The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_370546778

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

About a decade ago I’d gotten a little friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, one of America’s premier radical journalists and the founder of Counterpunch, a leading leftist webzine. With virtually all of America’s mainstream media outlets endlessly cheerleading for the total insanity of our Iraq War, Counterpunch was a port in the storm, and gained considerable credibility in my eyes.

Although Alex lived in the far northern reaches of the Golden State, the rural North Coast close to the Oregon border where much of the local cash economy was based on illegal marijuana growing, he periodically took trips down to the Bay Area, and sometimes dropped by Palo Alto to have lunch with me when he did. Often as not, he brought along a book that he was in the middle of reading, and based on his strong recommendations, it usually ended up on my own list.

Sometimes my appraisal differed sharply from his own. For example, Shlomo Sand’s international best-seller The Invention of the Jewish People was very widely praised in left-liberal and anti-Zionist circles, and attracted considerable attention in the mainstream media. But although I found many parts of the history extremely interesting, the central claim appeared to be incorrect. As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome and took local Northern Italian wives, afterward remaining largely endogamous for the next thousand-plus years of their growing presence in Central and Eastern Europe. However, being a historian rather than a genetic researcher, Prof. Sand was apparently unaware of this hard evidence, and focused upon much weaker literary and cultural indicators, perhaps also being somewhat influenced by his own ideological predilections.

On the other hand, some of Alex’s other recommendations I found absolutely fascinating and quite persuasive. Once, he mentioned he was reading a book about the foreign spy network that had seized considerable control of the American political system just prior to our entry into WWII. “Oh,” I said, “you mean the Soviet Communist spy network?” I had recently become better aware of the volume of evidence revealed by Venona decrypts. “No,” he answered with a smile, “the other foreign spy network, the one run by Britain.”

He explained that British spies had played a massive hidden role in getting America involved in the Second World War despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry, and very possibly had murdered a top Republican Party official as they secretly gained political control of the GOP and its presidential nominating process. Being himself from a family of British Communist Party members, he found it quite amusing that rival networks of British spies and Communist spies had quietly competed or cooperated for control of our own national government during that era, even while the totally ignorant and oblivious American sheep grazed contently, emitting an occasional “Baa!” now and again, and never noticed that the direction of their flock periodically changed in seemingly inexplicable ways.

DesperateDeception So I went ahead and ordered the book, Desperate Deception by Thomas E. Mahl, and put it in my stack, though being busy with software work, it was a couple of years until I finally got around to reading it. Unfortunately, by that time, Alex was no longer among us, so I couldn’t drop him a note of thanks for the recommendation. As someone with merely a cursory knowledge of twentieth century American history, largely acquired from high school textbooks and newspaper articles, I found the material quite shocking, but based on a few conversations I’ve had, I suspect that many Americans, including those far more knowledgeable than myself, would react in much the same way.

These days, informed observers have grown a bit blasé at the notion of our country being manipulated by agents of a foreign power together with its influential domestic allies, and although the endless, Stalinesque standing ovations given by Congress to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu last year raised a few temporary eyebrows at the time, the incident was quickly forgotten. But back in the more innocent era of the 1930s, there was still a naive feeling that American elected officials should act in service to what they perceived as America’s own national interests, and if the facts of Prof. Mahl’s book had become known at the time, there surely would have been a serious political backlash.

Indeed, at numerous points the author notes that the puzzled political opponents of our involvement in the Second World War sensed that there seemed to be some unseen coordinating hand behind the individuals and forces arrayed against them, but they never guessed that it was simply a foreign intelligence service.

The history was that Britain and France had entered into a war against Germany, and soon found themselves at a stalemate or actually overmatched. Only America’s entrance into World War I had turned the tide of that conflict, leading to an allied victory, and the same factor seemed necessary in the even more difficult second round. However, America’s involvement in WWI had come to be seen by the American people in hindsight as a disastrous mistake, and the notion of going to war in Europe a second time was enormously unpopular. Hence a heavy secret campaign of political subversion and media manipulation was necessary to undermine the public figures opposing intervention and ensure that America would go to war even though very few Americans actually wanted to do so.

This task was rendered considerably more difficult by another factor only lightly touched upon by the author. During the period in question, an enormous amount of political influence was held by a network of Communist agents loyal to the Soviet Union, as conclusively demonstrated many decades later by the declassification of the Venona decrypts. However, Stalin and Hitler had become allies just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, and until the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, Communists were generally opposed to any American support for Britain or France, let alone direct military intervention. So for nearly the entire period in question, the British spies and agents of influence pushing for America to go to war sometimes encountered resistance from the Communist spies and agents of influence pushing in the opposite direction.

The audacity of the British spy ring was really quite remarkable, and partly explained by the enormous degree of control that they and their American allies exerted over most of the leading media outlets, which largely protected them against risk of damaging public disclosures. Under this umbrella of media immunity, documents were forged to embarrass political opponents, leading public opinion polls were manipulated or possibly even faked, and attractive women were deployed to sway prominent elected officials.

ORDER IT NOW

For example, I’d always seen the name of Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan cited as the Republican leader whose remarkable conversion from “isolationism” to interventionism and internationalism laid the basis for decades of bipartisan American foreign policy. And in a full chapter, Mahl provides persuasive evidence that Vandenberg’s ideological shift was heavily facilitated by three successive women who served as his primary paramours over a number of years, all of them acting on behalf of British intelligence.

Mahl devotes another chapter to chronicling the repeated, ultimately successful attempts by these outside forces to defeat Rep. Hamilton Fish, entrenched for decades in his Upstate New York district, who served as the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was one of the nation’s leading opponents of foreign intervention. Large amounts of outside money regularly flowed into his district along with massive, coordinated attacks by every available media outlet, levelling the most absurd accusations, including that he was backed by Nazi agents or even one himself, with these charges sometimes based on simple forgeries. In fact, the only foreign agents involved in his campaigns were the British spies secretly coordinating the anti-Fish effort.

Interestingly enough, among the top arguments advanced to stampede ordinary Americans into regarding Germany as a dangerous national threat was the claim that Hitler planned to violate the Monroe Doctrine by seizing control of Latin America, as proven by a secret Nazi map indicating the eventual zones of military occupation. But Germany possessed a surface navy of negligible strength, so any attempt to cross the Atlantic Ocean then invade and conquer half the Western Hemisphere would have been a remarkable undertaking indeed, and naturally the map was fabricated by the British, possibly at the behest of the Roosevelt Administration. The individuals who forged the “Niger Yellowcake papers” to promote the Iraq War were mere pikers by comparison.

Another fascinating historical detail regards the creation of the OSS, the American intelligence service that served as the ancestor of the CIA. The FBI already existed as did America’s military intelligence service, but those entrenched organizations were obviously much less vulnerable to external political influence, let alone foreign control. Therefore, most of the impetus behind the creation of the new OSS apparently came from elements of British Intelligence, who also helped select the top leadership, leading to interesting questions about where the primary loyalty of those latter individuals actually lay. Indeed, British agents often described OSS Director Bill Donovan as “our man” in their internal communications.

 

But perhaps the most remarkable story, totally unfamiliar to me, was the bizarre nature of the 1940 presidential race. Franklin Roosevelt had partly won his landslide reelection in 1936 by running as a strong opponent of intervention in any future European war, but in 1937 the economy had once again collapsed, including a new stock market crash, a return to near-record unemployment, and a widespread perception that despite unprecedented government spending, the vaunted New Deal had ultimately been proven unsuccessful. In addition, FDR’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court had suffered a major bipartisan defeat in 1937, further undercutting his popularity and raising perceptions that his presidency had been a failure. As an indication of Roosevelt’s unpopularity, the Republicans gained 80 House seats in the 1938 mid-term elections, one of the largest swings in U.S. history.

The 1939 outbreak of war in Europe provided a huge, welcome boost to the American economy, and also a potential excuse for Roosevelt to break every American political tradition and seek a third presidential term. But Roosevelt’s support for military involvement in that conflict posed a major obstacle to such plans since all the leading Republican contenders were strong anti-interventionists, Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio foremost among them, as were the American people. So Roosevelt would apparently either have to risk an election defeat or once again heavily commit himself to maintaining America’s future military neutrality, thus restricting his future course of action if elected and also perhaps alienating some of his key backers, who were focused entirely on the need for America to quickly enter the war against Germany.

Obviously, the ideal situation would be if Roosevelt’s Republican presidential opponent somehow happened to be his ideological twin on “internationalism,” thereby giving the probable majority of “isolationist” voters no choice whatsoever in the voting booth. Powerful figures in the East Coast WASP Establishment wing of the Republican Party, including Henry Luce of the Time-Life media empire and Thomas Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Company, eagerly sought this exact result, but without either a potential Republican candidate or significant popular support, the effort seemed hopeless.

Yet when the 1940 party convention finally drew to a close on June 28th, the unexpected Republican presidential nominee, Wendell Willkie, exactly fulfilled that unlikely goal. He was also a rather strange choice in many other respects, being a somewhat politically obscure lifelong Democrat who had never previously held any elective office, nor had he even competed in any Republican primary. Experienced political observers at the time regarded the Willkie nomination as being among the most bizarre and baffling in American political history, with the redoubtable H.L. Mencken suggesting that Divine Intervention was the only possible explanation.

Mahl, however, points to more mundane factors. There exists enormous evidence of major skullduggery by British agents, including the total manipulation of the nomination process by the convention manager, who was their close ally. Microphones were sabotaged at crucial points and duplicate tickets printed to ensure that all the galleries were completely packed by loud Willkie partisans, whose enthusiasm helped sway wavering delegates. Success might have been very difficult without such illegal machinations, and interestingly enough, the gentleman who arranged them only acquired his position of authority when the original convention manager, an ardent Taft supporter, had suddenly collapsed and died several weeks earlier. This occurrence, seemingly so crucial for Willkie’s nomination, may have been entirely fortuitous, but Mahl notes that the individuals recruited into the local British spy ring were explicitly warned that they might need to commit murder as part of their duties.

Despite Willkie’s remarkable success at securing the nomination, his presidential campaign itself proved a total disaster, with many of his erstwhile supporters quickly dropping away or even transferring their allegiance to Roosevelt. His history as a Democrat and his advocacy of an aggressive internationalism hardly inspired Republican voter enthusiasm, while his Wall Street background constituted a perfect foil for Roosevelt’s populist positions. So despite enormous public doubts about Roosevelt, Willkie suffered a landslide defeat, thereby handling Roosevelt his third term.

The latter proved remarkably magnanimous in victory, becoming very friendly with Willkie, giving him several important appointments, notably to a top American position in Britain, and even considering him as a replacement for pro-Soviet Henry Wallace as his 1944 Vice Presidential choice and likely successor, before ultimately settling upon Harry S. Truman instead. Thus a lifelong Democrat came from obscurity to suddenly capture the Republican Presidential nomination in 1940 before nearly becoming the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 1944, which would have put him in the White House upon Roosevelt’s death in 1945.

A glance at Wikipedia suggests that the psychic strain of having come so close to supreme power perhaps became too much for poor Willkie, who soon after being denied the Vice Presidency began suffering numerous heart attacks, finally collapsing and dying at age 52 just before the 1944 election. The entire strange history of these events brings to mind Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition, and perhaps also underscores the possible health risks faced by individuals caught up in such schemes.

Mahl’s monograph, based on his doctoral dissertation in diplomatic history at Kent State University, was published almost 20 years ago in Brassey’s Intelligence & National Security Library, a respected specialty press, received some notable scholarly endorsements, and was briefly reviewed in Foreign Affairs and other mainstream journals. But the only extensive American coverage of this important work seems to have been in small ideological publications such as the paleoconservative Chronicles and the libertarian Independent Review and Mises Review, which conveniently provide much more detailed reviews and summaries of the material than I have presented above. However, despite no sign of a substantial refutation, I also see no indication that the research has ever been substantially incorporated into our histories of that era. For example, Willkie’s 11,000 word Wikipedia entry contains an extensive bibliography and over 150 references, but includes no mention of Mahl’s important research findings.

It is hardly uncommon for a supposedly sovereign nation to have its political system or democratic elections subverted and controlled by the hidden actions of a foreign power, and the last century has been replete with such examples. But while I’m sure that the average educated Guatemalan or Columbian is perfectly aware of the numerous public policy manipulations that his unfortunate country suffered over the decades at the hands of the CIA, I doubt that too many of their American counterparts would guess that much U.S. history might also have been heavily influenced by the subtle interventions of one or more foreign intelligence agencies.

Book Reviews:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 302 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Last week, I recommend Stinnet’s book “Day of Deceit” in a comment, which addresses this topic. This sample is from Wiki about a document he found in the National Archives:

    “The McCollum memo, also known as the Eight Action Memo was a memorandum, dated October 7, 1940 (more than a year before the Pearl Harbor attack), sent by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, who “provided the president with intelligence reports on [Japan]… [and oversaw] every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House”[1][unreliable source?] in his capacity as director of the Office of Naval Intelligence’s Far East Asia section. It was sent to Navy Captains Dudley Knox, who agreed with the actions described within the memo, and Walter Stratton Anderson.

    The memo outlined the general situation of several nations in World War II and recommended an eight-part course of action for the United States to take in regard to the Japanese Empire in the South Pacific,[citation needed] suggesting the United States provoke Japan into committing an “overt act of war”.[2] The memo illustrates several people in the Office of Naval Intelligence promoted the idea of goading Japan into war:[3] “It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [...] If by [the elucidated eight-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”

    The McCollum memo was first widely disseminated with the publication of Robert Stinnett’s book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Stinnett presents the memo as part of his argument the Roosevelt Administration conspired to secretly provoke the Japanese to attack the United States in order to bring the United States into the European war without generating public contempt over broken political promises. Roosevelt had recently issued a campaign promise the United States would not become entangled in Europe’s war under his watch”

    The Eight-Action plan

    The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

    A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
    B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
    C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
    D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
    E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
    F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
    G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
    H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    This is somewhat off topic, but one thing that I found interesting about the McCollum proposals outlined by Carlton Meyer in the first post is that the best (and least warmongering) proposal was the one that the US did not do. This was the one to get Singapore as a US base. Proposals B, D, and E followed naturally by proposal A, getting Singapore as a base.

    Historically this didn't happen, and the British were not able to defend Singapore because all the forces required were being used in the Atlantic or the Middle East. The plan was to rely heavily on the RAF and the RAF was not present when the Japanese invaded Malaysia, nor were any warships (the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sent after the event in a panic move). The garrison was two badly trained divisions, reinforced after the issue had been decided.

    The US obviously could have done alot more, especially with the air cover.

    In 1940, Singapore was a long way from anyplace the Japanese were operating, but if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam. Those ports would have then been available for use in shipping supplies to China. The move here would have reduced the chances of war with Japan. And it would have been perfectly consistent with the lend lease arrangements with the UK. So I wonder why this wasn't done.

    I actually agree with six of the eight proposals, just not F and H. Pearl Harbor should have been prepared as a forward base for the Pacific Fleet, with plenty of air protection and a cruiser force, but the bulk of the fleet kept at San Diego until actual hostilities. And I agree that the historical total embargo was an act to precipitate war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1546038
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition

    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz


    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition
     
    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?
     
    That's very interesting. If you google "lenin controlled opposition" you'll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I've seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it's probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish "The Trust" as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime's overseas opponents. So whether or not the quote is real, the sentiments I described probably were:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Mr. Unz, you have Russ Baker’s website listed here, have you by any chance read his Family of Secrets book, which also has a lot of provocative information regarding the American deep state?

    I also recommend David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard which also covers the American deep state in regards to the CIA under Allen Dulles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz, you have Russ Baker’s website listed here, have you by any chance read his Family of Secrets book, which also has a lot of provocative information regarding the American deep state?

    I also recommend David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard which also covers the American deep state in regards to the CIA under Allen Dulles.
     
    Well, I read Talbot's CHESSBOARD and found it interesting, though I thought his BROTHERS was much better.

    As for Baker's book, I have it sitting around, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. The problem is that it runs nearly 600 pages and when I glanced at a few bits here and there, they seemed much more speculative than I prefer to accept regarding such highly controversial matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Ron Unz says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition
     
    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?

    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition

    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?

    That’s very interesting. If you google “lenin controlled opposition” you’ll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I’ve seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it’s probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish “The Trust” as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime’s overseas opponents. So whether or not the quote is real, the sentiments I described probably were:

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish “The Trust” as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime’s overseas opponents.
     
    "The Trust" was designed to trap enemies and catch spies, not to deceive the masses.
    , @Sam Shama
    Ron,
    OT request I'd been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.
    , @Darin

    That’s very interesting. If you google “lenin controlled opposition” you’ll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I’ve seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it’s probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.
     
    It is spurious, and as far from Lenin's mindset as possible. USSR never tolerated any kind of opposition, the Soviet elections had one candidate, always elected with 99,99% vote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Kiza says:

    A few quick comments.

    Firstly, I like Ron’s writing because he always draws historical parallels to present without making this obvious (for dummies). War for Dummies: Israelis are now co-opting the blood and treasure of US to wage war for global domination on Russia, just as the British did for their WW2.

    Secondly, it is not a great surprize that US is always someone’s bitch. As a wrote before – US Military is a rent-an-army, which different ethnic groups utilise according to their financial power and willingness to invest to buy political outcomes: Israelis, Saudis, Anglos, Germans, Poles, Turks, Ukrainians, the list goes on. I even have a formula for deciding which side the US will fight for: it is the size of the ethnic population, times the income, times the willingness to invest (contribute to bribes).

    Finally, I have stated numerous times that I was a great fan of Alexander Cockburn as a person, although I never agreed with his left orientation. Alexander was one of the most independent thinkers on the left. For example, Alexander never swallowed any of the bull of the Humanitarian Military Interventions (of the Democrats) like almost all US “left liberals” have. Also, he never swallowed Anthropological Global Warming as 99.99% of the leftists have. He kept Counterpunch free of AGW rubbish until his death, but AGW won under the stewardship of Jeffery St Clair, together with a gradual decline in Counterpunch Magazine article quality after Alexander’s passing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    without making this obvious (for dummies).

    We can see it, it's not that difficult.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See #6 which seems to be my quibble or nitpicking as areply to you.
    , @dahoit
    Yes,there has been a definite decline in CP since Cockburn's death.
    Totally anti Trump,and full of propagandists of divide and conquer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. I wonder if you can elaborate plausibly on your third sentence as I see some gaps. E.g. Israel is receiving substantial subsidies from the US but Britain was not when it went to war in 1939. What is more the US made hardnosed deals in return for superannuated frigates etc.

    Also I am puzzled with your picture of Israel seeking “global domination” and doing so by having the US join in doing in Russia. Russia is surely so insignificant in comparison with China and India when looking to the future that I can’t see how it makes sense quite apart from nimble Israel’s willingness to deal with the devil; e.g. South Africa under apartheid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Another good read is “200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn A History of the Russians and the Jews.”

    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/200-years-together.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Hard to beat Solzhenitsyn.
    , @Richard S
    Wow, excellent link. Thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Tom Welsh says:

    “The history was that Britain and France had entered into a war against Germany, and soon found themselves at a stalemate or actually overmatched”.

    France, indeed, was actually conquered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Tom, I think the exact text there refers to WW1.
    , @fitzGetty
    They gave up without a fight ... Paris : the traitor's city ...
    , @Fen Tiger
    I believe the war in question was 1914-1918.

    My own take on this is not that the US intervention settled matters, but that the German leadership thought it might - and therefore committed themselves to a massive "last throw of the dice" offensive in March 1918.

    Germany's inability to make that offensive successful is really an indication of how marginal its position already was. To put it another way, despite the weakness of France in 1918, Germany had already been defeated: it just didn't know it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I had read Maul’s book nearly a decade ago and likewise found it fascinating, persuasive and well documented. I was reminded of it last month when a friend lent me his copy of “Restless,” an excellent novel by William Boyd that is centered around the subject.

    https://www.amazon.com/Restless-Novel-William-Boyd/dp/1596912375

    I don’t recall Boyd’s fiction specifically referencing characters prominent in “Desperate Deceptions” other than William Stevenson (“A Man Called Intrepid”), Britain’s MI6 master spy who managed British Security Coordination (BSC) out of Rockefeller Center, N.Y.

    Much more needs to be researched on this subject. The extraordinary popular consensus for post-WWII overseas US interventionism had been partially shaped by some of the mythos stemming from our participation in that war. Yet important parts of the story leading up to the intervention remain hidden from the public for 100 years thanks to Britain’s Official Secrets Act.

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Ron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Tom Welsh says:

    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which – after Stalingrad – never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA’s participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe – and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA’s entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans – that was already assured – but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @fnn
    Western capitalists built Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s:
    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm

    American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet Union.

    "Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to more than 40." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 346-347).
    The new program was announced, however, only "after a sequence of construction and technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically and technically the most important." (Ibid., p. 347).

    EXTENT OF AID "ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE"
    During the early thirties, the amount and type of "aid and comfort" to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory "capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year." By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles "plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice," and "an inventory of spare parts." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).

    LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
    The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

    "Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity - tanks." (Ibid., p. 213).
    LARGEST HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN THE WORLD
    The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. "The power plant increased Russia's hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls." (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

    "Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.
    "The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).
     
    , @iffen
    Wow! These crafty puppet masters are too powerful to resist. They can switch the timing of historical events like the Siege of Stalingrad and Pearl Harbor by a full year. Not only that they can create a phenomenal illusion like Lend-Lease.
    , @Outwest
    Yes, in hindsight. But in 1940 it was not so clear. Japan was a wild card that could have opened a second Soviet front from China. Both Germany and Japan had populations too small to support their plans for empire. A focus on the Soviets could have gained enough empire for both. But Stalin was lucky and foresighted enough to have friends in the U.S. and Great Britain.
    , @roger in florida
    Actually you couldn't be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill's nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.
    , @Anonymous
    What nonsense. The sovs had the advantage, in men, land, and material over the Germans, but it was far from overwhelming. Wars have been won against greater odds. Ever heard of the winter war? How about the first few months of the german invasion? Some British military analysts at the time thought the Soviets would be crushed.
    , @mr. meener
    if the stupid US who fought WWII to save the communists hadn't shipped millions of tons of steel and other supplies Russia would have lost the war. Germans had to make synthetic oil had no metals to make armaments were taking peoples tools cookware etc. they were being strangled by the blockade and were starving. it was Hitler the ONLY anti communist leader there ever was who stopped the massed at their border Russian armies from invading Europe
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. But while I’m sure that the average educated Guatemalan or Columbian is perfectly aware of the numerous public policy manipulations that his unfortunate country suffered over the decades at the hands of the CIA, I doubt that too many of their American counterparts would guess that much U.S. history might also have been heavily influenced by the subtle interventions of one or more foreign intelligence agencies.

    Amen to that!

    It appears to me that the only thing that matches the insufferable arrogance of ‘Merkins is their ineffable ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Was the pun intentional?

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Commadante Unz

    Sadly, Alexander Cockburn had to die on us….I mean, what a party pooper….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Yikes says:

    Mr. Unz,

    Fletcher Prouty wrote about a story involving the death of FDR. Stalin claimed that Churchill had Roosevelt killed.

    http://www.prouty.org/comment1.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Interesting. It certainly worked out to further Britain's aims to have Truman instead of Roosevelt in the aftermath of WWII. Roosevelt pretty much had to read Churchill the riot act over separating war aims from Britain's desire to maintain its imperial power. Truman was Churchill's bitch at Potsdam, which put us on the slide to the Cold War. Then there's the story of the machinations to replace Wallace with Truman in 1944 - attributed to the rising power of midwestern political bosses but which might also be considered in the light of this article.

    Funny thing is, Lyndon LaRouche appears to be right about Churchill, Truman, and the Cold War regardless of whatever nonsense he spews about Britain's royal family being the hidden masters of world events. The broken clock was onto Iran-Contra before anyone else was as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome

    As far as I’m aware, this is wrong in several points: “Ashkenazi”/”ancestry”/”few hundred”/”Fall of Rome”.

    unaware of this hard evidence, and focused upon much weaker literary and cultural indicators

    I don’t think the “foundings” of the laboratories on genetics (all run by Jews) are “hard evidence” for everybody, much less the genetics world. I presume you read the book; if so, do you think the first half is “weak” or even the result of a “literary indicator”?

    Your article would be better off without the paragraphs concerning Shlomo’s book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    So true. How anyone can conceive of Jews as some sort of pure race is beyond me. All one has to do is read a few pages of Titus Flavius Josephus to put that idea to rest. (E.g. Solomon with 700 hundred wives and 300 concubines (or something like that) and many of them were daughters of foreign kings...)

    Sands is icing on the cake of the obvious.

    , @iffen



    As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome

     

    As far as I’m aware, this is wrong in several points: “Ashkenazi”/”ancestry”/”few hundred”/”Fall of Rome”.

     

    "what difference at this point does it make?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Interesting. Is a good corrective to racialised criticism of the Jewish Israel lobby, which while very real, clearly isn’t an activity restricted to Jews by any means.

    Now you’ve read the book and written the article you could perform a further public service by adding a small note to the wikipedia page you mention!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Interesting. Is a good corrective to racialised criticism of the Jewish Israel lobby, which while very real, clearly isn’t an activity restricted to Jews by any means.
     
    First of all, I do not really believe that criticism of the Judaeo-Zionist lobby, its tactics and its wide influence, is typically "racialised". I have no idea how you would draw that conclusion.

    Now, one problem here is that the British agents in the U.S., though themselves not Jews, I suppose, were working in the service of the British State and you then do have to look at why British policy was what it was. In that case, I do not believe that it is possible to leave Jewish lobbies out of the analysis -- I mean within British politics, and generally the West as a whole.

    Of course, the Soviet moles within the U.S. government of the type were disproportionately Jewish ethnics. There is no question of that.

    I actually alluded to this in an essay I wrote for the Unz Review back in May, where I simply made the point that any analysis of this situation, why the U.S. got into the war on the side of Stalin against Hitler, probably cannot really leave the political power of world Jewry out of the analysis.

    Various commenters attacked what I said using straw-man arguments. For example, they would say that I had claimed that Jewish lobbies were the sole causal factor, something which I had never claimed. In fact, I never claimed to know the full answer to these questions. (Nor is Ron Unz claiming to know fully, as far as I can see...) I mostly just posed the question and said that the full answer (even if I don't have it) must surely involve the Judaeo-Zionist lobbies. And thus, any study of the time period in which you deliberately leave out the influence of said lobbies cannot lead to a fully satisfactory understanding.

    What is funny is that the attack I came under actually demonstrated my point. You see, more than WW2 itself, I was mostly at that point talking about the nature of intellectual taboos. And the attack I came under demonstrated that point!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Avery says:

    {…. even while the totally ignorant and oblivious American sheep grazed contently, emitting an occasional “Baa!” now and again, and never noticed that the direction of their flock periodically changed in seemingly inexplicable ways.}

    Well said.
    Funniest line, but sadly too true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Rehmat says:

    Professor Shlomo Sand’s claim that “Jews were invented” a century ago was based on the historic facts that no such race existed in the past. The descendants of prophet Yakub (Jacob) were known as “Hebrew speaking” or “followers of Moses Law”. The term “Jews” was created invented by the Scofield Bible author for the Zionist crowd.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, had claimed that the European Jews (Ashkenazis) are not Semitic (Hebrew) people but are descendants of Khazarian Turkic tribes.

    Shlomo Sand’s 2012 book, “When and How Was the Land of Israel Invented?” is more interesting to read to find out how the European Powers came up with the idea to get rid of their centuries-old JEWISH PROBLEM.

    “Zionism plundered the religious term ‘Land of Israel’ (Eretz Yisrael) and turned it into a geopolitical term. The Land of Israel is not the homeland of the Jews. It becomes a homeland at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th – only upon the emergence of the Zionist movement,” claims Dr. Sand.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/05/30/when-and-how-was-the-land-of-israel-invented/

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    ?

    The term "Jew" is Chaucer, Shakespeare, and many other authors from long before the twentieth century. (And that is just in English - but the same goes for equivalent terms in other languages.) If your claim has any basis in reality, there must be some "lost in translation" issue conveying it into English.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Greg Bacon
    Another good read is "200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn A History of the Russians and the Jews."

    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/200-years-together.pdf

    Hard to beat Solzhenitsyn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Anonymous

    As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome
     
    As far as I'm aware, this is wrong in several points: "Ashkenazi"/"ancestry"/"few hundred"/"Fall of Rome".

    unaware of this hard evidence, and focused upon much weaker literary and cultural indicators
     
    I don't think the "foundings" of the laboratories on genetics (all run by Jews) are "hard evidence" for everybody, much less the genetics world. I presume you read the book; if so, do you think the first half is "weak" or even the result of a "literary indicator"?

    Your article would be better off without the paragraphs concerning Shlomo's book.

    So true. How anyone can conceive of Jews as some sort of pure race is beyond me. All one has to do is read a few pages of Titus Flavius Josephus to put that idea to rest. (E.g. Solomon with 700 hundred wives and 300 concubines (or something like that) and many of them were daughters of foreign kings…)

    Sands is icing on the cake of the obvious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Tom Welsh
    "The history was that Britain and France had entered into a war against Germany, and soon found themselves at a stalemate or actually overmatched".

    France, indeed, was actually conquered.

    Tom, I think the exact text there refers to WW1.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. fnn says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    Western capitalists built Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s:

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm

    [MORE]

    American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet Union.

    “Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to more than 40.” (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 346-347).
    The new program was announced, however, only “after a sequence of construction and technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically and technically the most important.” (Ibid., p. 347).

    EXTENT OF AID “ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE”
    During the early thirties, the amount and type of “aid and comfort” to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory “capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year.” By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles “plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice,” and “an inventory of spare parts.” (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).

    LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
    The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

    “Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity – tanks.” (Ibid., p. 213).
    LARGEST HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN THE WORLD
    The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. “The power plant increased Russia’s hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls.” (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

    “Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.
    “The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance.” (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    That's so very true. It went on for decades. Fiat even built turn key factories in the 1970s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. [] was selected as commenter name and that is the name of an existing, established commenter. However, the entered email did not match that of the existing commenter.

    If the email typed in has a space at the end it says the email is wrong. The email reading function should trim trailing spaces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Once again, Mr. Unz, thanks for a fascinating article on an important and little-known subject. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that FDR knew and approved of all of this, being so desperate to take the US to war.

    Now, a few nitpicks:

    However, Stalin and Hitler had become allies just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, and until the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, Communists were generally opposed to any American support for Britain or France, let alone direct military intervention.

    What the Germans and the Russians actually had was a non-aggression pact and a limited trade agreement. I am unaware of their having had a mutal-defense pact, so describing them as “allies” is a bit of a stretch.

    Willkie’s 11,000 word Wikipedia entry contains an extensive bibliography and over 150 references, but includes no mention of Maul’s important research findings.

    For anyone with a Wikipedia account, that should be an easy problem to fix.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The German Russian pact was as you wrote, non agression, not mutual defense if one country were attacked.
    , @animalogic
    I agree "allies" is a bit of a stretch. However, I believe the relationship was quite important. Germany used the USSR for a range of military purposes, such as secretly testing various armaments etc (I think, as far back as the 20's ?). The delivery of a range of commodities to Germany was also very important.
    , @random observer
    "mutual defence pact" is indeed a stretch, more so than "allies". They hadn't agreed to defend one another. They had however agreed not only to mutual non-aggression, but also to continuation of commodities shipments from the USSR to Germany [still ongoing to June 22 1941], and to the carve up of a series of previously sovereign states in eastern Europe and annexation of them to their respective territories. During the latter of which, with respect to Poland, their militaries had to engage in some communications to keep things orderly.

    The economic arrangements, agreement to mutually rearrange the map, and to some degree cooperation between security services, certainly satisfy me as an "allied" relationship. Formal agreements to do things together that have profound military, economic and internal security significance, beyond those normally appertaining to non-partner nations in their time. Formal military alliance of the NATO sort are actually a pretty extreme degree of integration among allies, historically speaking, and distort our understanding of the possibilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. “Desperate Deception” is probably all true, or at least true in outline. I would be surprised if it weren’t. That’s how states work- they pursue their interests, and those interests are usually decided by elites.

    Contrary to the assumptions of many Americans, America has never been any different and, although arguably less so in some recent eras, the elites usually have American state interests and their own class perspective in mind. All that America did until quite recently served to enhance the global power of the American state and the interests of American elites. Occasionally it benefited the average citizen of America, which is about as good or better a record than the record of any other state’s foreign policy benefiting its ordinary people.

    American entry into WW1 enhanced the already growing power of the US. It benefited Wall Street the most, sure, but Wall Street was American then. So perhaps no benefit to average Amerficans beyond the general prosperity of the 1920s in the only great power undamaged by the Great War, but at least the elites getting rich off foreign debt repayments were Americans, not foreigners.

    WW2 put America in a position no country had ever experienced before. In 1945 it was the richest and strongest country in the world by orders of magnitude. Its losses were trivial compared to those of any other major power, most of whom were destroyed [mainland Europe, Japan], impoverished [Britain], or gut shot even if they ended up alive and winning [USSR], and its homeland and industry were undamaged. The only one of whom that was true.

    American elites ran the world for a generation. Even British conniving was repaid by the Americans essentially undermining Britain’s entire empire. American troops and OSS were all over it and American political and commercial influence appeared in massive quantities in places where it had never before even been heard of. The US made it clear that the empire could not be tolerated as a long term proposition and made sure American ideology about liberalism, nationalism and anti-imperialism was part and parcel of the Allied war effort and all allied propaganda. The desired end result was a world with no empires, many more sovereign states, many of them barely viable but propped up by American influence, many more American bases, listening posts, etc, all over the world, and a ready made network of global power with which to make America top dog and keep her there.

    Sure, the USSR mounted a challenge and local elites had their own views. Not all the prizes went to America. Plenty did. America got what FDR and his men envisioned for her after the war. And it didn’t have to deal with a world order or world economy carved up among itself in the western hemisphere, a German Europe and a Japanese Asia. Both more difficult cold wars to manage than the one with the Russians in a relatively containable geographic sphere.

    So from the point of view of the American state and American elites, WW2 went VERY well. Hardly any country ever benefited so much from a victorious war. Britain by comparison gained survival as a free country albeit a vassal and a small share of American led prosperity, but paid a massive price. A lesser price, in the end, than would have been paid in the event of a German or Russian victory, but still huge.

    More than that, hardly any country’s regular people ever gained so much by their country winning a war. That transient period of unparalleled wealth, global industrial dominance despite high domestic wages, egalitarianism, middle class prosperity for most, that everybody wishes were back but is never coming back? Brought to America by winning the war, the destroyed industrial bases of America’s competitors, a trade and financial regime organized to benefit American finance and manufacturing for 30 years and suck raw materials into America, and a global infrastructure to be rebuilt by American know how and American expats building with American products.

    Sure, it was a self-limiting system that was bound to have a painful adjustment when competitors got back on their feet and energy producers started feeling their oats. But it was an epic generational run by any historical standards, it benefited the bulk of Americans, and to some extent still does. The financial system reliant on the dollar is propping up the personal comfort of millions of debt riddled Americans right now who ought to be in penury for their life choices. And would be, in any country but America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Outwest
    Pretty much agree but the war did exhaust the United States' California and Texas prime, easy oil and Michigan's iron ore, etc.. But FDR was going down for the third time when the war bailed him out.
    , @animalogic
    I also agree: however, I believe the seeds of US decay were sown in 1945.
    Firstly, I don't believe that republicanism & democracy are comparable with Empire of ANY kind, even the indirect form of empire the US has pursued.
    Secondly, the degree of power that the US has possessed since '45 would "tend to corrupt" ANY nation, let alone a nation such as the US so given over to materialism, consumerism etc.
    Yes, I know this is a "long bow" to draw, however I believe a strong argument could be developed here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. iffen says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    Wow! These crafty puppet masters are too powerful to resist. They can switch the timing of historical events like the Siege of Stalingrad and Pearl Harbor by a full year. Not only that they can create a phenomenal illusion like Lend-Lease.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. great article. i’m not an avid historian. i never knew about the british spy manipulations.
    however, i do question one assertion: that the return to hard times in 1937 proves roosevelt’s policies were a failure. in fact, i’ve read from more than one author that roosevelt pulled back the policies that got the u.s. out of the depression, which is why economic hard times returned. an ardent capitalist – claiming i saved capitalism – roosevelt threw labor support only to forestall unrest by the unwashed masses. he was a racist & anti-semite and quite the new york dandy.
    ok, commenters, tell me i got it all wrong. i expect it. i’m aware of the drift at this site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Keynes was amongst those critical of Roosevelt's premature attempt to restore balanced or surplus budgets and clearly regretted that his arguments before the publication of The General Theory hadn't really got through to Roosevelt. I am not sure how strict Austrians handle those events and the later recovery of the economy during the war with deficit finance used for war employment and production.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Georgina says:

    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl’s last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl’s last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.
     
    Oops!!! It's possible to glance at the cover of a book maybe 200 times and have the brain misconnect with what the eyes see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Excellent article. The extent to which British intelligence penetrated the American political system is certainly a revelation, but the fact that they would attempt to do so in the first place is not. It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake. It would only follow that the Brits would have pulled out all the stops to cook the books as it were. And according to Cockburn (in citing Mr. Maul) it appears as though they succeeded. One can only envision Churchill–who had no religious affiliation and who appears to have been at least agnostic–dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out “there is a God after all.”

    As a footnote, I call attention to the following which was clearly the fruit of British skullduggery:

    “Despite Willkie’s remarkable success at securing the nomination, his presidential campaign itself proved a total disaster, with many of his erstwhile supporters quickly dropping away or even transferring their allegiance to Roosevelt.”

    Apropos of the current campaign, one notes with a bit of a shudder that if that sort of thing was done once, it could be done again. And, I might add, not necessarily through the actions of a foreign agent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake.
     
    This is actually a very dubious proposition. Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?

    The fact of the matter is that Hitler's real war goals lay in the east. Certainly after the invasion of the USSR, it stands to reason that he had no interest in a two-front war, which had been the downfall of Germany in WW1. He would have made a pretty generous deal with Britain to simply stay out of the conflict, thus leaving him a free hand to smash the Soviet Union. He had no interest in continuing the war with the British. At this point, it seems to me that it was a war of choice for the British. Though, actually, it was from the start. Britain (and France) declared war on Germany in 1939. Not the other way round.

    Now, certainly, the main beneficiary of Churchill's decision to stay in the war after the invasion of the USSR, as an ally of the Soviets, was not Britain or the British Empire. It was the Soviet Union. This may be a shocking notion, but I do not see how any honest analysis would lead to any other conclusion.

