The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The Lies About World War II
🔊 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

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/09/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.

This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

ORDER IT NOW

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3

ORDER IT NOW

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

ORDER IT NOW

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.

It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 1003 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. szopen says:

    What a disgrace.

    “Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic,”

    Yeah, sure. If it would be Poland demanding the same, all the Nazis would scream how wrong they were. Hitler’s demand were ultimatum which could be given only to a defeated state; just note a blatant hipocrisy here. Germans given to Poland to ive under Polish rule: BAD. Poles living under German rule, where there were continously more exposed to the discriminatory laws: GOOD. Plebiscite demanded by Hitler, where Poles not born on the territory before 1918 where not allowed to vote: GOOD. So was good to allow to vote for Germans settled there by Prussian government. Moreover, a plebiscite in Silesia: BAD.

    “Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime,”

    Because, of course, Poles are subhuman, so who cared whether German Luftwaffe bombed Polish cities, including Frampol which was destroyed only as an exercise.

  2. Leon says:
    @szopen

    You are a special kind of stupid.

  3. Johann says:

    Peter Hitchens recent book : The Phony Victory covers most of these points, Hitchens who was raised in a Tory family and whose father fought in the Royal Navy states that growing up he was told all the War time prpoganda which basically stated German bad, Englishman good. He has a different perspective and but constantly q reassures that he still thinks Hitler was a bad man. However his portrait of Churchill is devastating. He depicts a war monger whose motivation was shifty. He knew Great Britain was bankrupt and was unable to pay back its war debts to the US fo WWI so he thought he would get the US in the war along with Britain and that the Americans would help restore the fallen glory of the British Empire. Roosevelt was no fool he knew he would use this opportunity to get the US out of a tough recession and at the same time replace the British Empire. Hitchens even gives Chamberlain credit for trying to keep Britain out of another war, Chamberlain knew about the horrors ofWWI and did not want a repeat. Hitchens also points out that it was Churchill who started the targeting of civilians and cities with terror bombing, Hitler naturally retaliated . He ends the book with the truth of the murderous ethnic cleansing of the Eastern Germans and how both Churchill and Roosevelt gave their consent to this horrible massacre which Stalin unleashed on over five million Germans. It is clear that history books are written by the victors and certainly both in the US and Europe the pampered and corrupt academics will do their best to bury the past.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  4. Saggy says: • Website

    British man of letters Wyndham Lewis wrote ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ in 1936!

    As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

    The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

    There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

    • Replies: @S
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @chris
  5. “Hitchens also points out that it was Churchill who started the targeting of civilians and cities with terror bombing, “

    The English historian AJP Taylor pointed that out as far back as 1963 in his foreword to the second edition of The Origins Of The Second World War.

    “Before the war they listened to what Hitler said instead of looking at what he did. After the war they wanted to pin on him the guilt for everything which happened, regardless of the evidence. This is illustrated, for example; by the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted. ”

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/origins_second_world_war.pdf

  6. Dutch Boy says:

    More to the point for an American: Hitler and Germany were no threat to the USA

  7. “Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked.”

    Famously understated Field Marshall Alan Brooke, who briefed him several times, reported that Stalin had ‘a first class military mind.’

    • Replies: @Nona
    , @Jon Halpenny
  8. @szopen

    What nonsense. A Purely emotional bit of claptrap doesn’t refute what is written here. As detailed, Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic. It was German land, Germany was tricked and cheated out of it in the Versaiiles Treaty even though they did not lose the war. Granting the return of those lands and citizens (who were suffering abuses by Poles) would have ensured WWII never happened.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Karel
  9. Tusk says:

    I scrolled down expecting the comments to be closed as usual and I was delighted to find them open. Thank you for this wonderful article, it fits nicely with the previous few articles about WW1-WW2.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @follyofwar
  10. Paul Craig Roberts article with open comments? Wow! I hope this trend continues.

    • Replies: @homahr
  11. anon[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tusk

    I scrolled down expecting the comments to be closed as usual and I was delighted to find them open.

    agree

    much nicer to read an article when you know you can voice an opinion on it – thanks PCR

  12. Reviewed says:

    This article is non reality Germany invaded Poland and Czech Republic in 1039

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @The Alarmist
  13. As a graduate of Winston Churchill High School, I agree with Pat Buchanan who wrote that Churchill was a key figure in the destruction of the British Empire. He also pulled the USA into his disasters, TWICE!

    Americans are taught that our 1944-45 war in Europe was glorious fun and Hollywood movies support this lie. I tired of these lies so I produced a short documentary with disturbing facts.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  14. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war.

    I am sorry if this comment dissuades PCR from allowing comments in the future, but I think the contention that WWII was Churchill’s war is absurd.

    Churchill’s only training was in the military and he loved the profession of war, but he was no more responsible for the Spanish-American War, the NorthWest Frontier wars, or the Boer War — in all of which he participated, than he was for WWII, which was in the making for at least ten years, at the beginning of which period he was a backbench nobody and has-been. Moreover, Churchill was still out of the government and a has-been when Chamberlain declared Britain to be at war with Germany.

    From the early 30’s, Stalin relentless drove the Soviet Union to industrialize with a huge emphasis on the manufacture of armaments. Tanks were produced in factories built with the aid of Henry Ford’s production-line technology, using the latest designs purchased from British and American firms. Military aircraft production matched or exceeded that of both the UK and Germany in 1939 and in total by the end of the war. Moreover, Stalin created a 4.8 million man army by 1941, almost twice the size of the German army.

    Such huge preparation for war could only mean war, a war between Russia and Germany. Britain naturally had an interest in seeing Germany defeated, since if Germany were to win, she would be able, with the Russian populace enslaved and Russia’s abundant resources freely available, to turn on and destroy the British: Hence Churchill’s dismissal of the idea that Britain could simply sit the war out.

    In fact, Churchill played a canny game. He delayed the creation of a Western front, fearing it would bog down as it had in WW1, and until joined by the Americans in the Normandy invasion, he deployed British forces only in peripheral battles. As a result, British casualties during WW2, at just under half a million, were small relative to those of Russia and Germany.

    Churchill’s role in WWII was essentially political and bore no relation whatever to the role of his famous Malborough ancestor in Britain’s conflict with the France of Louis 14th.

  15. JimDandy says:

    Sentencing Petain to death for Vichy France wasn’t just, but allow me to mention the fact that Petain was a miserable piece of shit. How many French boys did he execute for refusing to carry out suicide missions in a bullshit war?

    Fuck Petain. In the big picture, his execution would have been no great loss.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  16. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    Germans given to Poland to ive under Polish rule: BAD. Poles living under German rule, where there were continously more exposed to the discriminatory laws: GOOD.

    Katyn

    America fought on the wrong side

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @wolvedrive
  17. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    to turn on and destroy the British

    imbecile

    PCR just recounted the folly of letting the British army retreat from Dunkirk

    a peace gesture

    only an imbecile would suggest Hitler wanted to “destroy the British”

    ‘and genocide all Jews! and gays! and Slavs and Americans and blacks and browns and everyone who wasn’t a blond haired Aryan and shrink their heads and make lampshades and soap!

    Hitler went up against the fiend. The same fiend that wants to ‘destroy seven nations in five years’, and is menacing Iran (and Venezuela and Russia and others..) today. Duh!

    The same ((fiend)) who foisted the war of 1812 and the Boer war and both world wars and 9/11 and all the subsequent Eternal Wars for Israel.

    Duh, fucking duh.

    • Agree: Fool's Paradise, Druid
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @CanSpeccy
  18. Richard T says:

    When you come to understand that the founders of Zionism were also the founders of Communism, you will quickly come to appreciate why Hitler and the Germans are so hated by the Zionists of today. The great irony is that Zionism – the religion of the once-Christian West today – is a racist, supremacist ideology that rivals Nazism in scope and fervency. Hitler rightfully identified the threat to Germany in his day, the same threat to the West today: Communism which today has morphed into Zionism. In Mein Kampf, Hitler also rightly identified Freemasonry as an International, subversive organization which does the bidding of the Synagogue of Satan. And today Freemasonry poses the same threat: every Western government today is run by Freemasons who answer to Zion. Hitler correctly identified the threats to Christendom; his mistake was embracing Neo-Paganism which led to a distorted politics – and mistaken politics led to mistakes on the battlefield. One such mistake was his issuance of the “Halt Order” at Dunkirk when he had the Allies surrounded. Martin Bormann stated that Hitler issued that order because he felt an Aryan kinship with Britain and did not wish annihilate Britain’s finest. At other critical junctures in the war, Hitler was again his own worst enemy. Had Hitler fully embraced and obeyed the traditional religion of the Holy Roman Empire rather than channeling Germanic paganism, history would have been very different.

  19. Wally says:

    Roberts said:
    “Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.”

    Indeed, Irving has written no books on the absurd & impossible “holocaust” narrative, and it shows, big time.

    Let’s clear this is up right here & now, Irving does not “document the massacre of many Jews”. Far from it.

    Irving’s attempt at ‘holocaust-lite’, after being given a curious early release from Thought Crime Prison, makes no sense whatsoever and has been utterly debunked.

    recommended:

    Grubach’s Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563&p=29296
    ‘Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ‘2.4 million document’?’: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    ‘Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4558&p=50552
    ‘The Razor and the Ring, by John Weir’: http://codoh.com/library/document/364

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  20. Wally says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    An entire litany of examples of the British initiating the bombing of civilians long before Germany was forced to retaliate here:
    Britain started bombing civilians first: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    two examples, lengthy, apologies:

    [MORE]

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

    and:

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

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

    Sirs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely, Dr. A.R. Wesserle

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

  21. refl says:
    @szopen

    You have a point here. Hitler probably never wanted a war with Britain or France – but neither he nor his generals had any trouble smashing eastern europeans. As for terror bombing this was indeed Churchills invention. Notwithstanding, warfare in the east was always in a completely different league of violence.

    What I do not understand about Poland back then: Did anybody really think the British would help them out? The British had just sold out the Czechs, Poland even taking part on the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. And now they thought they were more worthy to those Anglosaxons? The only sane course of policy would have been to make a tough choice between Hitler and Stalin.

    But as always: everyone wants to be with the West. Hitler bending over to endear himself to the British. Poland believing the British would ground their grand fleet in the Baltic for Polands sake.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  22. S says:
    @Saggy

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism…

    [Capitalist]Parliamentarism and [Communist]Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    Trump to both Dems and establishment Republicans is something like a microcosm of what Hitler was to Capitalism and Communism during WWII. Not to compare him directly to Hitler per se but Trump’s simply being perceived for standing up for identity of any type has got the traditional ‘right’ and ‘left going nuts.

    Both Capitalism and Communism having the same ultimate roots, that ought not to be surprising. Same as with ‘Left’ and Right. In time they’ll go after any identity, Blacks, Browns, various Indian tribes, and ‘First Nations’, etc. They don’t for now as those groups are useful as tools, but in time they will as they hate most of humanity.

    Can’t have total world power with various distinctive peoples running around thinking they got rights.

  23. szopen says:
    @Rabbitnexus

    It was not German land. Majority of population even in 1918 was Polish, and it was took by Prussia just hundred years ago. THose Poles were suffering continous abuse from Prussian government; lack of access to learning in native language, denying the right to built new houses, restrictions in land buying and so on. What you are saying is that we, Poles, are somehow less human: that it was OK for German to abuse rights of Poles, but much lesser abuse directed towards Germans was unacceptable. That it was OK that Poles (who even according to German data in 1918!!!) were majority of those territories would live under German occupation, while Germans could not be living in Poland (minority in those territories!) .

    Hitler’s demand were unacceptable and they were designed to be refused, as no sovereign state could agree to such outrageous demands.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Wally
    , @STENBIT
  24. Gerard says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I have both books by Irving. Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War. I agree with the sentiment that the war was more Churchill’s war than Hitler’s.

  25. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to … Denmark …

    The border between Germany and Denmark was determined following a plebiscite in 1920, and largely follows cultural and linguistic lines. Which is why Hitler never demanded that Denmark give up North Schleswig.

  26. Lurker says:

    the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy

    Or . . .

    The foolish British trapped by a treaty with the French, whose military collapsed leaving thousands of British soldiers trapped in France at Germany’s mercy.

    The British retreat only began in earnest once it was clear the French army was collapsing. The French army of 1939-40 was very large compared to the British forces deployed to France. Given the disparity in size some sort of stand-and-fight-to-the-death order to the BEF was very unlikely to turn the tide in 1940 and would have resulted in a near-total loss of the BEF without making much difference to the fall of France.

    Whereas a steadfast French defence would have made all the difference. Even as the BEF retreated and the French collapsed – more combat troops were sent from Britain. Not part of the original order of battle of the BEF, often resulting in their deaths and capture to largely no purpose. Other than, perhaps, holding back the German advance on the ports the rest of the army were evacuating from.

    Other than that – largely agree with the thrust of the article.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  27. Lurker says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Hitler and Germany were no threat to the USA – or to Britain really. The threat to Britain in this case was just the same as that to the US writ smaller.

  28. @Saggy

    Interesting. Have you checked his speculative facts against evidence available later?

    • Replies: @Wally
  29. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

    The annoying thing was, in 1916, Germany had practically won the war, but forces in the shadows got the US to needlessly enter the war and prolong it for two more years.
    Almost the same happened in part two of this war again, but in part two, the US left occupation troops to this day in Germany, so the German people cannot make sovereign decisions required to sign a peace treaty, and which caused in the US the National security Act and all the madness with it.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  30. Lurker says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    He also pulled the USA into his disasters, TWICE!

    A pulling certain elite, shadowy, Deep State interests were more than happy to go along with.

    In a similar vein in the Current Year we see a tiny echo of this same strategy – the great and the good allowing themselves to be lectured to by an odd looking Swedish teen. They let her tell them what they want the public to hear. It sounds better coming from her than it does from them.

  31. PeterMX says:
    @szopen

    Germany wanted back the lands stolen from them after WW I where millions of Germans lived and wanted “self determination”, a term used to justify theft of German lands, but only used for others benefit. There were not many Poles in Germany. The most famous German with some Polish apparently in him was Otto Skorzeny, one of Germany’s greatest heroes. Germany negotiated with Poland right up to the day the war started, with the Poles insulting Hitler and Germany. They would have been able to keep their state, but not the Germans and the land Germans lived on. Israel (founded on stolen land) just attacked and stole more land when they wanted it, but when Germans were abused by Poles a corrupt Churchill sacrificed his empire and Europe’s leadership of the world for over 1,000 years for a small country that didn’t even exist in 1918.

    Great article.

    • Replies: @szopen
  32. Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

    It is not truly the Zionist narrative there, it is the jewish Soviet Ehrenburg narrative the US foolishly adopted, to this day, and signed documents with them to agree on the narrative. They just move the goal posts constantly.
    My explanation is, this adoption of narrative is a consequence of making a deal with the devil, the Soviets and fighting with them against in fact US interests.

    • Replies: @Wally
  33. Lurker says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Up until the successful German invasion in 1940 it was hardly a foregone conclusion that Britain would be embroiled in an unwinnable war (without US input). The French army (+ the British) were thought big enough to contain Germany in the west and the British navy (+ the French) were thought to be enough to blockade thus throttle Germany – as had worked in WW1.

    The blockade strategy worked very well yet the oft-told story of the war is the Battle of the Atlantic – the failed German attempt to blockade Britain. The not really told at all story is of the near-total blockade of Germany at sea by the allies. Conducted by Britain and France 1939-40 and continued by Britain alone for 18 months from the fall of France.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @CanSpeccy
  34. PeterMX says:

    It is wonderful to see someone of Paul Craig Roberts stature sticking up for the truth, although I suspect this has cost him, just as it has cost David Irvng and others. How wonderful it would be if these brave men were to be rewarded before they pass on. Credit to Rin Unz too for a very important website.

    I would love to see a 24 hour cable news station ownded and run by people like this. I think it would take off and its ratings would soar, putting CNN and others out of business. Many people know there is something terribly wrong, seeing their countries and societies destroyed from within and seeing recent immigrants or those recently given equal rights and power (blacks) display their open contempt for the decreasing white majority. People should be shocked at the open hatred and nerve of these people.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  35. utu says:
    @szopen

    szopen you are wrong.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  36. eah says:
    @szopen

    I am only replying to this comment — which I ostensibly ‘disagreed’ with previously — because I did not “Disagree” with this comment — ??

    Hello (again) Ron Unz, what’s up with that?

    Please 1) remove the “Disagree” from me (“eah”) on the above comment (by “szopen”), and 2) then delete this comment — thanks for your cooperation (again).

  37. swamped says:

    Another convert to the Hitler fan club? Western ‘white culture’ may be under assault from without & within, but that’s no reason to praise German National Socialism or turn into a Nazi. The extreme brutality of the Fuehrer to erstwhile friend & foe alike was all too apparent throughout his ghastly reign. Russian prisoners experienced lethal conditions, perishing en masse through deliberate maltreatment; & Russian & Ukrainian civilians who initially often welcomed the Wehrmacht were subjected to unaccountable barbarity, finally turning against the invaders. Even Hitler’s own prized troops were needlessly sacrificed by the hundreds of thousands at Stalingrad & other colossal strategic blunders. Anyone truly valuing free thought & free expression would not be well served by a regime ruled by a madman like Herr Hitler.

    • Replies: @Palerider1861
  38. Levtraro says:

    Regarding this” “Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans.”

    I believe the first aerial bombing of civilian areas happened during the Spanish Civil War in the Basque town of Guernica by the Luftwaffe. A famous painting by Picasso depicts the carnage. So probably it is not fair to write that “Churchill initiated this war crime, …”.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  39. World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war

    Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, said in New York in 1942 that it was Jewry’s war:

    ‘We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry…Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.’

    Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Irgun, 1934: ‘…our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.’

    Professor A Kulischer, 1937: ‘Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation.’

    See Gerard Menuhin’s Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, PDF, pp161-2.

  40. nebulafox says:

    >Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that’ll happen when you start the bloodiest conflict in human history with openly genocidal intent, as the Nazis did in June of 1941.

    Kids, Hollywood lied to you. The Soviets were the ones who really beat Hitler, a lot of Western Europe collaborated with the Germans, the extermination of the Jews was just the beginning of what the Nazis had planned for the lands to the east, and Hitler was no comical madman: he was a cold, calculating killer.

  41. @Lurker

    Whereas a steadfast French defence would have made all the difference.

    This defence line existed, the Maginot line, heavily fortified, as in static trenches war in WWI.
    German forces simply circumvented it and the about 80 french infantry divisions stationed there in 1939 via Belgium. The german Schlieffenplan was perfectly executed in WWII, it failed in WWI. Documentation of this fact was unfortunately destroyed by british bombing of Potsdam, which housed the Prussian military archives.

  42. Does not matter how decent and generally good westerner is , deep inside everyone is a russophob. Paul forgot to mention that Hitler and German invasion of the Soviet union caused the catastroph of unimaginable proportion in the Soviet union and vast majority of the dead were civilians and POWs. There is also famous words to his troops prior to Soviet union invasion releasing them of consciousness and leading them to the war of extermination. Germans behavior in the Soviet union reflected it perfectly and differed remarkable of their behavior in the western Europe. What a coincidence. If only Hitler knew that Soviet union actually was not a giant with a feet of clay. Well, this is why he decided to attack. Because he perceived USSR as a weakling. Is that what goes as an excuse after what his invasion caused? Subsequent destruction of Germany including Dresden was well deserved. Amazingly, all that destruction came from westerners who actually suffered little comparatively to USSR and look how magnanimous those sub human Russians were who instead of destroying berlin and Germany for good from the start were proposing neutral unified Germany. Regarding German generals opening road to Berlin betraying Hitler. What could have they done? German military was completely crashed by Te Soviet army by ty he time and steamroller was coming with germans unable to do anything by the time.

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Troll: Germanicus
  43. szopen says:
    @Rurik

    Yeah, Soviets murdered many Poles, including in Katyń. German Nazis however murdered many more Poles (hard to say how many, but the upper bound is in 2-3 million ethnic Poles, and the lower bound is still in hundreds of thousands) not to mention expelled hundreds of thousands from their homes.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anon
    , @Rurik
  44. szopen says:
    @refl

    Remember Poland had an alliance with French; moreover Polish government at the time would fight even without an alliance or British guarantees. No hope for victory rarely deterred us from fighting. This was especially so in pre-1939, where Polish government was comprised of people deeply believing in honour (both personal and national).

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Richard T
  45. szopen says:
    @PeterMX

    There were not many Poles in Germany.

    Yes, because most of them lived in territories which Germany inherited frmo Prussia, which stolen them from Poland. Once again: in Polish corridor Germans were minorityeven in 1918 according to the German official statistics – where German military, administration and colonizers were included!

    You are one another thinking that it’s OK to Germans to conquer and steal land; it’s OK for Poles living under German rule; but when Germans live under Polish rule, that’s absolutely awful! If a single German lives on some land, then it’s “German land”. Disgusting hypocrisy. Include German civil adminsitration and military in people eligible to vote in plebiscite, despite they were often not tied to the province: GOOD. Including people who were settled there by Prussian Settlement Commission, people who where settled there exactly to upend ethnic balance and who sometimes lived there for only a decade or so: GOOD. But Polish administration and Polish newcomers of course would be denied ability to vote. That would be BAD.

    Of course, Germans use two common tricks here: first, the quote statistics for the whole West Prussia province (while Poland never claimed the whole West Prussian province, only the Pomerania). In whole West Prussia Germans were majority, but “Corridor” i.e. ancient Polish province of Pomerania was only part of West Prussia, and in that part, ie in Pomerania, Poles were majority. Second trick used by Germans is to pretend that Kashubians were not Poles, ignoring that vast majority of Kashubians chose the identification with Poland and Polish state and voted for Polish parties before 1918.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  46. Lend Lease was the most ingenious tool for many reasons. To this day, Lend Lease is the lesson taught school children to explain that United States factories won the war single-handed. Russia really had no part in the war, in the Lend Lease story, but survived against Germany because Lend-Lease aid turned the tide of battle. Russia was baled out by American tanks, trucks, planes and other supplies. The mix of Lend Lease goods sent to Russia is a vital part of the tale. Although folks actually knowledgable about WWII equipment know that the U.S., among other things, sent the Russians second or third rate tanks and planes. The “story” taught school children is that American factories pumped out tanks and planes for all of the allies, including those bumbling Russians.

    Thus, not only did FDR snooker Churchill with Lend Lease to give up chunks of empire, the U.S. poisoned the post-war history books.

    PCR does not mention the book Tom Sawyer in this article, but the bit in Tom Sawyer where Tom gets everyone to paint the fence for him remains the quintessential American tale. WWII was Churchill’s war, fought at FDR’s urging, so that everyone else could shoulder the burden of muscling France and Britain out of the empire business, and everyone else could be blead out and destroy Germany. German engineering is in service to the U.S. today, not vice versa.

    • Replies: @TGD
  47. Toby56 says:

    Perfect timing for this excellent article. I am currently reading Irving’s “Hitler’s War” and find it a fresh respite from the usual historical propaganda.

  48. I had quit reading PCR because comments were not allowed.

    This is a nearly flawless piece, and I’m glad that I broke my boycott and that comments have resumed. I would only add that FDR was a long standing and irrational Germanophobe who wanted to smash Germany from at least from his time in Woody Wilson’s admin as assistant secretary of the navy (caps not used intentionally).

    Bless you, PCR and Ron Unz, and may the truth prevail.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @ChuckOrloski
  49. Gefreiter says:

    German Nazis however murdered many more Poles (hard to say how many, but the upper bound is in 2-3 million ethnic Poles

    More kike lies from szopen. Until the “Poles” and the Russians allow a full open inquiry into their collaboration with jewish psychopathic child sacrificers, we have to assume that every missing pole had their blood and organs extracted in some gulag after being worked to death.

    Jewish collaboration with NKVD and Soviets

    When Russia Occupied Poland in 1939

    The Jewish population was mainly from Russia, and Poles never fully accepted them. When Russia invaded Poland the Jews were like hungry dogs in front of a butcher shop, and now the shop door was open. This wasn’t about Communism, or Bolsheviks, it was simply shipping off the intelligentsia, and wealthy Poles to Siberia, and grabbing their possessions.

    Just like in France, when the communist jews took over both countries in 44/45, they went on a blood extraction ritual orgy the world wouldn’t see again until the “ISIS” jews started tormenting Christians across the Syria and Iraq starting in 2012.

    Jews Executing Poles

    What is more, the “guards” and “militias” springing up like mushrooms right after the Soviet attack were in large part made up of Jews. Nor is this all.

    Jews committed acts of revolt against the Polish state, taking over towns and setting up revolutionary committees there, arresting and shooting representatives of the Polish state authorities, attacking smaller or even fairly large units of the Polish Army (as in Grodno). . It was armed collaboration, taking the side of the enemy, betrayal in the days of defeat.”

    Stalin and Churchill had Sikorsky murdered in Gibraltar because Sikorsky had figured out what the jews had done to Poland, and he had figured out what they were planning for the V-Day Purim rituals.

    The Bandits Took Charge

    Throughout Eastern Poland, local Jewish, Belorussian and Ukrainian communists formed militias and “revolutionary committees”. With the blessing of the Soviet invaders, they apprehended, robbed, and even murdered Polish officials, policemen, teachers, politicians, community leaders, landowners, and “colonists” (i.e. interwar settlers) – the so-called enemies of the people. They also plundered and set fire to Polish property and destroyed Polish national and religious monuments. Scores of murders of individuals and groups have been recorded.

    Robbery of Polish property took on massive proportions with the spoils enriching the collaborators’ families and their communities.

    One of the earliest and most hideous crimes was the murder of almost as many as fifty Poles in the village of Brzostowica Mala, near Grodno around September 20, before the Soviets were installed in the area.

    Polish kikes murdering Christians, just like in France. The Morgentau plan was not just for Germany.

    Jews Executed Polish Police

    The local police left town just after the Red Army had crossed the border. On the evening of September 17, I was informed that a band of criminals released from jail was getting ready to rob some stores. I called a meeting of the fire brigade and civilian guard and these two organizations began to provide security in our town. The stores were spared but the [criminal] bands attacked the defenceless civilians, who were escaping eastward from the Germans. The culprits stripped them of their clothes, shoes and anything else they had on them. Those, who resisted, were cruelly killed on the spot. Outside the town, roadside ditches were strewn with dead people.

    … The revolutionary committee, which soon disarmed the fire brigade and civilian guard, stood by idly while all this was taking place.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  50. @Richard T

    “…The great irony is that Zionism – the religion of the once-Christian West today – is a racist, supremacist ideology that rivals Nazism in scope and fervency…”

    That is why the Nazis admired the Zionists so much and initially cooperated with them to settle the Jews in Palestine. Google : Haavara agreement.

    • Replies: @mark green
  51. @Sergey Krieger

    Subsequent destruction of Germany including Dresden was well deserved.

    “Sicko” button already used.

    • Agree: Gefreiter, Rurik
  52. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard T

    > Zionism – the religion of the once-Christian West today

    Zionism isn’t new; it’s an essential element of the New Testament. A list of Christian Zionist scriptural passages from the Bible follow after the More button:

    [MORE]

    • Matthew 21:5 “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you.”
    • John 12:15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming.”
    • Romans 9:33 “See, I lay in Zion a stone…”
    • Romans 11:26 “The deliverer will come from Zion…”
    • Hebrews 12:22 “Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”
    • 1 Peter 2:6 “See, I lay a stone in Zion.”
    • Revelation 14:1 “Standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000.”

    • Replies: @Bill
  53. Moi says:
    @szopen

    You’re a genius-you think just like your hero Bibi.

    • Replies: @szopen
  54. @Dutch Boy

    More to the point for an American: Hitler and Germany were no threat to the USA

    Good point.

    It’s probably also safe to say that no country has ever been a threat to the USA. The biggest threat we’ve ever faced, (and lost) was the ideology of international bankster supported Marxism and its ultimate goal of Talmudic One World control. “We” lost to that criminal mentality over a century ago and what’s worse is that the USA has long been the tool to their ends just as several previous empires have been.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  55. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard T

    Oh good grief! Church doctrine would have made Hitler bomb the hapless British army at Dunkirk, and those nasty pagan values prevented him! LOL Why don’t you take your Evangelical Jew-worship and go save more black babies in Africa for Rabbi Jesus?

  56. Moi says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The fat drunk was an imperialist and one racist bastard.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @CanSpeccy
  57. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    I’ll bet the readership metrics are way up after allowing comments. I read a comment a long time ago that PCR had somebody falsely making comments under his name or some black hacker thing, and stopped comments because of such misrepresentation that smeared his name. Hopefully that has been solved.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  58. @Rurik

    Hitler went up against the fiend.

    Key concept. I’m happy that truth is finally beginning to see the light of day.

  59. What needs to be focused on now is that humanity is nearing World War Three. The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest; despite what people might think. Like the British Empire fell in 1945, every empire falls, eventually getting the war is seeks to avoid – annihilation.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  60. gT says:

    So Poland abused some German’s living in Poland in order to force Hitler’s hand, and so started WW2 in which Germany lost many more people. Just like Ukraine is now abusing Russian’s living in Ukraine in order to force Putin’s hand. Only Putin is keeping his hands behind his back and letting those Russians get burned alive there in Ukraine. Got to hand it to Putin, he is a clever bastard. Fight only when you want to fight and know you are going to win completely, not when others want to provoke you to fight. Sun Tzu would approve.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Rurik
  61. @YetAnotherAnon

    I forgot to add that the “barrel bombs’, which are apparently a war crime when Assad uses them in Syria, look awfully like the 4,000 lb ‘cookies’ which the RAF dropped on German cities in WW2. The purpose was to blow the roof tiles off housing and allow the accompanying incendiaries to burn their way through.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb#Design

    “The 4,000 lb high-capacity design was little more than a cylinder full of explosives: it was unaerodynamic and did not have fins.”

    Here’s one found in the Rhine in 2011.

  62. @Wally

    No, no, Wally you can’t deny Germany the honour of being first by subtle twists and turns. At Guernica and then in Poland your pacifist idol Hitler could claim the prize. Like the first use of gas, the world would find it difficult to go back.

    But German originality goes further back in a way others couldn’t help but learn from. For some Zeppelins over London would come to mind, and maybe Big Bertha lobbing shells into Paris but the Palme d’Or goes to the German navy on 16th December 1914 when six German cruisers shelled Scarborough and Hartlepool.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Haxo Angmark
  63. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘Churchill’s War’ leads to the following question:
    When were the United Kingdom general elections scheduled for 1940?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections

    • Replies: @Anon
  64. szopen says:
    @Moi

    No idea who is Bibi. I’m ethnic Polish, nationalist.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Gefreiter
  65. Kiza says:

    I am a great believer in PCR and his writing. However, on this one I would mostly (although not totally) disagree. This is because of my own family’s experience in the occupied Europe. The Germans were totally vicious in South Eastern Europe. But there was someone who was even worse than the Germans. It was the German collaborators who were doing most of the dirtiest “work”: the rapes, the tortures, the executions, the hangings and so on. This is the general strategy adopted now by the US occupiers on behalf of wealthy Jewish interests, they employ the local so called “interpreters” for the dirtiest tasks. In the West, when they call someone an “interpreter” I know that they are talking about the worst war criminal.

    Did the Germans massacre the Jews, yes I believe they did. Many Jews have disappeared from the country where my family lived never to come back. Unfortunately, it was usually the normal poor strugglers who suffered, not the rich Jewish criminals who had enough money to run to US. Later those rich criminals created the 6M joke for their usual selfish money and power interests. If the Germans killed Jews proportionally in different countries to how many disappeared in my country, my broad estimate would be 0.5-1M Jewish victims of hard labour, disease and execution. I feel total repulsion to those criminal rich Jews ruling the West, but I am not going to deny that ordinary Jews suffered in WW2, probably for the similar criminal manipulative behaviour of their ruthless money elite as of today (think Kushners).

    PCR just fell too much under the influence of that silly worn out Teutophile Pat Buchanan, but I will gladly continue to read his writings. Pat is good as a US isolationist, but I will never consider a US authored history as something worth reading.

  66. nebulafox says:

    Danzig and its suburbs were overwhelmingly majority ethnic German, Upper Silesia was a mixed area full of Silesians that straddled the two cultures. Other than that, the lands lost by Germany to the east in 1919 were indisputably ethnically Polish and had been for centuries. Berlin did everything it could to change that, with increasing levels of desperation during the Kaiserreich years. But the ethnic German minority was clustered in the cities, like elsewhere throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and it kept on numerically declining, despite all efforts at Germanization and legal discrimination against the Poles.

    (I’ve always been interested in comparing and contrasting the pre-war German/Jewish diaspora throughout Mitteleuropa and Russia, and the ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. There’s an interesting number of parallels. And the Masurian lands in East Prussia that were majority ethnic German were given plebiscites by the League of Nations, and voted accordingly.)

    Ironically enough, Hitler was probably less anti-Polish than his generals and much of his nation at the start of the Nazi regime. His main anti-Slav strain was against Czechs, reflecting his Austrian origins, and he probably wasn’t too heartbroken that the Junkers who he had so much private disdain for lost their estates around Posen. The right-wing dictatorship in Warsaw, for its part, looked at the “Catholic”, Southern German Hitler initially as the least of all evils compared to the Prussians or Stalin, thinking-correctly at first-that his energies would be more directed in bringing the Hapsburg Germans into the Reich. So, for a while after the 1934 pact, the two regimes got along OK, sharing a mutual basis in anti-Bolshevism, “social conservatism” (to the extent that the Nazis used traditionalist garb for their essentially revolutionary goals), and to some extent, anti-Semitism.

    That Poland got absolutely brutalized by the Nazis-to the point that the Poles were next on the hit list after the Jews to disappear-while Czechoslovakia got off with a relatively light occupation tells you a lot about Hitler’s personality, how he reacted to people who contradicted him. I don’t think Hitler was crazy in the clinical sense of the word: his emotional bias against reality paradoxically gave him a better grasp on the underlying conditions surrounding him until the war turned against him. But there was something utterly primeval about him, underneath all the masks, that you don’t see with other modern tyrants.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  67. @Levtraro

    I believe the first aerial bombing of civilian areas happened during the Spanish Civil War in the Basque town of Guernica [26 April 1937] by the Luftwaffe.

    We’ve all heard that old canard and probably because the Commies were being resisted, but how about this?:

    The first example of aerial firebombing is believed to have been committed by the Italians in October 1911 against Tripoli, Libya (pop. ca. 30,000), and surrounding populations of 600,000 Arab nomads, in the last piece of Turkish North Africa, using live grenades thrown from open cockpits. Noncombatants were murdered ruthlessly, including destruction of a funeral parlor and a hospital.[ii]

    The British are believed to have used gas and incendiary bombs from warplanes indiscriminately killing massive numbers of Russian civilians and troops during the 1919-20 intervention against the new Soviet Union,[iii] and against rebellious Kurds and Arabs in British-controlled Palestine and Iraq from 1920-24

    http://www.brianwillson.com/bombing-history-including-u-s-record/

    Then there’s this.

    It is not only upon warriors that the Italian Government has made war [on Ethiopia]. It has above all attacked populations far removed from hostilities, in order to terrorize and exterminate them.

    … It was at the time when the operations for the encircling of Makalle were taking place that the Italian command, fearing a rout, followed the procedure which it is now my duty to denounce to the world. Special sprayers were installed on board aircraft so that they could vaporize, over vast areas of territory, a fine, death-dealing rain. Groups of nine, fifteen, eighteen aircraft followed one another so that the fog issuing from them formed a continuous sheet. It was thus that, as from the end of January, 1936, soldiers, women, children, cattle, rivers, lakes and pastures were drenched continually with this deadly rain. In order to kill off systematically all living creatures, in order to more surely to poison waters and pastures, the Italian command made its aircraft pass over and over again. That was its chief method of warfare.

    – Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, Appeal to the League of Nations, June 1936

    Moral: Question everything including what you think you know. Especially question Talmudic and Commie inspired propaganda posing as history.

    Important note.: Also consider rejecting the mind numbingly stupid cliché that victors write the history. Those who preen themselves as victors are merely losers with an arsenal of propaganda.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  68. @Wally

    Wally, I see the Blizzard of Duhs has replied to you. I probably needn’t warn you about the strawman foolishness (of course un documented as usual) the prejudiced and ignorant old goat will likely and unctuously employ.

  69. Has no one here noticed that Churchill WAS a jew? (mother)
    – Though this does not explain why he started WW I. How poetic that Marlborough made the Empire (with a little help from Prince Eugen, heh) and his degenerate offspring should liquidate it.
    À propos: To the connoisseur the Empire´s turning point was the Battle of Maiuba Hill that ended the First Boer War – from then on it was carried by momentum and, by 1908, a zombie; and they STILL don´t believe it! Makes one wonder what damage the US are going to do on the way down :/

    As for Poland, the conditions were more than moderate; read them in the original.
    It is also important to note there never were any problems as long as Pilsudski was alive –
    he knew from experience who the enemy was.

    Pétain was, au contraire, famed for his thriftyness with blood – to the point of being bypassed for promotion.
    When conditions in Verdun got sufficiently hopeless, the call of La Patrie found him in the Hotel Terminus, busy with an unidentified female (he famously refused to leave before morning).
    He arrived at the front at night, soaking wet, and first called all his Div commanders:
    “Hallo? C´est moi, général Pétain. I have taken command. Tell that to your men.”
    Then he dropped with severe pneumonia and spent six days between life and death.
    And the front held – on these few words; just to give you an idea what his name meant.
    (I recommend Alistair Horne, “The Price of Glory”, on this and the 1917 mutinies Le Maréchal
    always regarded as his greatest accomplishment; never heard of them, right?)
    He accepted the presidency (that he himself had called “only fit for defeated marshals”) – again –
    only because no one else could.
    They executed the best man France had brought forth in a century – who had saved them three times … while de Gaulle (once his greatest admirer) WAS a war criminal many times over.
    (incidentally that was the POV of the OAS too)
    Wounded pride is not a good thing.

    • Agree: Gefreiter
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Seraphim
  70. yurivku says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Does not matter how decent and generally good westerner is , deep inside everyone is a russophob.

    Agree
    Last WASP I had any respect to, proved to be the same bastard as others.
    PCR, you’re just an usual US exceptionalist, as all they are, you are far from to be so important to the world as you think you are.

    Well, seem WW3 is inevitable.

  71. Churchill was right about Cuban cigars

  72. Gefreiter says:
    @szopen

    I found your Polish hero! To the idiot poles who started WWI and are working with their Jewish owners to start WWIII, this guy was a living god!

    Salomon Morel (November 15, 1919—February 14, 2007) was a Communist Jew, mass murderer, war criminal and enforcer of Soviet imperialism in Poland after the Second World War. He is best known as a perpetrator of crimes as commander of the Zgoda death camp for the NKVD. He is considered by the Institute of National Remembrance to have been responsible for the death of around 1500 people, mostly German victims.

