, in fact many of British descendancy ruling the USA.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  291. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    @Why is it that people who know nothing are so aggressive in asserting their ignorance?

    It is exactly the question I am asking about you.
    I actually don’t blame England. Or maybe, indirectly, the Kaiser being the grand son of the British Queen and Empress of India. Perhaps he was dreaming to take her place. Berlin-Baghdad the new ‘Silk Road’ (cum petrol) to India dominated by the Germans, cutting the Suez canal?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  292. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    But Churchill was half American, for God’s sake. And proud of it.
    For sure the American alliance was not a ‘choice’, but it was pre-planned. There was no other way to oppose the deadly threat for the maritime powers of a continental block dominating all maritime ways. We have heard already so much about ‘geopolitics’, Mackinder, the Heartland of the World Island, the offshore and outlying islands and all that.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  293. Longinus says:
    @dfordoom

    “Chamberlain (speaking off the record to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy while playing golf) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”.

    -The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129

  294. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    I actually don’t blame England.

    That’s as well, since you have brought no informati0n to the discussion.

    But you dismiss blaming Russia as silly, also without bringing any information to the discussion.

    You suggest that I have brought nothing to the discussion but in fact I have laid it out explicitly the sequence of events leading to WW1, and that sequence clearly shows Slavic responsibility for WW1.

    Serbia committed a terrorist act against Austria Hungary. Austria Hungary made demands on Serbia in recompense, which Serbia rejected, while mobilizing for war. Russia began a general mobilization for war on the same day. Germany, thus had either to break its alliance with Austria Hungary or mobilize for war with Russia. But Germany’s mobilization plan, the Slieffen Plan, entailed an initial pre-emptive strike on Russia’s ally France, which in turn entailed breaching the neutrality of Belgium, which had been guaranteed by Britain and the other European powers, including Germany (at the time, Prussia). Britain, therefore, had either to break its alliance with France and abandon its responsibility under the Treaty of London to protect the neutrality of Belgium, or wage war with France against Germany.

    But as AJP Taylor told the Cambridge Regius Professor of History, Hugh Trevor Roper, during a debate on the origins of WW2, “you just don’t know the facts.”

    As for WW2, anyone dopey enough to believe that Hitler did not want a war of territorial expansion to the East, is not really capable of understanding anything about the history of the 20th century.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @L.K
  295. jack ryan says: • Website

    In retrospect, it looks like the English/British government/people simply went insane and committed themselves to the destruction of the British Empire and the national suicide of their people/culture everywhere in the world including not so merry old England.

    London is now Londonstan with a Pakistani Muslim mayor. English/British people have been genocided in once beautiful, prosperous places like Uganda, Rhodesia and now South Africa. Thousands of poor English girls have been/are being sexually groomed, raped by old Muslim men in English towns like Rotherham.

    95 years ago British/English Christians ruled/ran the city of Jerusalem. One could hear Handel’s Messiah in the city where Jesus preached his Christian gospels – try that now.

    in 1941 the vast majority of English British people were Germanic – Anglo Saxon, Normans – with closely related Celtic people of Scots, Welsh and Irish. Why would Germanic Angels and Saxons and Normans decided to wage all out war, mass slaughter of the Germanic kinsmen across the English Channel (soon to be renamed after something Mohammed or Nelson Mandela channel).

    Do you see Jewish people in England or the United States now chomping on the bit to wage all out war, mass slaughter of Jewish people in Israel? No these Jewish people are not insane, treasonous like British/English people were in 1941.

    So I ask any sane remaining Anglo Saxon, Norman or Celt Englishmen, Brits this simple question….. (drum roll)

    Have you apologized to the Germans yet?
    Have you told them how really, REALLY sorry you are?
    Don’t you wish that the English/British had lost to Germany in World War II?
    Don’t you wish that the Germans had invaded England/Britain from Normandy Beach and the invasion was a great success?

    Don’t you wish that German occupation troops still occupied England/Britain in beautiful Panzer tanks?

    Don’t you wish that there were no Muslim rapists or Muslim terrorists or Black race riots in England now because these mean alien people wouldn’t be in England/Britain because the German occupation authorities and collaborating British and English authorities wouldn’t allow these people in to England?

    Don’t you wish that you could lick the boots of these handsome German occupation troops?
    Don’t you wish that there were no rapes in England of really any kind but apparently lots fraternization with the enemy German occupation troops with so many beautiful German/English babies – some marriages, but lots of adoptions or just orphanages where the German/English orphans tend to dominate in sports like soccer/football and rugby?

    Hey English/Hey Brits – I just have to ask….

    Have you apologized to the Germans yet?