    , @James Kabala
    Actually, though, Wilkie improved quite a bit in both the popular and electoral votes over Hoover and Landon. (And he did about the same as Dewey four years later.)
    , @animalogic
    Churchill "dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out “there is a God after all.”
    What a pivotal point in history ! We can only speculate what might have happened had Hitler NOT made the incredible mistake of declaring war on the US.
    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ? (Yes you can argue that the Germany-Japan pact required it - or not - however, would a clever strategist have so willingly shoved their head in (another) lion's mouth ? Really, what was the Japanese alliance actually WORTH to Germany ? )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. eD says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    Last week, I recommend Stinnet's book "Day of Deceit" in a comment, which addresses this topic. This sample is from Wiki about a document he found in the National Archives:

    "The McCollum memo, also known as the Eight Action Memo was a memorandum, dated October 7, 1940 (more than a year before the Pearl Harbor attack), sent by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, who "provided the president with intelligence reports on [Japan]... [and oversaw] every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House"[1][unreliable source?] in his capacity as director of the Office of Naval Intelligence's Far East Asia section. It was sent to Navy Captains Dudley Knox, who agreed with the actions described within the memo, and Walter Stratton Anderson.

    The memo outlined the general situation of several nations in World War II and recommended an eight-part course of action for the United States to take in regard to the Japanese Empire in the South Pacific,[citation needed] suggesting the United States provoke Japan into committing an "overt act of war".[2] The memo illustrates several people in the Office of Naval Intelligence promoted the idea of goading Japan into war:[3] "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [...] If by [the elucidated eight-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

    The McCollum memo was first widely disseminated with the publication of Robert Stinnett's book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Stinnett presents the memo as part of his argument the Roosevelt Administration conspired to secretly provoke the Japanese to attack the United States in order to bring the United States into the European war without generating public contempt over broken political promises. Roosevelt had recently issued a campaign promise the United States would not become entangled in Europe's war under his watch"

    The Eight-Action plan

    The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

    A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
    B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
    C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
    D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
    E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
    F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
    G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
    H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

    This is somewhat off topic, but one thing that I found interesting about the McCollum proposals outlined by Carlton Meyer in the first post is that the best (and least warmongering) proposal was the one that the US did not do. This was the one to get Singapore as a US base. Proposals B, D, and E followed naturally by proposal A, getting Singapore as a base.

    Historically this didn’t happen, and the British were not able to defend Singapore because all the forces required were being used in the Atlantic or the Middle East. The plan was to rely heavily on the RAF and the RAF was not present when the Japanese invaded Malaysia, nor were any warships (the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sent after the event in a panic move). The garrison was two badly trained divisions, reinforced after the issue had been decided.

    The US obviously could have done alot more, especially with the air cover.

    In 1940, Singapore was a long way from anyplace the Japanese were operating, but if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam. Those ports would have then been available for use in shipping supplies to China. The move here would have reduced the chances of war with Japan. And it would have been perfectly consistent with the lend lease arrangements with the UK. So I wonder why this wasn’t done.

    I actually agree with six of the eight proposals, just not F and H. Pearl Harbor should have been prepared as a forward base for the Pacific Fleet, with plenty of air protection and a cruiser force, but the bulk of the fleet kept at San Diego until actual hostilities. And I agree that the historical total embargo was an act to precipitate war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam.

    If this would have worked in Singapore, I wonder if it could have worked for Pearl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Outwest says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    Yes, in hindsight. But in 1940 it was not so clear. Japan was a wild card that could have opened a second Soviet front from China. Both Germany and Japan had populations too small to support their plans for empire. A focus on the Soviets could have gained enough empire for both. But Stalin was lucky and foresighted enough to have friends in the U.S. and Great Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The reason Alexander Cockburn moved way up north was to be near Pelican Bay State Prison. Pelican Bay is for hard core life sentence prisoners, generally those guilty of more than one discrete murders.

    Cockburns motive for going way up in the forest was that he wanted to replicate the Faye Stender Charles Garry George Jackson Prison Law Project of the 1960s agitating in San Quentin prison.

    Alleluia, alleluia Thank you God it didn't workThe poor abused victims of a racist oppressive White society were there in the prison, but the idiot intelligentsia who supported Charles Garry, Angela Davis etc were back in the Bay Area. Mother Jones Magazine, the Nation etc collaborated with Cockburn to turn Pelican Bay into a liberal cause. But by then the pendulum hadswung from black criminals to the environment, gays, feminazis etc.
    Cockburn followed the communist line his entire life. He was extremely anti White and pro affirmative action and unlimited non White immigration with affirmative action privileges

    And for that may he burn forever and ever amen.
    , @MarkinLA
    Except the Japanese had already had their noses bloodied by the Russians and Zhukov.

    In 1938, Zhukov was directed to command the First Soviet Mongolian Army Group, and saw action against Japan's Kwantung Army on the border between Mongolia and the Japanese-controlled state of Manchukuo. This campaign was an undeclared war that lasted from 1938 to 1939. What began as a routine border skirmish – with the Japanese testing the resolve of the Soviets to defend their territory – rapidly escalated into a full-scale war, with the Japanese pushing forward with an estimated 80,000 troops, 180 tanks and 450 aircraft.

    These events led to the strategically decisive Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan). Zhukov requested major reinforcements, and on 20 August 1939, his "Soviet Offensive" commenced. After a massive artillery barrage, nearly 500[11] BT-5 and BT-7 tanks advanced, supported by over 500[12] fighters and bombers. This was the Soviet Air Force's first fighter-bomber operation.[13] The offensive first appeared to be a typical conventional frontal attack. However, two tank brigades were initially held back and then ordered to advance around on both flanks, supported by motorized artillery, infantry, and other tanks. This daring and successful manoeuvre encircled the Japanese 6th Army and captured the enemy's vulnerable rear supply areas. By 31 August 1939, the Japanese had been cleared from the disputed border, leaving the Soviets clearly victorious.[13]

    The Japanese were already looking to get out of China as well as it was basically a stalemate there without gaining the Japanese Empire much of value.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Alden says:

    I ve read a lot of 20th century history. The British influence in our entrance into WW2 has always been very obvious

    But I assumed it was more propaganda and massive appeal to the Anglophiles than ramming Wilkie into the Republican nomination. Hoover was very suspicious of the British spy service in America and had them watched. I know our naval intelligence operations were superb

    There were many planted stories that Japan and Germany planned to conquer Mexico, split it in half and then on to America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I ve read a lot of 20th century history. The British influence in our entrance into WW2 has always been very obvious
     
    Enough to read about American-British Conversations (ABC Conferences of respective general staffs) and what Lord Halifax was pushing for in 1941, to understand that these Conferences were primarily about preserving British Empire, to the point of some arrogant demands of dispatching number of the US Navy's major surface combatants and subs into Singapore and other British possessions. Combined US-Canadian response, written under the guidance of General Stanley Embick, is a very telling memorandum, to put it mildly. Later, same Embick together with whole George Marshal's OPD at Casablanka Conference circulated a memorandum about "Primrose path" by which Western Allies were led by Britain with a dual purpose of avoiding fighting Wehrmacht in Europe, while securing Empire's interests elsewhere. There was very little, frankly speaking, for any competent operational level officer, secret about the fact that most Western Allied activity was, largely through British open and clandestine efforts, reduced to fighting Nazi Germany at secondary theaters. Late Stephen Ambrose attributed this fact to good ol' Sir Winston's bad grasp on strategy, others, however, think, correctly, that this was THE strategy and it was properly implemented. This question, of course, leads immediately to the validity of the Sledgehammer--that is a very uncomfortable discussion for Anglo-Americans for a number of crucial (including serious geopolitical) reasons but all that was becoming less and less relevant by early 1943, by Summer of 1943 it became a fairly secondary consideration.

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/chapter3.htm

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbG4gbrfe8c/VjY1vOs9XYI/AAAAAAAAAPA/FDm84vCo2-Y/s1600/Ike_1.jpg

    It is, of course, much better to delve into the real paper copies of US Army in WW II publication--a lot was revealed there long ago.

    I vividly remember late 1990s CBC's production about Dieppe. There, Canadian journalists and survivors of that raid directly accused Churchill and Dudley Pound in deliberately sabotaging (in essence, sacrificing Canadian forces) the raid to demonstrate to USSR inability of Allies to land in Europe. As one German historian stated: Rommel the genius was a product of Churchill and Monty in order to talk up own personal and North Africa Theater significance. But to add insult to injury, Stephen Ambrose in his "Supreme Commander" and other heavy weight US historians point out that during initial elaborations on ARCADIA (aka Washington) Conferences re: Western Allied strategy, officers of British general Staff and Sire himself behaved arrogantly to the point of being down right rude to their US counterparts, who seemed to dislike but had to accept such British behavior since viewed Brits as a people who stood against Germany and fought it alone for a year. Needless to say, British point of view succeed. And we all, even today, live with the consequences of these decisions. This, however, in no way diminishes heroism of British army and navy men and women and British people as a whole.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Outwest says:
    @random observer
    "Desperate Deception" is probably all true, or at least true in outline. I would be surprised if it weren't. That's how states work- they pursue their interests, and those interests are usually decided by elites.

    Contrary to the assumptions of many Americans, America has never been any different and, although arguably less so in some recent eras, the elites usually have American state interests and their own class perspective in mind. All that America did until quite recently served to enhance the global power of the American state and the interests of American elites. Occasionally it benefited the average citizen of America, which is about as good or better a record than the record of any other state's foreign policy benefiting its ordinary people.

    American entry into WW1 enhanced the already growing power of the US. It benefited Wall Street the most, sure, but Wall Street was American then. So perhaps no benefit to average Amerficans beyond the general prosperity of the 1920s in the only great power undamaged by the Great War, but at least the elites getting rich off foreign debt repayments were Americans, not foreigners.

    WW2 put America in a position no country had ever experienced before. In 1945 it was the richest and strongest country in the world by orders of magnitude. Its losses were trivial compared to those of any other major power, most of whom were destroyed [mainland Europe, Japan], impoverished [Britain], or gut shot even if they ended up alive and winning [USSR], and its homeland and industry were undamaged. The only one of whom that was true.

    American elites ran the world for a generation. Even British conniving was repaid by the Americans essentially undermining Britain's entire empire. American troops and OSS were all over it and American political and commercial influence appeared in massive quantities in places where it had never before even been heard of. The US made it clear that the empire could not be tolerated as a long term proposition and made sure American ideology about liberalism, nationalism and anti-imperialism was part and parcel of the Allied war effort and all allied propaganda. The desired end result was a world with no empires, many more sovereign states, many of them barely viable but propped up by American influence, many more American bases, listening posts, etc, all over the world, and a ready made network of global power with which to make America top dog and keep her there.

    Sure, the USSR mounted a challenge and local elites had their own views. Not all the prizes went to America. Plenty did. America got what FDR and his men envisioned for her after the war. And it didn't have to deal with a world order or world economy carved up among itself in the western hemisphere, a German Europe and a Japanese Asia. Both more difficult cold wars to manage than the one with the Russians in a relatively containable geographic sphere.

    So from the point of view of the American state and American elites, WW2 went VERY well. Hardly any country ever benefited so much from a victorious war. Britain by comparison gained survival as a free country albeit a vassal and a small share of American led prosperity, but paid a massive price. A lesser price, in the end, than would have been paid in the event of a German or Russian victory, but still huge.

    More than that, hardly any country's regular people ever gained so much by their country winning a war. That transient period of unparalleled wealth, global industrial dominance despite high domestic wages, egalitarianism, middle class prosperity for most, that everybody wishes were back but is never coming back? Brought to America by winning the war, the destroyed industrial bases of America's competitors, a trade and financial regime organized to benefit American finance and manufacturing for 30 years and suck raw materials into America, and a global infrastructure to be rebuilt by American know how and American expats building with American products.

    Sure, it was a self-limiting system that was bound to have a painful adjustment when competitors got back on their feet and energy producers started feeling their oats. But it was an epic generational run by any historical standards, it benefited the bulk of Americans, and to some extent still does. The financial system reliant on the dollar is propping up the personal comfort of millions of debt riddled Americans right now who ought to be in penury for their life choices. And would be, in any country but America.

    Pretty much agree but the war did exhaust the United States’ California and Texas prime, easy oil and Michigan’s iron ore, etc.. But FDR was going down for the third time when the war bailed him out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I have always thought those 2 spy influences were watched and allowed to do whatever they want because they were harmless and perfectly aligned with american interests? not getting into both wars early = conserving our strength + the added benefit of enormous profit from the war by selling to both sides. when it looks like nazi germany got stuck and about to get it’s ass handed to it, americans promptly joined for the spoils. japan was never, ever a threat to usa. especially with 2+ million of it’s army getting stuck in china.

    people in power in the usa were very smart at the time. the only miscalculation was how fast russia moved after the turn around on the eastern front. after eu got wrecked, usa was pretty much #1 since. 50% of the world economy is no joke as a head start.

    that is my theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Ron Unz says:
    @Georgina
    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl's last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.

    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl’s last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.

    Oops!!! It’s possible to glance at the cover of a book maybe 200 times and have the brain misconnect with what the eyes see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    It's an easy mistake.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Maul
    , @Wizard of Oz
    For the record and maybe comment I recall the case of a barrister with three given names. The second snd third initials corresponded to very common initials for formal abbreviations; cf. MP, MC (Military Cross); QC. As often as not I gather his briefs would be delivered with the initials reversed. The only likely explanation seemed to be that the just liminally attentive deliverer of the brief would think subconsciously "PC [Privy Councillor] - oh no thst can't be it" and change to CP which didn't set off the same subliminal buzzer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Ron Unz says:
    @emilio zapata
    Mr. Unz, you have Russ Baker's website listed here, have you by any chance read his Family of Secrets book, which also has a lot of provocative information regarding the American deep state?

    I also recommend David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard which also covers the American deep state in regards to the CIA under Allen Dulles.

    Mr. Unz, you have Russ Baker’s website listed here, have you by any chance read his Family of Secrets book, which also has a lot of provocative information regarding the American deep state?

    I also recommend David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard which also covers the American deep state in regards to the CIA under Allen Dulles.

    Well, I read Talbot’s CHESSBOARD and found it interesting, though I thought his BROTHERS was much better.

    As for Baker’s book, I have it sitting around, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet. The problem is that it runs nearly 600 pages and when I glanced at a few bits here and there, they seemed much more speculative than I prefer to accept regarding such highly controversial matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. iffen says:
    @Kiza
    A few quick comments.

    Firstly, I like Ron's writing because he always draws historical parallels to present without making this obvious (for dummies). War for Dummies: Israelis are now co-opting the blood and treasure of US to wage war for global domination on Russia, just as the British did for their WW2.

    Secondly, it is not a great surprize that US is always someone's bitch. As a wrote before - US Military is a rent-an-army, which different ethnic groups utilise according to their financial power and willingness to invest to buy political outcomes: Israelis, Saudis, Anglos, Germans, Poles, Turks, Ukrainians, the list goes on. I even have a formula for deciding which side the US will fight for: it is the size of the ethnic population, times the income, times the willingness to invest (contribute to bribes).

    Finally, I have stated numerous times that I was a great fan of Alexander Cockburn as a person, although I never agreed with his left orientation. Alexander was one of the most independent thinkers on the left. For example, Alexander never swallowed any of the bull of the Humanitarian Military Interventions (of the Democrats) like almost all US "left liberals" have. Also, he never swallowed Anthropological Global Warming as 99.99% of the leftists have. He kept Counterpunch free of AGW rubbish until his death, but AGW won under the stewardship of Jeffery St Clair, together with a gradual decline in Counterpunch Magazine article quality after Alexander's passing.

    without making this obvious (for dummies).

    We can see it, it’s not that difficult.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Alden says:
    @Outwest
    Yes, in hindsight. But in 1940 it was not so clear. Japan was a wild card that could have opened a second Soviet front from China. Both Germany and Japan had populations too small to support their plans for empire. A focus on the Soviets could have gained enough empire for both. But Stalin was lucky and foresighted enough to have friends in the U.S. and Great Britain.

    The reason Alexander Cockburn moved way up north was to be near Pelican Bay State Prison. Pelican Bay is for hard core life sentence prisoners, generally those guilty of more than one discrete murders.

    Cockburns motive for going way up in the forest was that he wanted to replicate the Faye Stender Charles Garry George Jackson Prison Law Project of the 1960s agitating in San Quentin prison.

    Alleluia, alleluia Thank you God it didn’t workThe poor abused victims of a racist oppressive White society were there in the prison, but the idiot intelligentsia who supported Charles Garry, Angela Davis etc were back in the Bay Area. Mother Jones Magazine, the Nation etc collaborated with Cockburn to turn Pelican Bay into a liberal cause. But by then the pendulum hadswung from black criminals to the environment, gays, feminazis etc.
    Cockburn followed the communist line his entire life. He was extremely anti White and pro affirmative action and unlimited non White immigration with affirmative action privileges

    And for that may he burn forever and ever amen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Cockburn followed the communist line his entire life. He was extremely anti White and pro affirmative action and unlimited non White immigration with affirmative action privileges.
     
    He also used CounterPunch as a platform from which to ridicule those who questioned the official account of 9/11 . The dim-wittedness or dishonesty of those articles makes it abundantly clear that CounterPunch under Cockburn's command was not a serious intellectual endeavor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. iffen says:
    @Anonymous

    As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome
     
    As far as I'm aware, this is wrong in several points: "Ashkenazi"/"ancestry"/"few hundred"/"Fall of Rome".

    unaware of this hard evidence, and focused upon much weaker literary and cultural indicators
     
    I don't think the "foundings" of the laboratories on genetics (all run by Jews) are "hard evidence" for everybody, much less the genetics world. I presume you read the book; if so, do you think the first half is "weak" or even the result of a "literary indicator"?

    Your article would be better off without the paragraphs concerning Shlomo's book.

    As far as I’m aware, there seems overwhelming genetic evidence that Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews do indeed trace much of their ancestry back to the Holy Land, apparently being the descendants of a few hundred (presumably Jewish) Middle Easterners, mostly male, who settled in Southern Europe some time after the Fall of Rome

    As far as I’m aware, this is wrong in several points: “Ashkenazi”/”ancestry”/”few hundred”/”Fall of Rome”.

    “what difference at this point does it make?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. iffen says:
    @eD
    This is somewhat off topic, but one thing that I found interesting about the McCollum proposals outlined by Carlton Meyer in the first post is that the best (and least warmongering) proposal was the one that the US did not do. This was the one to get Singapore as a US base. Proposals B, D, and E followed naturally by proposal A, getting Singapore as a base.

    Historically this didn't happen, and the British were not able to defend Singapore because all the forces required were being used in the Atlantic or the Middle East. The plan was to rely heavily on the RAF and the RAF was not present when the Japanese invaded Malaysia, nor were any warships (the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sent after the event in a panic move). The garrison was two badly trained divisions, reinforced after the issue had been decided.

    The US obviously could have done alot more, especially with the air cover.

    In 1940, Singapore was a long way from anyplace the Japanese were operating, but if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam. Those ports would have then been available for use in shipping supplies to China. The move here would have reduced the chances of war with Japan. And it would have been perfectly consistent with the lend lease arrangements with the UK. So I wonder why this wasn't done.

    I actually agree with six of the eight proposals, just not F and H. Pearl Harbor should have been prepared as a forward base for the Pacific Fleet, with plenty of air protection and a cruiser force, but the bulk of the fleet kept at San Diego until actual hostilities. And I agree that the historical total embargo was an act to precipitate war.

    if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam.

    If this would have worked in Singapore, I wonder if it could have worked for Pearl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed, why wasn't the Phillipines warning enough?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Alden says:
    @fnn
    Western capitalists built Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s:
    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm

    American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet Union.

    "Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to more than 40." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 346-347).
    The new program was announced, however, only "after a sequence of construction and technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically and technically the most important." (Ibid., p. 347).

    EXTENT OF AID "ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE"
    During the early thirties, the amount and type of "aid and comfort" to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory "capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year." By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles "plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice," and "an inventory of spare parts." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).

    LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
    The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

    "Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity - tanks." (Ibid., p. 213).
    LARGEST HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN THE WORLD
    The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. "The power plant increased Russia's hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls." (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

    "Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.
    "The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).
     

    That’s so very true. It went on for decades. Fiat even built turn key factories in the 1970s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Ron Unz

    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl’s last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.
     
    Oops!!! It's possible to glance at the cover of a book maybe 200 times and have the brain misconnect with what the eyes see.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Alden says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Once again, Mr. Unz, thanks for a fascinating article on an important and little-known subject. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that FDR knew and approved of all of this, being so desperate to take the US to war.

    Now, a few nitpicks:

    However, Stalin and Hitler had become allies just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, and until the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, Communists were generally opposed to any American support for Britain or France, let alone direct military intervention.
     
    What the Germans and the Russians actually had was a non-aggression pact and a limited trade agreement. I am unaware of their having had a mutal-defense pact, so describing them as "allies" is a bit of a stretch.

    Willkie’s 11,000 word Wikipedia entry contains an extensive bibliography and over 150 references, but includes no mention of Maul’s important research findings.
     
    For anyone with a Wikipedia account, that should be an easy problem to fix.

    The German Russian pact was as you wrote, non agression, not mutual defense if one country were attacked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Anonymous
    Interesting. Is a good corrective to racialised criticism of the Jewish Israel lobby, which while very real, clearly isn't an activity restricted to Jews by any means.

    Now you've read the book and written the article you could perform a further public service by adding a small note to the wikipedia page you mention!

    Interesting. Is a good corrective to racialised criticism of the Jewish Israel lobby, which while very real, clearly isn’t an activity restricted to Jews by any means.

    First of all, I do not really believe that criticism of the Judaeo-Zionist lobby, its tactics and its wide influence, is typically “racialised”. I have no idea how you would draw that conclusion.

    Now, one problem here is that the British agents in the U.S., though themselves not Jews, I suppose, were working in the service of the British State and you then do have to look at why British policy was what it was. In that case, I do not believe that it is possible to leave Jewish lobbies out of the analysis — I mean within British politics, and generally the West as a whole.

    Of course, the Soviet moles within the U.S. government of the type were disproportionately Jewish ethnics. There is no question of that.

    I actually alluded to this in an essay I wrote for the Unz Review back in May, where I simply made the point that any analysis of this situation, why the U.S. got into the war on the side of Stalin against Hitler, probably cannot really leave the political power of world Jewry out of the analysis.

    Various commenters attacked what I said using straw-man arguments. For example, they would say that I had claimed that Jewish lobbies were the sole causal factor, something which I had never claimed. In fact, I never claimed to know the full answer to these questions. (Nor is Ron Unz claiming to know fully, as far as I can see…) I mostly just posed the question and said that the full answer (even if I don’t have it) must surely involve the Judaeo-Zionist lobbies. And thus, any study of the time period in which you deliberately leave out the influence of said lobbies cannot lead to a fully satisfactory understanding.

    What is funny is that the attack I came under actually demonstrated my point. You see, more than WW2 itself, I was mostly at that point talking about the nature of intellectual taboos. And the attack I came under demonstrated that point!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Connecticut Famer
    Excellent article. The extent to which British intelligence penetrated the American political system is certainly a revelation, but the fact that they would attempt to do so in the first place is not. It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake. It would only follow that the Brits would have pulled out all the stops to cook the books as it were. And according to Cockburn (in citing Mr. Maul) it appears as though they succeeded. One can only envision Churchill--who had no religious affiliation and who appears to have been at least agnostic--dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out "there is a God after all."

    As a footnote, I call attention to the following which was clearly the fruit of British skullduggery:

    "Despite Willkie’s remarkable success at securing the nomination, his presidential campaign itself proved a total disaster, with many of his erstwhile supporters quickly dropping away or even transferring their allegiance to Roosevelt."

    Apropos of the current campaign, one notes with a bit of a shudder that if that sort of thing was done once, it could be done again. And, I might add, not necessarily through the actions of a foreign agent.

    It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake.

    This is actually a very dubious proposition. Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?

    The fact of the matter is that Hitler’s real war goals lay in the east. Certainly after the invasion of the USSR, it stands to reason that he had no interest in a two-front war, which had been the downfall of Germany in WW1. He would have made a pretty generous deal with Britain to simply stay out of the conflict, thus leaving him a free hand to smash the Soviet Union. He had no interest in continuing the war with the British. At this point, it seems to me that it was a war of choice for the British. Though, actually, it was from the start. Britain (and France) declared war on Germany in 1939. Not the other way round.

    Now, certainly, the main beneficiary of Churchill’s decision to stay in the war after the invasion of the USSR, as an ally of the Soviets, was not Britain or the British Empire. It was the Soviet Union. This may be a shocking notion, but I do not see how any honest analysis would lead to any other conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Before the fall of France there were lots of influential people in Britain, including some very far away both from the right and from communism, like Beaverbrook, who wanted to make peace with Germany, though they did not express these views publicly. But after that defeat such sentiment largely disappeared, because people recognised that the blow to British prestige had been so crushing that if they made peace, their empire and influence would probably crumble anyway.
    , @animalogic
    "Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?"
    Yes, I believe it is true: British paramount strategy from at least the 17 th C was to deny ANY nation the opportunity of continental hegemony. Louis xiv, Napoleon, the Kaiser, & then Hitler: the same strategy played over centuries. Now ? Later ? Whenever, Britain would NEVER have sat back and allowed Nazi Germany to have its way....And nor would it have allowed Stalin to have it all his way either !
    , @CanSpeccy

    certainly, the main beneficiary of Churchill’s decision to stay in the war after the invasion of the USSR, as an ally of the Soviets, was not Britain or the British Empire. It was the Soviet Union.
     
    That is, in fact, an arguable conclusion.

    Russia was a victor of WW2, inasmuch as she regained what she had lost in the Great War plus a bit more of not much value. But the real winner was the United States which at the war's end was in effective occupation of the wealthy half of Europe, particularly Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and, after a period of Gaullist resistance, France.

    Certainly, victory for the Communists was not one of Churchill's war aims. He entered an alliance with the Soviet Union only because, as he told Russian representatives, he disliked the Germans more than he disliked Russians. But Churchill was an adherent of the balance of power doctrine and recognized that a deal with Nazi Germany that resulted in German victory over Russia would leave Germany in command of all of Europe, an outcome to be opposed at all costs. That is why Churchill split with the Hitler appeasement faction in the Conservative government.

    Churchill was aided in his climb to power by the Imperialist and member of Cecil Rhodes' secret society for world empire, Leo Amery, who is credited with forcing Prime Minister Chamberlain from office, thus making way for Churchill.

    Although Churchill hoped that the British empire would survive the war, the effective end of Britain's great power status and the emergence of the US as the leading world power was not inconsistent with the ultimate aims of the British imperialists who, in the aftermath of the First World War, had handed off leadership in the drive for global empire to the United States.

    The baton was passed through the creation of America's first, and still most influential think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, from among whose ranks most American Presidents and State Secretaries have been drawn.

    The emergence, today, of a US-led Anglo-Zionist movement for global governance would thus have been welcomed by Churchill who was not only granted honorary American citizenship, but whose mother was both an American and a Jew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    The reason Alexander Cockburn moved way up north was to be near Pelican Bay State Prison. Pelican Bay is for hard core life sentence prisoners, generally those guilty of more than one discrete murders.

    Cockburns motive for going way up in the forest was that he wanted to replicate the Faye Stender Charles Garry George Jackson Prison Law Project of the 1960s agitating in San Quentin prison.

    Alleluia, alleluia Thank you God it didn't workThe poor abused victims of a racist oppressive White society were there in the prison, but the idiot intelligentsia who supported Charles Garry, Angela Davis etc were back in the Bay Area. Mother Jones Magazine, the Nation etc collaborated with Cockburn to turn Pelican Bay into a liberal cause. But by then the pendulum hadswung from black criminals to the environment, gays, feminazis etc.
    Cockburn followed the communist line his entire life. He was extremely anti White and pro affirmative action and unlimited non White immigration with affirmative action privileges

    And for that may he burn forever and ever amen.

    Cockburn followed the communist line his entire life. He was extremely anti White and pro affirmative action and unlimited non White immigration with affirmative action privileges.

    He also used CounterPunch as a platform from which to ridicule those who questioned the official account of 9/11 . The dim-wittedness or dishonesty of those articles makes it abundantly clear that CounterPunch under Cockburn’s command was not a serious intellectual endeavor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    He also used CounterPunch as a platform from which to ridicule those who questioned the official account of 9/11 . The dim-wittedness or dishonesty of those articles makes it abundantly clear that CounterPunch under Cockburn’s command was not a serious intellectual endeavor.
     
    Well, I basically agree with you, but one thing I would niggle about is that you can learn things from these gatekeepers. Basically, once you understand that there is a set of things that they will simply never tell the truth about, and take that into account, then you can find some things of value in what they say. I guess it's a bit like developing the skill to nibble around the rotten parts of an apple. Something like that.

    There are two basic kinds of gatekeeper out there. There are those who simply just "don't go there". Then there are those, like Alexander Cockburn, who are willing to be hatchet men and write these horrible hit pieces against so-called "conspiracy theorists". It makes one wonder what sort of Faustian deal these people must have made to be behaving like this.

    And meanwhile, Alexander Cockburn has a brother, Andrew Cockburn, who surely must be an Intel agency asset. The guy is a journalist who does almost nothing but spread disinfo. Frankly, I think Ron Unz shows poor judgment mirroring that guy's material here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Rehmat
    Professor Shlomo Sand's claim that "Jews were invented" a century ago was based on the historic facts that no such race existed in the past. The descendants of prophet Yakub (Jacob) were known as "Hebrew speaking" or "followers of Moses Law". The term "Jews" was created invented by the Scofield Bible author for the Zionist crowd.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, had claimed that the European Jews (Ashkenazis) are not Semitic (Hebrew) people but are descendants of Khazarian Turkic tribes.

    Shlomo Sand's 2012 book, "When and How Was the Land of Israel Invented?" is more interesting to read to find out how the European Powers came up with the idea to get rid of their centuries-old JEWISH PROBLEM.

    "Zionism plundered the religious term ‘Land of Israel’ (Eretz Yisrael) and turned it into a geopolitical term. The Land of Israel is not the homeland of the Jews. It becomes a homeland at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th – only upon the emergence of the Zionist movement," claims Dr. Sand.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/05/30/when-and-how-was-the-land-of-israel-invented/

    ?

    The term “Jew” is Chaucer, Shakespeare, and many other authors from long before the twentieth century. (And that is just in English – but the same goes for equivalent terms in other languages.) If your claim has any basis in reality, there must be some “lost in translation” issue conveying it into English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Connecticut Famer
    Excellent article. The extent to which British intelligence penetrated the American political system is certainly a revelation, but the fact that they would attempt to do so in the first place is not. It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake. It would only follow that the Brits would have pulled out all the stops to cook the books as it were. And according to Cockburn (in citing Mr. Maul) it appears as though they succeeded. One can only envision Churchill--who had no religious affiliation and who appears to have been at least agnostic--dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out "there is a God after all."

    As a footnote, I call attention to the following which was clearly the fruit of British skullduggery:

    "Despite Willkie’s remarkable success at securing the nomination, his presidential campaign itself proved a total disaster, with many of his erstwhile supporters quickly dropping away or even transferring their allegiance to Roosevelt."

    Apropos of the current campaign, one notes with a bit of a shudder that if that sort of thing was done once, it could be done again. And, I might add, not necessarily through the actions of a foreign agent.

    Actually, though, Wilkie improved quite a bit in both the popular and electoral votes over Hoover and Landon. (And he did about the same as Dewey four years later.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out:

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2724

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out
     
    Yes, this seems like a solid, rather even-handed review. I'd attempted to emphasize that Roosevelt was himself very eager to involve America in WWII, and seemed to be working hand-in-glove with British intelligence to achieve that goal, so it certainly would be incorrect to portray nearly all or even most of the pro-war groups as any sorts of British puppets. However, the British spies had the sorts of skills and freedom of operation that Roosevelt probably lacked.

    Another point I should make is that based on Mahl's account, a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. So based on this reconstruction, Charles Lindbergh's famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic "gaffe"...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. 5371 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake.
     
    This is actually a very dubious proposition. Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?

    The fact of the matter is that Hitler's real war goals lay in the east. Certainly after the invasion of the USSR, it stands to reason that he had no interest in a two-front war, which had been the downfall of Germany in WW1. He would have made a pretty generous deal with Britain to simply stay out of the conflict, thus leaving him a free hand to smash the Soviet Union. He had no interest in continuing the war with the British. At this point, it seems to me that it was a war of choice for the British. Though, actually, it was from the start. Britain (and France) declared war on Germany in 1939. Not the other way round.

    Now, certainly, the main beneficiary of Churchill's decision to stay in the war after the invasion of the USSR, as an ally of the Soviets, was not Britain or the British Empire. It was the Soviet Union. This may be a shocking notion, but I do not see how any honest analysis would lead to any other conclusion.

    Before the fall of France there were lots of influential people in Britain, including some very far away both from the right and from communism, like Beaverbrook, who wanted to make peace with Germany, though they did not express these views publicly. But after that defeat such sentiment largely disappeared, because people recognised that the blow to British prestige had been so crushing that if they made peace, their empire and influence would probably crumble anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Ron Unz says:
    @James Kabala
    An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out:

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2724

    An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out

    Yes, this seems like a solid, rather even-handed review. I’d attempted to emphasize that Roosevelt was himself very eager to involve America in WWII, and seemed to be working hand-in-glove with British intelligence to achieve that goal, so it certainly would be incorrect to portray nearly all or even most of the pro-war groups as any sorts of British puppets. However, the British spies had the sorts of skills and freedom of operation that Roosevelt probably lacked.

    Another point I should make is that based on Mahl’s account, a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. So based on this reconstruction, Charles Lindbergh’s famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic “gaffe”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    I've read that in both world wars, most support was from Wall Street whose bankers feared that Britain would default on loans. There must of been lots of support in Congress for war as proven with the US Army mobilization that began years before Pearl Harbor.

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    "Beginnings: A White House conference on 14 November 1938 (following Munich crisis of September) was springboard for Army mobilization as well as for new war planning (initiation of RAINBOW planning). The War Plans Division, by 30 November, had produced a new blueprint for a modest, balanced Army expansion, over a 2-year period, from 167,000 to 280,000 Regular Army enlisted, and from about 190,000 to 240,000 National Guard enlisted."

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."
    ______________________________

    This cost lots of money, so was Roosevelt juggling funding or was Congress part of the plot?

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938! We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia that year, but no one mentions that Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And four more WWII zingers:

    1. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    2. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    3. Read about the "Flying Tigers." During the Summer of 1941, President Roosevelt sent 100 American fighter aircraft and 300 American pilots and mechanics to China to fight the Japs. Perhaps the Japanese viewed that as hostile.

    4. Note the massive Pentagon War Dept. headquarters complex was finished in Sept. 1941, just in time for the war.

    History is far more complex and interesting than the boring comic books we read in American educational institutions.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    "gaffe?"

    --

    Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight over World War II, 1939 - 1941, devotes extensive coverage to British espionage and propaganda activities in the US . The book's author, Lynn Olsen, quotes Thomas Mahl and includes Desperate Deception in the book's bibliography.

    Olsen also hammers away at "antisemitism," and pillories Charles Lindbergh for his "antisemitic" speech in Iowa. It's noteworthy that Olsen opens her book by summarizing that the tactics used by the Roosevelt administration -- ably assisted by the British -- to "educate" the American people on the need for war, set the pattern for the position the USA was to take in the post-war world. Those tactics included character assassination (she does not mention actual assassinations, iirc); illegal acts, massive propaganda and spy networks that included opening diplomatic pouches and surveilling broad swathes of the American public. Heavy use was made of Hollywood studios, print, and radio.

    In his book on FDR's decision to seek a third term in 1940, Richard Moe reports that Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom FDR consulted to make that decision. That consultation occurred the day before the decision was announced; Frankfurter suggested that FDR call in Archibald MacLeish to compose the announcement.

    Ron mentions that "attractive women were deployed to sway prominent elected officials." Whether New York Herald Tribune book review editor Irita van Doren was "deployed" or not is an open question; it is irrefutable that Willkie's friendship and love affair with van Doren propelled him from a utilities executive who competed with Henry Ford and tangled with Washington regulators over the Tennessee Valley Authority, to New York society creature and politician. While Henry Luce, who used his dominance in print media to lead the Interventionist cause, played a major role in Wendell Willkie's New York social life and writing ambitions, Frankfurter was also instrumental in Willkie's career, his presidential candidacy, and his subsequent employment in the Gallagher law firm, where Frankfurter had also been an associate.

    One of the first cases Willkie handled as a member of the law firm was the defense of Hollywood studio heads in hearings initiated by Senator Gerald Nye who charged that "the film industry was trying to make America punch-drunk with propaganda to push her into war."

    Willkie humiliated Nye and other witnesses who opposed the heavy-handed propaganda emanating from Hollywood.

    Another "gaffe?"

    (In Operation Mincemeat author Ben MacIntyre traces the linkages among Ewen Montagu, British Naval Intelligence Officer and spymaster; his brother Ivor, a Communist agent, who travelled to Hollywood where he "taught Charlie Chaplin to swear in Russian, and worked as a producer on five of Alfred Hitchcock's British films." High priests of holocaustianity refer to scenes from Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" as if they were historical fact. A hat-trick of "gaffes." )

    After his successful defense of the right of filmmakers to lie and deceive the American people in matters of war and peace, Willkie was delegated by FDR to devote his energies to coordinating Lend-Lease arrangements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Hepp says:

    Out of curiosity, who is Mahl? I can’t find a bio online.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Alden
    I ve read a lot of 20th century history. The British influence in our entrance into WW2 has always been very obvious

    But I assumed it was more propaganda and massive appeal to the Anglophiles than ramming Wilkie into the Republican nomination. Hoover was very suspicious of the British spy service in America and had them watched. I know our naval intelligence operations were superb

    There were many planted stories that Japan and Germany planned to conquer Mexico, split it in half and then on to America.

    I ve read a lot of 20th century history. The British influence in our entrance into WW2 has always been very obvious

    Enough to read about American-British Conversations (ABC Conferences of respective general staffs) and what Lord Halifax was pushing for in 1941, to understand that these Conferences were primarily about preserving British Empire, to the point of some arrogant demands of dispatching number of the US Navy’s major surface combatants and subs into Singapore and other British possessions. Combined US-Canadian response, written under the guidance of General Stanley Embick, is a very telling memorandum, to put it mildly. Later, same Embick together with whole George Marshal’s OPD at Casablanka Conference circulated a memorandum about “Primrose path” by which Western Allies were led by Britain with a dual purpose of avoiding fighting Wehrmacht in Europe, while securing Empire’s interests elsewhere. There was very little, frankly speaking, for any competent operational level officer, secret about the fact that most Western Allied activity was, largely through British open and clandestine efforts, reduced to fighting Nazi Germany at secondary theaters. Late Stephen Ambrose attributed this fact to good ol’ Sir Winston’s bad grasp on strategy, others, however, think, correctly, that this was THE strategy and it was properly implemented. This question, of course, leads immediately to the validity of the Sledgehammer–that is a very uncomfortable discussion for Anglo-Americans for a number of crucial (including serious geopolitical) reasons but all that was becoming less and less relevant by early 1943, by Summer of 1943 it became a fairly secondary consideration.

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/chapter3.htm


    It is, of course, much better to delve into the real paper copies of US Army in WW II publication–a lot was revealed there long ago.

    I vividly remember late 1990s CBC’s production about Dieppe. There, Canadian journalists and survivors of that raid directly accused Churchill and Dudley Pound in deliberately sabotaging (in essence, sacrificing Canadian forces) the raid to demonstrate to USSR inability of Allies to land in Europe. As one German historian stated: Rommel the genius was a product of Churchill and Monty in order to talk up own personal and North Africa Theater significance. But to add insult to injury, Stephen Ambrose in his “Supreme Commander” and other heavy weight US historians point out that during initial elaborations on ARCADIA (aka Washington) Conferences re: Western Allied strategy, officers of British general Staff and Sire himself behaved arrogantly to the point of being down right rude to their US counterparts, who seemed to dislike but had to accept such British behavior since viewed Brits as a people who stood against Germany and fought it alone for a year. Needless to say, British point of view succeed. And we all, even today, live with the consequences of these decisions. This, however, in no way diminishes heroism of British army and navy men and women and British people as a whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @colm
    It diminishes the 'heroism' of Br army and navy, who were complicit to the crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Ron Unz


    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition
     
    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?
     
    That's very interesting. If you google "lenin controlled opposition" you'll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I've seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it's probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish "The Trust" as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime's overseas opponents. So whether or not the quote is real, the sentiments I described probably were:

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

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish “The Trust” as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime’s overseas opponents.

    “The Trust” was designed to trap enemies and catch spies, not to deceive the masses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. I’m surprised Our Boys were so effective. OTOH I doubt they were the ones who got Hitler to invade the USSR (bringing UK & Soviet spy ring aims into alignment) or declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. Guess we were fortunate in the quality of our enemies – and also that the Nazis were never good at spying, indeed there barely were any real ‘Nazi’ spies, and the Abwehr never even seemed to want to succeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Apparently they were reasonably good in the east: the CIA took over Gehlen & his networks after the war.
    , @fitzGetty
    This sounds like the FT or the Economist - undermine, under-value, weasel whine about Brutain at all costs ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. fnn says:

    “Doom of civilization” looks about right from the vantage point of today:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Sam Shama says:

    Marvellous cross-Atlantic, indeed global espionage intrigue, which we all relished I’m sure.

    Still, I await [even in historical fiction form] for that elusive Goldilocks world where little, elegant, benevolent and rational economic units called “nations” which produced and traded, made only love to each other for ages, without annoying interruptions.
    :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Ron Unz

    An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out
     
    Yes, this seems like a solid, rather even-handed review. I'd attempted to emphasize that Roosevelt was himself very eager to involve America in WWII, and seemed to be working hand-in-glove with British intelligence to achieve that goal, so it certainly would be incorrect to portray nearly all or even most of the pro-war groups as any sorts of British puppets. However, the British spies had the sorts of skills and freedom of operation that Roosevelt probably lacked.

    Another point I should make is that based on Mahl's account, a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. So based on this reconstruction, Charles Lindbergh's famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic "gaffe"...

    I’ve read that in both world wars, most support was from Wall Street whose bankers feared that Britain would default on loans. There must of been lots of support in Congress for war as proven with the US Army mobilization that began years before Pearl Harbor.

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and “thrust” into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    “Beginnings: A White House conference on 14 November 1938 (following Munich crisis of September) was springboard for Army mobilization as well as for new war planning (initiation of RAINBOW planning). The War Plans Division, by 30 November, had produced a new blueprint for a modest, balanced Army expansion, over a 2-year period, from 167,000 to 280,000 Regular Army enlisted, and from about 190,000 to 240,000 National Guard enlisted.”

    “These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups.”

    And just prior to our being “forced” into World War II, lots of construction began:

    “Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers.”

    “During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites.”
    ______________________________

    This cost lots of money, so was Roosevelt juggling funding or was Congress part of the plot?

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938! We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia that year, but no one mentions that Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And four more WWII zingers:

    1. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    2. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    3. Read about the “Flying Tigers.” During the Summer of 1941, President Roosevelt sent 100 American fighter aircraft and 300 American pilots and mechanics to China to fight the Japs. Perhaps the Japanese viewed that as hostile.

    4. Note the massive Pentagon War Dept. headquarters complex was finished in Sept. 1941, just in time for the war.

    History is far more complex and interesting than the boring comic books we read in American educational institutions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor..}

    After this well researched and documented book by Robert Stinnett, I doubt any informed/educated people believe US was “surprised”.

    [Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor]
    https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your reference to Poland "grabbing a chunk first" is so misleading as to undermine whatever thesis you are promoting. In March 1938 Hitler had invaded Austria and started his pressure on Czechoslovakia immediateĺy. By July, thanks to Chamberlain, he had as good as grabbed the Sudetenland.
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Here's another major zinger.

    The "Allies" did a Pearl Harbor on neutral Persia (now Iran) and seized oil fields and refineries there, occupied the country, and established the Persian Corridor 3 months prior to the Japanese attack on PH.

    Page after page of facts, many of them zingers, can be found here:

    https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-Chron/USN-Chron-1941.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Avery says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    I've read that in both world wars, most support was from Wall Street whose bankers feared that Britain would default on loans. There must of been lots of support in Congress for war as proven with the US Army mobilization that began years before Pearl Harbor.

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    "Beginnings: A White House conference on 14 November 1938 (following Munich crisis of September) was springboard for Army mobilization as well as for new war planning (initiation of RAINBOW planning). The War Plans Division, by 30 November, had produced a new blueprint for a modest, balanced Army expansion, over a 2-year period, from 167,000 to 280,000 Regular Army enlisted, and from about 190,000 to 240,000 National Guard enlisted."

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."
    ______________________________

    This cost lots of money, so was Roosevelt juggling funding or was Congress part of the plot?

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938! We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia that year, but no one mentions that Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And four more WWII zingers:

    1. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    2. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    3. Read about the "Flying Tigers." During the Summer of 1941, President Roosevelt sent 100 American fighter aircraft and 300 American pilots and mechanics to China to fight the Japs. Perhaps the Japanese viewed that as hostile.

    4. Note the massive Pentagon War Dept. headquarters complex was finished in Sept. 1941, just in time for the war.

    History is far more complex and interesting than the boring comic books we read in American educational institutions.

    {For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor..}

    After this well researched and documented book by Robert Stinnett, I doubt any informed/educated people believe US was “surprised”.

    [Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor]

    https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. A highly illuminating and much need article. Thank you, Mr. Unz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    Actually you couldn’t be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill’s nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Nice piece of imaginative alternative history. That remark actually prompted by the last half of your last sentence. Why? It's hard enough to be sure what the world is going to look like in 2087 without reconstructing history since the 1940s :-)
    I recall being told by an old Aistralian of some distinction that he had been present twice in 1941 when someone had said "we've won the war" after listening to the wireless news. In June and then in December of course.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I meant to add that Hitler was stuck anyway in Russia a little short of where Napoleon enjoyed a Moscow winter. Moreover Roosevelt would surely have contrived direct entry to the European sphere. BTW wasn't Hitler hoping in December 1941 that Japan would attack the USSR?
    , @fnn

    The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory.
     
    That assumes that the Germans would have achieved "total victory" if they had taken Moscow-which they could have done if they had not diverted so many troops elsewhere. But many dispute that taking Moscow would have been the end of the war.

    US had already been waging undeclared war against the Axis in the North Atlantic for months when Hitler declared war (you can easily look this up). That, plus the fact that US had been providing direct military aid to Britain for the past year, likely made Hitler assume that it would only be a matter of time before FDR would find a casus belli that would allow him to officially enter the war against Germany. And time was not on Germany's side. Hitler probably also noticed that, while the anti-interventionist movement was strong among the American public, it was very weak in Congress.

    , @5371
    [The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory ... the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk]

    Every word completely false, few things more nonsensical have been written. The failure in front of Moscow meant certain defeat in the end. People with brains knew that immediately, like Ernst Udet who shot himself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Incitatus says:

    “The history was that Britain and France had entered into a war against Germany, and soon found themselves at a stalemate or actually overmatched. Only America’s entrance into World War I had turned the tide of that conflict, leading to an allied victory, and the same factor seemed necessary in the even more difficult second round. However, America’s involvement in WWI had come to be seen by the American people in hindsight as a disastrous mistake, and the notion of going to war in Europe a second time was enormously unpopular.”

    Actually Germany was the aggressor in first declaring war and first invading neutral Belgium and France. But that wouldn’t be as good a story line, would it?

    France and the UK held the Germans 1914-late 1917. Three years. Americans really didn’t contribute much until 1918, when, indeed they helped turn the tide. France lost 1.4-1.7 million men, more than the USA (a much larger nation) lost in it’s entire history (1607-present).

    Was WW1 unpopular? Judging from kin who fought (“Lafayette we are here”), that’s a surprise. But, of course that wouldn’t feed the story either, would it?

    No question going to war in 1939 was unpopular. What dog had we in that fight, even if France asked for our help as it fell? All the “political subversion and media manipulation…necessary to undermine the public figures opposing intervention” seems to have had little real effect prior to the 7th and 11th December 1941.

    As for spy rings, if I recall 2002-03 correctly there was a quite fracas when US bugging of EU offices was exposed. And, of course there’s the NSA, Angela Merkel, etc. To assume the USSR and UK didn’t have US ops would be folly. Did they force into war? If the codicil is that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were blameless, I don’t think so.

    But ‘Desperate Deception’ is on my list. Who knows?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcy Fleming
    Germany did not start either world war solo, there was divided responsibility among the UK,
    France and Russia in WW One, see Sidney Fay and Harry Elmer Barnes among many others,
    while the UK, France and Soviet Russia also shared responsibility with Germany in this second war too.
    The disastrous US intervention in WW One changed a stalemate into a disastrous total victory which brought the Bolsheviks, Mussolini and Hitler to power and the Versailles Treaty led to World War Two.
    Germany only beat Britain to the punch in invading Belgium, you probably bought the lying UK originated black propaganda too.
    No one claims that Germany and Japan were innocent, a red herring on your part.
    Though Roosevelt obviously did bait the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.
    Too many books on this.
    Try to educate yourself before rushing into print.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Kiza
    A few quick comments.

    Firstly, I like Ron's writing because he always draws historical parallels to present without making this obvious (for dummies). War for Dummies: Israelis are now co-opting the blood and treasure of US to wage war for global domination on Russia, just as the British did for their WW2.

    Secondly, it is not a great surprize that US is always someone's bitch. As a wrote before - US Military is a rent-an-army, which different ethnic groups utilise according to their financial power and willingness to invest to buy political outcomes: Israelis, Saudis, Anglos, Germans, Poles, Turks, Ukrainians, the list goes on. I even have a formula for deciding which side the US will fight for: it is the size of the ethnic population, times the income, times the willingness to invest (contribute to bribes).

    Finally, I have stated numerous times that I was a great fan of Alexander Cockburn as a person, although I never agreed with his left orientation. Alexander was one of the most independent thinkers on the left. For example, Alexander never swallowed any of the bull of the Humanitarian Military Interventions (of the Democrats) like almost all US "left liberals" have. Also, he never swallowed Anthropological Global Warming as 99.99% of the leftists have. He kept Counterpunch free of AGW rubbish until his death, but AGW won under the stewardship of Jeffery St Clair, together with a gradual decline in Counterpunch Magazine article quality after Alexander's passing.

    See #6 which seems to be my quibble or nitpicking as areply to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I would not mind replying and explaining to you about the Yinon Plan (although so many others have done before) when you challenge me politely, but your attitude to other commenters here is quite annoying. In essence, you operate within the confines of the establishment's official history and you keep challenging commenters here to supply references for their statements sourced from similar "reputable"/approved Anglo-Jewish sources, whilst you do ad hominems and rubbish anti-Western-regime writers such as PCR.

    I do not mind that YOU enjoy the confines of the regime's productions, but be a bit less prolific in comments here when all you do is mostly repeat the regime's points and official history, which we all know already and a few Hasbara trolls also keep desperately regurgitating here. You are not contributing much to the debate, just polluting. But, some c0mmenters get hooked up on your new style of asking questions and engage in debate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Carlton Meyer
    I've read that in both world wars, most support was from Wall Street whose bankers feared that Britain would default on loans. There must of been lots of support in Congress for war as proven with the US Army mobilization that began years before Pearl Harbor.

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    "Beginnings: A White House conference on 14 November 1938 (following Munich crisis of September) was springboard for Army mobilization as well as for new war planning (initiation of RAINBOW planning). The War Plans Division, by 30 November, had produced a new blueprint for a modest, balanced Army expansion, over a 2-year period, from 167,000 to 280,000 Regular Army enlisted, and from about 190,000 to 240,000 National Guard enlisted."

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."
    ______________________________

    This cost lots of money, so was Roosevelt juggling funding or was Congress part of the plot?

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938! We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia that year, but no one mentions that Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And four more WWII zingers:

    1. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    2. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    3. Read about the "Flying Tigers." During the Summer of 1941, President Roosevelt sent 100 American fighter aircraft and 300 American pilots and mechanics to China to fight the Japs. Perhaps the Japanese viewed that as hostile.

    4. Note the massive Pentagon War Dept. headquarters complex was finished in Sept. 1941, just in time for the war.

    History is far more complex and interesting than the boring comic books we read in American educational institutions.

    Your reference to Poland “grabbing a chunk first” is so misleading as to undermine whatever thesis you are promoting. In March 1938 Hitler had invaded Austria and started his pressure on Czechoslovakia immediateĺy. By July, thanks to Chamberlain, he had as good as grabbed the Sudetenland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. iffen says:

    As for spy rings

    We know how WWII played out. The only regret that I see is that these supposedly powerful British spies and their Jewish handlers failed in getting us into to the war sooner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @roger in florida
    Actually you couldn't be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill's nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.

    Nice piece of imaginative alternative history. That remark actually prompted by the last half of your last sentence. Why? It’s hard enough to be sure what the world is going to look like in 2087 without reconstructing history since the 1940s :-)
    I recall being told by an old Aistralian of some distinction that he had been present twice in 1941 when someone had said “we’ve won the war” after listening to the wireless news. In June and then in December of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    2087? What the hell is an Aistralian? Churchill had continued the war because he believed that Hitler would do something really stupid, and of course he did; attacking the USSR in June 1941 and then declaring war on the US in Dec 1941. But Hitler had essentially defeated the USSR by Dec 1941. It was only massive US aid that enabled the USSR to continue the fight. Read Khrushchev on this. When Churchill said "we have won after all" it was because Germany had declared war on the USA; a fight they could not possibly win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @roger in florida
    Actually you couldn't be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill's nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.

    I meant to add that Hitler was stuck anyway in Russia a little short of where Napoleon enjoyed a Moscow winter. Moreover Roosevelt would surely have contrived direct entry to the European sphere. BTW wasn’t Hitler hoping in December 1941 that Japan would attack the USSR?

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    How could FDR have contrived war against Germany? Your response shows ignorance of the US political situation at the time. Yes Germany wanted Japan to attack the USSR but the Japanese would not do that as they already received a severe ass-kicking at Soviet hands in 1938. What Japan wanted was a coordinated attack on the weakest of the allies, which was of course Britain. An attack against the Suez canal and the British Empire in Asia was what the Japanese wanted, and those prizes were hanging like ripe plums, but Hitler wanted "Lebensraum" in Russia, same as the Kaiser's crew in WW1. They would have got it too except the idiot declared war on the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. MarkinLA says:
    @Outwest
    Yes, in hindsight. But in 1940 it was not so clear. Japan was a wild card that could have opened a second Soviet front from China. Both Germany and Japan had populations too small to support their plans for empire. A focus on the Soviets could have gained enough empire for both. But Stalin was lucky and foresighted enough to have friends in the U.S. and Great Britain.

    Except the Japanese had already had their noses bloodied by the Russians and Zhukov.

    In 1938, Zhukov was directed to command the First Soviet Mongolian Army Group, and saw action against Japan’s Kwantung Army on the border between Mongolia and the Japanese-controlled state of Manchukuo. This campaign was an undeclared war that lasted from 1938 to 1939. What began as a routine border skirmish – with the Japanese testing the resolve of the Soviets to defend their territory – rapidly escalated into a full-scale war, with the Japanese pushing forward with an estimated 80,000 troops, 180 tanks and 450 aircraft.

    These events led to the strategically decisive Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan). Zhukov requested major reinforcements, and on 20 August 1939, his “Soviet Offensive” commenced. After a massive artillery barrage, nearly 500[11] BT-5 and BT-7 tanks advanced, supported by over 500[12] fighters and bombers. This was the Soviet Air Force’s first fighter-bomber operation.[13] The offensive first appeared to be a typical conventional frontal attack. However, two tank brigades were initially held back and then ordered to advance around on both flanks, supported by motorized artillery, infantry, and other tanks. This daring and successful manoeuvre encircled the Japanese 6th Army and captured the enemy’s vulnerable rear supply areas. By 31 August 1939, the Japanese had been cleared from the disputed border, leaving the Soviets clearly victorious.[13]

    The Japanese were already looking to get out of China as well as it was basically a stalemate there without gaining the Japanese Empire much of value.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Outwest
    The Japanese had the bad habit of thinking in terms of a single, defining battle. This goes back to the original Kamikaze victory vs China and was their plan for Midway. The Soviets beat them in a single battle so the conflict was over.

    Once Japan collected the resources of the European colonies –which it did early in the war- its better course would have been to avoid war with the U.S. and work with Germany against the Soviets. A second front would have been very difficult for the Soviets with no place to retreat to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. RJJCDA says:

    “Mother,” CIA Counter Intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, created the “mole” scare inside the CIA which paralyzed the agency for years. And he was a KNOWN friend of Kim Philby (both in Britain and in America) who had to be extracted to Moscow to escape the imminent threats to him as a traitor to Britain and the West.

    But Angleton met Philby and other MI6 leaders and future leaders during early days of WWII in England where he was sent to learn the ropes. It was said of him there that he became more British than themselves. He effected their accent, dress and carried an umbrella.

    Though a Mexican beauty, his mother was illiterate. Angleton growing up in Boise and possibly enduring slights (“half-wetback”), might have had his sensitive poetic sensibilities damaged. He could have harbored a deep resentment, emanating from slights to his mother, that drove a bias in favor of and toward any power that worked against white America. NWO?

    Consider the possibility that the great search for the mole inside CIA and the whole Philby episode were really about concealing that Angleton, Philby of course and others, American and British, worked for British Intelligence. But willingly or not, known or not, actually really for the the overseer globalists of their time – the deep state’s organs which MI6 and OSS/CIA were figurehead agencies. Angleton and others being really double agents, not for the Kremlin, but for the globalists explains much of post-war history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Angleton as a left winger? Talk about alternative history. Hispanic mother at least explains his middle name; if he hadn't gone into spycraft he might have played for the White Sox.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. fnn says:
    @roger in florida
    Actually you couldn't be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill's nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.

    The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory.

    That assumes that the Germans would have achieved “total victory” if they had taken Moscow-which they could have done if they had not diverted so many troops elsewhere. But many dispute that taking Moscow would have been the end of the war.

    US had already been waging undeclared war against the Axis in the North Atlantic for months when Hitler declared war (you can easily look this up). That, plus the fact that US had been providing direct military aid to Britain for the past year, likely made Hitler assume that it would only be a matter of time before FDR would find a casus belli that would allow him to officially enter the war against Germany. And time was not on Germany’s side. Hitler probably also noticed that, while the anti-interventionist movement was strong among the American public, it was very weak in Congress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    Well Stalin certainly thought it was over which is why he was prepared to give up most of European Russia to Hitler.
    The US defended the American hemisphere but did not attack Germany, this was not "undeclared war" it was simply that US interests would be defended. FDR could not declare war against Germany without Congressional support, Hitler absolved him of that responsibility by declaring war against the US. You need to look at the facts, not your personal prejudices. In the light of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor there was no interest in Congress to widen the war by declaring war against Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Sam Shama says:
    @Ron Unz


    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition
     
    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?
     
    That's very interesting. If you google "lenin controlled opposition" you'll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I've seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it's probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish "The Trust" as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime's overseas opponents. So whether or not the quote is real, the sentiments I described probably were:

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

    Ron,
    OT request I’d been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Plenty of obvious talents floating around for the comic strip, especially the conspiracy theorists why they could provide years' worth of fodder! Start it off with "WTC: False Flag Fluttering" or something ....
    , @Jacques Sheete

    Ron,
    OT request I’d been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.
     
    Ummm, there is one; it's otherwise known as the comments section.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama
    Ron,
    OT request I'd been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.

    Plenty of obvious talents floating around for the comic strip, especially the conspiracy theorists why they could provide years’ worth of fodder! Start it off with “WTC: False Flag Fluttering” or something ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    As Unz Review contributor, Paul Craig Roberts, has correctly noted: "The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments," the most common of which being to call those who question the US Government's 9/11 theory about 19 conspirators with box cutters "conspiracists."

    Cockburn took this line, which is understandable, since, like Sam Shama, he appears to have had no arguments to refute rational critiques, such as that of Paul Craig Roberts, of the US Government's account of 9/11.

    , @iffen
    You need a cartoon/comic strip

    Glad to see your 2nd comment. I couldn't believe that you didn't realize that UR has more than one already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Carlton Meyer
    I've read that in both world wars, most support was from Wall Street whose bankers feared that Britain would default on loans. There must of been lots of support in Congress for war as proven with the US Army mobilization that began years before Pearl Harbor.

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    "Beginnings: A White House conference on 14 November 1938 (following Munich crisis of September) was springboard for Army mobilization as well as for new war planning (initiation of RAINBOW planning). The War Plans Division, by 30 November, had produced a new blueprint for a modest, balanced Army expansion, over a 2-year period, from 167,000 to 280,000 Regular Army enlisted, and from about 190,000 to 240,000 National Guard enlisted."

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."
    ______________________________

    This cost lots of money, so was Roosevelt juggling funding or was Congress part of the plot?

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938! We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia that year, but no one mentions that Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And four more WWII zingers:

    1. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    2. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    3. Read about the "Flying Tigers." During the Summer of 1941, President Roosevelt sent 100 American fighter aircraft and 300 American pilots and mechanics to China to fight the Japs. Perhaps the Japanese viewed that as hostile.

    4. Note the massive Pentagon War Dept. headquarters complex was finished in Sept. 1941, just in time for the war.

    History is far more complex and interesting than the boring comic books we read in American educational institutions.

    Here’s another major zinger.

    The “Allies” did a Pearl Harbor on neutral Persia (now Iran) and seized oil fields and refineries there, occupied the country, and established the Persian Corridor 3 months prior to the Japanese attack on PH.

    Page after page of facts, many of them zingers, can be found here:

    https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-Chron/USN-Chron-1941.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @fnn

    The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory.
     
    That assumes that the Germans would have achieved "total victory" if they had taken Moscow-which they could have done if they had not diverted so many troops elsewhere. But many dispute that taking Moscow would have been the end of the war.

    US had already been waging undeclared war against the Axis in the North Atlantic for months when Hitler declared war (you can easily look this up). That, plus the fact that US had been providing direct military aid to Britain for the past year, likely made Hitler assume that it would only be a matter of time before FDR would find a casus belli that would allow him to officially enter the war against Germany. And time was not on Germany's side. Hitler probably also noticed that, while the anti-interventionist movement was strong among the American public, it was very weak in Congress.

    Well Stalin certainly thought it was over which is why he was prepared to give up most of European Russia to Hitler.
    The US defended the American hemisphere but did not attack Germany, this was not “undeclared war” it was simply that US interests would be defended. FDR could not declare war against Germany without Congressional support, Hitler absolved him of that responsibility by declaring war against the US. You need to look at the facts, not your personal prejudices. In the light of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor there was no interest in Congress to widen the war by declaring war against Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I hadn't heard of Stalin's alleged funk but, anyway, your use of it runs into two problems. One is Stalin's appallingly bad judgment on nearly every issue touching his country's interests. The other is that he was untrustworthy and Machiavellian. How close did the USSR ever get to such a surrender? How much time was bought?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Wizard of Oz
    Nice piece of imaginative alternative history. That remark actually prompted by the last half of your last sentence. Why? It's hard enough to be sure what the world is going to look like in 2087 without reconstructing history since the 1940s :-)
    I recall being told by an old Aistralian of some distinction that he had been present twice in 1941 when someone had said "we've won the war" after listening to the wireless news. In June and then in December of course.

    2087? What the hell is an Aistralian? Churchill had continued the war because he believed that Hitler would do something really stupid, and of course he did; attacking the USSR in June 1941 and then declaring war on the US in Dec 1941. But Hitler had essentially defeated the USSR by Dec 1941. It was only massive US aid that enabled the USSR to continue the fight. Read Khrushchev on this. When Churchill said “we have won after all” it was because Germany had declared war on the USA; a fight they could not possibly win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    To answer your important question an Aistralian is code for a negligent Antipodean with a clumsy thumb. Does that include New Zealanders do I hear the pedant say? Baaaaa....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Wizard of Oz
    I meant to add that Hitler was stuck anyway in Russia a little short of where Napoleon enjoyed a Moscow winter. Moreover Roosevelt would surely have contrived direct entry to the European sphere. BTW wasn't Hitler hoping in December 1941 that Japan would attack the USSR?

    How could FDR have contrived war against Germany? Your response shows ignorance of the US political situation at the time. Yes Germany wanted Japan to attack the USSR but the Japanese would not do that as they already received a severe ass-kicking at Soviet hands in 1938. What Japan wanted was a coordinated attack on the weakest of the allies, which was of course Britain. An attack against the Suez canal and the British Empire in Asia was what the Japanese wanted, and those prizes were hanging like ripe plums, but Hitler wanted “Lebensraum” in Russia, same as the Kaiser’s crew in WW1. They would have got it too except the idiot declared war on the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I plead ignorance of the details of the political situation but can't imagine that Roosevelt and team would have been unable to cook up a pretext starting with alarming forged letters and telegrams. Anyway there would have been plenty of support from US manufacturers for the credit needed so that supplies to the Soviet union could get under way. Then a US ship would have been torpedoed on its way to Russia, leading to massive deliberately provocative retaliation and, if Roosevelt was still impatient the US would either have said that Hitler had effectually declared war (preceded by a few confusing headline saying that he had declared war in some typically irregular way) or that he had attacked America outrageously without declaring war. And why not several inconsistent explanations to keep the chattering classes diverted.

    Back to you who knows enough to be confident. Why did Hitler declare war according to his nearest and dearest including himself?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Ron Unz

    An interesting academic review of the book from when it came out
     
    Yes, this seems like a solid, rather even-handed review. I'd attempted to emphasize that Roosevelt was himself very eager to involve America in WWII, and seemed to be working hand-in-glove with British intelligence to achieve that goal, so it certainly would be incorrect to portray nearly all or even most of the pro-war groups as any sorts of British puppets. However, the British spies had the sorts of skills and freedom of operation that Roosevelt probably lacked.

    Another point I should make is that based on Mahl's account, a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. So based on this reconstruction, Charles Lindbergh's famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic "gaffe"...

    “gaffe?”

    Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight over World War II, 1939 – 1941, devotes extensive coverage to British espionage and propaganda activities in the US . The book’s author, Lynn Olsen, quotes Thomas Mahl and includes Desperate Deception in the book’s bibliography.

    Olsen also hammers away at “antisemitism,” and pillories Charles Lindbergh for his “antisemitic” speech in Iowa. It’s noteworthy that Olsen opens her book by summarizing that the tactics used by the Roosevelt administration — ably assisted by the British — to “educate” the American people on the need for war, set the pattern for the position the USA was to take in the post-war world. Those tactics included character assassination (she does not mention actual assassinations, iirc); illegal acts, massive propaganda and spy networks that included opening diplomatic pouches and surveilling broad swathes of the American public. Heavy use was made of Hollywood studios, print, and radio.

    In his book on FDR’s decision to seek a third term in 1940, Richard Moe reports that Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom FDR consulted to make that decision. That consultation occurred the day before the decision was announced; Frankfurter suggested that FDR call in Archibald MacLeish to compose the announcement.

    Ron mentions that “attractive women were deployed to sway prominent elected officials.” Whether New York Herald Tribune book review editor Irita van Doren was “deployed” or not is an open question; it is irrefutable that Willkie’s friendship and love affair with van Doren propelled him from a utilities executive who competed with Henry Ford and tangled with Washington regulators over the Tennessee Valley Authority, to New York society creature and politician. While Henry Luce, who used his dominance in print media to lead the Interventionist cause, played a major role in Wendell Willkie’s New York social life and writing ambitions, Frankfurter was also instrumental in Willkie’s career, his presidential candidacy, and his subsequent employment in the Gallagher law firm, where Frankfurter had also been an associate.

    One of the first cases Willkie handled as a member of the law firm was the defense of Hollywood studio heads in hearings initiated by Senator Gerald Nye who charged that “the film industry was trying to make America punch-drunk with propaganda to push her into war.”

    Willkie humiliated Nye and other witnesses who opposed the heavy-handed propaganda emanating from Hollywood.

    Another “gaffe?”

    (In Operation Mincemeat author Ben MacIntyre traces the linkages among Ewen Montagu, British Naval Intelligence Officer and spymaster; his brother Ivor, a Communist agent, who travelled to Hollywood where he “taught Charlie Chaplin to swear in Russian, and worked as a producer on five of Alfred Hitchcock’s British films.” High priests of holocaustianity refer to scenes from Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” as if they were historical fact. A hat-trick of “gaffes.” )

    After his successful defense of the right of filmmakers to lie and deceive the American people in matters of war and peace, Willkie was delegated by FDR to devote his energies to coordinating Lend-Lease arrangements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [Willkie’s friendship and love affair with van Doren]

    Wendell was quite the love machine, he went on to fuck Madame Chiang as presidential envoy during the war. She said, "Wendell will rule the West, while I will rule the East."
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your reference to Frankfurter interests me as I have suggested to our host that he explore the possibility of looking into the diaries of at least two people who were in Washington DC from about 1942 based on the insiders they are likely to have been close two. Indeed Sir Owen Dixon, later Australia's Chief Justice, became a friend and correspondent of Frankfurter when he was Australia's diplomatic representative in Washington. He also became very close to Dean Acheson. Some will find it of interest that Dixon was no philosemite generally but admired and was close to some Jews - in particular the great General Sir John Monash.

    The other person - out of many no doubt - whose papers could reflect indider gossip of wartime DC is Isaiah Berlin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    What nonsense. The sovs had the advantage, in men, land, and material over the Germans, but it was far from overwhelming. Wars have been won against greater odds. Ever heard of the winter war? How about the first few months of the german invasion? Some British military analysts at the time thought the Soviets would be crushed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Operation Barbarossa: a close run thing...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sam Shama
    Plenty of obvious talents floating around for the comic strip, especially the conspiracy theorists why they could provide years' worth of fodder! Start it off with "WTC: False Flag Fluttering" or something ....

    As Unz Review contributor, Paul Craig Roberts, has correctly noted: “The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments,” the most common of which being to call those who question the US Government’s 9/11 theory about 19 conspirators with box cutters “conspiracists.”

    Cockburn took this line, which is understandable, since, like Sam Shama, he appears to have had no arguments to refute rational critiques, such as that of Paul Craig Roberts, of the US Government’s account of 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No PCR is not a conspiracist - just a crank on almost every subject. Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn't take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
    , @Sam Shama
    you chaps sulking a bit? i thought it was a jolly good idea, the comic strip i mean; may as well try to bag a bit of that simoleon, while you and your fellow knight revusky battle the demons what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @roger in florida
    2087? What the hell is an Aistralian? Churchill had continued the war because he believed that Hitler would do something really stupid, and of course he did; attacking the USSR in June 1941 and then declaring war on the US in Dec 1941. But Hitler had essentially defeated the USSR by Dec 1941. It was only massive US aid that enabled the USSR to continue the fight. Read Khrushchev on this. When Churchill said "we have won after all" it was because Germany had declared war on the USA; a fight they could not possibly win.

    To answer your important question an Aistralian is code for a negligent Antipodean with a clumsy thumb. Does that include New Zealanders do I hear the pedant say? Baaaaa….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @roger in florida
    How could FDR have contrived war against Germany? Your response shows ignorance of the US political situation at the time. Yes Germany wanted Japan to attack the USSR but the Japanese would not do that as they already received a severe ass-kicking at Soviet hands in 1938. What Japan wanted was a coordinated attack on the weakest of the allies, which was of course Britain. An attack against the Suez canal and the British Empire in Asia was what the Japanese wanted, and those prizes were hanging like ripe plums, but Hitler wanted "Lebensraum" in Russia, same as the Kaiser's crew in WW1. They would have got it too except the idiot declared war on the US.

    I plead ignorance of the details of the political situation but can’t imagine that Roosevelt and team would have been unable to cook up a pretext starting with alarming forged letters and telegrams. Anyway there would have been plenty of support from US manufacturers for the credit needed so that supplies to the Soviet union could get under way. Then a US ship would have been torpedoed on its way to Russia, leading to massive deliberately provocative retaliation and, if Roosevelt was still impatient the US would either have said that Hitler had effectually declared war (preceded by a few confusing headline saying that he had declared war in some typically irregular way) or that he had attacked America outrageously without declaring war. And why not several inconsistent explanations to keep the chattering classes diverted.

    Back to you who knows enough to be confident. Why did Hitler declare war according to his nearest and dearest including himself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    That is the big question isn't it? Why? We all agree to some extent on the what, but why?
    Hitler was an angry and embittered man, extraordinarily sensitive and repeatedly rejected. He was a hugely egotistical demagogue. There is convincing evidence that he was suffering from advanced syphilis contracted during his time as a soldier in WW1. One of the effects of that terrible disease is "worm in the brain", causing irrational anger and violent outbursts. Mainly I think he chose war because he was sure he could win and by June 1941 his confidence level had to be sky high.
    What is more curious is why Chamberlain chose to reverse his policy of appeasement and throw down a gauntlet that Hitler had to pick up. Britain had absolutely nothing like the military capability necessary to confront Germany, in fact a British war against Germany was suicide. As the great Australian PM John Curtin observed to Churchill, I paraphrase; "you have given territorial guarantees to a country that means nothing to you, in so doing you are in a war you cannot win and you cannot now offer any help to Australia if war comes against Japan". Of course PM Curtin was forced then to appeal to FDR for the US to defend Australia.
    Chamberlain was a weak and rather unintelligent man who chose to confront Hitler out of a feeling of personal pique and self pity. That he was able to do so without censure from Cabinet, Parliament or King is itself very telling, would that Sir John Kerr had been King!
    FDR was determined that the US would give all assistance to Britain "SHORT OF WAR", and he meant it. US ships had already been torpedoed in the Atlantic and US sailors killed, but that had not caused the US to declare war nor would it.
    As I write this there are 237 comments on this thread and I have to say there is an array of psychoses on display that is both amusing and alarming: The Jews control everything of course even planning their own obliteration. The usual nonsense about 9/11 being an inside job. The civil war being forced on the South by Jew controlled yankee imperialists. There is enough material here to keep a mental health professional busy for years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. 5371 says:
    @roger in florida
    Actually you couldn't be more wrong: The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory. All the British scheming had not got the USA into the war and would not have done so, although it is a fact that British survival depended on US participation. The US had taken very sensible steps to defend the American hemisphere from Germany but was never going to declare war. USSR had suffered quite incredible defeats in 1941 and though Germany did suffer setbacks around Moscow the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Japanese attack on the US was Churchill's nightmare, it meant that the British empire in the Far East would also be attacked and the supply of American war material to Britain and the USSR would dry up, the Empire of Japan was quite enough enemy for the US to concentrate on. But, in one of the most stupid political decisions of all time Hitler declared war on the US, even though he was not obligated to by the AXIS treaty. That changed everything; Harry Hopkins went to Moscow with a military team in December 1941 and told Stalin that the defeat of Germany was the main US priority and that the US economy would be totally mobilized to supply the USSR with everything they needed to defeat Germany. Stalin did not believe at first but was quickly convinced. The list of war material and other stuff such as food, clothes, in fact everything that the USSR needed to continue the war and WIN, that was supplied by the US was quite incredible. The US actually almost single handedly defeated both Germany and Japan, although it is true that 90% of the actual fighting against Germany was by USSR. If Hitler had not declared war on US the USSR would have been defeated in 1942 and Britain would have been starved out and beaten in 1943. The US would have defeated Japan and the world would now be a bi-polar place; USA and Germany.

    [The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory ... the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk]

    Every word completely false, few things more nonsensical have been written. The failure in front of Moscow meant certain defeat in the end. People with brains knew that immediately, like Ernst Udet who shot himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @roger in florida
    Long on invective, short on facts: The failure of the winter counter offensive was all Russian. Stalin threw in his last reserves, the "Siberian divisions" that were supposed to turn the tide. They didn't, the German lines held except for some small losses. That was it, Stalin knew that his attack needed to destroy army group center for soviet forces to have any chance in 1942, they didn't, he was toast and he knew it. Then came the savior in the unlikely form of Harry Hopkins, the rest, as they say, is history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. 5371 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    "gaffe?"

    --

    Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight over World War II, 1939 - 1941, devotes extensive coverage to British espionage and propaganda activities in the US . The book's author, Lynn Olsen, quotes Thomas Mahl and includes Desperate Deception in the book's bibliography.

    Olsen also hammers away at "antisemitism," and pillories Charles Lindbergh for his "antisemitic" speech in Iowa. It's noteworthy that Olsen opens her book by summarizing that the tactics used by the Roosevelt administration -- ably assisted by the British -- to "educate" the American people on the need for war, set the pattern for the position the USA was to take in the post-war world. Those tactics included character assassination (she does not mention actual assassinations, iirc); illegal acts, massive propaganda and spy networks that included opening diplomatic pouches and surveilling broad swathes of the American public. Heavy use was made of Hollywood studios, print, and radio.

    In his book on FDR's decision to seek a third term in 1940, Richard Moe reports that Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom FDR consulted to make that decision. That consultation occurred the day before the decision was announced; Frankfurter suggested that FDR call in Archibald MacLeish to compose the announcement.

    Ron mentions that "attractive women were deployed to sway prominent elected officials." Whether New York Herald Tribune book review editor Irita van Doren was "deployed" or not is an open question; it is irrefutable that Willkie's friendship and love affair with van Doren propelled him from a utilities executive who competed with Henry Ford and tangled with Washington regulators over the Tennessee Valley Authority, to New York society creature and politician. While Henry Luce, who used his dominance in print media to lead the Interventionist cause, played a major role in Wendell Willkie's New York social life and writing ambitions, Frankfurter was also instrumental in Willkie's career, his presidential candidacy, and his subsequent employment in the Gallagher law firm, where Frankfurter had also been an associate.

    One of the first cases Willkie handled as a member of the law firm was the defense of Hollywood studio heads in hearings initiated by Senator Gerald Nye who charged that "the film industry was trying to make America punch-drunk with propaganda to push her into war."

    Willkie humiliated Nye and other witnesses who opposed the heavy-handed propaganda emanating from Hollywood.

    Another "gaffe?"

    (In Operation Mincemeat author Ben MacIntyre traces the linkages among Ewen Montagu, British Naval Intelligence Officer and spymaster; his brother Ivor, a Communist agent, who travelled to Hollywood where he "taught Charlie Chaplin to swear in Russian, and worked as a producer on five of Alfred Hitchcock's British films." High priests of holocaustianity refer to scenes from Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" as if they were historical fact. A hat-trick of "gaffes." )

    After his successful defense of the right of filmmakers to lie and deceive the American people in matters of war and peace, Willkie was delegated by FDR to devote his energies to coordinating Lend-Lease arrangements.

    [Willkie’s friendship and love affair with van Doren]

    Wendell was quite the love machine, he went on to fuck Madame Chiang as presidential envoy during the war. She said, “Wendell will rule the West, while I will rule the East.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @roger in florida
    Well Stalin certainly thought it was over which is why he was prepared to give up most of European Russia to Hitler.
    The US defended the American hemisphere but did not attack Germany, this was not "undeclared war" it was simply that US interests would be defended. FDR could not declare war against Germany without Congressional support, Hitler absolved him of that responsibility by declaring war against the US. You need to look at the facts, not your personal prejudices. In the light of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor there was no interest in Congress to widen the war by declaring war against Germany.

    I hadn’t heard of Stalin’s alleged funk but, anyway, your use of it runs into two problems. One is Stalin’s appallingly bad judgment on nearly every issue touching his country’s interests. The other is that he was untrustworthy and Machiavellian. How close did the USSR ever get to such a surrender? How much time was bought?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @CanSpeccy
    As Unz Review contributor, Paul Craig Roberts, has correctly noted: "The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments," the most common of which being to call those who question the US Government's 9/11 theory about 19 conspirators with box cutters "conspiracists."

    Cockburn took this line, which is understandable, since, like Sam Shama, he appears to have had no arguments to refute rational critiques, such as that of Paul Craig Roberts, of the US Government's account of 9/11.

    No PCR is not a conspiracist – just a crank on almost every subject. Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    But you just can't think of such an argument for the moment, and certainly can't be bothered to do any searching. And it's the same with Sam, apparently.

    Makes one wonder, could Sam and WizOz be part of a foreign spy network "playing a massive hidden role in getting America involved" in wars of imperial aggression "despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry?"

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    You know, that's really just a bit too much. You really are such a liar.

    About two weeks ago, under a previous "American Pravda" article by Ron, I specifically asked you what the best proof available was for the U.S. government story on 9/11. You responded and your response was actually quite extraordinary.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531687

    You have 7 numbered points in response and not a single one of the seven constitutes even a shred of evidence. I took the time to write a reply that systematically demonstrates this, going through your 7 points one by one. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    What then?

    Well, you just walked away. As I knew you would. Of course. What else?

    And now you're here a couple of weeks later, after a total failure to produce a single shred of evidence for the government story, or a single real argument, saying that there is all kinds of evidence and so forth.

    WHERE IS IT? I have posed the question to you and your fellow shit eaters numerous time: What is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion for the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11? (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera)

    I have never received a real, good-faithed response. Not from you or any of your fellow shit eaters.

    Is there any proof? If so, either provide it finally, or admit there is none. Well, those are the two options of an honest person. But you, of course, are not an honest person.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @iffen
    if the base had been transferred to the US early enough, it would have served as a warning to Japan to stay out of Indochina/ Vietnam.

    If this would have worked in Singapore, I wonder if it could have worked for Pearl.

    Indeed, why wasn’t the Phillipines warning enough?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Ron Unz

    Please note that Thomas E. Mahl’s last name is spelled with an H not a U. It is not Maul but Mahl. You will have trouble finding his ebook if you search under the former.
     
    Oops!!! It's possible to glance at the cover of a book maybe 200 times and have the brain misconnect with what the eyes see.

    For the record and maybe comment I recall the case of a barrister with three given names. The second snd third initials corresponded to very common initials for formal abbreviations; cf. MP, MC (Military Cross); QC. As often as not I gather his briefs would be delivered with the initials reversed. The only likely explanation seemed to be that the just liminally attentive deliverer of the brief would think subconsciously “PC [Privy Councillor] – oh no thst can’t be it” and change to CP which didn’t set off the same subliminal buzzer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I guess that you are not a geneticist either as there is a lot of genetic evidence to support Sands. Also how else do you think large rural Jewish villages emerged in Western Russia – if not from forced migration of Khazar converts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why did they speak a German dialect in those villages? Both the DNA and linguistic evidence are conclusive that the Khazar conversion theory was 99 per cent nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @SolontoCroesus
    "gaffe?"

    --

    Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight over World War II, 1939 - 1941, devotes extensive coverage to British espionage and propaganda activities in the US . The book's author, Lynn Olsen, quotes Thomas Mahl and includes Desperate Deception in the book's bibliography.

    Olsen also hammers away at "antisemitism," and pillories Charles Lindbergh for his "antisemitic" speech in Iowa. It's noteworthy that Olsen opens her book by summarizing that the tactics used by the Roosevelt administration -- ably assisted by the British -- to "educate" the American people on the need for war, set the pattern for the position the USA was to take in the post-war world. Those tactics included character assassination (she does not mention actual assassinations, iirc); illegal acts, massive propaganda and spy networks that included opening diplomatic pouches and surveilling broad swathes of the American public. Heavy use was made of Hollywood studios, print, and radio.

    In his book on FDR's decision to seek a third term in 1940, Richard Moe reports that Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom FDR consulted to make that decision. That consultation occurred the day before the decision was announced; Frankfurter suggested that FDR call in Archibald MacLeish to compose the announcement.

    Ron mentions that "attractive women were deployed to sway prominent elected officials." Whether New York Herald Tribune book review editor Irita van Doren was "deployed" or not is an open question; it is irrefutable that Willkie's friendship and love affair with van Doren propelled him from a utilities executive who competed with Henry Ford and tangled with Washington regulators over the Tennessee Valley Authority, to New York society creature and politician. While Henry Luce, who used his dominance in print media to lead the Interventionist cause, played a major role in Wendell Willkie's New York social life and writing ambitions, Frankfurter was also instrumental in Willkie's career, his presidential candidacy, and his subsequent employment in the Gallagher law firm, where Frankfurter had also been an associate.

    One of the first cases Willkie handled as a member of the law firm was the defense of Hollywood studio heads in hearings initiated by Senator Gerald Nye who charged that "the film industry was trying to make America punch-drunk with propaganda to push her into war."

    Willkie humiliated Nye and other witnesses who opposed the heavy-handed propaganda emanating from Hollywood.

    Another "gaffe?"

    (In Operation Mincemeat author Ben MacIntyre traces the linkages among Ewen Montagu, British Naval Intelligence Officer and spymaster; his brother Ivor, a Communist agent, who travelled to Hollywood where he "taught Charlie Chaplin to swear in Russian, and worked as a producer on five of Alfred Hitchcock's British films." High priests of holocaustianity refer to scenes from Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" as if they were historical fact. A hat-trick of "gaffes." )

    After his successful defense of the right of filmmakers to lie and deceive the American people in matters of war and peace, Willkie was delegated by FDR to devote his energies to coordinating Lend-Lease arrangements.

    Your reference to Frankfurter interests me as I have suggested to our host that he explore the possibility of looking into the diaries of at least two people who were in Washington DC from about 1942 based on the insiders they are likely to have been close two. Indeed Sir Owen Dixon, later Australia’s Chief Justice, became a friend and correspondent of Frankfurter when he was Australia’s diplomatic representative in Washington. He also became very close to Dean Acheson. Some will find it of interest that Dixon was no philosemite generally but admired and was close to some Jews – in particular the great General Sir John Monash.

    The other person – out of many no doubt – whose papers could reflect indider gossip of wartime DC is Isaiah Berlin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Seamus Padraig
    Once again, Mr. Unz, thanks for a fascinating article on an important and little-known subject. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that FDR knew and approved of all of this, being so desperate to take the US to war.

    Now, a few nitpicks:

    However, Stalin and Hitler had become allies just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, and until the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, Communists were generally opposed to any American support for Britain or France, let alone direct military intervention.
     
    What the Germans and the Russians actually had was a non-aggression pact and a limited trade agreement. I am unaware of their having had a mutal-defense pact, so describing them as "allies" is a bit of a stretch.

    Willkie’s 11,000 word Wikipedia entry contains an extensive bibliography and over 150 references, but includes no mention of Maul’s important research findings.
     
    For anyone with a Wikipedia account, that should be an easy problem to fix.

    I agree “allies” is a bit of a stretch. However, I believe the relationship was quite important. Germany used the USSR for a range of military purposes, such as secretly testing various armaments etc (I think, as far back as the 20′s ?). The delivery of a range of commodities to Germany was also very important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @random observer
    "Desperate Deception" is probably all true, or at least true in outline. I would be surprised if it weren't. That's how states work- they pursue their interests, and those interests are usually decided by elites.

    Contrary to the assumptions of many Americans, America has never been any different and, although arguably less so in some recent eras, the elites usually have American state interests and their own class perspective in mind. All that America did until quite recently served to enhance the global power of the American state and the interests of American elites. Occasionally it benefited the average citizen of America, which is about as good or better a record than the record of any other state's foreign policy benefiting its ordinary people.

    American entry into WW1 enhanced the already growing power of the US. It benefited Wall Street the most, sure, but Wall Street was American then. So perhaps no benefit to average Amerficans beyond the general prosperity of the 1920s in the only great power undamaged by the Great War, but at least the elites getting rich off foreign debt repayments were Americans, not foreigners.

    WW2 put America in a position no country had ever experienced before. In 1945 it was the richest and strongest country in the world by orders of magnitude. Its losses were trivial compared to those of any other major power, most of whom were destroyed [mainland Europe, Japan], impoverished [Britain], or gut shot even if they ended up alive and winning [USSR], and its homeland and industry were undamaged. The only one of whom that was true.

    American elites ran the world for a generation. Even British conniving was repaid by the Americans essentially undermining Britain's entire empire. American troops and OSS were all over it and American political and commercial influence appeared in massive quantities in places where it had never before even been heard of. The US made it clear that the empire could not be tolerated as a long term proposition and made sure American ideology about liberalism, nationalism and anti-imperialism was part and parcel of the Allied war effort and all allied propaganda. The desired end result was a world with no empires, many more sovereign states, many of them barely viable but propped up by American influence, many more American bases, listening posts, etc, all over the world, and a ready made network of global power with which to make America top dog and keep her there.

    Sure, the USSR mounted a challenge and local elites had their own views. Not all the prizes went to America. Plenty did. America got what FDR and his men envisioned for her after the war. And it didn't have to deal with a world order or world economy carved up among itself in the western hemisphere, a German Europe and a Japanese Asia. Both more difficult cold wars to manage than the one with the Russians in a relatively containable geographic sphere.

    So from the point of view of the American state and American elites, WW2 went VERY well. Hardly any country ever benefited so much from a victorious war. Britain by comparison gained survival as a free country albeit a vassal and a small share of American led prosperity, but paid a massive price. A lesser price, in the end, than would have been paid in the event of a German or Russian victory, but still huge.

    More than that, hardly any country's regular people ever gained so much by their country winning a war. That transient period of unparalleled wealth, global industrial dominance despite high domestic wages, egalitarianism, middle class prosperity for most, that everybody wishes were back but is never coming back? Brought to America by winning the war, the destroyed industrial bases of America's competitors, a trade and financial regime organized to benefit American finance and manufacturing for 30 years and suck raw materials into America, and a global infrastructure to be rebuilt by American know how and American expats building with American products.

    Sure, it was a self-limiting system that was bound to have a painful adjustment when competitors got back on their feet and energy producers started feeling their oats. But it was an epic generational run by any historical standards, it benefited the bulk of Americans, and to some extent still does. The financial system reliant on the dollar is propping up the personal comfort of millions of debt riddled Americans right now who ought to be in penury for their life choices. And would be, in any country but America.

    I also agree: however, I believe the seeds of US decay were sown in 1945.
    Firstly, I don’t believe that republicanism & democracy are comparable with Empire of ANY kind, even the indirect form of empire the US has pursued.
    Secondly, the degree of power that the US has possessed since ’45 would “tend to corrupt” ANY nation, let alone a nation such as the US so given over to materialism, consumerism etc.
    Yes, I know this is a “long bow” to draw, however I believe a strong argument could be developed here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    Empire it is, or was, not. Mongrel grab bag is the phrase we are looking for ...
    , @Che Guava
    Since entering the war was what Franklin Delano Rosenfeldt (name from Vonnegut) really wanted, Pearl Harbour was a gift.

    The British had a role there, too, apart from their navy in crueler 19th century days being the inspiration for Japan's, as Prussia was for the army and for uniforms at most schools, even now, and most schools have sailor collars for the girl's uniforms.

    Day of Deceit has much information on the Brit. disinfo. leading up to the brilliantly executed attack on Pearl Harbour. Admiral Yamamoto was reluctant to do it, but as any reader knows, he did a great job, only the main targets were mysteriously not there.

    Assassinated by order of would-be Prexident-for-Life Rosenfeldt about two years later.

    Not that I do not feel sorry for the USN casualties, will pray for them before sleep tonight.

    For very young Unzers, the old Tora, Tora, Tora is vastly superior to the cheap Pearl Harbor film. The aeroplanes are real in the former, and the co-directors gave a damn about a little accuracy in it, unlike the ugly confections and soap-opera qualities of the latter.

    I read the Counterpunch site at times, too, too much is the typical whiney left, but enough is outside that, abt. 1/10 or 1/20 articles are well worth reading.

    Must digress here, but the girls at Korean schools in Japan, particularly at north-aligned schools, had to dump the scholarly version of the bell-shaped dress when there were many attacks on them in the trains and on the streets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Connecticut Famer
    Excellent article. The extent to which British intelligence penetrated the American political system is certainly a revelation, but the fact that they would attempt to do so in the first place is not. It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake. It would only follow that the Brits would have pulled out all the stops to cook the books as it were. And according to Cockburn (in citing Mr. Maul) it appears as though they succeeded. One can only envision Churchill--who had no religious affiliation and who appears to have been at least agnostic--dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out "there is a God after all."

    As a footnote, I call attention to the following which was clearly the fruit of British skullduggery:

    "Despite Willkie’s remarkable success at securing the nomination, his presidential campaign itself proved a total disaster, with many of his erstwhile supporters quickly dropping away or even transferring their allegiance to Roosevelt."

    Apropos of the current campaign, one notes with a bit of a shudder that if that sort of thing was done once, it could be done again. And, I might add, not necessarily through the actions of a foreign agent.

    Churchill “dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out “there is a God after all.”
    What a pivotal point in history ! We can only speculate what might have happened had Hitler NOT made the incredible mistake of declaring war on the US.
    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ? (Yes you can argue that the Germany-Japan pact required it – or not – however, would a clever strategist have so willingly shoved their head in (another) lion’s mouth ? Really, what was the Japanese alliance actually WORTH to Germany ? )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ?
     
    Americans at the time widely believed that Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor were piloted by German pilots, because slanty eyed gooks cannot shoot and fly straight. I do not know whether these rumors were planted by Soviets or Brits, but it would be as solid reason to declare war as were the Iraqi WMD in our time.
    , @Zach
    Hitler probably hoped that if he declared war on the USA, Japan would declare war on the USSR. The Axis powers were at cross purposes though: Hitler wanted the USSR diverted by Japan in the east while the Japanese wanted the British diverted so they could scoop up British colonies in the east.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Simon in London
    I'm surprised Our Boys were so effective. OTOH I doubt they were the ones who got Hitler to invade the USSR (bringing UK & Soviet spy ring aims into alignment) or declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. Guess we were fortunate in the quality of our enemies - and also that the Nazis were never good at spying, indeed there barely were any real 'Nazi' spies, and the Abwehr never even seemed to want to succeed.

    Apparently they were reasonably good in the east: the CIA took over Gehlen & his networks after the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Anonymous
    What nonsense. The sovs had the advantage, in men, land, and material over the Germans, but it was far from overwhelming. Wars have been won against greater odds. Ever heard of the winter war? How about the first few months of the german invasion? Some British military analysts at the time thought the Soviets would be crushed.

    Operation Barbarossa: a close run thing…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Jonathan Revusky

    It is well established that Churchill was chomping at the bit to get the US into the war. After all, the very survival of his country, let alone the existence of their empire (which was already in decline), was at stake.
     
    This is actually a very dubious proposition. Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?

    The fact of the matter is that Hitler's real war goals lay in the east. Certainly after the invasion of the USSR, it stands to reason that he had no interest in a two-front war, which had been the downfall of Germany in WW1. He would have made a pretty generous deal with Britain to simply stay out of the conflict, thus leaving him a free hand to smash the Soviet Union. He had no interest in continuing the war with the British. At this point, it seems to me that it was a war of choice for the British. Though, actually, it was from the start. Britain (and France) declared war on Germany in 1939. Not the other way round.

    Now, certainly, the main beneficiary of Churchill's decision to stay in the war after the invasion of the USSR, as an ally of the Soviets, was not Britain or the British Empire. It was the Soviet Union. This may be a shocking notion, but I do not see how any honest analysis would lead to any other conclusion.

    “Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?”
    Yes, I believe it is true: British paramount strategy from at least the 17 th C was to deny ANY nation the opportunity of continental hegemony. Louis xiv, Napoleon, the Kaiser, & then Hitler: the same strategy played over centuries. Now ? Later ? Whenever, Britain would NEVER have sat back and allowed Nazi Germany to have its way….And nor would it have allowed Stalin to have it all his way either !

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    deny ANY nation the opportunity of continental hegemony

    Trying to work through some of the crazy foreign policy moves of the US, I wonder sometimes if some of it is not designed to keep Germany fearful of Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. fitzGetty says:

    It is still startling, in fact shocking, to realise that Elizabeth Bowen was, in fact, a spy, during WWll …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. fitzGetty says:
    @Tom Welsh
    "The history was that Britain and France had entered into a war against Germany, and soon found themselves at a stalemate or actually overmatched".

    France, indeed, was actually conquered.

    They gave up without a fight … Paris : the traitor’s city …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. fitzGetty says:
    @Simon in London
    I'm surprised Our Boys were so effective. OTOH I doubt they were the ones who got Hitler to invade the USSR (bringing UK & Soviet spy ring aims into alignment) or declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. Guess we were fortunate in the quality of our enemies - and also that the Nazis were never good at spying, indeed there barely were any real 'Nazi' spies, and the Abwehr never even seemed to want to succeed.

    This sounds like the FT or the Economist – undermine, under-value, weasel whine about Brutain at all costs …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    I sound like the FT & Economist?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. fitzGetty says:
    @animalogic
    I also agree: however, I believe the seeds of US decay were sown in 1945.
    Firstly, I don't believe that republicanism & democracy are comparable with Empire of ANY kind, even the indirect form of empire the US has pursued.
    Secondly, the degree of power that the US has possessed since '45 would "tend to corrupt" ANY nation, let alone a nation such as the US so given over to materialism, consumerism etc.
    Yes, I know this is a "long bow" to draw, however I believe a strong argument could be developed here.

    Empire it is, or was, not. Mongrel grab bag is the phrase we are looking for …

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Sure, I guess. Most of us are mongrels, scratch the surface ....some more than others.... Excuse my ignorance, I'm not sure how that relates to any empire ? Aren't all empires by nature, "mongrel" ? I do know even Rome by 100 BC was incredibly polyglot... They managed to make a virtue out of it....for some time at least....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Plenty of obvious talents floating around for the comic strip, especially the conspiracy theorists why they could provide years' worth of fodder! Start it off with "WTC: False Flag Fluttering" or something ....

    You need a cartoon/comic strip

    Glad to see your 2nd comment. I couldn’t believe that you didn’t realize that UR has more than one already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @fitzGetty
    Empire it is, or was, not. Mongrel grab bag is the phrase we are looking for ...

    Sure, I guess. Most of us are mongrels, scratch the surface ….some more than others…. Excuse my ignorance, I’m not sure how that relates to any empire ? Aren’t all empires by nature, “mongrel” ? I do know even Rome by 100 BC was incredibly polyglot… They managed to make a virtue out of it….for some time at least….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Tom Welsh
    Of course, the Axis defeat in WW2 was almost entirely brought about by the USSR, which - after Stalingrad - never ceased accelerating its advance towards Berlin. So the USA's participation was not necessary to defeat Hitler. The real need for it arose from the fact that both American and British establishments had always dreaded Russian communism far more than German or Italian fascism. That is why they sent armies and navies to strangle the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle (unsuccessfully, although the Soviets remembered).

    Hence in 1941 the long-term fear was that, having overrun Germany with the greatest military counter-offensive the world has ever seen, the Soviets would just keep on going. No other force would have the slightest chance of stopping the power that had routed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, and the Red Army would roll over all of Europe - and just possibly Britain too.

    So the true justification of the USA's entry into the war in Europe came when American forces met Soviet troops in Germany and Austria. The point was not to beat the Germans - that was already assured - but to stop the Soviets at a given point.

    if the stupid US who fought WWII to save the communists hadn’t shipped millions of tons of steel and other supplies Russia would have lost the war. Germans had to make synthetic oil had no metals to make armaments were taking peoples tools cookware etc. they were being strangled by the blockade and were starving. it was Hitler the ONLY anti communist leader there ever was who stopped the massed at their border Russian armies from invading Europe

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Seamus Padraig
    Once again, Mr. Unz, thanks for a fascinating article on an important and little-known subject. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that FDR knew and approved of all of this, being so desperate to take the US to war.

    Now, a few nitpicks:

    However, Stalin and Hitler had become allies just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, and until the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, Communists were generally opposed to any American support for Britain or France, let alone direct military intervention.
     
    What the Germans and the Russians actually had was a non-aggression pact and a limited trade agreement. I am unaware of their having had a mutal-defense pact, so describing them as "allies" is a bit of a stretch.

    Willkie’s 11,000 word Wikipedia entry contains an extensive bibliography and over 150 references, but includes no mention of Maul’s important research findings.
     
    For anyone with a Wikipedia account, that should be an easy problem to fix.

    “mutual defence pact” is indeed a stretch, more so than “allies”. They hadn’t agreed to defend one another. They had however agreed not only to mutual non-aggression, but also to continuation of commodities shipments from the USSR to Germany [still ongoing to June 22 1941], and to the carve up of a series of previously sovereign states in eastern Europe and annexation of them to their respective territories. During the latter of which, with respect to Poland, their militaries had to engage in some communications to keep things orderly.

    The economic arrangements, agreement to mutually rearrange the map, and to some degree cooperation between security services, certainly satisfy me as an “allied” relationship. Formal agreements to do things together that have profound military, economic and internal security significance, beyond those normally appertaining to non-partner nations in their time. Formal military alliance of the NATO sort are actually a pretty extreme degree of integration among allies, historically speaking, and distort our understanding of the possibilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. iffen says:
    @animalogic
    "Yes, the kosher version of history that we are all taught tells us that the British had no choice but to continue the war with Germany, but is this really true?"
    Yes, I believe it is true: British paramount strategy from at least the 17 th C was to deny ANY nation the opportunity of continental hegemony. Louis xiv, Napoleon, the Kaiser, & then Hitler: the same strategy played over centuries. Now ? Later ? Whenever, Britain would NEVER have sat back and allowed Nazi Germany to have its way....And nor would it have allowed Stalin to have it all his way either !

    deny ANY nation the opportunity of continental hegemony

    Trying to work through some of the crazy foreign policy moves of the US, I wonder sometimes if some of it is not designed to keep Germany fearful of Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @5371
    [The situation in Dec 1941 was that Germany was very close to total victory ... the 1942 campaigning season would have finished the USSR. Stalin knew this which is why he was trying to arrange a ceasefire with Germany that would have ceded vast areas of European Russia to Germany in a repeat of the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk]

    Every word completely false, few things more nonsensical have been written. The failure in front of Moscow meant certain defeat in the end. People with brains knew that immediately, like Ernst Udet who shot himself.

    Long on invective, short on facts: The failure of the winter counter offensive was all Russian. Stalin threw in his last reserves, the “Siberian divisions” that were supposed to turn the tide. They didn’t, the German lines held except for some small losses. That was it, Stalin knew that his attack needed to destroy army group center for soviet forces to have any chance in 1942, they didn’t, he was toast and he knew it. Then came the savior in the unlikely form of Harry Hopkins, the rest, as they say, is history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Your ignorance is matched only by your impudence. You deserve far more brutal invective than my humble pen can mete out to you, if so pathetic a loser as you are be worth the effort.
    , @Avery
    {Long on invective, short on facts: }

    Fact: Red Army troops hoisted the Red banner over the alleged "1,000 year" Reichstag. They pissed on the coward Hitler's ashes: the filthy coward was too cowardly to stand and fight; the cowardly sewer rat bloviating about Lebensraum und Untermenschen was a POS cowardly mouse. What a poetic justice that thems Untermenschen pissed Red Army vinegar on the alleged "Master Race's" corpses. The alleged "Master Race" got royally Master f______ed by thems Untermenschen.

    Filthy Nazi mongrel Schweinhund.

    (Club footed Goebbels; Drug addict swine Goering; lily liver chicken_s___t Himmler (who fainted at the sight of blood), and 4-foot tall midget suicidal coward, the rat Hitler......)

    Heil Hitler !
    Zeig Heil !

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Sam Shama
    Ron,
    OT request I'd been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.

    Ron,
    OT request I’d been hoping to ask you. You need a cartoon/comic strip and crossword section for the Review.

    Ummm, there is one; it’s otherwise known as the comments section.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Darin says:
    @Ron Unz


    Lenin’s emphasis on the tremendous benefits of creating or at least controlling one’s own political opposition
     
    Never heard that one. Do you have a cite or a context?
     
    That's very interesting. If you google "lenin controlled opposition" you'll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I've seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it's probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    However, it does seem true that Lenin did indeed have his OGPU establish "The Trust" as supposedly the leading anti-Bolshevik underground resistance organization, using it to help neutralize the efforts of his regime's overseas opponents. So whether or not the quote is real, the sentiments I described probably were:

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

    That’s very interesting. If you google “lenin controlled opposition” you’ll get almost 90,000 webpages mostly providing the alleged Lenin quote “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” which I’ve seen floating around for many, many years. But none of the pages I looked at seems to provide a source reference, and some blogger claims it’s probably spurious, so perhaps it might be.

    It is spurious, and as far from Lenin’s mindset as possible. USSR never tolerated any kind of opposition, the Soviet elections had one candidate, always elected with 99,99% vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Darin says:
    @animalogic
    Churchill "dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out “there is a God after all.”
    What a pivotal point in history ! We can only speculate what might have happened had Hitler NOT made the incredible mistake of declaring war on the US.
    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ? (Yes you can argue that the Germany-Japan pact required it - or not - however, would a clever strategist have so willingly shoved their head in (another) lion's mouth ? Really, what was the Japanese alliance actually WORTH to Germany ? )

    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ?

    Americans at the time widely believed that Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor were piloted by German pilots, because slanty eyed gooks cannot shoot and fly straight. I do not know whether these rumors were planted by Soviets or Brits, but it would be as solid reason to declare war as were the Iraqi WMD in our time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    I've never heard about such US beliefs, but true or false it's a good laugh !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. jake says:

    Somehow I had managed to miss the Mises Review and Chronicles reviews of Mahl;s book that Unz mentions. Back in 1999 I was moving across country and paying little attention. But even without ever having heard of Mahl or his book until now, I long have known the basics. It seems to me that only 2 kinds of people could deny that the British Empire spy networks had done everything, including murder, to get the US into the two World wars to save ‘Mother England.’ Those types are liars and the hopelessly naive of the Anglophile sort.

    And the Anglophile crowd is still at it. Obviously, we all should see it at work among the last of the WASP types in ‘mainstream’ Republican Party inner circles. The Bush family is Exhibit A. George Will is the perfect example of a journalist doing its dirty work while pretending to be impartial and objective. And as in England, that group in the US is deeply philo-semitic. Some are primarily pro-Jewish, and some are primarily pro-Arabic and/or Islamic. But they all will make defense and promotion of some form of semitic culture central to their vision of America’s role in the world. These people are hardcore globalists and would prefer a country with hordes of Middle Easterners and Indian subcontinent people and East Asians, as well as black Africans, because that is a type of recreation of the 19th century British Empire.

    But they are far from alone. You can see it also all over the ‘paleoconservative’ landscape. The VDARE crowd, especially Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, is decidedly Anglophile, often in forms that fit the non-tony part of English culture. For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church. It also has a long history of comments that link the heyday of the British Empire to all possible good things. The site will always gravitate to seeing things in terms of what is good for England, presumably because that is good for WASPs – with the often clear implication that all other whites should just shut up and allow their Anglo-Saxons to recreate what they built before, built in significant part by stomping on the rest of us, which is precisely what is rotting to Hell today.

    The British Empire spies were successful because of a widespread American Anglophila, which always was, and is today and will be in years to come, erected upon a strong dislike of almost all white Gentiles who are not Anglo-Saxon, or who at least are very strongly Anglophile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    The Derb and Mr. Brimelow are both Brit. by birth, sure, but your attempt to conflate it with the article by Mr. Unz is weak at best.
    , @CanSpeccy
    In assessing the clandestine influence of foreign powers on the American government, one should take account not only of the actions of foreign agents and spies but of native born adherents of foreign ideas and interests. Of the latter, most important are the adherents of the British imperialist ambition to create a global empire or New World Order.

    It was to promote the creation of a world system shaped by British ideals and culture that Cecil Rhodes, in collaboration with Lord Rothschild, Alfred Lord Milner and others, formed a secret organization to control a network of public agencies devoted to the imperial project. America's Council on Foreign Relations, which largely determines current US foreign policy, was a creation of Rhodes' secret society, its function being to promote the imperialist agenda in America following the handover of global leadership from the UK to America in the aftermath of WW1.

    In addition, Rhodes left his estate in the hands of Lord Rothschild to fund an imperialist order constructed along the lines of the Jesuit Order, but in the service of the British Empire, rather than the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford University's Rhodes scholarships, which would imbue potential leaders from America and the British dominions in the imperial ethos, was central to this project. Among American winners of the Rhodes Scholarship is Bill Clinton, who as a student at Georgetown University was mentored by Carroll Quigley, who became the unofficial historian of the Rhodes-Rothschild-Milner secret society. In the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, the British Imperialist ideal presumably still lives.

    Rhodes imperialist idealism was inspired by the lectures of John Ruskin, which he attended as an undergraduate at Oxford University. Ruskin taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world, thereby making that culture available to all. Via the Bush's and the Clinton's, however, it might be thought that that great British tradition has been somewhat degraded.

    , @utu
    Healthy anti-British attitudes in America used to be quite common. When did American begin to accept Brits and then display Anglophilia? When the shift started? Federal Reserve? Was it WWI? WWII? Creation of PBS with endless BBC shows? Or was it the Jews that opened door for Brits and other foreigners to explain the reality to Americans? If we let Jews do their advocacy of Israel why not Brits, right?
    , @Hibernian
    "For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church."

    This phenomenon is not unknown at Unz.com.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Darin

    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ?
     
    Americans at the time widely believed that Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor were piloted by German pilots, because slanty eyed gooks cannot shoot and fly straight. I do not know whether these rumors were planted by Soviets or Brits, but it would be as solid reason to declare war as were the Iraqi WMD in our time.

    I’ve never heard about such US beliefs, but true or false it’s a good laugh !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Che Guava says:
    @animalogic
    I also agree: however, I believe the seeds of US decay were sown in 1945.
    Firstly, I don't believe that republicanism & democracy are comparable with Empire of ANY kind, even the indirect form of empire the US has pursued.
    Secondly, the degree of power that the US has possessed since '45 would "tend to corrupt" ANY nation, let alone a nation such as the US so given over to materialism, consumerism etc.
    Yes, I know this is a "long bow" to draw, however I believe a strong argument could be developed here.

    Since entering the war was what Franklin Delano Rosenfeldt (name from Vonnegut) really wanted, Pearl Harbour was a gift.

    The British had a role there, too, apart from their navy in crueler 19th century days being the inspiration for Japan’s, as Prussia was for the army and for uniforms at most schools, even now, and most schools have sailor collars for the girl’s uniforms.

    Day of Deceit has much information on the Brit. disinfo. leading up to the brilliantly executed attack on Pearl Harbour. Admiral Yamamoto was reluctant to do it, but as any reader knows, he did a great job, only the main targets were mysteriously not there.

    Assassinated by order of would-be Prexident-for-Life Rosenfeldt about two years later.

    Not that I do not feel sorry for the USN casualties, will pray for them before sleep tonight.

    For very young Unzers, the old Tora, Tora, Tora is vastly superior to the cheap Pearl Harbor film. The aeroplanes are real in the former, and the co-directors gave a damn about a little accuracy in it, unlike the ugly confections and soap-opera qualities of the latter.

    I read the Counterpunch site at times, too, too much is the typical whiney left, but enough is outside that, abt. 1/10 or 1/20 articles are well worth reading.

    Must digress here, but the girls at Korean schools in Japan, particularly at north-aligned schools, had to dump the scholarly version of the bell-shaped dress when there were many attacks on them in the trains and on the streets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Thank you for your reply. One thing: Counterpunch can be VERY whiny, but Left ? Please, please do not mistake progressive for Left. Progressives are walkers. MY left wears steel caps, and only takes prisoners for exchange.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Entertaining reply, but all definitions of terms in English are useless.

    Progressive: What does that mean?

    Supporting homosexual marriage, and ignoring the existence of damaged children from it?

    If you can expand on the definition of 'progressive', pray tell.

    I am sure as hell, fractious and nasty at times as my parents were, glad not to have been brought up by a homosexual couple.

    Then using that to try to force churches to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, while not imposing the same on other faiths. It is a joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    No PCR is not a conspiracist - just a crank on almost every subject. Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn't take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.

    Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.

    But you just can’t think of such an argument for the moment, and certainly can’t be bothered to do any searching. And it’s the same with Sam, apparently.

    Makes one wonder, could Sam and WizOz be part of a foreign spy network “playing a massive hidden role in getting America involved” in wars of imperial aggression “despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Any of this:

    detailed fact and science based work.

    for this:

    despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I've done the searching and read and substantially remember the arguments as you could do if you were serious. Why would you infer from what I wrote that I had not searched and read the article and other contributions? *Can you point to anything in the thread which brought up specifics that required it?*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Che Guava says:
    @jake
    Somehow I had managed to miss the Mises Review and Chronicles reviews of Mahl;s book that Unz mentions. Back in 1999 I was moving across country and paying little attention. But even without ever having heard of Mahl or his book until now, I long have known the basics. It seems to me that only 2 kinds of people could deny that the British Empire spy networks had done everything, including murder, to get the US into the two World wars to save 'Mother England.' Those types are liars and the hopelessly naive of the Anglophile sort.

    And the Anglophile crowd is still at it. Obviously, we all should see it at work among the last of the WASP types in 'mainstream' Republican Party inner circles. The Bush family is Exhibit A. George Will is the perfect example of a journalist doing its dirty work while pretending to be impartial and objective. And as in England, that group in the US is deeply philo-semitic. Some are primarily pro-Jewish, and some are primarily pro-Arabic and/or Islamic. But they all will make defense and promotion of some form of semitic culture central to their vision of America's role in the world. These people are hardcore globalists and would prefer a country with hordes of Middle Easterners and Indian subcontinent people and East Asians, as well as black Africans, because that is a type of recreation of the 19th century British Empire.

    But they are far from alone. You can see it also all over the 'paleoconservative' landscape. The VDARE crowd, especially Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, is decidedly Anglophile, often in forms that fit the non-tony part of English culture. For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church. It also has a long history of comments that link the heyday of the British Empire to all possible good things. The site will always gravitate to seeing things in terms of what is good for England, presumably because that is good for WASPs - with the often clear implication that all other whites should just shut up and allow their Anglo-Saxons to recreate what they built before, built in significant part by stomping on the rest of us, which is precisely what is rotting to Hell today.

    The British Empire spies were successful because of a widespread American Anglophila, which always was, and is today and will be in years to come, erected upon a strong dislike of almost all white Gentiles who are not Anglo-Saxon, or who at least are very strongly Anglophile.

    The Derb and Mr. Brimelow are both Brit. by birth, sure, but your attempt to conflate it with the article by Mr. Unz is weak at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    Conflate? That is not the purpose. What VDARE has always done is preach a strong dose of England this and Anglo-Saxon that, and oh for the glories of Victorian Empire and the halcyon days of of Know-Nothings hoping to torch Irish Catholics out of the land.

    Those things undergird VDARE; they remain present when the site posts various articles and links to things that are not that.

    Actual Brit empire spies succeed because of the type attitudes common to those who run VDARE (which group is not restricted to Brimelow and Derbyshire).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. iffen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    But you just can't think of such an argument for the moment, and certainly can't be bothered to do any searching. And it's the same with Sam, apparently.

    Makes one wonder, could Sam and WizOz be part of a foreign spy network "playing a massive hidden role in getting America involved" in wars of imperial aggression "despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry?"

    Any of this:

    detailed fact and science based work.

    for this:

    despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Good question.

    But US public opinion survey organizations rarely seem to ask questions the response to which could militate against the prevailing New World Order project, so there seems to be no reliable information on whether Americans overwhelmingly oppose a nuclear war with Russia and China, the likely next step on the road to global empire — or death.

    But if Trump wins in a landslide, we'll have a pretty good idea how Americans are thinking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Che Guava says:
    @animalogic
    Thank you for your reply. One thing: Counterpunch can be VERY whiny, but Left ? Please, please do not mistake progressive for Left. Progressives are walkers. MY left wears steel caps, and only takes prisoners for exchange.

    Entertaining reply, but all definitions of terms in English are useless.

    Progressive: What does that mean?

    Supporting homosexual marriage, and ignoring the existence of damaged children from it?

    If you can expand on the definition of ‘progressive’, pray tell.

    I am sure as hell, fractious and nasty at times as my parents were, glad not to have been brought up by a homosexual couple.

    Then using that to try to force churches to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, while not imposing the same on other faiths. It is a joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Sorry, did you understand me ? Define progressive ? Couldn't care, but I'll take a stab at it....a person who takes the appearance of injustice as a disease not a symptom. A person who can never smell the tang of blood beneath the aroma of latte. A person who can't imagine the need to liquidate evil rather than educate it. A person who has forgotten we are animals, who are born, live and die.
    , @animalogic
    Incidentally, I could give a FUCK about homosexual marriage. In the realm of the monumentally TRIVIAL exists the question of "gay marriage" . Where I live it's a HUGE topic of debate. And what I say is: fuck off. Marry, don't marry, just SHUT UP.
    If you or anyone else can not see how useless this question is I suggest you take a look at the humanistic abortion this world is. (Given the technicolor spew that "middle class morality" is who should actually NOTICE gay's marrying ?
    Oh no ! It's the WORD
    " marry" ! Jesus is going to be SO cranky !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The way he folded up at the end and endorsed Clinton has made me wonder whether Bernie Sanders was a case of ‘controlled opposition’. Or perhaps he just cashed in and took his payout, moving on and buying a house somewhere; perhaps they gained control over him later on in the campaign. Who really knows what the real story is? American democracy is rigged and manipulated. The fix is always in. It’s like professional wrestling except that most people seem to think it’s for real. Gee, it’s real because the people running the shell game tell me so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    if the recent news about the primary election is true by statisticians, where exit poll and actual voting results differ by as much as 10%, enough to give some states to bernie.

    it was 100% a controlled opposition. they just didn't realized how effective their ploy was.

    same with donald. :) the guy who says everything that is taboo and still get the votes. people in control were freaked out by the results of both primaries.

    election is just a super farce, even more than before. MSM just dropped it's facade in their all out attack on trump, with election fraud, our democracy, govt just dropped it's facade.

    so few people realized this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @fitzGetty
    This sounds like the FT or the Economist - undermine, under-value, weasel whine about Brutain at all costs ...

    I sound like the FT & Economist?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Che Guava
    Entertaining reply, but all definitions of terms in English are useless.

    Progressive: What does that mean?

    Supporting homosexual marriage, and ignoring the existence of damaged children from it?

    If you can expand on the definition of 'progressive', pray tell.

    I am sure as hell, fractious and nasty at times as my parents were, glad not to have been brought up by a homosexual couple.

    Then using that to try to force churches to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, while not imposing the same on other faiths. It is a joke.

    Sorry, did you understand me ? Define progressive ? Couldn’t care, but I’ll take a stab at it….a person who takes the appearance of injustice as a disease not a symptom. A person who can never smell the tang of blood beneath the aroma of latte. A person who can’t imagine the need to liquidate evil rather than educate it. A person who has forgotten we are animals, who are born, live and die.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Outwest says:
    @MarkinLA
    Except the Japanese had already had their noses bloodied by the Russians and Zhukov.

    In 1938, Zhukov was directed to command the First Soviet Mongolian Army Group, and saw action against Japan's Kwantung Army on the border between Mongolia and the Japanese-controlled state of Manchukuo. This campaign was an undeclared war that lasted from 1938 to 1939. What began as a routine border skirmish – with the Japanese testing the resolve of the Soviets to defend their territory – rapidly escalated into a full-scale war, with the Japanese pushing forward with an estimated 80,000 troops, 180 tanks and 450 aircraft.

    These events led to the strategically decisive Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan). Zhukov requested major reinforcements, and on 20 August 1939, his "Soviet Offensive" commenced. After a massive artillery barrage, nearly 500[11] BT-5 and BT-7 tanks advanced, supported by over 500[12] fighters and bombers. This was the Soviet Air Force's first fighter-bomber operation.[13] The offensive first appeared to be a typical conventional frontal attack. However, two tank brigades were initially held back and then ordered to advance around on both flanks, supported by motorized artillery, infantry, and other tanks. This daring and successful manoeuvre encircled the Japanese 6th Army and captured the enemy's vulnerable rear supply areas. By 31 August 1939, the Japanese had been cleared from the disputed border, leaving the Soviets clearly victorious.[13]

    The Japanese were already looking to get out of China as well as it was basically a stalemate there without gaining the Japanese Empire much of value.

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

    The Japanese had the bad habit of thinking in terms of a single, defining battle. This goes back to the original Kamikaze victory vs China and was their plan for Midway. The Soviets beat them in a single battle so the conflict was over.

    Once Japan collected the resources of the European colonies –which it did early in the war- its better course would have been to avoid war with the U.S. and work with Germany against the Soviets. A second front would have been very difficult for the Soviets with no place to retreat to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jake
    Somehow I had managed to miss the Mises Review and Chronicles reviews of Mahl;s book that Unz mentions. Back in 1999 I was moving across country and paying little attention. But even without ever having heard of Mahl or his book until now, I long have known the basics. It seems to me that only 2 kinds of people could deny that the British Empire spy networks had done everything, including murder, to get the US into the two World wars to save 'Mother England.' Those types are liars and the hopelessly naive of the Anglophile sort.

    And the Anglophile crowd is still at it. Obviously, we all should see it at work among the last of the WASP types in 'mainstream' Republican Party inner circles. The Bush family is Exhibit A. George Will is the perfect example of a journalist doing its dirty work while pretending to be impartial and objective. And as in England, that group in the US is deeply philo-semitic. Some are primarily pro-Jewish, and some are primarily pro-Arabic and/or Islamic. But they all will make defense and promotion of some form of semitic culture central to their vision of America's role in the world. These people are hardcore globalists and would prefer a country with hordes of Middle Easterners and Indian subcontinent people and East Asians, as well as black Africans, because that is a type of recreation of the 19th century British Empire.

    But they are far from alone. You can see it also all over the 'paleoconservative' landscape. The VDARE crowd, especially Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, is decidedly Anglophile, often in forms that fit the non-tony part of English culture. For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church. It also has a long history of comments that link the heyday of the British Empire to all possible good things. The site will always gravitate to seeing things in terms of what is good for England, presumably because that is good for WASPs - with the often clear implication that all other whites should just shut up and allow their Anglo-Saxons to recreate what they built before, built in significant part by stomping on the rest of us, which is precisely what is rotting to Hell today.

    The British Empire spies were successful because of a widespread American Anglophila, which always was, and is today and will be in years to come, erected upon a strong dislike of almost all white Gentiles who are not Anglo-Saxon, or who at least are very strongly Anglophile.

    In assessing the clandestine influence of foreign powers on the American government, one should take account not only of the actions of foreign agents and spies but of native born adherents of foreign ideas and interests. Of the latter, most important are the adherents of the British imperialist ambition to create a global empire or New World Order.

    It was to promote the creation of a world system shaped by British ideals and culture that Cecil Rhodes, in collaboration with Lord Rothschild, Alfred Lord Milner and others, formed a secret organization to control a network of public agencies devoted to the imperial project. America’s Council on Foreign Relations, which largely determines current US foreign policy, was a creation of Rhodes’ secret society, its function being to promote the imperialist agenda in America following the handover of global leadership from the UK to America in the aftermath of WW1.

    In addition, Rhodes left his estate in the hands of Lord Rothschild to fund an imperialist order constructed along the lines of the Jesuit Order, but in the service of the British Empire, rather than the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford University’s Rhodes scholarships, which would imbue potential leaders from America and the British dominions in the imperial ethos, was central to this project. Among American winners of the Rhodes Scholarship is Bill Clinton, who as a student at Georgetown University was mentored by Carroll Quigley, who became the unofficial historian of the Rhodes-Rothschild-Milner secret society. In the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, the British Imperialist ideal presumably still lives.

    Rhodes imperialist idealism was inspired by the lectures of John Ruskin, which he attended as an undergraduate at Oxford University. Ruskin taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world, thereby making that culture available to all. Via the Bush’s and the Clinton’s, however, it might be thought that that great British tradition has been somewhat degraded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    We must 'Do Good' for the world by conquering it and forcing survivors to be like us, for that is freedom and the source of progress.

    That is the Anglo-Saxon faith in a nutshell.
    , @CanSpeccy
    But what one has to remember about foreign agents and spies is that they may often operate with the tacit approval of the government of the country in which they are operating.

    Churchill wanted US intervention in WW2, as did Roosevelt, so British agents such as Roald Dahl agitating in the US for American intervention was presumably considered a good thing by the US Government.

    Likewise, while 9/11 was very good for Israel, according to Netenyahu, it was also good for the NeoCon Bush's waiting to launch preplanned wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. So Israelis high-fiving the burning towers on 9/11 or, before 9/11, the Israeli art groups "Gelitin" and "E-Team" doing strange things inside the Twin Towers, is nothing, really, to get excited about.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. utu says:
    @jake
    Somehow I had managed to miss the Mises Review and Chronicles reviews of Mahl;s book that Unz mentions. Back in 1999 I was moving across country and paying little attention. But even without ever having heard of Mahl or his book until now, I long have known the basics. It seems to me that only 2 kinds of people could deny that the British Empire spy networks had done everything, including murder, to get the US into the two World wars to save 'Mother England.' Those types are liars and the hopelessly naive of the Anglophile sort.

    And the Anglophile crowd is still at it. Obviously, we all should see it at work among the last of the WASP types in 'mainstream' Republican Party inner circles. The Bush family is Exhibit A. George Will is the perfect example of a journalist doing its dirty work while pretending to be impartial and objective. And as in England, that group in the US is deeply philo-semitic. Some are primarily pro-Jewish, and some are primarily pro-Arabic and/or Islamic. But they all will make defense and promotion of some form of semitic culture central to their vision of America's role in the world. These people are hardcore globalists and would prefer a country with hordes of Middle Easterners and Indian subcontinent people and East Asians, as well as black Africans, because that is a type of recreation of the 19th century British Empire.

    But they are far from alone. You can see it also all over the 'paleoconservative' landscape. The VDARE crowd, especially Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, is decidedly Anglophile, often in forms that fit the non-tony part of English culture. For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church. It also has a long history of comments that link the heyday of the British Empire to all possible good things. The site will always gravitate to seeing things in terms of what is good for England, presumably because that is good for WASPs - with the often clear implication that all other whites should just shut up and allow their Anglo-Saxons to recreate what they built before, built in significant part by stomping on the rest of us, which is precisely what is rotting to Hell today.

    The British Empire spies were successful because of a widespread American Anglophila, which always was, and is today and will be in years to come, erected upon a strong dislike of almost all white Gentiles who are not Anglo-Saxon, or who at least are very strongly Anglophile.

    Healthy anti-British attitudes in America used to be quite common. When did American begin to accept Brits and then display Anglophilia? When the shift started? Federal Reserve? Was it WWI? WWII? Creation of PBS with endless BBC shows? Or was it the Jews that opened door for Brits and other foreigners to explain the reality to Americans? If we let Jews do their advocacy of Israel why not Brits, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    Yes, there was long a healthy anti-Brit feeling common in America. To get a handle on how totally it has been flipped, recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America's oldest enemy is France.

    Somehow, the English went from our original enemy, one that burned the White House and caused trouble for us from Canada and made certain to get involved in Mexico economically and politically, to our all time friend, and France, which was necessary to our winning the revolution, got dubbed our enemy. The 2 Mexican political parties were founded by Mexicans under direction of Brit Masons - one by the York Rite Masons and one by the Scottish Rite Masons) n large measure to create a new beach head to keep an eye on America and perhaps more.

    In an odd way that is hard to grasp if do not dig, the New Englanders always remained Anglophile. That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics. When the Union won the Ware Between the States, the now sacredly bound Union had a mythology that was New England Puritan and Pilgrim. Over time, the entire nation would be re-taught to be embrace Anglophilia.

    The US has become the British Empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @iffen
    Any of this:

    detailed fact and science based work.

    for this:

    despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry

    Good question.

    But US public opinion survey organizations rarely seem to ask questions the response to which could militate against the prevailing New World Order project, so there seems to be no reliable information on whether Americans overwhelmingly oppose a nuclear war with Russia and China, the likely next step on the road to global empire — or death.

    But if Trump wins in a landslide, we’ll have a pretty good idea how Americans are thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Che Guava
    Entertaining reply, but all definitions of terms in English are useless.

    Progressive: What does that mean?

    Supporting homosexual marriage, and ignoring the existence of damaged children from it?

    If you can expand on the definition of 'progressive', pray tell.

    I am sure as hell, fractious and nasty at times as my parents were, glad not to have been brought up by a homosexual couple.

    Then using that to try to force churches to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, while not imposing the same on other faiths. It is a joke.

    Incidentally, I could give a FUCK about homosexual marriage. In the realm of the monumentally TRIVIAL exists the question of “gay marriage” . Where I live it’s a HUGE topic of debate. And what I say is: fuck off. Marry, don’t marry, just SHUT UP.
    If you or anyone else can not see how useless this question is I suggest you take a look at the humanistic abortion this world is. (Given the technicolor spew that “middle class morality” is who should actually NOTICE gay’s marrying ?
    Oh no ! It’s the WORD
    ” marry” ! Jesus is going to be SO cranky !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Where I live, it is non-existent, which I think a good idea.

    When I was overseas, it was a parody (although not legally recognised even now), which I suspect it still is, by and large, particularly among homosexual men.

    Dykes often hate sex altogether, even of the same-sex variety. Contact with bodily fluids is just too icky.

    I could go on. Haven't seen a post from Anonymny lately, shame, he would be better on this than I.

    Don't be so angry. I usually like your posts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. although the endless, Stalinesque standing ovations given by Congress to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu last year raised a few temporary eyebrows at the time, the incident was quickly forgotten.

    wishful thinking.

    @ 6 min:

    “In that respect I like the Jewish attitude much better.
    You know what the Jewish attitude is?
    Never to forgive, never to forget.
    I agree with that.”
    -Norman Finkelstein

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. jake says:
    @utu
    Healthy anti-British attitudes in America used to be quite common. When did American begin to accept Brits and then display Anglophilia? When the shift started? Federal Reserve? Was it WWI? WWII? Creation of PBS with endless BBC shows? Or was it the Jews that opened door for Brits and other foreigners to explain the reality to Americans? If we let Jews do their advocacy of Israel why not Brits, right?

    Yes, there was long a healthy anti-Brit feeling common in America. To get a handle on how totally it has been flipped, recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America’s oldest enemy is France.

    Somehow, the English went from our original enemy, one that burned the White House and caused trouble for us from Canada and made certain to get involved in Mexico economically and politically, to our all time friend, and France, which was necessary to our winning the revolution, got dubbed our enemy. The 2 Mexican political parties were founded by Mexicans under direction of Brit Masons – one by the York Rite Masons and one by the Scottish Rite Masons) n large measure to create a new beach head to keep an eye on America and perhaps more.

    In an odd way that is hard to grasp if do not dig, the New Englanders always remained Anglophile. That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics. When the Union won the Ware Between the States, the now sacredly bound Union had a mythology that was New England Puritan and Pilgrim. Over time, the entire nation would be re-taught to be embrace Anglophilia.

    The US has become the British Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics.
     
    Irish Catholics participated in far larger numbers, and subsequently enjoyed far more of the benefits of their participation in WWII than did other Catholic groups, most notably, German and Italian Catholics, for obvious reasons.*

    That's had a generational impact: far more Irish -- whether Catholic or not, have positions today in US military and in Anglo- and zionist- suck-up friendly think-tanks, as well as federal government positions, than do non-Irish Catholics. Despite their numbers and hierarchical organization, or perhaps because of the ethnic divisions within American Catholicism, Catholics in USA have not acquired a sound and confident knowledge base consistent with enlightened, liberal in the classical sense Catholic culture regarding foreign policy, nor have they demonstrated a willingness to fight for their faith or for their nation's best interests against the predatory power of the Anglo-zionists.

    * Ron concedes that insofar as

    "a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. Charles Lindbergh’s famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic “gaffe”…
     
    The third leg of Lindbergh's tri-part "gaffe" was the Roosevelt administration, composed of elements that Lynn Olsen identified in "Those Angry Days" as centering on an alliance of corporatists -- Rockefellers and bankers -- and Anglophiles such as media mogul Henry Luce in concert with numerous Anglican/Episcopal bishops and clerics. So a critical aspect of that portion of the Interventionist camp is its doctrinal antipathy toward German Christianity, whether Catholic or Lutheran. (Delano Roosevelt was of Dutch ancestry, educated in the Episcopal tradition by fully-starched Episcopalian clergy.)

    nb. still can't get past that "gaffe" term: gaffe means "an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder." There was nothing "unintentional" about Lindbergh's assertion that "the British, Jews, and FDR's administration" were the parties urging war was not a mistake, it was an act of courage that disseminated accurate information. We could do well with more such gaffes.
    , @utu
    Good point about France in 2003 (freedom fries... like liberty cabbage during WWI).

    There are some theories (conspiracy) that claim that British agents of influence were behind the Prohibition in the US. Do you know anything about it?
    , @Incitatus
    “...recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America’s oldest enemy is France.”

    Indeed, Miller and Molesky wrote a screed titled ‘Our Oldest Enemy’ (France). Kenneth Timmerman published ‘The French Betrayal of America’. David Frum and Richard Perle punished France in their ‘An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror’ (btw they had no idea on how to end terror). Brave Congress re-menued “Freedom Fries,” and ‘no-spin’ Bill O’Reilly hawked “Boycott France” bumper stickers. Andy Rooney eagerly broadcast his condemnation on 60 Minutes 16 Feb 2003 (“The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush’s plans to attack Iraq. On the other hand, I have.” - Rooney indignantly supported invasion). And the list goes on.

    At the time France claimed it was being slandered. No one paid any attention.

    The best pieces were published in the Washington Times by high-school grad and ‘National Security Correspondent’ Bill Gertz. He published six pieces, all masquerading as news, all unsupported by named original sources, all kept alive by soliciting comments from people like Donny Rumsfeld and then the battered French themselves:

    • “France Helped Iraqis Escape” 6 May 2003;
    • “Search for Iraqis Focuses on Europe” 7 May 2003;
    • “Probe of French Passports Sought” 9 May 2003;
    • “Rumsfeld Expects to Find French Aided Iraqis” 10 May 2003;
    • “US Probes Passports as France Protests ‘Lies’” 17 May 2003;
    • “Intelligence Team Finds French Passport in Iraq” 24 May 2003

    When confronted privately by e-mail with his calumny, Gertz had the following comment:
    “As comedian Dennis Miller put it: "I would call the French scumbags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum."” (8 May 2003)

    So much for our forth estate. Scumbags? Look no further.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. jake says:
    @CanSpeccy
    In assessing the clandestine influence of foreign powers on the American government, one should take account not only of the actions of foreign agents and spies but of native born adherents of foreign ideas and interests. Of the latter, most important are the adherents of the British imperialist ambition to create a global empire or New World Order.

    It was to promote the creation of a world system shaped by British ideals and culture that Cecil Rhodes, in collaboration with Lord Rothschild, Alfred Lord Milner and others, formed a secret organization to control a network of public agencies devoted to the imperial project. America's Council on Foreign Relations, which largely determines current US foreign policy, was a creation of Rhodes' secret society, its function being to promote the imperialist agenda in America following the handover of global leadership from the UK to America in the aftermath of WW1.

    In addition, Rhodes left his estate in the hands of Lord Rothschild to fund an imperialist order constructed along the lines of the Jesuit Order, but in the service of the British Empire, rather than the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford University's Rhodes scholarships, which would imbue potential leaders from America and the British dominions in the imperial ethos, was central to this project. Among American winners of the Rhodes Scholarship is Bill Clinton, who as a student at Georgetown University was mentored by Carroll Quigley, who became the unofficial historian of the Rhodes-Rothschild-Milner secret society. In the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, the British Imperialist ideal presumably still lives.

    Rhodes imperialist idealism was inspired by the lectures of John Ruskin, which he attended as an undergraduate at Oxford University. Ruskin taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world, thereby making that culture available to all. Via the Bush's and the Clinton's, however, it might be thought that that great British tradition has been somewhat degraded.

    We must ‘Do Good’ for the world by conquering it and forcing survivors to be like us, for that is freedom and the source of progress.

    That is the Anglo-Saxon faith in a nutshell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. woodNfish says:

    Even if any of this is true, and I expect it is, it was a wasted effort. After we declared war on Japan for their attack on us at Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US as an ally of Japan. Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.

    Read More
    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.
     
    The Brits apparently did just that but indirectly.

    What happened is that the Brits were a likely factor in convincing FDR to set up conditions (actually a virtually endless set of conditions such as occupying Iceland and Greenland for military purposes, freezing Japanese assets and cutting off their oil and scrap metal supply, closing the Panama canal to Japanese shipping, etc.) whereby either the German or the Japanese militarists or both were goaded to fire the first shot in a futile effort to buy time as opposed to attacking to conquer the US.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't understand the logic of this though the review that someone referred to and Ron acknowledged does make it sound as though the author over-egged his case and left out a good bit of the story of American interventionists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. jake says:
    @Che Guava
    The Derb and Mr. Brimelow are both Brit. by birth, sure, but your attempt to conflate it with the article by Mr. Unz is weak at best.

    Conflate? That is not the purpose. What VDARE has always done is preach a strong dose of England this and Anglo-Saxon that, and oh for the glories of Victorian Empire and the halcyon days of of Know-Nothings hoping to torch Irish Catholics out of the land.

    Those things undergird VDARE; they remain present when the site posts various articles and links to things that are not that.

    Actual Brit empire spies succeed because of the type attitudes common to those who run VDARE (which group is not restricted to Brimelow and Derbyshire).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    If you say so. I received a sensible reply the one time I had something to say by e-mail to a writer on the site.

    It is hard to detect an Oliver Cromwell style hatred of Ireland and Catholicism there.

    Personally, I think it a shame that Benedict had to retire, Francis seems to be a destructive idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    In assessing the clandestine influence of foreign powers on the American government, one should take account not only of the actions of foreign agents and spies but of native born adherents of foreign ideas and interests. Of the latter, most important are the adherents of the British imperialist ambition to create a global empire or New World Order.

    It was to promote the creation of a world system shaped by British ideals and culture that Cecil Rhodes, in collaboration with Lord Rothschild, Alfred Lord Milner and others, formed a secret organization to control a network of public agencies devoted to the imperial project. America's Council on Foreign Relations, which largely determines current US foreign policy, was a creation of Rhodes' secret society, its function being to promote the imperialist agenda in America following the handover of global leadership from the UK to America in the aftermath of WW1.

    In addition, Rhodes left his estate in the hands of Lord Rothschild to fund an imperialist order constructed along the lines of the Jesuit Order, but in the service of the British Empire, rather than the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford University's Rhodes scholarships, which would imbue potential leaders from America and the British dominions in the imperial ethos, was central to this project. Among American winners of the Rhodes Scholarship is Bill Clinton, who as a student at Georgetown University was mentored by Carroll Quigley, who became the unofficial historian of the Rhodes-Rothschild-Milner secret society. In the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, the British Imperialist ideal presumably still lives.

    Rhodes imperialist idealism was inspired by the lectures of John Ruskin, which he attended as an undergraduate at Oxford University. Ruskin taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world, thereby making that culture available to all. Via the Bush's and the Clinton's, however, it might be thought that that great British tradition has been somewhat degraded.

    But what one has to remember about foreign agents and spies is that they may often operate with the tacit approval of the government of the country in which they are operating.

    Churchill wanted US intervention in WW2, as did Roosevelt, so British agents such as Roald Dahl agitating in the US for American intervention was presumably considered a good thing by the US Government.

    Likewise, while 9/11 was very good for Israel, according to Netenyahu, it was also good for the NeoCon Bush’s waiting to launch preplanned wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. So Israelis high-fiving the burning towers on 9/11 or, before 9/11, the Israeli art groups “Gelitin” and “E-Team” doing strange things inside the Twin Towers, is nothing, really, to get excited about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Report of he Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki (Jan 1939).

    Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign -- which is primarily conducted against National Socialism -- no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.

    Thanks to astute propaganda, public sympathy in the U. S. A. is entirely on the side of Red Spain. Side by side with this propaganda an artificial war-panic is created . . . No effort is spared to impress upon the American mind that in the event of a world war the U. S. A. must take an active part in a struggle for freedom and democracy.

    President Roosevelt was first in the field to give expression to this hatred of Fascism. He had a two-fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems . . .

    Secondly, by creating a war-panic . . . he wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments . . . Furthermore, the brutal treatment meted out to the Jews in Germany as well as the problem of the refugees are both factors which intensify the existing hatred of everything connected with German National Socialism . . .

    [I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of 'true Americanism', and as 'Champions of Democracy', are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry -- so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race -- President Roosevelt's 'ideal' role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Oh no! Don't tell America's friends, allies, dependants and hangers on that the Iraq war was "pre-planned".

    Actually, seriously, the alleged preplanning of war on Afghanistan makes even less sense. Why would anyone have wanted to? Certainly George W. Bush didn't have any such idea and the chilling and convincing 2016 PBS doco on the Secret History of ISIS shows Cheney desperately latching on to the Afghan based 9/11 to try and link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. (The CIA comes out of it quite well - though not George Tenet).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @anonymous
    The way he folded up at the end and endorsed Clinton has made me wonder whether Bernie Sanders was a case of 'controlled opposition'. Or perhaps he just cashed in and took his payout, moving on and buying a house somewhere; perhaps they gained control over him later on in the campaign. Who really knows what the real story is? American democracy is rigged and manipulated. The fix is always in. It's like professional wrestling except that most people seem to think it's for real. Gee, it's real because the people running the shell game tell me so.

    if the recent news about the primary election is true by statisticians, where exit poll and actual voting results differ by as much as 10%, enough to give some states to bernie.

    it was 100% a controlled opposition. they just didn’t realized how effective their ploy was.

    same with donald. :) the guy who says everything that is taboo and still get the votes. people in control were freaked out by the results of both primaries.

    election is just a super farce, even more than before. MSM just dropped it’s facade in their all out attack on trump, with election fraud, our democracy, govt just dropped it’s facade.

    so few people realized this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @jake
    Yes, there was long a healthy anti-Brit feeling common in America. To get a handle on how totally it has been flipped, recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America's oldest enemy is France.

    Somehow, the English went from our original enemy, one that burned the White House and caused trouble for us from Canada and made certain to get involved in Mexico economically and politically, to our all time friend, and France, which was necessary to our winning the revolution, got dubbed our enemy. The 2 Mexican political parties were founded by Mexicans under direction of Brit Masons - one by the York Rite Masons and one by the Scottish Rite Masons) n large measure to create a new beach head to keep an eye on America and perhaps more.

    In an odd way that is hard to grasp if do not dig, the New Englanders always remained Anglophile. That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics. When the Union won the Ware Between the States, the now sacredly bound Union had a mythology that was New England Puritan and Pilgrim. Over time, the entire nation would be re-taught to be embrace Anglophilia.

    The US has become the British Empire.

    That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics.

    Irish Catholics participated in far larger numbers, and subsequently enjoyed far more of the benefits of their participation in WWII than did other Catholic groups, most notably, German and Italian Catholics, for obvious reasons.*

    That’s had a generational impact: far more Irish — whether Catholic or not, have positions today in US military and in Anglo- and zionist- suck-up friendly think-tanks, as well as federal government positions, than do non-Irish Catholics. Despite their numbers and hierarchical organization, or perhaps because of the ethnic divisions within American Catholicism, Catholics in USA have not acquired a sound and confident knowledge base consistent with enlightened, liberal in the classical sense Catholic culture regarding foreign policy, nor have they demonstrated a willingness to fight for their faith or for their nation’s best interests against the predatory power of the Anglo-zionists.

    * Ron concedes that insofar as

    “a quite substantial fraction of the pro-war forces consisted of Jewish-activists, clearly being junior partners to the British, but perhaps amounting to something like 30-40% of the total coalition. Charles Lindbergh’s famously controversial statement of who was pushing for American involvement in the war was actually exactly correct, and amounted to what Michael Kinsley would call a classic “gaffe”…

    The third leg of Lindbergh’s tri-part “gaffe” was the Roosevelt administration, composed of elements that Lynn Olsen identified in “Those Angry Days” as centering on an alliance of corporatists — Rockefellers and bankers — and Anglophiles such as media mogul Henry Luce in concert with numerous Anglican/Episcopal bishops and clerics. So a critical aspect of that portion of the Interventionist camp is its doctrinal antipathy toward German Christianity, whether Catholic or Lutheran. (Delano Roosevelt was of Dutch ancestry, educated in the Episcopal tradition by fully-starched Episcopalian clergy.)

    nb. still can’t get past that “gaffe” term: gaffe means “an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder.” There was nothing “unintentional” about Lindbergh’s assertion that “the British, Jews, and FDR’s administration” were the parties urging war was not a mistake, it was an act of courage that disseminated accurate information. We could do well with more such gaffes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. utu says:
    @jake
    Yes, there was long a healthy anti-Brit feeling common in America. To get a handle on how totally it has been flipped, recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America's oldest enemy is France.

    Somehow, the English went from our original enemy, one that burned the White House and caused trouble for us from Canada and made certain to get involved in Mexico economically and politically, to our all time friend, and France, which was necessary to our winning the revolution, got dubbed our enemy. The 2 Mexican political parties were founded by Mexicans under direction of Brit Masons - one by the York Rite Masons and one by the Scottish Rite Masons) n large measure to create a new beach head to keep an eye on America and perhaps more.

    In an odd way that is hard to grasp if do not dig, the New Englanders always remained Anglophile. That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics. When the Union won the Ware Between the States, the now sacredly bound Union had a mythology that was New England Puritan and Pilgrim. Over time, the entire nation would be re-taught to be embrace Anglophilia.

    The US has become the British Empire.

    Good point about France in 2003 (freedom fries… like liberty cabbage during WWI).

    There are some theories (conspiracy) that claim that British agents of influence were behind the Prohibition in the US. Do you know anything about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    I have never read anything along those lines. Prohibition was a longtime Yankee (meaning old pure Anglo-Saxon Puritan/Pilgrim stick of New England) demand. It was especially favored by women and Protestant Pastors. And it did have English sources and ties right through its great victory over America.

    Did thew Brit Empire gain anything by it? Perhaps indirectly, because Canadian alcoholic beverage manufacturers and distributors made a fortune from American Prohibition, almost as much as the American gangsters and dirty politicians made.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy
    But what one has to remember about foreign agents and spies is that they may often operate with the tacit approval of the government of the country in which they are operating.

    Churchill wanted US intervention in WW2, as did Roosevelt, so British agents such as Roald Dahl agitating in the US for American intervention was presumably considered a good thing by the US Government.

    Likewise, while 9/11 was very good for Israel, according to Netenyahu, it was also good for the NeoCon Bush's waiting to launch preplanned wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. So Israelis high-fiving the burning towers on 9/11 or, before 9/11, the Israeli art groups "Gelitin" and "E-Team" doing strange things inside the Twin Towers, is nothing, really, to get excited about.

    Report of he Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki (Jan 1939).

    Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign — which is primarily conducted against National Socialism — no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.

    Thanks to astute propaganda, public sympathy in the U. S. A. is entirely on the side of Red Spain. Side by side with this propaganda an artificial war-panic is created . . . No effort is spared to impress upon the American mind that in the event of a world war the U. S. A. must take an active part in a struggle for freedom and democracy.

    President Roosevelt was first in the field to give expression to this hatred of Fascism. He had a two-fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems . . .

    Secondly, by creating a war-panic . . . he wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments . . . Furthermore, the brutal treatment meted out to the Jews in Germany as well as the problem of the refugees are both factors which intensify the existing hatred of everything connected with German National Socialism . . .

    [I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of ‘true Americanism’, and as ‘Champions of Democracy’, are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry — so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race — President Roosevelt’s ‘ideal’ role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    This sort of post is irritating rubbish without proper indication of source and links and what is supposed to be literal quote.

    And its supposed date surely is anachronistically before the armament program is it not?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. 5371 says:
    @roger in florida
    Long on invective, short on facts: The failure of the winter counter offensive was all Russian. Stalin threw in his last reserves, the "Siberian divisions" that were supposed to turn the tide. They didn't, the German lines held except for some small losses. That was it, Stalin knew that his attack needed to destroy army group center for soviet forces to have any chance in 1942, they didn't, he was toast and he knew it. Then came the savior in the unlikely form of Harry Hopkins, the rest, as they say, is history.

    Your ignorance is matched only by your impudence. You deserve far more brutal invective than my humble pen can mete out to you, if so pathetic a loser as you are be worth the effort.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Zach says:
    @animalogic
    Churchill "dropping to his knees at the news of Pearl Harbor and crying out “there is a God after all.”
    What a pivotal point in history ! We can only speculate what might have happened had Hitler NOT made the incredible mistake of declaring war on the US.
    Had Hitler just shut his mouth, could FDR have EASILY declared war on Germany in the circumstances ? (Yes you can argue that the Germany-Japan pact required it - or not - however, would a clever strategist have so willingly shoved their head in (another) lion's mouth ? Really, what was the Japanese alliance actually WORTH to Germany ? )

    Hitler probably hoped that if he declared war on the USA, Japan would declare war on the USSR. The Axis powers were at cross purposes though: Hitler wanted the USSR diverted by Japan in the east while the Japanese wanted the British diverted so they could scoop up British colonies in the east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Outwest
    Japan had no problem militarily scooping up the European colonies worth having. Like the Nazis, their military was most inept at exploiting the colonies for gain. Unlikely as it seems, Stalin was the on despot with charisma.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Richard S says:
    @Greg Bacon
    Another good read is "200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn A History of the Russians and the Jews."

    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/200-years-together.pdf

    Wow, excellent link. Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Outwest says:
    @Zach
    Hitler probably hoped that if he declared war on the USA, Japan would declare war on the USSR. The Axis powers were at cross purposes though: Hitler wanted the USSR diverted by Japan in the east while the Japanese wanted the British diverted so they could scoop up British colonies in the east.

    Japan had no problem militarily scooping up the European colonies worth having. Like the Nazis, their military was most inept at exploiting the colonies for gain. Unlikely as it seems, Stalin was the on despot with charisma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. colm says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I ve read a lot of 20th century history. The British influence in our entrance into WW2 has always been very obvious
     
    Enough to read about American-British Conversations (ABC Conferences of respective general staffs) and what Lord Halifax was pushing for in 1941, to understand that these Conferences were primarily about preserving British Empire, to the point of some arrogant demands of dispatching number of the US Navy's major surface combatants and subs into Singapore and other British possessions. Combined US-Canadian response, written under the guidance of General Stanley Embick, is a very telling memorandum, to put it mildly. Later, same Embick together with whole George Marshal's OPD at Casablanka Conference circulated a memorandum about "Primrose path" by which Western Allies were led by Britain with a dual purpose of avoiding fighting Wehrmacht in Europe, while securing Empire's interests elsewhere. There was very little, frankly speaking, for any competent operational level officer, secret about the fact that most Western Allied activity was, largely through British open and clandestine efforts, reduced to fighting Nazi Germany at secondary theaters. Late Stephen Ambrose attributed this fact to good ol' Sir Winston's bad grasp on strategy, others, however, think, correctly, that this was THE strategy and it was properly implemented. This question, of course, leads immediately to the validity of the Sledgehammer--that is a very uncomfortable discussion for Anglo-Americans for a number of crucial (including serious geopolitical) reasons but all that was becoming less and less relevant by early 1943, by Summer of 1943 it became a fairly secondary consideration.

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/chapter3.htm

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbG4gbrfe8c/VjY1vOs9XYI/AAAAAAAAAPA/FDm84vCo2-Y/s1600/Ike_1.jpg

    It is, of course, much better to delve into the real paper copies of US Army in WW II publication--a lot was revealed there long ago.

    I vividly remember late 1990s CBC's production about Dieppe. There, Canadian journalists and survivors of that raid directly accused Churchill and Dudley Pound in deliberately sabotaging (in essence, sacrificing Canadian forces) the raid to demonstrate to USSR inability of Allies to land in Europe. As one German historian stated: Rommel the genius was a product of Churchill and Monty in order to talk up own personal and North Africa Theater significance. But to add insult to injury, Stephen Ambrose in his "Supreme Commander" and other heavy weight US historians point out that during initial elaborations on ARCADIA (aka Washington) Conferences re: Western Allied strategy, officers of British general Staff and Sire himself behaved arrogantly to the point of being down right rude to their US counterparts, who seemed to dislike but had to accept such British behavior since viewed Brits as a people who stood against Germany and fought it alone for a year. Needless to say, British point of view succeed. And we all, even today, live with the consequences of these decisions. This, however, in no way diminishes heroism of British army and navy men and women and British people as a whole.

    It diminishes the ‘heroism’ of Br army and navy, who were complicit to the crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Avery says:
    @roger in florida
    Long on invective, short on facts: The failure of the winter counter offensive was all Russian. Stalin threw in his last reserves, the "Siberian divisions" that were supposed to turn the tide. They didn't, the German lines held except for some small losses. That was it, Stalin knew that his attack needed to destroy army group center for soviet forces to have any chance in 1942, they didn't, he was toast and he knew it. Then came the savior in the unlikely form of Harry Hopkins, the rest, as they say, is history.

    {Long on invective, short on facts: }

    Fact: Red Army troops hoisted the Red banner over the alleged “1,000 year” Reichstag. They pissed on the coward Hitler’s ashes: the filthy coward was too cowardly to stand and fight; the cowardly sewer rat bloviating about Lebensraum und Untermenschen was a POS cowardly mouse. What a poetic justice that thems Untermenschen pissed Red Army vinegar on the alleged “Master Race’s” corpses. The alleged “Master Race” got royally Master f______ed by thems Untermenschen.

    Filthy Nazi mongrel Schweinhund.

    (Club footed Goebbels; Drug addict swine Goering; lily liver chicken_s___t Himmler (who fainted at the sight of blood), and 4-foot tall midget suicidal coward, the rat Hitler……)

    Heil Hitler !
    Zeig Heil !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Hitler doesn't seem to have been cowardly in WW1.
    , @roger in florida
    seek medical help.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. kemerd says:

    The claim that soviets wanting US not enter the war is false. In fact, soviets tried without any success to convince the UK, France, and US to an anti-nazi coalition. At that time, UK especially wanted to wait for Germany to attack USSR thus their appeasement policy. USSR, once recognized that such a coalition was not viable, signed to pact with Germans to buy time for preparations for war.

    It appears that British spies were not also very successful; as the entry of US to WW-II European theater was only after it was understood that Germans would not be successful defeating USSR in their eastern front thus there was a real danger of USSR invading Germany before UK could do it from the west.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Can you please cite your sources and authority for the UK's appeasement policy being motivated by a desire to wait while Germany attacked Russia?

    Which Brits? I've never heard of it. It seems implausible because it required Germany to conquer or intimidate other countries first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @CanSpeccy

    Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    But you just can't think of such an argument for the moment, and certainly can't be bothered to do any searching. And it's the same with Sam, apparently.

    Makes one wonder, could Sam and WizOz be part of a foreign spy network "playing a massive hidden role in getting America involved" in wars of imperial aggression "despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry?"

    I’ve done the searching and read and substantially remember the arguments as you could do if you were serious. Why would you infer from what I wrote that I had not searched and read the article and other contributions? *Can you point to anything in the thread which brought up specifics that required it?*

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    You claim to know the facts, but choose, in preference, to respond with a personal attack:

    No PCR is not a conspiracist – just a crank on almost every subject.
     
    Which is consistent with PCR's contention that: “The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @kemerd
    The claim that soviets wanting US not enter the war is false. In fact, soviets tried without any success to convince the UK, France, and US to an anti-nazi coalition. At that time, UK especially wanted to wait for Germany to attack USSR thus their appeasement policy. USSR, once recognized that such a coalition was not viable, signed to pact with Germans to buy time for preparations for war.