    “Mostly German”. Why don’t they just say “Mostly Christians”.

    … at the beginning of 1942 he and his brother organised a criminal band and robbed local people. Their criminal activity ended when during one of their robberies they were captured by members of the Polish People’s Army. According to the IPN, to avoid punishment Morel placed all the blame on his brother, and then joined the communist terrorists, (in the Jewish-supported literature often called “partisans”) where he worked as a janitor and a guide through the forests.

    What a perfect Polack! He turned in his own brother!

    [MORE]

    More from Wiki:

    Commander of Zgoda labour camp

    The Zgoda camp was set up by the Soviet political police, or NKVD, after the Soviet Army entered southern Poland. In February 1945 the camp was handed over to the Communist Polish secret service, the notorious Urząd Bezpieczeństwa. Most prisoners in the camp were Silesians and German citizens, while a small number were from “central Poland”, and about 38 foreigners.

    Sometimes children were sent to the camp along with parents. Prisoners were not accused of any crime, but were sent by decision of Security Authorities.

    It is estimated that close to 2,000 inmates died in the camp where torture and abuse of prisoners were chronic and rampant and resulted in

    an average 100 inmate deaths a day

    . Solomon Morel’s preferred method of torture was the ice water tank where prisoners would be put in with freezing water up to their necks until they died. The camp was closed in November 1945.

    The survivor Dorota Boriczek described Morel as “a barbaric and cruel man” who often personally tortured and killed prisoners.[7] Gerhard Gruschka, a local Upper Silesian of Polish descent, was imprisoned in Zgoda when he was 14 years old and wrote a book about his experiences, detailing the endemic torture and abuse in the camp. Morel was also accused of an extensive pattern of sadistic torture in John Sack’s book An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, which contributed to publicizing his case in the Anglophone world in the 1990s.

    Historians Nicholas A. Robins and Adam Jones note that Morel “presided over a murderous regime founded on ubiquitous assaults and atrocities against German captives.” Keith Lowe notes that “when millions of bruised and destitute refugees began flooding into Germany in the autumn of 1945, they brought with them some disturbing stories of places they called ‘hell camps’, ‘death camps’ and ‘extermination camps’”. Zgoda camp was among the most notorious of these camps, and is discussed in detail by Lowe. Lowe notes that survivors’ stories of Zgoda and other camps had a profound impact on West German society and that their stories were taken extremely seriously by the German government and the general population as examples of Stalinist brutality.

    Wow, this Morel dude was a Polish God. Lets find out some more:

    Commander of Jaworzno concentration camp

    From February 1949 to November 1951 Morel was commander of Jaworzno concentration camp, a Stalinist-era concentration camp for political prisoners (designated “enemies of the nation”) in Poland. By that time he already had a reputation in Poland as an “exceptional sadist.“.
    During Morel’s time as the commandant the prisoners were primarily Poles who were arrested for their opposition to Stalinism, and included soldiers of the Polish Home Army and members of other Polish underground resistance organisations such as Freedom and Independence that was active from 1945 to 1952. Prisoners were often tortured and subjected to forced labor. Morel left the camp when it was turned into a camp for adolescent political prisoners.

    Later career
    Morel continued working as commandant of Stalinist-era concentration camps until 1956….
    After 1956, Morel worked in various prisons in Silesia and was awarded the rank of colonel in the political police, the MBP. In the 1960s he was head of a prison in Katowice…
    In 1964 he defended his master’s degree with a thesis on the economic value of forced labor at Wrocław University’s Law School.[9] During the 1950s, the communist government awarded him the Cavalry Cross of the Polonia Restituta and the Golden Cross of Merit.

    Those Poles, they will worship any Jew who murders enough of their own. Hell, they even made a Fort Trump to use as their springboard for the conquest of Königsberg.

    Similar to Jewish frauds like Simon Wiesenthal and Eli Wiesel, Morel claims to be an Auschwitz ‘survivor’. However new evidence documenting his life reveals that he was never interned by the Germans. In fact by 1943 he was employed peeling potatoes for Jewish partisans before moving to Jewish Bolshevik held Russia. Here he trained in the gruesome interrogation methods of the NKVD, the Jewish Bolshevik political police, before returning to Poland in 1945.

    Jewish Communists then put him in charge of a camp containing thousands of German prisoners including SS men, soldiers and civilians. Jewish author of An Eye for an Eye, John Sack says Morel’s “favourite method of killing prisoners was hacking the skull of his victims with a wooden leg of a chair,” according to the book. “It is quite possible that in Swietochlowice several thousand persons were murdered by Morel and his men.” Survivor Dorota Boriczek said “I knew Morel in the camp. He was a very brutal man…

    He would come in at night. We could hear the cries of the men then. They would beat them and throw the bodies out of the window.

    Several thousand in Swietochlowice alone. 100 dead a day in Yagoda. He was active for nore than 10 years.

    10*365*100=365,000 dead Poles by this one Polish Patriot alone. Who ever said Polachs were stupid.

    • Replies: @szopen
  73. Realist says:
    @Dutch Boy

    More to the point for an American: Hitler and Germany were no threat to the USA

    Those that rule the US thought Hitler was a threat to US hegemony.

  74. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    > I am sorry if this comment dissuades PCR from allowing comments in the future

    Spoken like a truly delusional gamma soy-boy. If your omnipotent comment does not dissuade PCR, will you admit that your grandiose self-esteem is a wee tiny bit overblown?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  75. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

    Silly.
    Paul Craig Roberts apparently didn’t read:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

  76. Ugh, this was hard to read, not just the parts about the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the sequencing of that mass-scale carnage. Considering the evil deeds of the Nazis, it was easy for American minds to de-emphasize the Allied role in bombing German civilians. We’ve all seen the old film footage of prominent German citizens forced to view the concentration camps after the war’s end. Numbers like 90,000 civilians killed in Hamburg or 100,000 firebombed in Dresden are drowned out by numbers like 6 million civilians murdered in concentration camps, work camps or whatever you want to call them.

    It certainly is proof that freedom of speech is a sham when an academic’s life can be destroyed for pursuing historical truth through careful documentation. But I wonder how Irving deals with the heinous murder of Anne Frank and most of her family. Does he attribute it to illnesses acquired in the crowded, unsanitary work camp facilities? Even if that was the case, it was still evil to hold people in work camps against their will, particularly when conditions were so bad that millions of people perished. If the starvation and disease flooded the camps only near the war’s end, why did so many Jews (and others) die in those camps? The Frank family was transported to a camp toward the end of the war, but there were so many other deaths. Americans held Japanese citizens in internment camps, but they didn’t die en mass.

    The other shocking thing about this account of WWII is the dethroning of Churchill as BatMan saving Gotham. I always admired Churchill, and even though I admire Gandhi, too, I thought attempts to smear Churchill over politically incorrect statements about India were just part of the general push to remove all Western accomplishments from the big screen of the public imagination. Even Churchill’s lack of generosity with famine relief in India is not put in the context of the war-time setting. And Indians focus more on the lack of generosity from war-torn England than on the lack of generosity from wealthy Indian families to famine-struck Indians, in keeping with how the whole world blames the West for everything while letting their own Elites off scott free.

    But Churchill’s reckless attitude about firebombing European cities is outright horrific, including telling troops to level one of the world’s art capitals: Rome. How could Churchill, a painter, even consider demolishing Rome?

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/winston-churchill

    Maybe, it was just talk. Couldn’t loose-tongued bluster be the explanation since troops would not carry out Churchill’s hideous order? Oh, that’s right, the British and Americans destroyed Dresden, a stunning Baroque city. The Baroque architecture is (was) befitting since the Germans and German-speaking people composed so much of the highest caliber Baroque music and also first-in-class music in the Romantic style that aligns with the dramatic detailing of Baroque architecture.

    The only silver lining in that entire story is the renewed need for old-master-grade sculptural skills to restore the old German castles and other monuments. The guy in the linked article’s skills are through-the-roof. The ability to carve in wood the labyrinthian detail of Rococo styling is superhuman. Even if it’s not your favorite French style, you have to admire the technical skill necessary to pull it off. The German version is better, really. It pares Rococo down a little, exerting some German discipline on the scrollwork-on-steroids style. So many castles and other irreplaceable monuments were destroyed in WWII, giving a few German master craftsmen a lifetime of work.

    https://theframeblog.com/category/german/

    https://lankers.berlin

    • Replies: @Saggy
  77. @szopen

    Bibi is Trump’s boss, Benjamin Netanyahu.

    • LOL: OEMIKITLOB
  78. @utu

    szopen you are wrong.

    The poor dude seems also blinded by pride, and evidently that’s a permanently disabling condition and many of us ‘Merkins suffer from the same.

    Probably that was the Polish militarists’ downfall as well.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Dube
    , @MEFOBILLS
  79. Gefreiter says:
    @szopen

    I’m ethnic Polish, nationalist.

    Wrong answer Shlomo! The communist jews murdered all the real Polish Nationists at Katyn, then pinned it on the Germans with the help of their useful idiots, just like you.

    Here is a Polish Goddess, Bloody Luna:

    [MORE]

    Brystiger personally oversaw the first stages of each UB investigation at her place of employment. She would torture the captured persons using her own methods such as whipping male victims’ genitals. One of her victims was a man named Szafarzynski – from the Olsztyn office of the Polish People’s Party – who died as a result of interrogation carried out by Brystygier. One of the victims of her interrogation methods testified later: “She is a murderous monster, worse than German female guards of the concentration camps”. Anna Roszkiewicz–Litwiniwiczowa, a former soldier of the Home Army, said about Brystygier: “She was famous for her sadistic tortures; she seemed to have been obsessed with sadistic treatment of genitalia and was fulfilling her libido in that way.”.

    Brystiger became the head of the 5th Department of MBP sometime in the late 1940s. It specialized in the persecution of Polish religious leaders. Brystygier – a dogmatic Marxist – yearned to destroy all religion as an “opiate of the masses”. She directed the operation to arrest and detain the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski. The decision to arrest him had been made earlier in Moscow. Brystygier took an active part in the “war against religion” in the 1950s, in which only in 1950 (in one year), 123 Roman Catholic priests were imprisoned.

    She also persecuted other congregations, such as the 2,000 jailed Jehovah’s Witnesses. Julia Brystygier left the Ministry of Public Security in 1956 and tried to become a writer, authoring a novel “Crooked Letters”. She worked in a publishing house under Jewish communist Jerzy Borejsza (Różański’s brother), and was a frequent visitor to a boarding school for the vision impaired, in a village near Warsaw.

    Compare her to Irma Grese “the Beautiful Beast”:

    The accusations against her centered on her ill-treatment and murder of those imprisoned at the camps.

    Survivors provided detailed testimony of cruelties. They also claimed that she beat some women using a plaited whip

    After a nine-week trial, Grese was sentenced to death by hanging.[14] Although the charges against some of the other female warders (a total of 16 were charged) were as serious as those against Grese, she was one of only three female guards to be sentenced to death.

    So Grese was the only female guard sentenced to death, the charges against the other were “as serious” as Grese using a whip on the labor camp workers. Now compare her actions to those of Bloody Luna.

    If Hitler ever did say that Germans were a superior race to Poles, he was certainly correct.

  80. @Lurker

    ” it was hardly a foregone conclusion that…”

    The most important phrase for anyone looking back on and giving their interpretation of past events, but, alas, one that generally falls on deaf ears.

    With hindsight the armchair historians discern discrete events strung together like beads on a necklace in a sequence bound by a seemingly implacable logic. This is an illusion, a trick of perspective, like lines converging at one vanishing point in a painting.

    The reality, as you say, is that in the moment, due to the proverbial fog of war, nothing is clear or certain. War itself may be said to be people fighting tooth and claw to establish certainty.

  81. If you wish to know the German view on WW2, see
    1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers Paperback by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (Author)
    4.9 out of 5 stars 21 customer reviews

    https://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/gerd-schultze-rhonhof/1939-the-war-that-had-many-fathers/paperback/product-13832091.html

    This is an excellent book if you want to understand how and why the Second World War occurred. The book starts from pre-WWI to show the European rivalries that led to the breakout of hostilities in 1914. He then shows how the unjust Treaty of Versailles set the stage for the next war. The book then examines the interwar diplomacy such as the Anchluss and the Czech Crisis. It is clear from his analysis that there were many factors and parties that caused the events to occur as they did. The discussion of rearmament is also interesting as well. This book really raises questions in regard to France’s cordon sanitaire policy and the disarmament process to 1933. His analysis of Poland and their bellicosity towards Germany in the 1920s and 1930s is really informative and fascinating. It has caused me to do more reading on this subject. At the same time, Schultze-Rhonhof shows that Hitler was no innocent by looking at some of his secret speeches to his generals. Schultze-Rhonhof is by no means an apologist for the Nazis. At the same time, the book clearly challenges the idea that Germany was the sole aggressor and the cause of the war. All European nations were to blame. It would take pages to provide all of the detail that is provided in this book which Schultze-Rhonhof uses to make his thesis. It is truly a must read.
    From https://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X

  82. Saggy says: • Website
    @szopen

    Hitler’s demand were unacceptable and they were designed to be refused, as no sovereign state could agree to such outrageous demands.

    This is nonsense, Hitler’s single non-negotiable demand was the return of Danzig which was 99% German and the Germans in Danzig wanted German control, and even that demand was negotiable in that Hilter would allow Poland complete access to Danzig (details in Buchanan’s book).

    • Replies: @szopen
  83. WWII along with WWI had the zionist bankers as the agent provocateurs and the zionist banking kabal was the winner in these wars as in all wars that the zio/US and zio/Britain have been forced to fight for their zionist overlords!

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  84. @Moi

    The fat drunk was an imperialist and one racist bastard.

    To mention only some of the good points about that mouthy, “cutesy,” mediocrity with an attention seeking complex who, being “high born,” was obviously furiously jealous of the real deal, Hitler, who had much more talent and concern for the people than the pretender could ever imagine.

  85. Saggy says: • Website
    @Endgame Napoleon

    But I wonder how Irving deals with the heinous murder of Anne Frank and most of her family.

    Anne Frank was not murdered. Her father was in a hospital in Auschwitz when it was liberated. There is no real evidence that Anne Frank died at Belsen. The photo below was taken when the Brits liberated Belsen, the older woman in the back is Luba Tryszynska, the children are Dutch Jews from Amsterdam, and are known as the diamond children. One of the Jewish children at the camp who was not Dutch wrote an article ‘Memories of a Coal Child’ http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/coby/essays/coalchild.htm. The diamond children were well cared for. Luba and the diamond children were transported in a group to Amsterdam and received by the Queen.

    [MORE]

    The Diamond Children –
    Anne Frank –

    View post on imgur.com


    I believe the first photo shows Anne Frank, in the lower left, alive at the end of the war. I asked The Anne Frank center in Amsterdam about the Belsen photo and they professed no knowledge of it.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Saggy
  86. @anon

    I read a comment a long time ago that PCR had somebody falsely making comments under his name or some black hacker thing

    It’s true. Someone forged an “article” and posted it here on UR. It was malicious but well done, even to using the word, “insouciant” several times, which, with blessed relief, I did not notice in the article which I find excellent in every way.

  87. Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

    Why would Poland expect Hitler to honour any treaties after the annexation of Czechoslovakia?

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  88. utu says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Things happen and things happened. Bombing of Wielun was possibly due to bad intelligence orpossibly there was a legitimate target there.. Bombing of Frampol is hard to explain and there is no German side of the story and documents about it. All we know is a Polish story.

    Bombing of Warsaw in 1939 was legitimate just like bombing of Rotterdam in 1940. At least the laws of war as stated by Geneva and Hague Conventions at that time put the responsibility for the death of civilians on the defenders who turned cities into fortresses. The same applies to Leningrad.

    As far as I know no German Luftwaffe officers were charged or convicted of war crimes for bombing cities. Perhaps if Allies did not start bombing undefended cities as part of ground offensive first some Germans officers would have been charged. It is no different than with Kriegsmarine which was not accused of war crimes because Alllies did the same and probably on a greater scale. Laconia incident is a good case to study. BTW, Polish prison guards in this incident should have been accused of war crimes for what they did to Italian POWs.

    There is no question that it was Churchill who started bombing German cities in late August and early September. It is true that one Geraman raid (or one plane) on military target in August 1940 by mistake dropped some bombs on part of London, iirc. Churchill continued sending bombers and it took Germans almost two weeks to finally retaliate and began to bomb civilian targets which was their greatest mistake because at that point they were winning the Battle of England by destroying RAF and its infrastructure.

    If the Brits were honest they should admit to what they did and claim that it was necessary to win the Battle of England and that they by committing the war crime of intentionally bombing civilians won that battle because Hitler and Goring lost their nerve. But the Brits wants to have their cake and eat it too.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @szopen
  89. @gT

    Just like Ukraine is now abusing Russian’s living in Ukraine in order to force Putin’s hand.

    There are tons of evidence that the Germans were always very restrained but at some point, one can be goaded only so far.

    • Replies: @Vianney
  90. refl says:
    @szopen

    Well, they had just seen French and British honour at work in Munich. Poland knew that they were next in line.

    If it is about honour, then we have to state that the treaty of Versailles actually did not leave Germany any other option but to fight back some time in the future – there are people who argue that the real purpose of Versailles was to force another world war within thirty years. Poland was nothing but the tripwire, set up to be torn to pieces.

    Recently, in my revisionist reading I have come about the information, that with the British guarantee in their back, the Poles came down in summer of 1939 on their German minority, as they thought they would have British backing in case the Germans invaded.
    I still have to find some proper information about the treatment of the German minority in Poland in the interwar period. It is always the same: every historical detail that would make Germanys action of that era somehow at least understandable has been blanked out for all these many decades with the result that you only find it in sources you do not really want to read.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  91. “A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league.”

    People tend to forget the Influence the good old U.S. had in prolonging both WW’s I and II. When it comes to the start of WWII, Roosevelt is mostly left out of the conversation. We really have no clue what self centered scum bags FDR and his entire family were, and how everything they did benefited them in some way, including WWII. I suggest two books by Emanuel M Josephson: 1)Roosevelt’s Communist Manifesto, and 2)The Strange Death Of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    There is no doubt, as Ron puts it Roosevelt was able to “out Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler”.

  92. homahr says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Yup and this article is much longer than his other ones. Glad to see it

  93. szopen says:
    @Gefreiter

    Idiot. Stop living in your delusional world.

    • LOL: Gefreiter, Wally
  94. @Gefreiter

    Thanks for that. Like I say, I have my hands full just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff regarding American history and had no clue about monsters like that.

    I won’t be surprised when the Zio-Commie trolls and other Talmudists pile on you with ad hominem’s and other forms of vile invectives. I’m pretty confident that you can deal with the garbage, though.

    The type exemplifies the monsters of humanity.

  95. @Gefreiter

    Sounds a lot like what went on at Abu Ghraib.

    Outrageously sadistic idiots.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  96. @George F. Held

    I’ve been meaning to read that one and many others, but I’m coming to believe that the mothers of all world war literature are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Marx’s Ten Planks. After reading them, a lot of the mysteries and obscurities of the causes of the wars suddenly vanish.

  97. Very interesting, but if Roosevelt so much had the whip hand in the European theatre, how did the British get fdr to enter the war against Germany in spite of fdr’s no war guarantee to the American voters? The article skips this topic.

    Also, I would prevail on you good ww2 buffs to explain a related question I have: supposedly the literary critic Edmund Wilson hated British and blamed the British war machine for involving the USA in the two world wars. How did the British accomplish this? What did Wilson mean? Of course this topic is evaded in all Wilson’s biographies because we aren’t supposed to know about that. It’s mentioned in Isaiah berlins capsule portrait of wilson

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @Toby
    , @Ron Unz
  98. @Tusk

    Is this a one-off or has PCR rescinded his mandate that no comments are allowed?

  99. szopen says:
    @Saggy

    The ultimatum had 16 points to be accepted, including the plebiscite; moreover, you forgot two crucial facts:

    (1) For years, Hitler was assuring my government that Germany has absolutely no disagreements with Poland

    (2) When Czechoslovakia agreed to his first set of demands, he assured that he will do absolutely no further demands. Within months, he issued new demands. Hence, there was absolutely no guarantee that he would stop after Poland would meet his demands.

    In other words, his credibility was exactly zero.

    As for plebiscite, consider his demand:

    “In order to ensure an impartial plebiscite and to guarantee that the necessary and extensive preparations for the plebiscite shall be carried out correctly, an International Commission like the one formed in connection with the Saar plebiscite, and consisting of members appointed by the four Great Powers, Italy, the U.S.S.R., France and Great Britain, shall be formed immediately, and placed in charge of this territory. This commission shall exercise sovereign rights throughout the territory. To that end, the territory shall be evacuated by the Polish military forces, by the Polish police and by the Polish authorities within the shortest possible time to be agreed upon.

    He demanded Soviets would co-rule Polish voivodship. The Soviets! That was really outrageous.

    Also, Polish administration/police/military would leave, which would leave locals at the mercy of the paramilitary German organisations – after all, the Germans from the Reich would be transferred here, and surely a lot of them would belong to paramilitary groups.

    a plebiscite shall be held in this territory. All Germans who were domiciled in this area on January 1, 1918, or who were born there on or before that day, and also all Poles, Cassubians, etc., who were domiciled in this area on that day or who were born there on or before the above-mentioned date, shall be entitled to vote.

    So, German administration and military who resided here before 1918, would be allowed to vote; and so were the settlers who were put here by Prussian Settlement Commission.

    As you probably know, the Prussian policy before 1918 was that Germans who would decide to apply to administration position in eastern areas were given bonuses; garrisons were often peopled by recruits from other regions of Germany, while Polish recruits were sent away to serve in other regions (in hope that they would Germanize). That means that there would be large chunk of Germans who would either settled here within last two-three decades before 1918 eligible to vote; while Poles settled here in last two decades before 1939 would be denied right to vote. Hardly fair demand.

    • Replies: @ken
    , @Anon
  100. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    From the early 30’s, Stalin relentless[ly] drove the Soviet Union to industrialize with a huge emphasis on the manufacture of armaments.

    Stalin’s first Five Year Plan dates from 1929. Herr Hitler did not come to power until 1933, so clearly Stalin’s frenetic and murderous industrialization was not to play the man Hitler, but rather to play the ball – Germany.

    The drunken debtor and warmonger Winston Churchill primarily wanted to see Germany smashed again, and if he could get his gambling and drinking debts paid off and have a ready supply of expensive scotch for his efforts, so much the better.

    But Churchill, who’d happily gassed Bolsheviks after WWI, was not a fellow traveler with Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, although both FDR and Winnie were Masons.

    Nevertheless, as far as I know, Churchill did not honor or adhere to any Marxist-Leninist ideology that itself was a subsequent product of the same Jewish mind that also created the late 19th century movement known as Zionism, which bore its first fruit in the 1897 convocation of the First Zionist Congress in Basel, convened by Theodore Herzl, who would be dead already by 1904, having been eclipsed by Zionist co-founder Max Nordau, who in a 1903 speech in Paris after the Sixth Zionist Congress had predicted

    “the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

    Money quote. Executive summary.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  101. szopen says:
    @George F. Held

    His analysis of Poland and their bellicosity towards Germany in the 1920s and 1930s is really informative and fascinating.

    Does that analysis includes details like Custom War initiated by German state, or constant harping by Germans that Poland is seasonal state and the borders will be soon changed?

  102. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann

    He ends the book with the truth of the murderous ethnic cleansing of the Eastern Germans and how both Churchill and Roosevelt gave their consent to this horrible massacre which Stalin unleashed on over five million Germans

    Such phrases about ‘truth of the smth’ are typical orwellian lies. In Stalin’s time, there was a phrase ‘Churchill’s lie of iron curtain’. There is no historical fact of any specific ethnic cleansing under Soviet rule anywhere. Soviet ideology was internationalism, and everyone belonging to non-proletarian class could have been punished regardless of ethnicity. If Nazi Germany had 5 million staff of SS, gestapo, NSDAP and other war criminals, their punishment is not an ethnic cleansing. And if 5 mln people were dead AFTER the war, that should be reflected in meaningful census or other statistic data, not BS rhetoric of some Hitchens.

    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    , @Curle
  103. anarchyst says:
    @Saggy

    Anne Frank died of typhus and was not “murdered”. Her father, Otto Frank survived the war and contracted with a publishing house to publish the “diary”.
    It is interesting to note that much of the “diary” was written with a ball-point pen, not invented until years after the conclusion of WW2.
    Otto Frank screwed the publisher out of proceeds for his work in publishing the “diary”.
    It is clear that most of the “diary” is a fraud and has no place in the historical record.
    Once again, a jew pulls the wool over the victors’ eyes and gets away with millions, and notoriety, fraudulently.

  104. @Jacques Sheete

    Upon Call of Duty, activated, Jacques Sheete made clear, “I had quit reading PCR because comments were not allowed… but added, “Bless you, PCR and Ron Unz, and may the truth prevail.”

    Hey Bro Jacques!

    As you know, the phenomenon of writers to disdain particular reader-comments is not strange, and as an example, Linh Dinh shares such similar disposition.

    At any rate, as Paul Craig Roberts has pinned-the-tail on Zionist donkeys for creating WW2, Hitler/”Nazi” demonization, & Holocaust lies, I await a deployment of The Unmasked U.R. Grand Obfuscator, Incitatus, on this article comment-thread.

    Surely unmissed is InZitatus’s stinky 2-Minute “Dolph Hate” routine🇮🇱which he indulged with the Maven Sam Shama who is presently defeated, and for now, is listed as M.I.A. at The Unz Review. 👏

    Yes… God bless JS, PCR, Ron Unz, and one fine day, may “the truth prevail” over the American-Israeli Empire’s propaganda campaign, Operation Darkness.

    Salud & my respect!

  105. Saggy says: • Website
    @Saggy

    One photo was deleted from the original comment, so ..the two photos, for comparison –
    Luba T and the Diamond Children

    [MORE]

    Anne Frank

  106. Wally says:
    @szopen

    Yawn

    Your proof is where exactly?

    http://www.codoh.com

  107. Wally says:
    @refl

    Innocent Poland not:

    Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia.

    Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion.

    Poland held large parts of German territory.

    Poland engaged in atrocities against German civilians.

  108. Gefreiter says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Not to detract from what went on at AG, but I don’t recall them murdering 100 per day, and I doubt there was quite the talmudic factor involved.

    At this point, who really can say for sure.

  109. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @szopen

    Poles will never learn?
    Those who failed to learn during WW2 leading their nation to betray and be betrayed, disappeared in Katyn or elsewhere, mostly by German hands. Whoever killed the interbellum Polish ‘elites’ consisting of cowardly officers, gendarmes from secret police, religious fanatics, stupid nationalistic village teachers and other ultra-scum in Katyn, made a favor to a future generation of Poles. After the war the Soviets i.e. generous Russian people gave Poles their ancient Slavic lands back from the hands of the West and shared with the national Polish state everything USSR had despite tragic Russian losses during the war.

    After the new time of troubles for its Russian neighbor, the new generation of Poles ran to the West as fast as they could, the plebs mostly to do the plumbing and cleaning jobs, and the new elites offering the West to betray and sell their generous Eastern neighbor. Those fastest species who tried to dance on the graves of their unwise predecessors, met their doom in Katyn-2 (Smolensk air accident). Now Poland is no more independent and is, in fact, a mere buffer state for future war, where it becomes a radioactive wasteland by most probable scenario.

    The Polish mythos is that “Poland is a part of the West” resulting in ‘share your benefits with us because of it’. It is not, never was and will never be so. You may be a Catholic nation, ‘Saved Europe in siege of Vienna 1683’, ‘stopped the communism in 1920s’ and so on. The Western reply is ‘thank you, our stupid cannon fodder. We owe you nothing, work harder.’

    • Replies: @anon
  110. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    LOL

    Naturally you dodged what I posted.

    Guernica has already been debunked by me and many others:
    http://www.unz.com/article/debunking-myths-of-red-brown-alliances/?highlight=guernica#comment-3176023

    Poland’s fake ‘innocence’ too, try actually reading the article under discussion and the comments, plus these:

    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @szopen
  111. szopen says:
    @Wally

    Hard to treat seriously someone who takes Nazi propaganda as gospel.

  112. Wally says:
    @szopen

    While you just promote discredited Zionist lies you conveniently ignore the barbarous treatment of Germans.
    recommended:
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @szopen
  113. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    Duh, fucking duh.

    Great argument.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  114. refl says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    It is bizarre. You can have a public discussion on how many German POW died in Sowjet captivity, but only mention the Rheinwiesenlager and you are taken for a lunatic. To accuse Russian soldiers of rape is standard procedure, but when I read about the lawlessness around the DP-camps in the American zone in the early years after the war at first I did not even unterstand.
    Elderly (West) Germans are moved to tears by stories about the Berlin air lift, but it was only via these pages that I learned that the allies only started to provide food in mid 1947.
    Anglosaxons will always be keen to point out Nazi violence and never realize that it was never about them.

    Stupidly, Russian authors either adopt the western perspective or they end up with some nationalist perspective and that will turn foreigners of.

    By the way, the worst russophobes are certainly closer to home then the average Westerner.

  115. Agent76 says:

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

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

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

    03/21/2003 Mises on War

    War…is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys.

    https://mises.org/library/mises-war-0

  116. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What “evidence available later”?

    Oh, you mean the “evidence” which is being demolished right here at UR.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  117. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anon

    Spoken like a truly delusional gamma soy-boy.

    Spoken like a true anon. An anon PCR groupie.

  118. ken says:
    @szopen

    Exactly. The whole premise of the article is that Hilter was this really nice guy making modest demands and if the Poles would have given him the little land he wanted the whole war could have been avoided. If you’re not an ethnic Pole it paints a pretty “could’ve been” scenario. It requires believing Hitler had small goals which is pure fantasy that most of the posters here seem to buy.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @refl
  119. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    What’s all this moralizing bullshit about bombing cities. There was a war on. The belief was that by attacking the civilian population it was possible to undermine both the morale and the productive capacity of the enemy, thus destroying his military capability. The only problem with that argument is that it proved to be largely false, at least with the bombing capability available to the allies at the time.

    Once the allies had the atom bomb, it was a different story as was proved in Japan.

    As for who started it, it was the Germans, with the aerial bombardment of Warsaw.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Ilya G Poimandres
  120. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    Yep, collaborating with the USSR:

    Documents from the U.S. National Archives reveal that the U.S. government helped cover up the Soviet 1940 massacre on some 20,000 Poles at Katyn and other places — not just during the war, but even afterwards. The Katyn Massacre by the Soviets was accepted by the Allies at Nuremberg as a German crime.

    The Soviet communists presented a detailed study of steam chambers which was accepted a Nuremberg by the US, no study for the now alleged pesticide using ‘gas chambers’ was ever presented at Nuremberg, or any other court

    MADE IN RUSSIA: THE HOLOCAUST

    MADE IN RUSSIA: THE HOLOCAUST
    https://www.historiography-project.com/books/20130000-made-in-russia/made-in-russia-the-holocaust.compressed.pdf

    Carlos Porter website:
    https://www.cwporter.com/

    http://www.codoh.com

  121. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Maybe the British were too busy with the 1940 U.S. elections?

    When a Foreign Government Interfered in a U.S. Election — to Reelect FDR
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634

  122. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    The drunken debtor and warmonger Winston Churchill primarily wanted to see Germany smashed again

    Britain had played the balance of power game for five hundred years. Germany was the greatest threat to the balance of power in Europe so it was naturally Britain’s chief antagonist. Churchill’s alleged drunkenness, his shortage of cash had nothing to do with his politics, or the role he played during WW2. He was the most capable leader available. He took power after war had been declared (a war for which Britain had been late in preparing, in part because of the 10-year rule that Churchill himself had introduced) and did what had to be done, which was:

    (a) get America in,

    (b) avoid a massive killing field on the Western front as occurred in WWI,

    (c) wait for Russia to grind down Germany, then move in with the Americans to ensure that Russia’s Westward drive was halted somewhere to the East of Berlin.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  123. Beckow says:
    @szopen

    An interesting article, but very sloppy. Greece was attacked by Italy BEFORE the war on Russia started. Similarly the timing of British bombing of Hamburg and Dresden and Blitz of London are completely reversed. That undermines the overall point, it is just too sloppy.

    Regarding Poland: it behaved irrationally in 1938-9: first joining Germany in Munich to grab some territory from Czechoslovakia. Then refusing to negotiate based on the same ethnic
    self-determination principles that Poland just used in Munich. Let’s not forget that Poland of 1939 was an unrealistic Greater Poland created in Versailles that was barely more than 60% Polish – every single square inch of so called ‘eastern Poland’ is today Ukraine and Belarus, those areas were not ethnically Polish.

    Poland was also stupidly counting on UK-France to save it. Poles always seem to count on an outside, remote force to come and save them, from Napoleon to today. It is something so irrational that one wonders about the basic sanity of the Polish elites.

    But the article is too sloppy in so many ways that it is hard to take its main arguments seriously. E.g. the idea that ‘German administrators‘ in the east acted on their own, or that Hitler had scruples about bombing civilians – as pointed out Poland was an example of Germans doing it already in September 1939, one suspects that the author doesn’t see mass murder in Poland as same as Hamburg or London, why?

    So much for free thought. Another ethnic belly-aching.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @szopen
  124. Gefreiter says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    how did the British get fdr to enter the war against Germany in spite of fdr’s no war guarantee to the American voters?

    The “D” in FDR stands for Delano, who were opium pushers with Rothschilds and Sassoons in China. The “D” also stands for millions of dead chinese coolies, addicted to Roosevelt family Opium.

    [MORE]

    THE ROOSEVELT CONNECTION

    The Roosevelt family has been connected to the Delano family which Is a Black Venetian Noble family that goes back for many centuries. The lives of these families also intertwine with the Astors. Examples of the interweaving are: · Franklin Hughes Delano–heir to a massive whale oil fortune. He married Lavia Astor, daughter of the original William Backhouse Astor. · James Roosevelt Roosevelt-married Helen Astor, daughter of William Backhouse, Jr. · James Roosevelt–a Freemason, he married the sister of Vincent Astor’s wife.

    SUMMARY

    In our revisit to the Astor’s, we have examined in more detail the early life of John Jacob Astor and his connections to Satanism. We have touched on his son and grandson who led the Astor family after John Jacob died. We have seen more of their meanness and connections to corruption. We examined how Satanism and the occult had a hold on England even back when John Jacob Astor came to the New World. Three important occult organizations of the 17th & 18th century were introduced. We have looked at the Chanler family, a branch of the Astor family which is part of Satanism. We also looked at how the Roosevelt’s and Delano families have been associated with the Astor’s.

    FDR was also a 33 degree freemason. Here is a nice shot of him being promoted to 32 degree in 1930:

    Churchill and Stalin were both masons too. The “Axis”, Mussolini, Hitler and Petain, had all abolished freemasons in their respective countries.

    WWII in reality was the war of freemasons vs. the anti-masons.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @anon
  125. @szopen

    LOL your concern for the Polish people. USSR invading Poland GOOD. Poles living in Communism for half a century GOOD.

  126. szopen says:
    @Wally

    You are linking a thread to a discussion, where there are no proofs given for any atrocities, only claims; where some discutants ask for proofs, and they are given speeches and second-hand relations. This is laughable, This suggest to me that maybe you have not even read the thread you linked to; and moreover, this only confirms my certainty, that ALL of your proofs are of similar quality: uncritical quotations of Nazi propaganda.

    (Even more laughable, the link includes the links to a absolutely hilarious articles about “image of Germans in Polish literature”, which are obviously false to anyone who can actually read the quoted works)

    • Replies: @Wally
  127. Toby says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    “… if Roosevelt so much had the whip hand in the European theatre, how did the British get fdr to enter the war against Germany in spite of fdr’s no war guarantee to the American voters?”

    To win their votes?

    • Replies: @Yapius the 2nd
  128. utu says:

    Poland was a pawn in hands of Allies who wanted Hitler to go East not West so France and Britain could buy more time. Thats’s why England gave Poland guarantees in March 1939 and it seems that that it was FDR’s administration that pressured England to do so. They had to do everything to prevent Poland becoming an ally of Germany. Extra 100 Polish divisions on Hitler’s side could have changed the outcome of the war in Europe.

    Until then Poland conducted negotiations with Germany and in 1938 and in early 1939 Hitler still believed that Poland could become his ally. Unfortunately “Polish” media were hysterical about Germany and Hitler and it would be very difficult for Poles to accept alliance with Germany and what is worst Poland did not have high quality leadership that could do what was in the interest of the nation even if the nation under the influence of media did not know what was in its interest. Accepting British guarantees was a disaster for Poland.

    It is possible that if Poland’s leaders rejected British guarantees there would be a coup d’état organized by British agents just like the one in 1941 in Yugoslavia. This coup d’état in Yugoslavia was disastrous for Yugoslavs and costed 100’s of 1000’s of civilian lives in the long run. British fight the wars to the last soldier or civilian of their ‘allies’.

    Yes, Poland or rather its soldiers saved Poland’s honor but Poland’s leadership disgraced itself and turned out to be a bunch of scoundrels who abandoned Poland and evacuated themselves to Hungary and Rumania while Polish army was still fighting w/o signing any surrender treaty that could have protect Polish nation from brutal occupation just like Petain did it for France. Polish nations was thus turned into enemy combatants with encouragement of Churchil and later Stalin so Germans were in their right to treat Polish civilians as enemy combatants. At least one million of civilians lost their lives because of that.

    In an alternate history if Poland accepted German offers she could retain some degree of neutrality and sovereignty or she could become Hitler’s ally like Italy or Hungary and later go against the Soviet Russia with Hitler while before she would leave Germany unmolested when France was to be taken care of. By being Germany’s ally Poland could protect its biological fabric including its Jews just like Hungary or Italy where Jews were safe for as long as they remained allied with Germany.

    Churchill about Poles: “There are few virtues that the Poles do not possess – and there are few mistakes they have ever avoided.” and there is another quote I could not find now where he directly calls Polish leaders as scoundrels.

    Fast forward to 2019. Poland’s leadership again conducts the no-alternative foreign policy of solely counting on the Zio-American empire protection and exhibits stupid hostility towards Russia and also Germany while being exceedingly reverent and subservient to Israel and Jewish diaspora which is about to extort 300 billions of dollars from Poland for the so-called heirless Jewish property. This is a similar operation to one carried out against Switzerland (then with Al D’Amato and Paul Volcker as American enforcers on behalf of Jewish organizations) except this time the magnitude is 300 times greater and Poland is much poorer than Switzerland. BTW, Swiss banks had circa $150 millions on heirless Jewish accounts yet they were forced to pay over ten times more. If the Holocaust Industry succeeds in this extortion from Poland, Poland as we know it will cease to exist. New elite and new ruling class will be created centered on Israeli and Jewish diaspora organizations backed up by the comprador class of second and third generation of communist apparatchiks whose fathers and grandfathers togethers with Judeo-Bolsheviks subjugated Poland at cost of 200,000 murdered anti-communist Polish patriots as the result of Yalta treaty in which FDR gave half of Europe to Stalin.