    Have you told them how really, really sorry you are?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  296. jack ryan says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic

    Nah, the ugly, brown swarthy hordes will be speaking some version of English same as Mugabe’s monsters speak some version of English in what once was Rhodesia.

  297. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Britain’s only long-term hope of genuine independence would have been an alliance with Germany (aqnd Japan) against the US.

    LOL

    Yeah, it would have been great. Goose stepping up and down the Strand and gassing Jews.

    Britain in a world of military and industrial giants can have no “genuine independence,” if by that you mean the power to shape world events.

    British power declined as an inevitable consequence of the spread of the industrial revolution. A small windswept island of fifty million people was never going to remain a world-dominating power when the US had 25 to 50% of world GDP, or in a world of industrializeed China and India.

    And the empire did not make Britain a world power. By 1939 India was at the verge of independence, and the rest of the empire did not pay, it cost.

    So the issue for the Brits during WW2 was whether they wanted to ride Hitler’s coattails, or Uncle Sam’s (although there were many, including AJP Taylor, who apparently wanted to ride with Uncle Joe, in which case the Brits could have had a gulag instead of Nazi-style concentration camps).

    Today, Britain’s only independence must emerge from acting as a friend-of-all-the-World, while developing it’s own means of delivering British built nuclear warheads, in place of the Trident. Then the Americans might, with some coaxing, end the occupation of Britain.

    • Troll: L.K
  298. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jack ryan

    You have one thing right, Jack, the Brits are well advanced in the process of self-genocide. But don’t blame Winston Churchill. And the Brits certainly didn’t need Hitler (who envisaged death squads and slave camps for German-occupied Britain) to save themselves. The need only have listened to Churchill:

    “Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

    “No stronger retrograde force [than Islam] exists in the world. …Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step…”

    [If it were not for Christianity,] “sheltered in the strong arms of science,” then “the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

    Instead, they have been ruled by traitors including the perv. Ted Heath, who sold Britain on the European political union by pretending it to be free trade association, Phony Bliar, the Butcher of Baghdad, who deviously opened the flood gates to mass immigration, and now Thereason May, striving diligently to negate the Brexit referendum result.

  299. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You mean probably that I did not bring any information that would confirm the cherished thesis that Russia was the culprit.
    The information that disprove that cherished thesis is well known. You seem to have only a selective knowledge of it.
    The Austrian ultimatum, as Churchill said, was an “ultimatum such as had never been penned in modern times. As the reading proceeded it seemed absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor”. It implied without any proof that the Serbian State had ordered the assassination. It was redacted deliberately in such terms that could not be accepted. It was actually emitted three weeks after Sarajevo, time to prepare the opinion and provide a “juridical basis for a declaration of war” which was the ultimatum (the war party wanted to launch an immediate attack). The discussions in the Council of Joint Ministers of Austro-Hungary debated the terms deciding, against the opposition of the Hungarian Prim-Minister Count Tisza (who actually coined the term Weltkrieg) , that they should be drawn in such a way as to make its rejection likely.
    In actual fact, Serbia’s accepted all terms of the ultimatum but one: it would not accept Austria-Hungary’s participation in any internal inquiry, stating that this would be a violation of the Constitution and of the law of criminal procedure. Russia suggested the acceptance of the ultimatum! Sazonov sent a message to all of the great powers asking them to pressure Austria to extend the deadline of the ultimatum, asking the Austrian government to back its claims of Serbian complicity in the killing of Franz Ferdinand by releasing the results of its official inquiry, which the Austrians refused to do as they lacked any conclusive as opposed to circumstantial evidence.
    Austria did not send any ultimatum to Italy after the assassination of the Empress Elizabeth in Geneva by an Italian anarchist, although it had an irredentist aura which stirred in Austria a wave of hatred for Italians. But Italy was then an ally (which turned coat quickly).
    One element neglected in all discussions was the Russo-Romanian summit in Constanta on 14 June 1914 which goes a long way to explain the sense of urgency in crushing Serbia and ‘containing’ Russia. Romania which was secretly a member of the Triplice was ready to turn coat at any time (which she did in 1916).
    The guilt for the war lays at Germany and Austro-Hungary feet. They had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @jilles dykstra
  300. Einsatzgruppen in England? Not unlike the Black and Tans, no? Well, one does wonder if the British aristocracy deserved a bit of the treatment given to Red Army commissars on the Eastern Front. (Probably Irish and Indians wouldn’t find that too controversial.)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @L.K
  301. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    You mean probably that I did not bring any information that would confirm the cherished thesis that Russia was the culprit.

    No, I did not mean that. I meant that your comment was unacompanied by any information whatever, which was in fact the case.

    You now say:

    The Austrian ultimatum, as Churchill said, was an “ultimatum such as had never been penned in modern times. As the reading proceeded it seemed absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor”

    But you contradict that claim by stating that:

    Russia suggested the acceptance of the ultimatum!