    It appears that British spies were not also very successful; as the entry of US to WW-II European theater was only after it was understood that Germans would not be successful defeating USSR in their eastern front thus there was a real danger of USSR invading Germany before UK could do it from the west.

    Can you please cite your sources and authority for the UK’s appeasement policy being motivated by a desire to wait while Germany attacked Russia?

    Which Brits? I’ve never heard of it. It seems implausible because it required Germany to conquer or intimidate other countries first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonymous
    I guess that you are not a geneticist either as there is a lot of genetic evidence to support Sands. Also how else do you think large rural Jewish villages emerged in Western Russia - if not from forced migration of Khazar converts.

    Why did they speak a German dialect in those villages? Both the DNA and linguistic evidence are conclusive that the Khazar conversion theory was 99 per cent nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Avery
    {Long on invective, short on facts: }

    Fact: Red Army troops hoisted the Red banner over the alleged "1,000 year" Reichstag. They pissed on the coward Hitler's ashes: the filthy coward was too cowardly to stand and fight; the cowardly sewer rat bloviating about Lebensraum und Untermenschen was a POS cowardly mouse. What a poetic justice that thems Untermenschen pissed Red Army vinegar on the alleged "Master Race's" corpses. The alleged "Master Race" got royally Master f______ed by thems Untermenschen.

    Filthy Nazi mongrel Schweinhund.

    (Club footed Goebbels; Drug addict swine Goering; lily liver chicken_s___t Himmler (who fainted at the sight of blood), and 4-foot tall midget suicidal coward, the rat Hitler......)

    Heil Hitler !
    Zeig Heil !

    Hitler doesn’t seem to have been cowardly in WW1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    True: he was quite brave in WW1.

    But WW1 was WW1, and WW2 was WW2.
    He was a paranoid wreck towards the end.
    The hated 'Untermenschen' Red Army racing towards his bunker was more than he could take: he blew his stack. He ordered his goons to pour gasoline on his corpse and burn it.

    Suicide by someone who boasted about the alleged "Master Race" was the ultimate act of cowardice. If he had gone down in a blazing hail of bullets, it would be different.

    He sent millions of his followers to their deaths.
    Despite their evil goals, his rank-and-file followers at least went down fighting like men.

    Hitler committed suicide.
    Himmler committed suicide.
    Goebbels committed suicide (.....after he murdered his 5 children).
    Goering committed suicide.

    Filthy freak Schweinhunden.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @woodNfish
    Even if any of this is true, and I expect it is, it was a wasted effort. After we declared war on Japan for their attack on us at Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US as an ally of Japan. Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.

    Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.

    The Brits apparently did just that but indirectly.

    What happened is that the Brits were a likely factor in convincing FDR to set up conditions (actually a virtually endless set of conditions such as occupying Iceland and Greenland for military purposes, freezing Japanese assets and cutting off their oil and scrap metal supply, closing the Panama canal to Japanese shipping, etc.) whereby either the German or the Japanese militarists or both were goaded to fire the first shot in a futile effort to buy time as opposed to attacking to conquer the US.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @jake
    Exactly.

    And who was a central figure in seeing the basic pattern and trying to expose it? None other than Joe Kennedy, who was denounced as being being a hater of all kinds great and good, because the English would never do anything like that, and because Kennedy noted the necessary role of Jews on both sides of the Atlantic to the plot to force America into the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Waylon says:

    “… much U.S. history might also have been heavily influenced by the subtle interventions of one or more foreign intelligence agencies.”

    One such individual, William Stephenson, (aka INTREPID) represented MI6. Headquartered on American soil at Rockefeller Center in NYC he became close to FDR providing Winston Churchill with keen and close insights into the progress of the aim to get America involved in WWII. He ably assisted in the formation of the OSS and on his word to FDR, apparently had his good friend William “Wild Bill” Donovan installed as its head.

    Interesting bio on this “gentleman” is on Wiki …

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

    When the OSS evolved into the CIA Stephenson was there, to receive the Medal of Merit from President Harry Truman recognizing his “valuable assistance to America in the fields of intelligence and special operations”.

    So that’s the sordid unvarnished truth about the influence of foreign powers in the internal affairs of the USA.

    Though more appalling that that may well be the plucking of Reinhard Gehlen from the jaws of defeat in the ashes of Europe following WWII, selecting this “gentleman” to assist in creating the new Nazi equivalent, America’s own CIA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    I've done the searching and read and substantially remember the arguments as you could do if you were serious. Why would you infer from what I wrote that I had not searched and read the article and other contributions? *Can you point to anything in the thread which brought up specifics that required it?*

    You claim to know the facts, but choose, in preference, to respond with a personal attack:

    No PCR is not a conspiracist – just a crank on almost every subject.

    Which is consistent with PCR’s contention that: “The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well I'm glad to know you are sharp enough to make that point. I wondered if you would. (And I take appreciative note of your "is consistent with" rather than the blundering claims to proof that litter UR comments). But please read my comment on PCR as just generally dismissive of PCR on any subject and therefore not logically calling for chapter and verse on particulars of WTC 7, Pentagon damage and other evidence, modelling of more or less symmetrical collapse of WTC 1 and 2 after weakening of the steel core structure at the levels where the planes struck, dancing Israelis, cell phone operation from the plane that crashed in PA etc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Waylon says:

    Here’s an interesting link with good insight into the relationship between the CIA and Reinhard Gehlen:

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/

    “Some of the highlights from this secret CIA documentary history include:

    A May 1, 1952 report detailing how Gehlen and his network were initially approached by U.S. army intelligence. (Document 6)
    Two evaluations of the Gehlen operation from October 16 and 17, 1946, advising against the transfer of Gehlen’s organization to CIG hands and questioning the value of the operation as a whole. (Documents 21 and 22)
    A March 19, 1948 memorandum from Richard Helms, noting Army pressure for the CIA to assume sponsorship of the Gehlen organization, and continued concern over the security problems inherent in the operation. (Document 59)
    A December 17, 1948 report outlining the problems with the Gehlen organization, but ultimately recommending CIA assumption of the project. (Document 72)
    In answer to the question “Can we learn from history?”, the IWG’s consulting historians noted “The real question is not whether we will make use of our past to deal with the present, but rather how well we will do so. To do it well, we need these documents.” (Note 5)

    “This secret CIA history is full of documents we never would have seen under the Freedom of Information Act, because Congress in 1984 gave the CIA an exemption for its ‘operational’ files, on the grounds that such files were too sensitive ever to be released,” commented Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. “The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act has proven this assumption false. Release of these files has done no damage to national security, has provided information of enormous public interest and historical importance, and however belatedly, has brought a measure of accountability to government operations at variance with mainstream American values.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    "Release of these files has done no damage to national security, has provided information of enormous public interest and historical importance, and however belatedly, has brought a measure of accountability to government operations at variance with mainstream American values.”
     
    --- and we are certain that what has been provided is complete and unexpurgated; that this document, edited by Tamara Feinstein, whose only notes were from Jewish persons who had control of the documents since they were taken from Germany (no non-Jews existing in all of the USA who were capable of managing this material), assures us all that they reveal the whole truth, sparing nothing and nobody, not even Jews.

    "In answer to the question “Can we learn from history?”, the IWG’s consulting historians noted “The real question is not whether we will make use of our past to deal with the present, but rather how well we will do so. To do it well, we need these documents.” (Note 5)"
     
    What does the present state of US foreign relations suggest about "how well we have learned from our history?"

    What are the implications for the integrity of the documents and of the people who manage them and have access to them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Avery says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Hitler doesn't seem to have been cowardly in WW1.

    True: he was quite brave in WW1.

    But WW1 was WW1, and WW2 was WW2.
    He was a paranoid wreck towards the end.
    The hated ‘Untermenschen’ Red Army racing towards his bunker was more than he could take: he blew his stack. He ordered his goons to pour gasoline on his corpse and burn it.

    Suicide by someone who boasted about the alleged “Master Race” was the ultimate act of cowardice. If he had gone down in a blazing hail of bullets, it would be different.

    He sent millions of his followers to their deaths.
    Despite their evil goals, his rank-and-file followers at least went down fighting like men.

    Hitler committed suicide.
    Himmler committed suicide.
    Goebbels committed suicide (…..after he murdered his 5 children).
    Goering committed suicide.

    Filthy freak Schweinhunden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Too bad Lenin, Stalin, FDR, Churchill and a whole host of hideously disgusting fellow travelers were too cowardly to exterminate themselves; the world would undoubtedly have been a lot better off without them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @CanSpeccy
    You claim to know the facts, but choose, in preference, to respond with a personal attack:

    No PCR is not a conspiracist – just a crank on almost every subject.
     
    Which is consistent with PCR's contention that: “The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.”

    Well I’m glad to know you are sharp enough to make that point. I wondered if you would. (And I take appreciative note of your “is consistent with” rather than the blundering claims to proof that litter UR comments). But please read my comment on PCR as just generally dismissive of PCR on any subject and therefore not logically calling for chapter and verse on particulars of WTC 7, Pentagon damage and other evidence, modelling of more or less symmetrical collapse of WTC 1 and 2 after weakening of the steel core structure at the levels where the planes struck, dancing Israelis, cell phone operation from the plane that crashed in PA etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @woodNfish
    Even if any of this is true, and I expect it is, it was a wasted effort. After we declared war on Japan for their attack on us at Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US as an ally of Japan. Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.

    I don’t understand the logic of this though the review that someone referred to and Ron acknowledged does make it sound as though the author over-egged his case and left out a good bit of the story of American interventionists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @utu
    Report of he Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki (Jan 1939).

    Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign -- which is primarily conducted against National Socialism -- no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.

    Thanks to astute propaganda, public sympathy in the U. S. A. is entirely on the side of Red Spain. Side by side with this propaganda an artificial war-panic is created . . . No effort is spared to impress upon the American mind that in the event of a world war the U. S. A. must take an active part in a struggle for freedom and democracy.

    President Roosevelt was first in the field to give expression to this hatred of Fascism. He had a two-fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems . . .

    Secondly, by creating a war-panic . . . he wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments . . . Furthermore, the brutal treatment meted out to the Jews in Germany as well as the problem of the refugees are both factors which intensify the existing hatred of everything connected with German National Socialism . . .

    [I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of 'true Americanism', and as 'Champions of Democracy', are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry -- so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race -- President Roosevelt's 'ideal' role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

    This sort of post is irritating rubbish without proper indication of source and links and what is supposed to be literal quote.

    And its supposed date surely is anachronistically before the armament program is it not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "date surely is anachronistically" - No, all reports of Count Potocki before Sept 1st, 1939.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    whose armament program?

    according to a book based on Henry Morgenthau Jr's voluminous diaries (est. 1 million pages), Morgenthau and FDR met in mid-October 1938 to set in motion plans for the first seven airplane factories to fight a war against Germany. It had been decided by early in 1920 that the next war would be an air war, and the overarching strategy would be to destroy the adversary's war-making manufacturing capabilities.



    Peter Moriera, "Henry Morgenthau, The Jew Who Defeated Hitler."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Incitatus says:
    @jake
    Yes, there was long a healthy anti-Brit feeling common in America. To get a handle on how totally it has been flipped, recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America's oldest enemy is France.

    Somehow, the English went from our original enemy, one that burned the White House and caused trouble for us from Canada and made certain to get involved in Mexico economically and politically, to our all time friend, and France, which was necessary to our winning the revolution, got dubbed our enemy. The 2 Mexican political parties were founded by Mexicans under direction of Brit Masons - one by the York Rite Masons and one by the Scottish Rite Masons) n large measure to create a new beach head to keep an eye on America and perhaps more.

    In an odd way that is hard to grasp if do not dig, the New Englanders always remained Anglophile. That became readily apparent when they saw themselves having to deal with Irish Catholics. When the Union won the Ware Between the States, the now sacredly bound Union had a mythology that was New England Puritan and Pilgrim. Over time, the entire nation would be re-taught to be embrace Anglophilia.

    The US has become the British Empire.

    “…recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America’s oldest enemy is France.”

    Indeed, Miller and Molesky wrote a screed titled ‘Our Oldest Enemy’ (France). Kenneth Timmerman published ‘The French Betrayal of America’. David Frum and Richard Perle punished France in their ‘An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror’ (btw they had no idea on how to end terror). Brave Congress re-menued “Freedom Fries,” and ‘no-spin’ Bill O’Reilly hawked “Boycott France” bumper stickers. Andy Rooney eagerly broadcast his condemnation on 60 Minutes 16 Feb 2003 (“The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush’s plans to attack Iraq. On the other hand, I have.” – Rooney indignantly supported invasion). And the list goes on.

    At the time France claimed it was being slandered. No one paid any attention.

    The best pieces were published in the Washington Times by high-school grad and ‘National Security Correspondent’ Bill Gertz. He published six pieces, all masquerading as news, all unsupported by named original sources, all kept alive by soliciting comments from people like Donny Rumsfeld and then the battered French themselves:

    • “France Helped Iraqis Escape” 6 May 2003;
    • “Search for Iraqis Focuses on Europe” 7 May 2003;
    • “Probe of French Passports Sought” 9 May 2003;
    • “Rumsfeld Expects to Find French Aided Iraqis” 10 May 2003;
    • “US Probes Passports as France Protests ‘Lies’” 17 May 2003;
    • “Intelligence Team Finds French Passport in Iraq” 24 May 2003

    When confronted privately by e-mail with his calumny, Gertz had the following comment:
    “As comedian Dennis Miller put it: “I would call the French scumbags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum.”” (8 May 2003)

    So much for our forth estate. Scumbags? Look no further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    If you are in service to the contemporary form of WASP Empire, which indeed features Jews as co-equal partners, your journalism will be to damn the Empire's historic enemies and its current irritants while also covering tracks, helping keep the masses fat, stupid and drunk as they make the Empire's lordship classes ever richer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @CanSpeccy
    But what one has to remember about foreign agents and spies is that they may often operate with the tacit approval of the government of the country in which they are operating.

    Churchill wanted US intervention in WW2, as did Roosevelt, so British agents such as Roald Dahl agitating in the US for American intervention was presumably considered a good thing by the US Government.

    Likewise, while 9/11 was very good for Israel, according to Netenyahu, it was also good for the NeoCon Bush's waiting to launch preplanned wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. So Israelis high-fiving the burning towers on 9/11 or, before 9/11, the Israeli art groups "Gelitin" and "E-Team" doing strange things inside the Twin Towers, is nothing, really, to get excited about.

    Oh no! Don’t tell America’s friends, allies, dependants and hangers on that the Iraq war was “pre-planned”.

    Actually, seriously, the alleged preplanning of war on Afghanistan makes even less sense. Why would anyone have wanted to? Certainly George W. Bush didn’t have any such idea and the chilling and convincing 2016 PBS doco on the Secret History of ISIS shows Cheney desperately latching on to the Afghan based 9/11 to try and link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. (The CIA comes out of it quite well – though not George Tenet).

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    The trouble with you, Wiz, is that your mastery of the trollish arts, the condescension, the necessarily unreferenced misstatements of fact, the ad hominems, and the ludicrous rationalization of your own mistakes, fails to make up for your ignorance of the facts.

    Concerning preplanned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, I gave references only a few days ago. It seems unreasonable to expect that I repeatedly provide links to sources for the benefit of people who know nothing of the subject and will dismiss with a sneer any statement, referenced or not, that contradicts their preconceived notions.

    But on Bush's pre-9/11 intentions toward Iraq, here's one hint from an article in Time Magazine (by Elliott, Michael and James Carney. “First Stop, Iraq.” 24 Mar. 2003) :

    Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."
     
    On the preplanned war on Afghanistan, the link I gave previously was to a video of Condileezza Rice, stating that in 2002, Bush had opted for military action in Afghanistan. If you were to look around and check your "facts" you might learn something contrary to your preconceptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Avery
    {Long on invective, short on facts: }

    Fact: Red Army troops hoisted the Red banner over the alleged "1,000 year" Reichstag. They pissed on the coward Hitler's ashes: the filthy coward was too cowardly to stand and fight; the cowardly sewer rat bloviating about Lebensraum und Untermenschen was a POS cowardly mouse. What a poetic justice that thems Untermenschen pissed Red Army vinegar on the alleged "Master Race's" corpses. The alleged "Master Race" got royally Master f______ed by thems Untermenschen.

    Filthy Nazi mongrel Schweinhund.

    (Club footed Goebbels; Drug addict swine Goering; lily liver chicken_s___t Himmler (who fainted at the sight of blood), and 4-foot tall midget suicidal coward, the rat Hitler......)

    Heil Hitler !
    Zeig Heil !

    seek medical help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {seek medical help.}

    Roger that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Waylon
    Here's an interesting link with good insight into the relationship between the CIA and Reinhard Gehlen:

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/



    "Some of the highlights from this secret CIA documentary history include:

    A May 1, 1952 report detailing how Gehlen and his network were initially approached by U.S. army intelligence. (Document 6)
    Two evaluations of the Gehlen operation from October 16 and 17, 1946, advising against the transfer of Gehlen's organization to CIG hands and questioning the value of the operation as a whole. (Documents 21 and 22)
    A March 19, 1948 memorandum from Richard Helms, noting Army pressure for the CIA to assume sponsorship of the Gehlen organization, and continued concern over the security problems inherent in the operation. (Document 59)
    A December 17, 1948 report outlining the problems with the Gehlen organization, but ultimately recommending CIA assumption of the project. (Document 72)
    In answer to the question "Can we learn from history?", the IWG's consulting historians noted "The real question is not whether we will make use of our past to deal with the present, but rather how well we will do so. To do it well, we need these documents." (Note 5)

    "This secret CIA history is full of documents we never would have seen under the Freedom of Information Act, because Congress in 1984 gave the CIA an exemption for its 'operational' files, on the grounds that such files were too sensitive ever to be released," commented Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. "The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act has proven this assumption false. Release of these files has done no damage to national security, has provided information of enormous public interest and historical importance, and however belatedly, has brought a measure of accountability to government operations at variance with mainstream American values."

    “Release of these files has done no damage to national security, has provided information of enormous public interest and historical importance, and however belatedly, has brought a measure of accountability to government operations at variance with mainstream American values.”

    — and we are certain that what has been provided is complete and unexpurgated; that this document, edited by Tamara Feinstein, whose only notes were from Jewish persons who had control of the documents since they were taken from Germany (no non-Jews existing in all of the USA who were capable of managing this material), assures us all that they reveal the whole truth, sparing nothing and nobody, not even Jews.

    “In answer to the question “Can we learn from history?”, the IWG’s consulting historians noted “The real question is not whether we will make use of our past to deal with the present, but rather how well we will do so. To do it well, we need these documents.” (Note 5)”

    What does the present state of US foreign relations suggest about “how well we have learned from our history?”

    What are the implications for the integrity of the documents and of the people who manage them and have access to them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Waylon
    It's possible that this story may have been laundered. And I'm not sure if it made the front page of the newspaper of record, the NYT. Was FOX News pounding the drum on it?

    As far as I know it was swept aside and largely ignored.

    You make valid points about the integrity of the documents and those who might have edited them for family consumption. But just because you recognize a Jewish name, I don't believe one should jump to the conclusion that that individual embodies all the evil you imply belongs to being Jewish. IOW, much of the Jewish narrative you imply has been exposed by honest decent Jews who have been repulsed by the evil intent of the Talmud driven master race narrative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Avery
    True: he was quite brave in WW1.

    But WW1 was WW1, and WW2 was WW2.
    He was a paranoid wreck towards the end.
    The hated 'Untermenschen' Red Army racing towards his bunker was more than he could take: he blew his stack. He ordered his goons to pour gasoline on his corpse and burn it.

    Suicide by someone who boasted about the alleged "Master Race" was the ultimate act of cowardice. If he had gone down in a blazing hail of bullets, it would be different.

    He sent millions of his followers to their deaths.
    Despite their evil goals, his rank-and-file followers at least went down fighting like men.

    Hitler committed suicide.
    Himmler committed suicide.
    Goebbels committed suicide (.....after he murdered his 5 children).
    Goering committed suicide.

    Filthy freak Schweinhunden.

    Too bad Lenin, Stalin, FDR, Churchill and a whole host of hideously disgusting fellow travelers were too cowardly to exterminate themselves; the world would undoubtedly have been a lot better off without them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?184297-1/book-discussion-mussolini-secrets-death
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    This sort of post is irritating rubbish without proper indication of source and links and what is supposed to be literal quote.

    And its supposed date surely is anachronistically before the armament program is it not?

    “date surely is anachronistically” – No, all reports of Count Potocki before Sept 1st, 1939.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My point is there was surely no great "program of armaments" in 1939
    , @Wizard of Oz
    My main point was about authentication which you neglect. I see that Potocki said the doc was a Nazi forgery and David Irving says there is a carbon copy in the Hoover Intitute archive. I remain to be convinced although what the doc says about Jews and Jewry is really much more reliable as evidence of Eastern European attitudes to Jews than anything else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. utu says:

    On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:

    The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …

    … The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.

    in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

    This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

    In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I've read your latest posts in reverse order and find them fascinating which is why I would really like them authenticated.

    On the face of them they are contrary to Mahl's thesis as introduced to us in the latest of the American Pravda series. The efforts of British intelligence would, in the eyes of the Polish aristocrat be less weighty than that of American Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:

    On 21 November 1938, Ambassador Potocki sent a report to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a conversation between himself and Bullitt, who happened to be back in Washington:

    To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States, France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.

    Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I asked him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and France first. I simply could not see the connecting point in this whole combination.

    Bullitt replied that the democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably have advanced with its expansion in an easterly direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict would break out there, in the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’ Feeling in the United States was no intense against Nazism and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar to that before America’s declaration of war against Germany in 1917.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  161. utu says:

    On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt’s personal envoy, William Bullitt:

    The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me in the course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:

    1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

    2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.

    3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.

    4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Very interesting. But can you firm up the authenticity of the report? Has there, for example, been an edition of something like the Potocki Papers from carbon copies apparently held by the Hoover Institute?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Oh no! Don't tell America's friends, allies, dependants and hangers on that the Iraq war was "pre-planned".

    Actually, seriously, the alleged preplanning of war on Afghanistan makes even less sense. Why would anyone have wanted to? Certainly George W. Bush didn't have any such idea and the chilling and convincing 2016 PBS doco on the Secret History of ISIS shows Cheney desperately latching on to the Afghan based 9/11 to try and link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. (The CIA comes out of it quite well - though not George Tenet).

    The trouble with you, Wiz, is that your mastery of the trollish arts, the condescension, the necessarily unreferenced misstatements of fact, the ad hominems, and the ludicrous rationalization of your own mistakes, fails to make up for your ignorance of the facts.

    Concerning preplanned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, I gave references only a few days ago. It seems unreasonable to expect that I repeatedly provide links to sources for the benefit of people who know nothing of the subject and will dismiss with a sneer any statement, referenced or not, that contradicts their preconceived notions.

    But on Bush’s pre-9/11 intentions toward Iraq, here’s one hint from an article in Time Magazine (by Elliott, Michael and James Carney. “First Stop, Iraq.” 24 Mar. 2003) :

    Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

    On the preplanned war on Afghanistan, the link I gave previously was to a video of Condileezza Rice, stating that in 2002, Bush had opted for military action in Afghanistan. If you were to look around and check your “facts” you might learn something contrary to your preconceptions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I withdraw my emollient almost complimentary comment. You failed to notice that my reference to the Iraq war was obviously about the total incompetence of almost everything about it.

    And on the Afghan war you referred to "the NeoCon Bush's waiting to launch his preplanned war" as aided by 9/11. Why do you now justify that by saying that in March 2002 Bush decided on war in Afghanistan. I'm afraid that makes me think my condescension is, well, condescending, but understandable.
    To be really condescending I remind you that 9/11 was in 2001.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    See #6 which seems to be my quibble or nitpicking as areply to you.

    I would not mind replying and explaining to you about the Yinon Plan (although so many others have done before) when you challenge me politely, but your attitude to other commenters here is quite annoying. In essence, you operate within the confines of the establishment’s official history and you keep challenging commenters here to supply references for their statements sourced from similar “reputable”/approved Anglo-Jewish sources, whilst you do ad hominems and rubbish anti-Western-regime writers such as PCR.

    I do not mind that YOU enjoy the confines of the regime’s productions, but be a bit less prolific in comments here when all you do is mostly repeat the regime’s points and official history, which we all know already and a few Hasbara trolls also keep desperately regurgitating here. You are not contributing much to the debate, just polluting. But, some c0mmenters get hooked up on your new style of asking questions and engage in debate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is that a reply to my #6? It doesn't appear to be. Indeed it makes reference to the Yinon Plan which has not been previously mentioned on this thread and could hardly answer my point about Israel's shrewd agnostic positioning itself according to where real power or real opportunity lay.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @utu
    "date surely is anachronistically" - No, all reports of Count Potocki before Sept 1st, 1939.

    My point is there was surely no great “program of armaments” in 1939

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Hibernian says:
    @RJJCDA
    "Mother," CIA Counter Intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, created the "mole" scare inside the CIA which paralyzed the agency for years. And he was a KNOWN friend of Kim Philby (both in Britain and in America) who had to be extracted to Moscow to escape the imminent threats to him as a traitor to Britain and the West.

    But Angleton met Philby and other MI6 leaders and future leaders during early days of WWII in England where he was sent to learn the ropes. It was said of him there that he became more British than themselves. He effected their accent, dress and carried an umbrella.

    Though a Mexican beauty, his mother was illiterate. Angleton growing up in Boise and possibly enduring slights ("half-wetback"), might have had his sensitive poetic sensibilities damaged. He could have harbored a deep resentment, emanating from slights to his mother, that drove a bias in favor of and toward any power that worked against white America. NWO?

    Consider the possibility that the great search for the mole inside CIA and the whole Philby episode were really about concealing that Angleton, Philby of course and others, American and British, worked for British Intelligence. But willingly or not, known or not, actually really for the the overseer globalists of their time - the deep state's organs which MI6 and OSS/CIA were figurehead agencies. Angleton and others being really double agents, not for the Kremlin, but for the globalists explains much of post-war history.

    Angleton as a left winger? Talk about alternative history. Hispanic mother at least explains his middle name; if he hadn’t gone into spycraft he might have played for the White Sox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @utu
    "date surely is anachronistically" - No, all reports of Count Potocki before Sept 1st, 1939.

    My main point was about authentication which you neglect. I see that Potocki said the doc was a Nazi forgery and David Irving says there is a carbon copy in the Hoover Intitute archive. I remain to be convinced although what the doc says about Jews and Jewry is really much more reliable as evidence of Eastern European attitudes to Jews than anything else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Hibernian says:
    @jake
    Somehow I had managed to miss the Mises Review and Chronicles reviews of Mahl;s book that Unz mentions. Back in 1999 I was moving across country and paying little attention. But even without ever having heard of Mahl or his book until now, I long have known the basics. It seems to me that only 2 kinds of people could deny that the British Empire spy networks had done everything, including murder, to get the US into the two World wars to save 'Mother England.' Those types are liars and the hopelessly naive of the Anglophile sort.

    And the Anglophile crowd is still at it. Obviously, we all should see it at work among the last of the WASP types in 'mainstream' Republican Party inner circles. The Bush family is Exhibit A. George Will is the perfect example of a journalist doing its dirty work while pretending to be impartial and objective. And as in England, that group in the US is deeply philo-semitic. Some are primarily pro-Jewish, and some are primarily pro-Arabic and/or Islamic. But they all will make defense and promotion of some form of semitic culture central to their vision of America's role in the world. These people are hardcore globalists and would prefer a country with hordes of Middle Easterners and Indian subcontinent people and East Asians, as well as black Africans, because that is a type of recreation of the 19th century British Empire.

    But they are far from alone. You can see it also all over the 'paleoconservative' landscape. The VDARE crowd, especially Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, is decidedly Anglophile, often in forms that fit the non-tony part of English culture. For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church. It also has a long history of comments that link the heyday of the British Empire to all possible good things. The site will always gravitate to seeing things in terms of what is good for England, presumably because that is good for WASPs - with the often clear implication that all other whites should just shut up and allow their Anglo-Saxons to recreate what they built before, built in significant part by stomping on the rest of us, which is precisely what is rotting to Hell today.

    The British Empire spies were successful because of a widespread American Anglophila, which always was, and is today and will be in years to come, erected upon a strong dislike of almost all white Gentiles who are not Anglo-Saxon, or who at least are very strongly Anglophile.

    “For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church.”

    This phenomenon is not unknown at Unz.com.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jake
    It is not unknown all over the Anglosphere. And that is one way to see that the Brit Empire did not really lose the American Revolution. It just won long term.

    UsofA is now the lead partner in the newly reconfigured Brit Empire. The imperial capital moved, but the Empire remains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Lawrence Fitton
    great article. i'm not an avid historian. i never knew about the british spy manipulations.
    however, i do question one assertion: that the return to hard times in 1937 proves roosevelt's policies were a failure. in fact, i've read from more than one author that roosevelt pulled back the policies that got the u.s. out of the depression, which is why economic hard times returned. an ardent capitalist - claiming i saved capitalism - roosevelt threw labor support only to forestall unrest by the unwashed masses. he was a racist & anti-semite and quite the new york dandy.
    ok, commenters, tell me i got it all wrong. i expect it. i'm aware of the drift at this site.

    Keynes was amongst those critical of Roosevelt’s premature attempt to restore balanced or surplus budgets and clearly regretted that his arguments before the publication of The General Theory hadn’t really got through to Roosevelt. I am not sure how strict Austrians handle those events and the later recovery of the economy during the war with deficit finance used for war employment and production.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Why do you now justify that by saying that in March 2002 Bush decided on war in Afghanistan.

    Oh, well done! You make a factually based point.

    The truth is, my mind was wandering, exhausted by the waste of mental effort attempting to deal with your seemingly endless wiggle waggle.

    But notwithstanding my error in chronology, it remains a fact that "Fuck Saddam" was the essence of Dubya's position from well before the time of his election, and also the position of the Project for a New American Century 1997 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, signatories) which talks of the "unresolved conflict with Iraq," and the desirability of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Confirming Bush's intention to wage war on Iraq well before 9/11, here's former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, on CBS's 60 Minutes:

    From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.
     
    And according to Paul Suskind, in his book "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill,"

    O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

    "There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @CanSpeccy
    The trouble with you, Wiz, is that your mastery of the trollish arts, the condescension, the necessarily unreferenced misstatements of fact, the ad hominems, and the ludicrous rationalization of your own mistakes, fails to make up for your ignorance of the facts.

    Concerning preplanned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, I gave references only a few days ago. It seems unreasonable to expect that I repeatedly provide links to sources for the benefit of people who know nothing of the subject and will dismiss with a sneer any statement, referenced or not, that contradicts their preconceived notions.

    But on Bush's pre-9/11 intentions toward Iraq, here's one hint from an article in Time Magazine (by Elliott, Michael and James Carney. “First Stop, Iraq.” 24 Mar. 2003) :

    Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."
     
    On the preplanned war on Afghanistan, the link I gave previously was to a video of Condileezza Rice, stating that in 2002, Bush had opted for military action in Afghanistan. If you were to look around and check your "facts" you might learn something contrary to your preconceptions.

    I withdraw my emollient almost complimentary comment. You failed to notice that my reference to the Iraq war was obviously about the total incompetence of almost everything about it.

    And on the Afghan war you referred to “the NeoCon Bush’s waiting to launch his preplanned war” as aided by 9/11. Why do you now justify that by saying that in March 2002 Bush decided on war in Afghanistan. I’m afraid that makes me think my condescension is, well, condescending, but understandable.
    To be really condescending I remind you that 9/11 was in 2001.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @utu
    On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt:

    The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me in the course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:

    1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

    2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.

    3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.

    4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

    Very interesting. But can you firm up the authenticity of the report? Has there, for example, been an edition of something like the Potocki Papers from carbon copies apparently held by the Hoover Institute?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Kiza
    I would not mind replying and explaining to you about the Yinon Plan (although so many others have done before) when you challenge me politely, but your attitude to other commenters here is quite annoying. In essence, you operate within the confines of the establishment's official history and you keep challenging commenters here to supply references for their statements sourced from similar "reputable"/approved Anglo-Jewish sources, whilst you do ad hominems and rubbish anti-Western-regime writers such as PCR.

    I do not mind that YOU enjoy the confines of the regime's productions, but be a bit less prolific in comments here when all you do is mostly repeat the regime's points and official history, which we all know already and a few Hasbara trolls also keep desperately regurgitating here. You are not contributing much to the debate, just polluting. But, some c0mmenters get hooked up on your new style of asking questions and engage in debate.

    Is that a reply to my #6? It doesn’t appear to be. Indeed it makes reference to the Yinon Plan which has not been previously mentioned on this thread and could hardly answer my point about Israel’s shrewd agnostic positioning itself according to where real power or real opportunity lay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jacques Sheete
    Too bad Lenin, Stalin, FDR, Churchill and a whole host of hideously disgusting fellow travelers were too cowardly to exterminate themselves; the world would undoubtedly have been a lot better off without them.

    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?184297-1/book-discussion-mussolini-secrets-death

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?


    The Jews in control of OSS killed Mussolini, the Jews in control of the communist party of Italy tried to frame Churchill for it, but the Jews in control of Churchill were not through with him and were too smart for the other Jews and deflected the blame off Churchill.
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Dunno. I've never studied Mussolini much.

    What does the vid say? I rarely watch vids and never those that are more than a few minutes long.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @utu
    On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:

    The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful ...

    ... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.

    in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

    This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

    In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the 'democratic world.'

    I’ve read your latest posts in reverse order and find them fascinating which is why I would really like them authenticated.

    On the face of them they are contrary to Mahl’s thesis as introduced to us in the latest of the American Pravda series. The efforts of British intelligence would, in the eyes of the Polish aristocrat be less weighty than that of American Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I found this:

    "An important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_weber.html
    , @utu
    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=ambassador+potocki+hoover+institute&source=bl&ots=D6Bgw3xjhR&sig=S17ozTQDQfy3rcNUhCmmX3v3toI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBy9n86urOAhVDNSYKHddfDfIQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=ambassador%20potocki%20hoover%20institute&f=false

    According to this book Potocki dispatches are in Hoover institute (*). The book's author (George H. Nash) states the following: "Subsequently the Polish Ambassador informed me that the documents were genuine and that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department."

    (*) Must have been copies that were kept in embassy in Washington DC that Potocki donated to Hoover.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Wizard of Oz
    This sort of post is irritating rubbish without proper indication of source and links and what is supposed to be literal quote.

    And its supposed date surely is anachronistically before the armament program is it not?

    whose armament program?

    according to a book based on Henry Morgenthau Jr’s voluminous diaries (est. 1 million pages), Morgenthau and FDR met in mid-October 1938 to set in motion plans for the first seven airplane factories to fight a war against Germany. It had been decided by early in 1920 that the next war would be an air war, and the overarching strategy would be to destroy the adversary’s war-making manufacturing capabilities.

    Peter Moriera, “Henry Morgenthau, The Jew Who Defeated Hitler.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. And it is of course credible that the Polish Ambassador would have been well aware of that long before there were major appropriations or other legislation.

    Amongst my areas of ignorance was the Jewish lobbying and campaigning in the US against Nazi Germany though I hope I would have been tuned in to it and supported it. The Germans I know best certainly would have - more than the Polish ambassador!

    It certainly doesn't weaken the picture of the influence of Jews in getting America into its recent misbegotten wars with a lot less excuse than in the 1930s (if excuse was then required) despite the greatest guilt being that of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Avery says:
    @roger in florida
    seek medical help.

    {seek medical help.}

    Roger that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I've read your latest posts in reverse order and find them fascinating which is why I would really like them authenticated.

    On the face of them they are contrary to Mahl's thesis as introduced to us in the latest of the American Pravda series. The efforts of British intelligence would, in the eyes of the Polish aristocrat be less weighty than that of American Jews.

    I found this:

    “An important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam.” http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_weber.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I wonder what the Hoover Institute might contribute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Keynes was amongst those critical of Roosevelt's premature attempt to restore balanced or surplus budgets and clearly regretted that his arguments before the publication of The General Theory hadn't really got through to Roosevelt. I am not sure how strict Austrians handle those events and the later recovery of the economy during the war with deficit finance used for war employment and production.

    Why do you now justify that by saying that in March 2002 Bush decided on war in Afghanistan.

    Oh, well done! You make a factually based point.

    The truth is, my mind was wandering, exhausted by the waste of mental effort attempting to deal with your seemingly endless wiggle waggle.

    But notwithstanding my error in chronology, it remains a fact that “Fuck Saddam” was the essence of Dubya’s position from well before the time of his election, and also the position of the Project for a New American Century 1997 report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, signatories) which talks of the “unresolved conflict with Iraq,” and the desirability of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    Confirming Bush’s intention to wage war on Iraq well before 9/11, here’s former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, on CBS’s 60 Minutes:

    From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.

    And according to Paul Suskind, in his book “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,”

    O’Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

    “There are memos,” Suskind told the network. “One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.’”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well thanks. Though I may have incidentally underestimated Bush's openness to dealing with Saddam in some way from an early stage I reiterate that my comment on the Iraq War was solely lighthearted sarcasm. Bush's televised account of 9/11 (My Day in School and Onwards it might have been called) certainly confirmed the picture of him who had no personal drive for making war to change the world but rather as someone very ill equipped and likely to be manipulated by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. So, no Bush agenda before 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda.
    , @Lawrence Fitton
    bush declared he wanted to be a 'war president' before the 9/11 attacks. no doubt, the neocons had plans to attack iraq. the propaganda was probably already in place, or on its way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I've read your latest posts in reverse order and find them fascinating which is why I would really like them authenticated.

    On the face of them they are contrary to Mahl's thesis as introduced to us in the latest of the American Pravda series. The efforts of British intelligence would, in the eyes of the Polish aristocrat be less weighty than that of American Jews.

    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=ambassador+potocki+hoover+institute&source=bl&ots=D6Bgw3xjhR&sig=S17ozTQDQfy3rcNUhCmmX3v3toI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBy9n86urOAhVDNSYKHddfDfIQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=ambassador%20potocki%20hoover%20institute&f=false

    According to this book Potocki dispatches are in Hoover institute (*). The book’s author (George H. Nash) states the following: “Subsequently the Polish Ambassador informed me that the documents were genuine and that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.”

    (*) Must have been copies that were kept in embassy in Washington DC that Potocki donated to Hoover.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well thanks. Though I may have incidentally underestimated Bush's openness to dealing with Saddam in some way from an early stage I reiterate that my comment on the Iraq War was solely lighthearted sarcasm. Bush's televised account of 9/11 (My Day in School and Onwards it might have been called) certainly confirmed the picture of him who had no personal drive for making war to change the world but rather as someone very ill equipped and likely to be manipulated by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. So, no Bush agenda before 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Looks like we're getting there even if starting with David Irving's and mates' discoveries may make one a bit queasy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @SolontoCroesus
    whose armament program?

    according to a book based on Henry Morgenthau Jr's voluminous diaries (est. 1 million pages), Morgenthau and FDR met in mid-October 1938 to set in motion plans for the first seven airplane factories to fight a war against Germany. It had been decided by early in 1920 that the next war would be an air war, and the overarching strategy would be to destroy the adversary's war-making manufacturing capabilities.



    Peter Moriera, "Henry Morgenthau, The Jew Who Defeated Hitler."

    Thanks. And it is of course credible that the Polish Ambassador would have been well aware of that long before there were major appropriations or other legislation.

    Amongst my areas of ignorance was the Jewish lobbying and campaigning in the US against Nazi Germany though I hope I would have been tuned in to it and supported it. The Germans I know best certainly would have – more than the Polish ambassador!

    It certainly doesn’t weaken the picture of the influence of Jews in getting America into its recent misbegotten wars with a lot less excuse than in the 1930s (if excuse was then required) despite the greatest guilt being that of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @utu
    I found this:

    "An important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_weber.html

    Thanks. I wonder what the Hoover Institute might contribute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @CanSpeccy
    Why do you now justify that by saying that in March 2002 Bush decided on war in Afghanistan.

    Oh, well done! You make a factually based point.

    The truth is, my mind was wandering, exhausted by the waste of mental effort attempting to deal with your seemingly endless wiggle waggle.

    But notwithstanding my error in chronology, it remains a fact that "Fuck Saddam" was the essence of Dubya's position from well before the time of his election, and also the position of the Project for a New American Century 1997 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, signatories) which talks of the "unresolved conflict with Iraq," and the desirability of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Confirming Bush's intention to wage war on Iraq well before 9/11, here's former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, on CBS's 60 Minutes:

    From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.
     
    And according to Paul Suskind, in his book "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill,"

    O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

    "There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
     

    Well thanks. Though I may have incidentally underestimated Bush’s openness to dealing with Saddam in some way from an early stage I reiterate that my comment on the Iraq War was solely lighthearted sarcasm. Bush’s televised account of 9/11 (My Day in School and Onwards it might have been called) certainly confirmed the picture of him who had no personal drive for making war to change the world but rather as someone very ill equipped and likely to be manipulated by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. So, no Bush agenda before 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @utu
    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=ambassador+potocki+hoover+institute&source=bl&ots=D6Bgw3xjhR&sig=S17ozTQDQfy3rcNUhCmmX3v3toI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBy9n86urOAhVDNSYKHddfDfIQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=ambassador%20potocki%20hoover%20institute&f=false

    According to this book Potocki dispatches are in Hoover institute (*). The book's author (George H. Nash) states the following: "Subsequently the Polish Ambassador informed me that the documents were genuine and that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department."

    (*) Must have been copies that were kept in embassy in Washington DC that Potocki donated to Hoover.

    Well thanks. Though I may have incidentally underestimated Bush’s openness to dealing with Saddam in some way from an early stage I reiterate that my comment on the Iraq War was solely lighthearted sarcasm. Bush’s televised account of 9/11 (My Day in School and Onwards it might have been called) certainly confirmed the picture of him who had no personal drive for making war to change the world but rather as someone very ill equipped and likely to be manipulated by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. So, no Bush agenda before 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @utu
    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=ambassador+potocki+hoover+institute&source=bl&ots=D6Bgw3xjhR&sig=S17ozTQDQfy3rcNUhCmmX3v3toI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBy9n86urOAhVDNSYKHddfDfIQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=ambassador%20potocki%20hoover%20institute&f=false

    According to this book Potocki dispatches are in Hoover institute (*). The book's author (George H. Nash) states the following: "Subsequently the Polish Ambassador informed me that the documents were genuine and that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department."

    (*) Must have been copies that were kept in embassy in Washington DC that Potocki donated to Hoover.

    Looks like we’re getting there even if starting with David Irving’s and mates’ discoveries may make one a bit queasy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Wizard of Oz
    No PCR is not a conspiracist - just a crank on almost every subject. Be wary of sharing the nonsensical idea that opponents of truther nonsense rely on ad hominem arguments and not on detailed fact and science based work. It doesn't take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.

    It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.

    You know, that’s really just a bit too much. You really are such a liar.

    About two weeks ago, under a previous “American Pravda” article by Ron, I specifically asked you what the best proof available was for the U.S. government story on 9/11. You responded and your response was actually quite extraordinary.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531687

    You have 7 numbered points in response and not a single one of the seven constitutes even a shred of evidence. I took the time to write a reply that systematically demonstrates this, going through your 7 points one by one. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    What then?

    Well, you just walked away. As I knew you would. Of course. What else?

    And now you’re here a couple of weeks later, after a total failure to produce a single shred of evidence for the government story, or a single real argument, saying that there is all kinds of evidence and so forth.

    WHERE IS IT? I have posed the question to you and your fellow shit eaters numerous time: What is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion for the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11? (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera)

    I have never received a real, good-faithed response. Not from you or any of your fellow shit eaters.

    Is there any proof? If so, either provide it finally, or admit there is none. Well, those are the two options of an honest person. But you, of course, are not an honest person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Why do good guys like you continue to respond to snarky clueless trolls especially when it becomes obvious that facts and logic are pearls tossed to porkers?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct. That someone posting as "Jonathan Revusky" posits an opposite situation is no reason for me to depart from my rational course - given that I have neither emotion or money invested in any outcome - which is to look at the suggested objections to the basic story of Al Qaeda inspired (and possibly Saudi financed) Muslim fanatics hijacking four planes etc.

    Starting from that point I have found well presented material which anyone else could find that deals with each of the supposedly major problems that are frequently cited. They include WTC 7, the supposed problem of symmetrical collapse of WTC 1 and 2 from weakening of the core structure, the lack of Flight 77 debris outside the Pentagon walls, the alleged impossibility of the cell phone calls from the fourth plane etc. The only (alleged) oddity that I haven't found dealt with in convincing work online or in docos like the one which I admit introduced me to the explosive qualities of aluminium is the alleged traces of thermite. Then there is of course the big question of who an alternative version would make sense for given the risk of failure and worse.

    If you are openminded and really want to see why anyone might fail to agree that any of the truthers have made their case (whichever one of many you choose) you will find,as I have, that none of the objections which supposedly lead to the conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving highly placed members of the American government carry the day. On the other hand there is this ridiculous official version that the earth orbits round the sun when any honest person can see that the sun rises in the morning and, after orbiting round the earth sinks below the horizon every night.
    , @edNels


    How do the bloggers ever figure, if they are responding to actual persons, or teams of people... like in some cases the blog personage, can come back immediately, or can trash one, and yet they certainly are not of any import in the intellect... they are like you would go against a whole battery of bastards...

    so that is the answer. these muther's are a whole panel of assholes, your not talkin' to a person...

    and even still, they are totally supid and can't .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Waylon says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    "Release of these files has done no damage to national security, has provided information of enormous public interest and historical importance, and however belatedly, has brought a measure of accountability to government operations at variance with mainstream American values.”
     
    --- and we are certain that what has been provided is complete and unexpurgated; that this document, edited by Tamara Feinstein, whose only notes were from Jewish persons who had control of the documents since they were taken from Germany (no non-Jews existing in all of the USA who were capable of managing this material), assures us all that they reveal the whole truth, sparing nothing and nobody, not even Jews.

    "In answer to the question “Can we learn from history?”, the IWG’s consulting historians noted “The real question is not whether we will make use of our past to deal with the present, but rather how well we will do so. To do it well, we need these documents.” (Note 5)"
     
    What does the present state of US foreign relations suggest about "how well we have learned from our history?"

    What are the implications for the integrity of the documents and of the people who manage them and have access to them?

    It’s possible that this story may have been laundered. And I’m not sure if it made the front page of the newspaper of record, the NYT. Was FOX News pounding the drum on it?

    As far as I know it was swept aside and largely ignored.

    You make valid points about the integrity of the documents and those who might have edited them for family consumption. But just because you recognize a Jewish name, I don’t believe one should jump to the conclusion that that individual embodies all the evil you imply belongs to being Jewish. IOW, much of the Jewish narrative you imply has been exposed by honest decent Jews who have been repulsed by the evil intent of the Talmud driven master race narrative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. iffen says:
    @anonymous
    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?184297-1/book-discussion-mussolini-secrets-death

    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?

    The Jews in control of OSS killed Mussolini, the Jews in control of the communist party of Italy tried to frame Churchill for it, but the Jews in control of Churchill were not through with him and were too smart for the other Jews and deflected the blame off Churchill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. jake says:
    @Hibernian
    "For example, the site has always been filled with references to the awfulness of the Irish and the Catholic Church."

    This phenomenon is not unknown at Unz.com.

    It is not unknown all over the Anglosphere. And that is one way to see that the Brit Empire did not really lose the American Revolution. It just won long term.

    UsofA is now the lead partner in the newly reconfigured Brit Empire. The imperial capital moved, but the Empire remains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Good observation.
    , @Anonymous
    So WWII was a war between USA (FDR) and the British Empire (Churchill) fought by proxies (Hitler vs Stalin), with zionists along for the ride and to scoop up the spoils? But Stalin outfoxed them, for a while, until Gorbachev caved in to George H W Bush, who imagined himself as cunning as FDR and Sykes-Picot-Balfour all rolled into one?

    Except that by the time Bush 41 came along to reaffirm the Anglo-American empire's implantation in the Middle East-Saudi Arabia-Persia, the Balfour project had taken root in a masterfully strategic beachhead in the Levant and acquired nuclear weapons and a bad-ass attitude coupled with all the I'm-a-pathetic-victim defense mechanisms of a balled up porcupine. Zionists were no longer riding tailcoats, they were dragging the FDR and Churchill wannabes around by their lapels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. jake says:
    @Incitatus
    “...recall how Neocons, with full backing of their necessary allies the rich WASPs (again, think Bush family and the hired mouthpiece George Will) declared that America’s oldest enemy is France.”

    Indeed, Miller and Molesky wrote a screed titled ‘Our Oldest Enemy’ (France). Kenneth Timmerman published ‘The French Betrayal of America’. David Frum and Richard Perle punished France in their ‘An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror’ (btw they had no idea on how to end terror). Brave Congress re-menued “Freedom Fries,” and ‘no-spin’ Bill O’Reilly hawked “Boycott France” bumper stickers. Andy Rooney eagerly broadcast his condemnation on 60 Minutes 16 Feb 2003 (“The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush’s plans to attack Iraq. On the other hand, I have.” - Rooney indignantly supported invasion). And the list goes on.

    At the time France claimed it was being slandered. No one paid any attention.

    The best pieces were published in the Washington Times by high-school grad and ‘National Security Correspondent’ Bill Gertz. He published six pieces, all masquerading as news, all unsupported by named original sources, all kept alive by soliciting comments from people like Donny Rumsfeld and then the battered French themselves:

    • “France Helped Iraqis Escape” 6 May 2003;
    • “Search for Iraqis Focuses on Europe” 7 May 2003;
    • “Probe of French Passports Sought” 9 May 2003;
    • “Rumsfeld Expects to Find French Aided Iraqis” 10 May 2003;
    • “US Probes Passports as France Protests ‘Lies’” 17 May 2003;
    • “Intelligence Team Finds French Passport in Iraq” 24 May 2003

    When confronted privately by e-mail with his calumny, Gertz had the following comment:
    “As comedian Dennis Miller put it: "I would call the French scumbags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum."” (8 May 2003)

    So much for our forth estate. Scumbags? Look no further.

    If you are in service to the contemporary form of WASP Empire, which indeed features Jews as co-equal partners, your journalism will be to damn the Empire’s historic enemies and its current irritants while also covering tracks, helping keep the masses fat, stupid and drunk as they make the Empire’s lordship classes ever richer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    I confess I have no idea of the intent of your incoherent rant. A question? An accusation? What/which ‘Empire’? “Current irritants” and “covering tracks”? Please elaborate.

    “Fat, stupid and drunk”? A little projection on your part?

    You’ll have to do better Jake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. jake says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Unless Unz and the book author think the Brits convinced Japan to attack us, their efforts had nothing to do with us entering the war against Germany, Japan, and the German Axis.
     
    The Brits apparently did just that but indirectly.

    What happened is that the Brits were a likely factor in convincing FDR to set up conditions (actually a virtually endless set of conditions such as occupying Iceland and Greenland for military purposes, freezing Japanese assets and cutting off their oil and scrap metal supply, closing the Panama canal to Japanese shipping, etc.) whereby either the German or the Japanese militarists or both were goaded to fire the first shot in a futile effort to buy time as opposed to attacking to conquer the US.

    Exactly.

    And who was a central figure in seeing the basic pattern and trying to expose it? None other than Joe Kennedy, who was denounced as being being a hater of all kinds great and good, because the English would never do anything like that, and because Kennedy noted the necessary role of Jews on both sides of the Atlantic to the plot to force America into the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Thanks, Jake.

    I need to read more about Joe Kennedy. As you point out, the truth tellers almost invariably get ignored or smeared and damned, while the liars get the press and the praises. Joe McCarthy was more correct than wrong, and Lindbergh is still falsely smeared as an anti-Semite ( a really dippy charge if there ever was one), and a womanizer. The list is endless and I'll likely add Joe Kennedy to the list as well.

    It still amazes me that people still believe the propaganda even with decades of hindsight and tons of info available that destroys the usual mythologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. jake says:
    @utu
    Good point about France in 2003 (freedom fries... like liberty cabbage during WWI).

    There are some theories (conspiracy) that claim that British agents of influence were behind the Prohibition in the US. Do you know anything about it?

    I have never read anything along those lines. Prohibition was a longtime Yankee (meaning old pure Anglo-Saxon Puritan/Pilgrim stick of New England) demand. It was especially favored by women and Protestant Pastors. And it did have English sources and ties right through its great victory over America.

    Did thew Brit Empire gain anything by it? Perhaps indirectly, because Canadian alcoholic beverage manufacturers and distributors made a fortune from American Prohibition, almost as much as the American gangsters and dirty politicians made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Prohibition also put an end to the numerous small breweries in the US, and also to the production of alcohol by farmers for use in their equipment.

    Also a market was thereby created for gasoline which was considered a waste product that formed as a condensate in oil pipes and was actually drained off into streams.

    Pure coincidence...?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Jonathan Revusky

    It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    You know, that's really just a bit too much. You really are such a liar.

    About two weeks ago, under a previous "American Pravda" article by Ron, I specifically asked you what the best proof available was for the U.S. government story on 9/11. You responded and your response was actually quite extraordinary.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531687

    You have 7 numbered points in response and not a single one of the seven constitutes even a shred of evidence. I took the time to write a reply that systematically demonstrates this, going through your 7 points one by one. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    What then?

    Well, you just walked away. As I knew you would. Of course. What else?

    And now you're here a couple of weeks later, after a total failure to produce a single shred of evidence for the government story, or a single real argument, saying that there is all kinds of evidence and so forth.

    WHERE IS IT? I have posed the question to you and your fellow shit eaters numerous time: What is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion for the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11? (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera)

    I have never received a real, good-faithed response. Not from you or any of your fellow shit eaters.

    Is there any proof? If so, either provide it finally, or admit there is none. Well, those are the two options of an honest person. But you, of course, are not an honest person.

    Why do good guys like you continue to respond to snarky clueless trolls especially when it becomes obvious that facts and logic are pearls tossed to porkers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Why do good guys like you continue to respond to snarky clueless trolls
     
    I like to think I'm doing this as a sort of public service, though, I dunno really. It's more probably just the challenge of seeing if one really can finally just corner these liars like this Wizard. I guess the guy is a high end professional liar, apparently some well connected lawyer in Australia.

    So, probably it's more just the pure challenge like doing the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.

    I think I've really got the rat cornered now. I don't see what sophistry he is now going to produce to wriggle out of this. But he might have some slimy bullshitter tactic left that has not occurred to me...

    My bet now is that he'll either just walk away or he'll launch some ad hominem tirade against me. (And then walk away...)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @anonymous
    Did Churchill have Mussolini killed, or was Mussolini killed by Jews in the Communist party in Italy?
    Or did OSS kill Mussolini?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?184297-1/book-discussion-mussolini-secrets-death

    Dunno. I’ve never studied Mussolini much.

    What does the vid say? I rarely watch vids and never those that are more than a few minutes long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Jonathan Revusky

    It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    You know, that's really just a bit too much. You really are such a liar.

    About two weeks ago, under a previous "American Pravda" article by Ron, I specifically asked you what the best proof available was for the U.S. government story on 9/11. You responded and your response was actually quite extraordinary.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531687

    You have 7 numbered points in response and not a single one of the seven constitutes even a shred of evidence. I took the time to write a reply that systematically demonstrates this, going through your 7 points one by one. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    What then?

    Well, you just walked away. As I knew you would. Of course. What else?

    And now you're here a couple of weeks later, after a total failure to produce a single shred of evidence for the government story, or a single real argument, saying that there is all kinds of evidence and so forth.

    WHERE IS IT? I have posed the question to you and your fellow shit eaters numerous time: What is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion for the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11? (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera)

    I have never received a real, good-faithed response. Not from you or any of your fellow shit eaters.

    Is there any proof? If so, either provide it finally, or admit there is none. Well, those are the two options of an honest person. But you, of course, are not an honest person.

    Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct. That someone posting as “Jonathan Revusky” posits an opposite situation is no reason for me to depart from my rational course – given that I have neither emotion or money invested in any outcome – which is to look at the suggested objections to the basic story of Al Qaeda inspired (and possibly Saudi financed) Muslim fanatics hijacking four planes etc.

    Starting from that point I have found well presented material which anyone else could find that deals with each of the supposedly major problems that are frequently cited. They include WTC 7, the supposed problem of symmetrical collapse of WTC 1 and 2 from weakening of the core structure, the lack of Flight 77 debris outside the Pentagon walls, the alleged impossibility of the cell phone calls from the fourth plane etc. The only (alleged) oddity that I haven’t found dealt with in convincing work online or in docos like the one which I admit introduced me to the explosive qualities of aluminium is the alleged traces of thermite. Then there is of course the big question of who an alternative version would make sense for given the risk of failure and worse.

    If you are openminded and really want to see why anyone might fail to agree that any of the truthers have made their case (whichever one of many you choose) you will find,as I have, that none of the objections which supposedly lead to the conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving highly placed members of the American government carry the day. On the other hand there is this ridiculous official version that the earth orbits round the sun when any honest person can see that the sun rises in the morning and, after orbiting round the earth sinks below the horizon every night.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
     
    TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "This bullshit has the official government seal on it! Mmm, yum, yum!"

    In any case, regarding "onus of proof", if you accuse somebody of committing a crime, the onus of proof is on the accuser to produce some evidence. You represent that you are a lawyer from Australia. As a lawyer, you know this, so you are obviously being consciously dishonest.

    So, anyway, what is your "proof" here? Oh, I see. The proof of the U.S. government story is that it is the U.S. government story.


    That someone posting as “Jonathan Revusky” posits an opposite situation is no reason for me to depart from my rational course
     
    What my name has to do with it is beyond me. What is so "rational" about believing something for which you are tacitly admitting that there is no proof?

    – given that I have neither emotion or money invested in any outcome –
     
    Well, maybe you personally have no stake in it. However, many thousands of people died in Afghanistan in the ensuing military operation, based on this story. In fact, according to wikipedia, 41 of your fellow Australians have died so far in Afghanistan. Of course, they probably had no money invested in the outcome, just their lives, their continued physical existence...

    which is to look at the suggested objections to the basic story of Al Qaeda inspired (and possibly Saudi financed) Muslim fanatics hijacking four planes etc.
     
    Well, okay, the fact that you obviously cannot produce a shred of evidence for the story, that does not give you any pause. Not just you, there was a "well funded official inquiry" and they never produced any proof of the story. They really never did. I've made a point of verifying this! Nothing they produce as evidence withstands the proverbial laugh test.

    So you have people with these resouces, millions of dollars to investigate the crime and they cannot produce any evidence. No problem for you, eh? Well, I guess that's what it is to be a shit eater. They toss any bullshit in your general direction and you eat it up. Yum, yum.


    Starting from that point I have found well presented material which anyone else could find that deals with each of the supposedly major problems that are frequently cited.
     
    Oh, proof is out there and "anybody could find it". Well, I never found any. Just shit. I assume that what you are referring to is some of the worthless shit that I have seen out there. But I have no way of knowing which particular shit it is. Like the Popular Mechanics bullshit maybe? Or the Chris Mohr bullshit? You know, the "Natural Collapse Hypothesis". Or some other bullshit that is out there. But, since you won't even say which specific bullshit you are referring to, it is very hard to go much further with this.

    A summary of the situation is that you have now fallen back yet again on the two most basic shit eater tactics. Question-begging: the proof of the government's story is that it is the government's story. And then, there's just the attempt to turn the tables. Since you have no proof to offer, you construct some specious argument that I am the one who is supposed to produce proof. No onus on you, because again, the government story is simply "presumed' to be truthful because it is the government's story.

    Well, basically, it's the same old thing. I request proof and you produce none. And everybody who was not born yesterday knows that you produce none because you have none. Right?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Avery says:
    @jake
    It is not unknown all over the Anglosphere. And that is one way to see that the Brit Empire did not really lose the American Revolution. It just won long term.

    UsofA is now the lead partner in the newly reconfigured Brit Empire. The imperial capital moved, but the Empire remains.

    Good observation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @jake
    Exactly.

    And who was a central figure in seeing the basic pattern and trying to expose it? None other than Joe Kennedy, who was denounced as being being a hater of all kinds great and good, because the English would never do anything like that, and because Kennedy noted the necessary role of Jews on both sides of the Atlantic to the plot to force America into the war.

    Thanks, Jake.

    I need to read more about Joe Kennedy. As you point out, the truth tellers almost invariably get ignored or smeared and damned, while the liars get the press and the praises. Joe McCarthy was more correct than wrong, and Lindbergh is still falsely smeared as an anti-Semite ( a really dippy charge if there ever was one), and a womanizer. The list is endless and I’ll likely add Joe Kennedy to the list as well.

    It still amazes me that people still believe the propaganda even with decades of hindsight and tons of info available that destroys the usual mythologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @jake
    I have never read anything along those lines. Prohibition was a longtime Yankee (meaning old pure Anglo-Saxon Puritan/Pilgrim stick of New England) demand. It was especially favored by women and Protestant Pastors. And it did have English sources and ties right through its great victory over America.

    Did thew Brit Empire gain anything by it? Perhaps indirectly, because Canadian alcoholic beverage manufacturers and distributors made a fortune from American Prohibition, almost as much as the American gangsters and dirty politicians made.

    Prohibition also put an end to the numerous small breweries in the US, and also to the production of alcohol by farmers for use in their equipment.

    Also a market was thereby created for gasoline which was considered a waste product that formed as a condensate in oil pipes and was actually drained off into streams.

    Pure coincidence…?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Che Guava says:
    @animalogic
    Incidentally, I could give a FUCK about homosexual marriage. In the realm of the monumentally TRIVIAL exists the question of "gay marriage" . Where I live it's a HUGE topic of debate. And what I say is: fuck off. Marry, don't marry, just SHUT UP.
    If you or anyone else can not see how useless this question is I suggest you take a look at the humanistic abortion this world is. (Given the technicolor spew that "middle class morality" is who should actually NOTICE gay's marrying ?
    Oh no ! It's the WORD
    " marry" ! Jesus is going to be SO cranky !

    Where I live, it is non-existent, which I think a good idea.

    When I was overseas, it was a parody (although not legally recognised even now), which I suspect it still is, by and large, particularly among homosexual men.

    Dykes often hate sex altogether, even of the same-sex variety. Contact with bodily fluids is just too icky.

    I could go on. Haven’t seen a post from Anonymny lately, shame, he would be better on this than I.

    Don’t be so angry. I usually like your posts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Pat Casey says:

    Yeah that nicely fleshes out the subtext I’ve picked up from reading biographies of Joe Kennedy. As ambassador to England at the time, he was painfully beside himself over the slow motion train wreck of american intervention he could feel he was failing to prevent day by day. When you think that Churchill was quite open about what he wanted Roosevelt to do, details about British spies and naive Americans becomes a logical conclusion to some extent I suppose. Something like that also happens when you take account of Churchill’s Jewish patrons: funny thing that crackpot Churchill turned out to be so right about Hitler…

    About the supremacy of British Intelligence—you do hear these things. I went to Stan Evans memorial service at the Heritage Foundation last year and there was not a little bit of cold war nostalgia, naturally, given Evans sympathetic book on McCarthy and his followup book on the subject of communist spies in general. But it all got me to thinking how unlikely it would have been for our counterintelligence to underestimate the soviet spy network so precisely. After all, say you know Joe Blow’s is a communist spy: as long as he thinks you’re not wise, he is an asset to you as an object of manipulation, right? That seems doubly likely if our counter-intelligence was being bolstered by British intelligence.

    The really interesting question becomes, was the cold war actually between the soviet union and the british empire, with the US as a british proxy, or rather pawn? Ah yes. The mind reels back to the man who made us see an iron curtain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    What are you saying? That the Jews are not smart enough to control the US directly; they have to control Britain and have Britain control the US?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Che Guava says:
    @jake
    Conflate? That is not the purpose. What VDARE has always done is preach a strong dose of England this and Anglo-Saxon that, and oh for the glories of Victorian Empire and the halcyon days of of Know-Nothings hoping to torch Irish Catholics out of the land.

    Those things undergird VDARE; they remain present when the site posts various articles and links to things that are not that.

    Actual Brit empire spies succeed because of the type attitudes common to those who run VDARE (which group is not restricted to Brimelow and Derbyshire).

    If you say so. I received a sensible reply the one time I had something to say by e-mail to a writer on the site.

    It is hard to detect an Oliver Cromwell style hatred of Ireland and Catholicism there.

    Personally, I think it a shame that Benedict had to retire, Francis seems to be a destructive idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jake
    It is not unknown all over the Anglosphere. And that is one way to see that the Brit Empire did not really lose the American Revolution. It just won long term.

    UsofA is now the lead partner in the newly reconfigured Brit Empire. The imperial capital moved, but the Empire remains.

    So WWII was a war between USA (FDR) and the British Empire (Churchill) fought by proxies (Hitler vs Stalin), with zionists along for the ride and to scoop up the spoils? But Stalin outfoxed them, for a while, until Gorbachev caved in to George H W Bush, who imagined himself as cunning as FDR and Sykes-Picot-Balfour all rolled into one?

    Except that by the time Bush 41 came along to reaffirm the Anglo-American empire’s implantation in the Middle East-Saudi Arabia-Persia, the Balfour project had taken root in a masterfully strategic beachhead in the Levant and acquired nuclear weapons and a bad-ass attitude coupled with all the I’m-a-pathetic-victim defense mechanisms of a balled up porcupine. Zionists were no longer riding tailcoats, they were dragging the FDR and Churchill wannabes around by their lapels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Roy_cam says:

    While there is some connection between Ashkenazi Jews and the original inhabitants of Judea, your own statements regarding the movement of men from Judea to Northern Italy to marry Italian women means Shlomo Sand is at least half-right. I mean how Jewish is someone who’s half Jewish genetically? And without a Jewish mother?

    Of course it would depend on whether you think being Jewish is primarily cultural and religious or primarily tribal and genetic in nature.

    Would the descendants of Judea of the Roman Empire not be found also among Palestinians Muslims nowadays?

    Even as a child with just a few years of Bible study under my belt I was surprised that all of the kids I knew who were Jewish didn’t resemble the Mediterranean types that I knew in the Italian American community. Of course, Italian Americans are primarily drawn from Southern Italy and Sicily whereas the Northerners with famous names such as Fonda appear to be totally European.

    Then someone explained to me that there were these Sephardic Jews who look like the Arabs. I said to myself that that doesn’t make any sense because the people of Judea have to be the people of Judea. So I asked myself: how did it come to be that the descendants of the Mediterranean group didn’t look Mediterranean?

    Many decades of happenstance historical facts coming my way later, it seemed I had an answer to the questions that I had as an 8 year old.

    And the answer would be that the notion of Jewish identity is not entirely an invention, it is partially an invention, as is the case with nearly all ethnic groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Even as a child with just a few years of Bible study under my belt I was surprised that all of the kids I knew who were Jewish didn’t resemble the Mediterranean types that I knew in the Italian American community.
     
    That's probably because most of them were Azhkenazic Jews, whose ancestors originated in Germany. The very word azhkenazim is Hebrew means 'Germans'. What probably happened is that a relatively small number of Mediterranean Jews were settled in the Rhine Valley by the Romans. As Christianity was not yet the state religion, they converted some of the natives to Judaism and intermarried with them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. iffen says:
    @Pat Casey
    Yeah that nicely fleshes out the subtext I've picked up from reading biographies of Joe Kennedy. As ambassador to England at the time, he was painfully beside himself over the slow motion train wreck of american intervention he could feel he was failing to prevent day by day. When you think that Churchill was quite open about what he wanted Roosevelt to do, details about British spies and naive Americans becomes a logical conclusion to some extent I suppose. Something like that also happens when you take account of Churchill's Jewish patrons: funny thing that crackpot Churchill turned out to be so right about Hitler...

    About the supremacy of British Intelligence---you do hear these things. I went to Stan Evans memorial service at the Heritage Foundation last year and there was not a little bit of cold war nostalgia, naturally, given Evans sympathetic book on McCarthy and his followup book on the subject of communist spies in general. But it all got me to thinking how unlikely it would have been for our counterintelligence to underestimate the soviet spy network so precisely. After all, say you know Joe Blow's is a communist spy: as long as he thinks you're not wise, he is an asset to you as an object of manipulation, right? That seems doubly likely if our counter-intelligence was being bolstered by British intelligence.

    The really interesting question becomes, was the cold war actually between the soviet union and the british empire, with the US as a british proxy, or rather pawn? Ah yes. The mind reels back to the man who made us see an iron curtain.

    What are you saying? That the Jews are not smart enough to control the US directly; they have to control Britain and have Britain control the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    You're being paranoid my friend. I'm not clever enough to see that kind of conspiracy on my own. I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter. I was only thinking as far as the fact that they were not neutral on the matter; I was implying that Churchill's Jewish patrons chose their man wisely----crackpot is really the kind term for Churchill; any objective discussion of WW2 must begin with acknowledging that when it came to any given detail, with Churchill you were dealing with a man who was apt to be insanely reckless. In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild's. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I'm really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.
    , @Anonymous
    That sync s nicely with Yossi Alpher's description of Israel's Grand Strategy, defined by David Ben Gurion:

    The ancient Hebrews had learned to develop, in the words of former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy, “a regional great power strategy.” 3 During the days of the prophets, they turned toward either Babylon or Egypt. In more modern times, World War I, a small vanguard of strategic innovators, the Nili underground, led the transition from an Ottoman to a British orientation. 4“ This is embedded in the DNA of the Jewish people: it must always rely on certain regional and international actors.”5
     
    Leonard Stein fleshes out the part Chaim Weizmann played in cementing the relationship of Jews to the British: Stein functioned as Weizmann's assistant in his move from his native Belorussia to England, where, having made the bet that a British win in The Great War would produce benefits to the Jewish people and their zionist project. Stein chronicles how Weizmann went about, in Joseph's coat, ingratiating himself among key British policy makers. Meanwhile, Baron Rothschild courted Alfred Balfour; eventually but not by any means coincidentally, Weizmann's and Rothschild's paths crossed; Weizmann acquired from Balfour the grant of a "homeland for Jews in Palestine," addressed to Rothschild.

    Meanwhile, however, other Jews who had formed other alliances based on similar Hebrew mythologies had courted German officials, and had acquired German support and significant material support to develop a Jewish settlement in Palestine. The Warburgs were major supporters of this project. Arthur Ruppin, a German-born and German-educated lawyer, was tapped by zionists in Vienna to survey progress as of 1907 and report back to them; and then to return to Palestine, acquire land through various subterfuges, and begin to build kibbutzes, residences, towns, institutions and commercial means of sustaining the Jewish settlement. etc. . . .

    In other words, Jews competed with Jews to colonize Palestine; and Jews set up a competition between the British and Germans as to whose pharaoh would be served by the latter-day Joseph, a British pharaoh or a German pharaoh.

    The German pharaoh met the fate of his Egyptian predecessor, in an orgy of real-world violence and destruction compared to which the mythological destruction of the Egyptians was a skirmish. Never in all of history has a people been so thoroughly destroyed, physically, economically, culturally, psychologically and spiritually as have been the German people, by Jews, working through the "international . . . great power . . . actors . . .upon whom they had come to rely."

    In an act of foresight that not even Joseph foretold, while Weizmann consolidated British support for Jews, German Jews shifted their energies to the United States, where Louis Brandeis had installed himself as Joseph to Woodrow Wilson's pharaoh. Much like Joseph, Brandeis brought in other members of the tribe: Frankfurter, Brandeis's protege; Bernard Baruch and the Morgenthaus were never far from Franklin Roosevelt's elbow.

    James Chace argues in 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs--The Election that Changed the Country that both Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt shifted American governance to a far more authoritarian style, centralizing power and also centralizing control of American finance. Franklin Roosevelt was the beneficiary of those modernizing movements that "made the USA what it is today," claims Chace.

    I agree.

    But the USA that Wilson and the Roosevelts made is not the USA that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington envisioned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Pat Casey says:
    @iffen
    What are you saying? That the Jews are not smart enough to control the US directly; they have to control Britain and have Britain control the US?

    You’re being paranoid my friend. I’m not clever enough to see that kind of conspiracy on my own. I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter. I was only thinking as far as the fact that they were not neutral on the matter; I was implying that Churchill’s Jewish patrons chose their man wisely—-crackpot is really the kind term for Churchill; any objective discussion of WW2 must begin with acknowledging that when it came to any given detail, with Churchill you were dealing with a man who was apt to be insanely reckless. In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild’s. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I’m really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild’s. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement,
     
    I'd give my last pair of jackboots to wade into those weeds.

    Lead on ---
    , @Pat Casey
    I could have better just said Churchill was apt to be insane, instead of "insanely reckless." Anyways I don't want to sound like one of those who imply they know more than what they just read off a blog, so I figured I'd better justify my reasoning. Usually it's necessary to put this issue in perspective, I think.

    National Socialism proved that the brute strength of a nation does not depend on its economy, understood as the thing GDP measures. On paper, the German economy never recovered from the great depression. That's a point libertarian economists will make, to show that National Socialism was fundamentally a form of slavery---people were not being paid to be Nazis is one way of putting it; indeed, Hitler Youth is hardly an expensive thing to organize, when they make them do their own sowing. Basically, proving that, the fact that a nation could amass might in the face of financial disarray and sundry poverties, that rattled the shit out of the Rothschild's, and it must have been plain as day that proving that, plus alienating Jews, meant to them that the defeat of Hitler could only be absolute, that he simply could not be lived with.

    Another way to grasp the better perspective, I think, is really to consider why Hitler never made an effort to wipe the Rothschilds out by murdering them. I don't think it's a flimsy stretch to say to that, well because he thought of them as principles, and attempted to murder them no more nor nor less than he attempted to murder Churchill or Roosevelt. Had Hitler had the Rothschild's killed, there would have still been a war, but with no one to fight; do you see how that works? I think it's telling that Hitler explained to the British that the the problem with India is that Gandhi was not being assassinated; if a man's first principle is to not make war he is not a man you need to respect as a statesman.

    So Hitler killed all those Jews but let the Rothschild's get away? You don't have to know much about a Jewish banking conspiracy to think that seems rather surprising as a simple point. "If they don't cut this out I'm going to punish them"---I forgot the source of that quote but I know he said it, and I think it says a lot that he didn't say "If they don't cut this out I'm going to kill them."

    Now, you will hear that at the end of the day the Rothschilds had invisible financial strings that ever gave them leverage over the Nazis, and that proves Hitler was a puppet of the Rothschild's like any other puppet they basically propped up. You will hear that, but you best not let it lead you down that false logic, for however true it is, and I can't say its not, but however true it is, it would not be more true than the effect it must have had on Hitler's psychology, that it made him hate them all the more, made him want war all the more.

    Anyways I thought I should throw that stuff out there cause I agree its annoying when particular knowledge is only alluded to.

    , @iffen
    I’m not being paranoid, people are destroying my country and many are profiting handsomely for their efforts.

    I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter.

    How many of these chicken or egg scenarios do we get.

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.

    Unnecessary war.

    That’s a term one doesn’t see every day. Care to give us some balance by pointing out some necessary wars?

    I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I’m really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    I am not very smart at all, but I do have a general idea of how WWII played out, so all this effort to go back to early 1939 and play what if is not very informative, except to show up those who wish events had turned out differently by 1945.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    What are you saying? That the Jews are not smart enough to control the US directly; they have to control Britain and have Britain control the US?

    That sync s nicely with Yossi Alpher’s description of Israel’s Grand Strategy, defined by David Ben Gurion:

    The ancient Hebrews had learned to develop, in the words of former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy, “a regional great power strategy.” 3 During the days of the prophets, they turned toward either Babylon or Egypt. In more modern times, World War I, a small vanguard of strategic innovators, the Nili underground, led the transition from an Ottoman to a British orientation. 4“ This is embedded in the DNA of the Jewish people: it must always rely on certain regional and international actors.”5

    Leonard Stein fleshes out the part Chaim Weizmann played in cementing the relationship of Jews to the British: Stein functioned as Weizmann’s assistant in his move from his native Belorussia to England, where, having made the bet that a British win in The Great War would produce benefits to the Jewish people and their zionist project. Stein chronicles how Weizmann went about, in Joseph’s coat, ingratiating himself among key British policy makers. Meanwhile, Baron Rothschild courted Alfred Balfour; eventually but not by any means coincidentally, Weizmann’s and Rothschild’s paths crossed; Weizmann acquired from Balfour the grant of a “homeland for Jews in Palestine,” addressed to Rothschild.

    Meanwhile, however, other Jews who had formed other alliances based on similar Hebrew mythologies had courted German officials, and had acquired German support and significant material support to develop a Jewish settlement in Palestine. The Warburgs were major supporters of this project. Arthur Ruppin, a German-born and German-educated lawyer, was tapped by zionists in Vienna to survey progress as of 1907 and report back to them; and then to return to Palestine, acquire land through various subterfuges, and begin to build kibbutzes, residences, towns, institutions and commercial means of sustaining the Jewish settlement. etc. . . .

    In other words, Jews competed with Jews to colonize Palestine; and Jews set up a competition between the British and Germans as to whose pharaoh would be served by the latter-day Joseph, a British pharaoh or a German pharaoh.

    The German pharaoh met the fate of his Egyptian predecessor, in an orgy of real-world violence and destruction compared to which the mythological destruction of the Egyptians was a skirmish. Never in all of history has a people been so thoroughly destroyed, physically, economically, culturally, psychologically and spiritually as have been the German people, by Jews, working through the “international . . . great power . . . actors . . .upon whom they had come to rely.”