    • Replies: @fnn
  129. Gefreiter says:
    @ken

    It requires believing Hitler had small goals which is pure fantasy that most of the posters here seem to buy.

    You got that right. We don’t believe the 6 gorrillion, we don’t believe the gassing or the cremations of even one gorrillion, we don’t believe the negro and slav hatred, we don’t believe the final solution, we don’t believe the “lebensraum”, but most of all we don’t believe the jew lies anymore.

    In light of historical revelations aout the war and the pre-war that have come to light in the interim, but even more in light of events that have unfolded since the war, we reject the entire narrative outright. We also find people who write moronic posts bitterly clinging to the narrative without addressing the article, or the comments, to be tedious and boring. That about sums your comment up, too.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  130. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    As I said above “aerial bombardment of Warsaw” was legit just like bombing of Rotterdam who stood in way of dancing armies and were turned into fortresses. You were not allow to do it. As far as moralizing perhaps you should go to British and German historians and ask why they keep pushing number of dead in German cities down. For Dresden they got to ridiculous low number of 25k. Apparently morals matter because there is some guilt, no? Tell them to stop doing it because moralizing does not matter and by lowering numbers of German civilian killed they take away rightly deserved glory from fabulous RAF pilots who specialized in burning cities with their civilians at nights. At least Americans flew at daytime and sometimes they made, though often very feeble, attempts to hit legitimate industrial or military targets.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  131. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler did not “admire” the Zionists. But like the Zionists, he understood that Jews and Germans should not live within the same country.

    You are correct: Hitler did help settle Jews safely in Palestine during WWII. This fact indicates that Hitler had no conspiratorial aim to ‘exterminate’ the Jews.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

    International Jews (Louis Brandeis, et al) dragged the US into WWI on behalf of Britain and the Zionists. See: ‘Against Our Better Judgement” by Alison Weir.

    International Jews attended Versailles after WWI to impose punishment on Germany for the Great War.

    International Jewry initiated a global economic boycott on Germany starting 1933. They are doing the same today, ruthlessly targeting Iran and all countries that are hostile to Israel or deemed ‘anti-Semitic’.

    International Jews (Jacob Schiff, et al) funded the Bolshevik revolution and communist subversion in Germany before and during WWII.

    International Jewry blocked efforts during WWII to end the war. They demanded ‘unconditional surrender’ by Germany. This prolonged WWII by nearly two years.

    International Jewry is a rapacious and ruthless cabal, still operating above and outside the law, expanding its borders, murdering at will.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  132. Gefreiter says:
    @Gefreiter

    [It’s bad behavior to clutter up comment-threads with quoted excerpts and large images without bothering to use a MORE insert, and this is especially the case if they involve worldwide Masonic conspiracies and Satanism. If you find this unacceptable, perhaps you should go rant about Masonic conspiracies and Satanism on some other website.]

    That was not a long comment, or inappropriate. The only reason to shadow ban it is because the moderator does not want the photograph of FDR with his cronies, all 32 and 33 degree freemasons, displayed in the comments.

    It is highly relevant to a thread titled “The Lies about World War II”. Photographs of Stalin posing doing the hidden hand would also be relevant, as would the ones tying Chirchill to freemasonry.

    I would appreciate it if the moderator would explain to the other commentors why Roosevelt, and later Truman, being 33 degree freemasons is not relevant.

    To try to pretend that UR is a bastion of free speech, while trying to suppress discussion of secret societies is bad and wrong. It is badong.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  133. @Toby

    The article suggests fdr intended to loot Britain and help America. Sending American troops and equipment to Europe shows that in reality Britain helped itself at the expense of the US, money and debt being abstract constructs, men and supplies being actual wealth. Intelligent men such as Edmund Wilson realized that.

  134. anon[653] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    After the war the Soviets i.e. generous Russian people gave Poles their ancient Slavic lands back from the hands of the West and shared with the national Polish state everything USSR had despite tragic Russian losses during the war.

    after the war the Soviets put the jews in power in Poland

    what a friend

  135. @CanSpeccy

    Then why had Britain offered Germany an alliance in 1900?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  136. szopen says:
    @utu

    I am well familiar with that argumentation. It goes like this: Before the war there was military garrison in Wieluń, so it was legitimate military target, even though at the time of attack most likely there were no military in Wieluń (the cavalry left the city). Bombing of civil districts in Warsaw was lawful, because Warsaw was besieged fortress. Strafing civilians was lawful, because they were interspersed with military, and from the air it was impossible to distinguish between military and civilians.

    And you know what, I am even ready to admit that there is a certain logic in that.

    But for Frampol, the only defense I’ve read was “it has not happened”.

    I will also comment your second comment, about Polish situation pre-1939. In a way, there is some truth to that. POlish government really initially treated Hitler’s rise to power as making situation better, as he was seen more friendly to Poland compared to Stresseman and other, openly hostile politicians. It’s also true that Polish government would be toppled in case of alliance – or at least, it seems what elites believed. The idea that Poles could give up and go with Hitler is openly considered by some Polish historians and publicists, who are giving the arguments very similar as you. The problem with this reasoning, though, is that it does not consider the information Poles had THEN. Nobody suspected German occupation would be so brutal. Moreover, I’ve read some historians arguing that Beck was lying to Rydz-Śmigly about the support from the Western powers Poland had, while it seems Rydz-Śmigły was lying to Beck about real power of an army (after all, they were both striving for more power). Poland expected French would attack, because – after all – we WOULD honour the alliance and we WOULD attack, as demanded by Polish-French alliance. Also, not only we, but pretty much everyone except Germans was expecting we would hold for many months. It was misguided, but it seems that similar blindness was touching everyone – and then, I’ve read that AFTER Poland was already defeated and Polish military made a report for French High Command, this report was completely ignored.

  137. anon[653] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Paul forgot to mention that Hitler and German invasion of the Soviet union caused the catastroph of unimaginable proportion in the Soviet union

    oh

    what did Soviet invasion of Poland and Finland cause?

    same belligerent rat, only this one claims innocence

  138. Saggy says: • Website
    @Beckow

    Poland was an example of Germans doing it already in September 1939,

    The Germans bombed miltary target ahead of an advancing army. When they reached Warsaw they tried for several days to negotiate the surrender of the city and only began bombing when the Poles refused (see Buchanan).

    There is a difference between bombing military targets ahead of an advancing military and terror bombing whose only purpose is killing civilians.

    • Agree: Gefreiter
    • Replies: @utu
    , @szopen
  139. szopen says:
    @Beckow

    first joining Germany in Munich to grab some territory from Czechoslovakia

    Poland had not joined Germany in Munich. The Zaolzie annexation was post-Munich, because Polish participation was refused by great powers, who instead suggested that Polish-Czech relationship would be subject to an international conference later. Since Polish diplomacy always was against the “Great power concerts”, agreeing to such later conference would be total defeat.

    Note also that it were Czechs who suggested friendly solving Zaolzie matter, to which my gvt answered by issuing ultimatum – which was then agreed to by Czechs.

    I do not defend the decision – from moral point of view, IMO it was indefensible. But from the realpolitik point of view – quite understandable. Though it would be much better if we would forge alliance with Czechoslovakia against Hitler.

    The problem was that neither Czechoslovakia wanted such alliance, nor Polish gvt believed Czechs would be sincere. There was a lot of bad blood in Polish-Czech relations in 20years before the war, started by Czech attack on Zaolzie (or, from Czech point of view, started by preparation of election in Zaolzie, which they felt was violating Polish-Czech agreements).

    BTW the parts of Poland which are now in Lithuania and northern Belarus actually had either Polish majority of plurality. The least Polish were the middle part (southern part of Belarus plus Volhynia) and the most southernmost part of Galicia, while areas around Lviv were completely mixed, with some areas with majority Polish, some with majority Ukrainian, some without any clear majority – though overall Poles were rather minority there.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    , @utu
    , @RobinG
  140. Mulegino1 says:

    Although the what ifs of history are highly speculative, it is hard to imagine western and central Europe being worse off had Germany prevailed than at present.

    The light footprint German occupation of French territory, for example, would certainly be preferable to that of the Zionist occupied EU, which not only seeks political control over its member states, but the social engineering of the population to a degree which would have shocked even Stalin and horrified Hitler.

    There most likely would have been no third world tsunami inundating the continent had the Third Reich prevailed.

    The New European Man circa 1941:

    The New European It circa 2019:

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs-1&hspart=iba&p=conchita+wurst#id=4&vid=7658865c567f8c7a4c209544f68bf302&action=click

    Guess which video comes with a caveat about offensive content.

    The victory of the Allies heralded the de-Christianization and demolition of the European heartland.

    For western and Central Europe was no “liberation”, just destruction and enslavement to neo-liberal NATO hegemony and to the USSR. The contrast between the two victorious blocs led ironically brings to mind Christ’s words about not fearing those who kill the body but those who send both body and soul into Gehenna.

    If there is any hope for Europe it will come from the east.

    • Agree: Rurik, Wally
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  141. Ah, the (((Poles))) and their atrocity propaganda 🙂
    The most tiring is the Gleiwitz incident. All the who and how and why and ah and oh put these popo KZ inmates (strangely nameless – say what you will against the Germans but they are not paperphob) in Polish uniforms and strewed them around the sender so as to –
    might someone please tell these goodpersons the Brandenburger raid on the Jablunka Pass (bet you never heard of that one either) was ten days earlier?
    That they never mention it is a sure sign of, well …
    Item, that the Polish army outnumbered what the Wehrmacht could spare against them in every arms category except tanks (slightly fewer but heavier). Nor was the actually opposing German equipment that much more modern.

    As to the purveyors of the “German armament” myth, the Allies had violated their own Versailles treaty by not disarming themselves after Germany was thoroughly defenseless. Britain started preparing for the war in earnest in 1936(!) while Germany invested in infrastructure (counting the Autobahn and autarkisation measures as armament is beyond shameless) and did not reach the same % of GDP on armament before 1943(!).
    To sum up: They were outnumbered and outgunned by the freaking POLES, they had no production capacity to spare for guns, their exports were all burned for reparations so they could not import jackshit (forcing the Germans to undercut the US was what REALLY caused the Great Depression) and they were under all sorts of sanctions (Remember the “Hindenburg”!).
    Sound familiar? What didn´t kill them DID make them stronger alright.

    But “start a war”? It just so happens I have this bridge you might be interested in …

    • Troll: utu
  142. utu says:
    @Saggy

    International law up to 1945

    Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899),[5] contains the following clauses:

    Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

    Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

    Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

    It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2]

    Although the 1907 Hague Conventions IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War prohibited the bombardment of undefended places, there was no international prohibition against indiscriminate bombardment of non-combatants in defended places, a shortcoming in the rules that was greatly exacerbated by aerial bombardment. With the rise of aerial warfare, non-combatants became extremely vulnerable and were inevitably collateral targets in such warfare potentially on a much larger scale than previously.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Prester John
  143. szopen says:
    @Saggy

    When they reached Warsaw they tried for several days to negotiate the surrender of the city and only began bombing when the Poles refused (see Buchanan).

    This is a lie. Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw already in September the 1st (not quite succesfully) – though at that time, it seems it had mostly legitimate military targets.

  144. @Reviewed

    1) Got your date wrong;
    2) Poland had mobilized to invade Germany, and the Polish border incursions were real. Poland invaded Germany many times before Germany invaded Poland;
    3) The Czech Republic didn’t exist, Czechoslovakia did. Today’s borders of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, are pretty much what Hitler had established in 1938;
    4) The Confederacy votes to secede from the Union and it’s not okay the ensuing invasion magically turns into a civil war. The Sudetenland voted to join Germany as did Austria. That can’t be allowed it’s an invasion. Ukraine votes to secede from Russia, and it’s okay. The KLA invaded and seized Kosovo then declared itself sovereign with no vote, but that’s okay. The Czechoslovakian parliament votes to dissolve Czechoslovakia, without a plebiscite, even though the majority of Czechs and Slovaks oppose it, but that’s okay. Donetsk and Luhansk vote to secede from Ukraine, it’s not okay. Crimea votes to secede from Ukraine then votes to join Russia and it’s an invasion, just like Hitler. Either people have the right to self determination or they don’t.

    Of course we can’t talk about a minority population of recent settlers in Palestine declaring itself independent and declaring no borders. That would be Auntie Shemi-tism

    • Replies: @utu
  145. @Wally

    That really is obsessive dopiness. You rely heavily on evidence (or what you regard ss evidence) not available to people in the 30s and 40s so what is the purpose of your fatuous remark?

  146. Ewan says:

    Fascinating as ever. What did the Nazis running the camps do with the children and old folk? They seem simply to have vanished. And what did Berlin do with the daily updates from the Einsatzgruppen, the updates British intelligence transcribed? Shake their heads at those over-zealous local officials? And what did Himmler mean when he said that a method of killing Jews had to be found less upsetting to his men than shooting (this after his boots were splashed with Jewish brains)?

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Wally
    , @Ewan
  147. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    The contrast between the two victorious blocs led ironically brings to mind Christ’s words about not fearing those who kill the body but those who send both body and soul into Gehenna.

    Should read:

    The contrast between the two victorious blocs led ironically to a situation which brings to mind Christ’s words about not fearing those who kill the body but those who send both body and soul into Gehenna.

  148. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    As far as moralizing perhaps you should go to British and German historians and ask why they keep pushing number of dead in German cities down.

    I’m not moralizing. Just commenting on the bleak reality.

    When human groups fail to resolve conflicts by non-violent means, there is always the option of war.

    War means means killing your opponents until they lose heart and sue for peace. Daniel Ellsberg makes the point that until WW1, it was believed that war was about killing soldiers, and all sides recognized the immunity of civilians. But the monstrous and unproductive slaughter of soldiers on the Western front during WW1 changed the perspective. Rather than the futile mass killing of soldiers, it would be better, war planners came to believe, to destroy the civilian population and infrastructure necessary to maintain armies in the field.

    Heavy bombers provided the means. Or so it was thought. As it turns out burning people by the thousands, as in Dresden, failed to do the trick. Partly, according to Ellsberg, that failure was due to the vagaries of the weather. The raid on Dresden apparently coincided with rare climatic conditions that transformed a mass of small fires into a firestorm. It was the failure of other attempts to create city-destroying firestorms that explains the allied failure to bomb Germany into submission.

    However, once we had nukes, it was game over for the Japs.

    Naturally, after the war, the beastliness of what has just occurred is glossed over, rationalized, or simply forgotten. Hence the present day wish to believe that in Dresden, really not many were burnt alive.

    The reality remains, however, that mass killing is a key objective of current great power war plans. That is why we have had no world war since 1945. The payoff does not justify the cost, which would be the death of billions, directly from nuclear blasts, and indirectly as the result of nuclear winter, and radioactive poisoning. We have thus created a doomsday machine that guarantees the peace — until doomsday, that is.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  149. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Kent Nationalist

    Then why had Britain offered Germany an alliance in 1900?

    They hadn’t. Britain’s last alliance with Germany, actually Prussia, was during the Napoleonic wars with France almost 100 years earlier.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  150. refl says:
    @ken

    You get that wrong. This is not about Hitler as the nice guy.

    You will admit that Germany under Nationalsocialism is the most demonized country and era in history. As such, the characterization by necessity has to be wrong.
    In other words: it was atrocity propaganda that Germans made soap from Belgians in WWI. If you doubt that they made soap from Jews in WWII, you can be jailed eventually. The difference? After WWI there still was a German state and German academia that could denounce the lie.
    WWII ended with Unconditional surrender, which has never been relieved. Destruction in WWII was so immense that the victors could do nothing other then declare themselves absolutely innocent. There was no time and no desire for anything like a just evaluation of what had happened. You can, of course, discuss the wrongs of the USSR and will be lauded for it because they followed Germany as the Great Evil. You cannot discuss that the self image of the West is fundamentally flawed, because it will lead to the spiritual breakdown of the world as we know it.
    Now I have to tell you something: that breakdown is coming, it is coming soon, and it is coming hard.

    As a matter of fact, for myself the transition from dedicated western brainwashed idiot to heretic came with the demonization of Russia in our most recent time (pretty late, I admit – but everyone in his own time).

    The truth, as you have known it, is a lie. So you please pull out ALL the stops and see, where you get.

  151. Beckow says:
    @szopen

    …Poland had not joined Germany in Munich.

    You mean that no Pole was actually invited to the conference? Right, they only did exactly the same thing as Nazis 2 weeks after Munich: an ultimatum to grab territory (so did by the way Hungarians). When the same principle was used by Germans less than a year later – self-determination of an ethnic population – Poland went to war. It was more than a mistake and it was not a one-off – it was squarely within the Polish tradition of preaching one thing and doing the exact opposite, as then, so now. The naive dependency on far-away outsiders (always the West) is another in-mutable feature of Polish politics.

    Eastern territories certainly had Polish minorities – I believe Vilnius, Lithuanian capitol was actually majority Polish. But as a whole they were not ethnically Polish – drawing the precise boundaries there is impossible. When Soviets occupied them – 3 weeks after Germany attacked Poland, when Poland ceased to exist – they were following the identical principle that Poland used after Munich to take its ‘ethnic’ territory from Czechoslovakia (not just Zaolzhie, also Orava and Spis).

    My point is not that Poland is guilty of anything, my point is that the situation was very complex and all parties acted in self-serving way and made huge mistakes. I am not too fond of Czech treatment of Sudeten Germans up to 1938, or of Slovakia behaviour in WWII. It is past, it was complex, when you look closely there were no innocents, and no heroes. It follows that in 2019 yelling at each other over what our great-grandparents did is foolish – it is bound to be hypocritical. Today Poland is more among the yellers than some others, that is self-defeating. The article presents a valid viewpoint, but it is also ethnically biased – and not just against the Poles. It substitutes one set of one-sided histories with another.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  152. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    Yeah, Soviets murdered many Poles, including in Katyń. German Nazis however murdered many more Poles (hard to say how many

    not to mention expelled hundreds of thousands from their homes.

    I read where you claimed to be a Polish nationalist.

    I’m not a nationalist, I’m a ‘Civilizationalist’. I’m a proponent of Western civilization and it’s people, its traditions and heritage, with a passionate homage to our ancestors who bequeathed to us, their progeny – the greatest invention ever conceived or achieved, though endless rivers of heroic blood ~ human freedom.

    That’s my thing, and although I’ve seen disheartening events, like fratricidal slaughter-fests between Europe’s peoples, my motivating principle is to prevent more of the same, right now, today, as Western civilization hovers at the brink.

    There have been so many lies about historical events, that I find it nearly impossible to really get at what really happened, and why, and by whom, etc..

    So what I do, in order to get a glimmer of likely scenarios, is I look at how people act today, right now. Right in front of my face, with no one’s lies to obfuscate the truth.

    Is there something uniquely violent or hateful about the German character? Anything that can be extrapolated by their long history?

    Proud, strong, intelligent, and virulently and violently opposed to foreign domination, I see no pathological murderous strain in their long history, or their actions for as long as I’ve been alive. I’ve known many, and all of them, are decent and intelligent and a very humane sort.

    And that goes for Poles and Russians and Brits, as well.

    There is however, one group of people whose history is not all that humane or loving. No.

    A tribe of people whose lust for money and power is legendary. Whose imperative for treachery and guile and war and absolute domination, is the stuff of nightmares.

    It is this tribe that corrupted the governments of the West, and drove the Germans and the Poles and the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Serbians and Estonians and Latvians and Brits and French – to all war upon each other.

    Had not the ((Bolsheviks)) taken over Russia, then there would never have been any Nazis in the first place. Ukrainian men would never have had to don the hated uniform of the Wehrmacht, in order to protect their villages from the murderous ravages of the Bolshevik fiend.

    This fiend was the reason the United States was created, in order to stave off the insatiable lust for greed and power coming out of England at the time. It motivated the war upon the peaceful Boer farmer, in order to steal their resources. It motivated America’s disastrous engagement in WWI, in order to steal Palestine. It motivated WWII outright, in order to genocide Germans (its stated goal vis-a-vis the Morgenthau Plan) and to enslave Europe in absolute terms to its infinite, eternal- Talmudic hatred for the people of the West (Christendom).

    Now it is agitating for Eternal War in the Middle East, and a genocidal conflagration between Russia and Europe. (Poland idiotically and suicidally being at the center of this).

    My agenda is to edify people that we should not allow ((them)) to use their tried and true shtick: ‘let’s you and him fight’.

    My agenda is to point out that Germans and Poles and Russians and Brits and Norwegians and Lithuanians and Ukrainians and heartbreaking scores of millions of European’s Christians.. – were all ground up in a ((hate-fest) of Old Testament carnage and horrors in the last century, that we should not allow ((them)) to repeat in this one!

    So all the finger pointing between Ukrainians and Russians or Germans and Poles, over who did what to whom in the last century, misses the point. All of those wars were contrived and foisted from behind the scenes ((moneyed powers/banksters in NYC and London)). Exactly like today. Staring us all directly in the face.

    But we can’t seem to get past our parochial blinders to see the forces of the fiend manipulating our governments into endless wars and open borders and infinitely treacherous demands for more genuflecting of the Christian nations for their ‘terrible crimes’ of the last century, all against the “eternal victims” of those wars.

    http://news.trust.org/item/20190515093902-9tueu

    It sort of makes me sick to see Poles still frothing their bile at Germans, when they all suffered terribly by the demonic intrigues of the banksters and Zio-scum, who are exactly the same people agitating for more and more and more wars today.

    Do you suppose that’s just a coincidence?

    • Replies: @hhsiii
    , @chris
  153. utu says:
    @szopen

    Beckov is unreformed unrepentant Slovak sovok so you do not need to justify to him anything about Zaolzie or Polish gov actions. One could ask him about Slovak divisions invading Poland in 1939 and Slovak government paying Germans the transportation costs to take Slovak Jews off their hands. Or just let him be so he can continue doing what Slovaks like the most, i.e., enjoying company of their pretty and hansom sheep.

  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Although comments on this article are permitted, there is either some censorship or long delays in posting.

    Briefly, to reiterate what I said in a disappeared post, whatever may be the rules of war, the prime rule of war is to win, which means by any means, prohibited or otherwise. During WW2 it was believed by the Allies that bombing cities would undercut the enemy’s morale and his material ability to maintain armies in the field. As it turned out, the unusual climatic conditions that enabled the Dresden firestorm were rare, and the Allied bombing of German cities was thus unproductive, or even counterproductive, as post-war analysis by Galbraith and others indicated.

    However, once the Allies had nukes, the strategy of mass killing of civilians worked, as demonstrated in Japan.

    Mass civilian murder as the road to victory is now the central tenet of war planning.

    Naturally, in the aftermath, the propagandists try to play down the horrors or war and in particular the crimes of the victors. But better a criminal than a corpse, so most would agree.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  155. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Great argument.

    the point was

    only an imbecile would suggest Hitler wanted to “destroy the British”

    saying ‘duh’, is an expression of contempt for any who might endeavor to insult our collective intelligence.

    Hitler wanted to destroy the fiend, holed up in Moscow, funded by the fiend’s ((minions)) in NYC and London.

    Today the fiend is holed up in Washington, DC. But it’s the same eternal fiend, and it demands wars and hatreds and strife and misery and endless rivers of innocent blood. It feeds on these things, but alas, it is insatiable.

  156. chris says:
    @Saggy

    Very interesting quotes Saggy, thanks!

  157. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    OK. To answer my own question. There are delays in posting, but not censorship as I had feared.

  158. Cyrano says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Not all Nazis were idiots (some of them were morons). No, seriously, I remember reading a story in a history book a while ago. It was about high-ranking Nazi official visiting Ukraine – I believe it was Himmler actually.

    Apparently, during the visit, Himmler saw some Ukrainian kids playing and did a double take: “What is Hitler talking about, what racial superiority? These kids look healthier and more prosperous than any German kids at that age that I have seen”.

    If he was so impressed with Ukrainian kids, imagine what would have happened if he saw Russian kids playing. He would have had a massive coronary. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist taking a jab at the Ukrainians).

  159. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    As it turns out burning people by the thousands, as in Dresden, failed to do the trick.

    what a lying POS you are.

    When Dresden was bombed, the war was for all intents and purposes, over.

    The firebombing of Dresden was a genocidal act of sadistic hatred for German Christians, and their sublime culture. Envy was behind the netherworld hate, as it usually is.

    Partly, according to Ellsberg, that failure was due to the vagaries of the weather. The raid on Dresden apparently coincided with rare climatic conditions that transformed a mass of small fires into a firestorm.

    by invoking Ellsberg, your attempt to deflect your own support for this idiotic horseshit, is transparent.

    The firestorm (holocaust) of Dresden, was deliberate. And any who claim otherwise are lying pieces of shit. Duh.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Paul C.
    , @chris
  160. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    the point was

    only an imbecile would suggest Hitler wanted to “destroy the British”

    Yes I got your point, but not your argument, which seems to be unstated.

    That Hitler held out the prospect of living in peace with the British Empire means nothing. Hitler wanted the British off his back. But once Russia had been defeated and Germany ruled the largest contiguous empire in the world, why would any sensible person assume that he would make a friendly settlement with those British bastards who’d been bombing his capital for years and causing death or injury to seven million German citizens?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  161. Ron Unz says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    Very interesting, but if Roosevelt so much had the whip hand in the European theatre, how did the British get fdr to enter the war against Germany in spite of fdr’s no war guarantee to the American voters? The article skips this topic.

    Also, I would prevail on you good ww2 buffs to explain a related question I have: supposedly the literary critic Edmund Wilson hated British and blamed the British war machine for involving the USA in the two world wars. How did the British accomplish this? What did Wilson mean?

    My own impression was that there was a two-stage process. First, FDR together with powerful Jewish lobbies managed to manipulate Britain into declaring war against Germany:

    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    Britain was now stuck in a very difficult military conflict and the American public was still 80+% against getting involved in the war. So British Intelligence, FDR, and American Jewish groups all used illegal means to overcome that enormous opposition and get America involved in the war, though only indirectly until FDR forced the Japanese into the Pearl Harbor attack:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    • Agree: utu
  162. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gefreiter

    The “D” in FDR stands for Delano, who were opium pushers with Rothschilds and Sassoons in China. The “D” also stands for millions of dead chinese coolies, addicted to Roosevelt family Opium.

    wow, never heard of that before

    good info

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  163. Saggy says: • Website
    @Ewan

    What did the Nazis running the camps do with the children and old folk?

    They housed and fed them, they even had schools for kids. Here is a Spielberg archive interview with Dina Babbitt – who taught kindergarten at Auschwitz …https://www.bitchute.com/video/NFmAXP23WoMq/

    See also my posts above re:Anne Frank and the diamond children and read ‘Memories of a Coal Child’.

  164. Nona says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    More to the point, Stalin had the mind of a psycho! Bloodthirsty, violent, savage!

  165. Gefreiter says:
    @Gefreiter

    worldwide Masonic conspiracies

    Someone once said: “a picture is worth a thousand words”. A photograph of Roosevelt and his cronies with a hand written description stating “initiation as 32 degree into the Scottish rite”, along with the degrees of 32 and 33 for all the 7 men behind him is not a “conspiracy”. It is a fact. A highly significant fact.

    Are you denying that Roosevelt was a Scottish Rite Freemason?

    Let us discuss it on this great, open forum.

    BTW, I often put in “more”. Just ask Fran. I also put them it where I want to prevent moderators from ruining a comment by putting them in a bad place.

  166. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Jew comedian vs “anti-semitic heckler”

    the low-quality Jew comedian probably posts this to boost his notoriety

  167. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @szopen

    For years, Hitler was assuring my government that Germany has absolutely no disagreements with Poland

    Your government?
    A. Stupid enough to count on Hitler who referred to Poles as subhumans and forbade intermarriages.
    B. Lead by traitors of their own people and butchers of millions of Poles, Russians and others since 1919 just for the sake of being Western pawns. The government that just fled from Germans and left its army without command in 1939.
    C. Represented by strawman nationalist clowns like Josef Pilsudski, a former medical student and terrorist who enjoyed military uniforms and decorations, titling himself a ‘marchal’ for creating a military forces that could not stand just weeks of invasion by yet unskilled German army.
    Sadly, that ‘my government’ stance is official narrative of modern Poland, where the name of Pilsudski is honored by major street names and numerous monuments.

    Pilsudski had many times invited high-ranked Nazis to Poland, with photos of him with Goebbels and Goering available online. Hitler himself attended the Pilsudski memorial service in 1935. Is that still your government, and why you blame someone else for Polish misery?

    He demanded Soviets would co-rule Polish voivodship. The Soviets! That was really outrageous.

    Control by Nazi Germans referring to Poles as untermenschen, and Italian Fascists is not outrageous. The Soviets (i.e. Russians being the common Slavic nation) that refer to Poles as brothers and have Poles in Soviet government, is outrageous for you. That is a Polish complex of inferiority: some of them refer themself as minors to the ‘more Western’ elders just to keep their fake Western identity.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @utu
  168. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Yes they [Britain] had [offered Germany a treaty in 1900], Germany rejected it.

    There was an alliance between Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy, the Triple Alliance, dating from 1882. Joseph Chamberlain, Britain’s Colonial Secretary, discussed with German officials the possibility of Britain joining the alliance. The Brits, as a condition, wanted the Germans to halt their naval build up, while the Germans required a British commitment to the defense of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, scotched the plan. So no treaty was offered a mere, and rather fantastic possibility, was discussed.

  169. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    what a lying POS you are.

    The trouble with you Rurik, is your all epithets and no logic.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @NoseytheDuke
  170. Nick J says:

    I agree that the facts as compiled tell a very different story to the official narrative.

    I’ve got a question over two issues.

    First assumptions made about Churchill’s motivations. From my studies over the years my picture of him is that he had a deeply held fear of totalitarian and gangster regimes. He genuinely saw Nazism as evil and a danger to the values he held dear. To ascribe warmongering to him I believe is wrong in so much as he saw it as inevitable that it would have to be faced at some point. And he was dealing with two of histories most evil regimes. I’d challenge anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that either Stalin or Hitler and their whole state apparatus were not totally evil. Explain the body count.

    Second concentration camps. I don’t care for Zionist narratives because they appropriate the evil to themselves as sole victims. They weren’t, but that doesn’t absolve the Nazis of attempted genocide of the Jews, of Gypsies, and anybody else. Question the death rate in the occupied east, millions of Slavic people died by deliberate policy. Millions of Russian POWs died through deliberate neglect. The “labour camp” only just does not wash. Then there’s the squads of SS killing Jews, the euthanising of German mental and retarded, the killing of homosexuals. This was deliberate, policy overt or covert. It happened.

    If the Allies were fighting evil, Churchill got it right. The soldiers on the frontline were definitely fighting an evil regime, they uncovered and recorded the horror.

    If there is a warning from how this occurred it is that we have allowed Bush, Blair and Killary Clinton to brand regimes as evil, then to impose greater evil. Compared to these gangsters Churchill appears saintly in his motivation. We have allowed Zionists to become Nazis. We have promoted the likes of ISIL for our own nefarious purposes to commit atrocities. Both Stalin and Hitler would have loved the police state repression of the greatest “democracy”. What a f…up.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Parfois1
  171. @Reviewed

    1039? That would have been Yaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev and Novgorod.

  172. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    The Soviets (i.e. Russians being the common Slavic nation) that refer to Poles as brothers….

    so why did the Soviets slaughter their 20,000 Polish brothers in the Katyn forest and blame it on the Germans?

    • Replies: @Anon
  173. @refl

    PCR leaves out Roosevelt’s role in directly pushing Poland’s Beck to have a stiff backbone and not give Hitler anything he was asking for. In fact, to refuse to talk to him! That was a big boost to Polish hopes to be in the big league.

  174. Talking about WW2 in terms of Good Guys versus Bad Guys is seeming more and more to be a pointless exercise.

  175. Excellent article. In my view Hitler and the Nazis were the antibodies of the body politic of Germany trying to fight off a deadly (((parasite))). For whatever reasons, Churchill joined the parasites. Unfortunately in WW2, the parasites overwhelmed the host.

  176. Wally says:
    @Ewan

    “What did the Nazis running the camps do with the children and old folk? They seem simply to have vanished”.

    – Except Jews gave birth to many Jew children at Auschwitz.

    – Healthy Jews at Auschwitz ‘liberation’:

    [MORE]

    “And what did Berlin do with the daily updates from the Einsatzgruppen, the updates British intelligence transcribed?”

    – What “updates” are you referring to, please show them. What transcriptions? By who exactly. Please show them to us.
    The ‘holocau$t’ Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please SHOW us the actual excavations, the enormous mass graves, & remains that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    “And what did Himmler mean when he said that a method of killing Jews had to be found less upsetting to his men than shooting (this after his boots were splashed with Jewish brains)?”

    – Except he never said that and you have no proof that he did. Please present the original German document where he allegedly said that. You cannot

    – Now please tell us how the alleged ‘gas chambers’ worked. We await.

    http://www.codoh.com

  177. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick J

    I’d challenge anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that either Stalin or Hitler and their whole state apparatus were not totally evil.

    nobody is totally evil – you couldn’t be even if you tried

  178. @Germanicus

    The “forces in the shadows” you’re speaking of (meaning organized Jews, I’m sure) are not the culprit in WWI, but the pro-British element in the US that was working to get America to enter the war from the very beginning. Since the American people were against that, Wilson did what he could to support the Allied cause short of declaring war. But as soon as he was reelected for his 2nd term, the first thing he did was find a pretext to enter the war. He was inaugurated in January 1917, and on February 3rd broke off diplomatic relations with Imperial Germany. In April, Congress declared war.

    It was the “Special Relationship” with Britain, stemming from the Panama Canal affair, that was operating the entire time. The only prominent Jew I know that was involved is Henry Morgenthau Sr. who was Wilson’s Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

    https://carolynyeager.net/category/fatherland Three pages of this-

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Germanicus
  179. utu says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Poland had mobilized to invade Germany, and the Polish border incursions were real. Poland invaded Germany many times before Germany invaded Poland;

    That’s just pre-war and post facto propaganda. If you believe it you surely must believe that Iraq had WMD.

    After the defeat of Poland Germans made many propaganda films like Polish cavalry attack on German tanks in which they used Slovak cavalry that actually was part of invading force in 1939 as Slovakia was Germany’s ally in attacking Poland.

    Films about German pogrom by Poles: Heimkehr (1941). – total fiction
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimkehr

    But there were few anti-Germans atrocities in September 1939. Like evacuation of Germans civilians in horrible conditions when many (how many?) died.

    There were few killing of POWs by both sides.

    There were mass executions of Poles accused of being snipers in Bromberg (1,200–3,000 civilians)

    • Replies: @German_reader
  180. @nebulafox

    I don’t know if this has already been said, but PCR is in error. Nazi is a nickname for “National Sozialist” as pronounced in German [Na – zi (from sozi)] not the NSDAP, the NS German Workers’ Party. The Left party were called the Sozi’s.

    I’m surprised such a big mistake got through.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Jacques Sheete
  181. utu says:
    @Anon

    Did Russian science finally succeeds to revive the corps of Stalin carcass from his mausoleum? You sound like the worst kind of ignorant sovok. Go back to the mausoleum and leave humanity alone.

  182. FvS says:

    I feel like all hope for a higher humanity died with Hitler. Someone, please save us from this madness.

  183. Anon[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Soviets slaughter their 20,000 Polish brothers and blame it on the Germans?

    There is still no proof of the so called Katyn massacre except wishful thinking from any side.

    Even if some Poles were executed by Soviets, they were executed as well as other Soviet citizens, on par with Russians themselves with no ethnic predisposition (not because of being Poles, just being of other ‘reactionary class’). That was a regular revolutionary ideology e.g. kill all the aristorcrats, or strip all the borgeousie of their property.

    Inside the narrow, tribal Polish logic, these ‘victims’ or even ‘martyrs’ were Poles executed just for being Polish nationals or patriots. This is completely wrong. Since Poland was no more in 1939, all ethnic Poles native to the Polish proper were sent back to the Polish mainland controlled by Germans. All former Polish citizens native to Western Belarus and Western Ukraine were now citizens of USSR, and were treated by all other citizens of that time of USSR. I.e. if you were officer of Russian White Army or Polish interbellum army, that was regarded as major crime regardles of your ethnicity, and often lead to execution. And often for a good reason, since such persons could serve Nazis.

    Soviet leader Dzerzhinsky, being a Pole, had signed more death sentences and mass execution orders for Russians during Civil War than any Soviet Government for Poles in 1939-1945.

    • Replies: @utu
  184. @Godfree Roberts

    Hitler may have had some talent as a military tactician, but his overall military and political strategy ended in total defeat for Germany.

  185. c matt says:

    The difference between a war hero and a war criminal is victory.

  186. @utu

    Like evacuation of Germans civilians in horrible conditions when many (how many?) died.

    It’s estimated (by mainstream historians, not “revisionists”) that 4500 to 6000 ethnic German civilians were killed during the September 1939 war (source: Robert Gerwarth, Hitler’s hangman. The life of Heydrich, p.142).
    Of course this was dwarfed by the massacres of Polish civilians carried out by SS Einsatzgruppen, and also sometimes by Wehrmacht units and the ethnic German Selbstschutz; those killed at least 40 000 Poles until the end of 1939 (see Gerwarth, Heydrich, p.144).

  187. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    why would any sensible person assume that he would make a friendly settlement with those British bastards who’d been bombing his capital for years

    because, like me, for instance, even as he hated the treasonous scum in the British government, he had a profound fondness for the British people, their traditions and their unique genius.

    The British empire was the apex of Western ascendancy. WWII was it’s death knell.

    Why would anyone who harbors a fondness for truth and beauty, want to see Europe descend into the mire of abased ignominy?

    For all of the hatred I feel for the British aristocracy, my heart goes out to the British people.

    I suspect Hitler (before he went insane), would agree.

  188. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    what a lying POS you are.

    The trouble with you Rurik, is your all epithets and no logic.

    But in a way I’m complimenting your smarts.

    You see I might consider some people’s suggestion that the bombing of Dresden was an attempt to end the war, and the firestorm a tragic error of judgment on the Allies part.

    For instance from an eighth grader just home from his history class.

    But you see I know you’re not that stupefyingly clueless. So when I (rightly) call you a lying POS, there’s a veiled compliment in there you should savor.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  189. @utu

    Was not aware of the distinction between “defended (and presumably ‘undefended’) places” as per the Hague Agreement. Interesting but, quite frankly, silly. ALL nation-states, including neutral Switzerland, are “defended” to one degree or another by military. Which, in total war, makes them by definition “military targets”. Thus “defended” and “undefended” are distinctions without a difference.