    You also state that Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia:

    implied without any proof that the Serbian State had ordered the assassination.

    So it was, in fact, no different from the US ultimatum to Afghanistan, except that whereas there never has been any evidence of Afghanistan’s role in 9/11, it is an accepted fact that the Serbian state either ordered or at least facilitated the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne (and his wife). Moreover, Serbia in effect admitted as much by accepting all but one point of Austria Hungary’s ultimatum. Churchill’s claim that the ultimatum could never have been accepted was merely a reflection of his desire to hold Austria-Hungary and her ally Germany prominently to blame for the war.

    The dispute between Austria Hungary and Serbia, arose from Serbia’s effort to wrest Bosnia Herzegovina from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which cause Serbia was engaged in the promotion of Slav nationalism and the arming of terrorists, including Gavrilo Princip, in that majority Slav province.

    Russia also sought territorial expansion in the region. That is why the dim-witted Tsar Nicholas II opted for war, rejecting in this rare instance, the advice of Rasputin. He did so, one can be sure, out of ambition to emulate his Romanov predecessors, all of whom had expanded the Russian empire. And indeed Russia made large territorial gains in the early stages of WW1. In 2016 Brusilov penetrated far into Galicia, and threatened the total defeat of Austria Hungary, while Germany occupied much of Romania, which was allied with the Western Powers.

    The guilt for the war lays at Germany and Austro-Hungary feet. They had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

    Oh yeah. So you say, but without any credible evidence to refute the evidence that Serbia created a cassus belli with Austria, and Russia backed Serbia in its vicious policy.

    As I stated, Germany made a fatal blunder by indicating support for Austria Hungary even though the Kaiser wished to avoid war. Moreover, the Kaiser realized his error as soon as Russia mobilized, since Germany was then obliged by treaty to come to the aid of Austria. The Kaiser tried vainly to stop the insane slide into war, but the time-table for Slieffen’s plan for German mobilization was absolutely fixed, there was no possibility to pause it once activated — as it had to be once Russia mobilized. Thus the catastrophe happened.

    Russia, or at least its people, was the biggest loser, since the Tsar’s aggressive pursuit of territorial gain exhausted Russia’s vast army, demoralized the people and led to revolution and 70 years of Communist tyranny.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  302. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    The Black and Tans were a rough lot, so I was told by elderly Irish folk while I was working as a student in County Clare, Ireland, back in the early 60′s, but the Einsatzgruppen seem to have been orders of magnitude more lethal.

  303. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You have your way to find ‘contradictions’ in my words. The fact that Russia suggested Serbia to accept the ultimatum (which proves that she was not pushing the Serbs) does not contradict the opinion of Churchill.
    You are asking for ‘evidences’ for my assertions. Please believe me that they are not ‘my assertions’ but are based on scholarly research by professional historians of an enormous archival material, which you can find in numerous publications. Few themes have been so intensely debated than the origins of the two world wars and of whose guilt was (BTW, the term ‘historia’ means in its original Greek ‘judicial investigation’. Herodotus, the ‘father of history’, wrote precisely his ‘Historia’ in order to establish who was the guilty part in the Greco-Persian Wars. The result was nine books taking us from Greece to Babylon, Egypt, Scythia!). That means that the causes of a war are always deeper.
    Just an example of authentic documents:
    On 13 July, Austrian investigators into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand reported to Count Berchtold that:”There is nothing to prove or even to suppose that the Serbian government is accessory to the inducement for the crime, its preparations, or the furnishing of weapons. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that this altogether out of the question.”

    So, after decades of research, of weighing documents, memoirs, letters, newspapers, the conclusion is the same as it was established at the end of the war. It was not Russia. Russia was not an ‘accomplice in Sarajevo’. It was not the ineptitude of the ‘dimwitted’ Tsar who did not take the advise of Rasputin (who was in Siberia at that time, the letter is most probably apocryphal) which led to the catastrophe, as his murderers and agitprop and pop-history assert. Russia was in fact the real target.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  304. @Seraphim

    ” The Austrian ultimatum, as Churchill said, was an “ultimatum such as had never been penned in modern times ”

    Then what was the signed blank cheque given to Poland in March 1939 ?
    Not an ultimatum to Germany ?

    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

    As Churchill said ‘history will be kind to me, as I’m writing is myself’.
    The man who murdered Polish president Sikorski, and tried to murder Rudolf Hess.

    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002

    David Irving, ‘Accident – The death of General Sikorsky’, 1979, München (German translation)

    And the man of
    Nicholas Bethel, ´Das letzte Geheimnis, Die Auslieferung russischer Fluchtlinge an die Sovjets durch die Allierten 1944-47’, 1975 Frankfurt am Main, ( The last secret. Forcible repatriation to Russia 1944-7, London, 1974)
    Repatriation to a certain death.