    In an act of foresight that not even Joseph foretold, while Weizmann consolidated British support for Jews, German Jews shifted their energies to the United States, where Louis Brandeis had installed himself as Joseph to Woodrow Wilson’s pharaoh. Much like Joseph, Brandeis brought in other members of the tribe: Frankfurter, Brandeis’s protege; Bernard Baruch and the Morgenthaus were never far from Franklin Roosevelt’s elbow.

    James Chace argues in 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs–The Election that Changed the Country that both Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt shifted American governance to a far more authoritarian style, centralizing power and also centralizing control of American finance. Franklin Roosevelt was the beneficiary of those modernizing movements that “made the USA what it is today,” claims Chace.

    I agree.

    But the USA that Wilson and the Roosevelts made is not the USA that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington envisioned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Pat Casey
    You're being paranoid my friend. I'm not clever enough to see that kind of conspiracy on my own. I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter. I was only thinking as far as the fact that they were not neutral on the matter; I was implying that Churchill's Jewish patrons chose their man wisely----crackpot is really the kind term for Churchill; any objective discussion of WW2 must begin with acknowledging that when it came to any given detail, with Churchill you were dealing with a man who was apt to be insanely reckless. In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild's. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I'm really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild’s. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement,

    I’d give my last pair of jackboots to wade into those weeds.

    Lead on —

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    I replied to myself and made the general points. I can dig up a book and get into the specifics of how the Rothschild's were deliberately choking off the german economy years before 1939. But I'd have to dig it up to say more than, it was really plain and simple: the capital the Rothschild's possessed because German citizens banked at their banks fled the country, they failed there own German banks, and that capital was literally then used to finance the rearmament of Germany's enemies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Pat Casey says:
    @Pat Casey
    You're being paranoid my friend. I'm not clever enough to see that kind of conspiracy on my own. I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter. I was only thinking as far as the fact that they were not neutral on the matter; I was implying that Churchill's Jewish patrons chose their man wisely----crackpot is really the kind term for Churchill; any objective discussion of WW2 must begin with acknowledging that when it came to any given detail, with Churchill you were dealing with a man who was apt to be insanely reckless. In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild's. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I'm really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    I could have better just said Churchill was apt to be insane, instead of “insanely reckless.” Anyways I don’t want to sound like one of those who imply they know more than what they just read off a blog, so I figured I’d better justify my reasoning. Usually it’s necessary to put this issue in perspective, I think.

    National Socialism proved that the brute strength of a nation does not depend on its economy, understood as the thing GDP measures. On paper, the German economy never recovered from the great depression. That’s a point libertarian economists will make, to show that National Socialism was fundamentally a form of slavery—people were not being paid to be Nazis is one way of putting it; indeed, Hitler Youth is hardly an expensive thing to organize, when they make them do their own sowing. Basically, proving that, the fact that a nation could amass might in the face of financial disarray and sundry poverties, that rattled the shit out of the Rothschild’s, and it must have been plain as day that proving that, plus alienating Jews, meant to them that the defeat of Hitler could only be absolute, that he simply could not be lived with.

    Another way to grasp the better perspective, I think, is really to consider why Hitler never made an effort to wipe the Rothschilds out by murdering them. I don’t think it’s a flimsy stretch to say to that, well because he thought of them as principles, and attempted to murder them no more nor nor less than he attempted to murder Churchill or Roosevelt. Had Hitler had the Rothschild’s killed, there would have still been a war, but with no one to fight; do you see how that works? I think it’s telling that Hitler explained to the British that the the problem with India is that Gandhi was not being assassinated; if a man’s first principle is to not make war he is not a man you need to respect as a statesman.

    So Hitler killed all those Jews but let the Rothschild’s get away? You don’t have to know much about a Jewish banking conspiracy to think that seems rather surprising as a simple point. “If they don’t cut this out I’m going to punish them”—I forgot the source of that quote but I know he said it, and I think it says a lot that he didn’t say “If they don’t cut this out I’m going to kill them.”

    Now, you will hear that at the end of the day the Rothschilds had invisible financial strings that ever gave them leverage over the Nazis, and that proves Hitler was a puppet of the Rothschild’s like any other puppet they basically propped up. You will hear that, but you best not let it lead you down that false logic, for however true it is, and I can’t say its not, but however true it is, it would not be more true than the effect it must have had on Hitler’s psychology, that it made him hate them all the more, made him want war all the more.

    Anyways I thought I should throw that stuff out there cause I agree its annoying when particular knowledge is only alluded to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    don't give up your day job
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Pat Casey says:
    @Anonymous

    In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild’s. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement,
     
    I'd give my last pair of jackboots to wade into those weeds.

    Lead on ---

    I replied to myself and made the general points. I can dig up a book and get into the specifics of how the Rothschild’s were deliberately choking off the german economy years before 1939. But I’d have to dig it up to say more than, it was really plain and simple: the capital the Rothschild’s possessed because German citizens banked at their banks fled the country, they failed there own German banks, and that capital was literally then used to finance the rearmament of Germany’s enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    And I guess I should say there's nothing special about this knowledge, if you'll stipulate it is knowledge. We all know there's a lot of history you don't hear about byway of mainstream institutions. I can say my education on the matter started with the book Ezra Pound: The Last Rower. There you will find for the first time what Pound actually said over Rome Radio that got him charged with treason. Quickly, two things about Ezra Pound make him a valuable source on just this issue: he diligently read newspapers with an eye for the outline of conspiracies that only reveal themselves by discrete news events over a period of years, yes basically he was paranoid, except he was an usually social paranoic, and kept in touch with men in the know around the world all his adult life; and two, he was obsessively studious about the workings of international finance, and that because he believed that Douglasite economics had correctly diagnosed a hitch in the accounting system that literally made occasional world war necessary to correct. I'm no expert on Douglasite economics but the way I understand it is to think of the austrian theory of the business cycle, plus the idea that what the bottom falls out of when the bubble burst would be better for recovery if it was literally destroyed, as a lot stuff money bought gets destroyed in war; that means, I think, we should have exploded the empty houses the housing bubble produced, that is to say if forgiving the debtors debt is so unthinkable. Ezra Pound was a crank, to be sure, but he was the kind of crank who reveled in playing the role of a crank, and there's a whole lot of interesting history to learn by studying him and his big poem. The fact that a congressional committee still controls every word of his that gets into print should be enough to entice the curious to pursue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. iffen says:
    @Pat Casey
    You're being paranoid my friend. I'm not clever enough to see that kind of conspiracy on my own. I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter. I was only thinking as far as the fact that they were not neutral on the matter; I was implying that Churchill's Jewish patrons chose their man wisely----crackpot is really the kind term for Churchill; any objective discussion of WW2 must begin with acknowledging that when it came to any given detail, with Churchill you were dealing with a man who was apt to be insanely reckless. In the beginning, WW2 was an unnecessary war except from the standpoint of two parties: The Nazis and the Rothschild's. Period. I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I'm really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    I’m not being paranoid, people are destroying my country and many are profiting handsomely for their efforts.

    I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter.

    How many of these chicken or egg scenarios do we get.

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.

    Unnecessary war.

    That’s a term one doesn’t see every day. Care to give us some balance by pointing out some necessary wars?

    I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I’m really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    I am not very smart at all, but I do have a general idea of how WWII played out, so all this effort to go back to early 1939 and play what if is not very informative, except to show up those who wish events had turned out differently by 1945.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.
     
    That's not my position. My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite. I do not think the war would have occurred if there were no Jews, if its even intelligent to speculate about such a world. To be precise we're talking about Jewish international bankers, whose failure to identify themselves with any single national interest is the real chicken and egg scenario (do you get excluded by being exclusive, or do you get exclusive for being excluded?)

    Actually I would say most civil wars are necessary wars, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. If you believe all white people are one race, which I do not, then you can go ahead and view the world wars as civil wars that were inevitable from a certain perspective.

    I'm sure if you've found this corner of the web realm you're what's better than smart, because of course wits are useless if you have no taste. And yes I agree what ifs are only as informative as they are.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Pat Casey says:
    @Pat Casey
    I replied to myself and made the general points. I can dig up a book and get into the specifics of how the Rothschild's were deliberately choking off the german economy years before 1939. But I'd have to dig it up to say more than, it was really plain and simple: the capital the Rothschild's possessed because German citizens banked at their banks fled the country, they failed there own German banks, and that capital was literally then used to finance the rearmament of Germany's enemies.

    And I guess I should say there’s nothing special about this knowledge, if you’ll stipulate it is knowledge. We all know there’s a lot of history you don’t hear about byway of mainstream institutions. I can say my education on the matter started with the book Ezra Pound: The Last Rower. There you will find for the first time what Pound actually said over Rome Radio that got him charged with treason. Quickly, two things about Ezra Pound make him a valuable source on just this issue: he diligently read newspapers with an eye for the outline of conspiracies that only reveal themselves by discrete news events over a period of years, yes basically he was paranoid, except he was an usually social paranoic, and kept in touch with men in the know around the world all his adult life; and two, he was obsessively studious about the workings of international finance, and that because he believed that Douglasite economics had correctly diagnosed a hitch in the accounting system that literally made occasional world war necessary to correct. I’m no expert on Douglasite economics but the way I understand it is to think of the austrian theory of the business cycle, plus the idea that what the bottom falls out of when the bubble burst would be better for recovery if it was literally destroyed, as a lot stuff money bought gets destroyed in war; that means, I think, we should have exploded the empty houses the housing bubble produced, that is to say if forgiving the debtors debt is so unthinkable. Ezra Pound was a crank, to be sure, but he was the kind of crank who reveled in playing the role of a crank, and there’s a whole lot of interesting history to learn by studying him and his big poem. The fact that a congressional committee still controls every word of his that gets into print should be enough to entice the curious to pursue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    thanks

    especially for mention of Ezra Pound, and of banksters as the core of the conflict.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    6By chance I have just found occasion to read up a lot more on Ezra Pound and family connections (over nearly 200 years) than I have ever known before so your remark about his works ("his every word that gets into print") being controlled by a "congressional committee" intrigued me. It sounds extremely unlikely. It is true that Copyright in his work thanks to the Congress people that have been bought by Disney will not expire in America to 2062 and that led me to Google for Ezra Pound Copyright in case that provided an answer. It doesn't so would you please explain what you are talking about. However, as a bonus, you have led to my recommendation to all interested in Pound or Copyright to make the same search and see what he recommended in 1918.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. utu says:

    “The fact that a congressional committee still controls every word of his that gets into print should be enough to entice the curious to pursue.” – What do you mean?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Pat Casey
    And I guess I should say there's nothing special about this knowledge, if you'll stipulate it is knowledge. We all know there's a lot of history you don't hear about byway of mainstream institutions. I can say my education on the matter started with the book Ezra Pound: The Last Rower. There you will find for the first time what Pound actually said over Rome Radio that got him charged with treason. Quickly, two things about Ezra Pound make him a valuable source on just this issue: he diligently read newspapers with an eye for the outline of conspiracies that only reveal themselves by discrete news events over a period of years, yes basically he was paranoid, except he was an usually social paranoic, and kept in touch with men in the know around the world all his adult life; and two, he was obsessively studious about the workings of international finance, and that because he believed that Douglasite economics had correctly diagnosed a hitch in the accounting system that literally made occasional world war necessary to correct. I'm no expert on Douglasite economics but the way I understand it is to think of the austrian theory of the business cycle, plus the idea that what the bottom falls out of when the bubble burst would be better for recovery if it was literally destroyed, as a lot stuff money bought gets destroyed in war; that means, I think, we should have exploded the empty houses the housing bubble produced, that is to say if forgiving the debtors debt is so unthinkable. Ezra Pound was a crank, to be sure, but he was the kind of crank who reveled in playing the role of a crank, and there's a whole lot of interesting history to learn by studying him and his big poem. The fact that a congressional committee still controls every word of his that gets into print should be enough to entice the curious to pursue.

    thanks

    especially for mention of Ezra Pound, and of banksters as the core of the conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Pat Casey says:
    @iffen
    I’m not being paranoid, people are destroying my country and many are profiting handsomely for their efforts.

    I think Churchill would have been up to take down Hitler if his patrons were perfectly neutral on the matter.

    How many of these chicken or egg scenarios do we get.

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.

    Unnecessary war.

    That’s a term one doesn’t see every day. Care to give us some balance by pointing out some necessary wars?

    I can get into the weeds on that if you feel like challenging the statement, but like I said, I’m really only smart enough to see plans when they are plain as opposed to doubly subtle.

    I am not very smart at all, but I do have a general idea of how WWII played out, so all this effort to go back to early 1939 and play what if is not very informative, except to show up those who wish events had turned out differently by 1945.

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.

    That’s not my position. My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite. I do not think the war would have occurred if there were no Jews, if its even intelligent to speculate about such a world. To be precise we’re talking about Jewish international bankers, whose failure to identify themselves with any single national interest is the real chicken and egg scenario (do you get excluded by being exclusive, or do you get exclusive for being excluded?)

    Actually I would say most civil wars are necessary wars, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. If you believe all white people are one race, which I do not, then you can go ahead and view the world wars as civil wars that were inevitable from a certain perspective.

    I’m sure if you’ve found this corner of the web realm you’re what’s better than smart, because of course wits are useless if you have no taste. And yes I agree what ifs are only as informative as they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-Semite.

    I haven't read a lot about Churchill, nor much by him, but between what has been written about him and what he wrote, we should be able to determine how much of his consideration of Hitler had anything to do with the Jews. I am willing to bet on very little.

    useless if you have no taste

    Taste, that's an acquired attribute. Political delusions are acquired attributes as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite.

    now you lost me.

    Churchill wrote of his admiration of Hitler.

    And you’re drinking kosher koolaid if you think the whole situation was about Hitler’s antisemitism — what, Hitler invaded Poland because of Jews? No Danzig problem, no Poles terrorizing ethnic Germans in Poland — none of that figured in Hitler’s calculus?

    Just came across this interesting sentence:

    During the early 1920’s, the most certain way to please a German crowd was not to attack the Jews or the Bolsheviks directly, but to attack the Treaty of Versailles, and this Hitler did repeatedly. 

    that crafty, cunning Hitler: didn’t attack Jews in speeches but attacked the Versailles Treaty.

    Why he did that?

    a. Because he was like Bush and needed a convincing lie to drag the German people into a war
    b. Because he really really hated the Versailles Treaty and so did most German people — Herbert Hoover talked to AH; that’s what Hoover concluded after their chat.
    c. Because Adolf hated Jews so much that he went into apoplectic fits whenever he said the word, Jew (even tho he didn’t speak English)

    There’s an entire book about on Hitler/Nazi “hatred of Jews,” it focuses on H’s statement that “IF Jewish and international bankers do not stop their financial attacks on Germany, it is they and not Germany that will be annihilated.”

    The book’s author — and most people — fail to identify the contingency clause in that statement.

    AND the book’s author says that that statement proves, beyond doubt, that “Hitler hated Jews and intended to kill them all.”

    What the book’s author fails to mention is that “Jews and international financiers ” were, in fact and indeed, trying to destroy Germany financially/economically!

    When a author goes on and on for 400 – 500 pages about how H. hates Jews and wants to kill every one of them, and he said so right here — but that author fails to mention that Jews and international bankers WERE trying to wreck Germany, then that author has lost all credibility.

    IF “antisemitism” = — the classic def. — “hatred of Jews JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE JEWS,”
    and IF, as the books author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn’t stop mucking with Germany’s economy,
    THEN right there, you have a cause, a reason why H. did not hold Jews in warm & fuzzy regard: it was NOT “just because they’re Jews” but because they were doing bad stuff to his country and he was trying to get the point across that if they didn’t stop, bad things might happen.

    Have you ever said something like that to your kids? “If you don’t stop singing that song that I’m going to cut your tongue out!”
    Did you mean, “I hate you just because you’re you and so I am going to cut your tongue out”?
    Did you really intend to cut their tongue out if they didn’t stop singing that song?
    If your kids wrote a book about you and read it at your 80th birthday, do you think they’d focus the book on the time you said “I am going to cut your tongue out,” and not mention that they kept singing the world’s most obnoxious song?
    That’s what Jewish authors who call themselves historians do, all the time.

    Don’t buy into it.

    by the way, congratulations on your 85th birthday, and still having kids w/ tongues intact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn’t stop mucking with Germany’s economy" - could you give some of the quotes. I do not think you can attribute a single quote to H. that would be about annihilation of Jews or anybody.
    , @Pat Casey
    Good sir I fear you are disgracing yourself, and I shant let you commit unchecked an unspeakable act, with a straw man you carefully or maybe carelessly made and are maybe about ready to rape she said, out an addiction to intellectual onanism that makes you use the return key just all too odly.

    I thought it was interesting to parse the one true definition of anti-semitism when I was like a sophomore, but definitely not a junior. (Are Jews just Jews or are Jews just bad Jews?) But then I can't tell if you are sarcastically taking that question with such serious analytic care. I learned that I can trust Ezra Pound when he used the crackpot style but you're not him.


    There’s an entire book about on Hitler/Nazi “hatred of Jews,” it focuses on H’s statement that “IF Jewish and international bankers do not stop their financial attacks on Germany, it is they and not Germany that will be annihilated.”
     
    Do you think I would ever be stupid enough to read a book by a Jew about Hitler? Only if it was my job Good Lord. That's even more stupid than reading a book by a Jew about Ezra Pound. (That, by the way, was necessary because they only allowed the Jewish writer access to the true historical record.) But you in your tizzy miss the key point I assume was not in that book at all, which is what a "financial attack" fucking looks like. I found that out on my own, I think its fair for me to say. But do you know how many educated people do not know that?

    "If they don't cut this out I'm going to punish them." Yeah I like my translation better. Point granted it's too convenient to my argument about the Rothschilds but so what? Are you going to say the Ghost of Versailles was shaping events more than fleshy Rothswine? And frankly it's just really neurotic to make a big fuss about something like that, especially when you might just marvel at an oral tradition alive and well as a convenience to the mind of man; yeah super neurotic of you----cause who the hell but a Nazi would fuss about the way I said it.

    Clearly I think I stumbled upon the one subject you know like scholarly and really care about, and I think you're not very good at containing your enthusiasm to nit pick. I think you're the type of person I might become if I make to 85. But certainly sooner than that I fear if I keep wasting my time with possibly presently clinical folks like you.

    It just occurs to me that you used to be able to read on Wikipedia that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that Zionism was a great idea and that it was his introduction to the movement that made him realize a person could not be both a German and a Jew.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. utu says:
    @anonymous

    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite.
     
    now you lost me.

    Churchill wrote of his admiration of Hitler.

    And you're drinking kosher koolaid if you think the whole situation was about Hitler's antisemitism -- what, Hitler invaded Poland because of Jews? No Danzig problem, no Poles terrorizing ethnic Germans in Poland -- none of that figured in Hitler's calculus?

    Just came across this interesting sentence:

    During the early 1920’s, the most certain way to please a German crowd was not to attack the Jews or the Bolsheviks directly, but to attack the Treaty of Versailles, and this Hitler did repeatedly. 

    that crafty, cunning Hitler: didn't attack Jews in speeches but attacked the Versailles Treaty.

    Why he did that?

    a. Because he was like Bush and needed a convincing lie to drag the German people into a war
    b. Because he really really hated the Versailles Treaty and so did most German people -- Herbert Hoover talked to AH; that's what Hoover concluded after their chat.
    c. Because Adolf hated Jews so much that he went into apoplectic fits whenever he said the word, Jew (even tho he didn't speak English)

    There's an entire book about on Hitler/Nazi "hatred of Jews," it focuses on H's statement that "IF Jewish and international bankers do not stop their financial attacks on Germany, it is they and not Germany that will be annihilated."

    The book's author -- and most people -- fail to identify the contingency clause in that statement.

    AND the book's author says that that statement proves, beyond doubt, that "Hitler hated Jews and intended to kill them all."

    What the book's author fails to mention is that "Jews and international financiers " were, in fact and indeed, trying to destroy Germany financially/economically!

    When a author goes on and on for 400 - 500 pages about how H. hates Jews and wants to kill every one of them, and he said so right here -- but that author fails to mention that Jews and international bankers WERE trying to wreck Germany, then that author has lost all credibility.

    IF "antisemitism" = -- the classic def. -- "hatred of Jews JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE JEWS,"
    and IF, as the books author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn't stop mucking with Germany's economy,
    THEN right there, you have a cause, a reason why H. did not hold Jews in warm & fuzzy regard: it was NOT "just because they're Jews" but because they were doing bad stuff to his country and he was trying to get the point across that if they didn't stop, bad things might happen.

    Have you ever said something like that to your kids? "If you don't stop singing that song that I'm going to cut your tongue out!"
    Did you mean, "I hate you just because you're you and so I am going to cut your tongue out"?
    Did you really intend to cut their tongue out if they didn't stop singing that song?
    If your kids wrote a book about you and read it at your 80th birthday, do you think they'd focus the book on the time you said "I am going to cut your tongue out," and not mention that they kept singing the world's most obnoxious song?
    That's what Jewish authors who call themselves historians do, all the time.

    Don't buy into it.

    by the way, congratulations on your 85th birthday, and still having kids w/ tongues intact.

    “author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn’t stop mucking with Germany’s economy” – could you give some of the quotes. I do not think you can attribute a single quote to H. that would be about annihilation of Jews or anybody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    The only one I can recall is this one: " Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Roy_cam
    While there is some connection between Ashkenazi Jews and the original inhabitants of Judea, your own statements regarding the movement of men from Judea to Northern Italy to marry Italian women means Shlomo Sand is at least half-right. I mean how Jewish is someone who's half Jewish genetically? And without a Jewish mother?

    Of course it would depend on whether you think being Jewish is primarily cultural and religious or primarily tribal and genetic in nature.

    Would the descendants of Judea of the Roman Empire not be found also among Palestinians Muslims nowadays?

    Even as a child with just a few years of Bible study under my belt I was surprised that all of the kids I knew who were Jewish didn't resemble the Mediterranean types that I knew in the Italian American community. Of course, Italian Americans are primarily drawn from Southern Italy and Sicily whereas the Northerners with famous names such as Fonda appear to be totally European.

    Then someone explained to me that there were these Sephardic Jews who look like the Arabs. I said to myself that that doesn't make any sense because the people of Judea have to be the people of Judea. So I asked myself: how did it come to be that the descendants of the Mediterranean group didn't look Mediterranean?

    Many decades of happenstance historical facts coming my way later, it seemed I had an answer to the questions that I had as an 8 year old.

    And the answer would be that the notion of Jewish identity is not entirely an invention, it is partially an invention, as is the case with nearly all ethnic groups.

    Even as a child with just a few years of Bible study under my belt I was surprised that all of the kids I knew who were Jewish didn’t resemble the Mediterranean types that I knew in the Italian American community.

    That’s probably because most of them were Azhkenazic Jews, whose ancestors originated in Germany. The very word azhkenazim is Hebrew means ‘Germans’. What probably happened is that a relatively small number of Mediterranean Jews were settled in the Rhine Valley by the Romans. As Christianity was not yet the state religion, they converted some of the natives to Judaism and intermarried with them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I suspect that the ones in the Rhineland were not settled there by Rome but merchants who had to wait too long for a bride from home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Incitatus says:
    @jake
    If you are in service to the contemporary form of WASP Empire, which indeed features Jews as co-equal partners, your journalism will be to damn the Empire's historic enemies and its current irritants while also covering tracks, helping keep the masses fat, stupid and drunk as they make the Empire's lordship classes ever richer.

    I confess I have no idea of the intent of your incoherent rant. A question? An accusation? What/which ‘Empire’? “Current irritants” and “covering tracks”? Please elaborate.

    “Fat, stupid and drunk”? A little projection on your part?

    You’ll have to do better Jake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. iffen says:
    @Pat Casey

    The Allies would have fought the Axis even if there were no Jews, or not.
    The US would have invaded Iraq even if there were no Jews, or not.
     
    That's not my position. My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite. I do not think the war would have occurred if there were no Jews, if its even intelligent to speculate about such a world. To be precise we're talking about Jewish international bankers, whose failure to identify themselves with any single national interest is the real chicken and egg scenario (do you get excluded by being exclusive, or do you get exclusive for being excluded?)

    Actually I would say most civil wars are necessary wars, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. If you believe all white people are one race, which I do not, then you can go ahead and view the world wars as civil wars that were inevitable from a certain perspective.

    I'm sure if you've found this corner of the web realm you're what's better than smart, because of course wits are useless if you have no taste. And yes I agree what ifs are only as informative as they are.

    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-Semite.

    I haven’t read a lot about Churchill, nor much by him, but between what has been written about him and what he wrote, we should be able to determine how much of his consideration of Hitler had anything to do with the Jews. I am willing to bet on very little.

    useless if you have no taste

    Taste, that’s an acquired attribute. Political delusions are acquired attributes as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    I've delved into The Gathering Storm and, well, would you know, the old codger put that title to a history written in bullet points. But then maybe that's the only really honest way an historical icon can get the thing down. I guess what I would say is that if the Jews were not the first thing on Churchill's mind when he regarded Hitler, it would seem that the Jews want us to think that, because the story a documentary I watched told said what Churchill in particular wanted to ask Hitler about when he expected to have the chance was what his problem with the Jews really was. And the way that was contextualized was by adding that when Churchill's father died, Winston's father's Jewish friends looked out for him, and it almost sounded like they were saying the guy at times could not be counted on to take care of himself. It was poignant. Would that we could all have rich Jews take care of us. I understand the laziest way to regard ww2 is to say it was all about how much Hitler hated Jews. My perspective is to acknowledge the misdirection of that, sort of hop over it truthwards, by CALLING THINGS BY THEIR PROPER NAME: rothswine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It doesn’t take much searching in 2016 to establish that there is lots of meticulous detailed argument.
     
    You know, that's really just a bit too much. You really are such a liar.

    About two weeks ago, under a previous "American Pravda" article by Ron, I specifically asked you what the best proof available was for the U.S. government story on 9/11. You responded and your response was actually quite extraordinary.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531687

    You have 7 numbered points in response and not a single one of the seven constitutes even a shred of evidence. I took the time to write a reply that systematically demonstrates this, going through your 7 points one by one. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    What then?

    Well, you just walked away. As I knew you would. Of course. What else?

    And now you're here a couple of weeks later, after a total failure to produce a single shred of evidence for the government story, or a single real argument, saying that there is all kinds of evidence and so forth.

    WHERE IS IT? I have posed the question to you and your fellow shit eaters numerous time: What is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion for the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11? (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera)

    I have never received a real, good-faithed response. Not from you or any of your fellow shit eaters.

    Is there any proof? If so, either provide it finally, or admit there is none. Well, those are the two options of an honest person. But you, of course, are not an honest person.

    How do the bloggers ever figure, if they are responding to actual persons, or teams of people… like in some cases the blog personage, can come back immediately, or can trash one, and yet they certainly are not of any import in the intellect… they are like you would go against a whole battery of bastards…

    so that is the answer. these muther’s are a whole panel of assholes, your not talkin’ to a person…

    and even still, they are totally supid and can’t .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. fnn says:
    @utu
    "author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn’t stop mucking with Germany’s economy" - could you give some of the quotes. I do not think you can attribute a single quote to H. that would be about annihilation of Jews or anybody.

    The only one I can recall is this one: ” Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Pat Casey says:
    @anonymous

    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-semite.
     
    now you lost me.

    Churchill wrote of his admiration of Hitler.

    And you're drinking kosher koolaid if you think the whole situation was about Hitler's antisemitism -- what, Hitler invaded Poland because of Jews? No Danzig problem, no Poles terrorizing ethnic Germans in Poland -- none of that figured in Hitler's calculus?

    Just came across this interesting sentence:

    During the early 1920’s, the most certain way to please a German crowd was not to attack the Jews or the Bolsheviks directly, but to attack the Treaty of Versailles, and this Hitler did repeatedly. 

    that crafty, cunning Hitler: didn't attack Jews in speeches but attacked the Versailles Treaty.

    Why he did that?

    a. Because he was like Bush and needed a convincing lie to drag the German people into a war
    b. Because he really really hated the Versailles Treaty and so did most German people -- Herbert Hoover talked to AH; that's what Hoover concluded after their chat.
    c. Because Adolf hated Jews so much that he went into apoplectic fits whenever he said the word, Jew (even tho he didn't speak English)

    There's an entire book about on Hitler/Nazi "hatred of Jews," it focuses on H's statement that "IF Jewish and international bankers do not stop their financial attacks on Germany, it is they and not Germany that will be annihilated."

    The book's author -- and most people -- fail to identify the contingency clause in that statement.

    AND the book's author says that that statement proves, beyond doubt, that "Hitler hated Jews and intended to kill them all."

    What the book's author fails to mention is that "Jews and international financiers " were, in fact and indeed, trying to destroy Germany financially/economically!

    When a author goes on and on for 400 - 500 pages about how H. hates Jews and wants to kill every one of them, and he said so right here -- but that author fails to mention that Jews and international bankers WERE trying to wreck Germany, then that author has lost all credibility.

    IF "antisemitism" = -- the classic def. -- "hatred of Jews JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE JEWS,"
    and IF, as the books author quotes several times, H. said he would annihilate Jews if they didn't stop mucking with Germany's economy,
    THEN right there, you have a cause, a reason why H. did not hold Jews in warm & fuzzy regard: it was NOT "just because they're Jews" but because they were doing bad stuff to his country and he was trying to get the point across that if they didn't stop, bad things might happen.

    Have you ever said something like that to your kids? "If you don't stop singing that song that I'm going to cut your tongue out!"
    Did you mean, "I hate you just because you're you and so I am going to cut your tongue out"?
    Did you really intend to cut their tongue out if they didn't stop singing that song?
    If your kids wrote a book about you and read it at your 80th birthday, do you think they'd focus the book on the time you said "I am going to cut your tongue out," and not mention that they kept singing the world's most obnoxious song?
    That's what Jewish authors who call themselves historians do, all the time.

    Don't buy into it.

    by the way, congratulations on your 85th birthday, and still having kids w/ tongues intact.

    Good sir I fear you are disgracing yourself, and I shant let you commit unchecked an unspeakable act, with a straw man you carefully or maybe carelessly made and are maybe about ready to rape she said, out an addiction to intellectual onanism that makes you use the return key just all too odly.

    I thought it was interesting to parse the one true definition of anti-semitism when I was like a sophomore, but definitely not a junior. (Are Jews just Jews or are Jews just bad Jews?) But then I can’t tell if you are sarcastically taking that question with such serious analytic care. I learned that I can trust Ezra Pound when he used the crackpot style but you’re not him.

    There’s an entire book about on Hitler/Nazi “hatred of Jews,” it focuses on H’s statement that “IF Jewish and international bankers do not stop their financial attacks on Germany, it is they and not Germany that will be annihilated.”

    Do you think I would ever be stupid enough to read a book by a Jew about Hitler? Only if it was my job Good Lord. That’s even more stupid than reading a book by a Jew about Ezra Pound. (That, by the way, was necessary because they only allowed the Jewish writer access to the true historical record.) But you in your tizzy miss the key point I assume was not in that book at all, which is what a “financial attack” fucking looks like. I found that out on my own, I think its fair for me to say. But do you know how many educated people do not know that?

    “If they don’t cut this out I’m going to punish them.” Yeah I like my translation better. Point granted it’s too convenient to my argument about the Rothschilds but so what? Are you going to say the Ghost of Versailles was shaping events more than fleshy Rothswine? And frankly it’s just really neurotic to make a big fuss about something like that, especially when you might just marvel at an oral tradition alive and well as a convenience to the mind of man; yeah super neurotic of you—-cause who the hell but a Nazi would fuss about the way I said it.

    Clearly I think I stumbled upon the one subject you know like scholarly and really care about, and I think you’re not very good at containing your enthusiasm to nit pick. I think you’re the type of person I might become if I make to 85. But certainly sooner than that I fear if I keep wasting my time with possibly presently clinical folks like you.

    It just occurs to me that you used to be able to read on Wikipedia that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that Zionism was a great idea and that it was his introduction to the movement that made him realize a person could not be both a German and a Jew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Pat Casey says:
    @iffen
    My position is that Churchill considered Hitler a natural enemy before he crossed any boarders because he was a philo-semite and Hitler was an anti-Semite.

    I haven't read a lot about Churchill, nor much by him, but between what has been written about him and what he wrote, we should be able to determine how much of his consideration of Hitler had anything to do with the Jews. I am willing to bet on very little.

    useless if you have no taste

    Taste, that's an acquired attribute. Political delusions are acquired attributes as well.

    I’ve delved into The Gathering Storm and, well, would you know, the old codger put that title to a history written in bullet points. But then maybe that’s the only really honest way an historical icon can get the thing down. I guess what I would say is that if the Jews were not the first thing on Churchill’s mind when he regarded Hitler, it would seem that the Jews want us to think that, because the story a documentary I watched told said what Churchill in particular wanted to ask Hitler about when he expected to have the chance was what his problem with the Jews really was. And the way that was contextualized was by adding that when Churchill’s father died, Winston’s father’s Jewish friends looked out for him, and it almost sounded like they were saying the guy at times could not be counted on to take care of himself. It was poignant. Would that we could all have rich Jews take care of us. I understand the laziest way to regard ww2 is to say it was all about how much Hitler hated Jews. My perspective is to acknowledge the misdirection of that, sort of hop over it truthwards, by CALLING THINGS BY THEIR PROPER NAME: rothswine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    laziest way to regard ww2 is to say it was all about how much Hitler hated Jews.

    Good for you, I agree. Although it might be possible to make the case that had he not had the fatal and fanatical hatred he would have allocated resources differently which could have given a different outcome.

    My perspective is to acknowledge the misdirection of that

    This is very common. For example, some educated people insist that the War Between the States was not about slavery.

    My question to you is this:

    Why can’t we just declare criminal international financiers to be the enemy and send them to the guillotine? If 8 of 10 happen to be Jews, that is their bad luck, they should have been more careful in their choice of occupation. Why don’t we punish the behavior rather than the ethnicity?

    I have decided that your reference to taste was meant to gig me. If that was not your intent, disregard the following.

    I frequently see people who confuse taste for a mixture of vanity, hubris, arrogance and condescension.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Wizard of Oz
    Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct. That someone posting as "Jonathan Revusky" posits an opposite situation is no reason for me to depart from my rational course - given that I have neither emotion or money invested in any outcome - which is to look at the suggested objections to the basic story of Al Qaeda inspired (and possibly Saudi financed) Muslim fanatics hijacking four planes etc.

    Starting from that point I have found well presented material which anyone else could find that deals with each of the supposedly major problems that are frequently cited. They include WTC 7, the supposed problem of symmetrical collapse of WTC 1 and 2 from weakening of the core structure, the lack of Flight 77 debris outside the Pentagon walls, the alleged impossibility of the cell phone calls from the fourth plane etc. The only (alleged) oddity that I haven't found dealt with in convincing work online or in docos like the one which I admit introduced me to the explosive qualities of aluminium is the alleged traces of thermite. Then there is of course the big question of who an alternative version would make sense for given the risk of failure and worse.

    If you are openminded and really want to see why anyone might fail to agree that any of the truthers have made their case (whichever one of many you choose) you will find,as I have, that none of the objections which supposedly lead to the conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving highly placed members of the American government carry the day. On the other hand there is this ridiculous official version that the earth orbits round the sun when any honest person can see that the sun rises in the morning and, after orbiting round the earth sinks below the horizon every night.

    Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.

    TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: “This bullshit has the official government seal on it! Mmm, yum, yum!”

    In any case, regarding “onus of proof”, if you accuse somebody of committing a crime, the onus of proof is on the accuser to produce some evidence. You represent that you are a lawyer from Australia. As a lawyer, you know this, so you are obviously being consciously dishonest.

    So, anyway, what is your “proof” here? Oh, I see. The proof of the U.S. government story is that it is the U.S. government story.

    That someone posting as “Jonathan Revusky” posits an opposite situation is no reason for me to depart from my rational course

    What my name has to do with it is beyond me. What is so “rational” about believing something for which you are tacitly admitting that there is no proof?

    – given that I have neither emotion or money invested in any outcome –

    Well, maybe you personally have no stake in it. However, many thousands of people died in Afghanistan in the ensuing military operation, based on this story. In fact, according to wikipedia, 41 of your fellow Australians have died so far in Afghanistan. Of course, they probably had no money invested in the outcome, just their lives, their continued physical existence…

    which is to look at the suggested objections to the basic story of Al Qaeda inspired (and possibly Saudi financed) Muslim fanatics hijacking four planes etc.

    Well, okay, the fact that you obviously cannot produce a shred of evidence for the story, that does not give you any pause. Not just you, there was a “well funded official inquiry” and they never produced any proof of the story. They really never did. I’ve made a point of verifying this! Nothing they produce as evidence withstands the proverbial laugh test.

    So you have people with these resouces, millions of dollars to investigate the crime and they cannot produce any evidence. No problem for you, eh? Well, I guess that’s what it is to be a shit eater. They toss any bullshit in your general direction and you eat it up. Yum, yum.

    Starting from that point I have found well presented material which anyone else could find that deals with each of the supposedly major problems that are frequently cited.

    Oh, proof is out there and “anybody could find it”. Well, I never found any. Just shit. I assume that what you are referring to is some of the worthless shit that I have seen out there. But I have no way of knowing which particular shit it is. Like the Popular Mechanics bullshit maybe? Or the Chris Mohr bullshit? You know, the “Natural Collapse Hypothesis”. Or some other bullshit that is out there. But, since you won’t even say which specific bullshit you are referring to, it is very hard to go much further with this.

    A summary of the situation is that you have now fallen back yet again on the two most basic shit eater tactics. Question-begging: the proof of the government’s story is that it is the government’s story. And then, there’s just the attempt to turn the tables. Since you have no proof to offer, you construct some specious argument that I am the one who is supposed to produce proof. No onus on you, because again, the government story is simply “presumed’ to be truthful because it is the government’s story.

    Well, basically, it’s the same old thing. I request proof and you produce none. And everybody who was not born yesterday knows that you produce none because you have none. Right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Jacques Sheete
    Why do good guys like you continue to respond to snarky clueless trolls especially when it becomes obvious that facts and logic are pearls tossed to porkers?

    Why do good guys like you continue to respond to snarky clueless trolls

    I like to think I’m doing this as a sort of public service, though, I dunno really. It’s more probably just the challenge of seeing if one really can finally just corner these liars like this Wizard. I guess the guy is a high end professional liar, apparently some well connected lawyer in Australia.

    So, probably it’s more just the pure challenge like doing the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.

    I think I’ve really got the rat cornered now. I don’t see what sophistry he is now going to produce to wriggle out of this. But he might have some slimy bullshitter tactic left that has not occurred to me…

    My bet now is that he’ll either just walk away or he’ll launch some ad hominem tirade against me. (And then walk away…)

    Read More