  190. Dube says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    The Poles had been taken off the map for 123 years. They decided that it’s better to be on the map than off the map.

  191. Rurik says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Moral: Question everything including what you think you know.

    your wisdom is transcendental, JS

    one of the great gifts of a site like Unz, is in how we can subject what we think we know, to the rigors and crucible of the comment section. Often sullied by trolls and fools, but on occasion dotted with gems of ever-elusive truth.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  192. Sparkon says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The only prominent Jew I know that was involved is Henry Morgenthau Sr. who was Wilson’s Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

    Really? Then you may be interested to read Brother Nathanael’s article from 2010: Woodrow Wilson – Pawn of the Jews where you may learn that Wilson was under the influence of such prominent Jewish supporters manipulators as Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, and Samuel Untermeyer:

    Already established as a “political academic” and with an opening in the Democratic party for the governorship of New Jersey, Wilson was financed by Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and their fellow Jewish associate, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., to seat him as New Jersey’s Governor in 1911.

    Amongst the Zionist coterie and acting as the spokesman for Jewry’s political interests, one Rabbi Stephen Wise, founder of the Federation of American Zionists in 1897 and later to become Wilson’s most trusted advisor, with secret knowledge told a New Jersey audience that Woodrow Wilson “would be elected US President” in 1912 and “serve for two terms.”

    — Bro. Nathanael Kapner

    You started your comment by saying:

    The “forces in the shadows” you’re speaking of (meaning organized Jews, I’m sure) are not the culprit in WWI,

    If that is the case, then how do you explain the apparent enthusiasm for and confidence in a “future world war” expressed by Zionist co-founder Max Nordau already in 1903 to an audience of adoring Jews in Paris, who were dazzled by Nordau’s eloquence explaining how that “future world war” would help the Jews get Palestine:

    “…let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_14

  193. @Carolyn Yeager

    “forces in the shadows”

    The Serbian terrorist Black Hand served as executioner for the masonic initiator.
    Nowadays, they might use “AlQuaeda” or “ISIS” for the same purposes.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  194. A very interesting book is Into the Darkness by Lothrop Stoddard. Stoddard, a well-known popular American journalist, went to Germany in 1939. The “darkness” refers to the nightly blackouts the Germans suffered for fear of bombing raids. Stoddard, who spoke German, met all the leading National Socialists, learned what they wanted for their country and the world. He talked to Hitler, as well as many common Germans. A fascinating look into Germany during the “phony war”, i.e., before it really started.

  195. @Dutch Boy

    Of course. Yankees did business with Hitler as they did later with Stalin. Destroying the continent. Winning on both sides. Making money. Lots of.

  196. Leon says:

    It is really simple to understand why Hitler sided with Mussolini and Franco they both were fighting against the same foe the Bolsheviks and Communist Jews who were murdering everything in their path. During that time there were only two choices you stand with the evil of the Bolsheviks Jews and Communist Jews or you stand against it.
    Russia released some very interesting information about how Poland also had an agreement to side with Germany in the up coming war. I have no doubt that Poland would have signed on with Germany if England had not bribed certain state Officials.

  197. @YetAnotherAnon

    “Hitchens also points out that it was Churchill who started the targeting of civilians and cities with terror bombing, “

    The English historian AJP Taylor pointed that out as far back as 1963 in his foreword to the second edition of The Origins Of The Second World War.

    While it is true that between Britain and Germany, Britain began bombing German cities first, the war was a war of alliances. The way the alliance worked, bombing Polish cities was the equivalent of bombing British cities. Given that Germany had eased its conquests and increased its resources immensely by bombing Polish cities, there was no reason for Whitehall to hold back from bombing German cities. Why give your enemy the initiative? The point of warfare is victory, not giving your enemy a chance to land the first punch so you can score imaginary moral points. Besides, the German did deliberately massacre 12m civilians in territories they administered, so any qualms* about the tit-for-tat city bombings on both sides are mere quibbles next to that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Warsaw_(1939)#Heavy_bombardments

    From the very first hours of World War II, Warsaw, the capital of Poland, was a target of an unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign initiated by the German Luftwaffe, which was controlled by Hermann Göring. Apart from the military facilities such as infantry barracks and the Okęcie airport and aircraft factory, the German pilots also targeted civilian facilities such as water works, hospitals, market places and schools, which resulted in heavy human casualties that possibly led to the early surrender by lowering of morale of the Polish army defending the city.

    * I understand we’ve made it a premise that if there’s a war on, only young men should die. The question here is whether that premise even makes sense. Are these young men the ultimate beneficiaries of victory? Are they given a share of the spoils of war? What, then, is this premise other than something pulled out of thin air? If city bombings hasten victory and an end to friendly deaths, it would be criminal for any leader to shrink from taking that step.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  198. Rurik says:
    @gT

    So Poland abused some German’s living in Poland in order to force Hitler’s hand, and so started WW2 in which Germany lost many more people. Just like Ukraine is now abusing Russian’s living in Ukraine in order to force Putin’s hand.

    the parallels are glaring

    And obviously not lost on Putin, who, unlike Hitler, has the advantage of hindsight in his favor.

    everything is there.

    The lies about atrocities, and the lies about imperial ambitions, and the lies about aggressively annexing territories (that are overwhelmingly ethnic German/Russian respectively).

    As the Austrians welcomed Hitler, just as the denizens of Crimea welcomed Putin.

    But in the West, all we get are lies piled on top of more lies. Agitating for war and slaughter and untold miseries writ large. Children rended asunder. Mothers driven insane with anguish. Are all sustenance to the fiend.

    And ‘all of it.

    (like Pacino says at 1:30)

    ‘All of it!

    ..is coming directly out of the ((banking houses of NY and London)).

    who doubts that America entered WWI on behalf of genocidal, Jewish supremacist Zionist$?

    Who doubts that the Allies betrayed Germany into slavery over to Jewish supremacists at Versailles?

    Who doubts that Perfidious Albion and France declared war on Germany over Poland at the behest of Jewish supremacist Zionists?

    Who doubts that today, it is Jewish supremacist, ‘neocon’ Zionists who’re the motivating force behind all the sabre rattling at Iran and Russia and others?

    Who doubts that it is Jewish supremacist neocon Zionists who’re the motivating force behind the wars on Iraq and Syria and so many others in the Middle East?

    Even the war on Yemen would end tomorrow if not for the devils alliance between Israel and feculent House of Saud. One call from Bibi and all arms headed to Saudi Arabia would cease in a NY second. Duh.

    So as myopic nationalists lament their loses, and stupidly blame other European Christians, the fiend slithers in the crevices of power, and..

    “..moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. …he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

  199. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    PCR is allowing comments again?!

  200. @szopen

    Szopen–Poland started killing Jews—-1930’s—Jedwabne pogrom.Read some and get educated U fool. Germany came to rescue them.

  201. @nebulafox

    It is reading posts like yours that makes me appreciate even more the honest and informed people’s comments that preceded it and that will certainly follow it.

    By reading honest reassessments of history I’m better able to identify the propagandists and serial liars like you lurking amidst us.

    Your whole screed reeks of Hasbarah. It has about as much an attachment to truth as all those claims of human skin lampshades and killer masterbation machines. I wonder – why do you bother? The only people who could believe a word you type are your fellow travelers – certainly no one with an ounce of good sense should believe your nonsense.

    I’ll deal with only the first of your embarrassingly ignorant claims – about the word ‘nazi’.

    “It’s time to debunk the “Nazi” epithet and to learn where it came from, who invented it and why.

    The fact is, that the term “Nazi” was created by the enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was a pejorative term; an insult or a slur.

    The Germans, not even Hitler nor any other top party officials ever called themselves “Nazis”! They called themselves “National Socialists” and nothing else. Those who can read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches know this already, but most don’t.

    The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden during the 1920’s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party.

    The term “Nazi” is a variation of the nickname that was used in reference to members of Heidens’ SDP at the time, “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin” and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy.”

    So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves.

    One should also see why it would be used and popularised by the Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.”

    excerpt from: https://20thcenturytruth.wordpress.com/nazis-never-existed/

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  202. Kiza says:
    @Beckow

    It substitutes one set of one-sided histories with another.

    As usual, spot on Beckow, that is the problem with this article. Even before you wrote this I was about to type that the truth is in the middle. Most of the official history is propaganda bull and the US citizens have an extremely weak sense/feeling of history. After I watched a few historical lectures by US university professors, I decided that I would rather watch Micky Mouse cartoons than listen to US understanding of history. The only people who know history are the Europeans and the Chinese, because they had it, it has been built into our genes.

    As you wrote, there were few angels before and during WW2. It is interesting that things are much clearer now than they were then. There are the AngloZio Globalists with their US hammer hammering at the planet. Sincerely, this is much more important than who was the real villain of WW2. The key is that playing dirty politics when nuclear weapons are around is far beyond sensible. The history cannot repeat itself any more, because there will be no more history after.

    Hitler/Churchill – same shit only slightly different packaging. Case closed.

    • Replies: @Beckow
  203. hhsiii says:
    @Rurik

    You’re unhinged.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @OEMIKITLOB
  204. Johan says:

    The article consists of propaganda which you find in abundance in the Holocaust revisionist scene, Churchill and Roosevelt bashing is very popular among some of them (we had Roosevelt, also a supposed war mongerer, bashing already a while ago here on unz.com).

    Now, all of this, pro and con consists of speculative interpretation. For those who have eyes to see it is clear that the Nazis where at large militant and crude power mongers. If you pay attention to the expressions. Heinrich Himmler in his Posen speech anticipated the conquest of Russia/Asia behind the Ural mountains in a far future, he called Russians and other peoples human animals, and Jews something like bacteria, the simulation of Greek architecture so much loved by Hitler and his architect where the crude large scale copies of power mongering megalomaniacs whole love to flaunt with it while being adored by the masses which they envisioned to fit in these environments. Etc, in many areas, the crudeness of many Nazis must be very obvious for those who have eyes.., a different intelligence from the believers of speculative interpretation (which history writing is for the major part, no matter who writes it..).

    As of Himmler, the believers of course say that he went his own way, and that Hitler was a sort of benevolent guy, who knew nothing of this:

    https://codoh.com/library/document/891/

  205. mcohen says:

    It was winston who stated that the only traditions the royal navy had was rum and buggery.
    Funnily enough when bush showed blair evidence of wmd in iraq,tony exclaimed…”well bugger me george”,which was in itself an unfortunate choice of words for the british prime ministe,because,that is what george proceeded to do,hence the “mission accomplished” remark.

  206. Anonymous[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann

    Peter Hitchens is a Jewish gatekeeper. His job is to admit to uncomfortable truths to make him sound genuine and then subvert the ideas that these truths would otherwise lead to. Read Hitchens very carefully he is an excellent example of the type.

  207. @szopen

    No sensible or intelligent person in Europe in 1939 believed the Poles had a legitimate claim to Danzig.

    • Agree: Gefreiter
  208. Agent76 says:

    Feb 14, 2014 The Oligarchical Bush Family of Generational Treason

    The Oligarchical Bush Family of Generational Treason from the Nazi SS and Adolf Hitler to Osama bin Laden. The journalist in this video is providing factually true evidence.

    September 25, 2004 How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power

    His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar?CMP=share_btn_link

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  209. Joe Wong says:
    @szopen

    Comparing Hitler’s demands to the American’s demands on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela and China, it should be considered fair and realistic. At least Hitler based his demands on historical ground instead of the American’s demands based on fake news fabricated through the thin air.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  210. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    But you see I know you’re not that stupefyingly clueless.

    Unfortunately, you are.

  211. utu says:
    @Anon

    Another case of Russian/Soviet science miracle. Comrade Stalin brought back to life form the Mausoleum. Go back to Mausoleum and leave humanity alone.

  212. Joe Wong says:
    @Anon

    The Empires (the British Empire and the Empire of Chaos) lie. They lie about present, about the past, even about the future. They lie day and night, relentlessly.

    Their founding dogmas are based on deception, their history on false pahtos and insincere heroism.

    Churchill and the American not only lied about iron curtain, they also lied WWII aboud democracy, freedom, equality and human rights.

  213. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    The poor dude seems also blinded by pride, and evidently that’s a permanently disabling condition and many of us ‘Merkins suffer from the same.

    Probably that was the Polish militarists’ downfall as well.

    The stiff necked pride thing is why PCR blocked his comments on his website. I remember him explaining why, and it was his unhinged commentators.

    In bygone “beer hall” days, when people debated publicly, they were allowed to face their accusers. If you were an unhinged person, or couldn’t be reasoned with, you got escorted out of the tavern and thrown on your ass.

    The internet at least allows debate, but it doesn’t have the feedback of tavern debates, or even feedback that a “criers corner” gave civilization in the old days.

  214. Richard T says:
    @szopen

    Pat Buchanan touched on this point, writing:

    “The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

    Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

    But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

    Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

    Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

    If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

    [MORE]

    After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

    The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

    Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

    Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

    We would all be speaking German now.

    But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

    If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

    Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

    Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

    Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

    Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

    Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

    Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

    As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

    Winston Churchill was right when he called it ‘The Unnecessary War’”

    https://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Gefreiter
  215. CanSpeccy says:
    @Rurik

    But you see I know you’re not that stupefyingly clueless.

    And if you had a decent comprehension of the written word, you would have understood that what I said at #148 made no value judgment whatever. Indeed my comment begins with the words “I am not moralizing …” I simply explained what is said to have been the thinking of the Allied military concerning the bombing of civilian targets — thinking that has prevailed ever since as the basis of NATO, Soviet/Russian and, presumably Chinese strategy.

    As for your claims about Hitler’s overwhelming love for the British people, Yeah, tell us another one.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  216. @JimDandy

    your reading of Petain is contra-factual.

    1) Petain’s command saved France @ Verdun, 1916. The casualties on both sides were horrendous, but that had nil to do with Petain’s generalship: defensive technology – massed artillery and automatic weapons fire – dominated all fronts during 1914-17.

    2) after the catastrophic failure of the Spring 1917 Nivelle Offensive, half the French Army mutinied and refused to go into the Line. Petain, brought back into command, executed about 60 of the leading mutineers – mostly communists – and conciliated the rest. The Army, though no longer capable of any major offensives for the rest of the war, held together (compare to Russia, 1917-18), and so did the Nation.

    3) in June 1940, by agreeing to an Armistice with Germany, Petain saved France for a Third time, keeping half the country – including the strategically critical naval and airbases along the Mediterranean coast – out of German hands for two years. That’s also, incidentally, one of the main reasons why 90% of French Jewry survived WW2.

    Petain saved France 3 times, and De Gaulle jailed him for it.

  217. Dube says:

    Is this pertinent? The source is Elmer Peterson, then AP Bureau Chief in Warsaw.

    On August 22, 1939 Adolf Hitler ordered: “Kill without pity or mercy all men, women or children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space (Lebensraum) we need. The destruction of Poland is our primary task. The aim is not the arrival at a certain line but the annihilation of living forces.”

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  218. Timo says:

    This narrative falls apart with the mention of one fact.

    Czechoslovakia, the total occupation of.

    One could (and many did, and many still do) argue that german territorial demands were just.

    However, after granting Germany a slice of Czechoslovakia where the so called Sudeten germans were living, Germany then in short order took over THE WHOLE country.

    After this, there was no going back, german government has shown that it cannot be trusted nor satisfied with what it negotiated for.

    What more can I say, this article is some of the worst agitprop I have seen.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  219. Lurker says:
    @Richard T

    Since the German military was incapable of crossing 25 miles of English Channel in 1940 (with or without factoring in the Battle of Britain) it’s something of a stretch to assume they could take over the world.

  220. @Gefreiter

    TY for this reference. Material on Jewish collaboration with the invading Reds in eastern Poland, AND in the Baltic states 1939-1941, is dificult to access…and largely supressed. In the Baltic states c. 250,000 White Christian Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians were killed on the spot or deported to death in the Gulag by the visibly Jewish Stalin-puppet regimes and equally Jewish NKVD during those years.

  221. @Agent76

    Agee, see the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton.

    • Replies: @Agent76
  222. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    And if you had a decent comprehension of the written word, you would have understood that what I said at #148 made no value judgment whatever

    it wasn’t your value judgment I was talking about. It was your mendacity.

    Rather than the futile mass killing of soldiers, it would be better, war planners came to believe, to destroy the civilian population and infrastructure necessary to maintain armies in the field.

    Heavy bombers provided the means. Or so it was thought. As it turns out burning people by the thousands, as in Dresden, failed to do the trick.

    because you’re implying that burning women and children alive by the thousands (many of whom were non-German refugees from the Red Army rapists) was a war strategy, when all honest people know (and admit) that it wasn’t. Rather is was an act of pure, Talmudic, genocidal hatred, inflicted on a defeated people for the purposes of sadistic blood-lust. Duh.

    Partly, according to Ellsberg, that failure was due to the vagaries of the weather. The raid on Dresden apparently coincided with rare climatic conditions that transformed a mass of small fires into a firestorm.

    pretending that the holocaust at Dresden was an accident, is idiocy most foul.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  223. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Lurker

    The French army (+ the British) were thought big enough to contain Germany in the west

    LOL. The British army, with, in 1939, the ability to place four divisions in the field against Hitler’s 160. Or was only two divisions that the British were actually capable of raising at that time.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  224. @Wizard of Oz

    from the first hours of WW1 through mid-1919, Churchill’s Navy imposed a starvation blockade on Germany and Central Europe whose prime purpose was to kill civilians outright and, via savage malnourishment, cripple and ruin the lives of children. Approximately 1,000,000 civilians died as a direct result of this particular Churchillian Terror Famine (#2: Eastern India, 1942-44, killed millions more) and the bodies and lives of uncounted millions of children were stunted and blighted.

    now, what was that about “Scarborough and Hartlepool”?

  225. Ron Unz says:
    @Stephan Williams

    “It’s time to debunk the “Nazi” epithet and to learn where it came from, who invented it and why.

    The fact is, that the term “Nazi” was created by the enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was a pejorative term; an insult or a slur.

    The Germans, not even Hitler nor any other top party officials ever called themselves “Nazis”!

    Well, I’ve seen that claim floating around for years, but I don’t think it’s correct…

    For example, in a related thread I discussed in detail Lothop Stoddard’s 1940 book Into the Darkness, his scrupulously even-handed account of the months he spent as a journalist during 1939/1940 visiting Nazi Germany and meeting with numerous top leaders, including Hitler during.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/#comment-3214030

    He uses the term “Nazi” throughout his text, virtually every time he’s referring to the NSDAP regime.

    Also, there was an important Nazi-Zionist economic partnership during the 1930s, about which I’ve written at length:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/

    The Nazi government struck a commemorative medal in honor of the agreement and a lengthy visit to Palestine by one of their officials. The medal contains the word “Nazi.”

    So if the Nazis used the term “Nazi” to describe themselves, it can’t have been too pejorative, and was probably just treated as informal shorthand, perhaps something like “Yank.” After all, NSDAP is quite a mouthful, even in German. Perhaps it originally began as a slur, but then became universally used by everyone.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
    , @Germanicus
  226. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Jewish Tyranny spreads.

    Where is the ACLU on this? Looks like just another censorious Zionist front now.

  227. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Moi

    The fat drunk was an imperialist and one racist bastard.

    So what. Except for the fatness and the liking for brandy, so also were Hitler and Stalin. But whereas Churchill sought merely to preserve what Britain already had, Hitler was Hell bent on European conquest, while Stalin, as a good Communist, sought the triumph of the Soviet system world-wide. But evidently you are fat phobic, for which reason you are ready to hold Churchill personally to blame for WW2.

    • Replies: @Matra
  228. @nebulafox

    that’s an interesting and intelligent comment. But the fact remains:

    Hitler offered the Poles a good deal during the early-to-mid 1939 negotiations. They should have taken it, then renewed the alliance with Germany and gone after the Red Empire together.

    But they didn’t, because Beck et al. were in thrall to the French and the Anglo-Americans.

    so Poland was, yet again, partitioned and ravaged.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Dube
  229. Art says:

    Churchill slept in the Roosevelt’s White House during WWII.

    Yet in spite of all that transpired – Churchill did not attend Roosevelt funeral — Hmm — telling.

  230. @Germanicus

    But G., your comment said “in 1916, Germany had practically won the war, but forces in the shadows got the US to needlessly enter the war and prolong it for two more years.”

    The Serbian Black Hand didn’t do this. I think your original statement(s) is too broad and undefined. I am for exactness and definite evidence presented, which I think is necessary for our cause to be well served.
    Best …

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  231. @Timo

    you are mistaken.

    First, Germany took back the Sudetanland and it’s 3,000,000 Germans from the Bohemian Empire, alias “Czechoslovakia”.

    then, in the spring of 1939, the Slovaks seceded from the Bohemian Empire and set up their own state.

    only then did the Germans occupy the rump provinces of Bohemia and Moravia. And this w/o a shot fired by the “betrayed” Czechs.

    also, take note of the fact that in our own time, after the Red imperialists folded up their tent and went home, the rural/conservative Slovaks seceded again and set up their own state, once again reducing “Czechoslovakia”…to liberal/urbane Bohemia/Moravia, alias “Czech Republic”.

    the same goes for that other corrupt artifact of the Versailles Diktat, the Serbian Empire alias “Yugoslavia”. When the Red Empire collapsed, so did “Yugoslavia”: right back into it’s pre-1919 ethno-provinces (then, w/in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; now, nations): Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc.

    so History has proven Hitler right about “Czechoslovakia”, right about “Yugoslavia”, and right about the Soviet Red Empire. All 3 on the ash-heap.

    we must all sincerely hope that History does not prove Hitler right about something else:

    Jews.

  232. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    you’re implying that burning women and children alive by the thousands (many of whom were non-German refugees from the Red Army rapists) was a war strategy, when all honest people know (and admit) that it wasn’t. Rather is was an act of pure, Talmudic, genocidal hatred, inflicted on a defeated people for the purposes of sadistic blood-lust.

    I am implying nothing of the sort. I simply restated what is said to have been the thinking of the Allied military concerning bombing of civilian targets. If you believe there were other reasons, and in particular that Churchill, who was not a Jew, was driven by some Talmudic plot to exterminate Germans, so be it. You offer no evidence, but you are free here to indulge in such ravings. Just don’t call me a liar for stating a fact, otherwise I shall be bound to assume that you are either a nutter or a troll.

    pretending that the holocaust at Dresden was an accident, is idiocy most foul

    Who’s pretending. You seem not to understand the English language. No one said that the holocaust at Dresden was an accident. What I said was that it was the result of particular climatic conditions — conditions that the allies hoped to exploit elsewhere but could not because such conditions seem to have been extremely rare.

    However, according to Ellsberg, the Americans were able to create a monstrous firestorms over Tokyo and some other cities in Japan using conventional incendiaries and explosives (the explosives were used to block streets so that fire fighters were obstructed in dealing with incendiaries.

    And just to stoke you up to bursting, according to Ellsberg, it was American policy following WW2 to respond to general war with the Soviet Union by bombing every urban center in Russia AND China, with the expectation of killing up to a billion people, including something like 100 million collateral deaths in allied countries of Europe. Presumably, that policy has not changed. (The Russians, of course, have a bunch of doomsday weapons designed to make North America uninhabitable if necessary).

    So your idea that Churchill was some uniquely monstrous person in a league totally different from just about every other leader, democratic, Communist of Fascist, is simply a naive misconception. If you can get over that, you might be able to start thinking constructively about where we stand today and how the situation might be ameliorated at least to the extent of giving humanity a modest chance of continued existence in the mid- to long-term.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  233. @Ron Unz

    A stronger case can be made for the origin of the Swastika as a symbol of hate:
    That is 100% attributable to arch-zionist Jews in USA; specifically, James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise.
    By May, 1933, be wrote and published “Swastika: The Nazi Terror” https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000417009;view=1up;seq=7

    In May, 1933, Jews in Germany were not threatened by “the Hitlerites;”
    However, several months earlier, Brandeis had directed Rabbi Wise that “all German Jews must leave Germany . . . All 587,000 Jews —.” I argue that Waterman Wise’s book was part of the propaganda campaign to frighten German Jews into leaving Germany, and also a salvo in the effort to shake loose Americans from their “isolationist” posture.

    Equating statements or positions that zionists do not like with “hate” has its roots in the earliest days of American zionist zealotry.

    American school children are severely punished, by ADL and similar groups, for doodling swastikas in their schoolbooks. That has to stop.
    Symbols — and flags — have no power to hurt or kill people, and a minority group should not have the power to dictate to the entire community what flags or symbols they may or may not fly or draw.

    While Ron’s points are well taken, In general, it IS time to debunk the Nazi epithet as well as the swastika as a symbol akin to hemlock stakes.

  234. I can easily accept that Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin were scoundrels. However, this does not make Hitler an angel like PCR paints him. The war (the whole WWII) started when Britain and France together sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Hitler did not just take Sudetenland (which Germany had a right to take), he occupied the whole Czechoslovakia and proclaimed (from Prague, not from a German city) protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and installed puppet regime in Slovakia. How is that a defensive action? It went on from there: Poland (that’s when Britain and France declared war on Germany, not when Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia), Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Norway – all before his fatal mistake (a repeat of Napoleon’s fatal mistake) of attacking Russia. So, I can believe that all four were scoundrels, but I cannot believe that one of them (does not matter which) was an angel.

    • Replies: @FB
  235. Hibernian says:
    @nokangaroos

    Jennie Jerome was not Jewish. The family had a connection with the Bronx; so did fellow WASP William Butler Ogden, who founded the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. There’s a street in the Bronx named after the Jeromes; maybe that’s where you got the idea.

  236. Matra says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Funny how the same Alt-Righters (ie spiteful deracinated Americans) who claim Britain could’ve saved it’s Empire and wouldn’t be full of non-whites today if had sided with Hitler also at the very same time! always accuse Britain of being imperialistic and racist. It’s almost as if they are lying scumbag apologists for German hegemony.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  237. peterAUS says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Does not matter how decent and generally good westerner is , deep inside everyone is a russophob.

    You could be onto something here……

    Any theory as to why? I am sure you have one.

  238. @Johann Ricke

    you are mistaken; the actual causal sequence was as follows:

    during the midphase of the Air Battle of Britain (July-August, 1940), the Germans were still attacking only RAF airfields and other military targets. The Brits, for their part, were dropping…propaganda leaflets…on German cities.

    then, in foul weather, ONE German plane missed its assigned target and dropped ONE bomb on the outskirts of London. Churchill, sensing another opportunity to widen and intensify the war – and perhaps aware of the fact that the RAF was w/in a week or two of collapse – ordered a 100-bomber mass raid on Berlin, massacring civilians and destroying only non-military targets.

    the Germans then retaliated with mass bomber raids on London and other English cities. Churchill then counter-retaliated. Etc.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  239. Ex-Mafia guy says the Mob played a role in the death of JFK. He also says the US is far more corrupt now than ever before.

  240. peterAUS says:
    @peter mcloughlin

    Yep.
    Cheerful thought.

    I blame Jews. Oppenheimer in particular.

  241. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:

    History of World War II: Nazi Germany was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318

  242. @George F. Held

    George, you really should have disclosed that you were the German-English translator of this book. The book sounds from the reviews like a valuable resource but the non-disclosure leaves a sour taste.

  243. @CanSpeccy

    “The contention that WWII was Churchill’s war is absurd.”
    I absolutely agree. This story is so full of holes I believe the author has about as much credibility as the moon landing CTs.

  244. All said and done, Hitler should have left Poland alone. He shouldn’t have made a pact with Stalin to destroy Poland.

    He should have tried to get Danzig back.

  245. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    you’re implying that burning women and children alive by the thousands (many of whom were non-German refugees from the Red Army rapists) was a war strategy, when all honest people know (and admit) that it wasn’t

    I am implying nothing of the sort. I simply restated what is said to have been the thinking of the Allied military concerning bombing of civilian targets.

    But you mentioned Dresden specifically, and that city was firebombed when the war was effectively over, and its barbarous destruction could have only been for sadistic or symbolic purposes.

    Which therefor negates your blather about firebombing (Dresden) as a war strategy. Since you zeroed in on Dresden as your example.

    If you were an eight grader, that could be forgiven.

    No one said that the holocaust at Dresden was an accident. What I said was that it was the result of particular climatic conditions — conditions that the allies hoped to exploit elsewhere but could not because such conditions seem to have been extremely rare.

    Your suggestion was that it was the rare and unexpected “conditions” that caused the complete holocaust, rather than the deliberate planning.

    So your idea that Churchill was some uniquely monstrous person..

    If you can get over that, you might be able to start thinking constructively about where we stand today and how the situation might be ameliorated

    it is because of Churchill that the world finds itself on the brink.

    I judge men by the whole of their actions. The trust put in them to lead and protect their respective citizens. Men like Churchill or, (who I consider the worst man of our modern era, Woodrow Wilson), are repugnant because they were handed a great trust, by great nations, to protect that trust, and the progeny of their respective nations, only to betray that trust to evil men for a few contemptuously tossed shekels.

    Wilson and Churchill are uniquely monstrous because of the potential for doing good things they were trusted with, (like keeping the peace, and protecting our civilization) only to betray that trust and plunge the world into horrors unimaginable. Suffering and misery on a Biblical scale. And there again, that was the whole point. They donned the ropes of civilization and Christian mercy, as they served the ((Beast)), and sent scores of millions into the gaping maw of Moloch’s fires.

    70 million slaughtered innocent souls are their collective legacy. And a dying civilization that may very well never recover from their singularly evil acts of betrayal.

  246. @Haxo Angmark

    then, in foul weather, ONE German plane missed its assigned target and dropped ONE bomb on the outskirts of London. Churchill, sensing another opportunity to widen and intensify the war – and perhaps aware of the fact that the RAF was w/in a week or two of collapse – ordered a 100-bomber mass raid on Berlin, massacring civilians and destroying only non-military targets.

    the Germans then retaliated with mass bomber raids on London and other English cities. Churchill then counter-retaliated. Etc.

    It’s amazing what a bunch of cucks the British were, Churchill excepted. The massed bomber raids should have started on day 1. Thank heaven Churchill was able to get past the brain-dead objections of his Cabinet colleagues. It’s a disgrace that it took a stray German bomb to get them to that point. They must have confused war with a game of cricket. Tossers, all.

    • Replies: @anon
  247. ‘…World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy…’

    That’s about enough. I’ll parse just this last paragraph that I read.

    World War II was not initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany. Britain and France had issued a guarantee to Poland, promising that they would declare war if Germany attacked her. Germany chose to attack anyway. That initiated World War II. No German attack: no World War II. German attack: World War II. It’s not complicated.

    ‘…The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy…’

    Cough, cough. Britain and France both issued the guarantee, and both declared war. It’s absurd to declare that ‘the British declared war and the French were trapped…’ Perhaps, ‘the Germans attacked Poland and the French were trapped.’

    Nor did Britain ‘abandon France.’ She was in fact sending over more troops when it bacame abundantly clear that the French were no longer seriously attempting to resist, and any additional British troops that debarked in France would simply be trapped there. Something like that is exactly what happened to 51st Highland, and 1st Canadian’s deployment was reversed only when it became obvious that the same would happen to it if it remained in France.

    I’d be very interested in reading a piece on this theme: but it can’t be a mass of lies and distortions itself. What’s the point of that?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @lysias
  248. @mark green

    International Jews (Louis Brandeis, et al) dragged the US into WWI on behalf of Britain and the Zionists. See: ‘Against Our Better Judgement” by Alison Weir.

    Louis Brandeis (and who are are the et al?) did not drag Wilson into the war, no matter what Alison Weir says (which I didn’t read). Brandeis was not that influential, nor are the international Jews responsible for everything, especially WWI. It was Britain and the very strong pro-British element in the US, which dominated the media, that did that. The ease with which they could turn Americans against Germany was also a factor. But Wilson was on the Allied side from the start, so he didn’t have to be dragged; he only waited for his second term.

    International Jews attended Versailles after WWI to impose punishment on Germany for the Great War.

    The Zionist Jews were not given a seat at the Versailles peace talks. They were looking for benefits for their cause of a homeland in Israel, not to punish Germany. The English and French, plus US were plenty capable of punishing Germany on their own. You, like so many others, want to whitewash all Whites of the blame they deserve by putting it all on Jews, whether that is true or not.

    Because they were excluded from Versailles, the Jews decided they must be able to show participation in the next war to be in line for the rewards at the victorious end, to show that they paid a price in suffering, loss of population, etc. That’s why they stepped up their campaign of the 6 million starving, suffering Jews in Eastern Europe already. Of course, the holocaust was their crowning achievement to win big from the war they did not fight in.

    International Jewry blocked efforts during WWII to end the war. They demanded ‘unconditional surrender’ by Germany. This prolonged WWII by nearly two years.

    The Unconditional Surrender demand cannot be attributed to IJ alone. Again I say, you are trying to protect White men’s crimes by making out they had no say. That’s nuts.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Germanicus
  249. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    Kids, Hollywood lied to you

    high on his own farts

    where’s the CLOWN button?

  250. Just another example of how Jews control practically EVERYTHING.

    All roads lead to the City of London.
    http://www.911nwo.com

    • Replies: @Noman
  251. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Hitler offered the Poles a good deal during the early-to-mid 1939 negotiations. They should have taken it, then renewed the alliance with Germany and gone after the Red Empire together.

    makes sense

    instead Poland had enemies on both sides and a worthless promise from the British

  252. KenH says:

    I took a keen interest in WWII my last year in college after I learned of some facts that cast Hitler and Germany in a less negative light. I slowly started to become aware of the malign Jewish influence first through alternatives publication and books and a little later the internet.

    The liberalism and racial, spiritual, and moral rot afflicting Western nations could, IMO, be traced back to the defeat of Nazi Germany which charted a radical new course for America and the West and not a good one judging by the results in 2019. We got and are still getting incremental Judeo Bolshevism.

    History is still being written but if the West (i.e. the white race) should ultimately fall then it can be traced back to Germany’s unsuccessful war effort in WWII. Demographic winter, hollowed out economies, and normalization of interracial relationships are just some of the gifts that the enthronement of Jewish power have given us. The vast majority of American are still insufferably ignorant about WWII as are the Germans who refuse to acknowledge any facts that might redeem their national character and insist on hating themselves.

    Kudos to Paul Craig Roberts for addressing the subject and citing some very good books to counter the lies and misinformation of the court historians. We know Pat Buchanan, with all due respect, has lost his courage on this subject.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  253. Since the Crimean war (in the 1850’s), the British bankers have always wanted to settle in Eurasia, which, according to the Mac Kinder doctrine, will allow them to control the world’s natural resources.

    Therefore, since the 1850’s, the Brits, secretly backed dictators like Hitler, in countries they must occupy for their expansion towards the final point, Eurasia, as confirmed by Zbig Brzezinsky. America was dragged into an unnecessary war (WWII) by the Brits.

    Thus, Germany is still occupied by NATO (ie 6 official NATO military bases and numerous NATO secret bases), because the ultimate goal is to occupy Eurasia for control of the worlds’ natural resources, via NATO, by WallStreet, City of London, BIS, and Vatican City.

  254. KenH says:

    Some try to argue that Hitler should not have invaded the Soviet Union but he didn’t have much choice. The Soviets were acting aggressively in the months leading up to Barbarossa and while they weren’t poised to invade Germany a strong case could be made that that was their eventual plan after, they hoped, that France, Great Britain and Germany exhausted each other in a war of attrition similar to how the Soviet Union invaded Manchuko at the end of WWII when Japanese morale was at a low point and the command structure was in total disarray.

    The Japs couldn’t put up much of a fight and the Soviets netted 300K Japanese prisoners who by most accounts disappeared forever in Siberian gulags.

    National Socialism and Bolshevism simply couldn’t coexist for long.

    • Replies: @Anon
  255. Noman says:

    Lies and Wars go together, like a horse and carriage.

  256. CH says:

    Scott Horton on how America has been dragged into WWII:

    04/17/17 – James Bovard on the far-reaching negative consequences of Woodrow Wilson’s war, 100 years later – The Scott Horton Show

    James Bovard, author of Public Policy Hooligan, discusses how Woodrow Wilson got America into WWI, directly and indirectly causing the rise of Hitler, Stalin, WWII, and the redrawing of the Middle East. At home, Wilson gave rise to a government crackdown on free speech, the draft, prohibition, espionage laws, and the Spanish Flu.

    https://scotthorton.org/interviews/41717-james-bovard-on-the-far-reaching-negative-consequences-of-woodrow-wilsons-war-100-years-later/

    Scott Horton – Just Blame Woodrow Wilson!

    Scott comes to Durham New Hampshire to introduce economist Tom Woods at UNH before the Young Americans for Freedom. Scott threads the needle on how we started down the business of empire and the prolonged wars whose costs where ultimately responsible for our current fiscal mess.Scott Horton – Woodrow Wilson Did It!

    https://scotthorton.org/stress/scott-horton-just-blame-woodrow-wilson/

  257. Noman says:
    @Ralph B. Seymour

    “All roads lead to the City of London.”

    The City of London was where the original two American colonial corporations were chartered with their royal grants to other peoples’ lands across the ocean.

    The quest for Religious Freedom was a group of venture capitalists/shareholders looking for profits.

    Ties all the way back to the Phoenicians. Survivors through many empires. Like a phoenix, the bird that builds and lights its own funeral pyre, to arise as a new phoenix, same as the old phoenix.

  258. CH says:

    Blame Wilson

    by Scott | Apr 24, 2005 | Scott Horton’s Articles

    by Scott Horton Antiwar.com April 24, 2005

    ”Wilson enabled the rise of Nazi Germany and its bloody fruition, World War II’s 50 million individuals killed, the master race, the holocaust, the American Empire and the Bush family fortune.

    Wilson’s blunder also paved the way for our current conflicts in the Middle East. With the overwhelming victory of the Allies, made possible by US involvement, the British Empire expanded by over a million square miles. The French were able to greatly expand their territories as well. The current nation-states of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and what was then called Palestine were drawn on a paper napkin by Winston Churchill with no regard for local populations at all.

    […] On top of all this, Lord Grey’s successor, British foreign secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour, issued his famous ”declaration” in the form of a letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild declaring the ”establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. This has been, and will continue to be, a cause of major problems for the West, and the United States in particular, to say nothing of the people who live there.”

    https://scotthorton.org/articles/blame-wilson/

  259. @Leon

    Leon – unfortunately @szopen is a rather typical kind of stupid…Someone made stupid by their refusal to confront the patent lies of their high school history curriculum – and in this case to open their eyes to the particularly clear evidence that it was Polish aggression and the massacre of ethnic Germans which forced Hitler’s hand… But I get your point!