  305. @Seraphim

    And may have well have had a jewish mother, what would have made him a jew.
    His mother was the daughter of a wealthy New York banker.
    Just in 1953 Churchill turned away from zionism, after his life long friend Moyne had been murdered in Cairo by zionists.
    It is asserted that Moyne had refused a deal with Eichmann, one million jews in a bargain for a large number of trucks, just to used by Germany on the eastern front, as the story goes, with the words ‘what am I going to do with a million jews ?’.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  306. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    So Russia urged Serbia to accept an ultimatum that it was “absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept,” but then backed Serbia in a war against against Austria Hungary, when Serbia rejected just one out of five demands contained in the ultimatum (the one unacceptable demand being the reasonable requirement for an Austro-Hungarian inquiry into the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand).

    Why? Because the Tsar was a weak-willed muddle-headed weather vane, driven by events. On the one hand he backed Serbian machinations to undermine Austrian control of Bosnia Herzegovina, telling the visiting Serbian Prime Minister in February 2014:

    “Greet the King for me and tell him, ‘For Serbia we shall do everything.’”

    But when the prospect of immediate war arose as a result of Serbian terrorism against Austria Hungary he panicked, pitifully blaming the pressure of public opinion for his continued backing of Serbia. Thus he wrote to Kaiser Wilhelm II on July 29, 1914:

    “An ignoble war has been declared on a weak country. The indignation in Russia, fully shared by me, is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure brought upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war.”

    In fact, Russia began mobilization that day, providing Serbia the assurance they needed to ignore the Tsar’s advice to accept the ultimatum. Serbia thus began its own mobilization for war. The rest, as they say, is history.

  307. L.K says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, the brit propagandist goes: “As for WW2, anyone dopey enough to believe that Hitler did not want a war of territorial expansion to the East, is not really capable of understanding anything about the history of the 20th century.”

    The opposite is true; Anybody pushing this kind of BS in this day and age does not know the facts or, worse, is a cheap propagandist;

    You are both, a know-nothing British fool pushing old WW1 & WW2 propaganda and covering for the largest Empire in the history of mankind; a warmongering, treacherous state with no rival in modern history.

    Even as it lost its Empire, Britain continues its tradition of crime and perfidy, now as the ZUS loyal sidekick in nearly all major crimes of the new Empire:
    Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the current attempt to overthrow the Syrian government by using radical Salafi jihadism, etc.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  308. L.K says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Oh, sniff, sniff, reading this brit propagandist’s posts, one feels almost like crying for perfidious Albion, such poor victms!!

    On a more serious note, you once mentioned, I think, that possibly Hitlers most serious error was in not recognizing the British as one of the greatest threats to Germany.

    I agree, and it seems that the problem long preceded Hitler.
    Konrad Canis’s study of German foreign policy from 1902 until 1914

    makes several points one is not likely to encounter in ordinary historical scholarship:

    1. The German Second Empire’s foreign policy was largely passive. This was true not only of Bismarck after German unification in 1871 but almost equally true of German foreign policy from 1902 onward.

    2. The British were more hostile to the Germans than vice versa. They viewed Germany as an upstart economic competitor which had established itself as the continent’s dominant military power. Both German public opinion and German leaders were strongly Anglophilic; the Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg considered English friendship to be something worth striving for even at the cost of German interests.

    3. The German government and most of the German press made a sharp distinction between hoping to see their country become a world power and aspiring for dominance over all other countries. Canis’s sources suggest that influential Germans were hoping to become a power “on the scale of England,” a country they respected and had no interest in fighting.

  309. L.K says:
    @Seraphim

    Oh, yeah, sniff, sniff…

    Russia, built through aggressive expansionism into the second largest Empire in modern times, and the third largest in World history, was always merely a poor victim!!

    BTW, Russia’s responsibility for the war is well documented by many other sources, the one I mentioned being merely a new study.

    At any rate, this sort of objection from you re McMeekin’s book cracks me up.

    I mean, do you reject the highly politicized Russian “history” of WW2, a lot of which derives directly from Stalinist ‘histories’? I doubt that very much.

    P.S. My reference to Russian imperialism covers the period until the fall of the SU.
    The R.F has taken a different path.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  310. L.K says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “No, we mustn’t blame the tyrants of Europe.”

    buhaHAHAHHAHA

    The British elite were tyrants, you fool!

    War monger and war criminal, Winston Churchill:

    “We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of our vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  311. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @L.K

    You are both, a know-nothing British fool pushing old WW1 & WW2 propaganda and covering for the largest Empire in the history of mankind; a warmongering, treacherous state with no rival in modern history.

    I may be a no-nothing and a fool, but I’m not British.

    As for

    the largest Empire in the history of mankind

    this is drivelling hate-whitey propaganda.

    Anyone who knows anything at all about the British Empire in 1939 knows that India was already at the brink of independence and the movement for independence was unstoppable, not only because there was a vast Indian nationalist movement that the British could not effectively suppress, but because the British Liberal and Labour Parties were committed to Indian independence, and had been in the case of the Liberal (Whig) Party, since before India even became a colony. That is why the 1945 Labour Government of Britain set about granting India independence without delay.

    As for the rest of the empire, the only useful bits were in the ME where they secured a cheap supply of oil for the Royal Navy: that is why Britain established British Petroleum, a state-owned corporation, in 1909. The rest of the empire, vast expanses of desert and jungle occupied by culturally primitive people, cost more to administer than Britain gained in trade or other benefits.

    Even as it lost its Empire, Britain continues its tradition of crime and perfidy

    As for the recent foreign policy of the United Kingdom, it has nothing whatever to do with the present discussion and you know absolutely nothing whatever about my view, other than, had you been observant enough, that at #302 above I referred to “Phony Bliar, the Butcher of Baghdad.” In fact, of course, Blair was merely the Assistant to Bush’s butchery in Baghdad.

    But one thing, I’ll grant you, you are good at the emission of epithets, without the slightest apparent grasp of the relevant facts.

  312. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @L.K

    “We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of our vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”

    I see that you have posted that Churchill quote on Unz, repeatedly, but on no occasion providing the context.

    But in any case, whatever point Churchill was seeking to make, it was certainly not the point you claim it to prove, namely that Britain is ruled by tyrants. That is a claim of such silliness that it is not worth discussing. One only has to compare Churchill with Hitler and Stalin, who you apparently applaud, to see the absurdity.

    The British acquired territory in the way that most other nations acquired territory, the exceptions being the San people of South Africa, whose land is now overrun by Zulus and other African tribes, and the Australian aborigines and Amerindians, whose territories are overrun by people from throughout the world. In Europe, every square inch of territory has been conquered multiple times.

    If you want, you can call Churchill an warmonger, but it then makes the term essentially meaningless, since all leaders of all nations advocate war in the defense of national sovereignty, and Churchill’s warnings about the threat of Nazi Germany to the security of Europe were entirely rational and were proved by events.

    Tony Blair and Dubya Bush really were warmongers since they instigated an unnecessary war on the basis of lies and a false flag attack on the United States. But I guess acknowledging that reality does not suit your peculiar turn of mind.

  313. L.K says:

    In the article ‘The Secret Origins of the First World War’, authors Gerry Docherty and J. MacGregor write:

    …Though the Boer War finally ended in victory it came at a cost greater than the 45,000 Empire troops killed or wounded.10 Britain had fewer friends than ever. Up to that point, Britain didn’t care. Living in ‘splendid isolation’ and devoid of binding treaties with any other nation had not been viewed as a handicap as long as no other power on earth challenged the Empire.

    But in the early years of the twentieth century there was a serious challenger. If the Secret Elite were to achieve their dream of world domination, the first step had to be the removal of the upstart German competitor and destruction of her industrial and economic prowess. This presented considerable strategic difficulty. Friendless in her isolation, Britain could never destroy Germany on her own. As an island nation her strength lay in her all-powerful navy. Friendship and alliances were required. “It would have been impossible for Britain to have defeated Germany by itself. Therefore, it needed the large French army and the even larger Russian army to do most of the fighting on the continent.”11 Diplomatic channels had to be opened and overtures made to old enemies Russia and France. This was no mean task since Anglo-French bitterness had been rife over the previous decade and war between them a real possibility in 1895.12

    Step forward the Secret Elite’s most special weapon, Edward VII, whose greatest contribution lay in engineering the much-needed realignments, and addressing the Secret Elite’s prerequisite need to isolate Germany. Ultimate responsibility for British foreign policy lay, by precedent, with the elected government and not the sovereign, but it was the King who enticed both France and Russia into secret alliances within six short years. The great armies of France and Russia were integral to the mammoth task of stopping Germany in her tracks. Put simply, the Secret Elite required others to undertake much of their bloody business, for war against Germany would certainly be bloody.