  260. Hard to believe people really think Soviet communists and Bolsheviks were Zionists. The communists were anti-Zionists and the Zionists were anti-communist. The majority of Jews in Russia were against the Bolsheviks. Yes, many leaders of the party were atheist Jews, but most of their support came from Russian gentiles, not Jews. Most Jews were liberal Democrats. Bolsheviks wanted to do away with Judaism, seized the synagogues, I imagine for the same reason most people would, they’re racists, supremacists, and they don’t assimilate into society. Most Jews did not embrace communism because of its atheism and its economic policy. Most communists were not Jews.

    Soviet Union later considered Israel and Zionism to be a threat to the world, considered them racists and terrorists, and backed the Arabs in all of the Israel vs. Arab wars.

    The Neocon PNAC Jews of today are the Mensheviks. Who were kind of anarcho-socialists who didn’t approve of all the anti-racism and equality the Bolsheviks were into. This is why the love overthrowing communist governments, the communists are their old nemesis.

    Stalin joked about having “a small pogrom on the Mensheviks and said approximately: “we joke about the Mensheviks as being a Jewish faction because they are mostly Jewish, followed by Orthodox Christian Russians, then Orthodox Christian Georgians.”

    He followed by saying approx:

    “The Bolsheviks by contrast are mostly (Orthodox Christian) Russians, then Jews, Poles & Letts (Latvians) and finally (Orthodox Christian) Georgians ”

    Jews understand that capitalism is the key to their power, wealth and privilege.
    After all, even though many Jews supported communism in the early yrs, communism favored gentiles, and gentiles used communism to oust the capitalist Jews. Communism is about equality and favors mediocrity over talent. So, over time, the communist bureaucracy favored the power of quantity over quality. Under communism, Jewish knack for business and monopoly becomes moot.

    Under capitalism, those who are the most wealthy, competitive, capable, and ambitious gain the most power. Jews thrive under capitalism. They buy up all the politicians and hold them hostage. Jews take over all the media. Take over banking/financial institution. They can buy up everything in sight. Monsanto takeover of our food supply should scare the shit out of you, go research their history. Same with our water supply.

    But most here love capitalism, love their slavery. In Wiemar Germany, it wasn’t just that Jews had taken over. It was much like todays America, capitalism had taken over, business monopolies had taken over, all the politicians and media were bought and paid for.

    Read Capitalism and the Jews by Jerry Muller, some interesting stuff.

  261. CanSpeccy says:
    @Matra

    Funny how the same Alt-Righters (ie spiteful deracinated Americans) who claim Britain could’ve saved it’s Empire and wouldn’t be full of non-whites today if had sided with Hitler

    Yes, some strange ideas presented here, for sure. But I suppose we should make some allowance for Moi, who I believe is from India or of Indian extraction. I understand Indians not much liking Churchill, who saw India as a Britain’s milch cow, a source of loot and cheap labor without which Britain would resume its natural state as a small, damp offshore island.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  262. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    its never a good idea to be gung ho for war especially when the potential foe has well-trained troops, armor, and aircraft. Its not like fighting the Palestinians or something

    • Replies: @lysias
  263. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    But you mentioned Dresden specifically, and that city was firebombed when the war was effectively over

    Actually, the war was seven months from being over and the Battle of the Bulge was in progress when Dresden was bombed.

    and its barbarous destruction could have only been for sadistic or symbolic purposes.

    Says you, who’ve shown yourself to be an illinformed, offensive and irrational blatherskite

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Rurik
  264. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Louis Brandeis (and who are are the et al?) did not drag Wilson into the war, no matter what Alison Weir says (which I didn’t read). Brandeis was not that influential, nor are the international Jews responsible for everything, especially WWI. It was Britain and the very strong pro-British element in the US, which dominated the media, that did that. The ease with which they could turn Americans against Germany was also a factor.

    if this was true why would the British need to promise the jews Palestine? – they could have got the U.S. into the war on their own without jewish help

    • Replies: @lysias
  265. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    World War II was not initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany. Britain and France had issued a guarantee to Poland, promising that they would declare war if Germany attacked her. Germany chose to attack anyway. That initiated World War II. No German attack: no World War II. German attack: World War II. It’s not complicated.

    Would you kindly refrain from confusing people with the facts.

    Mr. Churchill personally started the war, notwithstanding Hitler’s love of Britain, because he was controlled by Talmudic Jews with bitter hatred of Germans. What’s more, the fact that the war had already been declared and had been going on in a quiet way for more than eight months before Mr. Churchill returned to government as Prime Minister, is entirely beside the point.

  266. @Rurik

    …one of the great gifts of a site like Unz, is in how we can subject what we think we know, to the rigors and crucible of the comment section. Often sullied by trolls and fools, but on occasion dotted with gems of ever-elusive truth.

    Yes and yes. I have to admit that the trolls and ignorant loud mouths have me passing over most of the comments lately. I’m far from being the brightest bulb on the tree but the ignorance of some of the windbags here is exasperating.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  267. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Louis Brandeis (and who are are the et al?) did not drag Wilson into the war, no matter what Alison Weir says (which I didn’t read). Brandeis was not that influential, nor are the international Jews responsible for everything, especially WWI. It was Britain and the very strong pro-British element in the US, which dominated the media, that did that.

    Well, I think that’s probably more correct than the somewhat naive “Balfour Declaration” story, but the political dynamics were somewhat complicated…

    The most powerful political and financial group in America back then were the East Coast WASP elite, who were very pro-British. Moreover, WASP Wall Street was eventually lending huge sums to the Allies, and knew they couldn’t get their money back unless the Allies won, so they were very eager to have America intervene on the Allied side.

    However, for obvious reasons, America’s very large Irish and German populations were dead-set against this, and either hated the British or favored the Germans.

    Meanwhile, although German-Jewish Wall Street wasn’t as powerful as WASP Wall Street, it was still very powerful, quite friendly towards Germany and extremely hostile to Czarist Russia. For example, the Jewish bankers were sometimes accused of being German spies and they also tried to block loans to the Allies due to anti-Russian sentiments.

    The combined power of the Irish, Germans, and German-Jews was powerful enough to block the pro-Allied interventionist pressure of the WASPs. Plus the war was such a gigantic slaughter, most ordinary Americans very much didn’t want to get involved, with Henry Ford being pretty representative.

    However, the Allies got more and more desperate and the WASP bankers were worried about never getting their money back. Then the Balfour Declaration and the fall of the Czar together sufficiently neutralized/bought off the German-Jewish elites that they stopped opposing American intervention, and threw their huge influence over Wilson on the other side, now supporting the position of the WASP elites and favoring intervention.

    Together, they easily had enough power and influence to overwhelm the Irish, Germans, and general non-interventionist Americans and get us into the war, partly through their enormous combined media control.

    I’m not an expert on WWI politics and I’ve never seen anyone provide this sort of scenario, but that’s the impression I’ve picked up from the books and articles I’ve read from that period.

  268. Tusk says:
    @CanSpeccy

    India was nothing but a ball and chain for England, Indians are delusional if they believe they were ‘held back’ by England instead of jumping lightyears ahead.

    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    , @Joe Wong
  269. L.K says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy == Team British Empire propagandist.

  270. @Ron Unz

    ‘ …Then the Balfour Declaration and the fall of the Czar together sufficiently neutralized/bought off the German-Jewish elites that they stopped opposing American intervention, and threw their huge influence over Wilson on the other side, now supporting the position of the WASP elites and favoring intervention…’

    The difficulty with this is that at the time, the Zionists were still a fringe movement among Jews. As I recall, in 1917, only 1% of American Jews considered themselves Zionists.

    The Balfour Declaration was issued in the somewhat optimistic belief that it would bring international Jewry into the Allied camp. Whether it actually had that effect is another matter entirely.

  271. @anon

    The “D” in FDR stands for Delano, who were opium pushers with Rothschilds and Sassoons in China. The “D” also stands for millions of dead chinese coolies, addicted to Roosevelt family Opium.

    wow, never heard of that before
    good info

    True.

    Warren Delano II, a grandfather of Frankie’s, made a fortune that way. He also made another fortune selling opium derivatives to the Union Army during the so called US “Civil” War. Pure scum with money and occupying positions of power and the rest is (tragic) history.

  272. @Sparkon

    Good answer.

    I had to laugh at the admission,

    The only prominent Jew I know that was involved is Henry Morgenthau Sr. who was Wilson’s Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

    Shows how much some know-it-alls know and I don’t know whether I should have cried instead of laughed. Maybe both.

  273. Paul C. says:
    @Rurik

    Rurik, great comments as usual. I just picked up Hellstorm, by Thomas Goodrich.

    Even Patton figured things out in the end.

    https://russia-insider.com/en/history/adolf-hitlers-spot-1936-speech-evil-soviet-bolshevism-transcript/ri26932

    • Replies: @Rurik
  274. @Amber Dekstris

    The book sounds from the reviews like a valuable resource but the non-disclosure leaves a sour taste.

    Yep.

  275. Galan says:

    Suppose what PCR is writing here is mostly true. Then what? What are the implications?

    A benign implication will be that humanity should avoid wars, and resolve to solve its disagreements peacefully. Strengthen the UN and/or create other institutions that help in this endeavour.

    A malign implication is to conclude that not much was wrong with Hitler, and that racism and extreme nationalism is the way to go. This route is wrong for two reasons. The most obvious is moral reason.

    The other reason is that it is not clear that Hitler was significantly different from his contemporaries when it comes to racism. It was common to be racist in the 1930s. People looked down on Slavs, Africans, and Asians. They were all considered backward if to differing degrees.

    It seems that Hitler’s racism toward the Slavs was a bit stronger not because of some unique and internally generated hatred, but because the condition the Versailles treaty put Germany in. Legitimately or not Germans felt they were unfairly treated and wanted to get back some of the areas given to Poland and Czechoslovakia. They were also afraid of Russia and the Bolsheviks where some Jews became leaders. Germany preparing for war necessary required the demonization of its chosen enemies. That is how war preparation works. You have to hate your enemy. You have to believe there is something wrong with them. Hence the enhanced racism of Hitler.

    Hitler’s racism was a tool to conquer territory, racism itself was not the objective. War produces racism, not the other way… mostly.

    I assume PCR is routing for the benign implication.

    • Replies: @Anon
  276. Germans are the most honest, intelligent, hard working, understated people. Jews are the opposite, the most dishonest, conniving, shameless, extroverted people. We killed off and put down the best people on earth while propping up the worst people on earth to be worshipped as deity, and we are now reaping what we sowed.

    • Replies: @Anon
  277. anon19 says:

    The pledge to Poland was the stupidest thing EVER! Still can not decide who was more retarded. The British for making it or the Poles for believing it?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @Dube
  278. Lurker says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I kind of get the feeling you’re ridiculing my comment while actually agreeing with a point I’ve already made.

    Though if the BEF were entirely irrelevant it’s kind of odd that the French & British leadership were happy to let them plug that pesky gap in the Maginot Line. In fact why were they there at all, what with just being a rounding error?

    From the pov of the alliance a more useful comparison would be with the number of French divisions (in metropolitan France) rather than with the size of the German force. Then beyond that some kind comparison of equipment, training etc. For example the BEF were nearly all trained, professional peacetime troops whereas most of the French army were not. The BEF was a fully motorized force that would, theoretically, be faster, more flexible and mobile than any French unit.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  279. @Ron Unz

    Thanks. I would agree with that.

    Then the Balfour Declaration and the fall of the Czar together sufficiently neutralized/bought off the German-Jewish elites that they stopped opposing American intervention, and threw their huge influence over Wilson on the other side, now supporting the position of the WASP elites and favoring intervention.

    German-Jewish — meaning Jews from Germany with German names, not the Germans along with the Jews. I’ll take a closer look at the timing of the Balfour Declaration and the fall of the Czar.
    You’re probably more expert than anyone else here.

  280. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    The role played by Zionists to help the British push the US into WWI is very heavily documented, even if it is largely unknown.
    In ‘The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 1’, historian Thomas Dalton writes:

    But most striking was the implication that the “mere handful” of Zionist Jews in England could actually be a decisive factor in bringing a reluctant US into the global war. If successful, this would dramatically swing the military balance of power. And via Wilson’s Jewish advisors—most notably Baruch and Brandeis—they had the ear of the president. But could they do it?
    Unquestionably, the Brits thought they could—and that they did. This is such an astonishing manifestation of Jewish power that it is worth reviewing the opinions of several commentators. Speaking after the war, on 4 July 1922, Churchill argued for full implementation of the famous Declaration:

    “Pledges and promises were made during the War… They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. (in Gilbert 2007: 78-79)”

    In his monumental six-volume study of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, British historian Howard Temperley (1924) made this observation:

    “It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente [Allies]. It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. (1924, vol. 6: 173)”

    We must bear in mind that the Declaration was issued seven months after US entry into the war. But Temperley is unequivocal: the deal was concluded “during the later part of 1916,” well before Wilson’s decision to go to war. Apparently the deal was this: bring the US into the war, and we will promise you your Jewish homeland. Such was the “contract with Jewry.”

    http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/5/2/3209

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  281. Seraphim says:
    @nokangaroos

    Churchill was not ethnically a Jew, albeit he was a most efficient (talented, resourceful, ambitious for personal glory) ‘shabbos goy’ in the service of the Anglo-Saxon-Jewish ‘elites’ who paid lavishly for his services and hedonistic lifestyle.
    But what is surprising is that no one seems to notice that both wars were actually ‘Churchill’s War’. That his policies had the same overall aims as NATO’s: “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. The plans of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ (on the lines of Cecil Rhodes’ “international Anglophile network”, were hatched long before the outbreak of WW1, when “America’s Dollar Princesses started to marry into the crumbling British aristocracy” (of which marriages Churchill was a product). Churchill visited USA repeatedly, time when he forged his ‘special relationship’ with FDR (which he molded on the friendship of his ‘glorious’ ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, with Prince Eugen of Savoy in their common fight against the ‘threat’ to Europe Louis XIV), with the aim of bringing America in a war which would let both Russia and Germany prostrate and allow America to dictate the peace terms.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  282. @Amber Dekstris

    Amber, thanks for revealing that I am the book’s translator. I was going to do that but decided that to do so would be both idle and egotistical. You have enabled me to achieve that goal without infringing on my own exceptionally high ethical standards. Thanks again.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  283. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    See further:

    Who wrote the Balfour Declaration and why: The World War I Connection
    by Alison Weir, excerpted from ‘Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel'( MUST read book ).
    https://israelpalestinenews.org/wrote-balfour-declaration-world-war-connection/

    …British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish also wrote about this agreement and its result in a 1923 memorandum to the British Cabinet, stating:

    “The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world… [and] it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”[xxiii]

    Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George similarly referred to the deal, telling a British commission in 1935:

    “Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”[xxiv] …
    American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, also described this arrangement in his book Decision on Palestine. He wrote that the Balfour declaration “…was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers [Britain’s enemies in World War I]”.[xxvi]

    Etc, etc.

  284. Gefreiter says:
    @Richard T

    Great comment, I agree with everything you wrote.

    Many writers, such as Henry Makow, would use your points as evidence that Hitler was a Rithschild manchurian dictator. I don’t buy it.

    Allied actions after the war also reveal their true intent to an even greater degree.

  285. refl says:
    @nebulafox

    >Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that’ll happen when you start the bloodiest conflict in human history with openly genocidal intent, as the Nazis did in June of 1941.

    OMG – how to comment on that?

  286. Wally says:
    @L.K

    Yep, Mel Gibson was right.

    More from Inconvenient History: http://inconvenienthistory.com/

  287. @Jacques Sheete

    So true, Jacques, and your comments are the ones I pass over the quickest. You write way too many – aren’t you able to recognize that?

    • Agree: Wally
    • Troll: Rurik
  288. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Nazi is originaly a nickname for Ignatz, a typical Bavarian name. Supposedly in Bavarian slang, it used to mean a dump, somewhat violent, but on the whole lovable village character.
    Quite possible, that Sozi was coined after Nazi and not the other way round. I don’ t know.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  289. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Galan

    It seems that Hitler’s racism toward the Slavs was a bit stronger not because of some unique and internally generated hatred, but because the condition the Versailles treaty put Germany in.

    Not just that. About half German-speakers today are Germanized Slavs. That is approximately the land of former DDR (Sovialist Germany under Soviet influence). Pomerania, Prussia, Borussia and numerous other Slavic ethnicities from Slavic toponyms (Berlin also counts from ‘birla’ – swamp, also Leipzig and Drezden) occupied by Germans with forced germanization (or christianisation of former pagans) of population since IX century and Charlemagne. The hatred to Slavs is a German psychopathological complex of wrong self-identity.

    That’s why Russians with Stalin in charge knew what they did giving Poland chunks of former German (really Slavic ab initio) lands, and creating Eastern Germany. The inhabitants of Eastern Germany were industrious, organized and socially cooperative to much extent than Western Germans, not just because of their socialist doctrine or forced labor. That’s all in the blood.

    That’s why Hitler irrationally tried to erase Slavdom into non-existence, to remove existential threat of German dissolution, to preserve and create large German nation.

    • LOL: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @anon
  290. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH

    Some try to argue that Hitler should not have invaded the Soviet Union but he didn’t have much choice.

    In USSR and Russia (and modern China too) there is strong consensus that Hitler was created by the capitalist West specially to destroy the USSR. The USSR acted as both Russian Empire (enemy of the West) and eneny of capitalist system that forced Western governments and elites to reduce exploitation (8-hour working day, higher salaries, paid leaves and pensions for all, zero umemployment with free healthcare and education like in USSR since 1918), offer universal emancipation (Soviet Russia since 1917) and voting rights (like in Stalin’s USSR) etc. Hitler’s major investors were Ford, Morgan, GMC and other major companies providing technologies and credits in 1930-s. Final aim of Hitler was always Russia, it was stated in his book.

    • Replies: @refl
  291. @Ron Unz

    So if the Nazis used the term “Nazi” to describe themselves, it can’t have been too pejorative, and was probably just treated as informal shorthand, perhaps something like “Yank.”

    If, but they did not use it in everyday language. It was a slur used by the reds, the eturn of the much older “Sozi”, which is also a slur still used today by more conservative Germans do describe Social Democrats and their red cousins.

    There is only two occasion where “nazi” was used, one is the coin you posted in a rather satirical way(kind of middle finger to the communists), and the other occasion was Goebbels, who wrote specifically on the issue.

    Goebbels, Joseph – Der Nazi-Sozi – Fragen und Antworten fuer den Nationalsozialisten
    (The Sozi-Nazi: Question and answers for the National Socialist)
    https://archive.org/details/Goebbels-Joseph-Der-Nazi-Sozi

    If you read it, it becomes clear “nazi” wasn’t used all that often by national socialists, but is has been regularly used by the marxist factions as some sort of ultimate evil label. Israel and US seem to be defined by the word “nazi” exclusively nowadays.
    “Fascist” is another of these labels they hurl still around today like the Soviets did.

    “nazi” is used in occupied Germany like “white nationalist” or “terrorist” in US.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Vianney
  292. Gefreiter says:
    @L.K

    A lot of the information and understanding I have come from listening to podcasts, but in general when I know I discovered information by read something, I will link to it.

    A while back I listened to a great podcast about Churchill and Gallipoli. The basic premise was that the Gallipoli boondogle was largely a creation of Churchill, and it was all a part of the yid’s plans for Greater Israel.

    The French, gone mad over their loss of German speaking Alsace, had secret negotiations with the Tsar to carve up the Ottoman empire and give Constantinople to Russia, one of the Tsar’s big dreams. France would get Alsace, Lorraine, and revenge. This was one main reason Russia was in the Triple Entente. This goal of the Tsar was in direct conflict with the yid’s plans, and also England’s long term plans of preventing and even taking over the Berlin to Baghdad train line, the “New Silk Road” of its day.

    England, and especially Churchill, cooked up the destined for failure Gallipoli invasion in order to keep the Tsar in the war by pretending to work to get Constantinople for Russia, while also placating the yids by directly attacking the Ottoman empire, the only front they were really interested in.

    Gallipoli had nothing to do with the European battles that England was losing badly in 1915, and it diverted massive amounts of naval resources that were required to counter the German U-boat campaigns. It was suicidal, but it was good for the jews.

    Just like the push to invade Iran today, it was all about Greater Israel. Transparently so.

  293. @Carolyn Yeager

    The Zionist Jews were not given a seat at the Versailles peace talks. They were looking for benefits for their cause of a homeland in Israel, not to punish Germany.

    No, the banking Jews Warburg signed Versailles, Paul on German side, and iirc Max on British side. Hence german delegation protested. This was the reason why German peoples united so much, and what the enemy propaganda calls legend came into being, the stab in the back “legend”, the betrayal of Germany by the Jews, for Palestine.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  294. Gefreiter says:
    @L.K

    The Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau was also a key action on the eve of the war. Turkey had ordered 2 battle cruisers from the Rosthchild armaments factories in England, and on the even of WWI England refused to deliver these ship.

    They were required for the defense of Constantinople against Russian invasion. This is when England allowed the Goeben and Breslau to escape to Turkey and become impressed. Without those German cruisers Turkey would have been completely vulnerable and never would have entered the war on the side of the axis.
    The war could not be allowed to begin until all the pieces were properly set up on the masonic chess board. The income tax and FED in the US were also key components.

    Then, in July 1914, the Archduke was sent to Sarajevo in his Steyr automobile and assassinated by members of a secret society. The license plate number on that auto was “A 111 118” or “Armistice 11-11-1918”. The masons new when their war would end before it even started. The entire war was all one massive Kabbalistic ritual/psyop.

    Imagine the Magick, even Mojo, that the yids got from the death of millions upon millions of the best Christians.

  295. Cyrano says:
    @peterAUS

    Let me try to answer that one. Western phonies like to call equal people for whom they think that there is generosity required in order to make such a statement.

    Even though if generosity is required in order to call someone “equal” – than it’s obviously a lie. But the western phonies think that the generosity required to call someone “equal” makes them great humanists.

    For calling the Russians equal – no such generosity is required – so it kind of bothers them – because they think that they are better than the Russians. They have never been able to prove this belief of theirs that they are better than the Russians, but that only makes things worse.

  296. refl says:
    @Ron Unz

    WASP Wall Street was eventually lending huge sums to the Allies, and knew they couldn’t get their money back unless the Allies won

    That war dept was the real reason for the US to get into the war, I first found it in Adam Tooze’ s “The Great Deluge”.

    However, Tooze in the later part of his book states – in a completely different context – a quote by Walther Rathenau, that Germany needed to indebt itself as much as possible to US-bankers to force the US to help Germany end reparations. The idea is to endept yourself so much to your creditor that he has to stand by you, else he will go down himself.
    Now, when I simply suppose this to be the mindset of those who allowed the Entente to indebt itself to US-banking interest in WW I, then I come to understand that these people knew the US would go to war on their behalf in the end.
    The only force seriously to prevent the US from entering WW I in that view would have been Jacob Schiff, and he was bought of with the overthrow of the czar, which then was the achievement of his lifetime.

    Besides, that quote that Schiff “sank” 20 billion dollars into the Russian revolution, I don’t understand it as the admission that he wanted the bolsheviks in power, but rather in the sense of: we dumped all that money and see what we have got”.

  297. @Johann

    Book: Pawns In The Game, by WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer William Guy Carr.

    European Financiers financed & engineered the English Civil War, 1600s, got William of Orange on the Brit throne & established the Bank of England & Fractional Reserve Banking on a national scale.
    FRBanking is inventing money out of thin air & lending it out at interest.
    Financiers have financed every war & revolution since, & profited from the deaths & destruction.

    Financiers financed both Fascism & Communism, to keep the World at war, hot or cold.

    All wars, & rebuilding after, are done on loans, earning Banksters interest. It’s no different today.

    Book can be read for free online via the duckduckgo search engine.
    Chapter 3 on the French Revolution contains Rothschild & 12 pals 25 point plan for global domination
    Compare it to UN Agenda 21 or AOC’s Green New Deal. They don’t differ much.

    JD.

  298. Maciek468 says: • Website

    Looks to me, it is a very partial and biased point of view. I suggest the author reads some more about the IIWW.
    Does not look true the following statement from the text: ( World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. )
    Germany has annexed the Tchec, Autrian and attacked and conquered Poland ( together with the Soviet Russia ) and was definitively ready to attack Belgium and France not forgetting Norway.
    OTOH – there is the US role in the burst of the IIWW hostilities: http://reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html

  299. Maciek468 says: • Website

    Author´s views about Germany war with Poland are also unsustainable.

    • Replies: @Wally
  300. @CanSpeccy

    It is worth noting that Britain produced a range of four engined, heavy bombers such as the Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster which were all weapons well suited to bombing large population centres while Germany had nothing comparable in its arsenal. Perhaps Rurik has a point, about you being a POS I mean.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  301. Vianney says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    See Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis:
    “Not the men we thought we were”
    about goading the Japanese into war.

  302. @Carolyn Yeager

    The Serbian Black Hand didn’t do this.

    As I wrote, the Black hand was the tool of the masonic force.
    As you probably know, the masonic lodges are the stooges of the Jews.
    Masonry is behind the entire idea of the EU, it started with Kalergi and his Pan-Europa movement, culminating in 1925 in "Praktischer Idealismus". Their flag looked in 1925 almost like this ugly disgusting EU flag today.

    These lodges draft tons of do-gooders, who basically have no idea, that the top of these structures are a mafia, a criminal mafia with a long term plan. The low ranks do silly oaths and rituals to acquire more "enlightenment" while doing the "great work", while the top hides behind a cloak of "Philanthropism" etc… Already George Washington exchanged letters with the french Lafayette, where the dreamed of a United States of Europe.

    Hitler put is so eloquently in his speech on 11.December 1941, in the declaration of War to the US.

    I will pass over the insulting attacks made by this so-called President against me. That he calls me a gangster is uninteresting. After all, this expression was not coined in Europe but in America, no doubt because such gangsters are lacking here. Apart from this, I cannot be insulted by Roosevelt for I consider him mad just as Wilson was. I don’t need to mention what this man has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack-in the approved manner of an old Freemason.

    http://www.iupui.edu/~histwhs/H114.dir/H114.webreader/H114.read.w.Hitler.html

    Bush II did the same when he gave a speech to invade and destroy Iraq for example.

    [MORE]

    Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation was all wrong: it was actually the biggest failure ever experienced by one man. There can be no doubt that a continuation of this economic policy would have done this President in peace time, in spite of all his dialectical skill. In a European State he would surely have come eventually before a State Court on a charge of deliberate waste of the national wealth; and he would have scarcely escaped at the hands of a Civil Court, on a charge of criminal business methods.

    This fact was realized and fully appreciated also by many Americans including some of high standing. A threatening opposition was gathering over the head of this man. He guessed that the only salvation for him lay in diverting public attention from home to foreign policy. It is interesting to study in this connection the reports of the Polish Envoy in Washington, Potocki. He repeatedly points out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger threatening the card castle of his economic system with collapse, and that he was therefore urgently in need of a diversion in foreign policy. He was strengthened in this resolve by the Jews around him. Their Old Testament thirst for revenge thought to see in the U.S.A. an instrument for preparing a second “Purim” for the European nations which were becoming increasingly anti-Semetic. The full diabolical meanness of Jewry rallied round this man, and he stretched out his hands.

    • Replies: @Rex Little
  303. Parfois1 says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    Without bothering to read your evidence of an Anglo offer of an alliance with Germany (anyway wiki is not a reliable source) what you are suggesting is a diplomatic impossibility and it show the depth of your ignorance of basic historical understanding. Nothing wrong about ignorance, but flouting it here is not appreciated.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  304. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Wilson and Churchill are uniquely monstrous because of the potential for doing good things they were trusted with,

    Churchill was a honest warmonger.
    He was trusted to fight Germany by the British Cabinet (May 10, 1940)
    Later that year general elections were scheduled, but?

  305. Ewan says:
    @Ewan

    … Nope can’t quite get the arithmetic to work. You perhaps are better demographers…

  306. @Dube

    Fake. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that the Obersalzburg speech is of dubious authenticity.

  307. Parfois1 says:
    @Nick J

    “I’d challenge anybody to look me in the eye and tell me that either Stalin or Hitler and their whole state apparatus were not totally evil. Explain the body count.”

    First of all, you have to re-educate yourself about recent history. Then, with an open and critical mind, re-evaluate your worldview and rid yourself of all brainwashing done to you since you were a baby. If you survive all that hard work and sacrifice, someone here will help you to understand why Hitler was/is vilified while the warmonger Churchill was/is glorified (the greatest Englishman ever!). Ditto Stalin, who inherited Hitler’s mantle as the most hated man by the enlightened Western victors of WWII. Meanwhile, here is a gentle hint: governments lie, the oligarchical media lie, the plutocracy in power lie and connive, and so on and so forth…

  308. AaronB says:
    @George F. Held

    I was going to do that but decided that to do so would be both idle and egotistical

    You have enabled me to achieve that goal without infringing on my own exceptionally high ethical standards

    LOL.

  309. @peterAUS

    He needs to look in the fucking mirror, that’s for sure.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  310. @Leon

    He’s Polish, what do you expect?

    • Replies: @Dube
    , @Slavic_Guy
  311. @Parfois1

    Reality didn’t happen because it doesn’t fit my narrative

  312. @anon19

    A combination of the two. Although I suspect deep down more thoughtful Brits understand it was a mistake, the Poles are happy to repeat today (by trusting the Americans to “save” them from the Russians).

  313. I hope Poland likes their new “friends”:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-15/polish-israeli-relations-reach-breaking-point-polish-ambassador-spat-upon

    Maybe while they’re writing that 2B check to station American troops on their soil, they’ll cough up a few shekels for the Americans’ boss. What idiots.

  314. @Ron Unz

    According to a book I’m reading, HIDDEN HISTORY, The Secret Origins of the First World War, there was what the authors call the Secret Elite, composed of a handful of WASP Englishmen (along with banker Rothschild, in on the plot), who were determined to make war on Germany, and they patiently, over several years, conspired with the French and Russians to bring it about. Fascinating. Heavily footnoted.

  315. Seraphim says:
    @Anon

    Hitler’s animus against ‘Slavs’ was due more to his Austrian origin, than to a generic Germanic anti-Slavism, which was less acute in Prussia than in Austria.

  316. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Actually, the war was seven months from being over and the Battle of the Bulge was in progress when Dresden was bombed.

    no, the Battle of the Bulge was over by Feb. 1945, the Germans had been routed.

    The reason it took a few months longer before Germany’s complete annihilation, was because of the Allied demand for “unconditional surrender’, and Germans knew all too well what that meant.
    The fury unleashed on German civilians after the war was “over”, is literally sickening to ponder. Millions of women and children raped, starved, and brutalized by Allied and Red Army savages. Untold millions of civilians dying after the war was “over”. That’s the ‘honor’ of the ‘noble’ Allies. Just like WWI. ‘Disarm and surrender and we’ll treat you honorably’ = starvation, slavery and depraved exploitation of your children by monsters on two legs.

    The true face of what Germany was fighting was unmasked after the war was “over”.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  317. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    Then the Balfour Declaration and the fall of the Czar together sufficiently neutralized/bought off the German-Jewish elites

    Mr. Unz, with your indulgence.. are you familiar with the stories of Woodrow Wilson’s endeavors on behalf of Leon Trotsky?

    Is there any significance to the stores that Wilson assisted Trotsky with his role in fomenting Bolshevism in Russia?

    Wouldn’t such news be scandalous at the time? A betrayal of what America was supposed to stand for?

    If the stories are true, that is.. (and to that end, who better to query than Mr. Ron Unz?)

  318. Joe Wong says:
    @Tusk

    If India was nothing but a ball and chain for England, then why did English stay there so long. It seems defy logic that the English would put a ball and china on their ankles while they were building the sun-never-set empire.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  319. FB says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN

    Your comment is pretty naive…trying to draw equivalence between the four protagonists of WW2 is ludicrous…

    Let’s start with FDR…he pulled America out of an economic and demographic catastrophe in which millions of rural peasants starved in the 1930s…by applying socialism…ie massive public works and infrastructure projects that pulled millions out of poverty and provided a base for the massive expansion of industry in the 1940s…

    By then America was also a major imperialist power…having eaten up Spain’s colonial holdings and other territories…

    But Britain still had the biggest colonial empire and its control of India and vast holdings in Africa gave it the power to control global trade, much as the US today…clearly the American elite was expansionist and the object of their desire was to topple Britain and take over the global empire business…FDR succeeded in this and Irving is correct about him ‘paying Churchill just enough to give the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man’…[much of that through Lend Lease which bankrupted Britain]…PCR is correct in agreeing with Irving on that…but they both leave out the key factor…motivation…ie the expansionist aspirations of the US…a fatal omission that dooms the entire narrative to irrelevance, much as the lack of motive would doom a prosecutorial effort…

    Hitler was also expansionist…here is another glaring omission of the historical dynamic…much is made about the Germans living in Czechia and Poland…but what is left out is historical context…many of those ‘Germans’ on foreign soil were so-called ‘Volkdeutche’…descendants of settlers that were planted there during more than a century of Austrian-German rule…huge tracts of land were seized and settlers put on those seized lands, and each such settled family even given a substantial payment in gold…a scheme completely analogous to Israeli settlement of the West Bank…

    Naturally the Slavs resented these German settlers…after WW1 Wilson did the right thing in restoring self determination to the native, Slavic inhabitants…and let’s not forget that Austria went a step too far in annexing largely Serbian Bosnia…after having already settled Germans in much of the Balkans and Central Europe over the previous century…

    It is ridiculous to ignore German expansionism to the east, as PCR does here…it makes the entire discussion null and void…the author says he can’t fathom why Hitler invaded Russia…that’s pretty silly in light of the previous century of German settler policies…not to mention to mention the overarching goal of ‘lebensrauhm’…which predated Hitler by 100 years…

    So a lot of the narrative falls apart if we go back for some historical context…ie blaming Poland and Czechia for supposedly mistreating the German settler population…what do you think the dispossessed inhabitants of the West Bank would do to the settlers if given the chance…?

    WW2 was about German expansionism to the east, so there is the answer to PCR, as to why Hitler invaded Russia…

    Now let’s consider what Germany could have done had it been led by a man of substance…yes the Allies had made Germany into a second rate country by means of the extremely idiotic Versailles conditions [and reparations]…that shows that the Atlanticists’ true aim was to neuter Germany and eliminate a rival…

    This should have opened the eyes of German statesmen…by this time Mackinder’s ‘heartland’ theory spelled out the worst nightmare for the Atlanticists…that Germany and Russia would ally, thus spelling the end for Atlanticist domination…Mackinder’s genius was the recognition that ‘geography is destiny’…

    Two such massive powers side by side on the Eurasian landmass, as Germany and Russia, could have brought the entire Atlanticist imperial project to a halt…had they chosen to work together…

    The First War was a missed opportunity…again German leadership was the weak link…Kaiser Willie was little more than a buffoon…infatuated by his idle tin soldier fantasies, and having no head for geopolitics…why go to war for Austria and make an enemy of Russia…exactly what the Atlanticists had hoped for…

    Then Hitler comes along and takes the cake…his paranoia about the Jews reveals a sick mind, incapable of constructive action…his decision to put a bullet in his head, rather than to stand by his soldiers and lead them to an honorable surrender as Paulus did at Stalingrad shows the mentality of a street punk…who blows his brains out when cornered by the cops…

    Yes the German nation needed to rise again after the foul deeds of Versailles…Hitler’s socialism revived the German economy and built an industrial powerhouse, much as Stalin had done in Russia…a man of substance, say a Bismarck, would have recognized that the opportunity lay in the east…friendship with Russia, which Stalin would have welcomed…the minor issues over ethnic Germans in neighboring lands could easily have been defused, much as the Serbia-Austria dispute could have been, a generation prior…

    Which brings us to today…Germany for 70 years has been a vassal state, dictated to by an imperialist US [which has fulfilled its ambition of becoming the new British Empire, and then some]…what was in 1940 the world’s scientific and technical powerhouse has not been allowed access to vital domains like nuclear power and aerospace…it’s a second tier country that is brazenly dictated to on utmost matters of state by the US ambassador cum viceroy…

    Meanwhile the German business class is increasingly growing closer to Russia…populism is growing and Germans increasingly do not believe the imperialist propaganda anymore…intertwined as it is with moral decay and unrealistic politics…in the end the German people have suffered horribly for inept leadership in the 20’th century…both disastrous wars could have been avoided…if only the leadership had been there…trying to now make Hitler into a great leader is absolutely silly…he did everything wrong and played right into the hands of his enemies in Washington and London…while spurning the one man that wanted to play ball…

    Stupid is as stupid does…

  320. Wally says:
    @Maciek468

    LOL

    Try reading the information at this site for a change before you recite infantile propaganda.

    • Replies: @Maciek468
  321. Wally says:
    @refl

    LOL

    It’s slang for National Socialist.

    As in Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) / German National Socialist Workers Party.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @refl
  322. fnn says:
    @utu

    Poland was a pawn in hands of Allies who wanted Hitler to go East not West so France and Britain could buy more time.

    As if there were any evidence that Hitler ever wanted to go West. As everyone knows, there was that long period of the “phony war” during which Hitler hoped to come to terms with the Brits and French.

  323. There is a alot of focus on allied war propaganda but little mention of German war propaganda. The Germans claimed that the zionists wanted to controls Europe by means of a banking and media cartel and use that control to flood Europe with non Europeans inorder to breed the Europeans out of existence. Plenty of evidence that they were telling the truth.

  324. when I was around 15-16 I sued to wonder about Harry S Truman..where he got the moxy to drop not 1 but 2 atomic weapons..from which extreme and insane social ambient he came out of?

    then in my twenties I came to know of Roosevelt..the truth of him and America and I was stunned. ‘ so all they told us all the time was a lie! Roosevelt was a stone cold killer, the more the merrier. he had caused a war, encouraged the mad man Churchill and ripped him off and Britain without conscience.

    that was what Truman came out of which made him normal..or rather relevant, not out of sync with anything. Truman’s behavior in all respects, his personality outlook and way of life was par for the American elite socially relevant. the americans are vast killers

    but before I realize that..and not yet exposed to more accurate african and world history..the truth about Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman depressed me no end. all the shit I had been taught, especially the christian content really phucked with my emotions, my head. not to mention my low social level as a poor black man subject to all the ills of growing up in the 19-fifties and early sixties

    oh my god! how did I survive? I don’t even know how I got to this day..still alive in human reality. Castro and Malcolm X helped mightily..MLK and earlier JFK . to these men and a few others I owe my survival although I don’t know of what value I have been alive in the world?

    I am still stunned by white people..to be honest not all..by some real pathological psycos I have met on my level in life… and the white leadership for the most part. the greatest part of the white leadership I have known in my life and in the history I know have been killers of humanity extraordinary. and those who have not been killers, have been killed for not being killers, for being human and trying for the practical in life

    • Troll: anon19
  325. anon[368] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    The inhabitants of Eastern Germany were industrious, organized and socially cooperative to much extent than Western Germans, not just because of their socialist doctrine or forced labor. That’s all in the blood.

    oh, that’s why they were so far behind the West Germans when the wall came down

    makes perfect sense now

  326. Mulegino1 says:
    @Futurethirdworlder

    Absolutely true. And very few understand this even today as it is happening.

    Europe lost the Second World War.

  327. @L.K

    The role played by Zionists to help the British push the US into WWI … (L.K)

    This is what I am saying and have been saying for some time. It was the British who were serving their own interests, not the interests of the Jews. The latter, always looking for opportunities to advance their own plans, offered to get on the British side and the Brits accepted their help in return for favors asked. The Brits saw the potential upside as greater than the downside (betraying the Arabs).

    This is then turned by British defenders and conspiracy lovers into the idea that Jews are controlling everything and have been for centuries, with white Europeans being but helpless pawns in their hands.

    The long quote comes from T. Dalton’s article on “the Jewish hand” in WWI, so naturally he is focusing on that in particular. I do not recall that he ever says that “The Jews” brought about the war or were the only or main element that caused the U.S. to enter the war, as so many here do claim. Dalton does not make such a claim in this quote. Gilbert uses the words, “It was considered” the Jews could be of help to the English; Temperley says “It was believed” three times and never concludes how much it actually worked.

    I don’t see that this quoted material changes anything.

    • Agree: Ron Unz, FB
    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @L.K
  328. Gefreiter says:
    @Rurik

    The true face of what Germany was fighting was unmasked after the war was “over”.

    And the true face of what the stupid goyim soldiers on the allied side dying for Greater Israel was unmasked in places like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Dunkirk, Kasserine Pass, and Normandy.

    An important runner up in the “true face being unmasked” pageant would be French and Polish civilians, bombed, pillaged and raped by both sides of the victorious Zio-masonic armies.

    But ultimately, the biggest winner is the entire European civilization. Murdered, genocided, raped, perverted, pillaged, robbed, swindled and now, turned into one giant organ factory for their satanic rituals that they get Mossad and its ZOG allies to conduct on a daily basis across the planet.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  329. Gefreiter says:
    @FB

    Arrogant yids, so drunk on Jewish Power, always spew the same kosher narrative over and over and over. They cannot seem to grasp that we all know this drivel, they have wasted our entire lives trying to brainwash us with their incessant kvetching.

    Give it, give us a break for Christ’s sake.

  330. @L.K

    L.K continues to try to convince Ron Unz to agree with him. Quote from Lord Cavendish:

    it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.

    Is that supposed to be powerful?

    Alleged quote from Lloyd-George in 1935:

    “Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”[xxiv] …

    American Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson:

    the Balfour declaration “…was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war

    Really convincing stuff, eh, for the Jews controlling Anglo-American governments with an iron hand? NOT.

    I’m tending to believe we have talked ourselves into a morass.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Saggy
  331. Gefreiter says:
    @Wally

    What irks me is how all these people on this tread, Jake and Ron Unz for instance, have no problem using Nazi and Wasp, but refuse to use Kike.

    Kike is Yiddish for “Circle”. Immigrant jews to the US during the Ashkenazi invasion of 1880-1920, were so superstitious that they refused to use an “X” to check the boxes on the visa application forms and instead drew circles. All because they despised Christ, likely because they know that their tribe was guilty of his crucifixion.

    A Jewish Communist is by this simple definition clearly a “Kike”. They hate Christ just as “Nazi”‘s love Germany and the German people, and just as Wasp’s love Protestant Anglo Saxon’s. Lol.

    Wasp, like Nazi, was made mainstream by yids. The yids started calling white people on East Coast “Wasp” because the white elites would not allow the yid into their country clubs. So now every thread and UR is filled with this “Wasp” pejorative for whites. Just like Nazi.

    The main point, why should we allow the yid to mainstream his hate words while telling us his own language is hate speech whenever we use it.

  332. @refl

    You’re right, you don’t know.

  333. @Germanicus

    I think we all agree to what “Nazi” has been turned into (redefined), but in fact there is a passage in Table Talk in which Adolf Hitler is recounting an anecdote and starts out, “There was a Nazi in (some town) who ….”. Sorry I don’t know the page and don’t want to look it up. He was talking to other National Socialists, of course, just around the table. So that’s a third instance.

  334. Gefreiter says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    It was the British who were serving their own interests, not the interests of the Jews.

    I haven’t seen you mention Freemasonry in any of your comments.

    Do you completely discount their influence on both wars? What about Donald Trump, do you think that he isn’t a Freemason?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  335. @Germanicus

    Where does it say that Paul Warburg signed the Versailles Treaty for Germany. I cannot find the actual signatories, only the countries.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  336. Ron Unz says:
    @L.K

    Who wrote the Balfour Declaration and why: The World War I Connection
    by Alison Weir, excerpted from ‘Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel'( MUST read book ).

    Let me further clarify my own perspective on the politics of the situation…

    Although the Zionists certainly had some influence in America, they were a small minority among American Jews, especially among the German-Jews who were the powerful and wealthy elite. Indeed, lots of powerful Jews were actually quite hostile to Zionism. So although the Balfour Declaration certainly helped bring America into the war, I’m not really sure it was all that decisive.

    Suppose, for example, that there had been no February Revolution and the Czar had remained in power. Jacob Schiff and his German-Jewish network were by far the most powerful/influential Jews in America, and Schiff had spent decades and vast amounts of money and energy to overthrow the Czar, while being personally quite friendly towards his original German homeland.

    Given those factors, he and his friends had done everything they could to block American support for the Allies, and since he was quite lukewarm towards Zionism, I can’t see the Balfour Declaration changing his position. With his powerful Jewish network still totally opposed to Allied support, I don’t believe that America would have entered the war when it did.

    Henry Ford’s, The International Jew, provides a great deal of material on Schiff’s anti-Russian activities, and it’s available here in convenient HTML format:

    http://www.unz.com/book/henry_ford__the-international-jew/

  337. anon[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @FB

    Two such massive powers side by side on the Eurasian landmass, as Germany and Russia, could have brought the entire Atlanticist imperial project to a halt…had they chosen to work together…

    . . .Then Hitler comes along and takes the cake…his paranoia about the Jews reveals a sick mind, incapable of constructive action…

    You contradict yourself: first, Hitler is “incapable of constructive action,” but he does bring about an economic revival.

    And the “paranoia about the Jews” seems to inhabit your sick mind more than Hitler’s: the German people had genuine grievances against some Jews in Germany, that were based on concrete behaviors.

    As for “had [Russia and Germany] chosen to work together” — the Atlanticist imperial project was determined not to let that happen.

    Hitler was hand-picked by FDR’s good friend Putzi Hanfstaengel; Stalin was heavily financed by FDR; Churchill’s role was to ensure that the fight took place, and the goal of the Atlanticist imperial project was exactly as Herbert Hoover said it should be in 1938: “let Russia and Germany fight each other to exhaustion.”
    EXCEPT that, FDR died and Stalin out-foxed the Atlanticists: Hoover added to his assertion that if Russia – Germany fought to exhaustion, “then there would be a hundred years of peace.”

    US situation after the collapse of Germany and US occupation of Germany was in some ways similar to the present Iraq war outcome: a wrong party was empowered. It should have been foreseen that Iran would emerge more powerful, and it should have been foreseen that Russia would not allow US to succeed where Hitler failed — Don’t forget that USA attempted under Wilson to destroy Bolshevism, which was Hitler’s goal in invading Russia.

    The British and Americans had a joint plan to take Rome; part of the plan involved encircling the Germans so they could not live to fight another day. But according to historian Andrew Buchanan, FDR instructed Mark Clark to disregard the joint plan; take Rome on his (USA) own, and allow the Germans to escape. It’s possible the Americans hoped to ‘turn’ the German forces against Russia, as they had turned Italians to the Allied camp.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  338. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @FB

    A good analysis.

    But I question only one thing. You say, concerning WW1:

    why go to war for Austria and make an enemy of Russia…exactly what the Atlanticists had hoped for…

    implying that the Germany had a choice, which they did not.

    For Germany the problem was that damn fool Tsar Nicholas II who, out of lust for territorial aggrandizement, mobilized in support of Serbia’s conflict with Austria.

    For the Germans, given their commitment to the Slieffen Plan, that meant: exploit our capacity for rapid mobilization and knock out the French quick before their ally, Russia, is on our back.

    Even the near witless Kaiser could see this was a disaster in the making and sought desperately to get folks to call the whole thing off, but by that time the German military machine was in command and the rest is history.

    The idea that Germany was primarily responsible for WW1 is simply the result of Anglo propaganda still pumped out today as in that stupidly titled “The War That Ended Peace” by Oxfraud Professor Margaret MacMillan.

    • Replies: @FB
  339. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Wong

    If India was nothing but a ball and chain for England, then why did English stay there so long.

    Good question. Here, according to Trikipedia, is part of the answer:

    Over 87,000 Indian soldiers (including those from modern day Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh) died in World War II. … The Indian Army during World War II was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African Campaign, Western Desert Campaign.

    • Replies: @lysias
  340. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    But what is surprising is that no one seems to notice that both wars were actually ‘Churchill’s War’. That his policies had the same overall aims as NATO’s: “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.

    LOL

    Apparently, you feel it was some kind of war crime to have a foreign policy aligned with your own national interest. Moreover, why assume that only Churchill was capable of figuring out where Britain’s interest lay.

    If you want to prove that Churchill was a villain you have to show (a) that the national interest would have been better served by a different policy, and (b) that Churchill resisted that better policy for reasons that do not bear examination.

    I don’t think you can establish (a) without making assumptions based on hindsight, but it would be interesting to know if you can.

  341. @Ron Unz

    Zionists certainly had some influence in America, they were a small minority among American Jews, especially among the German-Jews . . .Indeed, lots of powerful Jews were actually quite hostile to Zionism. So although the Balfour Declaration certainly helped bring America into the war, I’m not really sure it was all that decisive.

    True enough.
    But — those Jews in USA who were fanatic zionists had Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter in their camp, and they had the ear of the president of the USA. Frankfurter had a close relationship- and a means of back-channel communications- with Winston Churchill.

    Because of the resistance to zionism of German Jewish elites, American zionist Jews formed a new organization, the American Jewish Congress, to enforce the Balfour Declaration at Versailles. They represented primarily Eastern European Jews — those who were even more zionist than Herzl — Herzl would have settled for colonizing Uganda or Patagonia, but E European Jews would have none of that.

    American Jewish Committee (the anti-zionist German Jews) remained opposed to the zionist / Balfour position, thinking that Jews who lived in other countries would be told, You belong THERE, in Palestine — . They were mollified when Jewish Versailles negotiators gained acceptance of guarantees of minority rights in states where Jews dwelt.

    Edwin Black writes in The Transfer Agreement that “American Jewish Congress returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they had acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantee of rights of Jews in lands where they lived.”

    It would be interesting to explore the linkages between Chaim Weizmann, who secured the Balfour Declaration (according to his aide and biographer, Leonard Silverstein, The Balfour Declaration), and the principals of the American Jewish Congress (Rabbi Stephen Wise, Brandeis, Frankfurter, the Rosenwalds — owners of Sears Roebuck, etc.)

  342. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @NoseytheDuke

    Perhaps Rurik has a point, about you being a POS I mean.

    No. It’s just that I’m a realist, not a fantasizing, virtue-signaling, blatherskite like Rurik, for whom you and L.K. have such high regard.

  343. @Carolyn Yeager

    Where does it say that Paul Warburg signed the Versailles Treaty for Germany. I cannot find the actual signatories, only the countries.

    I don’t know in english, but the German freaking wiki on Max Warburg openly states (sorry, I confused the two brothers) he was one of the six main delegates at Versailles.

    Funnily, the english wiki entry on Versailles delegates is remarkably short, the German list excludes for totally unknown reasons Max, one of the six main delegates on German side the entry on Max states.
    Max also played quite a role granting Lenin passage on his way to Russia with tons of money. Brandeis the Zionist didn’t like him though.
    Paul was basically on the British side with his FED affiliation. Versailles was a thing between the two Warburg brothers. Hitler would have never had such success in his early public speeches without the fact, that Versailles was viewed as a Jewish betrayal by vast majority of Germans for bringing the US into WWI for Palestine. The Jews had a paradise in Germany before WWI and also Weimar when they took over.

    In my view, the Warburgs were the main force behind the rise of communism, and a divide between the jewish bankers already existed, and its not exactly easy to figure out the sides in this struggle.
    Certainly no coincidence the Titanic sank, and with it (jewish) opposition of the jewish plan, or that they killed jewish Rathenau and blamed it on nationalists.

  344. @FB

    German people have suffered horribly for inept leadership in the 20’th century…both disastrous wars could have been avoided…if only the leadership had been there…trying to now make Hitler into a great leader is absolutely silly…he did everything wrong and played right into the hands of his enemies in Washington and London…while spurning the one man that wanted to play ball…

    Agree that “trying to now make Hitler into a great leader is absolutely silly,” but I don’t think that’s the intent of this essay nor of other efforts — including my own — to de-demonize Hitler.

    The Allies pulled out all the stops in the psychological warfare campaign to continue to paint Hitler and Nazis as evil non·pareil and the Americans as their liberators and model citizens.

    If the German people are ever to regain a sense of German-ness, they need to re-examine that campaign of brainwashing and come to an honest and assertive assessment of who Hitler was, and who he was not; why he and NSDAP did what they did, and what they did not do — they did not kill 6 million Jews in gas chambers, for example.

    (R H S Stolfi’s “Beyond Evil and Tyranny” attempts to put human flesh on the cartoon Hitler that Kershaw, Bullock, etc. purvey).

    It’s hard to imagine how Germans can achieve appropriate leadership today and for the future if they continue to maintain in their imagination a viciously drawn character.

    As for “spurning the one man who wanted to play ball” — at the time, Stalin was killing Russians by the hundreds of thousands. International Communists tried very hard to turn Germany into a model of International Communism. Stalin operated on behalf of Russia and Communism; he shucked relations with Britain and USA as soon as those allies had served his purpose.
    Can you provide an argument that Stalin would have behaved with more fidelity toward Germany? (Were Volk Germans expelled from Russia under Stalin, or earlier?)

    • Disagree: FB
    • Replies: @FB
    , @Iris
  345. @Ron Unz

    Are you really relying on Henry Ford as a source?

    WOW

    • Replies: @FvS
    , @Ron Unz
    , @RadicalCenter
  346. peterAUS says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    You have a point.
    Still, one could argue who started all that in recent history. For really simple practical reason: survival.

    I mean, I do admire (yeah…..) energy and time spent on this article’s topic (and similar stuff on this site) but one wonders shouldn’t that effort have been better spent on preventing a serious conflict between two nuclear powers.

    The current trend of rusophobia is likely to create a spark somewhere.

    So, getting to the of heart of that feeling, attitude, could, hopefully, help.

    In theory, at least. Maybe.

  347. refl says:
    @Wally

    I have got that one from one of the standard Hitler books, I think it was Kershaw. It should be allowed to trust someone like that on such minor details.

    Certainly, this bit of Bavarian slang has been errased from memory after the war. And for my acquaintance with southern Germans it is quite fitting. They have a certain humor and in the early days of the Nazi movement the term was probably ment to be endearing.
    And in that regard I would assume that the term Sozi really was coined after the war, as it cannot have had a positive connotation ever.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @refl
  348. lysias says:
    @anon

    Getting America into the war was only one of the reasons for the policy that was eventually made explicit in the Balfour Declaration. Another major one was to have a Jewish settlement that could help to defend the Suez Canal, which the Turks attacked repeatedly in the Great War and which was vital to the defense of the Empire, particularly India.

  349. Gefreiter says:
    @anon

    Hitler was hand-picked by FDR’s good friend Putzi Hanfstaengel

    I had to look Putzi up, this is quite interesting:

    As the NSDAP consolidated its power, several disputes arose between Hanfstaengl and Germany’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels. Hanfstaengl was removed from Hitler’s staff in 1933. He and Helene divorced in 1936. Hanfstaengl fell completely out of Hitler’s favour after he was denounced by Unity Mitford, a close friend of both the Hanfstaengls and Hitler.

    In 1937, Hanfstaengl received orders to parachute into an area held by the nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War, to assist in negotiations.

    This version of the story was related by Albert Speer in his memoirs, who stated that the “mission” to Spain was an elaborate practical joke, concocted by Hitler and Goebbels, designed to punish Hanfstaengl after he’d displeased the Führer by making “adverse comments about the fighting spirit of the German soldiers in combat” in the Spanish Civil War. Hanfstaengl was issued sealed orders from Hitler which were not to be opened until his plane was in flight. These orders detailed that he was to be dropped in “Red Spanish territory” to work as an agent for Francisco Franco. The plane, according to Speer, was merely circling over Germany containing an increasingly disconcerted Hanfstaengl, with false location reports being given to convey the impression that the plane was drawing ever closer to Spain. After the joke had played itself out, the pilot declared he had to make an emergency landing and landed safely at Leipzig Airport. Hanfstaengl was so alarmed by the event that he defected soon afterward.

    Assuming Hanfstaengl was an “agent of Roosevelt”, Hitler sure found him out, and right after Hitler had achieved power. A very clever double agent double cross. But I don’t believe that is what happened.

    • Replies: @FvS
    , @refl
  350. lysias says:
    @CanSpeccy

    British India provided jobs for many upper class and upper middle class Britons.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  351. @refl

    And in that regard I would assume that the term Sozi really was coined after the war, as it cannot have had a positive connotation ever.

    If you would take a look at the Goebbels writing, it clearly disproves your thesis of “sozi”, just chronologically, because Goebbels wrote on the issue of sozi and nazi. Sozi came into use in Weimar, when the circus was installed, at the same time the german saying came into being “Wer hat uns Verraten? Sozialdemokraten”(Who betrayed us? Socialdemocrats) in context of Versailles and war bonds the social democrats nodded in 1914. The saying is still valid, and sozi has a strong connotation of traitor, sell out

    The masonic coup plotters met in Weimar in the Circus Busch to install social democracy.

    • Replies: @refl
  352. lysias says:
    @anon

    3 or 4 million Bengalis died in the famine of 1942-4, for which Churchill was responsible.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  353. refl says:
    @FB

    many of those ‘Germans’ on foreign soil were so-called ‘Volkdeutche’…descendants of settlers that were planted there during more than a century of Austrian-German rule…

    I can assure you that neither the Wolgadeutsche nor the Siebenbürger Sachsen were ever planted in their adopted land by German expansionism. Neither were the Sudetendeutsche who simply moved across the bohemian mountain range in what had been one common cultural landscape for a thousand years.
    In fact, I might never get to see the US, but when I see pictures of rural American landscapes with its dispersed, solitary farmhouses, what I see is the countryside of my childhood, just on a onehundred times larger scale.

    Germans, as probably most northern Europeans, were good settlers, and they went where ever they were let in.

    • Agree: chris
  354. @FB

    I agree with your analysis. In essence, the old British hyena was getting weaker, young stronger hyenas wanted to take over as lead dogs, both Germany and USSR strengthened their economies enormously in the 10-15 years preceding WWII. However, none of this makes any of the four leaders nice people.

    Yes, Anglo (British and then US) machinations successfully prevented German-Russian alliance, which would have been best for both countries (that’s exactly what Anglos feared). The US (with British sidekicks) keeps preventing it now. Again, successfully, as Germany was set by the US on the path of self-destruction, shooting itself in one foot with US-mandated sanctions against Russia, and in the other with “refugees”. Germany (and the whole of “old Europe”) is likely beyond redemption. If Anglos succeed in keeping Eastern Europe in anti-Russian alliance, the Chinese would emerge as uncontested winners. Intellectually degenerate imperial planners can’t see this far.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  355. @szopen

    Please go back to Brietbart and take your BS with you.

  356. refl says:
    @refl

    It was the book by Joachim C Fest – so someone who knows German.

    And please, accept that other people sometimes know something. Will you?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  357. Joe Wong says:
    @Tusk

    If India was nothing but a ball and chain for England, then why did English stay there so long. It seems defy logic that the English would put a ball and china on their ankles while they were building the sun-never-set empire.

  358. @Germanicus

    Really, G., and I’m so sorry to say this, but this answer (like others you’ve given) is completely unacceptable. You confuse the Warburgs and then tie together things without providing any connection. Here’s what I have found from the German wiki page on Max Warburg (Paul went to America and instigated the Federal Reserve Bank under Wilson):

    Warburg made a friendly acquaintance with Walther Rathenau [Jew], the later Reich Foreign Minister of the same age. In 1910 Warburg became a member of the board of the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft in Hamburg. Warburg was known as the “Big Linker”, one of the big names in the interwoven network of business and politics. In June 1914 Warburg founded the Anglo-German Bank for investments in Morocco with the German-British politician and later initiator of the Balfour Declaration Lord Milner – with the agreement of the German and British governments.
    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

    In 1915 he was elected to the Advisory Council of the War Food Office. In cooperation with the shipowner Ballin, he was one of the initiators of the Zentral-Einkaufsgesellschaft (Central Purchasing Company) and organized imports through M.M.Warburg & CO, provided foreign currency and made advance payments. The Bank, Warburg and Ballin harvested fierce hostilities from American Zionists such as Louis Brandeis for their relief actions, who had no understanding whatsoever for the continuing German patriotism of Jewish businessmen.
    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

    After the First World War, Warburg was appointed on 12 March 1919 by Reich Minister Count Rantzau as one of the six main delegates for the negotiations on the Versailles Peace Treaty. He refused and instead took part in the negotiations as an expert witness. On Warburg’s recommendation, Carl Melchior, a partner of M.M.Warburg & CO since 1917, became one of the main delegates of the peace negotiations as an economic and financial representative. However, he and Melchior left their delegations because they considered the reparations obligations to the Entente unacceptable. Like the other participants in the delegation, they recommended that the Reich government not sign the Treaty of Versailles. His actions later earned him fierce attacks from the anti-Semitic side. On the basis of these experiences he rejected all offers to become a minister in an imperial cabinet.[11]
    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

    So your original statement that:

    No, the banking Jews Warburg signed Versailles, Paul on German side, and iirc Max on British side. Hence german delegation protested. This was the reason why German peoples united so much, and what the enemy propaganda calls legend came into being, the stab in the back “legend”, the betrayal of Germany by the Jews, for Palestine.

    This is completely refuted by the source you gave to back it up.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  359. Bill says:
    @anon

    None of these are even remotely Zionist.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  360. FB says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    For Germany the problem was that damn fool Tsar Nicholas II who, out of lust for territorial aggrandizement, mobilized in support of Serbia’s conflict with Austria.

    I agree the Tsar was as much a fool as the Kaiser…all three, along with King George of Britain were cousins…mostly of German aristocratic stock, ironically enough…

    However I think the guarantee to Austria emboldened them to start the war against Serbia…which makes me think that he had greater ambitions for Germany and was in fact itching for a war…

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  361. @Germanicus

    Jews did betray Germany, but it wasn’t Max Warburg at Versailles.

    • Replies: @Iris
  362. @FB

    Agree with much of what you say, but who cares what Germans think. They don’t have children and they are therefore disappearing.

    The decline will get more drastic with each passing decade as the number of German women of childbearing age continues to drop precipitously.

    Anyone thinking Germany an ally will be getting a confused, racially and religiously Balkanized, increasingly poor, violent, and backwards, increasingly Turkish / Arab / African Islamic “Germany.” What a feather in the cap of its future “allies.”

    • Replies: @FB
  363. @refl

    Joachim C Fest — one of the worst “Nazi” haters of all, even though a German. Germany has always been full of communists, you know.

    You should know more about the authors of the books you read; it makes a big difference in whether you can accept what they say.

    • Replies: @refl
  364. FvS says:
    @Ford Torgidson

    Do you not know who Henry Ford was?

  365. FvS says:
    @Gefreiter

    Haha, and who said Germans don’t have a sense of humor.

  366. @Gefreiter

    I haven’t seen you mention Freemasonry in any of your comments.

    I leave that up to you, Gefreiter. :))

    As for Trump, not that I know of. But haven’t all US presidents been freemasons?

  367. Ron Unz says:
    @Ford Torgidson

    Are you really relying on Henry Ford as a source?

    WOW

    Sure. As I discussed in a long article last year, I’d regard Henry Ford’s The International Jew as a pretty solid account of Jewish activities in that period, not necessarily entirely reliable, but probably far more so than most present-day books on the topic:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

    It only comes across as “discordant” because so much of that material has been excluded from all other writings.

    • Replies: @Ford Torgidson
    , @Gefreiter
  368. Iris says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hasbara troll in revisionist clothing.

  369. FB says: • Website
    @Grace Poole

    I’ll tell you why I disagree…Germans need to disabuse themselves of the notion that US type capitalism is the way forward…

    Germans are by nature more ‘social’ as a people…the overall welfare of the community has strong roots going back centuries…the process of industrialization diluted this ethos as the rise of worker masses in cities meant that cohesion was lost…

    Marx was German of course…and he expected Germany to embrace socialism first…but the old landed gentry, as well as the new industrial elite did not want that to happen…Hitler did manage to bring about a version of socialism with a strong element of fairness and respect for the worker…and if he had stopped there in 1939 he would today be considered a great success…

    PS…the part about Stalin killing hundreds of thousands is indoctrination 101…Germany then, as today had more in common with Russia than the imperialist west…

  370. @Ron Unz

    What about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? You cool with those too?

  371. Vianney says:
    @Germanicus

    Regarding use of Fascist as a cuss word and otherwise: to my knowledge there is very little actual history of Mussolini and Italy / Fascism, and no revision ist history at all on those topics.

    Anyone know of revision ist history of Mussolini Fascism?

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  372. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Please, I was just pointing out the minor fact that this author – whose books were in my historian fathers library – writes something about the early days of the Nazi movement, and then it had a distinctly Bavarian touch.
    I am quite aware that the author is an establishment historian of the highest praise and what we think about such a character, we all know.

    I mean, if we quarrel over such issues, where are we supposed to get here.

  373. chris says:
    @Rurik

    lets not forget the “rare climatic conditions” prevalent above Hiroshima and Nagasaki

  374. @Carolyn Yeager

    This is completely refuted by the source you gave to back it up.

    Well, how do you call it, if the two sides in a contract are one and the same?

    Are you trying to argue, wikipedia is accurate? I am not your translator to translate long German texts on the Warburg involvement at Versailles.

    Really, G., and I’m so sorry to say this, but this answer (like others you’ve given) is completely unacceptable.

    Wtf? Who are you to speak in this tone? “unacceptable”, pfft.

    Perhaps we should have a discussion in german, until now, I was nice to you, and I didn’t say, you censored me on your blog some years ago because I was no fan of the NPD.
    I also know why you censored, it has to do with questioning the FRG, ie I know you play also a game for certain people.

    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  375. refl says:
    @Germanicus

    “Wer hat uns Verraten? Sozialdemokraten”(Who betrayed us? Socialdemocrats) …

    The masonic coup plotters met in Weimar in the Circus Busch to install social democracy.

    The rhime was an invention of the communists, who felt stabbed in the back by the Social Democrats in killing the Spartacus uprising. Both were in the Circus Busch together and then fell out…
    Circus Busch was in Berlin right opposite the Berliner Schloss and was used as a meeting place in the heated revolution days of 1918-19. The Nationalversammlung then went to Weimar to escape the climate of the capital.

    My point was that “Nazi” had in the early days of the movement an endearing undertone to some, which “Sozi” never had.
    I would leave it at that, the issue is not worth the fuss.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  376. Ron Unz says:
    @Ford Torgidson

    What about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? You cool with those too?

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

    • LOL: Tusk
  377. @Ford Torgidson

    Are you really using “WOW” as an “argument”?

  378. refl says:
    @Gefreiter

    Regarding Hanfstängl, he was housed in the Reichstagspräsidentenpalais (villa of the president of the Reichstag – at that moment Herman Göring) right behind the Reichstag on the night of the Reichstagsfire. The discussion has always been if the Nazis laid the fire by using the heating tunnel between the two buildings.

    When the fire broke out, the leading Nazis were in Berlin, spending the evening together somewhere in Charlottenburg. Hanfstängl was at home with the flue. It was him who called Goebbels and stated that he could see flames in the Reichstag. This should be in Goebbels diary (I have not read myself).

    Now we add that the US-Embassy was just another 200 m down the road next to the Brandenburg Gate (where it is again today) what we get is a perfect scenario…

    And we also have a scenario why Hitler stopped trusting him and would not tell.

  379. @refl

    My point was, a circus is a fitting place for what they installed, a circus of warring red factions about the course of the “world revolution”, just like today.
    Its also fitting a jewish comedian plays the role of PM in Ukraine, or a specialist for bankruptcies plays the US president, or better circus director of the bankrupt circus.

  380. lysias says:
    @Colin Wright

    What’s also true: No British/French guarantee to Poland, no WWII.

  381. chris says:
    @Rurik

    There have been so many lies about historical events, that I find it nearly impossible to really get at what really happened, and why, and by whom, etc..

    So what I do, in order to get a glimmer of likely scenarios, is I look at how people act today, right now. Right in front of my face, with no one’s lies to obfuscate the truth.

    Excellent logic, Rurik !

    In support of your point, I can only relate from my knowledge of Germans living in Eastern Europe, that they lived there in some cases for 800 years, and there is hardly a history of strife between them and the local populations. They worked very hard and thrived, kept to themselves, not imposing themselves onto the populations of their host nations. The Eastern peoples fought more with themselves than they ever did with the Germans living in their midst. Maybe this bodes well for the future split-up of Europe, that German colonies will flourish again after the inevitable dissolution of Europe (assuming things don’t go nuclear).

    • Replies: @Rurik
  382. Iris says:
    @Grace Poole

    If the German people are ever to regain a sense of German-ness, they need to re-examine that campaign of brainwashing and come to an honest and assertive assessment of who Hitler was, and who he was not; why he and NSDAP did what they did, and what they did not do — they did not kill 6 million Jews in gas chambers, for example.

    Remarkable insight and sensitivity always drive your comments: you nailed it.

    Honest historic research is not about Hitler’s persona, it is about removing the unfair burden of guilt from a great people who have been deeply wronged, and whose young generations are still shamelessly humiliated to the day.

    at the time, Stalin was killing Russians by the hundreds of thousands.

    Very, very humbly, Grace, I would challenge that.
    History should be based on facts, and the facts came to light when the USSR’s archives became open and accessible in 1989.

    Works by French, US and Russian historians who actually took the pain to consult the Gulag’s archival material show that between 1935 and 1940, the number of prisoners in the Gulag varied between 900,000 and 1.7 million people.
    The prison population of the USSR in the hardest period leading to WW2 was 0.5% of the total population, much less than the 2.8% of prisoners in the US, whose prisons – privatized and practicing forced labour – are over 7 million prisoners.

    “Jewish Bolsheviks” and “communists” are not one and a same thing in Europe.

    The former are the rootless Trotskyists, the covert agents of the Talmudic banking industry, who spent decades undermining working classes’ political representation, and have now dropped their fake ideological “left-wing” clothing and have all become rabid neo-conservative warmongers. Same as your neo-cons in the US.

    The latter, the communists, may be considered misguided in their economic views, but they were often indigenous European people, extremely patriotic, and the undisputed champions of the working class. They fought and died selflessly for their respective countries, France, Russia, during WW2.

    This explains the fondness many ethnic Russians still have for the USSR. I believe it is important to understand it, otherwise there cannot be friendship with Russia.

    I was completely indifferent to Stalin’s persona until recently. But after educating myself by reading so many intelligent comments on this website, I have now concluded that his constant demonisation by the Zionist press is only motivated by him purging the USSR leadership from the Talmudic fifth column. Respectfully.

    • Agree: FB
  383. @Futurethirdworlder

    “The Germans claimed that the zionists wanted…” Can you tell me where this information came from? That the Germans claimed. I’m not arguing with you, but where is that documented? I would be interested in perusing that document.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
  384. refl says:
    @Iris

    Honest historic research is not about Hitler’s persona, it is about removing the unfair burden of guilt from a great people who have been deeply wronged, and whose young generations are still shamelessly humiliated to the day

    .

    I will tell you where the whole thing is heading:
    History professors are wringing their hands about their newer immigrant students, because these fellows dare to role their eyes and pick up the newspaper when they are supposed to tune in for the brainwashing programm.
    Admittedly, academia has become mostly ridiculous, but at least these people for once instinctively are getting it right.

    More basically, we have to ask ourselves what Western academia means altogether, when it produces such senseless BS as the things we are trying to disentangle here.
    Or even more basical: what is there intelligent about Western Intelligence?

    The other thing is that I really would like to see the same demolition of what we know about Stalinism – people have been working at it in the Russian sphere but for most of us that might be quite difficult to diggest.

    • Replies: @Iris
  385. FB says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter

    Unfortunately there is much objective truth in what you say…all of this is a result of vassalage and embracing US ‘culture’…as peddled by the Soroses of the world…

    But I think Germany can still save itself…it needs to exit the EU and Nato and deport a lot of migrants…will this happen…?

    Almost certainly not…but even Germany in its diminished form at least needs to stand on its own two feet as a first step…

    Never say never…even One Good Man can make a big difference…

  386. Iris says:
    @refl

    More basically, we have to ask ourselves what Western academia means altogether, when it produces such senseless BS as the things we are trying to disentangle here.

    I travel to various countries for work and see this first hand.

    Many countries qualified as “shitholes” and “low-IQ” by Western intellectuals are actually incomparably more objective , intelligent and free of censorship in their views of modern history.

    The decadence of Western academia is due to the Zionist grip on it, which murders Logos as sadistically as it murders Palestinians.

  387. FvS says:
    @FB

    I’m not going to go through the entirety of this drivel, but let’s look at the records of the different leaders when it came to economics. If one does everything right, a recession should only last a few years at most. Hitler managed to get Germany out of the Great Depression much sooner than FDR. FDR’s policies are the reason why the depression lasted so long in the U.S. Likewise, Britain was worse off than Germany during the depression. Stalin managed to industrialize his country but only at the cost of millions of lives and with his people working like slaves. Sometimes, they worked up to 18 hour shifts. Hitler was clearly the superior leader out of all of them when it came to domestic policy.

    after WW1 Wilson did the right thing in restoring self determination to the native, Slavic inhabitants

    What do you think would happen if Hawaii and Alaska had tried to assert their right of self-determination and cease to be U.S. territories? What about the South’s right of self-determination during the Civil War? How did Britain respond when their colonies wanted self-determination? And then people kvetch when Hitler tried to protect ethnic Germans from persecution in territories that were stolen from Germany? Give me a break. Besides, the communist threat was very real and if not for the actions of Hitler, the Soviets would have swept across Europe.

    Then Hitler comes along and takes the cake…his paranoia about the Jews reveals a sick mind, incapable of constructive action

    Look up who the leaders of the German Revolution of 1918 were. Look up what sick perversions were going on in Wiemar Germany and who the intellectuals behind them were. Look up who controlled the banks and the press. Hitler was not paranoid. He was 100% correct in his assessment of the Jews.

    friendship with Russia, which Stalin would have welcomed

    You can’t be this naive.

    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @Parfois1
  388. FvS says:
    @Iris

    Very, very humbly, Grace, I would challenge that.

    Yeah, it was in the millions.

  389. @Germanicus

    you censored me on your blog some years ago because I was no fan of the NPD.

    If I “censored” you, it was not for not being a fan of the NPD. Nor for questioning the FRG. You seem to be unstable, which is a shame since you use the name Germanicus. Good luck to you.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  390. FvS says:
    @Iris

    I have now concluded that his constant demonisation by the Zionist press is only motivated by him purging the USSR leadership from the Talmudic fifth column. Respectfully.

    Never happened.
    https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/stalins-jews/
    https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/stalins-willing-executioners-jews-hostile-elite-ussr/

  391. @Sparkon

    Of course, I meant the only Jew in Wilson’s government. None of those you mentioned were.

    See here: https://carolynyeager.net/intljewstudy

  392. @Ford Torgidson

    Sure, why not? They’re not obviously wrong, regardless of their pedigree.

  393. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @lysias

    British India provided jobs for many upper class and upper middle class Britons.

    Britain’s administrative class in India, the Raj, was quite small, although certainly it provided a career for several hundred graduates of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the Sandhurst military college. The real payoff to Britain was in the control of India’s trade. Britain supplied most of India’s imports of manufactured goods, whereas India’s primary products went to countries other than Britain. Thus India’s balance of payments deficit with Britain was paid out of India’s raw materials exports to other countries. At the same time, Britain handled virtually all of India’s invisible trade. The net economic benefit to Britain of controlling the Indian economy was therefore huge.

  394. CanSpeccy says:
    @lysias

    3 or 4 million Bengalis died in the famine of 1942-4, for which Churchill was responsible.

    Actually, it was the famine that was responsible. True Britain, which was close to starvation herself, did not mobilize an international effort to feed India, but the Indians themselves made things worse than they need have been. Thus, a number of the Indian states, which were self-governing, outlawed the export of food to the famine regions of the country, thereby exacerbating the famine.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  395. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @FB

    However I think the guarantee to Austria emboldened them to start the war against Serbia…

    And the Tsar’s promise of the previous winter that “Russia will do everything for Serbia” didn’t help.

    The assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was a Serb-state backed act of terrorism. The Austrians were justified, therefore, in issuing a harsh ultimatum to Serbia, an ultimatum arguable less harsh than that of the US to Afghanistan following 9/11. Serbia, in effect, acknowledged the legitimacy of the Austrian demands, since they accepted all but one of them. For refusing total compliance, Austria launched a punitive war on Serbia, which promted the Russian mobilization.

    True, if the Kaiser had been a smart person, he might have sought to moderate, rather than stiffen, Austria’s demands on Serbia. But Russia and Serbia knew who they they were messing with: a frenetic nicompoop. Indeed, it seems quite possible that Serbia sought war with Austria — a war that the world would blame on an unduly harsh reaction by Austria, and which could result in the detachment of Bosnia from Austro-Hungarian control, the prime objective of Gavrilo Princip, the Slav nationalist assassin.

    In any case, once Russia mobilized in support of Serbia, WW1 was inevitable. Germany was obliged to come to the aid of their only significant ally, Austria, which in turn, meant France was committed to aiding its ally Russia. The Brits were likewise committed under the terms of the Triple Entente and only too happy to have a chance to trash Germany, their chief continental rival.

    The direct cause of war was thus the Tsar, who may well have expected to benefit from a general war. Russia having, after all, by far the largest continental army.

    More generally, one might blame the war on monarchical rule which meant that only a mediocre level of intelligence was brought to the task of managing international relations by three of the key powers, Britain not among them as George V, though a monarch, was a purely constitutional figurehead.

    • Disagree: FB
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  396. Saggy says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The story is that the banking interests installed Wilson as president, and that his second self, Colonel House, was effectively an agent of the Rothschilds and the bankers. I’m not a student of the subject, but I’ve seen this mentioned in several things I’ve read, so I’m surprised no one has brought it up … googling we find … from the CIA of all places … ‘Colonel House: A Biography of Woodrow Wilson’s Silent Partner’
    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-59-no-3/colonel-house.html.

    Beyond that we have the following quote … which sums up what has to be explained …. and has an explanation which you reject …. so, if the explanation in the quote is wrong …. what in hell is the explanation ???? …..

    From ‘La Démocratie Victorieuse’, E. Malynski, 1929

    [MORE]

    The nation which above all others claims to be free and in sovereign command of its own destiny was brainwashed to the hilt. In 1914 any American would have laughed to scorn the idea that in three years time he would be struggling and suffering in France for the sake of affairs which had no connection with those of his own country.

    And yet, when 1917 came, the same man enlisted enthusiastically. Every soldier whom we happened to interview and questioned as to his personal motives for fighting, invariably replied: ‘we are fighting for democracy’. They were one step ahead of their fellow soldiers from other nations, who went for their own country’s sake.

    It is only when we realize that France was invaded by hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Wyoming, California, Louisiana, and subsequently from Ontario, Manitoba, Rhodesia and New South Wales, whose only possible motive was to hasten the triumph of democracy, that we begin to understand something of the power of Israel. The power to stir up a whole nation of solid, egotistical and utilitarian individuals, and to persuade them that their greatest privilege is to set out and get themselves killed at the uttermost ends of the earth, with no hope of gain for themselves or their children and almost without their understanding against or for whom they are fighting, or why, is a simply incredible phenomenon which makes one afraid when one comes to think about it.

  397. Saggy says: • Website
    @Iris

    Honest historic research is not about Hitler’s persona, it is about removing the unfair burden of guilt from a great people who have been deeply wronged, and whose young generations are still shamelessly humiliated to the day.

    No one really gives a damn about their humiliation. The fact is that the holohoax has created 50 years of wars in the ME and even at this very moment the US is threatening to escalate the violence again. Already millions have died, entire countries have been turned into killing fields, all because of Israel and all because of the holohoax.

    Getting this history right is not about removing an unfair burden of guilt, it’s about the survival of the civilization, if not the human race.

    • Agree: Gefreiter
  398. L.K says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Crazy Carolyn goes:

    This is what I am saying and have been saying for some time. It was the British who were serving their own interests, not the interests of the Jews. The latter, always looking for opportunities to advance their own plans, offered to get on the British side and the Brits accepted their help in return for favors asked.

    Obviously the British were serving their own interests, where the F did I say otherwise??
    The Brits used the Zionists for their ends and those in turn used the Brits.

    You really are a pathetic, arrogant little troll, ya know that?

    But then we had already established that from your ridiculous & quite deranged behavior towards Giraldi, Renfro, JS, Cloack & Dagger & others under a Giraldi article.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  399. Iris says:

    Getting this history right is not about removing an unfair burden of guilt, it’s about the survival of the civilization, if not the human race.

    Your viewpoint is of course correct, however the only thing needed to expose the criminal Zionist Lobby is to investigate 9/11. No need to go as far back as 1945.

    • Agree: NoseytheDuke
    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  400. @Rurik

    Wilson and Churchill are uniquely monstrous because of the potential for doing good things they were trusted with, (like keeping the peace, and protecting our civilization) only to betray that trust and plunge the world into horrors unimaginable.

    Yes.

    Not only that, but they knew that it was all unnecessary.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  401. Wally says:
    @Maciek468

    I see nothing in your links which refutes the article above.

    And you further give your game away by citing Wikipedia. LOL

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet:
    http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

  402. @lysias

    What’s also true: No British/French guarantee to Poland, no WWII.

    No WW1, no Zio freaks and Marxie goons, no Winnie the Warmonger and no Frankie the Fool, no WW2 either.

    And why did some New Yoik Jews declare war on Germany in 1933?

    No matter what the Germans did, they were the designated targets, just like so many today such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc., etc….We goyim should have learned a few lessons by now…

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  403. @lysias

    ‘What’s also true: No British/French guarantee to Poland, no WWII.’

    Sure. Hitler, his modest demands upon Poland satisfied, would have stood pat.

    After all, look at the programme he himself laid out in writing. Besides, we needn’t take his word for it; there’s his scrupulous adherence to the undertakings he made at Munich.

    Clearly, this was a man with modest and easily met demands, which, once satisfied, would have left him permanently contented.

  404. @L.K

    Excuse me, but I’m the sanest person here. Look at you, frothing at the mouth. It takes some boys a long time to grow up. If you were a grown-up you would be ashamed to post something like this.

  405. Corvinus says:

    When shown several photographs of the interior of gas chambers at Auschwitz, along with several documented eye witness accounts by Jewish survivors and by German officers there, Irving in a speech (1990) stated: “I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war.”

    In a nutshell, Irving lived in self-denial.

  406. Parfois1 says:
    @Iris

    “Jewish Bolsheviks” and “communists” are not one and a same thing in Europe.
    The former are the rootless Trotskyists, the covert agents of the Talmudic banking industry, who spent decades undermining working classes’ political representation, and have now dropped their fake ideological “left-wing” clothing and have all become rabid neo-conservative warmongers. Same as your neo-cons in the US.”

    It is not very often one finds here at UR a sensible sentence regarding the distinction between Communism and Jewish Bolsheviks. As I understanding it, the confusion arises in the minds of those who try to conflate Jews and Communists to create an ideological Frankenstein in a single body. It may be useful for simple minds to imagine a “red jew under the bed” bogeyman regardless of the very obvious contradiction; perhaps a device to make it simple stupid for US consumers. A communist Jew is an oxymoron.

    Many Jews flocked to the opposition against the Czar, not because they were seeking the brotherhood of Communism with the Russian people, but for their own self-interest in joining several alternative movements to hedge their bets in a potential winner out of the Revolution. They flocked to Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks, the Left Revolutionaries, the Workers Opposition and other groups. And they moved in and out of the groups according to the ebb and flow of the struggle for power. For instance, Trotsy – whose mentor was the capitalist gangster Alexander Parvus – was a typical Jewish implant who joined the Bolsheviks when the Revolution was well under way in July 1917. He was judged as a traitor and, instead of being summarily shot, was shown to the door to become the leading-lights of the US “leftists” – perhaps a Stalin’s gift and joke to “America”.

    Characteristically, the Jews always had their own Jewish-only clubs within the parties. Once the political situation was stabilised after the 1930s purges and new cadres brought fresh blood into the Communist Party, the Jewish influence within the leadership waned and was on the way out altogether when Stalin introduced the quota system in the institutions of the USSR as well as other reforms, cut short by his sudden death.

    • Agree: Iris
  407. @Saggy

    I don’t reject what you quoted. The explanation is the power of propaganda, and in this case it was passed on mainly through the newspapers and magazines. But also the pulpit and the President’s stirring addresses. Along with that, the American public and especially the young were pretty naive.

  408. @Lurker

    ‘From the pov of the alliance a more useful comparison would be with the number of French divisions (in metropolitan France) rather than with the size of the German force. Then beyond that some kind comparison of equipment, training etc. For example the BEF were nearly all trained, professional peacetime troops whereas most of the French army were not. The BEF was a fully motorized force that would, theoretically, be faster, more flexible and mobile than any French unit.’

    This is about half-right. Yes, the B.E.F. was an excellent body of troops. However, it was not ‘nearly all’ professional peacetime troops; something half the units were Territorials. Nor was it fully motorized; each B.E.F. division had enough transport to lift one brigade at a time.

    As to being ‘faster, more flexible and mobile than any French unit’ that too, is not exactly true. Yes, most of the B.E.F. divisions were more mobile than most of the French divisions, most of which were completely foot-bound. However, the French had a number of fully motorized divisions, which were obviously more mobile than any of the B.E.F. divisions, none of which were fully motorized.

    However, taking into account its overall excellent scale of equipment and its superior fighting qualities, I’d say the B.E.F. represented around 15 to 20% of the alliance’s total combat power.

  409. Parfois1 says:
    @FvS

    Besides, the communist threat was very real and if not for the actions of Hitler, the Soviets would have swept across Europe.

    The above statement tells a lot … about yourself. A common example of what pretends to pass off as knowledgeable remark when it is merely the parroting of a decayed cliche.

    Stalin wanted only to protect the USSR because he knew the capitalist world would not tolerate a successful socialist society as subsequent, recent history has shown. His political doctrine was his work “Socialism in One Country”.

    On the other hand, please pray tell us where is that secret Stalin’s Plan for the Conquest of Europe. I think I know the answer: “Those damn commie Russkies hid that plan so well no-one can find it out”!

    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @FvS
    , @anon
    , @FB
  410. I am a long time reader of Paul Craig Roberts. He is one of the few sane ones out there but he is imbibing this revisionist Kool Aid a bit too deeply.

    I have read Hitler’s War and 4 of the 6 volumes of Churchill’s History of WW II. I have also read many of Mr. Irving’s books. Being an American, I do remember which side we fought for and honor their sacrifices as well as the German youth who suffered similar fates for the Fatherland.

    Western civilization was all but annihilated and I place the blame squarely on Hitler and the governments of the UK and France, not Churchill. The UK and France let the Germans re-arm, contrary to the intent of the post WW I agreements. Churchill was out of office, so this was not on his watch.

    People should take the time to read Churchill’s history to better appreciate what the Brits were up against and how bravely they fought and died. It is popular in the US for us to say that we pulled their collective asses out of the fire. What a bunch of crap. Yeah, there may be some hyperbole in the Churchill legend but so what? Yes he was an imperialist, as were we in the USA.

    I am always suspicious when Hitler is defended. I am 1/2 German (US Army father) and had two uncles who fought in the Wehrmacht, one MIA. I am proud of my German heritage but no fan of Der Fuehrer. My mother was in the Hitler Youth and lived in Berlin where she saw it all. She and her family survived bombings by the US and UK but also the onslaught of the Soviets at the end of the war, a story suppressed by our media. I grew up hearing these stories and about concentration camps (“work camps”: bullshit) . I heard how the SS prevented Jews from shopping at my grandfather’s tobacco store, how they expected to receive the finest wares. I also heard about how his Jewish customers disappeared. The family was “black listed” after the war as they were reported for listening to banned radio broadcasts. The penalty was the guillotine and they were lucky to have survived.

    I never, ever heard a good word said about Hitler from the first-hand acccounts of my mother except for one quip from my grandmother who bemoaned the Turkish immigrants who came into Berlin much later and would terrorize and rob Germans who were paying their respects to the dead in the cemetary: “This wouldn’t have happened under Hitler!”

    • Replies: @FvS
    , @refl
  411. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @FB

    Let’s start with FDR…he pulled America out of an economic and demographic catastrophe in which millions of rural peasants starved in the 1930s…by applying socialism…ie massive public works and infrastructure projects that pulled millions out of poverty and provided a base for the massive expansion of industry in the 1940s…

    actually he didn’t

    it was the military buildup that finally got the economy back on track – FDR was a failure and a fraud who would have loved to have stacked the Supreme Court to get his way. He was a scumbag

    • Replies: @Biff
  412. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Parfois1

    Besides, the communist threat was very real and if not for the actions of Hitler, the Soviets would have swept across Europe.

    The above statement tells a lot … about yourself. A common example of what pretends to pass off as knowledgeable remark when it is merely the parroting of a decayed cliche.

    Stalin wanted only to protect the USSR because he knew the capitalist world would not tolerate a successful socialist society as subsequent, recent history has shown

    of course, that’s why he invaded Finland, Poland and the Baltics

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  413. Dube says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    What a deal! Occupied by the German army while fighting Stalin. Or occupied by the Russians while fighting Germany.

  414. @Richard T

    One such mistake was his issuance of the “Halt Order” at Dunkirk when he had the Allies surrounded. Martin Bormann stated that Hitler issued that order because he felt an Aryan kinship with Britain and did not wish annihilate Britain’s finest.

    I am inclined to think it was the other way around. Bormann was a Freemason and Soviet spy. It was Bormann who really issued the Halt Order.

    According to Dr. Henry Makow, Bormann was Hitler’s handler. It was Bormann who really conducted/sabotaged the war, not Hitler. Cf. my comment regarding Operation Barbarossa, which was probably the biggest Jewish coup d’état of the 20th century.   

    [MORE]

    The second most powerful man in Nazi Germany, Martin Bormann, was a “Soviet” (i.e. Illuminati) agent who ensured the destruction of both Germany and European Jewry.

    Thus, he advanced two of the Illuminati’s main goals: integrate Germany into a world government by annihilating its national, cultural and racial pretensions, and establish Israel as the Masonic banker’s world capital by threatening European Jews with extermination.

    The Illuminati are a loose alliance of Jewish finance and the British/America/European aristocracy joined by marriage, money, and belief in the occult (Freemasonry). Winston Churchill, a Freemason whose mother was Jewish, fits this description perfectly.

    […]

    Martin Bormann (1900-?) was the organizer, treasurer and paymaster of the Nazi Party and controlled its powerful machine. He was the contact with Illuminati bankers and industrialists who financed the Nazi Party and donated millions to Hitler. As Deputy Fuhrer and Hitler’s Secretary, Bormann signed Hitler’s paycheck and managed his accounts. He determined whom and what Hitler saw, and acted in his name.

    Goering said “Bormann stayed with Hitler day and night and gradually brought him so much under his will that he ruled Hitler’s whole existence.” (“Martin Bormann” by James McGovern, p.160)

    Hitler made Bormann the Executor of his will. Bormann, not Hitler, owned the Berghof. “The entire complex on the Obersalzberg, consisting of 87 buildings and worth over one and a half million marks, was legally registered in Bormann’s name. (McGovern, p.128)

    In 1972 Gen. Reinhard Gehlen (head of Wehrmacht Soviet Intelligence) revealed that Bormann had been a Soviet spy, a view shared by many top Nazi generals and officials including Gottlob Berger, a SS Lieutenant General who knew Bormann well. “Bormann did the greatest harm of anyone,” Berger testified at Nuremberg. (McGovern, 181)

    The implications are staggering. Remember what Winston Churchill said. “This war is not against Hitler or National Socialism but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)

    The Nazi Party was created, and the Second World War staged in order to lead the German people into a diabolical trap, after fatally compromising them morally.

    In “The Bormann Brotherhood” (1972) William Stevenson says Bormann “gave the lowest priority to the fate of Germany…He was concerned instead with a future based on Nazi philosophy, financed by Nazi loot, supported by a personally loyal Brotherhood…” (62) Is this the Illuminati?

    […]

    Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Louis Kilzer makes the case that Bormann was a “Soviet” spy in his book “Hitler’s Traitor” (2000). He examined the wire traffic between the spy known as “Werther” and Moscow and determined that only Bormann had access to this information. Bormann told Hitler he wanted a record for posterity and had stenographers transcribe Hitler’s war conferences.

    The Soviets were able to ask very detailed questions about Nazi defenses and intentions. The result was the decisive Nazis defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk. “Bormann had been as useful to Russia as fifty Red Army divisions,” Kilzer writes. (61)

    “His value to Stalin began early. In 1941, when Germany could have used millions of Ukrainian nationalists to defeat Soviet rule, Bormann decided that they deserved only, “enslavement and depopulation. …Faced with … genocide by the Germans or political domination by the Soviets, the Ukrainians chose to live and by so doing ruined German hopes for an easy conquest.” (261)

  415. Dube says:
    @anon19

    The Poles were going to fight no matter what.

  416. SanityClaus says: • Website

    Paul Craig Roberts is like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine. He is an agent of the
    British Empire. Paul Craig Roberts is like the pentagon. He is a traitor who wipes his ass with our
    Declaration of Independence . NATO IS A HEROIN MAFIA WHO POISONS AND MURDERS OUR CHILDREN. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS WORKS FOR NATO.

  417. FvS says:
    @SonOfFrankenstein

    Your mother is probably just afraid. The German people loved Hitler, truly loved him. And had he won, we would have been forever freed from the anti-white, globalist psychopaths that rule us now.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @James N. Kennett
  418. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    One still remains wondering what convinced the Kaiser that England would remain neutral, despite clear indications that it would not. England did not ‘betray’ him but in his own imagination. Did he really believed that the British would fall for myths of Nordic-Germanic solidarity? For the mantras Teutons vs Slavs, Teutons vs Galls?
    Russia would have no interest in a war. She was close to achieve her goals without. The war was meant to ‘contain’ Russia and finally to eliminate her as a great power from the international scene and opening it for international exploitation. Exactly the same ‘geopolitical’ thinking as today. The “frenetic nincompoop” was not able to understand the warnings of Bismarck in relation to Russia.

  419. FvS says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    I appreciate what Makow is trying to do, but he ventures a little too far into the conspiracy theory realm, imo.

  420. Dube says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Always presume the expected.

  421. @szopen

    A herd of vultures almost ate you alive for your (yes, emotional, but mostly accurate) comment. I never thought I would say it, but seeing how Polo-phobic and anti-Slavic white, WASP-y Americans still are, it gives me an unwanted satisfaction to know that these haters will soon be “diversified” into oblivion, while Poland, and a few other Slavic countries, will survive and prosper. And perhaps new Islamic Germany will be a better neighbor than supremacist Teutons have ever been.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  422. Parfois1 says:
    @anon

    of course, that’s why he invaded Finland, Poland and the Baltics

    Your attempt at upmanship ends as anutter failure. Learn some basic history.

    The Winter War was only a limited skirmish for the protection of Leningrad. Mind you, Finland had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries; yet the USSR consented to its independence after 1917. Finland was lucky to avoid justified retribution when it sided with Nazi Germany later.

    Following the German invasion and occupation, the Polish state ceased to exist. Effectively, in international law there was no invasion of Poland by the USSR, only occupation of the territories which were formerly part of the Russian Empire, which Poland annexed taking advantage of the civil war 1918-21.
    As to the Baltic states, they were part of USSR, previously part of the Russian Empire.
    Try another one? What about Afghanistan 1979?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @anon
  423. Gefreiter says:
    @Ron Unz

    But but but Henry Ford isn’t Kosher Peer reviewed!

  424. @Beefcake the Mighty

    If you’re so “intelligent” how come you’re becoming minority in the country your forefathers built? Who’s stupid here? Poles, who still feel at home in their country, or the dying species like you? Wait a decade or so and you will be begging the “stupid” Poles to let you in their country, probably as a “refugee”. I’m sorry to say it, but it’s hard for me to respect people like you.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  425. refl says:
    @SonOfFrankenstein

    I am always suspicious when Hitler is defended

    Exactly, this does not lead anywhere. It will just turn lots of intelligent people off.
    This is about undoing the Myth, and that the common sense account does not hold water should have been clear to anyone for decades. Hitler was nurtured by the forces in the background to be the wartime leader in what was designed to be Germany’s doom: a popular leader, ruthless and just intelligent enough to rise to absolute power. The endgame was part of the design: he would not shriek back from going to war and once war had started, Germany would have no chance of survival.
    You should be more critical of Churchill, by the way. No question, British soldiers were brave. The question is, who directs them to what purpose.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  426. @CanSpeccy

    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/maps-reveal-how-japans-cities-were-destroyed-during-world-war-ii

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because the US had already bombed many cities to 30-70% completely destroyed with just good old incendiary bombs!

    But yes, arguably the masses were political by then and cities provided industrial production. Not many factories in cities now though, so wonder how it would affect the equation.

  427. @Carolyn Yeager

    I just don’t wish to have any longer conversation with you, and I am not your servant to satisfy your sick pleasure to constantly start trouble. That has been known for some time, that you are a source of discontent with your behavior.

    Anyway, the same f***ing wiki article states, that the son of Warburg founded the Atlantic bridge. Should I speculate why you obviously try to protect Warburg?
    Warburg were the good guys, right, because you said so?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  428. Gefreiter says:
    @Iris

    I would say expose Ritual Blood Sacrifice and debunk “blood libel”. But there hundreds, even thousands, of crimes against humanity that the jew has committed over the centuries, any of which should have been sufficient to make the goyim react..

    As Besmenov told us decades ago, once the Judeo-communists got hold of the education system they only needed 15-20 years to ruin our civilizations. Starting with the boomers US persons, and most Europeans, have been programmed instead of educated. They do not react to information, they react to stimuli.

    The jew merely sends certain signals through the information channels that they control, and the useful idiots react like Pavlov’s dog. Billions of people have unknowingly undergone MKUltra Monarch programming.

  429. Gefreiter says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    I think we also need to understand that WWI was instigated for many reasons, among which was the destruction of any German cultural identity in the US. Wilson and his Rabbis immediately shut down German language newspapers and even burned German language books.

    It was a purge of German culture out of America the same way a jewish “doctor” purges a 9 month old breathing baby in a late term abortion ritual.

    Simultaneously the jew propaganda cesspool in Hollywood began cranking out war propaganda, like “Birth of a Nation”, already in 1915.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  430. @Dutch Boy

    Agreed, with the caveat that what is meant by “USA” you mean individual Americans.

  431. Biff says:
    @anon

    it was the military buildup that finally got the economy back on track

    Wrong! By the end of the 1930’s unemployment was down in the single digits.

    He was a scumbag

    Correct!

  432. @hhsiii

    That’s it? I believe Rurik made a reasonably coherent and eloquently stated argument that demands a little more than “You’re unhinged” in response.

    In vulgar terms, if your response was an orgasm, I would seriously consider giving up sex.

  433. @Bill

    I’m sure you realize this but it bears endless repeating that none of the Biblical “scholars” here are worth engaging. They simply take texts out of context to make pretexts for their “arguments”.

  434. refl says:
    @Anon

    In USSR and Russia (and modern China too) there is strong consensus that Hitler was created by the capitalist West specially to destroy the USSR.

    I have written this here before and I make the point again: I would like to know more about what they have found.
    The Pantheon of Evil is made up of the Great Hitler-Stalin-Mao-trinity.
    How come that it was by chance these three who put up serious challenges to Angloamerican/Anglozionist world power? Germany was by far the weakest of these three chalengers and they never managed to find out that they would not be accepted as equals ever ( the Russians are finally finding out, the Chinese always knew it).

    What makes it difficult for me to accept the Russian viewpoint is, that they always end up with the line that Russia saved the world. Can’t we say that it was from 1917 onwards a hijaked country?

    If Trotzky has ruled the country would have been at war far earlier, far more catastrophically. The purges were just as much about destroying old Russia as they were about instaling a body of administration that for once would be reliable.
    Instead of painting Russia as the great saviour, which is rather for their own consunption, I would call this a narrow escape. This, Germany did not have, and this happened very much due ro their own stupiditiy

    • Replies: @Anon
  435. @Jacques Sheete

    “The biggest threat we’ve ever faced, (and lost) was the ideology of international bankster supported Marxism and its ultimate goal of Talmudic One World control.”

    I get your point, Jacques, but pious Yankee Christians from the N.E. part of the U.S. played a pivotal role in the direction this country took in the 19th century and American society and culture is still dealing with the fallout of that threat to this day.

    Just sayin’.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  436. Vianney says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    In other words, the psychological warfare carried out against the German people and your mother was phenomenally successful.

    Cora Sol Goldstein wrote in Capturing the German Eye that US Occupying force, which held the “monopoly on violence,” used multiple means to discredit and eradicate memory of Hitler, Nazism, and German culture; and replace them with “American consumer culture, Democratic values, and ‘modern art, music, film,”.

  437. @refl

    “Well, they had just seen French and British honour at work in Munich. Poland knew that they were next in line.

    If it is about honour, then we have to state that the treaty of Versailles actually did not leave Germany any other option but to fight back some time in the future – there are people who argue that the real purpose of Versailles was to force another world war within thirty years. Poland was nothing but the tripwire, set up to be torn to pieces.”

    If it is assumed that what you state is true would you believe it to be a fair statement that the Polish had a misplaced sense of honor in light of the situation and Polish leadership did not fully understand/misjudged how the world was changing (i.e. what the rest of the players in the political-classes from their respective countries had in mind with regard to Empire-building)?

    • Replies: @refl
  438. Vianney says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    That accounts for the reversal in relations between German army & Ukrainians — at first, Ukrainians welcomed German soldiers.

    Did Borman manage the Ritchie Boys?

  439. …Winston Churchill said. “This war is not against Hitler or National Socialism but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.”

    He seems to have been describing reality quite accurately. It’s apparent to me that the same could have been said about Japan as well. It’s heartbreaking to read about the humiliation of their diplomats at the hands of the power hungry, mad moron, FDR and his admin.

    Then there’s this, which I wrote in comment #405, above.:

    No matter what the Germans did, they were the designated targets, just like so many today such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc., etc….We goyim should have learned a few lessons by now…

    • Agree: Iris
  440. @PeterMX

    “I would love to see a 24 hour cable news station ownded and run by people like this. I think it would take off and its ratings would soar, putting CNN and others out of business.”

    I tend to agree but the owners would have to get by the pesky FCC here in America…

  441. @AnonFromTN

    I agree with both of you and FB. Combined yours opinions make an excellent analysis. Good to see scientific minds at work.

    • LOL: L.K
  442. @Corvinus

    In a nutshell, you’re a cuck.

  443. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @refl

    that they always end up with the line that Russia saved the world

    Should that exclude the statement on Nazi Germany? Or who else saved the world, maybe France?

    The purges were just as much about destroying old Russia

    This is absolutely wrong. Old Russia was destroyed in WWI (military elite), Revolution and Russian Civil War (ruling class and the rich fled). The purges destroyed mostly the fervent revolutionaries. The remains of Old Russia in 1930s were, if purged, mostly displaced and stripped of their properties and rents. Yet these remains were sufficient to produce the Soviet military machine and technical advances e.g. rocket science.

    Since 1930s, trotskism in Russia had failed, and the state regained much of the powers of Russian Empire. Thats why Hitler, who offered lebensraum and Drang nah Osten back in 1920-s, was put in power by the West, credited and supplied by the West and reinforced with Munich accords, favor of British monarchy, and investments from JP Morgan, Ford, GE etc.

    • Replies: @refl
  444. @Parfois1

    Nice Stalinist “logic”.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  445. @Slavic_Guy

    I’m not sorry to say, I don’t give two shits if you respect me or not.

    • Replies: @Slavic_Guy
  446. @Sergey Krieger

    More Russian gorillas thumping their chests.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    , @L.K
  447. Saggy says: • Website

    I think you missed the key phrase …. which is bold below …..

    It is only when we realize that France was invaded by hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Wyoming, California, Louisiana, and subsequently from Ontario, Manitoba, Rhodesia and New South Wales, whose only possible motive was to hasten the triumph of democracy, that we begin to understand something of the power of Israel.

    This is from the same book …

    The apparent spontaneity of their enthusiasm for war, which shook the American people, should not astonish those who know America, or who lived there for some years before 1914. For at that time thousands and thousands of non-Jewish people, who had nevertheless been intoxicated by a costly and clever publicity campaign, demanded at the tops of their voices that diplomatic and commercial relations should be broken off with the Tsar’s government – a measure which would gravely prejudice the American portfolio – for the sole reason that a mean and obscure little Jew, who was completely unknown in his own town, but whose international ubiquity had organized his defence, had been brought before a court of assize and the regular jury of a provincial city in the Russian empire on a charge, whether justly or unjustly, of committing a ritual murder.

    ‘On both occasions, the result was exactly the same: the nation which above all others claims to be free and in sovereign command of its own destiny was brainwashed to the hilt.

    Malynski believes that Israel was behind the propaganda. If not Israel, who?

    Here is Benjamin Friedman on the subject … speaking of the Balfour Declaration,

    Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other ‘s knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

    I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

    Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

    Also …
    E. J. Dillon in his book The Peace Conference (Hutchinson & Co., London, 1919) noted that the Peace Conference of Versailles was dominated by the Anglo-Saxon powers, and that they in turn were dominated by their Jewish members:

    Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, form Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States’ (p. 10).

    • Replies: @Vianney
    , @Jacques Sheete
  448. Polish “pride”:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44627129

    Since American politicians are already threatening to withhold troops unless Poland ponies up to Israel’s latest demands, I predict they’ll bend over again. Yeah, future’s looking bright in Poland.

  449. Avery says:
    @FvS

    {“And had he won, we would have been forever freed from the anti-white, globalist psychopaths that rule us now”.}

    Yeah, you can conjecture all sorts of things: I am sure you have heard about the “….if one’s aunt had nuts, she would be one’s uncle.

    Hitler didn’t win: his megalomania resulted in the deaths of ~50-60 million Caucasians*.
    Today’s dying, anti-white, anti-Christian Globalist dominated and ruled Western Europe is a direct result of Hitler and his gang of Nazis causing all the death and destruction in Europe.

    Had he satisfied himself with the annexation of Austria and Sudetenland, Germany would not be subjugated country today, being overrun by masses of Muslim refugees. Same for rest of Western Europe**.

    Instead of trying to rehabilitate Hitler and explain away his stupidity and criminality, “white” people should spit on him for what he did to the (dying) European civilization.
    ___________________
    * I am not including deaths in Asia, which was caused by Imperial Japan conquests and subsequent wars there.

    ** Eastern Europe not having been under Globalist control, has manged to keep its Christian faith and countries there are proud of their nationalities, unlike in the decadent Western Europe. And you can thank the Red Army and Stalin for that.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @SonOfFrankenstein
  450. Rurik says:
    @Paul C.

    Even Patton figured things out in the end.

    Thanks Paul,

    Patton turned out to be one of the good guys.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/

  451. @Slavic_Guy

    Slavic countries will never prosper on their own. They never have. And you admit your lack of loyalty to the West from whence you’ve gotten everything helpful. You call Germany “supremacist” because you are jealous. Jealousy of Germans has been consuming Poles for centuries.

    Incidentally, Poland is scared to death of fellow slavic Russia and depends totally on USA-funded NATO to defend it! Explain that.

    Just had to say it.

  452. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Avery

    Hitler didn’t win: his megalomania resulted in the deaths of ~50-60 million Caucasians

    That was initial, major goal of those who created Hitler to cripple continental Europe.

    Had he satisfied himself with the annexation of Austria and Sudetenland

    He could not and would not be allowed to. Munich accords, and the ‘strange war’ later were intended to make Hitler feel powerful and unchecked, together with descpicable capitulation of France. All these were mere prequels to invade Russia. Nazis had to secure flanks and production capability while all German males (including those from Saar, Sudetenland, Silesia and Austria) go to war, and their women baby-sit.

  453. @Germanicus

    Better to be a source of discontent than to blatantly lie just to say what sounds good to you. “Son of Warburg founded the Atlantic bridge” (??) makes up, in your mind, for claiming that German Wiki states that Max Warburg signed the Versailles Treaty for Germany when it absolutely DID NOT? You thought I would not read it so you made up that story … OR maybe you can’t even read it yourself and thought it said that. Anything is possible here.

    What I want to protect is the truth. Truth comes first with me. And I am shocked when people lie so easily. Let me add that that video of the fat, fake shaman with the tattooed arms you recommended to me on the previous thread was total nonsense, which I conveyed to you but my reply saying so was blocked by the moderator, who was rightly fed up with our off-topic conversation. But that was a big warning sign.

    Still, I sincerely wish you well and hope you can clean up your act.

  454. Saggy says: • Website

    You are wrong on two counts …

    Had he satisfied himself with the annexation of Austria and Sudetenland, Germany would not be subjugated country today, being overrun by masses of Muslim refugees. Same for rest of Western Europe**.

    Hitler wanted an alliance with Poland, and the return of Danzig. Both reasonable enough. Failing to get either, he attacked Poland, the war was quickly over, and he immediately tried to end a larger war, to the extent of leafletting Britain,It was Britain that insisted on WW II, explicitly, many times. (I’ve got the newpaper headlines).

    Instead of trying to rehabilitate Hitler and explain away his stupidity and criminality, “white” people should spit on him for what he did to the (dying) European civilization.

    The truth of the matter is that Hitler’s analysis of the Jewish problem was correct, and the Nazis are the only real opposition the Zionist march for world domination has encountered.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  455. Rurik says:
    @chris

    Maybe this bodes well for the future split-up of Europe, that German colonies will flourish again after the inevitable dissolution of Europe

    I doubt it Chris,

    Once the West collapses under the collective envy and hatred of non-Westerners, and the absolute corruption of its leadership- and the ZUSA ends all pretenses- and postures openly as the Rabid Dog of Zion, then there will be few if any safe places for white Westerns in Western Europe or America, Oceana, etc..

    We are slated to become the new Kulaks, for whom there is so much pent-up racial hatred on acid.

    Russians and Slavs have openly lauded what was done to Germans at Dresden, right here on this thread. Do you think they’d welcome Germans in their midst as the West burns?

    There will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Even now, the only nation offering any kind of sanctuary for white South Africans is Russia, a place where these people have no historical connections. England, the ZUSA, Canada and others have signaled their fidelity to Zion by dismissing any petitions from white South Africans for refugee status. (at least as far as I’m aware).

    As the ZUSA dismantles statues of Kate Smith, and the Church George Washington prayed in removes a memorial in his honor, all as a repudiation of the evil of the white race, how well do people believe their white grandchildren will fare in this new ‘enlightened’ nation? Once all pretenses to the Rule of Law are mocked as the artifice of ‘dead white men’.

    Yesterday I was listening to NPR on the radio, (a sort of exorcise in masochism I practice occasionally), and a (white, female) state senator was talking about some legislation or other, but what was telling was the way she described the people who wrote the legislation (abortion or something) as ‘all white men’.

    The way she said ‘all white men’, was chilling for the seething venom of her tone. It used to be words like ‘Nazi’ that invoked that kind of bile. Now it’s ‘white men’.

    The ZUSA is the last bastion of Western civ dominance in the West. And it’s at war with itself over that distinction. A war we all see the legacy of ‘white men’ losing fast. Once the last demographic battle is won, we’ll remember things like Affirmative Action with fond memories of ‘hatred-light’.

    Maxine Waters will win the day, believe me. Demographics are destiny.

    On that day, Moscow, (ironically) will become the new Rome of the West. But I doubt there’ll be a lot of sympathy for Yanks or WASPs or Germans.

    (pardon the disjointed reflections on our bleak collective future, I’m just sort of trying to come to terms with my cynicism ; )

  456. @Beefcake the Mighty

    At least we got chest, while you got boobs.

  457. Rurik says:
    @Gefreiter

    ..“true face being unmasked” pageant would be French and Polish civilians, bombed, pillaged and raped by both sides of the victorious Zio-masonic armies.

    But ultimately, the biggest winner is the entire European civilization. Murdered, genocided, raped, perverted, pillaged, robbed, swindled ..

    that’s the price you pay when you hand them the keys to your Treasury, and then stubbornly refuse to accept your role as their abject slaves.

    Once they had the Fed, it was all over.

    Perhaps, as I just mentioned, something will persevere in Russia, Hungary and states like Austria, which seems to have jolted itself back into sanity. Perhaps it was when previously Austria sent a message to the world that men from the Third World were welcome to come and rape their ten year old (racist, white, Austrian – where Hitler! was born!) boys, that convulsed Austria back into sanity.

    Who knows, but at least there’s that. Germany seems lost. America too. How will Russians feel about the descent into a dystopian hell on earth for N. America and Germany?

    and in a way, can you blame them?

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  458. Agent76 says:
    @DESERT FOX

    Thanks Desert Fox for your recommendation I am a advid reader.

  459. Vianney says:
    @Saggy

    The Jews are our misfortune.

  460. Gefreiter says:
    @Saggy

    It was Britain that insisted on WW II, explicitly, many times. (I’ve got the newpaper headlines).

    And it was France who aggressively attacked:



    FRANCE INVADES GERMANY — 1914, 1923, 1939

    As Hitler pleads with the Allies not to make war, a limited invasion and occupation of Germany’s Saar region is launched in early September, 1939. It is not until October 16 & 17, 1939 that the German army, reinforced with troops returning from the Polish campaign, conducts a counter-offensive which retakes the lost German towns and territory from the invading French. In liberating what the French had invaded and occupied, the Germans lose 196 soldiers, plus 114 missing and 356 wounded.

  461. L.K says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Beefcake to Stalinist pig SerGAy Krieger

    More Russian gorillas thumping their chests.

    Then SerGay is yet another Russian Stalinist pig living in the *West, not in Russia*…
    Funny how that works eh?
    Not to mention this POS holds some quite prejudiced views on blacks and muslims in Canada, year 2019, while at the same time he and his ilk whine about how the NS held Slavs as inferior to them in the 30s/40s.
    Talk about double standards.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  462. L.K says:

    In fact, the seeds for WW2 were sown by the victors of WW1 and the choices they made at the end of it.
    WW1 itself was caused principally by the British, the Russians and the French.
    As US historian T. Fleming writes, in his book ‘The Illusion of Victory”:

    (US president) Wilson proclaimed self-determination as a great principle—and then gave away chunks of German-speaking Europe to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy and France, sowing the seeds of the next war.
    Knowing that Austria favored a union with Germany after Vienna lost its empire, Wilson wrote into the Treaty of Versailles an article barring the union, no matter how the Austrians voted.[…]”

    In regards to Poland, the fact of the matter is that the Polish state created after WW1 had totally inappropriate and unsustainable borders, so much so that it was involved in territorial conflict with all is neighbors( Soviets, Germans, Lithuanians and Czechs ).

  463. @Carolyn Yeager

    The best and only defense of Poland is the fact that Russia does not give a hoot about it and won’t take it even if offered. NATO and the US will defend Poland exactly like Britain and France did in 1939. Polish elites are either too dumb or too cucked to see that 2×2=4.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  464. refl says:
    @Anon

    Since 1930s, trotskism in Russia had failed, and the state regained much of the powers of Russian Empire. Thats why Hitler, who offered lebensraum and Drang nah Osten back in 1920-s, was put in power by the West, credited and supplied by the West

    That is exactly the argument I found in Nicolai Starikows book “Who set Hitler up against Stalin” and I would like to find a better source. That author explicitly calls himself a conspiracy theorist, which I absolutely appreciate, but it makes him difficult to quote. He rather compiles then investigates.

    And to make my point: His climactic argument is, that Russia indeed won the war – myself, I never doubted that, only that winning at the expense of loosing one eights of your population and everything implied by that can hardly be called winning. It is not the line of argument that helps you be understood beyond your own followers.

    Now about saving the world: I am certainly not apologetic about the Groefaz and in my dreams never want to be. But when I dedemonize the Nazis, it necessarily follows that I have to acknowledge that they had a point somehow. They had a point undoing Versailles and that included eventually war of revanche against Poland, like it or not. They had a point disliking Jewish power that had cost Germany dearly since WW I. The Holocaust evidently was something different then what we are being told, so the question is, what did they really do to eastern european Jewish villagers – probably the same, that they subsequently also did to nonjewish villagers just the same.

    Germany was in a fight for national survival which it lost – with all consequences. That should – and I hate to say this – explain, but certainly not excuse much of the violence.

    Now, did they want a war against Russia? My own explanation has always been that Hitler wanted it, or maybe not?. Now did the USSR prepare for their own attack in 1941? What, if that braging about their own superiority by the German leadership back then was rather about pretending that they had the courage for something they sensed would lead to their own doom?

    We might try to imagine Germany and Russia back then as two fighting dogs set up against each other by some other force. And in this fight it was Germany’s part to loose.

    I have tried to read up on the Russian perspective and what I found was Solchenitzyn’ s 200 Years together. I will tell you that a similar book will not be possible in Germany not even in a hundred years from now.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Iris
    , @Anon
  465. @Gefreiter

    Simultaneously the jew propaganda cesspool in Hollywood began cranking out war propaganda, like “Birth of a Nation”, already in 1915.

    True.

    There is little doubt in my mind that Hollywood got a huge boost from that. Unfortunately I’ve had no time to check it out.

    It seems appropriate to bring this up now that you mentioned “entertainment.”

    If this isn’t diabolical, I’d like to know what is. This article seems legit.

    “…the [media] companies we work for had invested millions into the building of privately owned prisons …[they] recieved funding from the government based on the number of inmates. The more inmates, the more money the government would pay these prisons.

    Our job would be to help make this happen by marketing music which promotes criminal behavior, rap being the music of choice.”

    “The Secret Meeting that Changed Rap Music and Destroyed a Generation”

    …truth is, most rappers are broke; owing more money to their record labels than they have in their bank accounts. As a matter of fact, most contracts for rappers are just as horrible as those for entertainers in other genres where artists sell millions and receive pennies while the record companies make out like fat rats. Who are the owners of these major record companies?

    http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Entertainment_News_5/article_8500.shtml

    PS: I have no use for rap noise; I do not think it qualifies as music any more than “country and western” does.

    • Replies: @FB
  466. Cyrano says:
    @L.K

    How’s that different from your views, you stupid monkey kraut? You are “superior” to the Slavs, yet equal to everybody from the 3rd world.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  467. Cyrano says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Slavic countries will never prosper on their own.

    How exactly did you "help" the Slavic countries to "prosper?" We don't need you. go away and degenerate into nothingness already.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  468. @refl

    We might try to imagine Germany and Russia back then as two fighting dogs set up against each other by some other force. And in this fight it was Germany’s part to loose.

    I agree and believe that Germany had to be crusehed because it was not only a truly competitive force, but both its market and especially resources were smaller than those of the USSR.

    From a mafia monoplist’s point of view, what’s not to like, especially when you can pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar and loan money for “rebuilding” purposes. Something similar was done to the US South after Lincoln’s War against Southern Independence. As I undertand it, the carpetbaggers had a heyday.

    What a formula for “success!”

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @L.K
    , @Anon
  469. FB says: • Website
    @Parfois1

    Agree button already used…

  470. refl says:
    @OEMIKITLOB

    that the Polish had a misplaced sense of honor in light of the situation

    Honor certainly is a bad council in leading a country, above all, when the honorable leaders can take a plane and fly off and let the people suffer the consequences. When it turned out, how many Poles fought with the Wehrmacht, I think it caused a scandal, but maybe there are others here who can fill in the information. So these Poles at least had taken another choice personally.

    Now about Poland being a tripwire: Charles Tansill in “Backdoor to War” tells, how Britain and France gave the Guarantees to Poland only, because they were told that only in this case the US would help them in case of war lateron.

    What we get is this:
    1. Britain allowes Hitler to take over all of Central Europe, nullifying France’s cordon sanitaire, forcing France into submission to Angloamerican leadership.
    2. When Germany has become to strong to be overcome in a short war, the Poles receive a worthless guarantee, which emboldens them to oppose Germany and even provoke it into what Hitler believes will be a short military campaign.
    3. Poland does not get the promised aid. Instead it is torn apart, as Hitler has made a deal with Stalin after having been shunned by the British.
    4. When Hitler reluctantly finally goes to war against France, hoping this to end the war, France does not get help either. The British army goes home in what can be suspected a secret deal with Hitler.
    5. Now Hitler rules supreme in Europe with a war he cannot end in the West and the USSR in the East, on whom he absolutely depends, who he hates and distrusts, and who is getting stronger by the day.
    6. At the same time Stalin knows, that if any moment Hitler gets his peace in the West, it will be open season on his country.
    7. Now the only question is, who of these two strikes first.

    Now you try to find out, how much of this is true and how much I have just pulled out of my deranged mind.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  471. Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

    One of the problems of Holocaust Remembrance(akin to Holocaust Worship, which leads to Worship of Jews) is that it ‘esoterically’ carries the seeds of Judeo-Nazism. In other words, it is supremacist, or yet another form of supremacism even as it denounces the ‘master race’ supremacism of Nazism. The rites and rituals of Holocaust Remembrance aren’t really about the evil of mass murder, six million dead, or a people being targeted for mass extermination. It’s really about the outrage that it was done to JEWS. The moral logic would suggest that Jews are the superior race, the true master race, the holy race. Therefore, the real crime of the Holocaust was that a false wanna-be master race(the Teutons) dared to mass murder the true master race, the Jews. In remembrance, what we hear is not the outrage of killing 6 million people(though some analyses point to numbers closer to 3 million) but 6 million JEWS. So, the real abomination of Nazi Criminality was that it targeted Holy Jews than mere humans. One gets the sense that the Holocaust wouldn’t have been deemed so evil and unforgettable/unforgivable IF Nazi Germans and their collaborators had killed another people while sparing Jews. Abe Foxman was once recorded admonishing Ukrainian leaders NOT to conflate the ‘Holodomor’ with the Holocaust. The Shoah is a jealous god, and ‘thou shall not worship no tragedy before(or alongside) it’. If Jews really regarded the Holocaust as a crime against Humanity, they would welcome comparisons of Jewish suffering in the Shoah with the sufferings of rest of humanity in similar tragedies. But Jews insist on maintaining the singularity of the Shoah because the victims weren’t merely human but JEWS. Now, it’s understandable why a people would be more upset with their own dead. After all, Armenians are more upset over what the Turks did. Chinese are more sensitive about the Nanking Massacre. The difference is that Jews don’t merely grieve over their own dead among themselves but try to force all the world to feel that the Shoah was worse than any other tragedy because it was done to JEWS. Indeed, Jews want goyim to believe that suffering of Jews is worse than even the suffering of their own goy kind. Whites, it seems, have truly bought into this. They are so obsessed with protecting a single hair on a Jewish child in Israel but turn a blind eye to the grisly deaths of thousands of whites in South Africa(because whites expressing white identity will displease the holy Jews). As long as the super-rich Jewish diamond industrialists can rake in billions by bribing the black-run government, who cares if white gentiles get slaughtered on farms?

    The 20th century has seen lots of bloodshed and mayhem. But most mass-killings have been forgotten, ignored, or suppressed. Even rationalized. Many will argue that the Holocaust was especially evil because it wasn’t just mass-killing but a targeted genocide of a specific people. Fair enough. Still, one can’t help but feel that the real outrage is over murder of JEWS than murder of mere people, the goyim. Suppose millions of Jews had died not by targeted genocide but by a broader movement, like forced collectivization in the USSR. Suppose a political campaign ended up killing millions of Jews by famine and starvation than by extermination squads. Would the deaths of those millions of Jews be mostly ignored like the deaths of millions of Ukrainians or Chinese(under communism)? I think not. The reason why Jews are far less harsh on communism is because most Jews greatly benefited in the USSR just when millions of Slavic Christians were being dispossessed and killed by starvation. It was good for Jews, and the victims were goyim. And do Jews feel even a smidgen of remorse or conscience about what they did in Russia in the 90s? Most Jews don’t. If anything, they even make alliances with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to undermine and eventually take over Russia, as if it belongs to them as well. Jews kvetch about one dead Jew in Israel but show NO feelings about countless dead Muslims resulting from Wars for Israel.

    So, Holocaust Remembrance isn’t anti-supremacist. It is a sly program of slipping in Jewish Supremacism under the guise of anti-supremacism. Jewish dead in the Holocaust are portrayed as the greatest victims of racial supremacism, but the sheer inordinate emphasis on the victims being Jewish implies that Jewish Lives are more precious than any other lives. If German Nazis had spared Jews but tried to wipe out Hungarians or only Gypsies, I doubt there would be as much fuss about it.

    [MORE]

    One thing for sure, Hitler’s plan for Russia was grim and brutal. He planned mass exterminations in the millions to be followed by mass enslavement. A Slavic-holocaust or Slavocaust was planned for Russians, and given that Germans conquered much territory during the war, one could argue that all the Slavs under German Occupation were also holocaust survivors(using the logic of the Jewish definition of ‘holocaust survivor’, who could be ANYONE who lived in zones under Nazi Occupation even if he or she never stepped inside a Nazi Concentration Camp). And yet, there is no World Remembrance of Russian deaths and sacrifices. Germans aren’t pressured to feel guilty over their crimes against Slavs. If anything, the German government is pressured by Jewish-controlled US to wage economic war to spread misery in Russia. Germany is also silenced from noticing and denouncing the alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine.
    Also, if the great lesson learned by Germans from WWII and the Holocaust is the evil of Ethno-Supremacism, why are most Germans and Europeans silent about the obviously ethno-supremacist policy of Jewish-controlled US that favors Jews over Palestinians, Jews over Arabs/Muslims(whose nations have been devastated at the behest of Zionist power), Jews over Christians — notice the total silence about all those Christian Arabs destroyed as the result of Wars for Israel — , and Jews over Russians? In the end, the lesson of Holocaust Remembrance is not “It is evil for any people to claim superiority and commit mass-murder against another people deemed inferior” but “It is evil to target Jews for political violence because Jews are innately holier, superior, and more precious than any other race.” Holocaust Remembrance logic implicitly posits that the Shoah was worse than a case of mere human-cide. It was closer to Deicide, the killing of god-men. It’s a logic borrowed from Christianity. Why did the killing of Jesus matter so much? After all, Jews and Romans killed plenty of people. Jews stoned many deemed as heretics or blasphemers. Romans killed many deemed to be traitorous or dangerous to the empire. Then, why make such a big fuss about the killing of Jesus, some Jewish carpenter in Judea? Because, at least according to Christian Mythology, He was no ordinary man. Indeed, He was even more than a Great Man. He was God-Man. Thus, it wasn’t murder of a human but the murder of the Son of God.
    Similar logic underlies Holocaust Remembrance. The real crime is not mass murder of humans but the mass murder of JEWS, the holy race, the awesome race, the genius race, the ancient race, the super race, and etc. Granted, Jews are indeed one of history’s great peoples, and surely, the mass killing of Jews will be more consequential than the mass deaths of, say, Bolivians or Burmese. If all Bolivians or Burmese were to disappear(or had never existed in history), the world be pretty much as it is. But if Jews had never existed, the world would be profoundly different, for good or ill. And if Jews were to vanish into the thin air, the world would be much affected by their absence. So, it’s understandable why Jews(and their fans, admirers, cucks, and worshipers) would be so obsessed about the well-being and power of Jews in the world. But then, this is precisely why Holocaust Remembrance isn’t ultimately anti-supremacist but neo-supremacist. It is less a condemnation of racial supremacism per se than a condemnation of false supremacism that dared to do violence to the true supreme people, the genuine master race of Jews.
    Indeed, US politics cannot be understood apart from the fact that Jewish Supremacism is the core defining ‘principle’ of all that happens. Notice how US politics isn’t essentially about Left vs Right but “Jews like?” vs “Jews don’t like?” White Identity is suppressed(even if it isn’t supremacist) because Jews fear ANY white consciousness will undermine blind obedience among whites to Jewish Supremacism. Slaves mustn’t have pride or ego. Only the master deserves to have them. People with pride and ego do not want to serve others. Only when such are taken from them do they become servile to those who are allowed a sense of self. Jews hate the sight of ‘uppity’ whites who prefer to think for themselves about their own identity and history than be berated by Jews that they are so tainted by ‘white privilege’ and burdened by ‘white guilt’ that they must forsake white identity and serve another people, one that happens to be holy, to gain redemption. Of course, that Other People are Jews(even though Jewish money and skills played a big role in White Imperialism, Slave Trade, and conquest of non-whites). Jews bitch about ‘white supremacism’, but they are suppressing white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism. All this Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria is presented as ‘progressive’ resistance against Trump as Putin-Puppet, but it’s all about Jews. Jews hate Russia because its national autonomy stands in the way of total Jewish World Hegemony. And they esp hate Russia because it says NO to Homomania, a proxy of Jewish World Imperialism. Jews push mass non-white immigration into the West on grounds of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’, but it’s all about “Is it good for Jews?” It’s obvious from so many New York Times op-eds that what Jews want is to destroy white majority power and create a crazy-quilt nation so that they can play divide-and-rule among goyim from above. That’s all it’s about. And notice how Jewish Power, both Republican and Democratic, work behind the scenes to shut down BDS even though it is mostly deemed a leftist movement. Why are Jewish ‘progressives’ working with Jewish Republicans(and cuck-christo-Goppers) to destroy BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians? Because most Jewish Liberals are Jews first and Liberals second. Or, they are Jewish Supremacists first and Jewish humanists second. Even in the bluest states, powerful Jewish Liberals have worked with even hardline Republicans(worthless christo-cucks, the most of them) to shut down BDS. New York is said to be one of the most ‘liberal’ states, but its cuck-governor bans BDS. Texas and NY are seen as red vs blue, but when it comes to Jews uber Palestinians, both are totally agreed that the US must serve Jews no matter what. And in Florida, a bill is about to become law that would ban speech that notices Jewish power, Jewish supremacism, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. Such a law isn’t about humans. It’s about gods, premised on the notion that Jews are so holy, great, awesome, and wondrous that it would be downright blasphemous to cast negative aspersions on Jewish Power, notice wicked patterns of behavior among Jews, connect the dots of Jewish influence, condemn Wars for Israel, and call out on Zionist tyranny over Palestinians(and others). Jews say they are condemning ‘hate speech’, but they are pushing blasphemy laws with themselves as new gods.
    Also, if Jews are so concerned about how ‘Hate Speech’ may lead to violence against powerless minorities, why were they so silent about all those ‘liberal’ Hollywood movies and TV shows that feature Muslims and Arabs as terrorist madmen or token ‘good guys'(who are good ONLY WHEN they collaborate with the US empire against other Muslims)? If Jews are so sensitive about victim-hood, why do they promote violent rap music that celebrates gun violence, rape, & mayhem and call women ‘bitches’ and ‘ho’s’? If Jews are so worried about how ‘hate speech’ may lead to new atrocities and wars, why do the Jewish-run media spew so much Hate News against Iran, Syrians, Arabs, and Russians? Didn’t Fake News and Hate News under Bush II and Obama lead to bloodbaths in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? And if Jews despise Trump as ‘literally Hitler’, why are they most silent and even supportive of him when he is most belligerent, demagogic, and warlike in his hysteria about Iran and Venezuela? It seems Jews don’t mind Trump being ‘literally Hitler’ as long as it’s against peoples and nations hated by Jews. Indeed, Jews even form alliances with Literally Nazi elements in Ukraine to get what they want. They even cheer on ISIS psychopaths to wreck Syria, an ally of Iran, IF it is deemed Good for Israel.

    The ‘moral’ logic of Holocaust Remembrance is like that of Globo-Homo-Mania. Initially, the ‘gay’ agenda was sold as freedom for homosexuals. We didn’t have to approve them or welcome them. It was based on the scientific truth that some people are born with homo tendencies, and it’s not their fault. Also, as people have feelings, it’s not good to insult and harm homosexuals. Just let them be. And most Americans went along with this. But, it soon turned out that this GloboHomo business wasn’t just about tolerance of deviancy and freedom for perverts but a supremacist idolatry of homos(and even trannies) as an angel-like special people whom we must feel compelled to celebrate, praise, lionize, and rhapsodize over. As for those who refuse to do so and call out on the true nature of the ‘gay’ agenda, they are to be deemed as ‘homophobic’, or sick in the head and unfit to reach upper ranks of society where all the goodies are. Even a huge chain like Chick-Fil-A is to be denied access to cities like Chicago where mass celebrations of Anno Sodomini takes place annually. Apparently, Dick-Fill-Ass is what the US is really about.

    Both Holocaust Remembrance and Globo-Homo have been sold as being about justice, equality, and anti-supremacism, but both are actually predicated on the supremacist notion that Jews and homos(their main allies and most tireless globalist agents) are special and deserve praise, adulation, and obedience above and beyond all other peoples. Clever Jews have coated the poison pill of Jewish supremacism with anti-supremacist sweetener. In the mouth, it tastes like ‘equality and justice’ but dissolves in the stomach to spread mindless support of Jewish Supremacism. At AIPAC rallies, Jews and cucks make big speeches about ‘Never Again’ and ‘No to Hate’, all the while pledging undying support for Zionist tyranny against Palestinians, Wars for Israel, mindless hatred against Iran, and defamation of whites who insist on having an identity emancipated from the clutches of the Shylock Doctrine.

    Jews could have used Holocaust Remembrance to learn and teach a greater lesson for all mankind. It could have been about how it’s wrong for ANY would-be supremacists to wipe out another people. Alas, the lesson has become just another form of Supremacism, i.e. we need to remember the Holocaust forever and ever because the victims were JEWS, the holy and superior race. The lesson became selective than universal.
    Even the Jewish-controlled Narrative of the US is about “Is it good for Jews?” Jews say Immigration was noble because it was great for their own kind. But didn’t Immigration of Europeans and Jews lead to the ‘genocide’ of native indigenous folks? Didn’t Jewish Hollywood make tons of Westerns lionizing the white pioneers who rubbed out the Indians? Didn’t immigration lead to Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map? Never mind all that. Too inconvenient for the Judeo-centric Narrative.
    Jews say they are for universal principles and reach for a global audience on that basis, but their ultimate message isn’t “equal justice for all humans” but “all humans must agree to praise, worship, and serve Jews and furthermore ensure that all the world will be good for Jews”. Jews are not surrendering to universalism but exploiting its reach to make humans serve Jews as the god-race.

    But then, the very notion of Jewishness is essentially supremacist as it’s based on the conviction that the one true God chose Jews to be masters over all humanity. Indeed, when so-called progressive Jews cling to Jewishness, they are sticking to an exclusionary identity-ideology that says Jews are special and more blessed than others. Even among secular Jews, this mental habit seems to remain. Some Jews argue that Jewishness is about Jews minding their own business and demanding to be left alone by goy bigots. But Jewishness isn’t like being Amish, a culture that really just wants to be left alone. Jewishness is about Jews excluding goyim from their own world but making all the goy world include Jewish Power as the righteous master and ruler over all of humanity. It is a mad contradiction, a psycho-political dilemma at the root of the world’s biggest problems and conflicts.

  472. L.K says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Hey J.S.
    In regards to WW2/WW1, double standards, outright LIES and fabrications are the norm.
    For example, we endlessly hear of alleged German or Japanese crimes and atrocities, a lot of it lies or exaggerations. Just imagine the following photo but in a Japanese magazine instead, featuring a pretty Japanese girl looking at the skull of a dead US marine. Something like: “Tokyo war worker writes her IJA boyfriend a thank-you note for the US marine skull he sent her.”… or replace that with a young German woman receiving a Red Army soldier skull from her boyfriend… you get the picture. We’d never hear the end of it…
    * “Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her.” LIFE magazine’s “Picture of the Week,” May 22, 1944.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  473. L.K says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Or consider how one constantly hears about Malmedy or some other incident involving Waffen SS troops. The semi-official Malmedy account is actually partly false btw.

    Yet, Brit anti-German court historian Max Hastings, in his book Overlord, about the Battle of Normandy, admits:

    “Much has been made of the shooting of prisoners – most notoriously, Canadian prisoners – by 12th SS Panzer and other German units in Normandy. Yet it must be said that propaganda has distorted the balance of guilt. Among scores of Allied witnesses interviewed for this narrative, almost every one had direct knowledge or even experience of the shooting of German prisoners during the campaign. … Many British and American units shot SS prisoners routinely, which explained, as much as the fanatical resistance that the SS so often offered, why so few appeared in POW cages.”

    And btw, they shot regular army POWs too.

  474. Iris says:
    @refl

    That is exactly the argument I found in Nicolai Starikows book “Who set Hitler up against Stalin” and I would like to find a better source.

    There are at least two history academics with first-class credentials whose works prove that Germany and the USSR were deliberately set against each other.

    Reaserch by US historian John Gillingham came to the conclusion that in order to escape the pre-war social and economic lock-step encountered in their confrontation with the working classes, consecutive to the global economic depression, Belgian business leaders had prepared their collaboration with the German occupier long before the actual occupation happened.
    Belgian elites sought the Nazi occupation as a means to establish a “new economic order” and remove the barriers between Business and state groups responsible for financial and economic policy.

    Excerpt from a review of John Gillingham’s “Belgian Business in the Nazi New Order” 1977, in the “Journal of Economic History”:

    “The available evidence suggests to the author that the professed goals for Belgian collaboration are unbelievable [..] The real reasons for voluntary collaboration lay elsewhere. The controllers of the Belgian industries had lost confidence in liberal capitalism and desired a corporative control of markets. Occupation provided the opportunity to reduce wages and to destroy independent trade unions. ”

    Works by French professor emeritus Annie Lacroix-Riz go even further to the point. She has produced a perfectly documented thesis proving that French business had started inviting Nazi collaboration as early as 1933, with French ambassador to Germany Francois Poncet confiding to Hitler that there would be soon a “friendly change of regime” in Paris (the February 1934 failed coup). She shows how Petain, far from being clueless or patriotic, went to Franco’s Spain with a class of bureaucrats, and got prepared for over a year to timely take in charge the Collaboration with the German occupier.

    She describes a conspiracy organised by a secret organisation of “pro-German” French elite business who first pretended to side with Hitler to get him to attack the USSR, then became suddenly “pro-Americans” immediately after the battle of Stalingrad.

    This French conspiracy/secret organisation is called “La Synarchie”. Its existence was revealed by a well-known scandal and a string of “suicides” that occurred in 1941.

    Her book is called “Le choix de la defaite ” (Defeat by Design)

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  475. @Carolyn Yeager

    “Slavic countries will never prosper on their own. They never have.”

    Oh yeah, like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the mightiest country in Europe at its time? You’re ignorant beyond any hope.

    “And you admit your lack of loyalty to the West”

    We don’t owe the West any loyalty. The “West” has never been loyal to us (re 1939). Besides, what “West”? It’s a marxist Anglo-Zio herd of dangerous mad dogs, led by traitorous, degenerate leaders. You must be really old since your “reality” is in the 1960’s. Wake up, old lady.

    “Jealousy of Germans has been consuming Poles for centuries.”

    That shows you’ve never been to Poland. Go and see how much they care about Germany, oops, Germani-stan, that is.

    “Poland is scared to death of fellow slavic Russia”.

    We kicked their ass in 1612 and 1920. They conquered us in 1795 and 1939 only because they worked together with Germans and together attacked Poland from both sides, West and East. Great “neighbors” we have.

    And by the way, all territories east of Łaba (Elbe) were Slavic, including Berlin, Rostock, Dresden etc. You stole them from us. We will get them back one day in a future war with Islamist Germany. Long after arrogant, one dimensional Teutons like you, will be gone.

  476. @Vianney

    Miles Mathis says Mussolini was a gay “Jewish actor who faked his death.”

    Would this qualify as revisionist history?

    • Replies: @Vianney
  477. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Why two? Oh, I forgot you’re known to have boobs instead of chest. So apparently your lower parts also work in tandem.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  478. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Germany had to be crushed because it was not only a truly competitive force, but both its market and especially resources were smaller than those of the USSR.

    That’s a major mistake. There was no market economy in socialist USSR and Germany already had lots of Russian resources by a trade agreement until war started in 1941. Most resources of USSR you are familiar now were not available in ww2 era (e.g. Siberian oil and gas, metals, diamonds). USSR had to import many raw materials from Western allies. Wehrmacht was fully supplied from German satellites and conquered countries through the war.

    USSR was just recently industrialized, keeping majority of village population. There were about 70 mln ethnic Germans vs. 100 mln ethnic Russians in 1940, yet on the German side were educated and capable population of the rest of Europe (300 mlm approx), on the Russian side – less educated and industrialized peoples of Asia (do not speak Russian, can hardly serve in the forces) or recently gained Western Belarussia, Ukraine and the Baltics with less motivated population. Add Italians, Madyars, Finns, SS volunteers and you get more Axis powers vs. USSR by manpower, resources and industry.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @L.K
    , @Jacques Sheete
  479. Gefreiter says:

    This current S400/F35 kerfuffle about Turkey’s arms purchases closely resembles the Breslau and Goeben crisis in August/September 1914.

    Back then, Turkey desperately needed strong, modern naval ships of the line to protect Constantinople from Russian or Greek invasion. Like Russia in 1905, Turkey in 1914 was dependent on the Rothschild owned Vickers ship yards for delivery of modern warships. The Rothschilds reneged, and Turkey turned to Germany for the Breslau and Goeben, which was one major reason Turkey sided with the Kaiser.

    Now Turkey needs strong air defence to defend itself from all kinds of enemys, Rothschild instigated or not. The F35 is the Red Shield offered by the Rothschilds. The S400 is the equivalent of the Breslau and Goeben.

    History does repeat.

  480. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @refl

    But when I dedemonize the Nazis

    It is a common place in the West today to portray Nazis as some abberration of the West, or Hitler a maniac. That’s irrational. You just try to find excuses for Hitler and his country that invaded Russia and killed millions of Russians intending to rule their land, but having not thought of consequences.

    There were other Westerners trying to do it before Hitler. Napoleon. Charles XII of Sweden. Poles. Knights of Teutonic order etc. One can see a kind of a historic law, or at least regularity, not insanity. All these invaders were defeated. Either all of them were stupid, or they had some extra motivation overcoming evident risk, or they were moved by some external power, again for some reason.

    In Russia, we see Hitler not as just a maniac (many powerful rulers were insane), but a reasonable, typical representative of the West. Not a bad emanation of Germanic spirit, or some Western idea from Nietzsche to Rudyard Kipling. The British and the French in Hitlers place could do the same. They all took for granted that there are some nations that may be exploited and enslaved, or even erased. A kind of biblical hatred to your neighbors of other kin. Such hatred is cured only by major blood of the haters.

    Hitler was a respected person in the West of his era. He was taken as ‘our man’, ‘a business partner’ by monarchs and democratically elected governments. We believe that he was doing some bidding, playing a game of not just his own. We believe also that Poles and French were not just worthless cowards, but their leadership received orders to surrender. Preserving Hitler to fight USSR (read Russia).

  481. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Slavic_Guy

    in 1612 and 1920

    Poland invaded Russia twice during Time of Troubles and Russian Civil War, in the hardest times or Russian history, the times of famine and plague, to be named lately the ‘greedy hyena’ by Churchill.

    They conquered us in 1795 and 1939

    Russia did not conquered the lands of Polish proper in these years. It took back Ukraine and Belorussia that should never belong to Poland as parts of Ancient Rus inhabited by non-Polish Slavic Orthodox population related to Russians. The kingdom of Poland had discriminated Orthodox population, depriving non-Catholics of major rights.

    It was only Tsardom of Poland with Polish lands inside Russia. But before Poles helped Napoleon to invade Russia and rebelled against Congress Poland governance = as if today they rebelled against UN security council decisions.

    We will get them back one day in a future war with Islamist Germany.

    Who said these lands should be Polish (e.g. why not Chezch?) and who said you may win this war? Many Poles still work in Western Europe, and Poland has no major military industry.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  482. refl says:
    @Anon

    That’s a major mistake. There was no market economy in socialist USSR and Germany already had lots of Russian resources by a trade agreement until war started in 1941.

    I think, you are missunderstanding J.S. here. He was answering to my point that Germany “had to be crushed” in the German-Russian war because (as I ment) in all-out war it was the weaker part. It might have got a draw maybe, if the West had not supported the USSR (and there you have it: the Americans helping the Russians against their own Western agent – allowing both to blead their people to death. What an aid they were giving them!)

    I have read somewhere that the German-Russian war was in a way the second civil war in Russia – which I understand in the sense that there was no way for the Germans to bring the country to peace ever – if they once should have had the intention.

    In fact, German military doctrine of the 19th century was based on the fear of the Russian steamroller – so the generals should have known what mess they were involving themselves in.

    To anyone who was aware of these strategic basics, it must have been clear, what the endgame would be: a bloody mess with Germany shattered and Russia barely standing, but Communism reaching right into the center of Europe. And whoever was intelligent enough to set up these two powers against each other certainly was also able to forsee this outcome.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Anon
    , @Jacques Sheete
  483. @Slavic_Guy

    1. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was NEVER the mightiest country in Europe. Who is ignorant? You.

    2. But you want the West to be loyal to you. You totally depend on the West. A fact. You still get subsidies from the EU, and NEVER will you opt to leave it. Poland’s PM is a full blooded Jew – they had to go to him for someone who was smart enough. Your silly Jawrolski (sp) is a pigmy. And you are a rude SOB. Who needs to wake up?

    3. I have been to Poland in 2008, and I have written about it. I rated it way behind it’s neighbor Czech Republic. Backward in many ways. Have YOU been to Poland? Maybe not.

    4. Poland never “kicked Russia’s ass.” It was lucky because conditions were difficult for Russia in 1920, and also Germany was on your side. Germany has helped Poland a lot and you are an example of the ungrateful Poles. Also, if Poland “kicked Russia’s ass” why was it not able to do the same to Germany?

    5. Your territorial claims are as empty as Jews’ claims to Eretz Israel. And repeating them in the way you do makes you no more popular than are the Jews.

    6. You, yourself, will be long gone before Germany is Islamist.

    And may I say, this kind of screed, along with your name Slavic_Guy, doesn’t bring any respect to Poles or to Slavs — in case you hadn’t thought of that.

  484. FB says: • Website
    @Jacques Sheete

    So country and western isn’t music…?

    You’ve just spat on most ordinary, decent folks in America…what a fucking dork…

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Anon
  485. L.K says:
    @Anon

    @anon411

    Your post is a good example of the nonsense that “Team Russia” trolls produce on the Internet.
    Do you actually believe the BS you wrote above?

    The Soviets had vastly larger access to raw materials than did Germany, so much so that they were Germany’s key supplier until Barbarossa. The fact that the Soviets received( a lot) of raw materials and finished goods from the US during the war does not change any of that.
    Germany is generally poor in raw materials(except coal) as are most of the countries she occupied or were allied with.
    Germany’s oil production, for example, was extremely low from the outset and she had to help Italy and send her some because Italy was even more oil starved than Germany.
    The following is a comparison of Germany and US oil production, imports and synthetic plants included(million metric tons):
    USA 1942: 183.9 / Germany 1942: 7.7

    As the war progressed the situation became rapidly worse for Germany and the Axis.

    Soviet industrial capacity was huge and they outproduced Germany in most if not all military items; tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.

    The Soviet pop. was nearly 200 million and the German were not fighting the Soviets alone, but the allies. Germany had to keep troops as occupation forces in many countries, garrison the coast from Norway to France, and as the war progressed it had to send ever larger forces to the Med theater, etc.
    Overall, the contribution of other Axis forces on the Eastern front was small, except for 1942, and the reason Germany tried to make do with larger allied forces in the summer offensive of 42, considering how ill-equipped and trained most of them were, was principally because Germany was so SHORT of troops, particularly infantry.

    The Stalinist regime began blackmailing Germany soon after the Polish campaign. By summer 1941 it was preparing a surprise offensive but the Germans beat them to it.

    In closing, it was the Allies who had a large edge in manpower, raw materials and industrial output over the Axis, which largely explains how they were able to overcome their initial crushing defeats and losses.
    To make matters worse for the Axis, the “Allies” actually did coordinate their strategic war aims, despite their differences, while the Axis fought parallel wars that hurt each other.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @refl
  486. @Rurik

    I believe one subject that is often overlooked and maligned is Putin’s allowing and encouraging Christianity and the Orthodox Church to flourish again and I don’t believe the importance of this act can be overstated in its significance, not only to individual Russians but also as to the health of Russian culture, economy and geopolitical influence. I also firmly believe his encouraging of it is also the biggest reason for his demonizing by MSM and many political elites here in the U.S.

    If Putin is as intelligent and savvy as he seems to be, I believe it is possible Russia could become more influential on the world stage and a potential cultural influence to neighboring countries it’s west due to this and this bothers many political elites who are anti-Christian. This is not to say he is not without his faults as we all are or that Christianity is his prime motivator, just that his allowing and encouraging the Christian faith to flourish could be a decisive turning point and, as I said, is an angle that is often overlooked as a theory with the explanatory scope and power that helps explain some people’s attitude toward Putin and Russia.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  487. L.K says:
    @refl

    Hitler and the National Socialists were NOT the West’s ‘agents’ & there is no serious evidence to support such a notion. Also, the often promoted stuff that it was the West’s( particularly anglo-american-Jewish) banking/business interests that financed and placed Hitler in power is untenable.

    As for Barbarossa, considering the situation facing Germany in 1941 and the extremely suspicious behavior of the Soviet regime(to say the least), there was not much of a choice but to attack.

    The following is my post 527 under
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/
    @Ron Unz
    I put together a series of posts a while ago, on the motives that led to Operation Barbarossa, more or less in chronological order, which I think is helpful. Some of it you may be familiar since it draws from Suvorov and J. Hoffmann. I also rely heavily on military historian Heinz Magenheimer( Die Militärstrategie Deutschlands 1940 -1945: Führungsentschlüsse, Hintergründe, Alternativen) and on historian Dr. Walter Post( Unternehmen Barbarossa – Deutsche und sowjetische Angriffspläne 1940/41), as well as on W. Strauss( presents the “new Russian” historians views) & others.
    Original post is formatted.

    [MORE]

    Part One.
    Barbarossa had NOTHING to do with any search of Lebensraum in the East, as is often claimed.
    The quacks who advance this sort of thing count on our complete ignorance of the geopolitical, diplomatic and military issues which truly led to operation Barbarossa.
    It would have been political and military madness for the German leadership, to have turned on the USSR out of some ideological determinism, while Germany was in a increasingly bad strategic situation, facing unfinished business with Britain( the unsinkable carrier ) and its empire and the looming prospect of the US entering the war on the side of the British. This danger was much enhanced after the failure of the air campaign over Britain in the fall of 1940. It must be remembered that the German leadership understood the US special relationship with Britain and had learned of the FDR administration anti-German war mongering in Europe, even before the war, and confirmed the US aggressive aims at fomenting a war in Europe after documents were captured, first in Poland in 1939, and later in France.

    To launch an attack on the USSR at that juncture would entail a huge risk and the prospect of the much feared war on 2 fronts, basically unwinnable for a country such as Germany. Precisely to avoid such a scenario Germany had signed the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939.

    From Stalin’s perspective, the pact was a trap, which the Soviets did NOT need to have signed at all, had Stalin and his entourage had peace and only the security of the USSR in mind, which they did not. In fact, the pact initiated the destruction of the buffer states barrier that physically separated Germany from the USSR, and this, with the exception of Poland, was done unilaterally by Stalin. More on this later.

    The Stalinist trap was designed to get a large scale European war in motion, pitting Germany against the Western powers. As Suvorov explains, the Soviets cunningly cheated the Germans, who invaded Poland alone while the Soviet forces stood still on Poland’s eastern borders until Sept.17, despite constant German demands that they fulfill their part of the agreement and invade. Eventually the Soviets did and took half of the country but Britain and France were not interested that the USSR enter the war on the side of Germany(nor did they really care about Poland) and the Soviet delay to invade made it easier for France and Britain to look the other way. Germany got hit with a war declaration, the USSR did not. Hitler and Germany alone got to be blamed for starting the war while Stalin, the breaker of Nations, sat on the sidelines, the USSR as a ‘neutral’ country, just waiting to pounce at the most opportune moment.

    End of part 1

    [Hide MORE]
    PART 2

    As military historian Heinz Magenheimer explains, despite the massive German victory over the Western allies in the summer of 1940, Germany’s strategic situation became ever more complicated, given the refusal of the British to negotiate an end to the war. The key goal of German command after the 1940 summer campaign was to either create conditions to pressure the English to negotiate an end to the war or to otherwise take them out militarily. Several options were considered; the most effective would be an invasion of Britain itself, however this option was also the most risky, particularly in view of the weakness and small size of the German navy and the strength of the British fleet.

    Interestingly, one of the other options considered, was to form a massive continental Eurasian bloc extending from Europe to Japan, AND including the USSR, as a means to counter the Anglo-American threat and force the Brits to the negotiating table before the US intervened. The USSR leadership’s dupliticity, unreliability and aggressive and threatening behaviour towards Germany eventually ruled that option out.
    As even pro-Stalin British historian Geoffrey Roberts writes in his highly biased ” Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 “:
    “… Hitler’s preoccupation at this time was with Britain, not Russia, and he could not understand why the British had rejected yet another offer of peace negotiations.
    …Hitler gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to involve the Soviet Union in a ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that would range itself against the US as well as Britain.[…]
    Certainly, it was only after the collapse of the proposed continental bloc that Hitler issued a formal directive to prepare for an invasion of Russia.”

    Why did the German led proposition of a continental bloc against the British Empire and the US fail? Because of the absurd demands that were made by Stalin via Molotow in Berlin in November of 1940. More about that later.

    PART 3
    So, why did Germany strike the USSR in June 1941? We need to know the history of what happened in the East after the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939.
    W.N.Sanning summarizes it well:

    “The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939 provided for the following territorial divisions: Estonia and Latvia would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence while Lithuania would fall into the German. From Lithuania the line of demarcation would run toward East Prussia, from there along the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers toward the Carpathian mountains. After the Polish defeat, the Soviet government immediately exerted heavy pressure on Germany for a revision of the treaty. In order to maintain peace, Hitler agreed in the second treaty, the so-called Border and Friendship Agreement of 28 September 1939, that Germany would relinquish its interest in most(but not all) of Lithuania in exchange for the area between the Vistula and the Bug […]. While Germany was engaged in the Western Campaign from 10 May until 24 June, 1940, the Soviet Union occupied the entirety of Lithuania between 16 and 22 June following the ultimatum of 15 June – that is, including even that portion which was to remain within the German sphere of interest according to the treaty. This occupation constituted not only a gross violation of the two Soviet-German treaties but also of the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of Mutual Assistance (10 October 1939). The German government was neither consulted nor informed of this Soviet action as required under the treaty provisions. The northern Bukovina region of Rumania, which was outside the agreed-upon Soviet sphere of interest, was similarly appropriated by the Soviets, although in this case the Soviets pressured Germany into giving its “consent” within an ultimative time period of 24 hours before occupation. I mention these developments only because they demonstrate the determination with which Russia removed German strategic advantages while improving her own. They also show that Germany had no definite military objectives against the Soviet Union because otherwise it is i