    The treaty with France, the Entente Cordiale, was signed on 8 April 1904, marking the end of an era of conflict that had lasted nearly a thousand years. The talk was of peace and prosperity, but secret clauses signed that same day aligned the two against Germany. The Secret Elite then drew Russia into their web with a promise they never intended to deliver – Russian control of Constantinople and the Black Sea Straits following a successful war with Germany. …

  314. L.K says:

    Continuing from the article ‘The Secret Origins of the First World War’, by authors Gerry Docherty and J. MacGregor:

    [MORE]

    Two conditions had to be met before the Secret Elite could start their war. Firstly, Britain and the Empire had to be made ready. Secondly, in order to heap blame on Germany, she had to be goaded into making the first move. The assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 provided the excuse for monstrous manipulation. It has often been cited as the cause of the First World War. What nonsense. On its own it was just one more political assassination in an era of such murders. The blame rested with a group of Serbian officials who trained, armed and aided the assassins, and Austrian retribution was generally accepted as a valid reaction. What we have demonstrated in our book, Hidden History, is that connections linked the Serbians, the Russian Ambassador in Belgrade, the Foreign Office in St. Petersburg and the Secret Elite in London.17 Austria demanded the Serbian government take specific action against the perpetrators and allow Austrian involvement in the investigation. Serbia refused. Russia, having assumed the spurious role of protector, voiced total support for Serbia.

    In London, the Secret Elite purposefully fanned the orchestrated antagonisms into a crisis. When Serbia and Austria squared up to each other in what should have been a localised conflict, Russia, with the full support of London and Paris, began in secret to mobilise her massive armies on Germany’s eastern border. Everyone was aware that once the general mobilisation of an army began, it meant war and there was no turning back. Germany faced invasion along her eastern front, and, as the French army mobilised to the west, the Kaiser repeatedly made valiant attempts to persuade his cousin the Tsar to stand down his armies. In the full knowledge that France had promised to join with her immediately, and that Britain, though not openly admitting her collusion, was secretly committed to war, the Tsar refused. Russia’s dream of taking Constantinople could at last be realised.

    Backed into a corner and forced into a defensive war, Germany was the last power in Europe to mobilise her army. In order to deal with the French who had secretly mobilised to the west, the Kaiser ordered the German army to advance into France through Belgium. He had little other option. Continental Europe was at war.

    The Secret Elite watched and waited. Though joint preparations for war had been ongoing since 1905, they had been kept so secret that only five out of twenty Cabinet ministers in the British government knew of Britain’s commitments. Sir Edward Grey addressed the House of Commons on 3 August and promised that no action would be taken without the approval of parliament, yet that approval was never put to a vote. The crux of his argument lay in Belgian neutrality though he knew full well that such neutrality was a grotesque charade. Among others, the American writer Albert J Nock later revealed that Belgium had been a secret, but solid ally of Britain, France and Russia long before August 1914.18 The fiction of Belgian neutrality provided the legal and popular excuse for Britain to declare war on Germany on 4 August 1914. Sir Edward Grey, loyal servant of the Secret Elite, lied the British Empire into war.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  315. L.K says:

    In regards to the time tested tactics of deliberately presenting pretexts for war as the real causes, Paul E. Gottfried writes:

    George Kennan’s The Fateful Alliance and Sean McMeekin’s The Russian Origin of the First World War both document the role the aggressively expansionist Russian government played in bringing about the Great War. But such revelations are no longer surprising.

    What is more of a discovery is England’s role in creating this catastrophe. This oversight may be attributed to certain obvious causes: the mistaken view that England only entered the war because of the violation of Belgian neutrality (this confounds a pretext with a cause); the Anglophilic disposition of American political and academic elites;

    Again regarding the British pretext of Belgium neutrality, writes US historian Thomas Fleming, in ‘the Illusion of Victory’:

    “In fact, Belgium was about as neutral as Scotland. The Belgian government had secret understandings with France and England.
    The Belgian border with Germany bristled with forts. On the French border, there were none.
    The country’s official language was French, although half the population, the citizens of Flanders, spoke Flemish and had no great enthusiasm for France or French culture.
    When hostilities began, the Germans had asked Brussels for safe passage for their army and had guaranteed to pay for any damage to property as well as food or drink obtained en route.
    Neighboring Luxembourg had accepted these terms without a word of reproach.”

  316. Seraphim says:
    @L.K

    Russia’s ‘responsibility’ for the war was the justification of German declaration of war (you can’t evade the fact that Germany declared war on Russia and not the other way round) and the theme of the German war propaganda (the danger that Slavic barbarism posed to the German ‘Kultur’ and to the ‘aspirations of the industrious, civilized, decent German ‘Volk’ for World Power status) taken over by the ‘revolutionaries’ and kept alive in the Bolshevik ‘histories’. Nowadays the theme is sprinkled with some ‘color’, the defense of the ‘whites’ against the invasion of the low IQ ‘colored’!
    But the ‘Drang nach Osten’ and ‘Lebensraum’ ideologies were not invented by the Nazis. Germany could not achieve the World Power status without the grains and coal and petrol kept captive by the Russian ‘expansionism’.
    The problem of responsibilities is treated instinctively from an Eurocentric perspective, as if Russia should have done nothing when threatened. Or the pesky ‘Balkaniks’ should not have any say in their homes (yesterday as today). Russia did not need any territories in Germany, they had more than enough home and they were busy developing them. Actually the expansionism was towards East, where they threatened the British expansionism!

  317. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You must add the Russian Empire. But, as Bismarck warned, Russia proved to be a tougher nut to crack.

  318. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Well, disappointingly, Churchill’s mother was not jewish. That doesn’t make Churchill a less committed Zionist, commitment lavishly rewarded with money, literary success and tonnes of champagne, brandy and cigars.

  319. Seraphim says:
    @L.K

    We must exercise caution with ‘hidden histories’, which explain events by the action of ‘secret elites’ who ‘suppress documents’ to hide their malfeasance.
    For example (from the quotes): “Russia, with the full support of London and Paris, began in secret to mobilize her massive armies on Germany’s eastern border”. Why say ‘in secret’, when it was done in plain view and was the pretext for Germany’s actions?
    Not of course, that the World War and the revolutions that followed have not been planned, or at least desired, but it happen that we know pretty well who these ‘secret elites’ were and what their aims were from non-suppressed documents (Churchill comes immediately to mind). For example, three Australian PM (including the present one) have been Rhodes Scholars (Cecil Rhodes was the least secretive and most outspoken of all). There was no secret at all with the ‘Round Table’.
    And not, of course, that secret operations have not been a staple of all wars and revolutions (they still are).

  320. @L.K

    Funny, I reread my rambling response and, while I made some points that needed to be made, it finally occurred to me that I may have been skirting around the central point, which is really about national sovereignty, or the sovereignty of peoples.

    So, you write:

    As you know, there are many solid and honest arguments against mass immigration…

    Yeah, it’s a funny thing because, on the one hand, we’re in complete agreement about this, yes. BUT…. there is another point here as well, which is perhaps even more central…

    Like, take the case of Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, who is so demonized in the Western media at this point, because, along with the other “Visegrad” nations, Hungary is not taking in its so-called fair share of refugees, say.

    My position, contrary to what Randal might think, is that I support Orban completely. Hungary is a sovereign nation (in theory, anyway) and can decide who comes to Hungary or not and does not, in principle, even need to offer an explanation.

    Similarly, I can decline to invite any stranger or group of strangers into my house and I don’t even absolutely have to give an explanation.

    Simply because it is my house!

    Or, putting it another way, if Hungary or whatever other country cannot decide who can come to Hungary, then it is obviously NOT a sovereign nation, right? And, by the same token, if I cannot decide who comes to my house, it’s not really my house, is it?

    The Randal idea is that if you don’t want somebody in your house, you have to come up with some pretext and claim the person is a rapist or whatever. The whole concept is completely mistaken! It’s entering into a completely incorrect framing of the whole question.

    Well, all that, aside from the seeming inability to understand that going around accusing people of being rapists when they aren’t is utterly immoral, criminal behavior! I’m pretty sure that no legitimate political movement can really build itself on top of that. I’m pretty sure it’s a big mistake to fall into that kind of trap.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  321. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hungary is a sovereign nation (in theory, anyway) and can decide who comes to Hungary or not and does not

    A more compelling argument is that Hungary is a democratic nation, and that the people of Hungary can, therefore, decide who comes to Hungary.

    Since the Western nations see democracy as the key feature of their political system, I think this is a much stronger argument.

    Why, after all, is sovereignty such a big deal? The globalist media deny the validity of the concept and the public is, for the most part, bemused by it. Canada’s Prime Minister even denies that Canada is a nation, let alone a sovereign nation.

    But while Justin Trudeau’s treasonous proclamation may befuddle most Canadians, if the son-of-a-bitch said that Canada was not a democratic nation, he’d get the boot at the next election — assuming that with such a scoundrel in power Canadians get to have another election.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  322. A more compelling argument is that Hungary is a democratic nation, and that the people of Hungary can, therefore, decide who comes to Hungary.

    Well, that’s more or less what I was saying, except that, personally, nowadays, I try to avoid words like “democracy” because I’ve come to realize that they’ve been so overloaded and misused in an Orwellian manner that they’re becoming meaningless. For similar reasons, I never call anybody a “Fascist” nowadays because I don’t think the world really means anything anymore.

    But, okay, all that said, yeah, the Hungarian people voted for Viktor Orban. They did not vote for the European Commission or for George Soros. Nor did they vote for Angela Merkel (though the Germans did… at least, enough of them for her to get in…)

    So, if you get into it, yes, Orban has “democratic legitimacy” and the EC and Soros don’t. And, while Merkel has democratic legitimacy in Germany, she doesn’t have any regarding decisions in Hungary or anywhere else outside Germany. I guess we all ought to be able to agree on that.

    But…..

    Since the Western nations see democracy as the key feature of their political system, I think this is a much stronger argument.

    Well, in principle, yes. Except, the MSM presstitutes will portray a nationalist leader, like Orban, as a dictator and illegitimate, no matter how many elections he wins and by how great a margin! Ditto for Putin.

    When the democratic process gives a result they don’t like, like the referendum in Crimea say, then… guess what! It’s not democratic somehow. It’s illegitimate. But if a vote gives them the result they want….

    I mean, I don’t think we’re in great disagreement about anything here (on this occasion) but I would make the point that once you get into arguing with them on the basis of their constructs (democracy in this case) you should not expect that the other side will debate honestly and then concede that… okay, you’re right, Orban is the democratically legitimate leader and has the right to decide how many refugees can stay in Hungary.

    No, that’s not how it plays out. They’ll just go full Orwellian and claim that Orban (like the lord of darkness Putin) is a dictator (despite being democratically elected) and the European Commission and so forth that nobody ever voted for somehow is democratic… they are all sweetness and light and…

    That’s the song and dance.

  323. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I don’t think we’re in great disagreement about anything here

    Agreed.

    once you get into arguing with them on the basis of their constructs (democracy in this case) you should not expect that the other side will debate honestly and then concede that… okay, you’re right, Orban is the democratically legitimate leader and has the right to decide how many refugees can stay in Hungary

    Absolutely. The globalist propagandists for open borders will say anything to silence opposition to mass immigration of cheap labor to the high-wage West. (The immigrants are also “needed” to create demand for housing and infrastructure which mainlines profits to the property developers, plus the migrants mostly come from places where people have no bullshit illusions about human rights, the rule of law, etc. so they are more easily subordinated than the native population to the modern system of money-dominated “democratic” rule.)

    But I was not thinking of democracy in terms of elections or elected leaders (few of the latter being inclined to do anything the majority of voters actually want), but of more direct measures of the people’s will: opinion surveys, for example, which show that in Britain, for example, 70% plus of the population has been against immigration since long before immigration to Britain became massive. I think opinion polls show the same thing in most countries, including the US.

  324. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But was Canada ever a sovereign nation? It is, like Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda and some others, a ‘Commonwealth realm’.
    Hungary is a real sovereign country for over a thousand years.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  325. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    But was Canada ever a sovereign nation?

    Yes. Technically, since 1982, when the constitution was patriated, i.e., the country’s highest law, the British North America Act, was transferred from the authority of the British Parliament to Canada’s Federal and Provincial legislatures. As a matter of practical reality, Canada has been a sovereign nation state since Confederation, 152 years ago.

    But what counts most in the minds of Canadians and other within the Western orbit is not the sovereignty of their country, but that their system of government is supposed to be democratic, by which it is understood that what the people want is what they should get, rarely though it is that that expectation is fulfilled. For example:

    In 1993 the Swedish newspaper Expressen broke one of the great taboos of Swedish politics and published a rare opinion poll on the country’s actual views. Under the headline Throw them out, the paper revealed that 63 per cent of Swedish People wanted immigrants to go back to their home countries. And accompanying article by the paper’s editor-in-chief, Erki Mansson, noted that : the Swedish people have a firm opinion on immigration and refugee policies. Those in power have the opposite opinion. … It is an opinion bomb about to go off. that is why we writing about it today … before the bomb goes off.”
    Douglas Murray: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.

    In fact, nothing was done, except that the newspaper editor was fired and the situation has since been made many times worse, putting the Swedes on a path to minority status in their own homeland within a generation.

    So are we about to see a bloody peasant revolt, or are the European people in state of terminal decadence?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  326. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    QE II is Canada’s head of state, however, all functions of the Queen are performed in Canada by her appointee the Governor General, who is a nominated by the Government of Canada (except when the Queen is in Canada). But although the Queen is nominally Canada’s sovereign, the Parliament of Canada, acting under the Canadian Constitution, is Canada’s sovereign authority. Hence Canada is, indeed, a sovereign state.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  327. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    But although the Parliament of Canada is nominally sovereign, it is the Prime Minister who is, in effect, a sovereign elected dictator. As such, he has the power to decide who may stand for Parliament as a member of the ruling party, and may parachute candidates into a constituencies contrary to the wishes of the local party organizations. Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Ukrainian nationalist foreign minister and trade negotiator, being an example of Justin Trudeau’s choice of candidate for the people to vote for.

    In Canada, members of Parliament do not represent the people in government, they represent the government to the people.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS