The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: How Hitler Saved the Allies
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

A couple of years ago I happened to be reading the World War II memoirs of Sisley Huddleston, an American journalist living in France. Although long since forgotten, Huddleston had spent decades as one of our most prominent foreign correspondents, and dozens of his major articles had appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and Harpers, while he had authored some nineteen books. Given such eminence, his personal relationships reached far into elite circles, with one of his oldest and closest friends being William Bullitt, the American ambassador to France, who had previously opened our first Soviet embassy under FDR.

Huddleston’s credibility seemed impeccable, which is why I was so shocked at his firsthand account of wartime Vichy, totally contrary to what I had absorbed from my introductory history textbooks. While I had always had the impression that Petain’s collaborationist regime possessed little legitimacy, this was not at all the case. Near unanimous majorities of both houses of the duly-elected French parliament had voted the elderly field marshal into office despite his own deep personal misgivings, regarding him as France’s only hope of a unifying national savior following the country’s crushing 1940 defeat at Hitler’s hands.

ORDER IT NOW

Although Huddleston’s sympathies were hardly with the Germans, he noted the scrupulous correctness they exhibited following their overwhelming victory, policies that continued throughout the early years of the Occupation. And although he had on a couple of occasions performed minor services for the nascent Resistance movement, when the 1944 Normandy landings and the subsequent German withdrawal suddenly opened the doors of power to the anti-Petain forces, they engaged in an orgy of ideological bloodletting probably without precedent in French history, far surpassing the infamous Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, with perhaps 100,000 or more civilians being summarily butchered on the basis of little or no evidence, often just to settle personal scores. Some of the worst of the bloodshed came at the hands of the Communist exiles of the Spanish Civil War, who had found shelter in France after their defeat and now eagerly took an opportunity to turn the tables and massacre the same sort of “bourgeois” class-enemies who had defeated them in that previous conflict just a few years earlier.

As I sought to weigh Huddleston’s testimony against the traditional narrative of wartime France I had always fully accepted, most of the factors seemed to point in his favor. After all, his journalistic credentials were impeccable and as a very well-connected direct observer of the events he reported, his statements surely counted for a great deal. Meanwhile, it appeared that most of the standard narrative dominating our history books had been constructed a generation or so later by writers living on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, whose conclusions may have been substantially influenced by the black-and-white ideological framework that had become rigidly enshrined at elite American universities.

However, I couldn’t help noticing one huge, gaping flaw in Huddleston’s account, an error so serious that it cast grave doubts upon his entire credibility as a journalist. Towards the beginning of his book, he devotes a page or so to casually mentioning that in the early months of 1940, the French and British were preparing to launch an attack against the neutral Soviet Union, using their bases in Syria and Iraq for a strategic bombing offensive meant to destroy Stalin’s Baku oil fields of the Caucasus, one of the world’s leading sources of that vital commodity.

Obviously, all military organizations produce a wealth of hypothetical contingency plans covering all possible situations and opponents, but Huddleston had somehow misunderstood such possibilities or rumors as outright fact. According to him, the Allied bombing of the Soviet Union had been scheduled to begin March 15th, but was initially delayed and rescheduled for various political reasons. Then a few weeks later, the German panzer divisions swept through the Ardennes forest, surrounded the French armies, and captured Paris, aborting the planned Allied bombardment of Russia.

Given that the USSR played the leading role in Germany’s eventual defeat, an early Allied attack upon the Soviet homeland would surely have changed the outcome of the war. Although Huddleston’s bizarre fantasies had somehow gotten the best of him, he was hardly incorrect in exclaiming “What a narrow escape!”

The notion that the Allies were preparing to launch a major bombing offensive against the Soviet Union just a few months after the outbreak of World War II was obviously absurd, so ridiculous a notion that not a hint of that long-debunked rumor had ever gotten into the standard history texts I had read on the European conflict. But for Huddleston to have still clung to such nonsensical beliefs even several years after the end of the war raised large questions about his gullibility or even his sanity. I wondered whether I could trust even a single word he said about anything else.

However, not long afterward I encountered quite a surprise in a 2017 article published in The National Interest, an eminently respectable periodical. The short piece carried the descriptive headline “In the Early Days of World War II, Britain and France Planned to Bomb Russia.” The contents absolutely flabbergasted me, and with Huddleston’s credibility now fully established—and the credibility of my standard history textbooks equally demolished—I went ahead and substantially drew upon his account for my long article “American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany.”

 

I hardly regard myself as a specialist on the history of World War II, but I initially felt deeply embarrassed to have spent my entire life completely ignorant of that crucial early turning-point in the huge conflict. However, once I had carefully read that National Interest article, my shame quickly dissipated, for the it was obvious that the author, Michael Peck, along with his editors and readers had been equally unaware of those long-buried facts. Indeed, the article had originally run in 2015, but was republished a couple of years later due to enormous reader demand. As near as I can tell, that single 1100 word essay constituted the first and only time the momentous events described had received significant public attention in the seventy years since the end of the war.

Peck’s discussion greatly fleshed out Huddleston’s brief, offhand remarks. The French and British high commands had prepared their enormous bomber offensive, Operation Pike, in hopes of destroying Russia’s oil resources, and their unmarked reconnaissance flights had already overflown Baku, photographing the locations of the intended targets. The Allies were convinced that the best strategy for defeating Germany was to eliminate its sources of oil and other vital raw materials, and with Russia being Hitler’s leading supplier, they decided that destroying the Soviet oil fields seemed a logical strategy.

However, Peck emphasized the severe errors in this reasoning. In actual fact, only a small fraction of Hitler’s oil came from Russia, so the true impact of even an entirely successful campaign would have been low. And although the Allied commanders were convinced that weeks of continuous bombardment—apparently representing the world’s largest strategic-bombing campaign to that date—would quickly eliminate all Soviet oil production, later events in the war suggested that those projections were wildly optimistic, with vastly larger and more powerful aerial attacks generally inflicting far less permanent destruction than expected. So the damage to the Soviets would probably not have been great, and the resulting full military alliance between Hitler and Stalin would surely have reversed the outcome of the war. This was reflected in the original 2015 title of the same article “Operation Pike: How a Crazy Plan to Bomb Russia Almost Lost World War II.”

But although hindsight allows us to recognize the disastrous consequences of that ill-fated bombing plan, we should not be overly harsh upon the political leaders and strategists of the time. Military technology was in tremendous flux, and facts that seemed obvious by 1943 or 1944 were far less clear at the beginning of the conflict. Based upon their World War I experience, most analysts believed that neither the Germans nor the Allies had any hope of achieving an early breakthrough on the Western front, while the Soviets were suspected of being a feeble military power, perhaps constituting the “soft underbelly” of the German war machine.

Also, some of the most far-reaching political consequences of an Allied attack upon the Soviet Union would have been totally unknown to the French and British leaders then considering it. Although they were certainly aware of the powerful Communist movements in their own countries, all closely aligned with the USSR, only many years later did it become clear that the top leadership of the Roosevelt Administration was honeycombed by numerous agents fully loyal to Stalin, with the final proof awaiting the release of the Venona Decrypts in the 1990s. So if the Allied forces had suddenly gone to war against the Soviets, the total hostility of those influential individuals would have greatly reduced any future prospects of substantial American military assistance, let alone eventual intervention in the European conflict.

Thus, if the Germans had for any reason delayed their 1940 assault on France for a few weeks, the pending Allied attack would have brought the Soviets into the war on the other side, ensuring their defeat. It seems undeniable that Hitler’s fortuitous action inadvertently saved the Allies from the disastrous consequences of their foolish plans.

 

Although exploring the dramatic implications of the 1940 outbreak of an Allied-Soviet war may be an intriguing instance of alternative history, as an intellectual exercise it has little relevance to our present-day world. Far more important is what the account reveals about the reliability of the standard historical narrative that most of us have always accepted as real.

ORDER IT NOW

The first matter to explore was whether the evidence for the planned Allied attack on the Soviets was actually as strong as was suggested by the National Interest article. The underlying information came from Operation Pike, published in 2000 by Patrick R. Osborn in an academic series entitled Contributions in Military Studies, so I recently ordered the book and read it to evaluate the remarkable claims being made.

Although rather dry, the 300 page monograph meticulously documents its case, with the overwhelming bulk of the material being drawn from official archives and other government records. There seems not the slightest doubt about the reality of the events being described, and the Allied leaders even made extensive diplomatic efforts to enlist Turkey and Iran in their planned attack against the Soviet Union.

While the primary Allied motive was to eliminate the flow of necessary raw materials to Germany, there were broader goals as well. Forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture during the 1930s had led to the widespread slaughter of farm animals, which were then replaced by tractors requiring gasoline. The Allied leadership believed that if they succeeded in eliminating the Soviet oil supply, the resulting fuel shortage would lead to a collapse in agricultural production, probably producing a famine that might sweep the Communist regime from power. The Allies had always been intensely hostile to the Soviets, and the planned operation was actually named for a certain Col. Pike, a British officer who had died at Bolshevik hands in the Caucuses during a previous military intervention twenty years earlier.

This anti-Soviet planning rapidly accelerated after Stalin’s brutal attack upon tiny Finland in late 1939. The unexpectedly fierce Finnish resistance led the Western powers to expel the USSR from the League of Nations as a blatant aggressor, and inspired widespread demands for military intervention among both the political elites and the general public, with serious proposals being considered to send several Allied divisions to Scandinavia to fight the Russians on behalf of the Finns. Indeed, during much of this period Allied hostility seems to have been far greater towards the Soviets than towards Germany, despite the nominal state of war against the latter, with French sentiments being particularly strong. As one British elected official remarked, “One has the impression that France is at war with Russia and merely on very unfriendly terms with Germany.”

The Allies intended to use Polish exile forces in their ground combat against the Soviets, perhaps even sparking a Polish uprising against the hated Communist occupiers of their homeland. Osborn notes that if word of this plan had leaked to Stalin, that might explain why it was at this time that he signed the official orders directing the NKVD to immediately execute the 15,000 Polish officers and police whom he already held as POWs, an incident eventually known as the Katyn Forest Massacre, which ranks as one of the world’s worst wartime atrocities.

All of these military plans and internal discussions by the British and French were kept entirely secret at the time, and their archives remained sealed to historians for many decades. But in the opening of his fascinating account, Osborn explains that after the victorious German armies moved towards Paris in 1940, the French government attempted to destroy or evacuate all its secret diplomatic files, and a trainload of this very sensitive material was captured by German forces 100 miles from Paris, including the complete record of the plans to attack the USSR. In hopes of scoring an international propaganda coup, Germany soon published these crucial documents, providing both English translations and facsimile copies of the originals. Although it is unclear whether these disclosures received any significant Western media coverage at the time, Stalin surely became aware of this detailed confirmation of the information he had already gotten in bits and pieces from his network of well-placed Communist spies, and it must have deepened his distrust of the West. The story would also have quickly become known to all well-informed observers, explaining why Huddleston was so confident in casually mentioning the planned Allied attack in his 1952 memoirs.

After Hitler’s Barbarossa invasion of the USSR in June 1941 suddenly brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side, these highly-embarrassing facts would have naturally dropped into obscurity. But it seems quite astonishing that such “politically correct” amnesia became so deeply entrenched within the academic research community that virtually all traces of the remarkable story disappeared for the six decades that preceded the publication of Osborn’s book. More English-language books may have been published on World War II during those years than on any other subject, yet it seems possible that those many tens of millions of pages contained not a single paragraph describing the momentous Allied plans to attack Russia in the early days of the war, perhaps even leaving Huddleston’s brief, offhand remarks in 1952 as the most comprehensive account. Osborn himself notes the “precious little attention” given this matter by scholars of the Second World War, citing a 1973 academic journal article as one of the very few notable exceptions. We should be seriously concerned that events of such monumental importance spent more than two generations almost totally excluded from our historical records.

ORDER IT NOW

Moreover, even the release of Osborn’s massively-documented academic study in 2000 seems to have been almost completely ignored by World War II historians. Consider, for example, Absolute War published in 2007 by acclaimed military historian Chris Bellamy, an 800 page work whose glowing cover-blurbs characterize it as the “authoritative” account of the role of Soviet Russia in the Second World War. The detailed 25 page index contains no listing for “Baku” and the only glancing reference to the indisputable Allied preparations to attack the USSR in early 1940 is a single obscure sentence appearing 15 months and 150 pages later in the aftermath of Barbarossa: “But on 23 June the NKGB reported that the Chief of the British Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, had suggested cabling the commands in India and the Middle East ordering them to stop planning to bomb the Baku oilfields, which, it had been feared, might be used to supply the Germans.” Osborn’s revelations seem to have vanished without a trace until they were finally noticed and publicized 15 years later in The National Interest.

While it is quite easy to understand why historians avoided the subject for the first couple of decades following the end of the Second World War, once a generation or two had passed, one might reasonably expect to see some reassertion of scholarly objectivity. Operation Pike was of the greatest possible importance to the course of the war, so how could it have been almost totally ignored by virtually every writer on the subject? Allied preparations in early 1940 to unleash the largest strategic bombing offensive in world history against the Soviet Union hardly seems the sort of boring, obscure detail that would be quickly forgotten.

Even if the first generation of war chroniclers carefully excluded it from their narratives to avoid ideological embarrassment, they must surely have been aware of the facts given German publication of the documents. And although their younger successors had seen no mention of it in the books they studied, one would expect that their mentors had occasionally whispered to them about some of the “hidden wartime secrets” left out of the standard narrative. Moreover, Osborn notes that discussion of the facts did very occasionally appear in professional academic journals, and one might assume that a single such instance would have spread like wildfire within the entire academic community. Yet even after Osborn’s massively documented volume appeared in a respectable academic series, the silence remained absolutely deafening. The case of Operation Pike demonstrates that we must exercise extreme caution in accepting the accuracy and completeness of what we have been told.

 

Such conclusions have obvious consequences. My website tends to attract a large number of commenters, of widely varying quality. One of them, an immigrant from Soviet Armenia calling himself “Avery” seems quite knowledgeable and level-headed, though intensely hostile to Turks and Turkey. A couple of years ago, one of my articles on World War II provoked an intriguing comment from him:

During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
When Paulus’s army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.

When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

When questioned, he admitted he was unaware of any reference in a Western source, but added:

It was common knowledge in Armenia SSR, where I am originally from.
WW2 war vets, old timers, discussed it all the time…..seeing more Red Army troops and military hardware assembling near the borders of Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR than they’d ever seen before. Then, they were all gone….

Under normal circumstances, weighing the universal silence of all Western historians against the informal claims of an anonymous commenter who was relying upon the stories he’d heard from old veterans would hardly be a difficult choice. But I wonder…

The official documents discussed by Osborn demonstrate that the British made considerable efforts to enlist Turkish forces in their planned attack upon the USSR, with the Turks going back and forth on the matter until Britain finally abandoned the project following the Fall of France. But if the Turks had strongly considered such a military adventure in 1940, it seems quite plausible that they would have been far more eager to do so 1942, given the huge losses the Soviets had already suffered at German hands, and with a very formidable German army approaching the Caucasus.

Soon after the war, Turkey became one of America’s most crucial Cold War allies against the Soviets, given a central role in the establishment of the Truman Doctrine and the creation of NATO. Any hint that the same Turkish government had come very close to joining Hitler’s Axis and attacking Russia as a Nazi ally just a few years earlier would have been extremely damaging to US interests. Such facts would have been scrupulously excluded from all our histories of the war.

Until a couple of weeks ago, I still probably would have leaned towards favoring the united front of all Western historians against the causal remarks of a single anonymous commenter on my website. But after reading Osborn’s book, I now think the anonymous commenter is more likely correct. This is a rather sad personal verdict upon the current credibility of our historical profession.

 

These important considerations become particularly relevant when we attempt to understand the circumstances surrounding Operation Barbarossa, Germany’s 1941 attack upon the Soviet Union, which constituted the central turning point of the war. Both at the time and during the half-century which followed, Western historians uniformly claimed that the surprise assault had caught an overly-trusting Stalin completely unaware, with Hitler’s motive being his dream of creating the huge German land-empire that he had hinted at in the pages of Mein Kampf, published sixteen years earlier.

But in 1990 a former Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West and was living in Britain dropped a major bombshell. Writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, he had already published a number of highly-regarded books on the armed forces of the USSR, but in Icebreaker he now claimed that his extensive past research in the Soviet archives had revealed that by 1941 Stalin had amassed enormous offensive military forces and positioned them all along the border, preparing to attack and easily overwhelm the greatly outnumbered and outgunned forces of the Wehrmacht, quickly conquering all of Europe.

As I summarized the Suvorov Hypothesis in an article last year:

And so, just as in our traditional narrative, we see that in the weeks and months leading up to Barbarossa, the most powerful offensive military force in the history of the world was quietly assembled in secret along the German-Russian border, preparing for the order that would unleash their surprise attack. The enemy’s unprepared airforce was to be destroyed on the ground in the first days of the battle, and enormous tank columns would begin deep penetration thrusts, surrounding and trapping the opposing forces, achieving a classic blitzkrieg victory, and ensuring the rapid occupation of vast territories. But the forces preparing this unprecedented war of conquest were Stalin’s, and his military juggernaut would surely have seized all of Europe, probably soon followed by the remainder of the Eurasian landmass.

Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets, fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat. Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition to their own woefully inadequate resources.

ORDER IT NOW

Although almost totally ignored in the English-language world, Suvorov’s seminal book soon became an unprecedented bestseller in Russia, Germany, and many other parts of the world, and together with several follow-up volumes, his five million copies in print established him as the most widely-read military historian in the history of the world. Meanwhile, the English-language media and academic communities scrupulously maintained their complete blackout of the ongoing worldwide debate, with no publishing house even willing to produce an English edition of Suvorov’s books until an editor at the prestigious Naval Academy Press finally broke the embargo nearly two decades later. Such near-total censorship of the massive planned Soviet attack in 1941 seems quite similar to the near-total censorship of the undeniable reality of the massive planned Allied attack on the Soviets in the preceding year.

Although the Suvorov Hypothesis has inspired decades of fierce academic debate and been the subject of international conferences, it has been scrupulously ignored by our Anglophone authors, who have made no serious attempt to defend their traditional narrative and refute the vast accumulation of persuasive evidence upon which it is based. This leads me to believe that Suvorov’s analysis is probably correct.

A decade ago, a solitary writer first drew my attention to Suvorov’s ground-breaking research, and as an emigrant Russian Slav living in the West, he was hardly favorable to the German dictator. But he closed his review with a remarkable statement:

Therefore, if any of us is free to write, publish, and read this today, it follows that in some not inconsequential part our gratitude for this must go to Hitler. And if someone wants to arrest me for saying what I have just said, I make no secret of where I live.

 

For almost thirty years, our English-language media has almost entirely suppressed any serious discussion of the Suvorov Hypothesis, and this is hardly the only important aspect of Soviet history that has remained hidden from public scrutiny. Indeed, on some crucial matters, the falsehoods and distortions have greatly increased rather than diminished over the decades. No example is more obvious than in the ongoing attempts to conceal the enormous role played by Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and worldwide Communism generally. As I wrote last year:

In the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, almost no one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event, nor their similar preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For example, former British Minister Winston Churchill in 1920 denounced the “terrorist Jews” who had seized control of Russia and other parts of Europe, noting that “the majority of the leading figures are Jews” and stating that “In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing,” while lamenting the horrors these Jews had inflicted upon the suffering Germans and Hungarians.

Similarly, journalist Robert Wilton, former Russia correspondent of the Times of London, provided a very detailed summary of the enormous Jewish role in his 1918 book Russia’s Agony and 1920 book The Last Days of the Romanovs, although one of the most explicit chapters of the latter was apparently excluded from the English language edition. Not long afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish bankers such as Schiff and Aschberg were widely reported in the mainstream media.

Jews and Communism were just as strongly tied together in America, and for years the largest circulation Communist newspaper in our country was published in Yiddish. When they were finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, a remarkable fraction of America’s Communist spies came from that ethnic background.

A personal anecdote tends to confirm these dry historical records. During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent computer scientist, with whom I’d become a little friendly. While talking about this and that, he happened to mention that both his parents had been zealous Communists, and given his obvious Irish name, I expressed my surprise, saying that I’d thought almost all the Communists of that era were Jewish. He said that was indeed the case, but although his mother had such an ethnic background, his father did not, which made him a very rare exception in their political circles. As a consequence, the Party had always sought to place him in as prominent a public role as possible just to prove that not all Communists were Jews, and although he obeyed Party discipline, he was always irritated at being used as such a “token.”

However, once Communism sharply fell out of favor in 1950s America, nearly all of the leading “Red Baiters” such as Sen. Joseph McCarthy went to enormous lengths to obscure the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combatting. Indeed, many years later Richard Nixon casually spoke in private of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were Jewish, and when this tape became public, his alleged anti-Semitism provoked a media firestorm even though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.

This last point is an important one, since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as “conspiracy theories.” Indeed, even today the ever-amusing pages of Wikipedia provides an entire 3,500 word article attacking the notion of “Jewish Bolshevism” as an “antisemitic canard.”

In a subsequent article, I summarized several of the numerous sources describing this obvious reality:

Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the dreaded NKVD.

Perhaps the most utterly explosive and totally suppressed aspect of the close relationship between Jews and Communism regards the claims that Jacob Schiff and other top international Jewish bankers were among the leading financial backers of the Bolshevik Revolution. I spent nearly all of my life regarding these vague rumors as such obvious absurdities that they merely demonstrated the lunatic anti-Semitism infesting the nether-regions of Far Right anti-Communist movements, thereby fully confirming the theme of Richard Hofstadter’s famous book The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Indeed, the Schiff accusations were so totally ridiculous that they were never even once mentioned in the hundred-odd books on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism that I read during the 1970s and 1980s.

Therefore, it came as an enormous shock when I discovered that the claims were not only probably correct, but had been almost universally accepted as true throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

ORDER IT NOW

For example, The “Jewish Threat” by Joseph W. Bendersky summarizes his years of archival research and he documents that Schiff’s financial support for the Bolsheviks was widely reported in the American Military Intelligence files of the period, with British Intelligence taking the same position. Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 study Trotsky in New York, 1917 describes much the same material. In 1925, the British Guardian published this information and it was soon widely discussed and accepted throughout the 1920s and 1930s by numerous major international media outlets. Naomi W. Cohen’s 1991 hagiographic volume Jacob Schiff devotes several pages to summarizing the various stories of Schiff’s strong Bolshevik ties that had earlier been published in leading American periodicals.

Writing nearly a century after the events under discussion, these three Jewish authors casually dismiss all the numerous accounts they provide by highly-credible observers—American and British Intelligence officers and prominent international journalists—as merely demonstrating the delusional nature of the extreme anti-Semitism that had infected so much of the world in those bygone days. Yet most serious historians would surely place far greater weight upon contemporaneous evidence than upon the personal opinions of those writers who happen to gather together that material evidence generations afterward.

Henry Wickham Steed was one of the foremost journalists of his era, and he had served as editor of the Times of London, the world’s most authoritative newspaper. A couple of years after his retirement, he published his lengthy personal memoirs, now conveniently online, which contain the following very intriguing passages:

Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference — a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists…

…the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.

Schiff’s own family later confirmed this widely-accepted history. The February 3, 1949 Knickerbocker column of the New York Journal-American, then one of the city’s leading newspapers, reported the account: “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.” The present-day value of the figure quoted is probably some $2 billion, a very substantial sum.

Despite this enormous volume of convincing evidence, for the next half-century or more, Schiff’s name almost entirely vanished from all mainstream texts on Soviet Communism. As I wrote last year:

ORDER IT NOW

In 1999, Harvard University published the English edition of The Black Book of Communism, whose six co-authors devoted 850 pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place. Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden, who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early years of their threatened regime, and even founded the first Soviet international bank.

 

Perhaps the extreme caution and timorous silence exhibited by nearly all Western historians on these sensitive elements of World War II and the Bolshevik Revolution should not entirely surprise us given the professional and personal risks they might face if they strayed from orthodoxy.

Consider the very telling example of David Irving. During the first half of his professional career, his string of widely-translated best-sellers and his millions of books in print probably established him as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years, with his remarkable archival research frequently revolutionizing our understanding of the European conflict and the political forces behind it. But as he repeatedly demonstrated his lack of regard for official orthodoxy, he attracted many powerful enemies, who eventually ruined his reputation, drove him into personal bankruptcy, and even arranged his imprisonment. Over the last quarter-century, he has increasingly become an un-person, with the few occasional mentions of his name in the media invoked in the same talismanic manner as references to Lucifer or Beelzebub.

If a historian of such towering stature and success could be brought so low, what ordinary academic scholar would dare risk a similar fate? Voltaire famously observed that shooting an admiral every now and then is an excellent way to encourage the others.

The destruction of Irving’s stellar career came at the hands of Jewish activists, who were outraged at his balanced treatment of Hitler and his ongoing commitment to investigating many of the widely-accepted wartime myths, which he hoped to replace with what he called “real history.” In the introduction to his new edition of Hitler’s War, he recounts how a journalist for Time magazine was having dinner with him in New York in 1988 and remarked “Before coming over I read the clippings files on you. Until Hitler’s War you couldn’t put a foot wrong, you were the darling of the media; after it, they heaped slime on you.”

As Irving was certainly aware, the unreasonably harsh vilification of enemy leaders during wartime is hardly an uncommon occurrence. Although it has largely been forgotten today, during much of the First World War and for years afterward, Germany’s reigning monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm, was widely portrayed in the Allied countries as a bloodthirsty monster, one of the most evil men who had ever lived. This vilification came despite Wilhelm having been the beloved eldest grandchild of Britain’s own Queen Victoria, who according to some accounts died in his arms.

Moreover, although Allied propaganda routinely portrayed Wilhelm as a relentless warmonger, he had actually avoided involving Germany in a single major military conflict during the first twenty-five years of his reign, while most of the other leading world powers had fought one or more wars during that same period. Indeed, I recently discovered that only a year before the Guns of August began firing, The New York Times had published a lengthy profile marking the first quarter-century of his reign and lauded him as one of the world’s foremost peacemakers:

Now … he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe. ‘(‘William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,’ New York Times, 8 June, 1913)

That brief excerpt from the Times encomium points to another matter than I have never seen mentioned. I devoted much of the 2000s to digitizing and making available the complete archives of hundreds of America’s leading publications of the last 150 years, and when I occasionally glanced at the contents, I gradually noticed something odd. Although the English-language world today invariably refers to Germany’s wartime ruler as “Kaiser Wilhelm,” that was only rarely the case prior to the outbreak of war, when he was generally known as “Emperor William.” The latter nomenclature is hardly surprising since we always speak of “Frederick the Great” rather than “Friedrich der Grosse.”

But it is obviously much easier to mobilize millions of citizens to die in muddy trenches to defeat a monstrously alien “Kaiser” than “Good Emperor William,” first cousin to the British and Russian monarchs. The NGram viewer in Google Books shows the timing of the change quite clearly, with the Anglophone practice shifting as Britain became increasingly hostile toward Germany, especially after the outbreak of war. But “Emperor William” was only permanently eclipsed by “Kaiser Wilhelm” after Germany once again became a likely enemy in the years immediately preceding World War II.

Actual publications of the period also reveal numerous discordant facts about the First World War, matters certainly known to academic specialists but which rarely receive much coverage in our standard textbooks, being relegated to a casual sentence or two if even that. For example, despite its considerable military successes, Germany launched a major peace effort in late 1916 to end the stalemated war by negotiations and thereby avert oceans of additional bloodshed. However, this proposal was fiercely rejected by the Allied powers and their advocates in the pages of the world’s leading periodicals since they remained firmly committed to an ultimate military victory.

War fever was certainly still very strong that same year in Britain, the leading Allied power. When prominent peace-advocates such as Bertrand Russell and Lord Loreborn urged a negotiated end to the fighting, and were strongly backed by the editor of the influential London Economist, they were harshly vilified and the latter was forced to resign his position. E.D. Morel, another committed peace advocate, was imprisoned for his activism under such harsh conditions that it permanently broke his health and led to his death at age 51 a few years after his release.

As an excellent antidote to our severely distorted understanding of both wartime sentiments and the domestic European politics that had produced the conflict, I would strongly recommend the text of Present Day Europe by Lothrop Stoddard, then one of America’s most influential public intellectuals. Written prior to America’s own entry into the conflict, the work provides the sort of remarkable scholarly detachment which would soon became almost impossible.

 

Although the demonic portrayal of the German Kaiser was already being replaced by a more balanced treatment within a few years of the Armistice and had disappeared after a generation, no such similar process has occurred in the case of his World War II successor. Indeed, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis seem to loom far larger in our cultural and ideological landscape today than they even did in the immediate aftermath of the war, with their visibility growing even as they become more distant in time, a strange violation of the normal laws of perspective. I suspect that the casual dinner-table conversations on World War II issues that I used to enjoy with my Harvard College classmates during the early 1980s would be completely impossible today.

To some extent, the transformation of “the Good War” into a secular religion, with its designated monsters and martyrs may be analogous to what occurred during the final decay of the Soviet Union, when the obvious failure of its economic system forced the government to increasingly turn to endless celebrations of its victory in the Great Patriotic War as the primary source of its legitimacy. The real wages of ordinary American workers have been stagnant for fifty years and most adults have less than $500 in available savings, so this widespread impoverishment may be forcing our own leaders into adopting a similar strategy.

But I think that a far greater factor has been the astonishing growth of Jewish power in America, which was already quite substantial even four or five decades ago but has now become absolutely overwhelming, whether in foreign policy, finance, or the media, with our 2% minority exercising unprecedented control over most aspects of our society and political system. Only a fraction of American Jews hold traditional religious beliefs, so the twin worship of the State of Israel and the Holocaust has served to fill that void, with the individuals and events of World War II constituting many of the central elements of the mythos that serves to unify the Jewish community. And as an obvious consequence, no historical figure ranks higher in the demonology of this secular religion than the storied Fuhrer and his Nazi regime.

However, beliefs based upon religious dogma often sharply diverge from empirical reality. Pagan Druids may worship a particular sacred oak tree and claim that it contains the soul of their tutelary dryad; but if an arborist taps the tree, its sap may seem like that of any other.

Our current official doctrine portrays Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany as one of the cruelest and most relentlessly aggressive regimes in the history of the world, but at the time these salient facts apparently escaped the leaders of the nations with which it was at war. Operation Pike provides an enormous wealth of archival material regarding the secret internal discussions of the British and French governmental and military leadership, and all of it tends to suggest that they regarded their German adversary as a perfectly normal country, and perhaps occasionally regretted that they had somehow gotten themselves involved a major war over what amounted to a small Polish border dispute.

During late 1939, a leading American news syndicate sent Stoddard to spend a few months in wartime Germany and provide his perspective, with his numerous dispatches appearing in The New York Times and other top newspapers. Upon his return, he published a 1940 book summarizing all his information, seemingly just as even-handed as his earlier 1917 volume. His coverage probably constitutes one of the most objective and comprehensive American accounts of the mundane domestic nature of National Socialist Germany, and thus may seem rather shocking to modern readers steeped in eighty years of increasingly unrealistic Hollywood propaganda.

And although our standard histories would never admit this, the actual path toward war appears to have been quite different than most Americans believe. Extensive documentary evidence from knowledgeable Polish, American, and British officials demonstrates that pressure from Washington was the key factor behind the outbreak of the European conflict. Indeed, leading American journalists and public intellectuals of the day such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes had publicly declared that they feared Franklin Roosevelt was seeking to foment a major European war in hopes that it would rescue him from the apparent economic failure of his New Deal reforms and perhaps even provide him an excuse to run for an unprecedented third term. Since this is exactly what ultimately transpired, such accusations would hardly seem totally unreasonable.

And in an ironic contrast with FDR’s domestic failures, Hitler’s own economic successes had been enormous, a striking comparison since the two leaders had come to power within a few weeks of each other in early 1933. As iconoclastic leftist Alexander Cockburn once noted in a 2004 Counterpunch column:

When [Hitler] came to power in 1933 unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending…There were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German military spending remained low until 1939.

Not just Bush but Howard Dean and the Democrats could learn a few lessons in economic policy from that early, Keynesian Hitler.

By resurrecting a prosperous Germany while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum. After an extended 1936 visit, David Lloyd George, Britain’s former wartime prime minister, fulsomely praised the chancellor as “the George Washington of Germany,” a national hero of the greatest stature. Over the years, I’ve seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely acknowledged as the world’s most popular and successful national leader, and the fact that he was selected as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.

Only International Jewry had remained intensely hostile to Hitler, outraged over his successful efforts to dislodge Germany’s 1% Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority. A striking recent parallel has been the enormous hostility that Vladimir Putin incurred after he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society and impoverished the bulk of the population. Putin has attempted to mitigate this difficulty by allying himself with certain Jewish elements, and Hitler seems to have done the same by endorsing the Nazi-Zionist economic partnership, which lay the basis for the creation of the State of Israel and thereby brought on board the small, but growing Jewish Zionist faction.

In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that “Saddam Hussein is another Hitler.” Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions, being told that “Muammar Gaddafi is another Hitler” or “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler” or “Vladimir Putin is another Hitler” or even “Hugo Chavez is another Hitler.” For the last couple of years, our American media has been relentlessly filled with the claim that “Donald Trump is another Hitler.”

During the early 2000s, I obviously recognized that Iraq’s ruler was a harsh tyrant, but snickered at the absurd media propaganda, knowing perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was no Adolf Hitler. But with the steady growth of the Internet and the availability of the millions of pages of periodicals provided by my digitization project, I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.

It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks.

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 882 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Leon says:

    People hate the truth about real history.

  2. This is all just a bunch of typical tankie-bashing lies.

    • LOL: bluedog
    • Troll: Mike P
  3. Alright, the tankiebashing is classic boilerplate, but the point about the US is getting there. Yes, rich people in the US and elsewhere backed Hitler with money and encouragement. They were grooming him to attack the Soviet Union. Case in point, the Ruthenian Crisis, where the leaders of France and England publicly badmouthed Hitler for NOT occupying Slovakia. Why he backstabbed them and invaded France first is the real mystery.

    • LOL: Wally
  4. renfro says:

    This is fascinating !!
    I’m going to have to read it again to take in everything.

    Also……

    This last point is an important one, since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as “conspiracy theories.”

    Please put everything on unz and everything you know in a safe place, bury it in a vault if necessary…it may be the only accurate history we have if things continue the way they are now.

    • Agree: freedom-cat
    • Replies: @JoeFour
  5. As I’ve pointed out before, it was hardly a secret that Britain and France were toying with the idea of bombing Russia in the winter of 1939-40. If memory serves, a contemporary poet even wrote a piece entitled ‘The Bomb Game’ containing the phrase ‘drop a bomb on Batum.’

    Russia was only technically neutral — and her invasion of Finland made her neutrality very technical. Many if not most figures in France and Britain perceived her as in league with Germany — which she was. At the same time, the French in particular were desperate to make the war take any form that wouldn’t involve a direct — and necessarily very bloody — clash along the Franco-German frontier.

    Hence at least two schemes. One was to bomb Baku and Batum: that foundered out of sheer impracticality coupled with Turkish refusal to permit Anglo-French bombers to transit Turkish airspace. The other was an expedition via Scandinavia to aid the Finns. That one sputtered along until the Finns finally capitulated, making the whole thing moot.

    At the same time, Russia was growing increasingly aggressive in the East. Finland wasn’t her only target; she was putting the squeeze on the Baltic States, and would later add Moldavia and Bessarabia to her acquisitions.

    Obviously, Hitler could hardly afford to halt Russia while he was still at war with France and England; indeed, it occurs to me that his incessant demands for an early attack in the West may have owed something to his realization that he could not afford to allow Russia to continue to take advantage of the situation to swallow up ever-larger chunks of Eastern Europe. In a grand strategic sense, he may have wound up adopting the same plan Germany had followed in the First World War; stave off Russia in the East while knocking out France quickly in the West. Only in this case, he did it not by conducting a defense with minimal forces in the East while going for a quick win against France, but by maintaining his alliance with Russia until he had dealt with France.

    • Replies: @Anon
  6. utu says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II
    In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children (including the 2,700 civilians killed in Royan).

    • Agree: byrresheim
  7. ‘…they regarded their German adversary as a perfectly normal country, and perhaps occasionally regretted that they had somehow gotten themselves involved a major war over what amounted to a small Polish border dispute…’

    On the one hand, it’s certainly an anachronism to credit the French and British of 1939-40 with a loathing for Germany based on atrocities she had yet to commit.

    On the other hand, I feel Ron’s formulation goes too far to the other extreme. In Britain at least, public opinion swung against further appeasement after Hitler simply ignored the Munich Agreement and annexed the rump of Czechoslovakia outright. When Chamberlain announced Britain was at war, he characterized Germany as ‘evil things: brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution.’ When the hero of one of Evelyn Waugh’s novels hears of the Russo–German pact, he rejoices, for now the war will be a simple struggle between good on one side, and evil on the other.

    It’s certainly correct to point to Allied ambivalence and uncertainty about the war and the need for it. Moreover, of course they could hardly be horrified by the enormity of Nazi crimes that largely remained uncommitted. However, it’s unreasonable to assert that they regarded Hitler’s Germany as a ‘perfectly normal country.’ It wasn’t, and most people knew it. It was a revolutionary state: perhaps an exciting one, but also a very dangerous one, with an alarming willingness to resort to violence. As one of the aunts remarks in Arsenic and Old Lace, she has the distinct impression this Mr. Hitler is not a Christian.

  8. j2 says:

    Very nice summary. The good thing with the Internet is that finally one can read older documents and notice that many people did know what happened in those times and then the knowledge kind of disappeared. But you still have not written any article of the long time plan. There was a plan, a long one, say almost 400 years.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @PaleoAtlantid
  9. @ Ron Unz,

    Quote: I’ve seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely acknowledged as the world’s most popular and successful national leader…

    Reply: Makes me wonder, who would people refer before Hitler came to power…?

    Here’s another nugget: “Despite the trade of Nazi antiquities being banned or strictly regulated in many countries, the market’s annual global turnover is expected to be in excess of $47 million.”

    source: NYP

  10. and the fact that he was selected as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.

    Stalin was Time’s Man of the Year in 1939…it was merely an acknowledgement of political importance (1938 was Hitler’s year due to the Austrian Anschluss and Munich, 1939 Stalin’s because of Molotov-Ribbentropp), not necessarily a positive judgement.

    By resurrecting a prosperous Germany

    A lot of historical literature would dispute this judgment…e.g. Richard Overy in this 1988 issue of the Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1988_3.pdf
    argues that general living standards in Germany at the end of the 1930s were well below those of the UK and the US, and hadn’t reached German levels from the end of the 1920s…basically there were a lot of low-wage jobs, but the goal of economic organization wasn’t the prosperity of individual consumers, but preparation for the coming war. I trust Overy’s judgement in this matter more than that of some hack like Alexander Cockburn.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  11. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    On the other hand, I feel Ron’s formulation goes too far to the other extreme. In Britain at least, public opinion swung against further appeasement after Hitler simply ignored the Munich Agreement and annexed the rump of Czechoslovakia outright.

    Well, that’s certainly the standard narrative that I’d always gotten from my History 101 textbooks. But reading Irving’s history a few years ago gave me a very different perspective. The key factor was that Czechs were a minority, controlling Czechoslovakia by improper means and therefore their rule was widely disliked by the majority of the population. After Hitler freed the Sudeten Germans, the Slovaks and the other groups split off as well, and the state basically fell about. That’s exactly what happened to Czechoslovakia once again in 1993. However, I don’t regard myself as any sort of expert on this, so you might want to read Irving and some of the other historians, or perhaps you already have and simply disagree.

    When Chamberlain announced Britain was at war, he characterized Germany as ‘evil things: brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution.’

    Well, didn’t the British say even nastier things about Germany in 1914? And Imperial Germany was certainly was a totally normal country.

    I was very impressed that Irving found solid archival evidence that Churchill and lots of the other British MPs were being heavily bribed by both Jewish and Czech interests during that period to be hostile to Germany, which obviously was another major factor behind the outbreak of the war. Apparently, Churchill had been bankrupted by the 1937 Wall Street Crash, which made him desperate for money.

  12. Ken52 says:

    Ron I love your website and enjoy your writing but I think you’re getting pretty far afield. Yes Hitler or Stalin for that matter may not have been as evil as has been portrayed but there’s still plenty of evidence that these were really really bad twisted people. Responsible for the deaths of millions.

  13. @Ron Unz

    Well, strictly speaking, the first part of your response is a non-sequitur. I wasn’t discussing the rights and wrongs of Czechoslovakia, but British public opinion.

    Ditto for the second part. Whatever the motives of many of those pushing for war or the invective employed in 1914, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert either that Nazi Germany was a ‘perfectly normal country’ or that it was viewed as such.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Meimou
  14. @Ron Unz

    and the state basically fell about

    That glosses over the occupation of the rump Czech state by German forces in March 1939, territory that could in no way be seen as German…this was very important, because it showed that Hitler’s claim to merely pursue the legitimate goal of self-determination of peoples had been a lie. It’s no wonder public opinion in the UK and France turned sharply against Germany after that.

    And Imperial Germany was certainly was a totally normal country.

    Imperial Germany has been unfairly demonized imo and there was a strong element of self-righteous hypocrisy to Britain’s stance during WW1 (and it’s true that Britain blocked all German attempts for peace negotiations and must therefore share a large part of the responsibility for the disaster that WW1 turned out to be), but on the other hand it must be acknowledged that British outrage over German actions in 1914 wasn’t entirely unjustified. Germany did violate Belgian neutrality, and the war crimes in Belgium, while exaggerated by allied propaganda, did occur, destroyed much property and cost the lives of thousands of Belgian civilians.

  15. @German_reader

    ‘…I trust Overy’s judgement in this matter more than that of some hack like Alexander Cockburn.’

    Yes, but Overy is referring to the end of the 1930’s — when Germany was indeed rearming and quite frankly putting arms before civilian living standards. Goering made a speech to an audience of workers in which he said that it was a choice between guns and butter, ‘and guns make you strong. butter just makes you fat.’

    Earlier, I think the emphasis was more on production of consumer goods. Actually, it was about the production of anything at all — the point was to get people back to work. Here, an illuminating source is ‘The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1922-1945. For example, the Nazis would go to a furniture maker and say ‘hire more people and increase production.’ The furniture maker would say ‘but who will buy the furniture?’ The Nazis would say ‘We’ll worry about that. Just hire people and increase production.’ Then they’d go around and issue vouchers good for furniture to newlyweds and stuff. The furniture maker would accept the vouchers, cash them, and everyone was off to the races.

    Hitler actually saw his programme as very similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and wrote the President a letter congratulating him on his policies. Roosevelt declined to respond — but the point is that initially, there was no particular emphasis on rearmament. The Nazis came to power on a promise that they would fix Germany’s problems, and initially, that’s exactly what they did.

    • Replies: @utu
  16. @Ron Unz

    I was very impressed that Irving found solid archival evidence that Churchill and lots of the other British MPs were being heavily bribed by both Jewish and Czech interests during that period to be hostile to Germany, which obviously was another major factor behind the outbreak of the war. Apparently, Churchill had been bankrupted by the 1937 Wall Street Crash, which made him desperate for money.

    These “Czech” interests were masonic in nature, ie in fact Jewish. Benes was an agent of masonry.
    Masonry(or criminal networks) is the glue that ties jewish democracy together, no matter if its private lodges as in US empire, or state lodge in Soviet empire.

    Question, why wasn’t NS Germany a normal country? In my view, it was, mentally sane reaction to the threat of bolshevism and social democracy which waged war by other means against Germany.The not normal countries are the allies, democracy is not normal, unnatural. I mean, the aggressors were the democracies, have been, and still are. Its religiously spread by war to install jewish central banks and lodges.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  17. utu says:

    A Reassessment of Anglo-French Strategy during the Phony War, 1939–1940, TALBOT CHARLES IMLAY, English Historical Review, Oxford University Press 2004,

    A February 1940 report on the blockade by the Conseil supérieur de la défense nationale (CSDN), the body attached to the general staff and charged with overseeing France’s economic war effort, was typically pessimistic: Germany ‘is trying by every means to defeat the Anglo-French blockade and, moreover, [is doing so] with some success’.43 Blockade Ministry officials meanwhile expressed alarm at the increase in German imports from third countries. A balance sheet prepared in March 1940 for the first six months of the war identified a long list of holes in the blockade, including the Soviet Union, Italy and the Balkan states.

    Darlan grew increasingly interested in military action as a means to weaken Germany. Indeed, during 1940 he would take the lead in pressing for the Allies to take the military initiative.

    hanging assessments of Soviet intentions were the final factor in the growing belief that time worked against the Allies. Despite the Nazi–Soviet Pact, the French initially decided not to provoke a rupture with Moscow, reasoning that the need to avoid war had forced the Soviets into Germany’s arms and that Soviet–German interests would eventually clash. Assessments quickly changed, however, following the Soviet attack on Finland in November 1939. Daladier remarked bitterly that the Soviet Union ‘had thrown off its mask’ and must now be considered as an enemy. More ominous still, a German–Soviet economic partnership now appeared to be a real possibility. News of the signing of an economic accord between Moscow and Berlin in January 1940 confirmed suspicions, prompting Daladier to speak of Germany’s ‘growing control’ of the Soviet economy.

    “The fear inspired by the combination of German organizational skills and Soviet resources is clearly evident in a January 1940 analysis by Maurice Dejean, a Quai official and close advisor to Daladier:
    The day when German engineers take control of Russian factories . . . when Russian troops welcome German officers, the shape of the war will change. No doubt it will take some time for Germany to benefit from Russia’s potential. But nothing says that Hitler, while waiting for this, will not continue his policy of delay and prolong the war. Nor is it absolutely certain that, between now and then, we ourselves can win the war without very great sacrifices.”

    The opportunity to express this view more fully came in late December 1939 when Gamelin solicited Admiral Darlan’s advice on how best to aid the Finns. In his response, the naval chief largely ignored Finland, concentrating instead on the need to forestall the developing Soviet-German alliance, to cut German raw material imports, and to force Germany to disperse its forces by opening new fronts.

    Once again, the French took the lead. Following the outbreak of the Russo-Finnish War in November 1939, French planners began to consider the possibility of military action against the Soviet Union. From the outset, moreover, the aim was not to help the Finns but to inflict a blow against the Soviets. With this in mind, in January 1940 Daladier instructed Darlan and Gamelin to draw up staff studies of three possible operations: naval action in the Black Sea, fomenting local anti-Soviet disturbances in the Caucasus and air attacks on the Soviet oil industry.

    Naval action in the Black Sea to intercept Soviet oil transports was initially viewed as part of the effort to open a Balkan front. But if by March 1940 both the Quai and the naval staff appeared interested, the stumbling block proved to be the need for Turkish bases for Allied submarines, which Ankara was loath to offer.

    This left air attacks on the Soviet oil industry – the ‘Baku project’. The initial task of planning the operation naturally fell to the air force. Keenly aware of France’s relative weakness in the air, General Joseph Vuillemin, the air force chief, was generally loath to see the Allies take the military initiative

    Although Quai officials initially opposed a ‘rupture’ with Moscow, the fear that the Soviets might eventually supply large quantities of oil and other goods to Germany produced a change of perspective.110 Mesmerized by the potential benefits of the Baku project, they now insisted that the destruction of the oil fields would deal a crushing blow not only to the Soviet Union but also to Germany. As a March 1940 Quai paper read:

    “As for the destruction of the oil fields in the Caucasus, the immediate result would be to disrupt Russia’s industrial and agricultural economy and progressively to paralyze its functioning. It will eliminate all the hopes Germany has of rationally organizing Russian production for its benefit and will, from this viewpoint, have a decisive influence on the outcome of the war.”

    As a result, in April 1940, the local French air force commander in the Levant received a ‘voluminous dossier’ on the Baku project with instructions to proceed with preparations. Air bases were accordingly readied in Syria and bomber aircraft modified to increase their range, thereby allowing them to reach the Caucasus. By mid-April, Weygand, now back in the Middle East, could inform Paris that everything would be ready for operations to begin by the end of June or the beginning of July provided that sufficient bombers were available.

    The Baku project generated enthusiasm not only in Paris but also in London.

  18. @Ken52

    This is not about whitewashing monsters.

    It is against the insiduous propaganda tactic of slandering monsters.

  19. @German_reader

    ‘…That glosses over the occupation of the rump Czech state by German forces in March 1939, territory that could in no way be seen as German…this was very important, because it showed that Hitler’s claim to merely pursue the legitimate goal of self-determination of peoples had been a lie. It’s no wonder public opinion in the UK and France turned sharply against Germany after that…’

    I think what was probably equally important was that Hitler’s action demonstrated that he couldn’t be trusted to keep his word — there was no point in trying to reach a settlement with him. It wasn’t merely that Germany had no moral right to the lands inhabited by the Czechs — it’s that Hitler had given his word he wouldn’t try to take them.

    It’s interesting to note that up until then, ‘appeasement’ hadn’t had negative connotations. Someone had demands, or a grievance, and you appeased him. This was a fine, sensible, reasonable, and perfectly honorable thing to do. Munich — or rather, Hitler’s violation of it — gave the word a new meaning.

    Much is made by revisionists of the folly of Britain and France’s subsequent refusal to consider Germany’s demands concerning Poland — and indeed, they weren’t utterly unreasonable demands. But the real point is that given Prague, there was no particular reason to think that letting Hitler have what he wanted would accomplish anything but make it easier for him to subsequently take the rest.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  20. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    That glosses over the occupation of the rump Czech state by German forces in March 1939, territory that could in no way be seen as German…this was very important, because it showed that Hitler’s claim to merely pursue the legitimate goal of self-determination of peoples had been a lie. It’s no wonder public opinion in the UK and France turned sharply against Germany after that.

    Yep. The only logic in taking the rest of Czechia that I could think of for Nazi Germany is that it would allow Nazi Germany to control the routes of communication there. However, an independent Czechia that is friendly to Germany would have probably been unlikely to prevent Nazi Germany from using its territory for communication purposes.

    Before March 1939, were Germans able to freely travel through the Czechoslovak rump in Bohemia?

    • Replies: @foolisholdman
  21. Mr. XYZ says:

    Also, the interesting thing is that, in spite of them being outraged over the Nazi takeover of rump Czechia in March 1939, Britain and France refused to actually go to war over this. While one could say that this was already a fail accompli, one could have extended this logic to Poland and said that Britain and France shouldn’t guarantee Poland because they’re not going to be physically able to prevent Poland from being occupied by Nazi Germany–but of course this conclusion didn’t prevent Britain and France from guaranteeing Poland in real life.

  22. @Colin Wright

    I think what was probably equally important was that Hitler’s action demonstrated that he couldn’t be trusted to keep his word — there was no point in trying to reach a settlement with him. It wasn’t merely that Germany had no moral right to the lands inhabited by the Czechs — it’s that Hitler had given his word he wouldn’t try to take them.

    You people have really chutzpah and keep repeating your own warped view ad nauseam, given it is the US and UK that can’t be trusted, and treaties are not worth the paper if signed by them. Ask Iran, or Russia or many others.

    Your hypocritical twisting and whining is proving my point above.

    GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:

    (1) The evacuation will begin on 1st October.

    (2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

    (3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

    (4) The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:

    The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.

    (5) The international commission referred to in paragraph 3 will determine the territories in which a plebiscite is to be held. These territories will be occupied by international bodies until the plebiscite has been completed. The same commission will fix the conditions in which the plebiscite is to be held, taking as a basis the conditions of the Saar plebiscite. The commission will also fix a date, not later than the end of November, on which the plebiscite will be held.

    (6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

    (7) There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement. A German-Czechoslovak commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.

    (8) The Czechoslovak Government will within a period of four weeks from the date of this agreement release from their military and police forces any Sudeten Germans who may wish to be released, and the Czechoslovak Government will within the same period release Sudeten German prisoners who are serving terms of imprisonment for political offences.
    Munich, September 29, 1938.
    ADOLF HITLER,
    NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
    EDOUARD DALADIER,
    BENITO MUSSOLINI.

    So who brokle the agreement, who whines about agreed on points? It is you.

  23. utu says:
    @Colin Wright

    Libertarian troll.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  24. Just as the Atomic Bomb saved countless American and Japanese lives. Hitler didn’t want war, either with Britain or America. His peace overtures to Churchill and the hawks who orchestrated WWII fell on deaf ears, and we have our own U.S. leaders to blame for provoking Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had one fatal flaw, it was his inability to recognize how he and the rest of the world were duped.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  25. In war truth is the first casualty. While Britain or France did not have the bombers or infrastructure in distant Iran to mount a serious air offensive against Baku in 1940 (they could not mount a serious air offensive against Ploesti in Romania even in 1943), what is more significant than the existence of such plans is the fact that they were covered up. Or that they continue to be covered up, two generations later.

    The US entered WW2 on a lie. The lie was that Hitler was a madman out to conquer the world n murder all non-whites, especially Jews, (Jewish intellectuals call themselves “black”. I know, who ya gonna believe: them or your lyin eyes?) while Uncle Joe Stalin was merely defending democratic n peaceful Soviet Russia from capitalist encirclement n Fascist provocations.

    The truth is that Britain n France wanted Germany permanently broken up n economically destroyed, returned to grassland and cows in the words of the Morgenthau Plan of FDR’s administration. Defeating Hitler was always secondary to this larger geopolitical genocide which they had planned for Germany.

    The Bolsheviks wanted Germany as its most coveted prize to be the next SSR in the USSR, the ideal springboard for occupying the rest of Europe. Having attempted to invade Germany once in 1920, but stopped unexpectedly by Poland, Stalin later spent a decade building up the Soviet military into the largest force the world had ever seen in preparation of making a second attempt after Germany became entangled in war with the West.

    Fully aware that Britain, France, n Russia had never been reconciled to a strong united Germany, n that Russia had adopted a quasi-religious ideology of Communism that envisaged world conquest with Germany its first target, Hitler sought to rearm as quickly as possible to protect the German people n ensure Germany’s independence. In short, it was Germany that was encircled n under threat, not the reverse. The rightness of Hitler’s view was demonstrated when Britain n France declared war on Germany in 1939 after pushing Poland to refuse to give Hitler reasonable access to the Polish-occupied German city of Danzig, n it was France which promptly tried to invade the German Rhineland.

    I seriously doubt that any bombing campaign against the Soviet Union would ever have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) given the infiltration by Jewish Communists of unions in the UK, which would have instantly struck every aircraft manufacturing plant. Just as the Communist infiltrated AFL-CIO repeatedly struck aircraft manufacturing plants in the US in 1941 under Stalin’s orders. (See Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade).

    So long as Stalin was not ready to pull the trigger on his invasion of Europe, the Party line was “hands off Hitler” so Stalin’s Icebreaker could continue to fight the West. But once Hitler launched his surprise attack on Russia in June 1941, capturing most of Stalin’s planned invasion force…everything changed. Hitler suddenly became the Devil. Stalin suddenly became peaceful Uncle Joe fighting a “people’s war” against aggressive Fascism. No more strikes occurred in war industries in the UK or in the US. Hollywood poured out propaganda films painting the USSR as innocent, happy, n peaceful until the Devil invaded.

    The coverup continues. No one investigates the overlap of kosher unions, Jewish mafia, n Communism in New York in the 1920s, the Hollywood image being that the Mafia was Italian or Irish, entirely omitting the fact that the Mafia at one time was predominantly Jewish. Or that altho Mussolini had eliminated the Mafia in Italy, the American army reintroduced it. Or that Jewish influence in American academia n Hollywood ensures that “Nazi” n “Fascist” continue to be unquestioned epithets, while “Communist” n “Antifascist” are still accorded the moral high-ground, altho Communists have killed 100 x as many innocent people as Hitler’s Nazis killed, n altho Communists are still murdering thousands of people today.

    The War against Hitler has not stopped. It cannot be allowed to stop because it serves as the moral n ideological justification for a broader racial war against Whites, against Russians (who have ironically become the “new Nazis” on the grounds that they are white), against Christianity world-wide, n against Western Civilization. All symbolized by the Devil, Hitler. If Hitler is not the Devil, however, then the entire modern pretext for persecuting Whites, Western Civilization, n Christianity falls apart.

  26. @utu

    ‘As a result, in April 1940, the local French air force commander in the Levant received a ‘voluminous dossier’ on the Baku project with instructions to proceed with preparations. Air bases were accordingly readied in Syria and bomber aircraft modified to increase their range, thereby allowing them to reach the Caucasus. By mid-April, Weygand, now back in the Middle East, could inform Paris that everything would be ready for operations to begin by the end of June or the beginning of July provided that sufficient bombers were available.

    The Baku project generated enthusiasm not only in Paris but also in London.’

    As presented, there’s an intriguing aspect to this account. From Aleppo to Baku and back is 1500 miles — more if Turkish airspace isn’t to be violated. With 1940 aircraft that’s ambitious but doable.

    But if the British are on board, why? From Mosul to Baku is only 900 miles round-trip. Surely a much more powerful strike could be mounted from there.

    The inference is that for whatever reason, the British weren’t in fact enthusiastic about this project.

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

    but on the other hand it must be acknowledged that British outrage over German actions in 1914 wasn’t entirely unjustified. Germany did violate Belgian neutrality,

    http://www.unz.com/article/on-the-avoidability-of-world-war-one/

    Grey’s letter to the British ambassador in Berlin: 1 August, concerning his meeting with Prince Lichnowsky:

    ‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be….I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’

    A more orthodox, deterministic view was given by Winston Churchill: ‘the invasion of Belgium brought the British Empire united to the field. Nothing in human power could break the fatal chain, once it had begun to unroll.

    Considering that Germany went into Belgium on the 3rd of August, whereas Churchill and Mountbatten, the First and Second Sea Lords, had ordered the mobilising of the British fleet over July 26 -30th, so that by days before the 3rd much of the world’s biggest navy was up north of Scotland all ready to pounce on Germany – his words may appear as some kind of extreme limit of hypocrisy.

  28. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    said:
    “That glosses over the occupation of the rump Czech state by German forces in March 1939, territory that could in no way be seen as German…this was very important, because it showed that Hitler’s claim to merely pursue the legitimate goal of self-determination of peoples had been a lie. ”

    Except that Germany was asked for protection by the Czech state.

    see:
    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

  29. ‘…By resurrecting a prosperous Germany while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum…’

    I think an equally important aspect of Hitler’s appeal — or rather, Nazism’s appeal — is that it offered a way out of class conflict.

    The states of the inter-war era — particularly the Western European states — were dogged by an apparently insoluble conflict between the socialist parties of the working class and the conservative parties of the wealthy. From the General Strike to the Front Populaire, this was the dominant issue of the politics of the era.

    National Socialism offered an end to that. Not classlessness, precisely, but a notion that all labor was equally valued, that there should be no barriers between classes or exclusion on that basis. And it worked! While strikes and the spectre of revolution, red in tooth and claw, still stalked other nations, in Germany workers were sure of employment, went on cruises, ate meals in clean canteens, got good health care, and generally seemed pretty happy. They could afford a radio. Someday they were going to get a car. Nazi propaganda extolled the wife of a factory owner who joined workers from her factory on one of the new Nazi single-class ‘strength through joy’ cruises. Here, suddenly, was a society that was functioning. Germany led the medal count at the 1936 Olympics. Her birth rate was rising. Etc.

    Of course, there was more than one reason it worked. Any serious malcontents found themselves in for a very brutal few months in a concentration camp. But still, it seemed the Nazis really had solved the problems that were still baffling everyone else in the West.

  30. Vojkan says:

    Well, they also pretend that the people who gave Pétain full powers were “extreme right” coupists when in fact they were in majority socialists and duly elected, while people from the “extreme right”, often descendants of the small nobility that the French revolution failed to guillotine, were actually the first to resist German occupation of France. The purpose of official history is to manage perception, not to let truth be known.
    Eighty years later, very little has changed. Western powers are still making a mess in Syria and they’re still trying to hinder German-Russian economic relations.

  31. Gefreiter says:
    @Germanicus

    These “Czech” interests were masonic in nature, ie in fact Jewish. Benes was an agent of masonry.

    Masaryk too. He also was instumental in the cover up of a series of jewish Blood Sacrifice satanic rituals. He was rewarded for his loyalty to Jewish Supremacists with the presidency of the “Czechoslovakia” in 1919.

    http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hilsner_Affair

    [MORE]

    The Hilsner Affair constituted the third major ritual murder trial to take place in East Central Europe in 16 years (the other two occurred in Tiszaeszlár, Hungary, in 1883 and in Xanten, province of Prussia, German Empire, in 1892) and would soon be followed by a fourth sensational case, which transpired in Konitz (Chojnice), West Prussia (after 1918, Poland) in 1900–1901. [See table at Blood Libels and Host Desecration Accusations.] The publicity generated by the earlier cases—together with scores of contemporary allegations that never made it to trial—created an atmosphere in which local residents were predisposed to view occurrences such as the murder of Hrůzová as ritually motivated crimes perpetrated by Jews.

    At the end of a five-day jury trial in Kutná Hora (12–16 September 1899), Hilsner was convicted of participating in aggravated murder (together with two unknown and unnamed accomplices) and sentenced to death. Both during the investigation and after the trial, riots against Jews broke out in numerous cities and towns in Bohemia and Moravia, including Polná, Jihlava (Iglau), Náchod, Deutsch Brod (Nĕmecký Brod [mod. Havlíčkův Brod]), Holešov (Holleschau), and Prague; Jewish and antisemitic deputies submitted competing interpolations in the Austrian Reichsrat; while Hilsner’s defense counsel, Zdenko Auředníček, appealed to the Supreme Court in Vienna to have the Kutná Hora verdict quashed.

    It was in this atmosphere of heightened tension that Tomáš G. Masaryk (1850–1937)—the future president of Czechoslovakia, but at the time a professor of sociology at the Czech University in Prague—intervened forcefully in the affair.

    In response to Auředníček’s appeal, the court in Vienna requested the medical faculty at the Czech University in Prague to review the findings of the original medical commission and to issue an official report. The medical faculty came back with a harsh critique of the Polná doctors’ forensic work, in particular their claim that the amount of blood at the site of the corpse was conspicuously less than what one would expect in the case of a violent death.

    So the yid ritual murderers got off because all the blood had been extracted from the poor girl and there wasn’t enough, or any, remaining. Jews. Principal Trials against Jews for “Ritual Murder” in Central and Eastern Europe. Can you imagine a world without their blood lust and lies?

    Oh yeah, the Third Reich.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  32. Escher says:

    Maybe some of the Nazi regime’s atrocities were exaggerated, but is there any doubt about the authenticity of the words in “Mein Kampf”?

  33. Our host Ron Unz does make a good historical point pointing to how ‘Czechoslovakia’ was understood as rather a Versailles-treaty-era scam by Prague Bolshevik sympathisers dominating over other groups

    A 1938 book ‘The Czech Conspiracy’ by George Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, described this, full text online here:
    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/The_Czech_Conspiracy-George_Lane_Fox-Pitt_Rivers-1938-102pgs-POL.pdf

    But ‘German Reader’ above is I think right in pointing to how, when Adolf Hitler rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939, that can be seen as the real starting date of World War 2, Adolf Hitler beginning to rule over non-German-speakers against their will … there is no explaining this away, Hitler was another imperialist

    Regarding Adolf Hitler’s economic miracle of 1933-39, it was indeed stunning … but the deeper side of that story, was that Adolf Hitler was financed by British and USA banking interests, bankrolling the creation of a war machine probably intended to bring conflict to the European mainland

    This served both what were seen as traditional British interests, in keeping the European continent divided and wounded … and also perhaps serving the broader interests of oligarchies in seeing the flower of brave youth of European cultures die by the tens of millions, permanently weakening these cultures down to the present

    Jewish-heritage Henry Makow in Canada, publishes a lot of material on how Hitler seems to have been a groomed and financed agent of various powers from the beginning, to some degree by the same powers who financed the Bolsheviks

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  34. swamped says:

    “. . . I have had time to think and to pray about my situation and that of my nation and to have God’s will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion that I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany.”
    “…Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose; but I cannot make that choice in security”
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer, June,1939
    (hanged by the Gestapo, April, 1945)

    • Replies: @Alden
  35. Sean says:

    https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-A7-BNmZpG-RLOXZZ/Carroll%20Quigley%20The%20Anglo%20American%20Establishment_djvu.txt

    From the outbreak of war,; the Chamberlain group .., were very reluctant to fight Germany, preferring to combine a declared but un-fought war with Germany with a fought but undeclared war with Russia. The excuse for this last arose from the Russian pressure on Finland for bases to resist a future German attack. The Russian attack on Finland began on the last day of November 1939; by 27 December, the British and French were putting pressure on Sweden to join them in action to support the Finns. In these notes, which have been published by the Swedish Foreign Ministry, the Western Powers stated that they intended to send men, equipment, and money to Finland. By February 1940, the Western Powers had plans for a force of 30,000 -4000men for Finland and were putting pressure on Sweden to allow passage for this force across Scandinavia. By 2 March 1940, the British had a force of 100,000 men ready and informed the Swedish and Norwegian governments that “the force with its full equipment is available and could sail at short notice.” They invited the Scandinavian countries to receive Allied missions to make all the necessary preparations for the transit. The note to Norway, in an additional passage, said that forces would be sent to the Norwegian ports within four days of receiving permission, and the transit itself could begin on 20 March. On 12 March the Allies sent to the Scandinavian countries a formal request for right of transit. It was refused. Before anything further could be done, Finland collapsed and made peace with Russia. On 5 April, Halifax sent a very threatening note to the Scandinavian countries….

  36. Gefreiter says:

    From the National Interest piece (very mediocre):

    Thus was born Operation Pike. Flying from Allied bases in Iran and Syria, as well as neutral but anti-Soviet Turkey, more than a hundred British and French bombers would continuously attack Soviet oil fields in the Caucuses in a night strategic bombing campaign.

    This looks like an error to me, perhaps the author meant Iraq. Iran had a strong German presence and policy of neutrality.

    March 1940, when this bombing of Baku would have occurred, was a period of major changes in the war.
    England was already bombing Germany, often flying over neutral Belgium and Holland
    – The Battle of France and Britain were about to begin
    – Chuchill was busy overthrowing Chamberlain but was not yet PM
    – English invasion of Norway and the German response

    But it was in Syria, Iraq, and Iran that things were really heating up for the ZOG empire and its access to Iraqi and Iranian oil.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

    In September 1939, the Iraqi Government broke off diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany. In March 1940, the nationalist and anti-British Rashid Ali replaced Nuri as-Said as Prime Minister of Iraq. Rashid Ali made covert contacts with German representatives in Ankara and Berlin, though he was not yet an openly pro-Axis supporter. In June 1940, when Fascist Italy joined the war on the side of Germany, the Iraqi government did not break off diplomatic relations. The Italian Legation in Baghdad became the chief centre for Axis propaganda and for fomenting anti-British feeling. In this they were aided by Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had been installed by the British in 1921. The Grand Mufti had fled from the British Mandate of Palestine shortly before the war and later received asylum in Baghdad. In January 1941, Rashid Ali resigned as Prime Minister and was replaced by Taha al-Hashimi amidst a political crisis and a possible civil war.

    Meanwhile, in Iran:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

    The British began to accuse Iran of supporting Nazism and being pro-German.
    Although Reza Shah declared neutrality at an early stage of World War II, Iran assumed greater strategic importance to the British government, which feared that the Abadan Refinery (of the UK-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) might fall into German hands; producing eight million tons of oil in 1940, the refinery was a crucial part of the Allied war effort. Tensions with Iran had been strained since 1931 when the Shah cancelled the D’Arcy Concession, which gave the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the exclusive right to sell Iranian oil, with Iran receiving only 10 percent (possibly 16 percent) of the revenue or of the profits.

    With both Iran and Iraq showing strong resistance to being dragged into the coming war for Israel, with the Grand Mufti in exile from Jerusalem, I find it extremely difficult to believe that England and France could or would embark on a bombing of Baku from bases in Syria and Iran or even Iraq. Those bombers were needed at home anyway, as the air war against Germany was already heating up.

    Far more likely the supposed attack on Baku was a ruse to prevent Syria, Iraq and Iran from discovering what England was planning to do to them, to make them fear Russian invasion, while France and England would complete the next phase in the real, hidden, centuries old project: The creation of Greater Israel and the third temple to Solomon.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Ron Unz
  37. Gefreiter says:
    @j2

    There was a plan, a long one, say almost 400 years.

    Well the Protocols go back about 150 years, and the Talmud goes back to the time when jews were in exile in Babylon, or thousands of years.

    Is there another plan that I am not aware of? Are you referring to the Sabbatean Frankists and their satanic rituals and blood sacrifices?

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @dearieme
  38. Gefreiter says:

    The problem with David Irving today is that he changed so much of his history after the jews locked him in solitary confinement. He came out of prison a changed man, and he dropped his “holocaust” denial. Just like all those honorable SS officers at Nuremburg, he likely had first hand experience with jewish sadism and blood lust.

    At this point we really have to accept that history is little more than a progression of jewish lies created by bribery, extortion, torture and murder. The artificial reality we find ourselves in is called “The Talmud”. Once we accept we are living the Talmudic dream, then we can also accept that these perverts and sadists believe in magick and in the power of their rituals. This is not new, it is ancient. Today, the burning of Notre Dame, the Hiway 91 harvest festival, or the spontaneous collapse of the three twin towers, are transparent satanic jewish rituals performed to increase their “magick”.

    It is hard to be certain what rituals were being performed in 1940, but we do know how many hated Christians the jews butchered in their Ukrainian Holodomor and their Russian Gulags, all run by jews. I’ll bet David Irving has a good idea what went on, but he has been damaged and no longer has the will to expose the truth.

  39. Hitler’s own economic successes had been enormous

    Achieved through fraud (MEFO bills).

    by 1941 Stalin had amassed enormous offensive military forces and positioned them all along the border, preparing to attack and easily overwhelm the greatly outnumbered and outgunned forces of the Wehrmacht, quickly conquering all of Europe

    The Suvorov Hypothesis is a load of self-serving cack. Stalin was ready to attack the totally clueless Hitler, who just happened, in utter panic apparently, to hit the Red Army during the tiny window when they were magically vulnerable? Please. It’s just a transparent attempt to explain the Soviet disasters of summer and fall of 1941 as just darn unlucky, rather than due to widespread incompetence and unpreparedness.

  40. Far more important is what the account reveals about the reliability of the standard historical narrative that most of us have always accepted as real.

    It’s quite evident that that’s all one really needs to know; the rest is mere detail.

  41. Anon[353] • Disclaimer says:

    most adults have less than $500 in available savings

    This sounds like a study I recently read criticism of. The criticism was as follows:

    – This was reported as “a large number of Americans do not have the savings to cover an unexpected $500 expense”.

    – However, the question actually asked was “If you suffered an unexpected $500 expense, how would you pay it?”

    – The low number of the headline reflects the very small number of people who indicated that, if they incurred an unexpected $500 expense, they would pay it out of a savings account.

    – …and that same low number excludes the large number of people who indicated that, if they incurred an unexpected $500 expense, they would put it on their credit card. Those people were counted as “needing to borrow” in order to cover the expense.

    – Except that of course the fact that you would borrow (interest-free!) to cover an expense doesn’t at all imply that you need to do so. Note that putting the expense on a credit card ends up costing less money than paying directly out of savings, assuming your card has any rewards program.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Alden
    , @Ron Unz
  42. @Colin Wright

    However, it’s unreasonable to assert that they regarded Hitler’s Germany as a ‘perfectly normal country.’ It wasn’t, and most people knew it. It was a revolutionary state: perhaps an exciting one, but also a very dangerous one, with an alarming willingness to resort to violence.

    While I generally agree with your comments, this one is an exception. Hitler’s Germany was in no way a revolutionary state and in fact could be better considered a reactionary one given the amount of both covert and overt banker supported Commie agitation worldwide, and the proof is in the outcome.

    I think it would be far preferable to be “speaking German”* now than living Bolshie.

    *I used that corny expression only to make a point. It was never in the cards in any way.

    • Replies: @Hans
    , @Liberty Mike
  43. Gazen1 says:

    Interesting article. The more I study the subject the more I can identify with your observation “I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler”.

    And with the way things are currently going in the US, I can’t help but wonder how much longer any of us will be able to write or speak a sentence like that before ending up in a prison or a re-education camp.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
    , @The Alarmist
  44. “Neither-regions” is funny, but I think you mean “nether regions”.

  45. @German_reader

    Germany did violate Belgian neutrality…

    Bury that old canard. The Belgians themselves violated neutrality by entering into secret agreements with the Brits.

    Then there’s this.:

    “After August 4,1914, Belgium ceased to be neutral, and altho the Belgian Government has kept up the legal fiction of its permanent neutrality, it was clear that it would be renounced at the first favorable moment and that Belgium would declare its wish to reestablish an unfettered state under new laws. “Like her neighbor Holland, as well as Denmark, she wishes henceforth to exercise a voluntary neutrality, free from all formality or promise, and to be able to renounce it at will if it be to her advantage to do so. “Consequently she rejects the permanent neutrality for which she did not ask, which was forced upon her at the beginning of her history by diplomats and prevented her from having a true foreign policy, and by its very character constituted more of a guaranty for the Powers—which were suspicious of one another—than for her.

    The Literary Digest, Foreign Comment, Belgium Now a Sovereign State, January 4, 1919, p. 20

  46. Hitler was too emotional seeking justice for German people. (positively sign of adolescence).
    That is why he lost. He did miss a little bit of cunning. And calculating.
    Straight shooters usually loose.

  47. I would recommend Ron Unz take a look at Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction, probably the best single book on the Nazi economy to date.
    While it’s too long to summarize in a comment (maybe I will do a book review), of pertinence to this post:

    1. Cockburn is simply factually wrong. The German economy was extremely loaded towards military spending (from <1% GDP in 1933 to almost 10% GDP in 1935) and industrial investment (of a strategic nature, e.g. ersatz fuel production) since the mid-1930s. Living standards – that is, private consumption – indeed recovered to late Weimar levels, but would subsequently stagnate.

    2. German pre-war economic and trade policy made no sense in general except in the context of a very conscious and intentional preparation for a world war against American industrial might since the first day of Hitler's accession to power.

    • Replies: @George
    , @Sean
    , @Mulegino1
    , @refl
  48. @Ken52

    …but there’s still plenty of evidence that these were really really bad twisted people.

    Where’s the credible evidence that Hitler was one of them? Talk about bad and twisted, take a look at FDR and Churchill, both appeasers and supporters of Stalin.

    Responsible for the deaths of millions.

    That’d be the Red millionaires who were responsible for the wars.

    “You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.”

    – H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936, pg vi.

  49. I am not as sophisticated as the author or most others, but I can state that I believed the revisionist hog-wash, because that is what I was taught/conditioned/brain-washed into believing and internalizing. It was not until I took the Red Pill that I awoke from my slumber in The Jew Matrix and became aware of the truth of things and no longer the lies.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  50. @Ron Unz

    Hi Ron,

    You should check out this book:

    The essays by Charles C. Tansill prove to my satisfaction that Franklin Roosevelt was more decisive than most know in terms of setting up World War Two. In 1938, he refused to back Britain and France, and actually pushed them to appease Hitler. In 1939, he did the exact opposite, and strongly pushed Britain to give its foolish security guarantee to Poland.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  51. @Gazen1

    “And with the way things are currently going in the US, I can’t help but wonder how much longer any of us will be able to write or speak a sentence like that before ending up in a prison or a re-education camp.”

    I oftentimes wonder the same thing. Fear within the human psyche can be very powerful. Fear of losing something/someone of value/esteem can easily keep people from speaking up or questioning a particular subject or seeking truth. And there is also sacrifice required in the process. How many people will sacrifice their job or social status, etc. in exchange for their inherent freedom and desire to inquire/question or associate with those who do? Stated another way, the pursuit of truth requires sacrifice and the overcoming of fear(s) and that is not always an easy or acceptable process to the mind. It is amazing what people will tolerate to protect what/whom they love and value leaving truth a casualty.

  52. To some extent, the transformation of “the Good War” into a secular religion, with its designated monsters and martyrs may be analogous to what occurred during the final decay of the Soviet Union, when the obvious failure of its economic system forced the government to increasingly turn to endless celebrations of its victory in the Great Patriotic War as the primary source of its legitimacy.

    You should see the voluminous UK TV time dedicated to rehashing WW2 and various aspects of the Nazis. It seems that they keep pumping it up as that nation withers and wallows in its lost greatness.

    … with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that “Saddam Hussein is another Hitler.” Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions ….

    It’s better than that: When they rousted Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega from his compound, it was claimed they found pictures of Hitler there. The same claim was made of one of Saddam’s palaces. This finding of pictures or copies of Mein Kampf is intriguing in their recurrence. Indeed, I vaguely recall some talking head suggest Trump had a copy of Mein Kampf, though I don’t think anyone has yet claimed he harbours any hidden pictures.

  53. Dear Mr. Unz
    I want to add a couple of details to the story of a possible Allied action against the Soviet Union in 1941.
    Many years ago in the Soviet Union a very prestigious journal Novyi Mir published memories of an Soviet Interpreter who accompanied Molotov on his visit to Berlin in November 1940. The discussion of Molotov and Ribbentrop focused on a plan suggested buy the German side for a joint Soviet German action in India against the British. Nothing concrete was decided and the issue was soon forgotten. But in view of the possible Baku operation planned by the British and the French this episode acquires some relevance. If Stalin went for it we could have had a Soviet German clash with the British French in spring 1941.

    • Replies: @refl
  54. @Gazen1

    “And with the way things are currently going in the US, I can’t help but wonder how much longer any of us will be able to write or speak a sentence like that before ending up in a prison or a re-education camp.”

    Prison for utterances or writings contrary to the orthodoxy is already pretty well established in the rest of the English-speaking world … it won’t be long for the US.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  55. George says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    “indeed recovered to late Weimar levels, but would subsequently stagnate.”

    How was the French Empire doing? Germany has to be compared to the other ‘powers’ of the world big and small of the time. What was going on in India?

    In some alternate history if USSR and Germany managed to run the clock out and stay out of war, maybe they would be the last nations standing once the North Africans, South Asians, East Africans, and don’t forget US Blacks got fed up. Headlines from the alternative history: Another French massacre in Algiers, Hitler and Stalin condemn, Pres. Huey Long concerned.

  56. @Gefreiter

    Iran had a strong German presence and policy of neutrality.

    Yes.

    Iran (Persia), tired of being harassed by the Brits and Russians, turned to the Americans to help modernize its government. The Americans were promptly kicked out by the two aggressors, and not trusting either of them, Iran turned to Germany for modernization.

    The rest is history, though not well known to most of us brainwashed ‘Merkins.

  57. FB says: • Website

    Why is it a good thing that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia didn’t team up to smash the imperialist west…?

    That seems a question worth considering, since the ensuing war between Germany and Russia was so destructive of human life…and resulted in a global imperialist finance capital regime that is today leading the world over a cliff…?

    Also on a technical note, the bombing was a harebrained scheme that had no chance of tactical success…

    For one thing those British bombers would have had to fly without the protection of fighter escorts, since those had nowhere near the required range…the Soviet Union had a huge air force and its aircraft were technologically advanced for the period…it is a near certainty that British bombing of Baku would never have been approved by the RAF…it was a goofy political idea not rooted in tactical reality…

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  58. Sean says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I have read Tooze, but he is wrong to think war is the only reason for the German government of Herr Hitler ordering a build up, diplomatic concessions and territory, which Hitler actually wrung out of Britain and France, were a more likely objective for Hitler, in the West at least. Point one is valid, but it must be remembered that Hitler was not greatly out of the German mainstream in this respect. While directing the concilitary foreign policy of Weimar in the west, Gustav Stresemann never excluded the use of force to regain the eastern territories which had come under Polish control as a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. Building a powerful military was necessary if Germany’s diplomatic effort in this regard was to apply military build up pressure enough to be successful. As Mearsheimer says Stresemann cooperated with the USSR to develop weapons such as tanks that were forbidden to Germany. If he would not have actually used them he certainly would have threatened to, and he needed the military wherewithal to be taken seriously when he did demand concessions with menaces . This continuity with previous German policy is part of the reason that Hitler was not initially considered something new in Germany: he wasn’t.

    I am dubious about point two. Hitler seems to have anticipated a future war against America (he also anticipated the conquest of space), which was a good reason for America not letting Germany win WW2 (or 1), but a showdown with the US’s continental economy was far beyond Germany’s capacity until it had assimilated the resources of Russia. WW2, like its predecessor did not start when America came in, but the prospect of Germany willing a world shaking victory had disappeared. In 1941 American strategists were frantic about Japan attacking Russia, but in the event US entry would have been too late.

    By November 1941, Hitler knew–and admitted to one of his generals–that final victory could no longer be attained. This was part of the reason he insouciantly declared war on America shortly afterwards; not as much was at stake by that point. If Hitler had taken Moscow in August 1941 he would never have declared war on America.

  59. Hans says:

    Excellent, Mr. Unz! God bless you for your fine work.

  60. Hans says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Yes, Jacques, the decades of propaganda about the “Nazis” and the Gestapo always ignore the deadly threat that Commie jews and International Banking jews had posed, were posing, and continue to pose to Germany and the rest of the planet.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  61. @Gefreiter

    I know very little about Irving, but what you say is likely true since the rest of your comment is.

    … but we do know how many hated Christians the jews butchered in their Ukrainian Holodomor and their Russian Gulags, all run by jews.

    Speaking of camps run by Jews, get a load of this monster…:

    The Communist Party conducted the first inquiries into [the Jewish Communist], Eliezer [Greenbaum’s] role as kapo [who probably beat Jewish prisoners to death]. The Communist leadership soon realized, however, that Eliezer and other Party comrades who served as prisoner functionaries posed a danger to the Party’s image in France and Poland. Admitting that Party members collaborated in the camps was too embarrassing, and so the Party washed its hands of the investigations and of Eliezer.

    A Jewish Kapo in Auschwitz: History, Memory, and the Politics of Survival by Tuvia Friling (review)
    Mark A. Mengerink
    Holocaust and Genocide Studies
    Oxford University Press
    Volume 30, Number 1, Spring 2016
    pp. 134-136

    I found the book both very fascinsating and informative.

  62. Read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  63. @Gefreiter

    Can you imagine a world without their blood lust and lies?

    Unfortunately, no.

    Imagine if people wised up to the entire topic of organ harvesting, if they knew, organs can only be used from a living “donor”. Organs of a dead human are worthless.
    Or imagine people would wise up what a bunch of rich vampires really do, “life extension”.
    If people knew, that the purpose of the “Interpol” is to cover up this evil, well, such criminal orgs would not exist any longer. If they knew how many children go missing anually in Europe alone, its s staggering number.

    If people knew all this, what literally evil is being harbored within their societies, lamp posts would be populated and the corpses of these vampires would dangle there.

    • Agree: Gefreiter
  64. Jews started communism in Russia and murdered 50 million Christians. Then they began to destroy Germany. Hitler was their deserved karma. And he should of won..

  65. fnn says:
    @German_reader

    Didn’t the Czech leadership essentially throw up their hands in despair when Slovakia broke away?
    I don’t have time to look up the details right now.

  66. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

    This sounds like a study I recently read criticism of. The criticism was as follows:

    – This was reported as “a large number of Americans do not have the savings to cover an unexpected $500 expense”.

    – However, the question actually asked was “If you suffered an unexpected $500 expense, how would you pay it?”

    I don’t think that’s correct. Very similar claims have been appearing in the MSM for the last few years, mostly based on surveys from the highly-authoritative Federal Reserve.

    For example, here’s one from last year saying that 40% of adults didn’t have even $400 in available savings:

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20180522a.htm

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Alden
  67. @DESERT FOX

    Read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg.

    Wrong, Sutton is deceptive there. Sidney Warburg is a fiction, he did not exist.
    Sutton had to do this claim after he wrote a non fiction book about the jewish bankers who financed the Bolsheviks.
    More reasons for Sutton’s lie here: http://www.unz.com/article/jews-and-the-left-by-philip-mendes-a-review/

    Look, the German NS economy was anti-usury, why would Wall Street finance people who have the declared goal to remove these banking criminals from power and influence?
    Wall Street waged war against Germany, because they did not earn from the NS economy.
    Same reason why they target Iran currently.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  68. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Cockburn is simply factually wrong. The German economy was extremely loaded towards military spending (from <1% GDP in 1933 to almost 10% GDP in 1935) and industrial investment (of a strategic nature, e.g. ersatz fuel production) since the mid-1930s. Living standards – that is, private consumption – indeed recovered to late Weimar levels, but would subsequently stagnate.

    10% of GDP seems a reasonable expenditure considering the daunting task faced by Germany in achieving some rough parity with her potential adversaries such as France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Italy and Soviet Union, inter alia. The Versailles Treaty had limited Germany to a 100,000 man military (essentially a constabulary) with no heavy weaponry, no air force, and only a small coastal navy. The French, by contrast, had the largest army in the world at the time.

    The German economy was not restarted by rearmament though. It was restarted through an unprecedented program of public works, including the draining of swamps, the construction of the Autobahn and the enlarging and deepening of canals. This included the construction of passenger liners as part of the program to provide affordable holidays to German workers and their families.

    German pre-war economic and trade policy made no sense in general except in the context of a very conscious and intentional preparation for a world war against American industrial might since the first day of Hitler’s accession to power.

    It is more likely that German pre-war policy was about maintaining German sovereignty and
    economic independence and was aimed at extricating Germany from the international finance system via the issue of currency based on physical labor and not gold (Germany had hardly any) along the international barter trade. It was German economics and monetary policy which was most likely the cause of the war against Germany. The financial powers in London and Wall St. knew that a successful international barter trade bloc which included much of South America, Eurasia and Eastern and
    Central Europe, would have represented a formidable challenge to their hegemony.

    Hitler was not a madman, and conquering the world was never part of his agenda. His designs on the Americas were limited to benign neutrality and reciprocal trade, FDR’s hysteria and warmongering not withstanding.

  69. @utu

    Could you please elaborate?

  70. @Hans

    Yes, Jacques, the decades of propaganda about the “Nazis” and the Gestapo always ignore the deadly threat that Commie jews and International Banking jews had posed, were posing, and continue to pose to Germany and the rest of the planet.

    And we all know, of course, that the Talmud, Marx’s 10 Planks and The Protocols, to name a few, were not to be taken seriously. Wink, wink!

    Is RU’s work astonishing for its accuracy, or what? There are so many excellent points that they cannot all be addressed. I’m so happy about his remarks regarding Schiff and Warburg, who for some “mysterious” reason, almost never get the appropriate “credit.”

    • Replies: @Hans
  71. Ron Unz says:
    @Gefreiter

    This looks like an error to me, perhaps the author meant Iraq. Iran had a strong German presence and policy of neutrality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

    No. That’s exactly the impression I’d always gotten from my history textbooks, but it’s simply incorrect. This once again demonstrates how totally worthless Wikipedia is.

    The 300pp Osborn is filled with the diplomatic reports by the British about their Iranian relations, which indicated that Iran was quite friendly towards Britain and might be willing to join the planned attack against the USSR. Just as with Turkey, the negotiations went back and forth, until the defeat of France aborted the whole project.

    After Hitler’s sweeping victories, I don’t doubt that Iran moved somewhat into the German camp, but that wasn’t the case earlier in 1940.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @Jacques Sheete
  72. @Leon

    To correct you: “Jews (not People) hate the truth about Real History”.

    However something that most of the People ignore.
    World War II was NOT won by the allies and lost by Hitler.

    Jews won World War II and Humanity Lost.

    • Agree: Cleburne
  73. @Germanicus

    I stand by what I said, and Sutton was a true patriot and Warburg was telling the truth and I see you are a true bolshevik!

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  74. Truth3 says:

    It’s all about the (((Jooz))).

    Common thread…

    Christ… Jesus overturned the money-changers tables… and was crucified for it.

    Protocols… Henry Ford stated the obvious (They Fit)… and was destroyed in the press for it.

    Weimar… Hitler overturned the Jewish Banker control… and was bombed relentlessly for it.

    David Irving… told the Truth about the (((Jooz)))… and was imprisoned and smeared for it.

    Iraq… Saddam Hussein was an existential threat to the Greater Israel project… and was hung for it.

    The Truth of any of the above is hardly told by the modern day historians, much less the Jewish controlled press.

    Tell the Truth about the (((Jooz))), and suffer the consequences. Only Brave Men Do.

  75. @Oleaginous Outrager

    “Achieved through fraud (MEFO bills)”.

    Exactly. Nothing more than the monetization of debt through the magic of the printing press.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  76. dearieme says:
    @Gefreiter

    the Talmud goes back to the time when jews were in exile in Babylon, or thousands of years.

    The Babylonian Talmud is usually dated to 500 AD, a thousand years after the Exile.

    • Replies: @Jake
  77. Five stars on this one Ron. I came to the conclusion some years ago that the “ministry of truth” was up and running long before Orwell’s 1984. I believe it was Napoleon who stated “history is a set of lies agreed upon”. As we all know, history is written by the victors, therefore the rest of the story is rarely heard. Great and informative article.

    By the way, “I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler” is one for the ages, and one I will be quoting quite often.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @FoSquare
  78. @DESERT FOX

    I stand by what I said, and Sutton was a true patriot and Warburg was telling the truth and I see you are a true bolshevik!

    Oh yeah, you are funny, do you hang out with Alex Jones and his kosher crew too much?

    Sidney Warburg is a fictional character, he never existed.
    Can you provide evidence he did exist? No, you can’t, so couldn’t Sutton. Sidney Warburg is made up by Sutton and his backers.

    Can you explain me, why usurious bankers would finance people with this public program?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @DESERT FOX
  79. Germany invaded Poland in 1939 because the Poles were planning to attack and annex Danzig. Hitler wanted to save the 2 million Germans in Danzig. After conquering Poland he offered to leave it, all of it except for Danzig and the corridor to it. The Allies refused his offer: they wanted war and got it. Western media never revealed Hitler’s offer to the public. See Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, 1939 THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS https://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X

    • Replies: @David Baker
  80. @Germanicus

    From 1917 on, Feder studied financial politics and economics on his own. He developed a hostility towards wealthy bankers during World War I and wrote a “manifesto on breaking the shackles of interest” (“Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft”) in 1919. This was soon followed by the founding of a “task force” dedicated to those goals that demanded a nationalisation of all banks and an abolition of interest.

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

    I am curious to know, why Wall Street would finance such policies.

    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
  81. With all the side comments here………………………..
    Hitler did awake German people enthusiasm to such a level that never did happen before to any people, and never did happen even after.
    But Hitler did make a fatal mistake of murdering leadership of SA and dissolving of SA on the request of army’s general staff. This action doing anything good increased the arrogance of Army’s General staff. It also confirmed the submission of Hitler to General staff of the Army.
    Hitler plan for war was simple. His order for army was to turn south in one stream to go for Baku oil fields, and to create strip of safe corridor through Ukraine and Romania, and defend it.
    Army did disregard Hitler plan and did split army into three streams.
    With their arrogance they did assume that what Hitler wants the south stream lead by Paulus could do easy. Paulus could not do it and Germany lost the war,

  82. Mulegino1 says:
    @OEMIKITLOB

    Not quite. The idea was the monetization of productive physical labor. Germany did not have any appreciable amount of precious metals or reserve currency, and few natural resources other than water and abundant coal reserves. Physical labor is the primary source of all economic value, not what some Talmudic gnome sitting on his pile of gold and silver claims it to be. A true national economy must exist to serve the people, not the other way around. No truly sovereign nation would let its citizens starve or suffer degradation and debt slavery simply to appease the lurking market worshiping demons. The German people was under no imperative whatsoever to starve or turn back to those supposedly idyllic days when Berlin was the cheap sex capital of Europe and women were often forced to prostitute themselves for a cup of sugar or a piece of bread.

    Hitler’s great crime (other than having lost the war) was that the National Socialist economic policies worked so well. This no doubt horrified the usurious overlords of Wall St. and the City of London, and enraged FDR , whose so called “New Deal” had been totally ineffective at dealing with the depression in the US.

  83. @Truth-hammer

    I am not as sophisticated as the author or most others…

    I’m not even sophisticated, but I don’t think that one has to be to know when he’s being fed a line of bull, and your comment indicates that you now realize you, like so many of us here, were taught/conditioned/brain-washed into believing and internalizing utter nonsense.

    I’ve been studying American history for 20 years in my (nearly non-existent) “spare” time, and I learn something new every day. Of all the things I’ve read, I never had a clue about “Operation Pike,” for instance, and I can’t wait to find some time to check it out although I don’t yet know if there’s much at that link.

  84. @The Alarmist

    Prison for utterances or writings contrary to the orthodoxy is already pretty well established in the rest of the English-speaking world … it won’t be long for the US.

    It’s already happened check this out for a brief summary of such “crimes”, then consider what FDR did, in Commie style, to those daring to defy the dictator.

    Within the last decade, beginning with the Woodrovian assault upon the Constitutional liberties of the citizen in the so-called espionage legislation of 1917 and running down to Mr. Coolidge’s explosion of indignation against Senator Walsh and his associates for intruding upon the privacy of Messrs. Mellon, Daugherty, McLean et al., we have witnessed one of the most interesting and significant recorded attempts of American politicians to protect themselves and their henchmen from public criticism and popular indignation. While this ominous debauch of intimidation and repression has probably been the most serious in our history, such political defense-mechanisms are not without precedent in the American past…

    – Harry Elmer Barnes Hunting Bolsheviks in 1798 The American Mercury, September 1924, pp. 105-111 –

    Barnes, in my opinion, is well worth reading as a true authority on American history.

  85. @Germanicus

    Organs of a dead human are worthless.

    I really dislike having to correct you, sir, but I once knew a woman who has been hired to harvest eyes from recently deceased people. Yup, they were stone cold dead. I believe it was the cornea that they used for transplants. Could be some other parts of the eye as well, and maybe other organs, but I wouldn’t be the one to ask.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @RI
  86. @Germanicus

    I love the internet. 5 second or less search and I got this,

    Most often, organ donors are deceased…Deceased organ donors can donate: kidneys (2), liver, lungs (2), heart, pancreas, and intestines. What Can Be Donated – Organ Donation, Organ Donor Registry
    http://www.organdonor.gov/about/what.html

    • Replies: @Mike P
  87. Ragno says:

    I strongly urge everyone to download – and scrupulously save, if not hide – all of Ron’s AMERICAN PRAVDA entries, each one an invaluable blow struck for truth and honest reporting.

    And if you think I’m being a tad dramatic….walk into what remaining bookstores still exist and try to buy some of David Irving’s books. (If they’re old enough, they’ll come liberally festooned with admiring pull-quotes from all the same respected sources and good gray eminences who would turn around, like Pavlov’s pups at the sound of a bell, to stridently unperson the author and pretend they’d never uttered a sincere compliment about his work.)

    And remember – all it takes for the world to go ass-over-teakettle are Jews, and timid apathy – and suddenly everything you know is wrong. Even when it was already wrong!

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Gefreiter
    , @Hail
  88. @Jacques Sheete

    I really dislike having to correct you, sir, but I once knew a woman who has been hired to harvest eyes from recently deceased people.

    I can assure you, inner organs are worthless from diseased people. eye might be possible, but hearts, livers etc no, definitely no, I know first hand.
    It is even common practice, to give anesthesia to diseased people, before they cut them open, and if you ask experienced people in that field, they will tell you they observed dead people moving and reacting, ie they are not dead, they are just not “at home” in the body, but might return. Tibetan monks can do this, leaving the body and putting the body in some sort of hibernation.
    The key issue here, it is absolutely difficult to determine the point of death.
    Legend of “woken from the dead” have some truth to it, because the human body regenerates.

    Have you ever thought about why they use nails or screws for the coffins to seal them?

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  89. “It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-living Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks.”

    Hitler as a Germanic Huey Long — fighting the bankers, “every man a king”…

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  90. @Germanicus

    The zionist banking cabal that owns the FED and every central bank in the world including the Bank of England loves wars , they profit out of wars and are behind all the wars from WWI to the wars in the mideast, all wars are bankers wars!

  91. Gefreiter says:
    @Ron Unz

    Churchill took power right after the invasion of France in May. Since apparently we are talking about events in March, Osborne would have been referring to events that happened under Chamberlin.

    Chamberlin, having “sold out” the Ruhrgebeit, Austria Czechoslovakia, and Poland would certainly also have been portrayed as a “Nazi Sympathiser” by the Churchill war camp. Did Huddelston mention or have telegraphs concerning the change in leadership?

    After Germany took back its half of Poland, and Stalin invaded, England and France never declared war on the USSR. I still find it very hard to understand what the motive was for creating another war. Perhaps back then someone like Bomber Harris was pushing for it. England had invested heavily in Bomber development during the 1930’s, perhaps it was just a case of a hammer looking for a nail to pound.

    The only purpose of such a build up and preemptive strike, in my eyes would be oil. I cannot believe that bombing the Baku oil and starting a war with Stalin could be the real purpose, even if the effectiveness of bombing was not well understood. There was certainly plenty of intelligence from the Spanish Civil War.

    That is why I come back to the Rothschilds. They had lost their monopoly grip on the Iranian oil fields and the Iraqi ones as well. The Rothschilds had been the owners of the Baku oil wells at least until 1917. The degree to which they were still achieving power or profit from Baku when the USSR was under Stalin would be doubtful. My explanation would be that the Rothschilds were seeking revenge and wanted to destroy the infrastructure, or it was some kind of a ruse in order for them to regain control of all the middle east oil, for the purpose of the war: Greater Israel.

  92. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright

    Yet you seem afraid to actually state what you think supports your position that Nazi Germany was not a ‘perfectly normal country’.

    Why is that?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  93. Gefreiter says:
    @Ragno

    I love the JohnRobinson101 youtube channel. He has dozens of David Irving interviews and presentations, loads of Ernst Zündel, many other revisionists, and lots of war era footage.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe8NfMkWJ27PsBKfOTb8bUw

  94. Che Guava says:

    I cannot post thanks to Cloudflare’s idiotic system. They should also pay me compensation for wasting so much of my data allowance.

  95. refl says:
    @Vladimir Brovkin

    Damn, I recently read my grandfather’s letters to his wife from spring 1941. They were being marched eastwards through Romania and asked themselves why. He writes that rumor was they would be deployed to India via the USSR.
    When they invaded that country instead they were quite shocked.

  96. Wally says:
    @Gefreiter

    said:
    “The problem with David Irving today is that he changed so much of his history after the jews locked him in solitary confinement. He came out of prison a changed man, and he dropped his “holocaust” denial. Just like all those honorable SS officers at Nuremburg, he likely had first hand experience with jewish sadism and blood lust.”

    And recall that Irving was curiously given an early release from Thought Crime prison.

    He hasn’t qute dropped his “denial”. He correctly says that there were no ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz, while absurdly claiming that the so call Reinhardt camps (yes it is Reinhardt) of Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, were the sites of mass murder of Jews.

    For an irrefutable demolition of Irving’s coerced & impossible ‘holocaust-lite’ claims, I recommend:
    http://www.unz.com/ldinh/walt-whitman-mass-media-and-jewish-power/?highlight=irving#comment-3111703

    Cheers

  97. @Wally

    ‘Yet you seem afraid to actually state what you think supports your position that Nazi Germany was not a ‘perfectly normal country’.’

    You’re confusing ‘normal’ with ‘good.’

    I’m not getting hooked into an argument about whether Nazi Germany was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’: I don’t care to take either end of those propositions.

    I am observing that far from being a normal state, it was a revolutionary one, and it was. It’s not a value judgement; it’s a description.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  98. @Gefreiter

    My explanation would be that the Rothschilds were seeking revenge and wanted to destroy the infrastructure, or it was some kind of a ruse in order for them to regain control of all the middle east oil, for the purpose of the war: Greater Israel.

    My explanation would be, the constant power struggle within the Soviet Union wasn’t decided at that point in time. Stalin ruled, but the man of Wall Street was Bronstein(Trotsky). This declining “liberal world order” Mr Haass bemoans in the CfR mouthpiece, Trotsky was the man for that. Stalin offered full German reunification with his Stalin notes in 1954
    Stalin sort of established a red national socialism, and eliminated those Jews, who stood for the degenerate agenda, such as Trotsky, Stalin took him out, and they took Stalin out in return. Stalin saw it coming that he was just a pawn.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  99. @Gunther tn

    ‘…Hitler as a Germanic Huey Long — fighting the bankers, “every man a king”…’

    Why not? After all, Huey Long was kind of an American Hitler.

  100. onebornfree says: • Website

    Ron Unz Says [quoting Patrick Cockburn]:

    “When [Hitler] came to power in 1933 unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending…There were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German military spending remained low until 1939.”

    Ron Unz then says: ” Not just Bush but Howard Dean and the Democrats could learn a few lessons in economic policy from that early, Keynesian Hitler. ”

    This idiotic tripe about Hitlers assumed economic genius, again?

    Although I already suspected that Mr Unz might be partial to the “Hitler was a economic genius – and therefor he was a great leader” drivel frequently trumpeted by posters both at this site and elsewhere, it is non-the-less painful to have my suspicions of an otherwise seemingly highly intelligent individual confirmed.

    This just in:

    highly centralized economies dictated to by one, [ or a few] individuals claiming to know what absolutely everyone in the country does/does not “need”, what interest rates “should and should not” be, and what everyone’s wages “should or should not be”, and where they all “should or should not” work, always “fail bigly!”. [To quote Scott Adams.]

    In time the market always wins by self-correcting the erroneous, idiotic distortions created by policies of continual centralizing political interference in the market place by the likes of a Hitler.

    The more interference/centralization that is imposed, the greater the “blowback” [ i.e economic devastation lowering everyone’s standard of living] that sooner or later, the market will retaliate with.

    [MORE]

    It Takes Time!

    But it takes time for the market to correct the idiotic impositions of the supposedly godlike central planners.

    Fact: Hitlers massive interferences in the market economy [ which he basically copied/expanded based on the new Western European government policies of England, France, Italy -all of whom had long since abandoned the principles of “Laissez faire” that had dominated their economic thinking in the 19th century], did not have a chance to really wreak their full, inevitable economic devastation before Germany got into full war mode.

    To repeat: before it came to war, “all” Hitler did was to further expand all those newer, “modern”Western European, anti- laissez faire/free market, principles. However his continual, increasing enforced market manipulations simply did not have time to wreak their inevitable economic havoc before Germany went into full war mode, although the cracks were most certainly there behind the official economic figures, to anyone with a discerning eye who actually bothered to look.

    [ Hint: for various reasons I won’t get into, an official,”only” 1% unemployment figure because of central planning by Hitler is an extreme danger! sign, not the sign of healthy economy, as Mr Unz and others here automatically assume.

    Fact: any real free-market economist back then would have known that war against Germany was not even necessary, because, just as night always follows day in the real world, sooner or later, Hitlers disastrous economic policies would, by themselves, bring about the complete collapse of the German economy.

    Mr Unz, I am already well aware of your own sad, pre-existing authoritarian mindset, as evidenced by your insistence, in the recent “Did The US Go To the Moon” threads, that you needed ‘some” [i.e. more than one] establishment/expert authority figure with enough letters after their name to say that “the US never went to the moon” before you’d seriously consider such a hypothesis as being true.

    So it’s really no surprise that you endorse the economic policies of A. Hitler et al. 🙂 And I’m not going to even attempt to psychoanalyze your own [or anyone else’s] personal rabidly authoritarian belief system here; [a belief system which inevitably leads to a support of Hitler’s moronic economic policies], in a blog thread , for free. 🙂 .

    Instead I’ll just ask you this:

    if Hitler’s rapid centralization of the German economy was so “right” and really worked, then surely the exact same policies, as carried out by Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Xi, almost every 20th Century US president [ including Trump], and by countless other economic ignoramus [ignoranus?] dictators was/is no less “right”.

    And, by extension, if Hitler et al was correct about enforcing the complete centralization of their economies, then the next “logical” step, is: the implementation of the exact same policies via algorithms [ artificial intelligence], and it is “logically” even more justifiable , and will “work” “even better” than centralization via living humans, surely?

    I would humbly suggest that, for a short while you put aside your obsession with questioning/researching the glaringly obvious historical lies of 20th century wars we are all continually confronted with on a day to day basis, [ after all, isn’t it enough to understand that for wars,”history is always written by the winners”, as you already are well aware, I’m sure], and to instead start investigating questioning the blatant false assumptions and lies told by famous economists throughout history, from Smith [1776], to Marx, to Keynes, Samuelson, Friedman [and the Chicago school in general], and many others to numerous to mention here.

    Since I don’t have the time nor the inclination to re-educate yourself or anyone else on these matters, here, for free, instead I will just leave you with links to three short essays on economic theory that might get you and others to rethink their current disturbingly naive, authoritarian beliefs concerning economic theory and how/why markets really function:

    1] Short essay: ” What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” : [by Frederic Bastiat – 19th century French Economist] : https://mises.org/library/which-seen-and-which-not-seen

    2] Essay/ short book which expands on Bastiat’s essay: “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen”: “Economics In One Lesson”- by Henry Hazlitt: https://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson/

    3] And last, but by no means least : essay/short book:

    “The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science” by Ludwig Von Mises:
    https://mises.org/library/ultimate-foundation-economic-science

    This short book is probably the most important of the three, as it fully refutes , then corrects, the single most important false assumption made by almost every economist from A.Smith [1776], Marx, Keynes etc., through to the modernists [e.g Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner P. Krugman], plus all modern day fake, psuedo-economist cultural Marxists such as almost the entire US democratic party, most of the Republicans [ including such media heroes of the “alt-right” as the idiotic Tucker Carlson , who has now apparently gone “full retard” and endorsed the “charging interests should be illegal” “theory” of the moron Alexander Ocasio- Cortez; and even the supposedly”free-market”Trump himself , with his equally idiotic enforcement of tarrifs/trade sanctions against China, Iran etc.]

    Enjoy!

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  101. Gefreiter says:
    @Germanicus

    You both are forgetting about Kabbalistic Magick. We don’t know what statanic jewish purposes are really behind organ extraction. Could it be the power that comes from the organ extraction from a live body alone is the purpose?

    The Noahide laws, for some talmudically perverse reason, state that goyim cannot eat parts off of a living beast or other goyim. This is likely a window into the mind of a Rabbi. He, arrogantly drunk on Jewish Power, doesn’t consider that we goyim would never consider eating off of some living breathing animal. But jews don’t, that is why they made it a part of the Noahide laws.

    But there is also the entire issue of adrenal/endo extraction. It seems that this is a “big secret” in Hollywood. By brutalizing and terrorizing children up to the moment of death they force certain fliuds, or perhaps forces, into the childs organs, which are then harvested, undoubtably in some kind of kabbalistic ritual. Just like METOO, when these pedos get caught they will be almost to a man, Jews.

    Those poor Palestinian boys in the hands of these monsters.

  102. Wally says:
    @Leon

    An incredibly bold and well researched piece by Ron Unz, no doubt about it.

    This is the type of real history that no doubt has put Ron’s well being in jeopardy.

    He, along with the many current Revisionist historians and those before him, are shaking the western world.

    This comes with a price.

    These are interesting times to witness. It’s going to get worse before it get’s better.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  103. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Related to your article, is, prior to the German attack on Russia, how American media was depicting Russia — preparing Americans to consider it as dangerous and necessary to fight as Germany.
    Here, for example, are two brief items, one from 1939, equating the Communist and Nazi parties, even to the extent of comparing the physical appearance of the head of the American Communist Party to Hitler; and the other an alarmist piece from 1940 about a new Russian airfield threatening Alaska and warning that experts believed the American west coast could be invaded via Alaska.

  104. Mike P says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    An organ donor is typically “deceased” only in the sense that his brain is no longer showing signs of activity; but the heart is still pumping, and the lungs still breathing, typically with the help of a respirator; that means the other organs are still alive.

    It’s a somewhat arbitrary, artificial definition of “deceased,” created just for this purpose. That said, I’m fine with it and have registered as a donor, too.

    Things such as corneae or pieces of bone substance can be harvested from dead bodies because they are not used for their living cells (as are kidneys and livers) but just for their extracellular matrices, which just provide “the soil” for the recipient’s own cells to repopulate.

  105. You both are forgetting about Kabbalistic Magick. We don’t know what statanic jewish purposes are really behind organ extraction. Could it be the power that comes from the organ extraction from a live body alone is the purpose?

    Oh yes, it only works with alive “subjects”, which produce endorphins and other chemicals if terrorized, and produce DMT at the moment of death.
    Terrible stuff, I am not sure how deep I want to go into this currently.

    Regarding organ donations, this is a big fat trap.
    They keep the “diseased” alive, supply them with oxygen etc, but in order to get the permission from the relatives, they declare the donor dead. The organs would be useless if they switched off the machines. You can’t transplant dead organs.

    If you look a bit in burial cusstoms, the old practice was to wait at least 3 days before the burial, so the soul has time to leave.

    I don’t want to know the number of mistakes, where they buried someone, who awoke in a grave and suffocated and died finally.

    Clinton foundation, Haiti …UN bases …

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Gefreiter
  106. @Gefreiter

    Those poor Palestinian boys in the hands of these monsters.

    Yes to that! Same for the poor German boys and what they went through. Sad stuff.

  107. refl says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    As you are commenting here, would you not like to write an American Prawda piece on the Stalinist Purges? Or maybe you know a person who could do that?

    This certainly is a subject where expertise is needed with a Russian background. I always believed the accusations in the Moscow show trials to be the climax of insanity ever to be investigated in a modern state – until Russiagate came along.
    So maybe this is the right time for an investigation into that part of the prehistory of WW II.

    The very least is that noone can wonder today why Trotzky was thrown out as a foreign agent and that he was certainly hit with that icepick right in time for the US-Soviet alliance to come.
    Maybe a piece on that even has been written on these pages somewhere?

    • Agree: Gefreiter
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  108. Ron Unz says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    You should check out this book: [Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace]…The essays by Charles C. Tansill prove to my satisfaction that Franklin Roosevelt was more decisive than most know in terms of setting up World War Two

    Sure, I read it about a dozen years ago after I discovered Barnes through my content-archiving project, and was quite impressed. It’s actually available in convenient HTML form on this website, and I just highlighted it in the Sidebar:

    http://www.unz.com/book/harry_elmer_barnes__perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace/

    I also wrote a long article discussing it and related matters last year, which I linked in my current piece:

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

    Around that time, John T. Flynn was one of America’s most influential liberal journalists, and although he’d been an early supporter of the New Deal, he gradually decided it had failed and also became outraged at FDR’s gigantic personal corruption.

    Around 1937 or so, he began reporting that word in DC was that FDR was planning to start a war to get himself out of his domestic predicament. Originally, FDR was looking at a war in Latin America and then he shifted to the Far East, before the growing tensions in Europe made him decide to promote a European war.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    , @Kevin Barrett
  109. @Ron Unz

    Read the book Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett on how Roosevelt knew to the very hour that Japan was going to hit Pearl Harbor.

  110. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    I am observing that far from being a normal state, it was a revolutionary one, and it was. It’s not a value judgement; it’s a description.

    Actually, part of the fault is mine for having been a little unclear in what I was claiming.

    I think it’s quite important to separate foreign and domestic policy. Nazi Germany was certainly fairly unusual in its domestic policy, but the British and French seemed to consider it perfectly normal in its foreign policy, which in many respects was just a continuation of Weimar.

    Hitler’s main goal was incorporating all the remaining German lands, and also trying to ensure a secure supply of necessary resources, while perhaps ultimately hoping to be able to expand his agricultural holdings to avoid the risk of starvation Germany had experienced during WWI. He made it very clear he didn’t really care about the political system in other countries and that “Nazism was not for export.”

    Meanwhile, the USSR was widely believed to be a dangerously expansionist state for ideological reasons, with all the powerful local Communist parties making people very nervous.

    Even with regard to domestic policies, Germany wasn’t really *so* abnormal, certainly nothing like the Soviet Union’s Communist system.

    For example, I’d guess that most Europeans of the period would have regarded Nazi Germany’s internal policies as vastly more normal than those of e.g. today’s America, with all the transgenderism lunacy.

    And I think America’s current military aggressiveness and claim to exercise worldwide authority over everything is pretty much unprecedented for many hundreds of years. For example, we just seized a NKorean ship in international waters for “violating American sanctions.”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  111. Gefreiter says:
    @Germanicus

    To merge your logical information with my hypothesis:

    Stalin had gone rogue, and so had Hitler. In one decade the Rothschilds not only lost control of the oil wells of the Middle East and Caucasus, but they had lost control of money creation in the engine that was driving away with Europe, Germany.

    The Sitzkrieg in western Europe was not going to the family expectations, and Hitler had stripped the Vienna Rothschilds of much of their Austrian wealth.

    This is when Stalin started purging the Rothschild agents from within the NKVD and the Army.

    In reaction to the purges and other transgressions, the Rothschild’s twisted the arms of enough puppets and agents in England to get this suicide bombing mission against Stalin’s “stolen oil wells” going. It was as idiotic as the US invasion of Afghanistan. We must look for a purpose other than “spreading freedom and democracy”.

    It also reminds me of Churchills invasion of Gallipoli n in 1915, which was a completely pointless waste of the best Australians and New Zealanders, and a complete waste of precious naval resources, all to help his Zionist partners complete their plan for Greater Israel.

  112. Hans says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    “We have stamped out Bolshevism, which Moscow’s blood-fiends such as Lewin, Axelroth, Neumann, Bela-Kuhn, etc. tried to introduce into Germany. And it is because we see day by day these efforts of Soviet rulers to meddle in our domestic affairs have not yet ceased, that we are forced to regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy”. Adolf Hitler, September 1936 (https://europeansworldwide.wordpress.com/2019/05/02/communism-and-time-proves-hitler-was-again-right/)

    Yes, Mr. Unz is doing great work. We need more patriots like him who are willing to risk their reputations exposing the big lies that are being used to enslave us all with. I recall the uniform dismissal of 9/11 conspiracy facts by all my (((progressive))) “truthtellers” (Zinn, Chomsky, Goodman, Cockburn…). Gore Vidal excepted.

    Imagine if every engineering department at universities across the nation had had the integrity to call bullshit on the 9/11 official lie…

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Gunther tn
    , @Cyrano
  113. Imagine if every engineering department at universities across the nation had had the integrity to call bullshit on the 9/11 official lie…

    Imagine if every history department at universities across the nation had had the integrity to call bullshit on the holocaust official lie…

    • Replies: @PADOJO
  114. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    onebornfree says: “……Fact: any real free-market economist back then would have known that war against Germany [ other than a purely defensive one] , was not even necessary, because, just as night always follows day in the real world, sooner or later, Hitlers disastrous economic policies would, by themselves, bring about the total collapse of the already fragile German economy. …..”

    And, by the way, the exact same principle is true today, with regard to the Chinese economy.

    [MORE]

    Fact: due to the return of Mao-like economic policies via its latest “glorious” leader Xi, [ i.e. a complete reversal of the slight “loosening of the leash”on the economy by more “liberal” economic policies of the post Mao, pre Xi administrations; “liberal” policies which had directly caused the vibrant Chinese economy of the late 1990’s and early 00’s,which is now often referred to as “the Chinese miracle”] , the collapse and utter decimation of the entire Chinese economic system [ assuming no more US or banker handouts to prop it up], is, sooner or later assured.

    Fact: No dictator controlled centralized market can ever escape the fundamental, non-revocable laws of the market [ which are fundamentally no different from laws of nature, eg the laws of gravity].

    The market will always self- correct the foolishness of grand -standing dictators, via inflation, deflation, or severe depression.

    There is, and can be, no escape from the economic consequences of full-on, “full retard”,central planning, over time, regardless of which “great leader” is in charge.

    The market always wins. Which means that Trump’s tariff wars are completely unnecessary,;the Chinese economy is all by itself, slowly going “down the tubes” right now, right before our very eyes, directly because of the idiotic economic policies being pursued by Xi and his commie cronies.

    All Trump really has to do is sit back and wait, China is collapsing right now – so if China wants to continue to sell the US consumer goods/services at true cost or below, or without sufficient profit margins, then that policy can only benefit the US consumer, not China.

    But since Trump is, like many, a total economic doofus, he has to have his stupid war by tariff to show “how tough” he is, which not only hurts the average US consumer, who must now pay higher prices for almost anything imported from China, but will also, most likely act to prop- up the faltering Chinese economy instead of what he wants, that is: to bring China to its knees and “give in”, simply because government policies nearly always cause the exact opposite of the assumed [intended] effect.

    Regards, onebornfree

  115. @Gefreiter

    This is when Stalin started purging the Rothschild agents from within the NKVD and the Army.

    I am not sure it can be reduced to just a Rothschild issue. Stalin was still surrounded by Jews. I view it more as a reaction of Stalin to the destabilizing effects of Trotzky’s or before him Lenin’s policies. He simply tried to keep this artificial giant empire together, and came by doing that naturally in conflict with his backers. He went before he died totally and fully paranoid, likely justified, they poisoned him.

    In my opinion, Stalin wasn’t that much into the proclaimed world revolution, like Trotsky’s children the “neocons” still do, Stalin tried to keep was he had conquered, but realized after 1945, that he would need a neutral strong Germany to keep the Wall Street(NATO) in check, ie he was willing to return East Prussia and polish administered German territory.
    Quite miraculously, Stalin died shortly after he issued his Stalin notes, ie full German reunification on condition of neutrality. Would have been a good deal for Germany, but the US, Brits rejected and reject to this day peace.

  116. @Ron Unz

    ‘…For example, I’d guess that most Europeans of the period would have regarded Nazi Germany’s internal policies as vastly more normal than those of e.g. today’s America, with all the transgenderism lunacy…’

    Perhaps — but that’s definitely a red herring. It’s literally irrelevant what people then would have thought of societies now. After all, the various societies of the seventh century might well regard modern Saudi Arabia as more ‘normal’ than modern Slovakia. It doesn’t follow that Saudi Arabia isn’t distinctly an outlier today.

    Otherwise, I’d note that — as usual — the truth lies somewhere between the enshrined orthodoxy and the revisionist position. It’s true that it’s nonsense that Nazi Germany was out to conquer the world.

    At the same time, it’s also misleading to assert that Germany just wanted back her lost territories plus –please sir — some natural resources. Hitler’s vision was of four global super-powers, in which Germany would dominate Continental Europe, with a vast slave-empire carved out of the Slavic East.

    It was pretty demented. There is also the detail that all Jews were to be — at a minimum — expelled from all those lands Germany controlled. That, too — by the standards of his contemporaries, not just ours — was decidedly extreme.

    I think Nazi Germany is best viewed as a revolutionary state — for worse as well as for better. It was a challenge to just about every aspect of the status quo beyond the need for a balanced breakfast. No, it was not ‘normal.’ That’s as inaccurate a description as the insistence on seeing it as evil incarnate. It was what it was — our attempts to put it where we find it most ideologically convenient to place it are simply irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Wally
    , @Ron Unz
  117. JackOH says:

    “For example, I’d guess that most Europeans of the period [1930s] would have regarded Nazi Germany’s internal policies as vastly more normal than those of e.g. today’s America, with all the transgenderism lunacy.”

    “And I think America’s current military aggressiveness and claim to exercise worldwide authority over everything is pretty much unprecedented for many hundreds of years. For example, we just seized a NKorean ship in international waters for “violating American sanctions.”

    Ron, yep.

    Our disruptive domestic politics and grasping foreign policies, including military interventions, seem to me to offer some basic threat to human decency. (I’m thinking Phil Giraldi’s use of “human decency” from a month or so ago.) The quality of the people produced by our system I’d characterize as puppetized, or infantilized. I’m not sure what, if anything, can be done. I’ll take a wild guess that declining standards of living and less discretionary income for “therapeutic consumerism” will focus attention as rational debate has not been able to.

  118. @Hans

    > Imagine if every engineering department at universities across the nation had had the integrity to call bullshit on the 9/11 official lie…

    9/11 lie, you say?!? Buildings go into free fall all the time, LOL…

  119. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Victors(or the Official Scribes) write the history. Scholars also write the history. Victors prefer their own ‘good war’ narrative. This is true of all sides. As for scholars, they are not necessarily on the side of victors, especially in a system that is relatively free, like in a democracy. There have been plenty of dissident or alternative scholars in the West, even in elite institutions. But scholars have tended to be on the Left. Furthermore, especially after revelations of Nazi atrocities in WWII(and because the West felt the direct fury of Nazi Germany but not of the Soviet Union), it had become increasingly difficult to be a right-wing scholar(except from the most defensive or Philo-Semitic position, self-defeating since Jewish Power is the main force against the Gentile Right). So, not only were most official scholars on the Liberal side of the spectrum but even most dissident scholars were on the Left. Naturally, they emphasized the crimes of Nazi Germany while tending to overlook the atrocities of the Liberation. In Italy as in France, the Left took to revenge with a fury. One could argue that the leftists acted worse than the Right(during the Occupation), but absent law and order(in a time of chaos and flux), mobs(of any stripe) can easily get out of hand. And it wasn’t just the Left. Many Frenchmen who felt humiliation of defeat and occupation just took it out on anyone, not least on French women who had affairs with German soldiers. And there had been plenty of collaborators, big and small. And even though German Occupiers were reasonably tolerant and humane toward most Frenchmen, they came down hard on the far-left and Jews, and the Left remembered and sought revenge. In Spain in the wake of Right-wing victory, many on the Left were brutalized and killed as well. Not all of it was done by the state. Conservative and clerical forces rounded up suspected communists and anarchists and butchered them. In Indonesia, upon Sukarno’s ouster upon the failed communist coup, a reign of terror engulfed the nation in which 100,000s, maybe a million, were butchered by mobs, often on economic or ethnic than ideological grounds: Chinese were often targeted.

    There are many other inconvenient truths about the ‘Good War’. US bombing of French towns in preparation of invasion of Normandy killed lots of French civilians. Much of US bombing of Japan was punitive and/or vengeful than strategic. Also, contrary to the belief that the US was hesitant to use nukes and was compelled to do so only to ‘save lives’, it was prepared to nuke 10 to 12 more cities if Japan didn’t surrender. In other words, US was willing to go ‘full Nazi’ against a nation that was all but defeated and crippled just to push for total unconditional surrender. When I grew up, the term ‘fascist’ had such negative connotations that I thought Mussolini must have been just as evil as Hitler. Reading his biographies, I was surprised by how mild(relatively) his rule was compared to others. And contrary to the romantic myths about the Spanish Civil War, the Left was just as ruthless and murderous as the Right. Though made famous by Picasso’s painting, the bombing of Guernica was a minor event. Indeed, all of history is a simplification or distortion. In discussion of the Vietnam War, people tend to blame LBJ or Nixon the most. For some reason, Eisenhower gets a break because he warned of the Military-Industrial Complex. But it was Eisenhower’s administration that sowed the seeds of discord in Vietnam and messed up Guatemala and Iran that would have huge repercussions later.
    Also, it’s ironic when people say Hitler planned to ‘conquer the world’. Untrue but even if true, the world was already conquered by imperialists, mainly British and French that were hardly ‘liberal democracies’ around the world but, in fact, often-brutal colonial powers. Accusing Nazi Germany of preparing to do what the Western Imperialists had done already is rather amusing. Though Hitler admired the imperialists, esp the British, his actions inadvertently ‘saved’ the Third World by bankrupting France and UK even more than after WWI. Furthermore, once UK and France redefined themselves as nations that resisted foreign tyranny, the template spread to the Third World that defined itself as the Resistance against Western ‘Nazi-Like’ Imperialists.

    As for Operation Pike, historians focus mainly on what happened that what-might-have-happened. For example, if Hitler had planned the Shoah but didn’t carry it out, it would be discussed far less. If the US had planned using atomic bombs on Japan but finally decided not to, it would be treated as a footnote. There are surely political and ideological reasons as to why Operation Pike would rather not be mentioned by scholars, but it didn’t happen in the end. It was talk, not walk.

    Was Josef Stalin preparing to conquer all of Europe? Could he have? I just don’t see Stalin being so reckless. If Soviets(and that is a Big If) did set up offensive posture against Germany, it was likely to force Germany into a defensive posture, thus thwarting any first attack on Germany’s part. Given Stalin’s nature — consider his ambiguous position on Korea — , it’s difficult to believe he planned to conquer all of Europe. Maybe just maybe, he hoped that France and Germany would weaken each other as in WWI and then, if the opportunity was ripe, the Soviets would sweep in to take it all(as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe). But Germany’s victory over France was so swift and commanding that Stalin was in awe of Germany, and the last thing he wanted was a war. Stalin had expected the Franco-German War to last several yrs, bleeding both the republic and Reich as in the previous war. He had no idea that it would end so quickly and dramatically.
    However, he may have feared that Hitler would then move against the USSR, and therefore set up ‘offensive’ positions along the border to send a strong message that Soviets are not to be threatened.
    Consider that part of the reason why France lost was it thought ONLY in terms of defense. Even though it declared war on Germany and not vice versa, France was dug in for defense and had no capacity or will for offense. Stalin may have thought that the ONLY way to stop Hitler was put up an offensive posture. Also, it’s hard to believe that Hitler and his men prepared such a vast undertaking(total war on Russia) at the last moment in panic and desperation. It had all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out plan. And the timing was near perfect as it was around summer solstice, the longest day of the year.
    While Stalin might have had big plans — he was a Marxist after all — , he was not a dreamer like Hitler who thought more like an artist than an intellectual. More than anything, Wagner’s operas were the inspiration of Hitler’s vision of history. Thus, he saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Also, his initial gains pumped him full of hubris. And then, his swift victory over France made him feel near-invincible.
    According to John Lukacs and Pat Buchanan, the main reason for Hitler’s attack on the USSR was to bring UK to the table. This theory sounds absurd, but it makes sense from a psychological point of view. From a practical point of view, it makes little sense. If Hitler was having such a hard time defeating UK, why enter into a two-front war that also involves USSR? That seems utterly stupid. But if we consider that Hitler loved and admired the UK while loathing the ‘subhuman Slavs’, then what he ultimately wanted was an alliance with the British while subjugating the Slavs. So, by taking the USSR out, Germany would demonstrate to the UK that it alone is the undisputed ruler of Europe, and there is NOTHING the UK could do about it except to come to the table and form a partnership with Germany. As Lukacs wrote, Hitler’s main ideology was not Germanism but Aryanism. He regarded Britons as fellow Aryans, and so, British Empire was Aryan rule over the world. Though Hitler had alliances with Italy, France(which had no choice), Spain(in a willy-nilly way), Eastern European nations, and Russia prior to Operation Barbarossa, he didn’t prize them as much as he did the hypothetical one between Germany and Britain, the World Empire. That would have been Aryan + Aryan. Could such have been possible if not for Jewish influence in Britain? Or, was the culture of class and manners too important to the British elites to side with a ‘vulgar’ demagogue like Hitler, gutter trash who rose to the top by ranting like a lunatic?
    Great Britain had played a moon-like influence on Continental Europe. A balancing effect. Just like the moon steadies the rotation of Earth and ocean waves, British influence maintained balance of power on the Continent by forging alliances against whatever power was most dominant. Indeed, had it not been for Britain, perhaps a Continental Empire might have formed. But in WWI, British influence went awry and made things much worse by intervening on the side of France. Its effect was more like that of an asteroid than the moon. As for Hitler, he was a super-volcano that just erupted out of nowhere. British asteroid and German volcano undid Europe in the 20th century.

    I can believe that Jacob Schiff played a role in Bolshevism. Not out of ideology but tribal loyalty and hatred against ‘bad goyim’. We see the same patterns today, what with Jewish Oligarchs even siding with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine against Russia. And Israel works with extreme Muslim elements to subvert secular Arab regimes(that are regarded as bigger threat to Israel). Also, George Soros throws his money around at ANYTHING to get what he wants. Given the level of hatred Jews felt toward Russia in the 19th and early 20th century, it seems likely that a Jewish banker like Schiff and others would aid JEWISH Bolsheviks against Traditional Russia. It was mainly about JEWISH capitalists aiding JEWISH communists. If a conflict was about GOY communists vs JEWISH traditionalists, I’m sure men like Schiff would have funded the latter. Blood matters sometimes. Though both China and Vietnam were communist while the Chinese minority in Vietnam was capitalist, the Boat People tragedy(that targeted capitalist Chinese) angered China(though communist), partially accounting for the brief Sino-Vietnam War. And there are plenty of capitalist Chinese who loathe communism but still side with Mainland out of tribal loyalty.

    As for David Irving, yes, he was targeted for taking on sacred cows, but it was also the way he did it. An abrasive and difficult personality, he relished the role of playing enfant terrible just too much. Also, he has a double standard when it comes to history. When it comes to Hitler’s crimes, he insists on total documentary proof. But on other matters, he’s willing to go with established narrative, flimsy evidence, or wild exaggerations if it makes the Allies, esp Churchill, ‘just as bad as Germany’. His suggestion of moral equivalence that Allies were just as bad as Nazi Germany is going too far. In war, both sides did horrible things, but does anyone really think Germany would have treated the vanquished like the Allies treated Germany? Once the dust settled, Germany was treated like a normal nation by the Allies, but what would a victorious Germany have done? If Germany had won over Britain, humane treatment was likely. But against Russia, it would have been horrors on a scale unimaginable. And as it would have been on racial than ideological grounds, it would have been far worse. (Germany was treated reasonably fairly by Allies after WWII, though in the immediate aftermath, there was a period of unspeakable atrocities against Germans, esp the women by Soviet troops. If things got worse for Germany over the years, it has to do with Jewish Power taking over the US and turning Shoah into a secular religion, thus turning German Guilt from a historical matter to a spiritual one. But then, this Sacred Cow that comes with powerful taboos applies to all of Europe, as well as Canada and US and beyond. The Shoah Narrative is nearly as harsh on France, Poland, UK, Sweden, and etc. as on Germany. If Germans are to apologize forever as the killers, other Europeans are to apologize forever as collaborators or craven cowards who failed to stand up to Hitler. As EU is a US satellite and as the US is controlled by Jewish Power, much of the ‘free world’ is occupied zone of Jewish Supremacism that, while calling on whites to atone for their own past supremacism, also insists that whites must support Jewish Supremacism against Palestinians, Arabs, Iran, and Russia.)

    Was Kaiser Wilhelm a ‘peacemaker’? The article says Wilhelm was once praised by the New York Times as a rational and sound leader, but what does that mean? NYT was and is full of shit. During the Newt Gingrich and then George W. Bush II era, NYT often praised John McCain as the Good Republican, moderate and balanced. But in the 2008 campaign, he was made out to be a moron, nutjob, and loon in contrast to messiah Obama. And then in the Trump era, he’s been rehabilitated and praised once again as a voice of reason by NYT and rest of ‘Liberal’ Media. In the 70s, US media were full of high praise for Mao. In the 80s, US media called Jihadis in Afghanistan ‘freedom fighters’, and Saddam Hussein wasn’t such a bad guy because he was fighting Iran. But then, he was ‘new Hitler’ in the early 90s. So, it doesn’t matter how NYT may have characterized Wilhelm before WWI. NYT is a political rag of the moneyed class, and it’s been all over the map. Also, when even if something was printed in the NYT, it was either one writer or a handful of people on the editorial board. It doesn’t mean everyone working for the paper agreed. Many newspapers offer varying points of views.
    The fact is Wilhelm was vain, arrogant, and conceited. And when it mattered most, he failed miserably, but then so did the idiot Czar of Russia and the French Republic in revanchist mode(going back to 1870 defeat to Prussia-Germany). WWI was a case of “It takes two to tango” or “It takes a bunch to start a barroom brawl.” UK didn’t make things any better as it hoped German defeat would thwart its global ambitions, esp as Germany had surpassed UK as the #1 industrial power in Europe.

    Did FDR want a war with Germany to save his presidency? And was Adolf Hitler not so bad? The notion that FDR was itching for war just to have another term sounds far-fetched. Also, even if was true, Hitler was the one who was driving events. He could have avoided much trouble by not moving on Czech territory, for which he was forgiven and accommodated(or ‘appeased’). And then, whatever problems he had with Poland, the joint German-Soviet invasion was pure evil. But even then, his victory over France meant he had domination over all the continent except the Soviet Union. He could have kept the peace with USSR and run out the clock against the UK.
    Now, Viktor Suvorov argues that the USSR was about to attack Germany and that Hitler didn’t have a choice, but this is still conjecture and speculation, a matter open to debate, one that I still don’t believe. If indeed, Stalin did amass military formations against Germany, he took a huge gamble. Likely, he was using a mental strategy against Hitler. A show of force from the position of strength to psych Hitler out and prevent Germans from attacking. But maybe Hitler read things differently and really believed a Soviet threat was imminent, in which case Stalin’s bluff failed(or succeeded to well in convincing the Germans). Now, given the endless lies we’ve gotten from the media — and bogus books on Israeli History, such as the notion that Palestinians abandoned their homes voluntarily during the Jewish-Arab War in 1948 — , it’s possible that there’s far more to WWII than we’d been told so far. But psychology matters in history, and Stalin’s psychology just doesn’t indicate ‘Invade all of Europe’. Also, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler was that the former already had vast areas and vast populations under direct control. Even without taking another inch, the USSR was an empire unto itself. Stalin already had what it took to be an emperor. In contrast, Hitler’s ego was just as big or even bigger, but he only ruled over ‘tiny’ Germany. Germany had dominion over satellite states, but it was far from what Stalin had. From that perspective, Stalin was content without taking further territory. He was content to nibble on parts of Finland(though he could have taken it all) and Baltic states. Also, even if the Soviet offensive against Germany might have been successful, it would have been at huge cost, and I highly doubt if Stalin was willing to risk that.

    German economy did better under Hitler than US economy under FDR, but then that was one of the advantages of a centralized state. Hitler didn’t have to deal with democratic brakes for his plans that were implemented overnight and at vast scale. In contrast, FDR’s New Deal was hampered by opposition from the other party and capitalists(and American individualism). So, it’s understandable why he wanted to be wartime president because war(and hate), like nothing else, unites a nation together for a single purpose. While the notion that FDR provoked Japan into aggression to facilitate US entry into the war is maybe plausible, he would have had to been a super 4D chess player to foresee and manipulate events in Europe. Also, considering that he won his terms by promising peace than war, a mere outbreak of war in Europe would NOT have guaranteed US entry unless US it was itself attacked(and that took Japan).

    As for Hitler not being ‘Hitler’ of Villainy, this is true enough up to 1939. It’s like what Joachim Fest wrote in his biography: Had Hitler died in 1939, he would have been remembered as one of Germany’s greatest leaders. But there were events following 39 and esp 41, and they revealed the dark side of him. That dark side had always been there, but it truly emerged as he gained greater power and means to do as he wished. Given his ideology and worldview, Hitler could be reasonably humane among his own kind and those whom he respected(like the French). He regarded them with affection and fondness. It’s like Jews in Israel are wonderfully nice to other Jews but virulently murderous to those in Gaza. But his racial ideology meant he could be incredibly uncaring and even hostile/murderous toward certain others. He didn’t merely dislike the Slavs. He despised them as a people. His hatred of Jews was understandable given Jewish role in communism and Weimar decadence, but it went beyond human hatred toward something monstrous that led to atrocities that even David Irving admits. Irving never said Germans didn’t commit atrocities against Jews. He said he found no evidence that Hitler directly gave those orders, but this is rather incredible. While Hitler surely didn’t order every instance of mass-killing of Jews, he presided over a system and appointed the kind of men who would gladly do such things.
    Morality depends on context. A chimp can be a capital fellow among his own tribe. He can be a good friend and leader. But against an enemy tribe, he can be most vicious, commit all sorts of mayhem, and bite off the genitals of the Other. So, Hitler’s rather decent behavior among Germans says nothing of his behavior among Russians or Jews. Likewise, white Americans who could be so nice among themselves could ruthlessly wipe out Indians or kill tons of Filipinos or Vietnamese. Americans, who talk of law & order and democracy, turn a blind eye to all those dead Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. In the American Way of Thinking, a fellow American is a capital fellow and becoming America is ennobling, but ‘muzzies’ in the Middle East are just cannon-fodder for “Support the Troops” mentality. Americans have affection for Jews and praise them highly, but when it comes to Palestinians, it’s like a Brahmin sneering at an Untouchable. Farrakhan is so loving and forgiving of his black brothers and sisters… but feels contempt for rest of humanity. Israeli Jews are brothers and sisters, but they don’t care how many Syrians are slaughtered as long as it’s ‘good for Israel’. Hitler was no different.

  120. Anon[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Very similar claims have been appearing in the MSM for the last few years, mostly based on surveys from the highly-authoritative Federal Reserve.

    For example, here’s one from last year saying that 40% of adults didn’t have even $400 in available savings:

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20180522a.htm

    Ah, this study from last year actually is the one that was recently criticized. (My original source: Alan Reynolds Catches Shoddy Reporting about Federal Reserve Survey.) I was mistaken about the amount involved.

    As you’ll see if you click through the links, the relevant question is EF3:

    Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply.

    50% say “With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash”, 36% say “Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement”, and 12% say “I wouldn’t be able to pay for the expense right now”. The Fed’s summary says a total of 59% would pay exclusively through the use of savings and a credit card paid in full at the next statement, implying that 75% of people using a credit card paid in full by the next statement supplement that with an immediate cash payment. But note that there is no question about whether the respondent’s savings would be sufficient to cover a $400 expense, only whether the respondent would use them for that purpose.

    Compare question EF1 in the same survey:

    Have you set aside emergency or rainy day funds that would cover your expenses for 3 months in case of sickness, job loss, economic downturn, or other emergencies?

    50% answer “yes”; this sounds like a significantly higher threshold than $400.

    (Interestingly, question EF2, “If you were to lose your main source of income (e.g., job, government benefits), could you cover your expenses for 3 months by borrowing money, using savings, selling assets, or borrowing from friends/family?”, gets 57% “no” and only 42% “yes”. Seems to conflict with EF1.)

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Thorfinnsson
  121. Cyrano says:
    @Hans

    Listen Hans Christian Andersen. How does it make sense for Hitler to hate “Bolshevism” so much, and yet to declare Germany to be “Socialist”? There are still uninformed propaganda sufferers out there who think that Socialism is a milder form of Communism.

    Listen carefully – there never was “Communism”. It was all socialism. USSR was socialist, China was (is?) socialist, Cuba is socialist. Neither Germany was socialist, nor USSR was “communist”. In the case of the former – it was propaganda, in the case of the latter – it was aspiration. That BS that socialism was “expansionist” is pure fantasy. Name one country that was invaded for the sole purpose of being converted to socialism.

  122. @Gefreiter

    Those poor Palestinian boys in the hands of these monsters.

    @ Fran Taubman says:

    The bigger idea here is that Jews do not engage in shit like that, they are not depraved people not.
    The IDF has strict rules of engagement, and the country operates by the rule of law. . . . That is not our MO, we are not like that, we have never been like that.

    What is wrong with you, do even think that. . . .
    I do not see how you could ask such crazy stuff. The problem the world has with the Jews is their success and creativity, the fact that they beat the Arabs in 4 wars.
    Not their brutality.

    • LOL: Gefreiter
  123. @Cyrano

    Name one country that was invaded for the sole purpose of being converted to socialism.

    Soviet Invasion of Finland, which got them expelled from LoN.
    Soviet invasion of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Baltic states etc…

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  124. @Gefreiter

    Just like all those honorable SS officers at Nuremburg, he likely had first hand experience with jewish sadism and blood lust.

    David Irving is not as honorable as you want to believe. He didn’t experience jewish sadism except in their ability to make him a poor man. In prison, he saw his wealth disappearing along with his ability to make a more than comfortable living with his books. So he dropped his “holocaust denial” – even took Deborah Lipstadt to court to legally enforce his credentials as a believer – but what he had already said about Auschwitz couldn’t be erased. So he came up with the cockamamie idea that all the gassing was done at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor under Himmler’s command, without Hitler’s awareness. Dumb?? [David Cole did the same thing after being outed from his double life as David Stein.]

    Irving’s book outlining this theory has been “in the works” for about a decade now, but he can’t figure out how to pull it off.

    While not a bad man, this is not an honorable man and shouldn’t be compared to honorable SS officers.

  125. eah says:

    …call bullshit on the 9/11 official lie…call bullshit on the holocaust official lie…

    Quite the lively comment thread — “LOL”

    Suvorov Hypothesis

    …Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

    About this attack: is there any evidence the Soviets had a detailed operational plan? — think about what it takes to carry out such a massive invasion with an army of millions of men and machines (also hundreds of thousands of horses were used in Operation Barbarossa), together with an air force of thousands of planes — coordination and communication; a constant supply of munitions, fuel, food; medical care; etc etc — the list is practically endless.

    In Weisung Nr. 21 on 18 Dec 1940 (Fall Barbarossa), Hitler ordered OKW to prepare a plan for the invasion of the Soviet Union — over the next weeks this was finalized in great detail.

    I’m not aware of any report of such a detailed operational plan on the Soviet side.

    Also it’s generally a little hard to believe that Stalin would have risked a confrontation with the Wehrmacht after seeing how the Germans rolled over the French and the BEF in the West — not to mention the Luftwaffe.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @Wally
  126. @Germanicus

    Hi Germanicus,
    Just as an aside, consciousness is a better word than soul. It’s the consciousness that is eternal and that leaves the body, with all its awareness intact. You are right that it can come back for awhile, but it usually doesn’t. However, back in the time you’re talking about, ability to know for sure that someone could not be reanimated was primitive. Accidents happened.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @RI
  127. Sorry to burst your bubble, but US was unbeatable. Even if Hitler had won the war at the East & had added a couple of millions more to his tally (Generalplan Ost) – Germany would have been bombed into submission.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_overview:_service,_power_and_type

    My old conclusion is: it was beneficent for Germans that they had lost the war so quick, because had they won & killed other 20-30 millions, German people would have not only suffered great losses, but would have been almost obliterated.

  128. @Gefreiter

    David Irving was indeed tamed by jail. His health seems to have taken a downward turn in recent years, and he seems to be only working on finishing the works in progress and his own biography. It’s such a shame because he was otherwise fearless in finding and writing about facts that are constantly buried.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  129. @Wally

    MEMO to the ADL: Is Ron Unz the new Hitler?

    Inquiring gullible goys want to know before they continue posting here.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  130. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

    But note that there is no question about whether the respondent’s savings would be sufficient to cover a $400 expense, only whether the respondent would use them for that purpose.

    Hmm…that’s quite interesting. Over the last few years, I must have seen coverage of at least a half-dozen of those different, very similar surveys, frequently done by the Federal Reserve, and the results have always been described in the same fashion, just as in the current Fed report. I guess I just assumed all the reports were reliable, especially since they’ve gotten such massive media coverage and apparently nobody ever attempted to dispute them.

    I’ll admit I’ve never been impressed by Alan Reynolds, who really seems like a hack, but maybe he’s actually correct this time and the Fed report is completely misleading…

  131. @Jacques Sheete

    Would you, like me, be a very rich man if you had a dime for every time you heard some moron parrot, “if not for D-day, we’d be speaking German today?”

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  132. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @FB

    Why is it a good thing that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia didn’t team up to smash the imperialist west…?

    Seems like it was a good thing for the imperialist West!

    And for Hitler, the goal was not about sharing power with anyone. His aim was to smash Russia and chase the Russians over the Urals, then to wrap up by turning on Britain. Having subdued the Brits it would have remained only for Germany to deal with the US, aided presumably, by missile attacks launched from bases in occupied Canada.

    Hitler had expected to avoid a two-front war by bombing the Brits into submission before invading Russia. That plan was defeated by the Royal Air Force. But despite defeat in the Battle of Britain, Hitler went ahead with the invasion of Russia. Russia’s stubborn resistance gave the Allies time to organize the invasion of occupied Europe from the UK, which served as America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier. Germany was thus doomed by Hitler’s miscalculation to an unwinnable two-front war.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  133. To understand the cause of this war, it is worth to read from the west, John Beaty’s book, “Iron curtain over America”, from Douglas Reed, “The controversy of Zion” and from the Russian’s side, Victor Suvorov, “The chief culprit”.

    Douglas Reed’s book is a powerful key to understand what is happening to the Western and Christian world since the end of the eighteenth century. It shows how a sect coming from Russia managed by talmudits, the guardians of the written and oral Torah launched them selves to the world conquest at the end of the nineteenth century, what this sect has achieved and its next objective. I made a résumé of what I have understood and have been adding the results of the 62 years following this book’s completion.

    The revolution and the Zionism are like the left and the right arm of one entity whose objective is the fulfilment of the messianic promise: the Messiah’s comeback to Jerusalem and the destruction and enslavement of the gentiles. The Zionism is in charge of gathering the dispersed community, of fighting assimilation and digging a trench between them and the gentiles; using antisemitism as a tool to achieve its goal. The revolution is the weapon to destroy the strutures of the nation-states to be able to enslave their population.

    The arm of the revolution was the first one to become active, but in the underground, and thus no one can say whether it is the father or the son of the Illumnati from Weishaupt. The Zionism’s arm became active when the entity took notice that the assimilation processus in the West could jeopardize their objective.

    Since the first world war, the USA public services have been infiltrated by the agents of the revolution coming from Russia. Thus the President Roosevelt worked with Stalin to trigger the war to expand the revolution to the all world, to insure its sustainability. With material and financial support from the USA, Stalin was to take over all Europe, the British isles included and Roosevelt was supposed to crush the Japan Empire which was not compatible with the revolution.

    The plan was the following : Trigger a war in Europe involving the major nations which were supposed to exhaust them selves to facilitate Stalin’s intervention, to impose peace and turn those nations into the soviet system. To initiate the war, Hitler and Germany with all its woes resulting from the Versailles treaty, was the easiest candidate, identified by Stalin, to push to war. Roosevelt was put in charge of freezing all negotiations between Germany and all others european countries and after Munich, he ordered Beck, Chamberlain and Daladier to cut all relationships with Berlin. Then Stalin went to proposed Hitler some help to solve the Dantzig corridor issue by making another partition of Poland, and Hitler fell into the trap

    As said before to Roosevelt, England declared war to Germany and France followed, but both closed their eyes about the USSR taking half of Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Finland and Romania. In this plan, Poland was used as fuse, Germany was trapped and France and England went to war without understanding that behind Germany, the real ennemy was hidding : the revolution with the USSR on one side and Roosevelt on the other side both working on behalf of the talmudic entity.

    Actually, the plan did not worked as forecast. France and Britain were supposed to be able to carry a war of attrition against Germany and their early collapse came as a bad surprise. Furthermore, Hitler having understood as soon as december 1940 that he had been trapped and watching Stalin’s war preparations, realized that if he was not anticipating the coming russian’s invasion, Germany would be crushed by the russian steamroller in few weeks. Stalin underestimated Hitler’s daring and he lost the first leg between June 1941 and July 1942, and with it around 5 millions men. The overall picture was changed, Roosevelt would have to send to Europe some soldiers to allow Stalin to eliminate Hitler. Stalin could no more fulfil the objective of the revolution. He woud have to share with Roosevelt Europe and this was the beginning of the end of the Communism.

    Then the cold war period was a time when the way to drive the world revolution had to be revisited. The talmudic entity which had triggered the world revolution had choosen in 1917 the Bolcheviks with the Communism. The experience and the failure of Staline with its brute force and the exposure that Stalin, in the same way as Constantin took control over the Christianism, could take the control of the revolution, led them to understand that a world revolution on the type of a Menchevik socialism could yield better results.

    The Bolchevik method relied on gathering the masses and turn them in a sort of a steamroller to crush everythingin front. The Menchevik method uses poisons to divide people, to ruin the middle class, to corrupt and pervert everyone, to blackmail everybody using spying and denouncement, to plunge people into confusion by cutting their roots. That is the method used today.

    I don’t believe that the connivance between the talmudistes from the URSS and the USA broke at the end of the second world war. It was a transit period for the revolution from the bolcheviks from Russia to the mencheviks in the USA and the revolution changed its name to become “the new world order” and the poison replaced the terror. This change did allow also to erase the apparent contradiction between the two arms of the talmudic entity; the communism being universal when the zionism is sectarian and exclusive. This contradiction was becoming an issue with Israel terrorist behavior.

    Douglas Reed did not saw this transition but before 2000, it was probably hard to notice it. The exposure of the war to become hot was not real since the URSS had already the atom bomb and could turn Europe into ashes and no-one in Europe could find any motivation to commit suicide. All these howls and criminal incitements to trigger upheavals in the East in 1956 were just tricks to speed-up the end of communism since it was no more useful for the talmudits.

    This period also gave the time necessary for some of the URSS’s nomenclature to understand that the end of communism could be an opportunity to become billionaires while in the US their collegues were using the military-industrial-complex to rob the US taxpayers with the threat and fear of the URSS artificialy induced by the media. Today the menchevik revolution or ” the New world order” has been able to poison and enslave the western world including New-Zealand and Australia. Russia has been trying to get rid of its talmudic chains but is not yet free and the grandchildren of Ibn Saoud totally corrupted by their wealth have naively thought that by betraying Islam and the Arab world, they would be accepted by the talmudists but they will meet the same fate as Belshazzar king of Babylon.

    Today the quarrel between Trump and the Democrats is a quarrel between the Zionism and the “New world order”(ex. menchevik revolution). For the “New world order”, the cart must not be put before the horse and the nation-states have to be destroyed and their population enslaved to allow the comeback of the Messiah to Jerusalem. The Zionism’s role is to weld the jewish community together, to fight assimilation and segregate the Jews from the gentiles. The Zionism have to be the Doctrine’s guardian, it is not to the Zionists to submit or destroy the gentiles.

    Today the Zionists are impatient and they want to coerce God to fulfil his commitment now. They are betting that by triggering an apocalyptic war, the Messiah will have to come to Jerusalem and that at last, they will be the world masters. But the “New world order” is afraid that trying to coerce God may induce Him, in the contrary , to trigger the”Jewish catastrophe”. This the rationale of the fight of the democrats from Wall Street against Trump the Zionists’ champion.

    I agree with Douglas Reed that we may be heading towards the “Jewish catastrophe”. The Zionists war madness or the foul perversion of the leaders of the “New world order” is calling for their auto-destruction. Yet it may also be a sign that the world is becoming sterile and can no more produce someone at the Creator’s image and therefore with the “Jewish catastrophe” , there could be un unprecedented hecatomb among the gentiles unable to reach the apotheosis.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  134. @Carolyn Yeager

    Just as an aside, consciousness is a better word than soul.

    I tried to express it from the pov of that time.
    Perhaps life spark? Chi?

    It’s the consciousness that is eternal and that leaves the body, with all its awareness intact.

    I would slightly disagree, consciousness is not in the body, it is a field that also exists without the body.
    I would say, what leaves the body, ie decouples from it, is the real field being, the essential eternal spirit we are. consciousness is not produced by the brain, like they officially claim.
    I find it sometimes difficult to express these things with imprecise english, which lacks precise words for how nature works.

  135. @Winnetou1889

    David Irving is a prominent historian, whose books sit on the shelves of colleges and government offices. However, he torpedoed his career when he confronted organized Jewry and their “Holocaust”. I posted in a previous thread that Jews can topple anyone they desire, particularly those who express opinions which counter the orthodox Holocaust narrative. The extent of their efforts in this regard is proportional to the level of notoriety of the individual doubter/revisionist/”Anti-Semite” (They’re not Semitic.) Mr. Irving was a serious threat to their tribe, and he was dealt with accordingly.

  136. Cyrano says:
    @Germanicus

    Same thing about Germany, man. That’s exactly why National Socialist Germany invaded Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and eventually USSR – because they wanted them all to be Socialist.

    What a terrible misunderstanding. If only USSR and Germany put their heads together and figured it out that their aims were the same – to make everybody socialist – they could have ruled the world together in the name of socialism.

    • Troll: Germanicus
  137. @Sin City Milla

    Hitler was a racist, who would seek to remove ‘impurities’ from Germany and occupied Europe. Unfortunately, Jews were among that segment, and Zionists understood the value of Hitler’s campaign to force the exit of their tribe from Europe. THAT was the impetus for the propaganda cranked out against the Third Reich by Zionists, which was so ridiculous (Human Soap. Human Skin Lampshades, Homicidal Gas Chambers, Diesel Death Chambers, Flaming Trenches, Electrocution Floors, etc.) it’s comical to discuss these devices and products. It’s even more amusing to witness our government officials legislating laws to sanction this baloney.

    • Replies: @Hans
  138. Rich says:
    @Colin Wright

    I used to believe the same version of history as you, but after spending just a little extra time on the subject, found I was wrong. Jews had historically been expelled from just about every European country. England, France, Spain, italy,Russia, I don’t know if there’s a country that didn’t kick them out, so this act was actually quite normal, Mr Unz is correct, you should read David Irving at the least to get a better perspective on the Second World War.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  139. @Cyrano

    Wherever Jews “Set up Shop”, they campaign to enforce “Equality”, and default to the Socialist method to effect that change. The “National Socialist” ruse was the scheme devised to convince destitute German citizens–particularly German women–to vote in the Third Reich.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Cyrano
  140. JoeFour says:
    @renfro

    “Please put everything on unz and everything you know in a safe place, bury it in a vault if necessary…it may be the only accurate history we have if things continue the way they are now.”

    Yes. I think its time to put all of the America Pravda series and Mr. Unz’s other writings in hard copy publication. I’d pay an advance subscription and, I suspect, most here would also.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Ron Unz
  141. @Rich

    ‘I used to believe the same version of history as you, but after spending just a little extra time on the subject, found I was wrong. Jews had historically been expelled from just about every European country. England, France, Spain, italy,Russia, I don’t know if there’s a country that didn’t kick them out, so this act was actually quite normal, Mr Unz is correct, you should read David Irving at the least to get a better perspective on the Second World War.’

    To take this seriously, you’re engaging in the same false logic Ron did a while back.

    Expelling Jews would have been normal — in the fifteenth century. This was the twentieth century; it was emphatically not something ‘normal’ states did any more. You might as well defend drawing and quartering traitors on the grounds that it’s ‘normal’; states did it six hundred years ago.

    You and several other posters just don’t seem to get it; in denying that Nazi Germany was ‘normal,’ I’m not saying it was good or bad, I’m just saying the obvious. It wasn’t normal. It was an aberration, a revolutionary society, different.

    In fact, the Nazi episode may have been one of the more authentic popular revolutions in history. Hitler certainly enjoyed far more popular support than Lenin, Robespierre, or Mao did, and he certainly aimed at a more profound reshaping of society than Mussolini or George Washington attempted.

  142. @eah

    I share your skepticism.

    The obvious question to ask is what was the operational name of this planned invasion by Stalin? Surely, it wasn’t called the “Suvorov Hypothesis.”

    We know the operational name of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and it was called “Operation Barbarossa.” So, then, what was the operational name of Stalin’s planned invasion of Germany?

    Incidentally, “Operation Barbarossa” has been described by some re-revisionists as the biggest Joo d’état (Jewish coup) of the 20th Century. Some of the most notable re-revisionists like Miles Mathis and Joe Atwill even go so far as to claim Hitler was controlled opposition.

    Cognitive dissonance prevents me from accepting the “Hitler was 100% controlled opposition” hypothesis, even though nothing about the official narrative of WWII makes any sense, least of all “Operation Barbarossa,” or for that matter, “Operation Pike.”

    Was WWII a WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) production? If it was, then it would make sense.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @CanSpeccy
  143. Gefreiter says:
    @Germanicus

    I would say, what leaves the body, ie decouples from it, is the real field being, the essential eternal spirit we are. consciousness is not produced by the brain, like they officially claim.

    I have read that jews drain every single drop of blood from the corpses of their blood sacrifice victims. The claim is that they must get every drop or they do not capture the entire “eternal spirit”. This relates back to my post about Masyrik and the blood sacrifice victim who left no blood after being stabbed to death.

    Do you believe that these Kabbalists derive magick power from these sacrifices? Do they somehow trap the “eternal souls” of their child victims?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  144. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    Causes of the Red Army turning into an uncontrollable mob had nothing in common with the notorious “absence of the means of communication”. The cause, effect and the main content of the unbridled decomposition of the army became mass noncompliance with orders, mass deserting (both open and hidden) and mass surrender into captivity. The Soviet Union turned out not ready to war in terms of the “human factor”. In the total contradiction with what was for decades hammered in by the Soviet propaganda, the Red Army conceded to the enemy not in the number of cannon, tanks and machine guns but in the readiness, skills and desire of soldiers to do their duty. In the collision with a real, dogged and stable enemy, it turned out that in the Red Army there were plenty of tanks but the lack of motivation for the armed struggle.
    http://www.solonin.org/en/article_mark-solonin-june-1941-final

    • Replies: @David Baker
  145. @Germanicus

    Because they really didn’t know what they were financing. When they found out; they instigated a war against Germany to obliterate those financial policies.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  146. @David Baker

    The “National Socialist” ruse was the scheme devised to convince destitute German citizens–particularly German women–to vote in the Third Reich.

    You do not undertand the first thing about Germans and the German mind, so you should not be trying to describe them.

  147. You and several other posters just don’t seem to get it; in denying that Nazi Germany was ‘normal,’ I’m not saying it was good or bad, I’m just saying the obvious. It wasn’t normal

    So an imperial goon defines normal, right?

    Actually, you deploy the same nonsensical reasoning as the multicultists do with “cultural enrichment” and sexual degeneracy by claiming homosexuality would be normal nowadays.

    If you have a guest at home, and this guest behaves badly, you gonna throw him out, right?
    You not gonna allow your guest to destroy your house and take it over and to share it with even more badly behaving guests who will call your house “people’s property”, right?
    You will laugh at your moronic neighbor, who tries to tell you “its not normal any longer we throw out bad behavior”, right?

  148. @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘…My old conclusion is: it was beneficent for Germans that they had lost the war so quick, because had they won & killed other 20-30 millions, German people would have not only suffered great losses, but would have been almost obliterated.’

    I doubt it. Certain revisionists notwithstanding, nothing the Western Allies did compared in sheer, breathtaking, universal, sustained horror to the savagery of the irruption of the Red Army into East Prussia and Silesia — not to mention the other German communities of the East.

    The Germans would have been far better off had they destroyed the Soviet state, then lost the war to the Western powers. Yes, Britain and the United States would have been callous and vindictive — but no act they could have brought themselves to commit could have compared to Stalin’s calculated atrocities.

    After all, with the discovery of the concentration camps, the Germans had already maxed out the ‘criminalometer.’ They could have only added to their guilt in the eyes of the victorious Allies in volume, not in degree. Britain and the US et al would have behaved about as they did even if it had turned out the Nazis had done in another ten million than they did historically. How could a Nazi occupation of the Russian heartland been worse than the Nazi occupation of the Ukraine et al? It would have just been more of the same.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  149. @MAOWASAYALI

    The obvious question to ask is what was the operational name of this planned invasion by Stalin?

    Operation thunder.

  150. @Colin Wright

    Look at it from a Zionist POV; did they want German Jews to remain in Germany or relocate them to Palestine? From the POV of German Jews; did they want to stay in Germany or were they all agog to emigrate to Palestine?

    How were these conflicting interests resolved?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  151. @JoeFour

    It’d be a wise precaution. I’d buy a set and hide it in the woods just so I could be sure it all could never be completely expunged.

    This isn’t to say I agree with more than a fraction of it. It’s just that I’ll decide what to believe and what not to believe on my own, thanks.

  152. sally says:
    @Leon

    Ron’s work is just the beginning of the undisclosed truth.. wait until the bankers and trader’s plan developed in Switzerland to weaponize the Jewish immigration in Germany, Poland and Russia and guide the Jews into Palestine.. and to create the Federal Reserve bank to lend for the war, and collateralize those war loans by taxing Americans, surfaces..

    Also the first Zionist congress. was all about eliminating both Germany and Russia from the Ottoman oil and also all about using the USA to force Americans to help the Zionist in England, France and Russia defeat the Germans.. Wilson, Roosevelt etc. . also the 16th amendment first proposed July 12 1909, right after the failure of the Zionist to overthrow the Ottoman (see Cup, 1908, Salonika fire 1913) February 5, 1913

    Since Lincoln was shot the US Supreme court ruled Art 1, Sec. 9, (4) of the US Constitution prevented a tax on income but in 1912 it changed its mind corporations could be taxed, and January 1913, court ruled a direct income tax could be constitutional a few days later the 16th Amendment.. the Zionist have been moving hq from England to the USA. ever since. BUT WHY WAS THE INCOME TAX SO IMPORTANT..

    BECAUSE THE tax to be paid by the American people provided the COLLATERAL the Jewish bankers needed to use the governments of England and France and the USA to fight WWI and WWII and the British propaganda provided the American blood. So on the next day the Federal Reserve was established.

    Without the federal reserve lending, it would have been impossible to successfully deprive Germany and Russia access to the middle east and its oil. Jewish banker control over the USA in 1913 was so strong they could tax governed-Americans to fund WWI (see 16th amendment) and they could create a private bank and lend the money to fight the war to the USA and force the USA to tax Americans to pay for the war and to collateralize the loans. The Federal Reserve act came the next day.. It was the Jewish establishment of the Federal Reserve and the Jewish accomplishment to force the USA to tax the incomes of Americans that provided sufficient funds to conduct the war and to establish Israel. That bank was called the Federal Reserve..
    Below is a link with a very questionable scenario. Non the less Ron has proved it necessary to consider all voices no matter the source.

    http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2863.htm

    • Agree: Gefreiter
  153. Cyrano says:
    @David Baker

    Same thing is being done today. They are using quasi(modo) socialist elements (multiculturalism) to pretend that they are great humanists, so the common man wouldn’t ask for some meaningful social improvements – which would require a real humanism which the ruling elites don’t have.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  154. bluedog says:
    @David Baker

    Lol that old old lie that the dropping of the bombs saved American lives,and of course they are the idiots that never read anything but propaganda, that is,that the dropping of those bombs on an island surrounded by warships just in some insane way saved thousands of lives.I suggest that you find a retreat spend months reading books,take a test before your allowed to touch a keyboard again.111

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @David Baker
  155. @Gefreiter

    Do you believe that these Kabbalists derive magick power from these sacrifices?

    Yes.
    Sell your soul for fame and power, a deal with the devil, it has a price, it creates a debt they have to pay back, which in my view is done with these giant rituals, eg 911.
    Entire Hollywood is into summoning demons. Just listen to the song texts, or listen to some interviews where they describe that an entity take over when they are on stage, and that the entity loves the attraction, spotlight etc and absorbes it.
    That’s what they say.

    Do they somehow trap the “eternal souls” of their child victims?

    My research has led me to conclude, they extract chemical compounds from the blood or organs, plasma, which have life prolonging effects, but it makes them addicted to it, a bit insane, and they can’t simply stop using it once started.
    Look up what Peter Thiel is into for example.
    In essence, Vampires are real in a certain way, they take life to extend their own.

    I had made some comments on Michail Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog” and its main character modeled after real Serge Voronoff, who is suspiciously absent from medical records.
    This is very dark territory.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  156. @Anon

    In combat environments, most soldiers revert to being “uncontrollable mobs”. Example: An F-105 pilot I knew when I worked at the USAF Test Pilot School related a tale about Vietnam War Thud Drivers returning from sorties with excess cannon rounds and external ordnance. Rather than dealing with the delay of parking on the “Hot Line” to disarm the aircraft after recoveries, they would line up on a rice paddy–usually occupied–and hose the workers with their rounds and bombs. This was quite shocking to hear about, but if Americans want our troops to engage in combat, then these activities will ensue.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  157. @MAOWASAYALI

    ‘MEMO to the ADL: Is Ron Unz the new Hitler?

    Inquiring gullible goys want to know before they continue posting here.

    I’m trying to picture Ron Unz working himself up into a frenzy on a podium before thousands of wildly cheering Silicon Valleyites.

    …drawing a blank.

  158. @Germanicus

    Hey, I’m glad you’re interested in this. Of course, it comes down to semantics, and I have had a couple other men say it the same way you do. But my knowing is that the consciousness that leaves the body (as the soul – I’m not against that word, just don’t think its very descriptive) is part of the total consciousness-field, and exists as both field and individual, depending on where the focus is directed. It retains its awareness of Self as individual while being also attuned to the field (part of the field). This both while “alive” and “dead.”

    So, as you say, it’s just the way different people define these words. The corollary to this is the photon, the smallest particle known in physics, which exhibits both particle (individual) and wave (field) characteristics at will.

    The only difference in being alive, is that our consciousness (a part of the field/God/Source) incarnates into a (usually) newly born physical body. It’s a lot more loving than that, but that is the essential process. When the body is no longer serviceable, or by a decision of that individual consciousness, it departs, leaving the body in a state of death. So the consciousness is IN THE LIVING BODY, but never separated from the field. And the brain does depend on the consciousness and vice versa to function with the body. This is the area that it seems we might understand differently.

    What do you think? I apologize if I’ve over-explained it for you, but I just want to be clear for readers, too.

  159. Incitatus says:
    @German_reader

    ru: “and the state [Czechoslovakia] basically fell about”
    G_r: “That glosses over the occupation of the rump Czech state by German forces in March 1939, territory that could in no way be seen as German…this was very important, because it showed that Hitler’s claim to merely pursue the legitimate goal of self-determination of peoples had been a lie. It’s no wonder public opinion in the UK and France turned sharply against Germany after that.”

    Agree with your judgement, but you’re too kind with Unz. Consider his full premise:

    “Czechs were a minority, controlling Czechoslovakia by improper means and therefore their rule was widely disliked by the majority of the population. After Hitler freed the Sudeten Germans, the Slovaks and the other groups split off as well, and the state basically fell about.”

    What “improper means”? Does minority merit destruction [beware Jews outside Israel]? “Freed Sudeten Germans”? Freed for what? Service in the Wehrmacht conquering lebensraum am Ost [Mein Kampf 1925, Hoßbach 5 Nov 1937]?

    Consider:

    “This [Sudetenland] is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe, but it is a demand on which I will not yield.”
    – Adolf Hitler, Berlin 26 Sep 1938

    “[Doubtful signing Chamberlain’s compact to eschew war – ‘peace in our time’ – was] “meant seriously by the other side.”
    -Adolf Hitler 1 Oct 1938 [Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 1, Vol 6 entry for 2 Oct 1938 p.125; Ulrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.745] (1 day after signing the Munich Agreement and a promise to eschew war);

    “We’ve achieved everything we set out to according to our little plan. The big plan cannot be realized due to the prevailing circumstances at the moment. We walked a narrow tightrope over a dizzying abyss. Now we have solid ground under our feet again. That’s a nice feeling.”
    -Göbbels Tagebücher part 1, vol.6, p.122 entry for 30 Sep-1 Oct 1938

    “[The Führer issued orders to formulate] a sudden attack…so that the Czechs have no chance to organize any sort of defense…[The goal was] to rapidly occupy the country and seal off Czech from Slovak territory”.
    – Göbbels Tagebücher part 1, vol.6, p.246

    “This [Hácha’s dismissal of Nazi ally Tiso] is a launching pad. Now we can get a complete solution to the problem we were only half able to solve in October…Decision: on Wednesday15 March [1939], we’ll invade and destroy the entire monstrous construct that is Czechoslovakia”
    -Göbbels Tagebücher part 1, vol.6, p.279f

    And, of course, trashing “peace in our time”:

    “Excellency, please sign. I hate to say it, but my job is not the easiest one. Prague, your capital- I should be terribly sorry if I were compelled to destroy this beautiful city. But I would have to do it, to make the English and French understand that my air force can do all it claims to do. Because they still don’t want to believe this is so, and I should like an opportunity of giving them proof.”
    -Hermann Göring 15 Mar 1939 to Czech President Emile Hàcha (inducing a heart attack) [Mosley ‘On Borrowed Time’ p.167]

    Ron might fare better explaining why Moody’s rated no-doc mortgages as AAA up to the 2007-08 melt-down [$7 trillion fraud]? None [including Ron] spent a day in prison. Wonder why.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  160. @Mr. XYZ

    The only logic in taking the rest of Czechia that I could think of for Nazi Germany is that it would allow Nazi Germany to control the routes of communication there.

    Was it not the case that Czechoslovakia had an arms manufacturing industry approximately as large as Germany’s? Certainly it had an arms manufacturing industry, which would seem a pretty compelling reason to a country busy rearming.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  161. @kerdasi amaq

    How were these conflicting interests resolved?

    With the “evil” Nuremberg Laws.

    German, Jew, Half-Jew

    German law is based on male inheritance, jewish law is based on female inheritance.

    If it was a Jew, it was only important if he was an assimilated Jew, or a communist terrorist and fifth column Moscow agents. If he was a Zionist Jew, he was in accordance with the Zionists send to Palestine. He paid money or assets in Berlin in the PalTreu Bank, and the Havaara bank in Tel Aviv paid him back, about 60000 Jews went this way to Palestine with the blessing of the German government. They were trained in camps for agriculture etc before they left.
    Assimilated Jews remained in Germany unharmed until the occupation of Germany, 200000 half-Jews served in the German armed forces, some in very high ranks.

    Only communist saboteurs had serious trouble with the German state, which they sought to overthrow.
    Things slightly toughened, once the Brits declared war on Germany and the Havaara agreement with the Zionists was stopped.

  162. @Germanicus

    Update – I failed to say that this individual consciousness retains it’s individual awareness (memory) from incarnation to incarnation, and the field also retains that information (since it’s the same). You might disagree with this, I don’t know.

  163. MEFOBILLS says:

    Ron,

    When [Hitler] came to power in 1933 unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending…

    That’s not entirely true. In fact, it is not true.

    Schacht’s Mefobills channeled into war industry primarily. In concept they could also stimulate domestic spending. But, at the time, it was a method for hiding spending from the allies.

    1) Create a Shell Corporation. Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Metallurgical Research Corporation) The name is a riff on gold as metal money. It is an inside joke aimed at Jewish usurers who insist that gold is money.
    2) Corporation issues a bill. Look up “Bills of Exchange” for more details.

    A bill has three parties, and works like a check. The bill is aimed at a corporation, in this case armament industry. The three parties are the company issuing the bill (MEFO), then next party is industry receiving the bill, and third party is a bank who examines the bill for payment.

    3 ) Company receives Bill, and proceeds to make goods – or in this case armaments.

    4) Industrial Company presents its MEFOBILL to a local bank for discount. Discount is a fancy word for cashing in the bill. The bank examines the bill to make sure goods were produced. Industrial company is paid in money i.e. reichsmarks.

    5) IMPORTANT: Local bank turns around and presents bill to Reichsbank (the central bank). Reichsbank creates new Reichmarks and presents said new money to local bank.

    Notice that MEFOBILL channeled into industry, created goods (military goods primarily), and upon discount new reichsmarks entered into economy.

    The reichsmarks flowed outward from reichsbanks and found new goods recently produced. If the MEFOBILL was held by the industrial concern for a long time, it paid interest. If the bank held the MEFOBILL for awhile, said bank got paid interest.

    Note: Important. The interest flowed outward from Reichsbank into the economy, so it was non usurious.

    New reichsmarks entered into money supply in direct proportion to Mefobill issuance by the shell corporation.

    If you think shell corporations that emit money are novel, then I enjoin you to examine Reconstruction Finance Corporation in America.

    Reichsmarks created by MEFOBILL issuance, were taken up in taxes. Tax roles from 1933 to 1938 almost tripled.

    People that say Rothschild, or U.S. Treasury stimulated NSDAP economy, are mostly unaware of the role of MEFOBILLS. The mechanism was purposefully shrouded so Germany could rearm itself.

    If America wanted to re-industrialize or pay off debts, a MEFOBILL scheme would work here as well. The Bills would land on the FED ledger, expanding the ledger to then issue dollars into the economy, and said dollars could be channeled to a target for an effect.

  164. @Germanicus

    Germanicus and Gefreiter,
    There is a dark consciousness but it has no power over the light. It is not possible to steal the “eternal soul” of anyone and it’s not even possible for them to give it to you in the case of their going so dark.

    What is possible is that people who are into this stuff can imagine, believe, etc. that such a thing is happening. Which the two of you are unfortunately getting close to. Jews are very misguided people, but they don’t have such abilities or magic. Upon death, every ‘soul’ wakes up from its nightmare, if it is having one, eventually. That’s why babies are considered innocent.

  165. Anon[353] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Maybe Soviet domination of all of Europe would have been better.

    Look at the state of Western Europe today.

  166. @Colin Wright

    Never mind the West. East European peoples would have annihilated Germans because Germany could not have completed their genocidal policy, and all of them, from Czechs from Russians, thought one and only one thought: only a dead German is a good German.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  167. @obwandiyag

    Germany did not attack France and Britain, France and Britain attacked Germany. The French were unsuccessful and could not get through the Siegfried line, the British expeditionary force was also unsuccessful and evacuated. The Germans perhaps let them go as a good will gesture. Germany continuously sued for peace, as they had in 1916 during the first World War. Hess parachuted into Scotland during the war with further peace proposals. The Allies deliberately kept him in prison, in solitary, the sole prisoner, after WW II until he died so he would not talk.

    WW II was Jewish revenge for a country that dared to throw off the Jewish yoke.

    Wait for WW III, this one is for you.

  168. refl says:

    I would like to add a link re the allied campaign to help Finland from Wiliam Engdahl:

    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
    – Halford MacKinders Necessary War.

    The author claims that Churchill deliberately botched the campaign to (illegaly) take the port of Narvik:
    “In reality, Britain’s Norway venture in April 1940 was quite something else. Britain’s subsequent defeat in Norway, paradoxically, served two vital objectives for British grand strategy. It assured uninterrupted supply of Swedish iron ore to the steel mills of the Ruhr for the duration of the German war effort. This was essential from the standpoint of the overriding Round Table strategy of forcing a war of mutual annihilation between Germany and Russia.”

    This follows the line which is being claimed for WW I, that the British elite deliberately secured Germany’s access to vital war material to provide for a long war and facilitate the total destruction of Germany and just as much Russia.
    I do not know how the planned bombing campaign of Soviet oil fields fits into this explanation, but it would have failed spectaculary in any case. It might have been part of a larger set up in some way.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @Wizard of Oz
  169. @kerdasi amaq

    Because they really didn’t know what they were financing. When they found out; they instigated a war against Germany to obliterate those financial policies.

    These bankers must be absolutely genius, to also imprison Hitler in Landsberg in 1923/24 for trying to remove the masonic bankster Weimar regime that took over in 1919 in a coup d’etat, and who would order to shut down all masonic lodges in 1933.
    Seriously, are you people too thick to comprehend, that Wall Street and city of London took over in 1919 already and Hitler tried to reverse it? Wall Street spawned the communist revolutionaries that raped eastern Europe, in the same way they create “ISIS” today to rape countries.

    Are you a comedy act?

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  170. onebornfree says: • Website

    @ Ron Unz:

    To continue: The Case Against the Market Economy

    “The objections which the various schools of Sozialpolitik raise against the market economy are based on very bad economics. They repeat again and again all the errors that the economists long ago exploded. They blame the market economy for the consequences of the very anticapitalistic policies which they themselves advocate as necessary and beneficial reforms. They fix on the market economy the responsibility for the inevitable failure and frustration of interventionism.

    These propagandists must finally admit that the market economy is after all not so bad as their “unorthodox” doctrines paint it. It delivers the goods. From day to day it increases the quantity and improves the quality of products. It has brought about unprecedented wealth. But, objects the champion of interventionism, it is deficient from what he calls the social point of view. It has not wiped out poverty and destitution. It is a system that grants privileges to a minority, an upper class of rich people, at the expense of the immense majority. It is an unfair system. The principle of welfare must be substituted for that of profits……..”:

    The Case Against the Market Economy: https://mises.org/library/case-against-market-economy

    Regards, onebornfree

  171. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:

    Far more important is what the account reveals about the reliability of the standard historical narrative that most of us have always accepted as real.

    .

    Every higher echelon shares the shape of the others underneath, expressing the same on an enlarged scale.
    The re(li)a(bi)lity of narratives about wars involving blocks of countries is the reliability of narratives of contests between neighbours, narratives of marital history where a divorce has taken place, narratives of great sport wins (obtained absolutely without skewed refereeing: those who lost and complain are conspiracy theorists: the sport edition), and so on.
    The uppermost echelon is a grand picture of the normal features and contours of all the below, reproduced in That’s the least likely thing to be recognized, as is everything driving towards self-knowledge.

  172. FvS says:

    This is a great video by VertigoPolitix. Unfortunately, Youtube is coming down hard on these guys.

  173. Some days ago I got took a look at some books about WW1, one of them a small introduction to WW1 by a German professor who has taught in the US (I think he is now retired), Volker Bergham. What called my attention in what he tells was that the Germans were wrong about all their assumptions. They thought for instance that France would not fight a war simply because France was not ready for a war. So, Germans might have thought that there could be a short war against Russia. They didn’t see what was happening around them. What came was a long world war.

    My first thought was that the Germans were simply not sophisticated enough politically or diplomatically to deal with such a situation. Why? Germany had been until recently only a collection of many small states, of cities. They had had conflicts and wars among themselves and they also had had conflicts with their neighbours. This was a part of history. They also had their ways to solve such conflicts (marriage and so on). The 30 years war was much bigger but after it, Germans found a way to avoid a similar conflict.

    Germany didn’t count with a world war and also didn’t want such a war. July 1914 was and is defined as a crisis. But was it really a crisis? On the side of England, the decision about a war depended only on which group would prevail. A large number of members of the English cabinet were against a war, but the other group mobilised more resources and prevailed. War had nothing to do with Belgium, only with which group won the dispute about war (Douglas Newton tells this story). It made no sense at all to kill 10 million men because Germany went through Belgium. If England didn’t want a war, all they had to do would be to tell Germany, „we will be on the side of France.“ Germans would have waken up.

    After the war begun, Germany could not extricate themselves from it. Communications had been cut because the only end of the war that was expected was a total defeat of Germany. Peace seemed not to be an alternative. The only way to explain that peace couldn’t be an alternative and that a huge number of Europeans had to die or be wounded and uncappacitated was to demonise the Germans which had been demoralised by the war. History couldn’t be a regular or normal history anymore. The political climate in the continent changed fundamentally and a second catastrophe was to come which became an European catastrophe.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  174. Rich says:
    @Colin Wright

    Well, many of these expulsions did take place in the 15th century, but the Russians were expelling them in the 19th century, General Grant expelled them from several states in the 19th century, too. They were expelled from Austria in the 18th century and from the Holy Roman Empire in the 17th. Several Islamic countries expelled them in the 20th century. Is it always everybody else’s fault? Expelling certain ethnic groups is not unheard of, Germans were expelled from many European countries after WW2. The Dutch were expelled from their colonies, as were other Europeans, the English from India and Pakistan, for example. Expelling foreigners, in particular Jews, is one of the most common occurrences in human history. I’m surprised you base your argument on that.

    • Disagree: Colin Wright
  175. @foolisholdman

    Indeed, and the Germans put Czech tanks to very good use!

  176. @CanSpeccy

    You are talking about what you do not know.

  177. The Jan 2, 1939, Time article explaining the choice of Hitler as Man of the Year is pretty darn negative. Yes, it mentions his success at reviving the economy, but it describes the Third Reich as a “world tragedy”, and Hitler as the “greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.”

    This is what at least one major publication thought *at the time*, not an after-the-fact description.

    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-1,00.html

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  178. @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘Never mind the West. East European peoples would have annihilated Germans because Germany could not have completed their genocidal policy, and all of them, from Czechs from Russians, thought one and only one thought: only a dead German is a good German.’

    Well now, you see, that’s just not true. People just don’t behave as you imagine. They don’t go tromping off into other countries in pursuit of ‘revenge.’ The Iranians never mounted an expedition to get back at the Mongols. Etc.

    Revenge was not the motive. It was a calculated strategy to so terrorize the Germans that they would leave their homelands of their own accord.

    The most striking evidence I found of this was in an account of Polish — as opposed to Russian — behavior in East Prussia. The Poles perhaps suffered worse at the hands of the Germans than any other group except the Jews and the Gypsies.

    And yes, the Poles were brutal, and yes, they summarily expelled the Germans from their farms and left them to starve or leave as they saw fit. And yes, they shot them if they fussed.

    Payback, as they say. However, it all paled beside the behavior of the Red Army. And the Red Army itself behaved much worse in the regions that were to be cleared of Germans than in those that were to remain part of a future German state. In the latter, yes, the Red Army casually raped, looted, and murdered. But it was nothing on the scale of what occurred in Silesia et al.

    The bulk of Russian savagery was encouraged and facilitated from above, and had nothing to do with revenge.

    • Replies: @refl
  179. PADOJO says:
    @Grace Poole

    One question: since 90% or so of the US has the functional mentality of an eleven year old just what in the hell would ‘they’ do with the ‘truth’? Having it needs to be useful in order to do something with it like taking action. Face it, truth is useless here. They’d rather be lied to by ziomedia and believe in a Jew god with a circumsized wiener.

    • LOL: MAOWASAYALI
  180. Hans says:
    @David Baker

    The “impetus” resides in the “Persecuted” Ones. See the lurid, fantastical horror lies they laid on the world regarding the “pogroms” circa 1880:

    Revisiting the 19th-Century Russian Pogroms, Part 1: Russia’s Jewish Question – https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/05/08/revisiting-the-19th-century-russian-pogroms-part-1-russias-jewish-question/

    The Vexing ‘Jewish Question’: A Nineteenth-Century Scholar’s View – http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n1p16_Smith.html

    • Replies: @David Baker
  181. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    You are talking about what you do not know.

    Such as? The German plan for eastward expansion? But that was well known since the time of Bismark and was reiterated by Ribbentrop in a private meeting with Churchill in 1937 (in response to which revelation, Churchill remarked, “We don’t like the Russians, but we don’t hate them that much.”)

    Hitler’s plan defeat Britain by aerial bombardment is not in doubt. It was put into effect, but failed. The Royal Air Force saw off the Luftwaffe with German losses of both aircraft and flight crews almost twice those of the British.

    That Hitler planned to turn the full force of Germany against Britain once Russia was defeated follows logically from the fact that Germany continued the bombardment of Britain throughout the war using cruise missiles (V1’s) and ballistic missiles (V2’s). If Germany had achieved victory on the Eastern front, how likely is it that Hitler would have called Churchill to propose calling it quits?

    Hitler sought to knock the Brits out of the war prior to his assault on Russia, but failed. He went ahead with the invasion of Russia, anyhow, and suffered the consequence, which was a two-front war.

    Now tell us something you know that refutes that.

  182. RJJCDA says:

    I hold that broadly speaking, there are three types of wars: 1) Wars of Domination, 2) Wars of Displacement, 3) Wars of Destruction.

    During WWII, the Germans fought a war of domination in the west, a war of displacement in the east, and a war of destruction against Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and other “lesser” peoples everywhere they could be found.

    The problem was that although it was conceivable to function moderately efficiently pursuing two of the types, fighting three became a nightmare of logistic priorities. For instance, during 1943 and 1944, logistical assets were diverted away from desperately needy military forces and railed instead to the “camps” in service to the war of destruction. Himmler’s “needs” appear to have had the highest priority.

    This is why Germany lost WWII.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @utu
    , @RJJCDA
  183. @Colin Wright

    You have to — that is, you must include another factor in your calculus. You must include Louis Brandeis’s directive that “all Jews must leave Germany . . . all 587,000 German Jews must leave, no German Jew must remain.” This directive issued on or about February 14, 1933.

    a. Why does it matter what Brandeis said?
    1. Louis Brandeis was effectively the head of world zionism.
    2. Brandeis had had the ear of Woodrow Wilson, and he exercised equal influence over FDR.

    b. What is the significance of the number, 587,000?
    1. At the time — Feb. 1933 — there were about 2.25 million Jews in Germany; most of them were refugee/migrants from Poland and Russia — Brandeis was not concerned about them: he had written to Rabbi Steven Wise that “a few dozen pogroms do not matter as much as the loss of the enterprise of 600,000 Jews” [paraphrase].
    2. Brandeis wanted only GERMAN Jews to leave Germany.
    – Palestine needed their wealth and acquired-in-Germany skills
    – Palestine was envisioned to replicate German systems and style — “Berlin on the Mediterranean” –and its foundations laid by German-trained administrators
    – The zionist project in Palestine was conducted on eugenic principles by administrators with expertise in eugenics. Eastern European Jews did not fit the requirements for the “human material” needed for the “new Jew” that was to populate the Jewish utopia
    – Zionist leadership was aware of the limited ‘holding capacity’ of Palestine at that time. Tho the British White Paper was blamed for closing off Palestine to massive Jewish migration, in truth, zionists did not want and could not accommodate all of the Jews that they had to know were being scattered throughout Europe (& elsewhere).
    – Those German Jews who could not be persuaded to migrate to Palestine were settled in other places where zionists/Jews also sought to establish settlements until the time and conditions were right to fulfill the ultimate zionist vision: All Jews to aliyeh to Israel.
    – Until that time, those Jews in diaspora were to be protected in the countries where they dwelt by zionist Jewish leadership.
    – (That policy has not changed: In speeches at an American Zionist Movement (AZM) Conference in NYC several weeks ago, Dani Dayon and Elan Carr reaffirmed that policy – pledge: it is the zionist vision that all Jews migrate to Israel, but since that cannot take place immediately, Carr and others like him will use their positions in American government to ensure the security of Jews all over the world. The notion, from the point of view of these ideologues, seems to be that Jews are “in temporary storage” in other countries, until the time is right to aliyeh.)

    c. What is the significance of the date — Feb. 14, 1933?
    1. At that early date, not only had the NSDAP not carried out the atrocities against Jews that i.e. Untermeyer accused them of doing, they actually calmed down street riots and ended physical attacks on Jews. No Jew was sent to a concentration camp until mid-1938.
    2. However, as Brandeis, or at least the men around him, such as Rabbi Wise, certainly knew, Jews in Romania and Poland were in significant danger and had been beseeching American Jews to assist them. But Brandeis directed that GERMAN Jews be rescued.

    d. Brandeis’s directive that “all German Jews leave Germany” and Hitler’s and NSDAP’s desire to expel Jews* was, thus, a push – pull situation.

    *Except that, as German diplomat Hans Luther stated in May, 1933:

    ” limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War.”https://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    That is, Brandeis’s directive and NSDAP intentions targeted opposite cohorts of the Jewish population in Germany.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  184. @obwandiyag

    there is no mystery, Obie:

    1) England/France declared first on Germany, not Germany on England/France.

    2) French Troops invaded Germany in Sept. 1939, not Germany into France.

    3) Paris was closer to the relevant German border than Moscow.

    4) there was no “phoney war”: while the French-German front lines were relatively static during Sept. 1939 – May 1940, air battles were ferocious, large-scale and intensifying month-to-month. Cf. Christopher Shores, Fledgling Eagles (London, 1991). The attack on Russia could wait: something had to be done about France…not to mention the 100,000 British troops already in-country.

    re the intial issue raised by Ron Unz, Allied plans to attack Russia during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the original German publication of (some of) the captured French documents is:

    Auswartiges Amt (1939/41, #6): Secret Documents of the French General Staff (Berlin, 1941), 400 pp.

  185. @ploni almoni

    ‘You have to — that is, you must include another factor in your calculus…

    You’ll need to explain to me what all that follows has to do with anything I’ve claimed on this thread.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  186. RI says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Germanicus is right, organs from dead people are wortless, organs for transplanting are taken from people who we pronounce brain dead, but are still alive, even anesthetics are given as someone pointed to you below. Donors are predominantly young. I did this for some years thinking how i save lives and not anymore since two donors opened their eyes on the way to the operating room – faulty pump delivering propofol did not deliver it. It is also true that except for the heart, all other transplants can be done from a living donor – one kidney, piece of liver serves as full liver, lung lobe as full lung. What you are talking about is harvesting tissues from cadavers – bone, cornea, cartilage, s and heart valves. Germanicus is right, people are being deceived.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  187. @RJJCDA

    ‘…For instance, during 1943 and 1944, logistical assets were diverted away from desperately needy military forces and railed instead to the “camps” in service to the war of destruction. Himmler’s “needs” appear to have had the highest priority.

    This is why Germany lost WWII.’

    I’ve heard that argument before, and I’m extremely skeptical.

    For one, transporting several million people under extremely bad conditions one time doesn’t represent all that much of total rail capacity if the movement is spaced out over a year-plus.

    For another, doing in those several million people when they’re disarmed and unable to run away and hide isn’t all that hard either.

    I feel safe in asserting that the Holocaust couldn’t have diverted more than 1% of Germany’s war potential. It wasn’t what cost them the war.

  188. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Leon

    Why would they dismiss the attitude that keeps them thread on in their personal lives when thinking about other, farther events?
    They instead maintain it.

  189. RI says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Ability to know for sure is still primitive and not enough for such decisions. I used to make such decisions and I was wrong many times, although I was using advanced techniques to detect brain activity , that are not even required today, just observations, often by residents and nurses. God forgive me for playing God.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  190. @Admiral Assbar

    What makes you “think” that they were “thinking” and not “obeying?”

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jacques Sheete
  191. @Colin Wright

    You will have to learn to think for yourself.

  192. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:

    the hundred-odd books on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism that I read during the 1970s and 1980s.

    I wonder what motivated Unz to read some one hundred books on a single topic — a topic of history at that, and prior to him growing suspicious of official narratives.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  193. The official history suggests that Churchill had to persuade a reluctant FDR to go to war, and the USA didn’t actually go to war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The official history also emphasizes the Nazi / Soviet Pact, highlighting how that was the turning point for many American communists, making them break with the ideology.

    The presumption here must be that Hitler would have given up his ambitions to conquer Russia, with the cooperation between Germany / Russia solidified, and unified against the British / French plotters, by any attack on a key source of oil, although Germany really got most of its oil from Bulgaria.

    This unofficial history is stunning alright, not just in terms of what could have happened to Europe if Hitler, the devil, had picked another victim at the time when France was attacked, but also in terms of how any durable alliance of Germany / Russia would have affected America’s ability to fight off Imperial Japan. Would an attempt to save France / Britain from a fierce German / Russian alliance have soaked up too many resources?

    For anyone who grew up as a lefty, romanticizing the left side of Spanish Civil War, it is one of those inconvenient rude awakenings to realize that heroes can morph into villains when given a chance to lord over their foes. Wonder what Hemingway would have thought about any Spanish Civil War vets’ bloody escapades against civilians in Vichy France? Wonder what Bunuel would have made of it?

    The Operation Pike story would make a good movie. It might be the only way to dislodge firmly stuck approved history from the public memory bank, although lots of evidence suggests that Americans arent exactly shy about debunking the few, unifying, historical myths left intact.

    The most delusion-friendly territory of all is the GREAT economy narrative, probably because so many politicans’ jobs depend on it. If GDP actually did catapult from negative numbers to over 9% all during the Thirties New Deal except during one year when it dipped down, then the theory that New Deal failures caused FDR to seek a third term as a shoe-in war-time POTUS is bogus.

    Albeit GDP growth doesn’t tell the whole story. Take this moment in time, when a POTUS is boasting about much more tepid GDP growth that is not reaching many in the debt-laden bottom 80%, not in terms of raising permanently stagnant wages, affordable rent prices or even full-time work.

    Whether or not he is a valid devil substitute—and many make good arguments that he’s as close as it gets in the modern era—It is hard to know whether Hitler’s infrastructure projects were any more or less economically successful than FDR’s CCC Camp and other stimulus projects.

    “Family income” in any era might not be a good measure, especially since official accounts of family income often fail to mention various streams of public money that people with kids have to spend. The real income of families is often different when all sources of earned income & unearned income from government are counted. Hitler was definitely into ramping up the Arian birth rate by various pay-per-birth means.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @utu
  194. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    You can put it like that as regards 90-95% of media reportage and opinion, in every age and place, can’t you?

    I have done this, and the normal people reacting to my claims have made me realized that anyone not having experienced those dynamics from the inside is oblivious to them throughout their lives.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  195. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Mulegino1

    It was German economics and monetary policy which was most likely the cause of the war against Germany. The financial powers in London and Wall St. knew that a successful international barter trade bloc which included much of South America, Eurasia and Eastern and
    Central Europe, would have represented a formidable challenge to their hegemony.

    Schacht’s trading banks were a large component of “international barter trade bloc.”
    These banks enraged the (((International))) finance class, who could not take their tithe on every international transaction.

    As Keynes said, all international trade is only barter, so once again our (((friends))) are hoaxing the world in order to make their usury.

    The way Schacht’s trading banks worked is like this:

    Germany wants Tin from Burma, and Burma want’s sewing machines from Germany.

    1) A trading bank in Burma has Kyat’s appear on its ledger. Kyat amount is equivalent in exchange for the amount of Tin that Germany is requesting.
    2) Burmese miners get busy mining Tin
    3) Tin passes to Germany, and Kyat’s pass to Burmese workers
    4) Reichsmarks are posted in a trading bank in Germany.
    5) Burma orders German sewing machines using their new Reichsmarks.
    6) Sewing Machines transfer to Burma, and Reichsmarks pass to German Workers

    Note that Schacht’s trading banks have no leakage of their national reichsmark unit outside of their borders. The new money pops onto the ledger as a quasi debt. The debt originated as a desire for TIN, and the debt was consolidated by sewing machines.

    Schacht’s trading banks meet two iron laws of good economics:

    1) All international trade is only barter.
    2) Since money’s true nature is law, never let your money extend past your borders.

    The other good thing about Schacht’s trading banks was if there was some conflict in exchange rate then the two parties negotiated in good faith. The quasi debt (tin to sewing machines) was isolated to the trading banks only, and was not on-sold into markets as per the fraudulent talmudic banking system of finance capitalism.

    In talmudic banking, humans are indebted, and then their attached debt instrument is on-sold into markets, effectively making people debt slaves to be bought and sold by creditors.

    • Agree: Mulegino1, utu
    • Replies: @FB
    , @Wizard of Oz
  196. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:

    The destruction of Irving’s stellar career came at the hands of Jewish activists

    It came at the hands of Jewish activists and, much more in quantity, non-Jewish indefferentists.
    So many are bothered by the activism of a few, while none of them seems bothered by the indifference of all the others.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @utu
  197. @bluedog

    ‘Lol that old old lie that the dropping of the bombs saved American lives..’

    It may be old, but it’s the truth. Japan barely surrendered as it was — absent the bombs, they would definitely have hung on. Selective quotations won’t change that.

    And had Japan hung on through the invasion, not only would it have cost American lives, it would have cost far more Japanese lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did.

    Sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct. Less exciting that way, but there it is.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Tusk
    , @refl
    , @Jacques Sheete
  198. @Anon

    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

  199. @Endgame Napoleon

    ‘…Wonder what Hemingway would have thought about any Spanish Civil War vets’ bloody escapades against civilians in Vichy France?

    It wouldn’t have bothered Hemingway at all.

  200. @refl

    Occam’s razor: the simplest and most truthful explanation for WWI and WWII was White Genocide!

    In the words of Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869:

    Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.

  201. utu says:
    @Colin Wright

    The inference is that for whatever reason, the British weren’t in fact enthusiastic about this project.

    Yes, that’s an impression one gets from this article. France was on the first line of Germany’s next aggression while Britain could play for time longer. Then there is a possibility that Britain or at least some people in circles of power had much broader view on the war and what was its ‘true’ objective and thus being open to allying themselves with Stalin. This was the view of American administration as indicated by conversations between Polish ambassador Count Potocki and Ambassador Bullitt in November 1938.

    From dispatch by Potocki:

    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!’

    It seems that FDR or circles around him knew what they wanted so clearly the attack by France and British on Baku field would have been a wrong move. The following is from Hoover’s book:

    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.

    On September 17, 1939 when Red Army attacked Poland Polish military command issued an order of not resisting the Soviets so British and French would not be obliged to treat the USSR as an enemy combatant. So it is possible that on the highest levels there was American/British plan for Stalin to end up as an ally of British and Americans. It seems that the true objective of WWII was to destroy Germany even if it meant giving 1/2 of Europe to Stalin. And from the point of view of FDR it was also about dismantling of British and French colonial empires which after the war the US proceeded doing hand in hand with the Soviets.

  202. utu says:
    @RJJCDA

    assets were diverted away from desperately needy military forces and railed instead to the “camps” in service to the war of destruction.

    This was debunked long time ago. The assets were minuscule and besides most of the camps were doing necessary work for the war effort.

  203. the resulting full military alliance between Hitler and Stalin would surely have reversed the outcome of the war.

    Doubtful. Probably would’ve given Hitler even more confidence in attacking Russia.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  204. @Hans

    How about those “Geysers of Blood”? I believe the Shrunken Head exhibits truly illustrate the level of baloney these people ply the gullible goyim with.

    • Replies: @Hans
  205. @RI

    With all due respect, RI, for whatever advanced scientific knowledge you possess, this knowledge will never come from such ‘techniques.’ (Well, never say never … but it is not necessary.)

    Truly, I think I wrote about it pretty clearly and I don’t even know what you did, what you were trying to discover, and what it was that failed. You really need to be more specific.

    You’re the one who said he used to perform operations to remove people’s organs, people who were drugged before it was done. Without their consent? I don’t think someone with that record could be sensitive to what I’m talking about.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @RI
  206. Alfred says:

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus’s army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    This comment makes a lot of sense. It has always been the case that the modern Turks want to exterminate the Armenians. The Ottomans were far more civilised and incorporated occupied lands into their empire. Armenians were able to deal with the Ottomans, but not with the current lot.

    The amazing thing is that today Armenia is entirely dependent on Russia for protection against Turkey. The West would not sacrifice a single “grenadier” on their behalf. And yet the Armenians are going full out in their attempts to suck up to the West. The veniality and stupidity of their political elites is staggering.

    “Armenian government debates taking Russian TV off the air”

    https://eurasianet.org/armenian-government-debates-taking-russian-tv-off-the-air

  207. FB says: • Website
    @MEFOBILLS

    That’s an interesting comment…but I have to wonder if this ‘Schacht trading bank’ system actually worked the way you describe…?

    Hjalmar Schacht ran Germany’s central bank under Hitler, although he opposed the military buildup and was eventually let go in 1939 [although he did remain as a cabinet minister]…

    But the historian Antony Sutton paints a different picture altogether…stating that Schacht’s Reichsbank was among the founders of the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland…established around 1930, and still operating as the central bank of central banks today…

    This interplay of ideas and cooperation between Hjalmar Sehacht in Germany and, through Owen Young, the J.P. Morgan interests in New York, was only one facet of a vast and ambitious system of cooperation and international alliance for world control.

    As described by Carroll Quigley, this system was “… nothing less than to create a world system of financial control, in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

    Politicians amenable to the objectives of financial capitalism, and academies prolific with ideas for world control useful to the international bankers, are kept in line with a system of rewards and penalties.

    In the early 1930s the guiding vehicle for this international system of financial and political control, called by Quigley the “apex of the system,” was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. The B.I.S. apex continued its work during World War II as the medium through which the bankers — who apparently were not at war with each other — continued a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, information, and planning for the post-war world. As one writer has observed, war made no difference to the international bankers…

    What you describe is in effect barter and there is no reason why this couldn’t work…but things get complicated when there are more than two transactional parties…ie you may not need what the other guy is selling…this was the case with China and the British…they wanted Chinese porcelain, silk and tea…but China didn’t want opium…just silver, which the British had to buy from Argentina…seeing as their appetite for tea far outstripped their availability of silver…the result was the opium wars…

    Today we have a similar situation…hence the so called ‘trade war’…which the US might as well throw in the towel…

    But let’s get back to this idea of keeping one’s national currency within one’s borders…this makes absolute sense of course…since finance capitalism is nothing more than a shell game…one guy always ends up with the short end of the stick…and after all the fancy footwork of moneys endlessly changing hands, the net result is that those with the power and leverage pile up the riches…while the little guy ends up shaken down…

    The only trick is keeping the people believing in the myth of capitalism…

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @FB
  208. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Why couldn’t the US have settled for a conditional surrender?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  209. Hail says: • Website
    @Ragno

    As of a few years ago, I noticed several David Irving books were (“still”) available in the public library nearest me. Who knows how many have been purged in the 2017-to-present suppressionist frenzy.

    Note that David Irving himself runs an a kind of blog at http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html, which I believe is updated near daily. I see he has listed this latest Ron Unz article, published today.

    Mr. Irving, if you are reading this: Thank you for your work. Thank you for your decades of tireless efforts. It is appreciated.

    • Agree: Alfred
  210. @refl

    The very least is that noone can wonder today why Trotzky was thrown out as a foreign agent and that he was certainly hit with that icepick right in time for the US-Soviet alliance to come.

    I recall reading somewhere that Trotsky had, shortly before his murder, written to the Dies committee offering to testify about Stalin’s infiltration of the U.S. government.

    Some wag once said that if Trotsky had managed to escape the ice pick, he’d have ended up with an office at the Hoover Institution, writing articles for The Public Interest.

  211. As you suggest, most of the lies about WW2 come from Britain. They have the biggest megaphone in the history racket and always have. Their program of propping up Churchill as some sort of indomitable hero is essential to both their ideology and that of the neocons. I especially have to laugh at all the Brits who sneer at U.S. contributions to the war effort, claiming that the heroic Soviets did all the real fighting. Well now it appears that their beloved Churchill wanted to murder those same Soviets. I’m sure they’ll brush this aside with their characteristic dishonesty and sleaze.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  212. Another great piece Mr. Unz. Pieces like this is why the readership of this site is growing and will continue to grow exponentially. Main stream media is a joke so it is absolutely crucial to have alternative media sources like your publication.

    Thanks for this site and all you do to keep it operating on a high level.

    • Agree: Alfred
  213. utu says:
    @Endgame Napoleon

    The official history suggests that Churchill had to persuade a reluctant FDR to go to war, and the USA didn’t actually go to war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

    It was the other way around. FDR had to persuade England to give guarantees to Poland and pressure Poland not to make a deal with Germany.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/#comment-3212493

  214. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright

    said:
    ” Hitler’s vision was of four global super-powers, in which Germany would dominate Continental Europe, with a vast slave-empire carved out of the Slavic East.”

    Zionist BS.

    You have no proof whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  215. @MEFOBILLS

    A critically important feature of MEFO bills was that they were rolled over every three months and limited to 19 rollovers, for a maximum term of five years. This feature gave the bankers the right to refuse to rollover the MEFO bills, and thereby contract the currency (Mefo bills circulated as de facto money) whenever it chose to do so. This is exactly what Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank under Hitler and agent of the International Bankers) ultimately chose to do, and which led to his dismissal by Hitler.

    The bankers’ money is always made elastic, so that they can expand and contract the money supply arbitrarily to create Booms & Busts, and profit from artificially created Business Cycles. Indeed, the preamble to the bankers’ Federal Reserve Act (1913) states that a mandate of the Federal Reserve System is “to furnish an elastic currency.”

    Although MEFO bills were directed to productive purposes (not speculation) and in this sense contributed to the general welfare of the nation, technically they were still a usurious creation since they functioned as money and were created at interest. In contrast, Lincoln’s Greenbacks were interest-free and therefore non-usurious creations. The privately-controlled banking establishment also had no power to expand or contract them to implement its own clandestine agenda. They were non-usurious, organic creations (genuine national money), and therefore the bankers did everything they could to undermine them, including eliminating the guy behind them.

    As I remember, MEFO bills were used to finance the building of the autobahns, repairing infrastructure, and for defense. I don’t know how the capital was apportioned.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  216. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright

    said:
    “Expelling Jews would have been normal — in the fifteenth century. This was the twentieth century; it was emphatically not something ‘normal’ states did any more.

    A laughable lie

    – Germany’s treatment of Jews was no worse than the US treatment of Japanese-Americans, or the treatment of political prisoners by the communist USSR in the gulags.

    – In fact, Germany did less, much less to those considered enemies than what the Allies did.

    – Then there’s Israel expelling of Palestinians, when not massacred, of course.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  217. Wally says:
    @eah

    You obviously dodged:

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    http://www.codoh.com

  218. utu says:
    @Anon

    David Irving’s decision to sue Deborah Lipstadt was a mistake. His earnings were down but he was not broke and he did not have to do it. His participation in Zündel ‘s trial in Canada was his first step on the road to self-destruction. Prior to it he was careful not to touch the Holocaust issues.

  219. @Sin City Milla

    as Hitler’s Nazis killed, n altho Communists are still murdering thousands of people today.

    I do hope that you will sign a peace treaty with the English language.

    • LOL: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  220. MEFOBILLS says:

    FB

    What you describe is in effect barter and there is no reason why this couldn’t work…but things get complicated when there are more than two transactional parties…ie you may not need what the other guy is selling…this was the case with China and the British…they wanted Chinese porcelain, silk and tea…but China didn’t want opium…just silver, which the British had to buy from Argentina…seeing as their appetite for tea far outstripped their availability of silver…the result was the opium wars…

    Yes, and very perceptive.

    The trading bank scheme was a stopgap to allow Germany to escape the (((international))). But to run the world on the system would be much harder as you have divined.

    Keynes Bancor system is an accounting system, which monitors trade between nations. It balances trade by adjusting exchange rates. If one country is mercantile (selling more goods than it buys) then it begins to acquire excess bancors. Exhange rates are adjusted so other countries goods appear more expensive, and the accumulating mercantile country goods appear more inexpensive.

    A bancor mechanism is something like existing money inter-mediating trade between nations.

    Schachts trading bank is CREDIT, that stimulates future production.

    Credit always has a future attribute, and money has a past (wealth accumulation) attribute.

    So, you need both Credit and Money in the money supply. Internal to a country there has to be both types (credit and money) and external to a country there has to be both types (credit and money).

    More economic laws I know. Hope it helps, especially since you are perceptive.

    Schacht was fired in 1938 because he was worried about another inflation. Schacht wouldn’t support Hitler’s plans in 38, and he was fired.

    Schacht worried about inflation because of injection of new money into money supply might have outstripped labor’s ability to make goods. Scroll up to see my previous comment to Ron Unz on how Mefobills injected new reichsmarks into money supply. Mefobills were credit at first (create goods in future) and later upon discount, they found money (reichsmarks).

    • Replies: @Alfred
  221. MEFOBILLS says:

    Schacht was in on the BIS, mostly as a way for Germany to pay Versailles debts.

    In other words, Germany tried valiantly to pay Versaille debts, but as we all know, debts can grow outside of the ability of nature to pay.

    German exchange rate came under pressure, as Germany had to acquire dollars or pounds or francs to pay allies. The allies in turn were in debt to U.S. Treasury for WW1 debts.

    In the modern era all hyperinflations are due to exchange rate pressures. (Except Zimbabwe, who killed off their economy when they killed the white farmers.)

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  222. “After Hitler’s Barbarossa invasion of the USSR in June 1941 suddenly brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side”

    I’m not well prepared enough to debate the point, but this does not appear to be correct. There are books out by Soviet (Russian, if you will) historians that argue that Stalin had been preparing to attack Germany all along and that Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union was pre-emptive.

    As evidence, the Red Army was mostly stocked with offensive weaponry. They had a ton of airborne / paratroop units with submachine guns, prepared and trained for assaulting urban centers. Everything, these writers argue, was set in place for an imminent attack on Germany.

    Having said that, Hitler made some rather strange decisions in invading the USSR that make me believe that someone in the German high command was actively sabotaging the war effort.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  223. @bluedog

    I was quoting a movie line. In that film, the character who played Tibbets was told if he dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan, he would save countless American and Japanese lives. I actually met a pilot who flew the configuration tests for the B-29 Atomic Bomb version.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  224. @Marvelous Goy

    As David Irving pointed out, Hitler was taken in by the German weapons developers who painted a rosy picture of all the weapons they were developing.

    Had he realized how long it would take for those weapons to mature he might have been less prepared to engage in war on multiple fronts.

    For example, they would probably have been better off to develop the PzKpfw IV platform further than they did instead of embarking on the Tiger and Panther tanks.

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

    • Replies: @David Baker
  225. @FB

    Capitalism works IF it is capitalism. Socialism fails in each of its variations.

    • Replies: @Biff
  226. Tusk says:
    @Colin Wright

    Truly the best way to prevent death in war is to bomb a large contingent of the civilian population with breakthrough destructive technology. I am at least impressed that America is consistent with the strategy, from WW2 and Nuclear Weapons to Agent Orange in Vietnam, and the modern day successor using drones to bomb people on the other side of the world. The ‘millions of lives’ that were saved by the bombing is a ridiculous slight of hand based on potential invasion of Japan casualties and subsequent firebombing that would have caused millions of civilians to starve. The future is in a state of flux so saying that this campaign and those losses were definite is arbitrary imagination.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  227. @Peripatetic Commenter

    If Der Fuhrer was not such a control freak and an armchair general, he would have had a first class interceptor fleet with the Me-262 and, to a lesser extent, the Me-163. Hitler delayed the introduction of his jet fighters by insisting that they should be bombers.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  228. Biff says:
    @David Baker

    Socialism fails in each of its variations.

    Well turn out those street lights, and put an end to that running water.
    Just store your crap on your own property; never mind the smell.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @David Baker
  229. @MEFOBILLS

    In other words, Germany tried valiantly to pay Versaille debts, but as we all know, debts can grow outside of the ability of nature to pay.

    Germany paid Versaille debts even during the war years from 1939 to 1945?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  230. Tusk says:
    @Biff

    All those are run under capitalist schemes, in which citizens pay for the service they receive. Some countries like Australia have contract with companies to provide waste management to the government. Very much capitalism.

  231. Gefreiter says:
    @Wally

    Unsurprisingly, it was Jews, especially California Jews, who were pushing for the internment of the Japanese. They also picked up much of the farmland and wealth from these Japanese at typical money changer discounts.

    Jews ALWAYS project their own crimes back onto their victims. They are a race of inbred psychopaths and liars.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Jake
  232. @David Baker

    If Der Fuhrer was not such a control freak and an armchair general, he would have had a first class interceptor fleet with the Me-262 and, to a lesser extent, the Me-163. Hitler delayed the introduction of his jet fighters by insisting that they should be bombers.

    A a load of crap. The glorious All-Lies only narrowly escaped an entire range of German advanced weapon systems. These would be btw the base for both Russian and US programs, including obviously spcae programs. Patton’s primary aim was to capture Germany industrial sites and patents before the Soviets. Well, both got them, minus the real prize that went simply missing. Anyway, the US dropped 2 captured German nuclear devices on Japan, ie Germany had nuclear weapons. Fool.

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @David Baker
  233. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Mr. FoSquare

    A critically important feature of MEFO bills was that they were rolled over every three months and limited to 19 rollovers, for a maximum term of five years. This feature gave the bankers the right to refuse to rollover the MEFO bills, and thereby contract the currency (Mefo bills circulated as de facto money) whenever it chose to do so

    Much of this history is lost to us, or has been suppressed. We really need a graduate student to dig into this history since it is so important.

    A bill of exchange does not really circulate as money. Money is a pay to the bearer instrument, and is general demand.

    A bill of exchange is specific demand, paid in money. A bill of exchange is a tripartite agreement, with a payer, payee, and drawee (in simpler terms discussed earlier – like a check).

    If you passed a payroll check around, it would have to be countersigned by additional parties, so I highly doubt that Mefobills worked as you suggest. It is against the mechanism for bills of exchange.

    Of course I could be wrong, since I am not that graduate student expert. More likely the action is exactly that of a bill of exchange, and not a debt instrument, and all the history I can find suggests it as so. Schact tells us what he did in his book, “the magic of money.” see also the link below.

    A debt instrument can be hypothecated to emit credit, and then can be sold back into money supply to soak up former credit. For example a TBill bond can work as you describe, but not a bill of exchange.

    Mefobills, when presented by a banker to reichsbank for rediscount, collected interest. The interest was created from nothing, and flowed outward from reichsbank to the bearer (the bank), and hence was not usurious. New money from reichsbank flowed outward into the money supply, where new reichsmarks circulated until it was taken up in taxes. These new reichsmarks would be debt free, operating like a Greenback, and could only be taken out of supply by taxation.

    In terms of double entry mechanics, the bill landed on reichsbank ledger, as an asset, and reichsbank emitted new reichsmarks in proportion.

    https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/hjalmar-schacht-mefo-bills-and-the-restoration-of-the-german-economy-1933-1939/

    From Schacht:

    The drawer could present his “mefo” bills to any German bank for discount at any time, and these banks, in turn, could rediscount the bills at the Reichsbank at any time within the last three months of their earliest maturity.

    Banks could hold onto the bills until maturity to collect more interest from Reichsbank.

  234. @jbwilson24

    I’m not well prepared enough to debate the point, but this does not appear to be correct. There are books out by Soviet (Russian, if you will) historians that argue that Stalin had been preparing to attack Germany all along and that Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union was pre-emptive.

    It was a preemptive strike, that saved entire western Europe from raping and looting red army hordes. The Soviet plans went as far as Spain’s Atlantic coast.

    Those people who claim, Suvorov’s thesis was not true, they should finally figure out who Barbarossa was, and why the German operation was named Barbarossa. They never tell you this, and conveniently brush over it. same people should also explain, why German forces made 3 Million pow in the beginning of Barbarossa.

    Here is a clue.

    Frederick I (German: Friedrich I., Italian: Federico I; 1122 – 10 June 1190), also known as Frederick Barbarossa (Italian: Federico Barbarossa), was the Holy Roman Emperor from 2 January 1155 until his death. He was elected King of Germany at Frankfurt on 4 March 1152 and crowned in Aachen on 9 March 1152.

    The Legend of Barbarossa says, he is not dead and sleeps in the mountain of Untersberg or Kyffhäusser, and that he will awake with his knights if the ravens don’t circle the mountain and the Reich is in grave danger.

  235. Gefreiter says:
    @Germanicus

    Here is a great meme on this subject:

  236. “It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. ”

    That might not be entirely correct.

    The fact that the enemies of the Nazis were often very bad people, and that history is very often distorted for bad ends (as this fascinating article demonstrates), does not mean that the Nazis weren’t in the end very bad people too.

  237. @Tusk

    ‘…The future is in a state of flux so saying that this campaign and those losses were definite is arbitrary imagination.’

    But in that case, it’s at least equally arbitrary to assert that dropping the bombs killed more than would have died otherwise.

    Your point is true enough but doesn’t actually address what is in dispute.

  238. refl says:
    @Colin Wright

    Worse still. The Americans took charge of the destroyed cities within weeks of the bombings and they had medical facilities of military scale at hand. Most victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died of untreated burns which were easy to treat at least on the basical level and they could have been saved. The US picked out small samples of the population to treat and thus save them for experimental reasons. These survivours mostly grew old.

    Go for a long solitary walk and think about your conventional wisdom.

    • Troll: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Anon
  239. @Anon

    ‘Why couldn’t the US have settled for a conditional surrender?’

    Why couldn’t Japan have offered such a surrender?

    In point of fact, Japan was trying to make overtures via the Russians. However, in their own charming, public-spirited way, the Russians refrained from letting us know.

    I think we acted appropriately. And in point of fact, Truman delayed dropping the third bomb, wishing to give the Japanese a chance to throw in the towel. His words were, ‘all those kids…’

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  240. @FB

    “the myth of capitalism” that people have to be kept believing in: what is that?

    “one guy always ends up with the short end of the stick” etc. Apart from corrupt countries with high fertility and the US where average real wages haven’t risen for decades thanks to government policies rather than private banks capitalist democracies have enjoyed steadily rising standards of living for over 70 years. Quite some shell game! Would you care to justify your lefty jargon?

    • LOL: FB
    • Troll: Biff
    • Replies: @FB
  241. @MAOWASAYALI

    Do you really believe that crap or are you just a drooling anti-Semite that loses his marbles as soon as you see a bit of fakery like that?

  242. @Mulegino1

    Hitler’s great crime (other than having lost the war) was that the National Socialist economic policies worked so well. This no doubt horrified the usurious overlords of Wall St. and the City of London, and enraged FDR , whose so called “New Deal” had been totally ineffective at dealing with the depression in the US.

    Very true.

    Another great crime was resisting millionaire-backed Marxism and its “One World” plans for world slavery. Japan committed similar “crimes” as well, while the “great” US submitted willingly.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  243. @refl

    Are you so detached from reality that you think that story of Churchill deliberately maintaining Sweden’s supply of iron to Germany was worth your time typing such rubbish?

    • Replies: @refl
  244. @RI

    Germanicus is right, people are being deceived.

    Of course they are and that would be the big point. I corrected him about a technicality and now consider that minor issue closed.

  245. @ploni almoni

    What makes you “think” that they were “thinking” and not “obeying?”

    Good one.

    They were not only doing what they were told to do, but doing it well, and it’s called propagandizing. They did it so well that the vast majority of Americans that I’ve come into contact with still believe, and mindlessly parrot, centuries old propaganda as if they know something. Thank G-wd for UR for the light it sheds on the truth.

  246. @Anon

    I wonder what motivated Unz to read some one hundred books on a single topic — a topic of history at that, and prior to him growing suspicious of official narratives.

    I can’t answer for him, but Marxism, Bolshevism and Communism were extremely “hot” topics decades ago. Innate curiosity and an attempt to understand the issues of the time would certainly be enough motivation, I’d think.

  247. @MEFOBILLS

    “All international trade is only barter” … and *you attribute this to Keynes*. Your taste in phony quotes from god-knows-where shows you know nothing about Keynes or international trade. Elements of barter are likely to be introduced when economies are under great stress. That’s as far as you can take that barter blather.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  248. @Anon

    You can put it like that as regards 90-95% of media reportage and opinion, in every age and place, can’t you?

    I’d put it at 95-99%

    I have done this, and the normal people reacting to my claims have made me realized that anyone not having experienced those dynamics from the inside is oblivious to them throughout their lives.

    I agree with that heartily. I, decades ago, sat in on a state legislative session where there was a debate taking place about an issue I was very familiar with. I was utterly shocked by the things that were claimed, both pro and con. Both groups were saying things that were utterly screwy and to think they wrote a law based on the arguments there amazes me to this day. I’ve had similar experiences with “news” reporting and have concluded that BS is the fertilizer of the masses.

  249. Hans says:
    @David Baker

    Please. Never speak of the “geysers of blood” and the “trembling ground”. It is far too painful. The abdominal cramping takes days to recover from.

  250. Parfois1 says:
    @Cyrano

    You are very brave. In this infertile field of ignorant obduracy concerning Socialism (based on the basic principle that an economy should provide for the material and spiritual needs of the people, not profit for the plutocracy – Stalin) what you wrote sounds as optimistic as St Anthony’s Preaching to the Fishes. They’ll never learn.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  251. @Colin Wright

    ‘Lol that old old lie that the dropping of the bombs saved American lives..’

    It may be old, but it’s the truth. Japan barely surrendered as it was — absent the bombs, they would definitely have hung on. Selective quotations won’t change that.

    No, it’s BS. More precisely, it’s Hollywood-aided propaganda used to justify another hideous crime, and snarky claims don’t change that.

    If you want the truth, you have to search for it, like RU has done. Furthermore, if you make the claim, then you must know more than the source of this quote,

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Japan’s Struggle to End the War
    Chairman’s Office
    1 July 1946
    https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentid=68&pagenumber=50

    The claim of the bomb droppers to be concerned about loss of GI lives is bogus on its face. If they were so concerned about that, then why did they sacrifice them to an unnecessary war to begin with? It’s clear that Japan was beaten even before the attack on PH since they didn’t even have the wherewithal to deal with the Chinese after years of fighting, and the US had complete control of the seas and had the ability to completely control Japan at the time of the bombings.

    All that can be said on the available evidence is that Japan was defeated in the military sense by August 1945

    – Louis Morton, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, Chapter 23, p 518

    https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm

    That the nuking of Japan was done to save American lives is another putrid lie.

    • Agree: FB
  252. Vojkan says:
    @Gefreiter

    “transparent satanic jewish rituals performed to increase their ‘magick‘“

    Sounds crazy but it it isn’t. What’s really crazy is that it’s true.

  253. @David Baker

    –and hose the workers with their rounds and bombs.

    Speaking of “hosing, with rounds,” anyone who’s witnessed a C-130 “Dragonship” in action cannot fail to be convinced of the utter insanity of the minds who invent, manufacture and deploy such abominations. They spew something like 100 rounds per minute and every 5th round is a tracer or something like that ( don’t quote me on the exact details). In action, it looks like they’re hosing an area with streams of fire and I remember being told that they can cover the area of a football field with a lead projectile every square inch in under a minute, and that may be accurate.

    Even long after, I’d hate to be a farmer who had to plant rice in those lead-contaminated paddies.

    Sick, sick, sick. Damn them all.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  254. @ploni almoni

    WW II was Jewish revenge for a country that dared to throw off the Jewish yoke.

    Yes, and a key word is revenge. Pathologic, way over the top revenge, in fact. What’s worse, is that even those who bend over for them get similar treatment in the end, while they gloat and get “richer.”

    Either way, the psychopaths do what they can to get their kicks.

  255. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    Mulegino1 says:“…Physical labor is the primary source of all economic value….”

    Absolutely not true The labor theory, originally proposed by the British classical economists i.e the mercantilists [state “capitalists], such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo], and then accepted as the gospel truth by Marx and many since then, was/ is a complete fallacy, as was clearly demonstrated by the Austrian economist Carl Menger, whose 1871 book “Principles of Economics ” completely destroyed the idiotic economics of Marx and all of his disciples.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger

    Mulegino1 says:“…Hitler’s great crime (other than having lost the war) was that the National Socialist economic policies worked so well….”

    No, they didn’t.

    They only appeared to do so for the short time they were enforced on the German population.

    As I tried to enlighten Mr Unz [in my posts 101, 116, 173]:

    [post 101]: “……This idiotic tripe about Hitlers assumed economic genius, again? ………”

    “……..It Takes Time!

    But it takes time for the market to correct the idiotic impositions of the supposedly godlike central planners. [ like Hitler]

    Fact: Hitlers massive interferences in the market economy [ which he basically copied from the Western European government policies of England, France, Italy -all of whom had long since abandoned the principles of “Laissez faire” that had dominated their economic thinking in the 19th century], did not have a chance to really wreak their inevitable havoc before Germany got into war mode.

    Before it came to war, “all” Hitler did was to further expand all those newer, “modern”Western European, anti- laissez faire/free market, principles, however his continual, increasing enforced market manipulations simply did not have time to wreak their inevitable havoc before Germany went into full war mode, although the cracks were most certainly there behind the official economic figures, to anyone with a discerning eye who actually bothered to look.

    [ Hint: for various reasons I won’t get into, an official,”only” 1% unemployment figure because of central planning by Hitler is an extreme danger! sign, not the sign of healthy economy, as Mr Unz and others here automatically assume.

    Fact: any real free-market economist back then would have known that war against Germany was not even necessary, because, just as night always follows day in the real world, sooner or later, Hitlers disastrous economic policies would, by themselves, bring about the complete collapse of the German economy…..”

    [Over and out- no more posts from me in this thread.]

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Curmudgeon
  256. Anon[674] • Disclaimer says:
    @refl

    Never suggest people that they reflect. If they could, they would already to that by themselves.

    • Agree: refl
  257. @Germanicus

    Wall Street spawned the communist revolutionaries that raped eastern Europe, in the same way they create “ISIS” today to rape countries.

    Absolutely correct, and that’s one reason I’m happy that Mr Unz pointed out the international banking criminals’ roles, above. That fact is too little known and way underappreciated. It’s obvious that the goal is to enslave us goyim and little Jews under the guise of protecting us.

    It’s stunning how the US has so completely succmbed to their wiles with nary a wimper.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  258. Jake says:
    @dearieme

    The Babylonian Talmud was not codified in written form until about 500 AD. But it existed long before the Incarnation. It was the ‘oral law’ that Jesus condemned as being essentially Satanic, as often taking the Mosaic law and turning it inside out and upside down. It definitely turned the religion of Moses into a vicious cult based on the world’s first known racism.

  259. @Grace Poole

    Brandeis was vacuous scum and it amazes me how he’s been propagandized as being some great thinker in the same way that Marx, Einstein and Freud have been promoted.

    Reading some of his sanctimonious, turgid, quasi-profound baloney fills one with nausea and a permanent case of utter repulsion.

    From whence do they dig these clowns up?

  260. Jake says:
    @Gefreiter

    “Jews ALWAYS project their own crimes back onto their victims. They are a race of inbred psychopaths and liars.”

    True – but that also is true of WASP Elites.

    That should help you understand why English has replaced Yiddish-German as the international Jewish language.

  261. “In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders.” – Paul Craig Roberts: The Lies About WWII
    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  262. @Johnny Walker Read

    I highly recommend this article by Paul Craig Roberts. It will show how Churchill out Hitlered Hitler.
    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

  263. @MAOWASAYALI

    In the words of Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869:

    Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.

    Careful there. Some folks can’t handle the truth as spewed from the horse’s nether orifice. 😉

  264. @Wally

    You have no proof whatsoever.

    True.

    He keeps repeating old clichés as if he has something worthwhile to contribute, and I’d like to know where he got the idea that nuking the Japanese saved American lives. Just one credible source to substantiate that or any of his other claims would interest me.

    Zionist BS.

    Between that and Commie BS, the type is completely brainwashed. Is there any hope?

    • Replies: @Wally
  265. Mulegino1 says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Mulegino1 says:“…Physical labor is the primary source of all economic value….”

    Absolutely not true The labor theory, originally proposed by the British classical economists i.e the mercantilists [state “capitalists], such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo], and then accepted as the gospel truth by Marx and many since then, was/ is a complete fallacy, as was clearly demonstrated by the Austrian economist Carl Menger, whose 1871 book “Principles of Economics ” completely destroyed the idiotic economics of Marx and all of his disciples.

    One cannot create physical wealth without physically productive labor, copious amounts of Austrian School fetishism notwithstanding. No one has ever observed a bunch of gold coins arising from their vault and collaborating to create wealth and better the economic conditions of society. Economic individualism and the rights of the consumer cannot must be subordinated to the well being of the society and all of its members. On its most fundamental level, economics is a moral science.

    Mulegino1 says:“…Hitler’s great crime (other than having lost the war) was that the National Socialist economic policies worked so well….”

    No, they didn’t.

    They only appeared to do so for the short time they were enforced on the German population.

    Oh, they only “appeared to work” did they? I guess those millions of German workers and farmers should have known that their new employment and newfound dignity, aside from the ephemeral need to feed themselves was contrary to Austrian School principles was only an illusion.

    Fact: Hitlers massive interferences in the market economy [ which he basically copied from the Western European government policies of England, France, Italy -all of whom had long since abandoned the principles of “Laissez faire” that had dominated their economic thinking in the 19th century], did not have a chance to really wreak their inevitable havoc before Germany got into war mode.

    Wrong. Germany did not go into full war mobilization until 1942, and besides, the “havoc” you claim would have arisen from the implementation of Hitler’s economic policies did not happen until Germany was bombed to smithereens and invaded by the Allies. Germany arguably enjoyed the highest standard of living among the great powers until the war.

    No major industrial economy has ever come into being without dirigism, protectionism, and economic planning. The American System was not a creature of laissez faire but of the application of national interest economic principles.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @OEMIKITLOB
  266. @MEFOBILLS

    I thank you guys for being here. Tons of great info.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
  267. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “All international trade is only barter” … and *you attribute this to Keynes*. Your taste in phony quotes from god-knows-where shows you know nothing about Keynes or international trade. Elements of barter are likely to be introduced when economies are under great stress. That’s as far as you can take that barter blather.

    Keynes was talking about how moneys role in trade transaction was to be invisible, making it barter. It was part of his argument in run up to bancor system, although a bancor isn’t really money, it is an accounting system.

    A more accurate way to say it, all international trade is goods to goods. Keynes analysis of mercantile competition was one of leverage, where the mercantile country would grab gold from another country through unbalanced trade. The loss of gold from trade deficit country would collapse their money supply with leverage at a 10:1 rate due to fractional reserve. This then led to constant war.

    In other words, international trade in goods is to have isolated money flows because it is goods to goods.

    Today’s floating exchange rate system, mercantile countries (like China) return dollars, not to buy goods, but instead to buy TBills (debt instruments) thus it is not goods to goods, and hence is not a barter relationship between trading nations.

    In barter, typically there is no I.O.U debt scenario that occurs as a tax on the future. The deal is consummated in the now, and both creditors and debtors are in balance in the now. People do their deal (barter) and walk away satisfied with no future claims on each other, and the bancor system was to do the same. Keynes also said that only a few people in the world understood how money works. So, it is no shame to be confused on things, especially when it concerns past and future, conversion of types, and other aspects of money that are not taught.

    • Replies: @anon
  268. @Colin Wright

    ‘Why couldn’t the US have settled for a conditional surrender?’

    Why couldn’t Japan have offered such a surrender?

    What makes you believe they didn’t?

    Have you any idea of how they attempted to avoid the war in the first place, and how they were repeatedly humiliated? Can you explain why FDR insisted on unconditional surrender for both Germany and Japan?

    Again, what makes you believe the Japanese government didn’t offer such a surrender?

  269. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    This reply was meant for “One Born Free.”

  270. @Carolyn Yeager

    You’re the one who said he used to perform operations to remove people’s organs, people who were drugged before it was done. Without their consent? I don’t think someone with that record could be sensitive to what I’m talking about.

    [MORE]

    I think that’s a bit sort of unfair. I tell you why.
    What I know about the topic comes from a retired doctor, with 50 years of experience.
    What happens with the doctors, they go to uni, and basically just function in the sense of the system, like all the other academics that went through the indoctrination zombie factory. Wisdom and truly thinking about what they have been doing at work usually comes when they are retired and have time to do some research om their own. They simply have almost no time to think, they work an awful lot of time, day and night, and the younger doctors are juist a disaster, trained by the pharma mafia.
    They simply don’t learn and get taught that the human being, generally life and organisms are electric in nature. Nature works with fields only.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  271. @MAOWASAYALI

    Germany paid Versaille debts even during the war years from 1939 to 1945?

    No, Versailles was in fact rendered null and void under national socialist government beginning in 1933, it is one big reason why the British waged the second war, and world Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. The traitorous masonic regime that took power in 1919 did even put Versailles “reparations ” in the so called “Weimar constitution”. Hitler reversed that, and the occupation by the Allies reversed Hitler’s reversal back to Weimar, until today. The US vassal the “Federal Republic of Germany”(continuation of Weimar, the private company) finished paying WWI “reparations”, *drumroll*, in 2010.
    The Euro is another form of Versailles.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @Wally
  272. Agent76 says:

    May 14, 2019 The Propaganda Multiplier: How Global News Agencies and Western Media Report on Geopolitics

    Introduction: “Something strange”

    “How does the newspaper know what it knows?” The answer to this question is likely to surprise some newspaper readers: “The main source of information is stories from news agencies. The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events.

    https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  273. @Mulegino1

    It is more likely that German pre-war policy was about maintaining German sovereignty and economic independence and was aimed at extricating Germany from the international finance system via the issue of currency based on physical labor and not gold (Germany had hardly any) along the international barter trade. It was German economics and monetary policy which was most likely the cause of the war against Germany. The financial powers in London and Wall St. knew that a successful international barter trade bloc which included much of South America, Eurasia and Eastern and Central Europe, would have represented a formidable challenge to their hegemony.

    Worth repeating here because it parallels the present where we see every nation which lacks a Jewish central bank being targeted by Z.O.G.U.S.A. with threats of US military invasion.

    Plus your praise of the German economic policy is consistent with the writings of your fellow highly credible commenter MEFOBILLS who has written in great detail here how beneficial to the host population is the system which he calls “industrial capitalism” monetary policy as opposed to exploitative Jew usurious “finance capitalism”.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  274. FB says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    … capitalist democracies have enjoyed steadily rising standards of living for over 70 years.

    That’s socialist China you just described…

    Not sure what’s funnier there…the part about ‘democracy’ or the ‘rising’ living standards…

    How’s the weather in disneyland…?

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  275. @Mulegino1

    Classic Truth:

    Physical labor is the primary source of all economic value, not what some Talmudic gnome sitting on his pile of gold and silver claims it to be. A true national economy must exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

    Sad Truth:

    Hitler’s great crime (other than having lost the war) was that the National Socialist economic policies worked so well. This no doubt horrified the usurious overlords of Wall St. and the City of London, and enraged FDR , whose so called “New Deal” had been totally ineffective at dealing with the depression in the US.

    All FDRosenfeld’s “New Deal” accomplished was to buy the permanent political loyalty of black America away from The Party of Emancipation as BHO’s biodaddy expressed in his black newspaper column shortly after enactment.

  276. @Jake

    A critically necessary insight:

    The Babylonian Talmud was not codified in written form until about 500 AD. But it existed long before the Incarnation. It was the ‘oral law’ that Jesus condemned as being essentially Satanic, as often taking the Mosaic law and turning it inside out and upside down. It definitely turned the religion of Moses into a vicious cult based on the world’s first known racism.

  277. @Germanicus

    No, Versailles was in fact rendered null and void under national socialist government beginning in 1933, it is one big reason why the British waged the second war, and world Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933.

    Thanks for the info.

    I agree with you, and it should be obvious to most who still have half a brain: the day JUDEA declared War on Germany on March 24, 1933, was the day WWII really began.

    Of course, by claiming that Jews started WWII and that it was part of their centuries-long campaign of White Genocide will automatically make me an “evil antisemite.” Thank goodness “antisemitism” isn’t a capital offense, at least not yet.

    Jews hate the truth more than they hate the goyim.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  278. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Brabantian

    Regarding Adolf Hitler’s economic miracle of 1933-39, it was indeed stunning … but the deeper side of that story, was that Adolf Hitler was financed by British and USA banking interests, bankrolling the creation of a war machine probably intended to bring conflict to the European mainland

    I cannot find any data to support British and USA banking interests bankrolling German economy. Sure, there were vested industrial interests as always. There was even some wall street money from Schiff, to then influence the Nazi party. But, as Schiff says later, nobody knew he was a Jew and his intent was to embarrass the Bruning government.

    Henry Makow has good intentions, but he sometimes spins out of control. Henry is not a monetary historian, and hence goes off the rails sometimes.

    As I discuss earlier in this thread, it was mostly MEFOBILL’s that funded rearmament. Other similar mechanisms, like Offa bills were used on infrastructure prior to 33. Coupon’s were issued to farmers to produce farm goods, and so on. Schacht especially was constantly on the phone and maneuvering things. Infrastructure was invested in.. the autobahn construction alone employed about 400,000 people by 1936.

    There were a lot of moving parts in the German economy and it wasn’t U.S. Treasury money nor was it wall street loans that employed Germans.

  279. @MAOWASAYALI

    I agree with you, and it should be obvious to most who still have half a brain: the day JUDEA declared War on Germany on March 24, 1933, was the day WWII really began.

    I would say, WWII began the day WWI began.
    They forced after WWI they emperor in exile in a coup d’etat, installed a democratic traitorous, inapt and corrupt masonic muppetshow with Weimar, and then came Hitler and tried to fix the mess. The second war reverted the fixes, and we now have again Weimar 2.0.
    The period in between 1919 and 1933 was war by other means, economic war against Germany, with straving people and mass unemployment and massive inflation, by the hour.

    If you view WWII as an isolated event, its like watching only act 3 in a theater play. You won’t know the plot if you missed act 1 & 2.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager, Wally
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  280. I have a hard time to believe in the Pike operation story.
    The French air force in 1939 until June 1940 was way behind concerning its bombing capacity and reconnaissance aircraft. It is today widely accepted that the french air force lack of readiness is highly responsible for our early defeat. In such condition trying to go to Bakou from Syria, destroy the petrol installation and come-back was totaly impossible.
    True Staline helped Hitler’s election in 1933 by ordering the German communists to vote against the socialists. True the Soviet Union started helping Germany to develop and build weapons forbidden by the Versailles treaty but it started before 1933. Concerning the German petrol ressouces, the main provider was Romania and not Russia and when Stalin invaded Bessarabia, it was with the intent to size the Romanian oïl field when he would invaded Germany and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has never been an alliance between Germany and the URSS. The idea of a URSS Germany alliance is a non-sense; nor Hitler nor Stalin wanted it.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Wally
  281. @Germanicus

    [MORE]

    Probably was unfair because I didn’t really understand what he was trying to say. He was overly brief. But I stand behind my first and second paragraphs, and also what I wrote to you. What we’re talking about has nothing to do with doctors and how they look at it, nor does it or will it follow what you have come to know about fields.

    So tell me what you know about “life and organisms are electric in nature.” How does that relate to the soul, which you mentioned. How do you define fields in relation to how Nature works? I asked you what you thought of what I wrote to you but you haven’t answered that.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  282. @onebornfree

    the British classical economists i.e the mercantilists [state “capitalists], such as Adam Smith

    Adam Smith was not an economist. He was a philosopher who taught ethics at the University of Glasgow. He referred to the “political economy” understanding that political decisions, such as dismantling the trade guilds, affected the economy. Given that virtually everything is political, including what constitutes a “free market”, I have always wondered why people buy into the bullshit of today’s “capitalism” i.e. international banking cartel economics.

  283. In my experience across various right-wing discussion forums (prior to the Social Media Era), I discovered that many educated men with an ideological affinity for the losing side of the Second World war, seemed to be aware of this planned Anglo-French attack on the USSR (although most seemed to feel it was somehow tied to the Soviet invasion of Finland). Almost no one else seems to be aware of it, however. The sole exception I can recall encountering prior to this day, was in the early 90s, when my (favorite) San Diego State University professor, in the History department, Richard W. Steele, was teaching his course on the Second World War. He described this plan as “insane”. But other than for his one reference to it over a quarter century ago, and few online admirers of Hitler on vBulletin forums in the first decade of this century, you’re the only other person I’ve ever encountered who knew about it.

    There was a reason Dr. Steele was my favorite professor.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  284. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright: evil British apologist

  285. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I would say, WWII began the day WWI began.

    WWII really began with Hitler’s invasion of the USSR in 1941. Had Hitler not done that, it would have remained a European continental affair. But the attack on USSR made it much bigger, and it emboldened Japan’s strike on Pearl Harbor. Then, the European War and Pacific War were linked by US involvement.

    • Replies: @Wally
  286. Ron Unz says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    But other than for his one reference to it over a quarter century ago, and few online admirers of Hitler on vBulletin forums in the first decade of this century, you’re the only other person I’ve ever encountered who knew about it.

    Well, I really can’t take too much credit for that. Aside from that one casual mention in Huddleston’s 1952 memoirs, which I regarded with extreme skepticism, I only discovered it when I came across the 2017 article in The National Interest, so you’d have to give the author and editors of that piece full priority.

  287. Gefreiter says:

    when the 1944 Normandy landings and the subsequent German withdrawal suddenly opened the doors of power to the anti-Petain forces, they engaged in an orgy of ideological bloodletting probably without precedent in French history, far surpassing the infamous Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, with perhaps 100,000 or more civilians being summarily butchered on the basis of little or no evidence, often just to settle personal scores. Some of the worst of the bloodshed came at the hands of the Communist exiles of the Spanish Civil War, who had found shelter in France after their defeat and now eagerly took an opportunity to turn the tables and massacre the same sort of “bourgeois” class-enemies who had defeated them in that previous conflict just a few years earlier.

    To quote General Patton, who they eliminated, it was all “very semitic”.

    Here are some a quote from “How Zion Triumphs” by Jim Taylor about his interviews with Franco in Madrid. He tells some interesting facts that also shed light on the complete sacking of France by jews and freemasons in 1945:

    The Marshal refused political sanctuary from both Spain and Switzerland. He chose to return voluntarily to France and face the consequences, sure that he would be vindicated in any trial, military or civilian. He didn’t think he had committed any crimes against France.

    According to Swiss records, on April 26, 1944[sic 5], he voluntarily left Swiss territory at exactly 7:27 P.M. when he crossed over the border to the French village of La Ferriere.

    His arrival was not unanticipated. It had been highly publicized. Waiting for him were the French Army, the police, the Maquis and, of course, several hundred screaming Jews and Communists recruited from the dregs of Paris to attempt to demoralize the old soldier as he returned to the land of his birth. He was taken to a train by the army and the police. The Maquis, who didn’t like Jews any more than the average Frenchman of the times, told the press that they were present to protect the old gentleman from the exploding wrath of Paris Jews, who had just returned to that city in large numbers as the fighting stopped in France. Several groups of these lower forms of life were shouting, “Death to Pétain.” About 150 heavily-armed police and soldiers took custody of Pétain. He was met personally by General Pierre Koenig, French military governor of Paris and a former leader of the Free French movement.

    The old marshal must have been stunned by this unusual reception in his own country, where he had always previously received the highest honors and privileges. Jews and Communists lined every station platform at each stop of his train from the Swiss border to Paris. The Marshal did not yet fully realize the situation he found himself in at this time. To the screaming crowds of rabble-rousers, he was no longer the “eminence grise” but was now called a Jew-hating war criminal. The police had to call on the army to prevent the Jews from dragging him off the train in Paris and murdering him without a trial, as they had done in 1918 to the Czar and his family.

    The worst was yet to come. He was taken to a damp and cold cell at the Fort du Portalet prison. The old warrior was greatly surprised.

    I was not aware that the Maquis hated communist jews. The article is chock full of narrative busting excerpts, here is another I liked:

    Marshal Pétain did not like Jews. However, in reality, he was less an enemy of the Jews than most other Vichy officials. “A Jew is never responsible for his origin; a Freemason always is one of his own choice and should be treated more harshly than Jews,” said Pétain in a nation-wide radio talk. “Together, the two have brought us down to defeat by teaching our reserve officers at universities not to respect French authority but only internationalism. That is essentially why our reserve officers in the army deserted their troops and left the front en masse,” he continued.

    From his headquarters at the Hotel du Parc in the town of Vichy, Pétain issued another decree outlawing all secret societies and confiscating the property and possessions of all Freemasons. Government employees had to sign an oath that they had never belonged to the Freemasons.

    Petain was woke. Here is a great youtube translated Petain era French film about Free Masons and how they recruit.

    In a lot of ways, this last bit is the best:

    On March 29, 1941, Pétain set up the Commissariat General aux Questions Juives (“General Commissary for Jewish Questions.”) Vallat was assigned to work closely with German diplomat Werner Best, who was responsible for Jewish affairs in Paris and all French territory outside of Vichy France. The Parc Hotel in Vichy became the capital of the Pétain-controlled two-fifths of France not directly under German control. Neither President Roosevelt nor Ambassador Leahy saw anything wrong with this French approach to the problem of controlling the Jews. And not one member of Congress objected to it either.
    ….
    Henceforth, when no world-wide opposition to the French Jewish policy developed, arrested Jews were contained at the Drancy concentration camp near Paris. It surprised the German high command in Paris how badly the French treated their own Jews. And orders straight from Berlin, approved by Hitler, required that the French increase the daily food and blanket allowance for Jews at Drancy, so as to bring the place up to the much higher standards at German-controlled camps for Jews, where cleanliness and sanitary conditions were strictly maintained so as to prevent any infections or outbreaks of disease. The Germans even sent French officials to view the German camps so they could learn how to maintain a camp in the proper and prescribed manner. French officials were amazed when observing conditions at German camps and were greatly surprised to find swimming pools for the use of inmates. Of course, the Zionists now running Washington who keep publicizing these camps during World War II, never bother to mention any swimming pools or other such circumstances during the German operation of such places.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  288. onebornfree says: • Website

    I said “over and out” but couldn’t resist posting this “food for thought” for all the idiotic Hitler admirers and apologists here:

    “Who Funded Nazi Germany? German National Socialism Created By International Bankers” [extracted from a video originally published by James Corbett at his site]:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  289. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It is not my rubbish but that of a quite knowledgable economist. And besides:

    To maintain Germany’s access to war materials to keep it going was a mayor feature of the policy of the secret anglosaxon elite in WW I, the objective being that only a prolonged war would destroy Germany once and for all.
    I oftentimes recommended here firstworldwarhiddenhistory by Gerry Doherty and Jim MacGregor. Others have also done it just recently on the article by Nick Kollerstrom on the avoidability of WW I. I recommend it again hereby.

    Think about it: wars are led by elites for there own purposes. To believe that it is their mayor concern is to keep casualties of their own nations small by defeating the enemy quickly is wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  290. @MEFOBILLS

    This whole exercise here is about power and who controls it. The Reichsbank (controlled by the bankers through their agent Schacht) had the authority to recall the Mefos — ie., demand repayment — at three month intervals over their five year lifespan. This gave the bankers the power to contract the money supply whenever they chose by refusing to roll over the bills (ie., demanding repayment). Schacht exercised this power about four years into the five year lifespan of the bills, and this resulted in the confrontation with Hitler which led to his dismissal as head of the bank.

    The power lay with the bankers. They controlled the money supply through the creation of a debt instrument — standard operating procedure for bankers — which they could revoke at any time by refusing to renew the Mefo bills. The government (the Reich) representing the citizens was at the mercy of the bankers (the Reichsbank). This debt-based money system transfers power from the people to the bankers and their privately-controlled institutions. The most productive way to think about these matters is to think in terms of power, who controls it and at what expense to the rest of us, and not get bogged down in the minutiae of bills of exchange.

    Now, the government could have created the money interest-free on behalf of the citizenry and spent it into circulation directly on projects benefiting the community as a whole. The bankers would then only be permitted to lend money they actually have on deposit, not money they’ve created out of thin air as debt-based money putting the whole community perpetually in hoc to them and allowing them to appropriate exponentially increasing amounts of the wealth and productive output of the nation through the mathematics of compounding usury. They’ll go to any extreme to prevent this from happening.

    Of course, many of the socio-economic ills that afflict the U.S. and the West today are directly attributable to this usury-based, mammonic system of the bankers.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  291. @Carolyn Yeager

    How do you define fields in relation to how Nature works?

    [MORE]

    You should ask this question to any physicist for fun, and see him sweat and struggle.
    His gonna tell you some nonsense about virtual particles and such stuff.

    Dielectric fields.

    You would have to go into electrical engineering.

    That’s a complex task unsuited for comment section, it can fill books.

    But your question is a good question everyone should ask.

    I can give you some crash course with this

    but you’d have to watch all the stuff from the guy that’s not about photography on his channel. It depends how much you know about what he talks about.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  292. Wally says:
    @Anon

    Seriously?

    BTW, Hitler had no choice but to attack the USSR.

    educate yourself:

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

  293. @Jacques Sheete

    The AC-130 is much more a deterrent than it is a weapon. Like the terrorizing siren that howled when the German Stukas dove on their targets, the droning sounds of the Spectre’s turboprops herald a deadly “Shit Storm” to come against hapless enemies. The plane is quite vulnerable once it enters combat zones, being slow and cumbersome, and predictable in its combat profile. Shoulder launched anti-aircraft weapons or SAMs can easily shoot it down. Fighter interceptors.will tear it apart. The plane has flares and can defeat certain IR guided weapons, but it would be a goner if our enemies actually fought back

  294. Ron Unz says:
    @Jean de Peyrelongue

    I have a hard time to believe in the Pike operation story.

    Well, an academic monograph containing 300 pages of very detailed (if rather dry) material based on official archival records seems pretty persuasive to me.

    Then, again, maybe the Martians just wrote the book to cover up their nefarious activities in WWII…

    • Replies: @Jean de Peyrelongue
  295. Wally says:
    @Jean de Peyrelongue

    Yet you have not refuted anyhing that Ron Unz states in his article. Why?

    You’re just making assertions with no backing.

    Its really a case of cognitive dissonance that you are experiencing. Understandable at first, but later a sign of willful ignorance.

  296. @Grace Poole

    b. What is the significance of the number, 587,000?
    1. At the time — Feb. 1933 — there were about 2.25 million Jews in Germany; most of them were refugee/migrants from Poland and Russia — Brandeis was not concerned about them: he had written to Rabbi Steven Wise that “a few dozen pogroms do not matter as much as the loss of the enterprise of 600,000 Jews” [paraphrase].

    Wow! Didn’t know that! Thank you!

  297. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    Yep.

    That would be the illegal Versailles Treaty that was forced upon Germany by an illegal blockade and threats of violence.

    – That would be the illegal Versailles Treaty that Germany was forced to sign under official protest.

    – That would be the illegal Versailles Treaty that Germany renounced.

    – That would be the illegal Versailles Treaty which even the US Senate refused to accept.

  298. refl says:
    @Colin Wright

    OK, I will troll you a bit more:

    – The bulk of Russian savagery was encouraged and facilitated from above, and had nothing to do with revenge –

    Believe it or not, that is the conventional wisdom I grew up with. And then you come across the order by General Eisenhower from March 1945 that surrendering German soldiers from then on must no longer be treated as POW but as Disarmed Enemy Forces. And then you read what has happened to people in Germany who only just have tried to investigate the Rheinwiesenlager…

  299. @German_reader

    It’s no wonder public opinion in the UK and France turned sharply against Germany after that.

    Except that “public opinion” is entirely a product of propaganda. Did the average British or French citizen of the early 20th Century really give a shit about Czechoslovakia? Does the average American citizen today really give a shit about Syrians or Venezuelans? Or is all of it simply recitation to pollsters of what they’ve been propagandized to “know” courtesy of the puppet masters?

  300. anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    One big difference between Keynes and you is that he wrote very clear English. Would you care to cite the actual works, speeches or essays of Keynes on which you rely for what you attribute to him?

  301. @FB

    After every lapse into sanity do you try and remember the level of UR commenter you wish to appeal to? Where do you get any element of your “steadily rising standards of living for over 70 years” in China? You’ve never heard of The Great Leap Forward? In how many years of the Cultural Revolution did living standards advance – and for whom? Did you notice, BTW, in your solipsistic bubble, that I had noted the deficiencies of the US which presumably concern you?

    • Replies: @FB
  302. @Germanicus

    Germans were refining “Cruise Missiles” which were powered by jet engines, and used them with some measure of success on Britain. The V-2 Rocket definitely had a devastating effect upon the morale of British citizens. Hitler was shortsighted and basically ignorant of the value of jet fighters to defend his nation against mass bomber attacks. The Me-262, once it was refined and tactics were perfected, would have decimated our bomber forces, and easily outclass our fighters. Hitler wanted to stick his nose into many facets of Germany’s weapons programs. If he simply delegated authority to civilians and military commanders to develop and implement these weapons, the war would have ended much differently.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  303. @Germanicus

    Really, I can’t believe this answer you gave me. It’s not an answer but a diversion to the study of electricity. Maybe you’re having fun with me. But here’s how I interpret what you said originally:

    [MORE]

    The “soul” or operating mechanism, is an electrical change of some kind from a vast electrical field. When this “soul” leaves the body (death) it merges back into the (electrical) field (God, Universe) losing all connection to the “individual” it once was. A living individual on earth is just an electrically charged something with a brain, and when the brain stops functioning, it becomes anonymous part of the field again. That is, the brain is what makes us an autonomous entity. Something like that, very confused.

    I say the “operating mechanism” of any body is consciousness. The field (God) is consciousness and we are individualized consciousness. We don’t have to know how it all works electrically or anything else of that sort — that is all our servant, not our master. WE are the entities “in the image of God”, that is, of the same (eternal) consciousness. Very simple.

    This question is not unsuited for a comment section because you brought it up. But you want to complicate it. That’s men for you. :))

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  304. @refl

    That you repeat the Round Table fable and rely on that crank Engdahl says it all.

    • Replies: @refl
  305. Alfred says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    Thank you for a great technical explanation – which I only partly understood as I am not “very prceptive”

    All I know is that Schacht was a great friend of the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman. He was also the one who escaped the gallows at Nuremberg.

  306. Alfred says:
    @David Baker

    When I was at Imperial College, our rector was Lord Penny. He was on an observation plane watching the bombing of Nagasaki. Later, he was the “father” of the British nuclear bomb.

    I don’t think the Australians would remember him fondly.

    Aboriginal man’s story of Maralinga nuclear bomb survival told with virtual reality

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/aboriginal-mans-story-of-nuclear-bomb-survival-told-in-vr/7913874

  307. @Carolyn Yeager

    Really, I can’t believe this answer you gave me. It’s not an answer but a diversion to the study of electricity. Maybe you’re having fun with me.

    [MORE]

    I give you a well meant advise now, if you are with everyone confrontational, you destroy anything you have done with your work. In German Kratzbürste comes to mind.

    I don’t have the time to write a book on field theory in the comment section.
    I am a technical guy, so it is my interest to know how things work, especially nature.
    You give a description of something, not an explanation, but the direction is right.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  308. FB says: • Website
    @FB

    In my earlier comment I said…

    …finance capitalism is nothing more than a shell game…one guy always ends up with the short end of the stick…and after all the fancy footwork of moneys endlessly changing hands, the net result is that those with the power and leverage pile up the riches…while the little guy ends up shaken down…

    …which caused some indoctrinated fools to squeal meek protests…

    But let us look more closely at the actual trends of wealth accumulation…here is a graph that is self explanatory…

    We see here that from about the 1930s the share of national wealth held by the 0.1 percent begins to decline…coinciding with the New Deal policies of the FDR administration…this included massive investments in infrastructure that also provided employment to millions and raised them out of poverty…

    Hence, the masses of ordinary folks accounted for a bigger share of the national wealth…which decreased the relative share of the super wealthy…although it certainly doesn’t mean their wealth diminished in absolute terms…it was a case of a rising tide lifting all boats, big and small…

    And just a note here about those years of the 1930s…the majority of the population was agrarian…ie small subsistence farming…the drought of that decade, which affected the entire northern hemisphere, combined with the general economic and banking collapse, resulted in a demographic catastrophe for the US…as seen in this chart…

    During this period millions of rural Americans were dispossessed…many headed to California to work under slave labor conditions on fruit plantations…many starved…many families shrunk because extreme poverty meant lower birth rates…the result was a population deficit of over 10 million…we can see that in the previous decade, 1920 to 1930 the population increased by 17 million…and in the subsequent decade of 1940 to 1950 the increase was 19 million…but in the intervening decade of the 1930s the population growth was just 9 million…

    John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath used to be required reading…and it follows the travails of one family bulldozed off their dust bowl land in the Midwest, as they head to the ‘promised land’ of California…this milestone novel, which carried Steinbeck to the Nobel Prize in literature…and the 1940 John Ford film [with Henry Fonda] makes real for us the incredible hardships faced by rural Americans in this decade…

    Ironically it is now an article of faith among the brainwashed masses that evil Stalin ‘starved’ millions of Russian peasants during this same period…while America’s own ‘Holodomor’ has been disappeared down the memory hole…

    But let’s move on with our examination of this interesting historical record of wealth distribution…

    We see that by 1948 the share of the top 0.1 percent’s share of national wealth had dropped to just 10 percent…and held there for the next three decades…nobody can dispute that this was America’s golden age…I remember my own childhood in the 1960s and ’70s…a single earner working in the abundant skilled and semi-skilled jobs in the country’s great industry could nicely provide a comfortable middle class living…a decent house…good college education at state universities that cost peanuts…a company president took home maybe 10 times that of the shop floor worker…

    Then, after 1978 we see the share of the 0.1 percent start shooting skyward…to where it is today, about the same level as 100 years ago…and coinciding with the financialization of the economy and the gutting and overseas relocation of industry to low wage countries…the result is that there are no more skilled and semi-skilled jobs in industry…[with the exception of the defense industry, which is also heavily corrupt and benefits mostly a parasite class, while employing relatively few workers]…

    Today the American economy offers McJobs…working in an Amazon warehouse…at Walmart etc…

    Not only is industry gone, replaced by Wall Street moneychanging, but the human skills that go with an industrial economy…even if the US were to somehow reverse course, where would the skills of industrial workers come from…?

    Naturally this erosion of the middle class can be starkly seen in the statistical evidence…

    The above from the US Census Bureau…

    Let’s start at the top…the top quintile has not actually moved forward in the decade of the 2000s, if we take into account that this quintile also includes the wealthiest segments of the top 1 percent and above…more on this in a bit..

    The next two quintiles have also not moved by any appreciable amount…

    The bottom 40 percent has actually gone in reverse…the bottom 20 percent in negative territory…if we combine the two, the bottom 40 percent has a household net worth of about $1,000…and that’s as of 2011…it’s easy to see that those polls reporting that a great many families don’t even have 400 dollars on hand are rooted in solid statistical fact…

    Now let’s look at the top one percent…the following graph breaks down the four groups…

    Let’s first define the dollar figure of the top 1 percent…in the top graph of the top 0.1 percent we note that as of 2012 you would need a net worth of $ 20 million to be in this bracket…since there are 10 times as many in the 1 percent bracket as in the 0.1 percent, and Since the top 0.1 percent has about twice the size of the pie [as seen in the graph], it means that to be in the top 1 percent you would need a net worth of only about $ 1 million to be counted in the top 1 percent…[$20 million / 10 / 2]

    We also know that there are about 160,000 families in the top 0.1 percent, so that means 1.6 million families in the top 1 percent…

    Now that is not actually a great scorecard…in a country of 300 plus million, only 1.6 million families have a million bucks…and they are continuing to lose ground…the one percent’s share of the pie has gone down since 1960…

    So even if you are a member of this reasonably well of group…which is actually not a lifestyle more than middle class prosperity…you can see that you are getting ripped off big time…

    Now look at the top 0.01 percent…there are one hundred 1 percent families for each one of those…but they have nearly double the share of the pie…

    In fact if you look at the three groups above the 0.5 percent mark, they have About 34 percent of the total national wealth…while the 1 percent has 7 percent…

    And it would be interesting to see this further broken down into the 0.001 percent and beyond…we would see this tiny slice of the super rich having made out like bandits in the last 50 years…while everyone else has been cut down…including even the 1 to 0.5 percent bracket…

    This is finance capitalism…and is what Carroll Quigley and others recognized many decades ago…

    At ground level it is vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney and his ilk…who, with the help of dollars provided by Wall Street, take over companies…gut them of any value they may have [including the land the sit on]…steal the workers’ pension funds…and then declare ‘bankruptcy’…while laughing all the way to the bank…the fact that this kind of scumbag almost got into the white house tells plenty about the business of gangster capitalism…

    And this is not even to mention the facts of the unsustainability of interest lending to begin with…see Michael Hudson on that…

    Also worth noting here is that Hitler’s government was in fact socialist in most important respects…corporate taxes were tripled, yet the economy booked like never before, as central planning for armaments production as well as education, science and technology revived a moribund capitalist system…workers were guaranteed their own new and quality built home with just a 10 year repayment term, with payments not exceeding a quarter of the workers wage…even the Volkswagen, meaning literally ‘people’s car’, was the result of a government directive…

    I don’t think it’s necessary to go into the amazing rise of socialist China, where every Chinese by 2020 will have decent housing, health care, education etc…Stalin’s Soviet Union likewise defeated an enormously powerful Germany…and after the war rebuilt the country into a superpower, especially in terms of education and technology…[Russian aerospace technology is still unrivaled]…but socialism cannot be static…the wisdom of the Chinese was to reform when needed…as in the Cultural Revolution, and later the introduction of private enterprise, although banking and finance remained in government hands…as is mist of industry, especially in crucial technology sectors…

    Note…the graphs shown here are from a 2014 study from UC Berkeley and the London School of Economics…found here…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  309. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Mr. FoSquare

    A mefobill was a bill of exchange, not a debt instrument.

    If a bank writes you a check good for money, then that is new purchasing power. You then take that purchasing power and produce goods. You don’t have to pay back the money, only show that you made “things.”

    The mefobills had a discount date that could be extended. Upon discount they found new reichsmarks. The bill never recalled existing reichsmarks from the money supply, that is impossible.

    • Replies: @Mr. FoSquare
  310. @David Baker

    If he simply delegated authority to civilians and military commanders to develop and implement these weapons, the war would have ended much differently.

    Oh yeah, so you know where General Kammler went, and with him die Glocke?
    I doubt it, you probably also don’t know some Glocke like thing appeared in the so called Kecksburg incident?

  311. @Cyrano

    Multiculturalism does not herald a Socialist regime. Puffy Lips stirring up social issues that enjoin an expanding government to sanction minorities and women, homosexuals, ‘trans-species’ weirdos and ‘undocumented aliens’ as ‘special’ segments of a dystopian society set the despotism wheels in motion.
    Look what Odumbo did. With the full approbation of his fawning useful idiots, he signed a bill into law which dismantled our Bill of Rights. Because he was black, it was understood that any opposition against this constitutional usurpation would be defined as racism. Hence, the government would be at the ready to conduct surveillance, arrests and indefinite detainment of dissidents who dared to address his actions.

    [MORE]

    Each of these actions would be devoid of Constitutional protocols.

    Watch what will happen when women gain such power. Naturally, the dupes will believe they’ll have Americans–particularly male Americans–by their balls, and they’ll have carte blanche authority to enact any speech restrictions they please, or to disarm citizens, outlaw “Hate” and further designate expanding cadres of ‘victims’ for special protections, but behind their pantsuit protagonist facade, there will be a “Deep State” orchestrating the functions of government.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  312. @onebornfree

    By you claiming Hitler was controlled opposition, you are effectively claiming WWII was nothing more than an elaborate hoax to cull the dumb goyim.

    Thanks for your support and welcome to the evil antisemites’ club! I am the founder, as of today, based on my controversial claim that WWI and WWII were merely two parts or two acts of a centuries-long Jewish theatrical production and plot to depopulate the goyim to manageable numbers. 

    As they say, follow the Jewish money and… don’t forget to count the number of goy corpses to find out who really won.  

    • Replies: @David Baker
  313. “Schiff’s financial support for the Bolsheviks was widely reported in the American Military Intelligence files of the period, with British Intelligence taking the same position.”

    Excellent article by Ron Unz.

    O’ Malley’s article in The Times of Israel also quotes Ackerman in his September 2016 article. “The suggestion of a link between Schiff and Trotsky came directly from the United States government — specifically, its Military Intelligence Division (MID).” – https://www.timesofisrael.com/trotskys-day-out-how-a-visit-to-nyc-influenced-the-bolshevik-revolution/

    O’Malley dismisses the fact that the U.S. Government made the link between Wall Street Jews and the Bolsheviks. The reason was “these allegations were coming from individuals who clearly had anti-Semitic agendas.”

    These crimes were covered up back then and they are still being covered up now. What power has the ability to suppress evidence for generations and likes to accuse whistle-blowers as “anti-Semites?”

  314. @MAOWASAYALI

    “Dumb Goyim” were culled before WWII. In the Jewish Led Soviet Union, commissars slaughtered millions of Christians, while orchestrating mass starvation. WWI was not exactly a garden party. In our current era, abortions are the silent pogrom, and foreign conflicts are now routine, being justified as outgrowths of an endless “War on Terror”. Agenda 21, if you believe the more alarmist assessments of that scheme, features a depopulation campaign to cull BILLIONS of humans under the aegis of “Sustainability”. Apparently, misanthropy is now in vogue, and woe betide those who are in the cross hairs of these Neo-Fascists.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI, Cleburne
  315. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    I think Nazi Germany is best viewed as a revolutionary state — for worse as well as for better. It was a challenge to just about every aspect of the status quo beyond the need for a balanced breakfast. No, it was not ‘normal.’

    During late 1939, a leading American news syndicate dispatched Lothrop Stoddard, one of our most influential writers and public intellectuals, to spend a few months in wartime Germany and provide his perspective, with his numerous dispatches appearing in the New York Times and other top newspapers. Upon his return in 1940, he published a book summarizing all his information, which seems to be one of the most comprehensive and (seemingly) even-handed treatments of the subject and the society in question. It’s fairly short, around 70,000 words I’d say, and probably worth reading if you haven’t already done so.

    Just as I was finishing my article, I thought of including it, but since I’d read it perhaps a decade ago, I felt I should reread it first, and didn’t have time. But now that I’ve done so again, my opinion is roughly the same.

    There’s obviously a very strong subjective element to judging the “normality” of a described society, but offhand, it didn’t really seem that strange to me, at least in day to day life rather than ideological underpinnings, which obviously was based upon National Socialist doctrine. My sense is that ordinary life in e.g. Soviet Russia would have been vastly stranger.

    Stoddard naturally focuses on those elements that were so different that they would surprise his American readers, and probably the most widely discussed of these is the widespread wartime rationing based on coupon-books. But a couple of years later, America would also have the same sort of rationing, also based on coupon-books.

    The other theme is the “socialistic” and “statist” policies of the the society in all sorts of ways, though some were similar to what had been introduced by FDR a few years earlier.

    Since the issue of the treatment of Jews was generally foremost in American MSM coverage, Stoddard raised it on a number of occasions, but almost no Germans regarded it as still a major issue, feeling it had already been solved years earlier. As a result, despite Stoddard’s repeated prodding, it occupies barely 1% of his text.

    Nearly the entire focus is Germany’s efforts to survive defeat due to the ongoing Allied naval embargo, and the difficulties it produced within German society.

    Anyway, it’s very possible that you might have an entirely different evaluation of exactly the same material, but I’d really suggest that you read it and decide for yourself.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  316. @FB

    Matt Taibbi’s book Griftopia comes to my mind. – Lots of crimes in the financial crisis of 2008 – no (or hardly any) punishment.

    Interesting, why Michael Lewis got all the attention, while Matt Taibbi’s impressive work – kinda got lost. Not least here on Ron Unz’ platform. Strange, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @FB
  317. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Please explain. The terms “fable” and “crank” do not really further our understanding.

    Of course, the idea that a secret elite in London layed out a giant trap to destroy Germany as an enemy and Russia as an ally by bringing them into all out war against each other is completely sick.

    That famous quote from Max Nordau to the World Zionist Congress in 1903: “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created” is completely sick, in view that he prophezised what played out in reality thereafter.
    What to make of this?
    Certainly, the consequence is not to stick to the fable by the establishment cranks that tell us that the Anglosaxon powers thank godness first saved the world from Nazism and then from communism, only to save it now from Islamism. And if the establishment fable is not correct, than it is clear that said establishment has something huge to hide.

    The background to what is happening here is that ever since WWI public opinion has been shaped by the anglosaxon, or – if you prefer – anglozionist media. As you mention the Round Table, you are certainly familiar with the writings of Carrol Quigley and thus you will know that commanding the media was an essential part of their strategy. This domination has been like an iron grip in the western world since 1945.
    It is only now and with the internet that this domination is coming apart. Else, any nonconformist view would be banned to the fringes and inaccessible to most pople who try to get an understanding of history.
    This is the game we are at here and I find your answer a bit weak.

  318. @Germanicus

    Sorry, I did not think I was being confrontational. Obviously, what I consider seeking truth and getting to the bottom of things, others consider too confrontational, or they only want to keep the status quo where they are comfortable. But I’m sure it’s better to just drop an issue when it’s not going anywhere. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  319. @Ron Unz

    Would you agree we deal with a totally buggy “history” and “science” OS that urgently requires revision of code to fix bugs or to replace it with better code?

    My point is, revision(ism) needs to be demystified, its a tonally normal thing to do in software development. It can never be enough revision, age old bugs are still open in the bug tracker, nobody fixes them.

  320. Incitatus says:

    “[International Jewry was] outraged over his [Hitler’s] successful efforts to dislodge Germany’s 1% Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance”

    Really? “Media and finance”? What would any reasonable person think about these sentiments:

    “The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break down the last barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples. The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people”

    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ chapter 11 vol 1 1925

    Agree with that Ron? Does it fit the reasonable statesman [Time Man of the Year] image you’re selling?

    “[Hitler’s] resurrecting a prosperous Germany while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression…”

    What did that take, Ron? Aside from awarding unrestricted emergency power to an Austrian; imprisoning tens of thousands of dissenters in concentration camps for ‘re-education’; banning all political parties and stealing their assets [save the NSDAP]; death to former rivals, skeptics, allies who knew too much (Operation Hummingbird 30 Jun -2 Jul 1934)?

    OK with former Chancellor Schleicher and his wife shot in the face? RC pastor Bernhard Stempfle (confidant of and collaborator with AH in writing ‘Mein Kampf’) found dead in the woods near Harlaching (broken neck or shot in the heart “while trying to escape”). Gustav Ritter von Kahr (former Bavarian commissioner who suppressed the Nov ’33 Putsch; hacked to death with pickaxes in a wood outside of Munich). There were many others.

    What was the price for individual Germans?

    “Individualism will be conquered and in place of the individual and its deification, the Volk will emerge. The Volk stands in the center of all things. The revolution is conquering the Volk and public life, imprinting its stamp on culture, economy, politics and private life. It would be naïve to believe that art could remain exempt from this…[Art can no longer] claim to be apolitical or nonpartisan. It [can] not claim to have loftier goals than politics…[in earlier times artists] might claim the right to ignore politics, but not at this historic moment…[the goal of the régime and Germany’s artists must be nothing less than to] conquer the soul of the nation.”
    – Göbbels speech to German Theatre Representatives Mar 1933 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.297]

    Only the “Volk” matters, and the State [one man] will tell you what that means? OK with that Ron?

    “Only International Jewry had remained intensely hostile to Hitler [after 1938]”

    Really? True, many rivals were dead or ‘re-educated’. But what about Jehovah Witnesses? 10,000 (half the DR population) imprisoned. 1200 died in custody, 250 executed. Romani? The Porajmos? As many as 500,000 killed? Labor unionists? German Communists, Social Democrats, and the rest (all rival parties were banned 1933)? Homosexuals, handicapped (200,000+ died), and so on?

    The question, more properly, is State hostility, State control.

    Consider stalwart German Lutherans, men like Martin Niemöller. Former WW1 U-boat captain, conservative Berlin pastor, early Hitler supporter, member of the Confessing Church. Here’s what Nazis thought of him:

    “Pastor Niemöller finally arrested [1 Jul 1937]. Small mention of this in the press. The thing now is to break him so that he can’t believe his eyes or ears. We must never let up.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 1, Vol 4 entry for 3 Jul 1937 p.208 [Ulrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.655]

    “That [Niemöller’s release after eight months ‘investigative custody’ on winning a closed court verdict of seven months in prison and 2000 mark fine] takes the cake. I’m only going to give the press a brief announcement. The Führer will order Himmler to have this guy immediately taken to Ornienburg [Sachsenhausen KZ]. There he’ll only be able to serve God by working and looking deep within himself.”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 1, Vol 5 entry for 2 Mar 1938 p.185 [Ulrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.656] (Niemöller was arrested exiting the courtroom and interned in KZs until 1945).

    “[Niemöller] will not be released until he has been broken. Opposition to the state will not be tolerated.”
    – Adolf Hitler to Joseph Göbbels en route to Ludendorff’s funeral [Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 1, Vol 5 entry for 22 Dec 1937 p.65; Ulrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.655] (Niemöller’s trial, closed to the public, was held 7 Feb 1938)

    What do you think Joe Göbbels meant by “broken”, Ron? Niemöller wasn’t Jewish. The Confessing Church wasn’t Jewish. Sorry.

    What about German Roman Catholics? Nazis ordered crucifixes removed from Bavarian schoolrooms, causing great uproar. Here’s what Time’s Man of the Year thought:

    “The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race”
    – Göbbels Tagebücher 29 Dec 1939

    “In the long run National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jews.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Table Talk’ 11-12 July 1941

    “If the German people are no longer strong enough and ready to sacrifice their own blood for their existence, then they should perish and be wiped out by another, stronger power. They are no longer worthy of the place they have won for themselves.”
    -Adolf Hitler to the Danish Foreign Minister 27 Nov 1941 [Stargardt, The German War p.227]

    “[I have been patient, but] we shan’t be able to go on evading the religious problem…The evil that is gnawing our vitals is our priests, of both creeds…The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them, and I’ll go straight to the point…They’ve only got to keep at it, they’ll hear from me all right. I shan’t let myself be hampered by judicial scruples…In less than ten years from now, things will have quite another look, I can promise them.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Table Talk’ 8 Feb 1942

    What does “I shan’t let myself be hampered by judicial scruples” mean, Ron?

    The chorus German youth were taught to sing:

    “We are the happy Hitler Youth. We need no Christian virtues for our Führer Adolf Hitler is always our guide…We do not follow Christ but Horst Wessel…I can do without the Church, the Swastika is redemption on earth”
    -Hitlerjugend Lied 1935 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.303]

    “Pope and rabbi shall yield, we want to be pagans again…out with the Jews and with the pope from the German home”
    -Hitlerjugend Lied 1935 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.303]

    OK with that Ron? The State [one man] will tell you – your children and grandchildren – what to think, what to believe, what to worship, what to sing?

    You – as much as any Holocaust stalwart – seem to appropriate history exclusively as Jews vs Nazis. What’s the saying? ‘Bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral’?

    With due respect: Bullshit.

  321. Cyrano says:
    @David Baker

    Multiculturalism was invented for the same reason Nazis put “socialist” in their party name – to “satisfy” the working class “need” for “communism”. Nazis used jut the word, nothing else in order to appear “leftist”.

    While the clever inventors of multiculturalism thought that they are going to use the cheapest form of socialism in order to fool everybody that they are “leftist” or “liberal” or whatever you want to call them.

    Multiculturalism is the cheapest form of socialism personally to each and every one of the rich elites – because it didn’t cost them a penny. It will ruin their countries and probably the whole western civilization – but personally it didn’t cost any one of them anything.

    It is the cheapest form of socialism and the most costly for their countries. The funny thing is – multiculturalism has soured on socialism both left leaning people and right wing ones. Because it’s phony. Now everybody hates socialism, they are just not aware that they hate a phony one.

    It’s almost genius, but I wouldn’t give that much credit to the inventors of multiculturalism. They are not that smart. Their idea was to appear humanist on the cheap – from personal perspective.

    They were not that clever to make it one of their objectives to instill hate in people against socialism. Now the only way out of the mess will be either extreme left or extreme right takeover. Neither is ideal. The ideal solution would be right wing policies on immigration with left wing policies on the domestic working class. Not going to happen, because it will hit certain segment of the population in their pockets.

  322. @Ken52

    One must separate Hitler from Stalin. Hitler tried his best to avoid war, but the Jews were adamant and boycotted Germany, bribed Churchill, and FDR. FDR, Stali
    09n and Churchill may be the proper demons of WW2. Not Hitler.

  323. @Carolyn Yeager

    You can’t get to the bottom of it if you are impatient.
    I basically gave you a treasure trove with that YT channel.
    It’s up to you if you want to do some digging there. If you do, you will realize it all connects to the spiritual. You can’t run before you can walk so to speak.
    I am not the guy who hands out things on a sliver platter, I want to create curiosity so people go on their own to seek answers. I just provide the shoes to walk.

  324. RI says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Advanced techniques to detect or not brain activity – EEG, apneic O2 test, contrast brain angiography. Negative result = brain death, then follows consent for donorship from family or POA. even if such consent existed prior to the event.Thise tests are no longer required, only observation .

    [MORE]

    Majority of those unconscious and with negative test results died, but some survived and fully or partially recovered. How many of those who went for harvesting of their organs would have survived is a tormenting thought. The science should work on other ways to save people with failed organs than use other peoples as reservoirs for spare parts. Not to mention the criminal side of this “saving lives”. Transplants are also no cure, only treatment, and a costly one, to the recipients, too – they as a rule grow cancers.

    • Agree: Germanicus
  325. @MEFOBILLS

    Mefo Bills did pay interest. Here is a direct quote from Stephen Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money (p. 595) in his discussion of Mefo Bills: ”These German infrastructure bills were a form of debt certificate, promising to pay money; they paid interest and did add to Germany’s national debt.”

    Schacht himself said in The Magic of Money (p. 113): “The bills were discounted at a uniform rate of 4%. By these means the MEFO bills were almost given the characteristics of money, and interest-bearing money at that.” Schacht goes onto say that the Reichsbank in 1937 was actually planning on suspending
    the conversion of these interest-bearing instruments into cash (pp. 113-114). Hitler didn’t take kindly to this proposal.

    In any event, the MEFO bills could be rolled over every three months up to a maximum of five years, at which time the bankers could demand repayment of the bills by the government (the Reich), thus contacting the currency in circulation. Schacht confirms this in The Magic of Money (p. 114): “Great care was also needed to ensure the repayment of the bills at the latest by their definitive due date five years after their issue.”

    This is a tricky subject. Typical banker abracadabra.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  326. @RI

    Thise tests are no longer required, only observation .

    Why? It seems counter-intuitive. As time passes, such tests should have dropping costs, and, anyway, the procedure should grow more cautious.

    • Replies: @RI
  327. Bukowski says:

    “The Allies had always been intensely hostile to the Soviets…”
    Not always. You ignore the Anglo-French attempt at an alliance with Stalin in 1939. The major reason it failed was the USSR wanted to station its troops in Poland and they refused. Because of this deal breaker Stalin entered into an agreement with Hitler instead.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7737

  328. I don’t believe Operation Pike is as groundbreaking as our fearless overlord seems to think it is.

    The basic Anglo-French plan to defeat Germany was economic. Operation Pike fits into that rubric.

    In his piece Ron Unz also mentions:

    This anti-Soviet planning rapidly accelerated after Stalin’s brutal attack upon tiny Finland in late 1939. The unexpectedly fierce Finnish resistance led the Western powers to expel the USSR from the League of Nations as a blatant aggressor, and inspired widespread demands for military intervention among both the political elites and the general public, with serious proposals being considered to send several Allied divisions to Scandinavia to fight the Russians on behalf of the Finns.

    There’s a bit more to it than that.

    This was in fact intended as a ruse for Anglo-French forces to seize the iron ore mines of Northern Sweden. The rationale was the same as Operation Pike. The Winter War ended too soon for this plan to go ahead, and shortly thereafter the Germans invaded Norway. Planning for this was sufficiently advanced that the Norwegian and Swedish governments were approached for troop transit rights (both governments refused).

    Operation Pike planning was not proof that it was going to occur. The British in particular were much more skeptical of the operation than the French, perhaps because they had more to lose in a conflict with the USSR. It was also rightly pointed out that most of Germany’s oil supplies at the time were not from the Soviet Union, and therefore attacking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.

    There were a number of other schemes floated during the Phony War (Sitzkrieg in German) beyond Operation Pike and the proposal to intervene in the Winter War (as a pretext to grab the iron mines). There was also Plan R4 and Operation Catherine. Plan R4 was a plan to invade Norway and possibly Sweden after the end of the Winter War rendered that intervention scheme moot. Operation Catherine was a plan to disrupt German Baltic trade with heavily armored naval forces and intimidate Scandinavian states into declaring war on Germany.

    Like Operation Pike, none of these schemes came to anything. Partly because of the sudden German victories in the west, but also because they weren’t necessarily feasible. An economic war in the Balkans also raged during this time, which would later boil over into actual war in 1941.

    Now if the Entente had really gone ahead with Operation Pike, it’s certainly an interesting question to wonder what would’ve happened. Certainly not much damage would’ve been done to the Soviet oil industry based on how ineffectual early war bombing over Germany was. As to how the USSR would react, it’s anyone’s guess.

    I do not however buy the idea that the USA would’ve dropped its Germanophobia and support of the Anglo-French as a result of FDR’s communist advisers. Unlike communist parties globally, the USA certainly didn’t change its tune after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. FDR was President, not various communist toadies and fellow travelers. And the US establishment remained resolutely Anglophilic.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Wizard of Oz
  329. FB says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    Interesting, why Michael Lewis got all the attention, while Matt Taibbi’s impressive work – kinda got lost. Not least here on Ron Unz’ platform.

    Dieter, Mr Unz is only concerned about the ‘Global Jewish Conspiracy’…not what those Jewish bankers actually do [albeit still vastly outnumbered by gentile bankers]…nor the soundness of the capitalist ideology that allows them to do what they do…It’s a very [ehrm] ‘nuanced’ distinction…LOL

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  330. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    Great article. in the summer of 1944 there was a real civil war in S. France between the French communists and De Gualle’s Catholics. The 10,000 dead is the usual number cited. I didn’t realize that the Spanish communists were all that involved. Good to know. As I’ve said before, General Franco is the most heroic figure of the 20th century. But De Gualle’s people won that one. Most of the glorious under ground resistance consisted of communists setting up the people and organizations that planned to take over France and bring it into the communist camp after the war.

  331. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    Czechoslovakia was created at the Versailles Conference by a ridiculous group of idealists and Czech nationalists. Wilson was a democrat and the northern democrats at the time consisted of many immigrants from many of the Austrian Empires territories. The party sought to make them happy by catering to their nationalism, the same way the democrats cater to their ethnic constituencies today.
    Czechs were the affirmative action winners, Slovaks the affirmative action losers.

  332. Alden says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Thanks for mentioning Eugene Lyons. Everyone should try to read his books about 20th century communism. Extremely enlightening. They are probably out of print and been sent to the public library dumpsters by the liberals.

  333. TheJester says:

    Years ago I read the memoirs of a Soviet general that completely changed my view of the German attack on the Soviet Union … or, I should say, confirmed my prior suspicion. Apologies, I can’t recall who it was and my trying to retrace my steps isn’t worth it.

    I always thought that Hilter moved east too quickly after losing the Battle of Britain. It didn’t make sense for Hilter to say, “Gee, I can’t invade Britain … so I’ll attack the Soviet Union instead.” Now I know why Hitler made his premature and impulsive thrust to the east while Germany was still preoccupied with France and Britain.

    The Soviet general related that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany and the West. Hilter realized this … but it was almost too late. The general related that Hilter beat Stalin to the attack by only two weeks.

    Stalin had occupied Bessarabia when the Soviets invaded Poland. His armies now stood only 120 miles from the Romanian oil fields that fueled the German war effort. In the attack, Stalin’s first plunge would be toward these oil fields. Germany was in no condition to protect these oil fields due to the rough, mountainous terrain between Germany and the oil fields.

    So, Hitler’s generals quickly planned and executed a surprise frontal attack against Stalin’s massed armies on the flat European Plain toward the approaches to Moscow. The goal was to disrupt the planned Soviet offensive against the Romanian oil fields. If Hilter could force Stalin to pull troops north to protect the Soviet Union and the approaches to Moscow, his assumption was that they would not be available to lunge toward the Romanian oil fields. Hilter’s plan was to buy time by forcing Stalin’s hand in a distant geographic location.

    In short, Hitler played his “queen” against Stalin’s “rook”. Stalin pulled his “queen” back to protect his exposed “king” (his power base in Moscow) … and it worked.

    If true, it is ironical that major battles on the eastern front in WWII were strategic attempts by, first, the Soviet Union and, second, Germany to seize the enemy’s oil fields and destroy their capacity to make war. Neither the original Soviet plan against the Romanian oil fields nor the later German thrust against the Baku oil fields were successful … so the war dragged on and on and was resolved by brute force.

    It is also not true that Stalin was surprised by the German attack. He knew it was coming. Stalin’s “surprise” was the poor performance of his armies and their superior numbers against the Germans, just as FDR was “surprised” and angered by the poor performance of the US Navy in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR knew was coming.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  334. Alden says:
    @swamped

    I have Bonhoeffer’s biography. He and his church and friends spent all their time trying to contact the allies hoping they’d get rid of Hitler before the end of the war.

  335. Alden says:
    @Anon

    Your scenario works only if the $500 is paid on the credit card the first billing period. I ignore all the rewards programs and nonsense. I am skeptical they benefit the credit card holder. Using a credit card for the rewards program is naive.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  336. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    The question should be, do you have $500 available for an unexpected expense? What with .35 interest on savings or checking accounts, why keep a separate savings account?

  337. RJJCDA says:
    @RJJCDA

    My point is that once the German leaders were pursuing three different war types/goals simultaneously, their efforts became strategically incoherent.

  338. Ron Unz says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    There’s a bit more to it than that. This was in fact intended as a ruse for Anglo-French forces to seize the iron ore mines of Northern Sweden.

    Sure, that’s a perfectly fair point. All of this is covered in enormous detail in the Operation Pike book, but since I was summarizing all the Scandinavia issues in just a sentence or two, I left it out.

    However, although the iron ore issue was quite central to the thinking of the Allied strategists, it was the defense of Finland from the Russians that generated enormous popular sentiment in support of the military action.

    • Agree: Thorfinnsson
  339. @Anon

    Thanks for your eagle eyes on this issue. Like our fearless overlord, I’ve seen these studies and news headlines and accepted them uncritically. Partly because I’m a financial expert, and my experience with most Americans is that they do not save or invest outside of employer-sponsored deferred taxation retirement accounts (e.g. the 401(k) plan). I have explained the $400 figure in passing to foreigners that, yes, it looks bad (and it is), but it isn’t as bad as it seems because America has very well developed credit markets which people rely on.

    Now I see that it was almost complete FAKE NEWS…

    I use rewards credit cards (generally cash-back) for all transactions except those I don’t want there to be a record of. My first rule of finance: never leave money on the table.

  340. @Alden

    If you don’t want to use credit cards that’s fine.

    But there’s nothing to be skeptical about here.

    I use rewards credit cards, generally cash-back, for nearly all transactions. I apply the cash back as a statement credit, so in effect I get a discount on everything I purchase.

    My credit cards are linked to my checking account and all setup to automatically pay the statement balance each month.

  341. @RI

    [It’s rather bad behavior to clutter up discussion-threads with large numbers of totally off-topic philosophical musings. Perhaps you would be happier on a different website.]

    • LOL: FB
  342. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    Expelling Jews would have been normal — in the fifteenth century. This was the twentieth century; it was emphatically not something ‘normal’ states did any more.

    I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of the German situation…

    Hitler regarded Germany’s 1% Jewish population as a disruptive and potentially dangerous element, and quickly instituted various policies to push them out. Among other things, he allied with the Zionists, who were just as eager to have them all go off to Palestine.

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

    But from what I recall, almost half of them were still living in Germany six years after Hitler came to power, so I’m really not sure it could be called “expulsion” in the sense you’re using the term.

    However, I do think there were also very large numbers of Jewish (illegal?) immigrants who’d entered Germany during the previous ten or twenty years, mostly from Poland, because they’d been pushed out by the Poles and German border controls had collapsed during the Weimar chaos. Germany did try to expel these back to Poland, partly because the Poles were threatening to strip them of their citizenship, and thereby make it impossible for them to ever be repatriated.

    For example, the young Jew who assassinated the German diplomat in 1938 sparking Kristallnacht was supposedly outraged because his parents had been deported back to their Polish homeland by the Germans.

    One wonders how FoxNews would react if the son of a couple of deported Mexican immigrants assassinated some important GOP official in retaliation.

    I should emphasize that I’m not an expert on the these issues, and commenters with better knowledge should certainly correct me.

  343. Al Liguori says: • Website

    Nominally Catholic DeGaulle turned a blind eye to the massacre of Catholic Resistance fighters by Communists after the “liberation” of France.

    Though rather oblique and failing to specifically mention the disproportionate number of Catholics killed, this is the first such reference I have discovered in any English language history:

    “…when the 1944 Normandy landings and the subsequent German withdrawal suddenly opened the doors of power to the anti-Petain forces, they engaged in an orgy of ideological bloodletting probably without precedent in French history, far surpassing the infamous Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, with perhaps 100,000 or more civilians being summarily butchered on the basis of little or no evidence, often just to settle personal scores. Some of the worst of the bloodshed came at the hands of the Communist exiles of the Spanish Civil War, who had found shelter in France after their defeat and now eagerly took an opportunity to turn the tables and massacre the same sort of “bourgeois” class-enemies [read “Catholic anti-Communists“] who had defeated them in that previous conflict just a few years earlier.…”

  344. RI says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    [It’s rather bad behavior to clutter up discussion-threads with large numbers of totally off-topic philosophical musings. Perhaps you would be happier on a different website.]

    • Replies: @RI
  345. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Incitatus

    You quote Hitler:

    The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people.

    Which makes me wonder what you think of Barbara Specter’s contention that:

    Europe has not yet leaned how to be multicultural. … We are going to be part of that transformation that must take place. Europe is not going to be the monlithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that …

    How would you feel about a German, say, or a Hungarian making such remarks with reference to the need to make Israel multicultural.

    Would that not be universally condemned as anti-Semitic?

    And if so, is it unfair to conclude that Jews, as Hitler asserted, some of them anyhow, are radically anti-European — which is to say committed to the racial and cultural genocide of the European peoples?

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
  346. RI says:
    @RI

    Sorry for the rather bad behaviour, just followed the tread, which is of importance to humanity.

  347. FB says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Do you always start foaming at the mouth when someone states facts you don’t like…?

    China now has a middle class of 800 million people…the country has manufactured and used more concrete in three years than the US in the entire 20’th century…Chinese are moving into gleaming new buildings…while Americans are moving into cardboard boxes…

    You must be one hell of a dunce to choose to argue about rising living standards in socialist China…

    SMFH

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Cleburne
  348. Sparkon says:

    Operation Pike sounds like a contingency plan ginned up during the so-called Phony War, Drôle de guerre, or Sitzkrieg, by men itching for action, any action, with no real appreciation of how difficult those Baku bombing missions would have been.

    Difficult and idiotic, that is, and not necessarily in that order.

    But at least British propaganda was up to the task with their catchy wartime neologisms.

    I think it’s fair to say there is a school of thought that both WWI and WWII were arranged by certain parties with one primary goal of crushing Germany, another major objective of establishing a Jewish presence in Palestine, among other goals, and a smaller school of thought that Stalin’s two Five Year Plans were conducted primarily for that purpose, i.e. for the Red Army to become the main bludgeon to do the crushing, so it seems highly unlikely in my view that any idea to bomb the Soviet Union would have gotten much beyond the contingency planning stage in London.

    After all, it is quite clear that U.S. Pres. Franklin Roosevelt was in league with both Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin before the war, and in fact was doing everything in his power to get into a shooting war with either Germany or Japan, preferably both. And he got his wish, not least because of Hitler’s monumentally idiotic decision to declare war on the United States after Japan struck Pearl Harbor, compliments of FDR.

    At the same time, my view is that FDR had convinced Stalin to let the Germans strike the first blow, just as Roosevelt would allow Kido Butai to approach and whale away at Pearl Harbor, when in truth the USN could have intercepted the Japanese carrier strike force before it got anywhere near Hawaii had the Navy been free to conduct aggressive defensive operations free of FDR’s handcuffs, which made Pearl a sitting duck.

    Letting the Germans (and Japanese) strike the first blow had many advantages for the Allies, not least among them ownership of the moral high ground, from which lofty summit Germany was pummeled relentlessly with viscous propaganda throughout the war, and still it continues, even today.

    World War II was Stalin’s third Five Year Plan, and he was one of the war’s big winners.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  349. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    On the other hand, I feel Ron’s formulation goes too far to the other extreme. In Britain at least, public opinion swung against further appeasement after Hitler simply ignored the Munich Agreement and annexed the rump of Czechoslovakia outright.

    Actually, I should probably add one further point…

    Back in the early 1980s, one of the books assigned in an introductory college history course was Origins of the Second World War, published in 1961 by AJP Taylor, one of Oxford’s most renowned historians. Even despite the total lack of the vast new documentary material that has subsequently come out, he seemed to totally demolish something like half of everything I’d always read and believed about WWII from my basic introductory textbooks. And since Harvard University was not then regarded as a hotbed of pro-Nazi propaganda, I tended to regard his arguments as probably sincere.

    So I said to myself, Gee, if half of everything I’d always been told about WWII was obviously false, maybe I should be at least somewhat skeptical about totally believing the other half. So since that time, I’ve always tried to maintain such an air of caution.

    And although Taylor’s book received a great deal of acclaim, just last year I discovered its publication had led him to be purged from Oxford a couple of years after publishing it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor

    If scholars, no matter how renowned, gets purged for raising certain doubts, doesn’t it naturally make you cautious on that topic? Maybe all the writers maintaining the orthodox position are correct, or maybe they’re just doing so lest they get purged…

  350. @Liberty Mike

    Would you, like me, be a very rich man if you had a dime for every time you heard some moron parrot, “if not for D-day, we’d be speaking German today?”

    My reply is that I’d rather speak German than Commie.

  351. @Jean de Peyrelongue

    Though I only read the first two paragraphs, I must say you started off on the right track.

  352. @Agent76

    “The main source of information is stories from news agencies. The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events.

    Yep. And I wonder who controls them. 😉

  353. @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    Worth repeating here because it parallels the present where we see every nation which lacks a Jewish central bank being targeted by Z.O.G.U.S.A. with threats of US military invasion.

    That is also worth repeating, and so is your praise of Mulegino1.

  354. @Germanicus

    I would say, WWII began the day WWI began.

    And WW1 began when people started acting on Marx’s BS which was popularized by his moneyed pals and used toward their own ends.

  355. CanSpeccy says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    nothing about the official narrative of WWII makes any sense

    Germany soundly beat the Russians during WW1, while simultaneously fighting off the allies on the Western front. So, in 1940, having subdued France, why did it not make sense for Hitler to embark on a war of conquest against Russia? The British, after all, were no threat. They had only an insignificant land force. During pre-war discussion with the Russians about a possible alliance, the Brits were asked what they brought to the table, and they claimed they could provide sixteen divisions, a rather feeble contribution relative to the forces of Germany and Russia, which totaled something like 160 divisions each. Moreover, the British claim to 16 divisions was unfounded. In fact, there were only four they could have put into the field, and perhaps not even that many. Thus Hitler’s aim of creating the Eastern empire that Bismark spoke of seemed a sure thing, or as much as anything in the world of military planning can be.

    • Troll: L.K
  356. Incitatus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You quote Hitler:
    The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people.

    I also included the full quote:

    “The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people…”

    Love that part. Old Dolf was waxing prime. Who was the “black-haired Jewish youth” to whom Hitler referred? How did he know said youth glared, spied, planned to seduce, etc? What about the “systematic efforts to ruin girls and women”? Notes and citations please.

    Thanks for the link to Barbara Spectre’s fanciful post. Born in Wisconsin, studied philosophy in NYC, now vomits same (her version) from Stockholm?

    Took philosophy electives in university – not bad (better than economics, sociology, anthropology; worse than history). Nothing any honest person can make a living on.

    Let me ask you this: why should any American care what Babs says? She’s in the bosom of Viking socialism. Case closed! Think anyone in most of America listens to Babs? Think again!

    As to Israel? Have long been for it’s independence. Free Zion! End all aspects of US ‘passionate attachment’. Maybe Likud will actually have to figure out how to live with neighbors, especially if it pays for it’s own weapons.

    One can dream, after all.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @utu
    , @utu
  357. @FB

    Get someone to help you with your reading and comprehension before taking the risk of looking foolish and offensive at the same time. China’s economic rise that you refer to began in 1978, not 70 years ago. Whether its rise is under socialism some might argue though you and I might agree that the government which has driven its high speed rail could teach the USG something useful.

    • Replies: @FB
  358. @CanSpeccy

    Here’s the kosher version of Herr Hitler’s quotation by the arch-Zionist Israel Cohen:

    “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.” — A Radical Program for the Twentieth Century 

    Where’s the lie in Hitler’s quotation then?

  359. @Ron Unz

    Look. We’re talking at cross-purposes here.

    You’re justifying Germany’s abnormal behavior.

    Fine — I didn’t say her behavior was either justified or unjustified. I merely insisted it was abnormal.

  360. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Mr. FoSquare

    Mefo Bills did pay interest. Here is a direct quote from Stephen Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money (p. 595) in his discussion of Mefo Bills:

    The banks did hold onto MEFOBILL’s and I wouldn’t put it past them to issue credit on top of them. In that case, they would be up to their old tricks of emitting credit and recalling it. Quite probably new debt instruments were created on top of the bills, and this form of debt could be a control mechanism.

    Since Mefobills were near money, meaning they could be re-discounted for reichsmarks, the bills could sit on bank ledger for some time, especially as they payed interest.

    That would definitely be abracadabra. It would take somebody to really dig into their ledgers to know for sure.

    Pg. 594 from Zarlinga, “Many of the bills never found their way to the Reichsbank, since the interest they paid was an incentive for banks an others to hold onto them. Robert’s estimated that as much as 15 billion marks worth of such bills were issued.”

    Pg 596, January 1939 Reichsbank handed Hitler a memorandum in which it indicated its refusal to grant the Reich any further credits.”

    Credit in this case means new bills issued as new purchasing power. Schacht got fired for not renewing the bills in late 1938. I suspect the word “renew” is to take an old bill and give it another date, and circulate it back through the shell corporation, that way it doesn’t stay on the ledger. There’s now way to know for sure. It could be an extension date on existing bills held by banks, to then collect more interest.

    As you state, it is hard to keep up with shell game that finance plays.

    We do know one thing for sure, and that is: New Purchasing Power was injected into German economy by various means, and we “moderns” have not learned all of the lessons.

  361. Anonymous[861] • Disclaimer says:

    While it is quite easy to understand why historians avoided the subject for the first couple of decades following the end of the Second World War, once a generation or two had passed, one might reasonably expect to see some reassertion of scholarly objectivity.

    Or not. Welcome to the real world.

    I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.

    Again, welcome to the real world.

  362. Anonymous[861] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    An important comment. Thank you.

  363. So, my idea is; let’s pile on all American embassies(world-wide) and proclaim that we have the actual president and that Trump is a usurper. Plus, we would love a foreign power to bomb us-I’m thinking China(blowing us up with money that is…)

  364. @Mulegino1

    “On its most fundamental level, economics is a moral science.”

    Says the guy who clearly does not understand economics.

    In one fell swoop, with this statement, you have undermined and negated any and all of your statements related to economics because in order to be logically consistent, you must now ascribe a moral premise, which is impossible without your theories becoming self-refuting statements and nonsense. Your lack of understanding has painted you into a corner.

    Contrary to your assertion and obvious disdain with the “fetishism” of the Austrian School notwithstanding, economics, at its most fundamental level, is not about morality. Not even the Keynesian lefty Paul Krugman believes that. It’s about acts and choices by human actors/individuals, not whether a person should choose X over Y, but rather, the fact that they did choose X over Y assuming that is what they did. There is no shouldness or oughtness over whether I choose a new pair of shoes over a loaf of bread but that I did choose a pair of shoes over bread. Nothing more.

    I was to going to respond to your disagreement with my earlier post on MEFO bills but now I realize you don’t see the logic in my answer so, I don’t need to. I do see a couple commenters do understand that the printing press ultimately would come into play in order to sustain MEFO long-term; there’s no way around it. I will clarify, however, that it would not be fraud if the actors involved knew the terms.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  365. Tusk says:
    @Incitatus

    2c has been deposited into your account.

  366. @Ron Unz

    ‘…If scholars, no matter how renowned, gets purged for raising certain doubts, doesn’t it naturally make you cautious on that topic? Maybe all the writers maintaining the orthodox position are correct, or maybe they’re just doing so lest they get purged…’

    You seem to be attributing to me a respect for the opinion of ‘scholars’ that I simply don’t have. I’m entirely capable of holding — and do hold — several markedly iconoclastic views. For example, ‘Scholars’ can — and do — virtually unanimously agree that Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade. I happen to disagree, and said so when I wrote my senior thesis in college.

    At the same time, depending on what is at issue, it’s perfectly possible that the conventional wisdom is in fact correct. Indeed, what’s usually the case is that when the conventional wisdom is incorrect in some respect, it’s not that the revisionist position is instead the truth, but rather, that the truth lies between the two extremes. For example, I don’t think that Russia was planning to attack Germany in 1941 and Germany beat her to it. At the same time, Russia was in fact adopting an increasingly menacing posture toward Germany, and in fact, Molotov’s visit to Berlin in the fall of 1940 and the demands he made seems to have confirmed Hitler in the correctness of his decision to attack Russia as soon as possible.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  367. FB says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    So China’s rise began in 1978…?

    You’re now the stupidest commenter on UNZ…and that’s saying something…

    China in 1949 had one hundred million people in danger of starving…many actually did…but nothing changed over the next three decades…?…during which time China became a nuclear power, an industrial power, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council…plus holding back the US in Korea…

    You are quite the gimp…

  368. I feel for the ladies whom invest so much into their hair- that they never get to feel what it is like to be pulled. Could that be the source of their consternation?

  369. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MAOWASAYALI

    Re: Jews for multiculturalism and mass race replacement immigration to European majority states,

    One notes, in this connection, how Incitatus at #366 blows off Barbara Lerner Spectre’s call for the genocide of the European people as racial and cultural entities thus:

    Let me ask you this: why should any American care what Babs says?

    Well whatever the Hell Americans think, Swedes seem to care. According to a 2015 opinion survey*, 54% agreed that:

    the Swedish media do not tell the truth about the societal problems related to immigration

    and Sweden’s media have a major Jewish component, Aftonbladet, for example, Sweden’s largest circulation newspaper, being Jewish owned. As for Mr. Cohen, I suppose Incitatus will ask why should any Swede care what Izzie says.

    * Andersson, 2017, cited in the Framing of Immigration by Swedish newspapers by Jonathan Norstroem, Soedertoerns Hoegskola.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Wizard of Oz
  370. Stepanie, E. Olsen, where are you…? Oops, whe’ re not on Quilette anymore. Look-if that applies to my non-sensical friends- einteil
    ung is alles, nicht war?

  371. @Ron Unz

    The intellectuals who dissent from regime-to-be’s ideas are always the first to be humiliated and castigated by the regime-to-be since the intellectuals are the fount of ideas. The regime-to-be seeks to delegitimize the ideas of the dissenting intellectuals in the minds of the people the regime-to-be seeks to subjugate and rule over.

  372. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    At the same time, depending on what is at issue, it’s perfectly possible that the conventional wisdom is in fact correct.

    Sure, I’d absolutely agree with that. In fact, I generally assume the “conventional wisdom” is *probably* correct until I encounter considerable evidence on the other side. Even then, most of the time, I end up being undecided.

    For example, I don’t think that Russia was planning to attack Germany in 1941 and Germany beat her to it.

    Here, I disagree with you. I think there is overwhelming evidence supporting the Suvorov Hypothesis. If you haven’t already done so, you might want to read my article from last year, which summarizes much of the material, provides links to several of the main sources, and includes 125,000 words of comments which hotly debate the issue back and forth:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    Or, for under $20, you can buy his book published by the Naval Academy Press and read it for yourself.

    As my article emphasizes, I’m quite skeptical of some of his arguments, but not the basic notion of the Soviets being about to attack.

    One reason I’m so suspicious of the orthodox version is that his theory has been totally censored from all English-language discussion for almost 30 years even as it became a huge issue everywhere else in the world. If there was a strong case against it, why didn’t any English-language scholar try to make it? And the analogy with the treatment of Operation Pike has strengthened my suspicions.

    It’s perfectly possible that you’ve already read all this material and simply have come to a different conclusion, which is fine.

  373. SafeNow says:

    Imagine my embarrassment and astonishment when I happened happened to learn that the State in the U.S. that is closest to Africa is not Florida, or N. Carolina, but Maine. Although not a cartographer or geographer, I was well-versed in these subjects, and yet had labored under a misunderstanding for my entire life. I can see how people might think it is the Outer Banks; after all, they are called “outer,” even by the N.Y. Times. Nonetheless, it is Maine, which I now grasp, and will elaborate.

    Yes, my Ron Unz impression. But I am not critical. How else to best set-up essays demolishing the conventional thinking on a subject.

    • LOL: Ron Unz
  374. ‘…While it is quite easy to understand why historians avoided the subject for the first couple of decades following the end of the Second World War, once a generation or two had passed, one might reasonably expect to see some reassertion of scholarly objectivity…’

    One might — but that isn’t what has happened.

    Offhand, I’d say scholarly detachment and historical perspective concerning the Second World War peaked around 1960-80. Since then, there’s been a steady decline, with the most recent works all too predictably vilifying Nazism and all its works, then proceeding to dutifully recount the details of the Holocaust for the umpteenth time to the exclusion of anything else.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Cleburne
  375. Mulegino1 says:
    @OEMIKITLOB

    “On its most fundamental level, economics is a moral science.”

    Says the guy who clearly does not understand economics.

    Says the guy who clearly does not understand the history of economics. The first “economists” per se were moral philosophers, not statisticians. Aristotle, Aquinas, Liebniz, List, and the Carey Brothers did far more for real economics than the champions of the Judeo-Austian School.

    In one fell swoop, with this statement, you have undermined and negated any and all of your statements related to economics because in order to be logically consistent, you must now ascribe a moral premise, which is impossible without your theories becoming self-refuting statements and nonsense. Your lack of understanding has painted you into a corner./blockquote>

    How have I negated any and all of my statements? Because I do not agree with a fact free analysis such as your own?

    There is no shouldness or oughtness over whether I choose a new pair of shoes over a loaf of bread but that I did choose a pair of shoes over bread. Nothing more.

    Right. Your economic philosophy appears to constitute a marriage of psychopathy and amorality. If I choose a new pair of shoes over a loaf of bread, it is an “economic” decision, right? There is no shortage of psychopaths and criminals who make such choices on a daily basis even though it means taking bread out of their own children’s mouths and burdening them with the consequences of debt. True economics involves both morality and justice and a solicitude for the well being of the community at large and does not involve the unconditional worship of the consumer king and his allegedly enlightened “choice.” Nothing could be more antithetical to the Christian foundations of our civilization, which are rooted in the subordination of the money power and economic “choice” to the common good.

    Marxism and free market/globalist finance capitalism are satanic twins or rather, symbiotic partners in the degradation and enslavement of humanity.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  376. Tusk says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, I think therein lies the ultimate truth. WW2 history presents enough causes for one to doubt the totality of the official narrative and if one simple truth undermines the story then the rest come falling down. From WW2 to today in 2019 this official narrative has underpinned everything, from what people are taught in school, how we are taught to think what is right and wrong (Hitler as the embodiment of evil) and who the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys are; but if WW2 is full of enough inconsistencies then perhaps there is reason to doubt everything else. And that itself is the point, we should not be lax and rest on our assumptions but instead attempt to understand where distortions exist and denounce them. I must thank you for this website as it does a fantastic job of uncovering all the lies and deceit of which most people are oblivious to. If only more people had the ability to think ‘wait – if this is a lie, then what about the rest?’.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  377. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of the German situation…

    Hitler regarded Germany’s 1% Jewish population as a disruptive and potentially dangerous element, and quickly instituted various policies to push them out.

    Correct.

    In her book, Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich, Ingrid Weckert explains:

    … Emigration( of German Jews from Germany) was not some kind of wild flight, but rather a lawfully determined and regulated matter.[…]
    … On March 24, 1933, two months after the National Socialists took power, “World Jewry,” as it referred to itself, declared war on Germany.[1] As World Jewry did not have its own state, it used the power at its disposal, namely its influence on the world economy, to impose a world-wide boycott of Germany.
    After this spectacular declaration, which appeared in the London Daily Express, it should have been obvious to World Jewry, and also to Jews living in Germany, that there would be consequences. No country in the world with any self-respect – and Germany at that time regarded itself quite favorably – can ignore such a challenge. And in fact the boycott hit Germany at its weakest point in time.
    The economic situation was catastrophic. …
    The National Socialist government attempted to promote the emigration of its unwanted Jewish citizens. Two principal agreements were used by the state to regulate emigration: the “Haavara” and the “Rublee-Wohlthat.” The Haavara Agreement was in force from 1933 until 1941 and concerned emigration to Palestine. This agreement is now regularly mentioned in the relevant literature. …
    The Rublee-Wohlthat agreement, on the other hand, generally falls under the historical blackout.[11]
    It covered the majority of emigrating Jews, all those who did not go to Palestine, but to other European countries or overseas countries. That was about two-thirds of all migrants. Unfortunately this agreement operated for only eight months; then war broke out and regulated emigration came to a stop[ because of the outbreak of the war]. We note this point here because it makes clear the intentions of the German government, which were far removed from the ‘extermination of the Jews’.

  378. @Ron Unz

    You and some others whose contributions you post raise the interesting question of whether “censorship” which you again use her, maybe as shorthand, is an adequate description of the lack of mention where one has a right to expect it of such matters as the planned attack on Baku and the much more significant Suvorov thesis. Plus of course the mechanisms for such “censorship” including internal psychological ones.

    I say that as one who spent decades expecting that being the outrageously heterodox academic provocateur, or at least the radical theoriser, would be the natural course for lively minds in academe, even if just to earn the independence of a David Irving (or Hugh Thomas or Felipe Fernandez-Armesto to mention them only as examples of historians who sold well enough to be able to live off their writing).

    Apparently I overstated what was to be expected of intelligent educated minds. But why was my expectation wrong? Was it wrong for identifiable systematic reasons? Was it wrong only in some identifiable areas. I suppose a check against past resistances in areas such as plate tectonics might curb over excitement about censorship in any sinister form.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  379. Ron Unz says:
    @Tusk

    From WW2 to today in 2019 this official narrative has underpinned everything, from what people are taught in school, how we are taught to think what is right and wrong (Hitler as the embodiment of evil) and who the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys are; but if WW2 is full of enough inconsistencies then perhaps there is reason to doubt everything else.

    Exactly. And for me, another very large factor was that I spent most of the 2000s working on my content-archiving project, which involved digitizing the full archives of a couple of hundred of our most influential publications of the last 150 years. I discovered the “orthodox” perspective I’d always absorbed from my books and classes was just entirely distorted on a whole range of issues, and this greatly increased my skepticism on all sorts of matters. Here’s an example of one of my articles that directly discusses it:

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

  380. @Ron Unz

    ‘…One reason I’m so suspicious of the orthodox version is that his theory has been totally censored from all English-language discussion for almost 30 years even as it became a huge issue everywhere else in the world…

    This simply isn’t true. I, for one, clearly recall reading some informed and extensive discussion of it.

    If there was a strong case against it, why didn’t any English-language scholar try to make it?

    It was made. Basically, the conclusion that I found most convincing was that Stalin intended to spend 1941 seriously upgrading his forces, while perhaps finishing off Finland. Then, his battle station fully armed and operational, he might have attacked Germany in 1942.

    Stalin, of course, hardly made a habit of letting everyone in on his plans; however, the bulk of the evidence suggested something like the above. For one, the Red Army was spectacularly unready when the Germans struck in 1941; artillery pieces without prime movers, new equipment on order but not delivered, units in the middle of being reorganized, etc. About to pounce, Stalin was not.

    It’s all been awhile since I read it all, and it was only of passing interest to me in the first place, so I can’t intelligently debate the point. However, suffice it to say that (a) discussion of Suvorov’s thesis was hardly censored, and (b) compelling counter-arguments exist.

    …And the analogy with the treatment of Operation Pike has strengthened my suspicions…’

    Here again, as I’ve pointed out, no one concealed the existence of the scheme; it even seems to have been public knowledge at the time. Certainly, I’ve read various references to it over the years.

    Moreover, my impression was that it wasn’t very energetically pursued. Rather, it was a matter of the Allies being unwilling to simply open active warfare in the West with all the massive bloodshed that seemed certain to entail on the one hand, but on the other being aware they should do something.

    So there were schemes to drop fluvial mines in the Rhine, and plans to invade Scandinavia — and Operation Pike. I could be wrong, but I think you’re making too much of it. Yes, Russia was allied with Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1941 — and Britain and France were at war with the latter and hence very hostile to the former. And?

    No doubt if Hitler had continued to do nothing, the Allies might have eventually steeled themselves to do something — and that something might have been Operation Pike. But it’s all very speculative and uncertain, and my suspicion is that the Allies would have continued to dither. The thought of war terrified them.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  381. @FB

    The discussion started about oranges and you keep on ignoring that and persisting with your discussion of apples. That doesn’t prove stupidity but egotism and arrogance might be near the mark.

    BTW i too have read Godfree Roberts enthusiastic praise of Mao’s achievements but the Great Leap Forward remains an indelible blot on the 70 years that was the original subject. Maybe the Cultural Revolution too, even in GDP terms.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @FB
  382. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    I think there is overwhelming evidence supporting the Suvorov Hypothesis.

    it seems to me that the question of whether Germany was planning to attack Russia or Russia was planning to attack Germany is vacuous. Both were arming at breakneck pace, with Russian military expenditures in 1940 at 20% of GDP, going on 60%, while Germany was already at 38%. Meantime British defense spending was in excess of 10% of GDP and rising exponentially.

    Clearly, the risk of war was enormous and each power had to be prepared to take the initiative, if only for defensive reasons. Britain being the laggard in preparation for a war on the ground naturally failed to take any decisive action in 1940, and confined its war making against Germany to retaliatory aerial bombardment of Berlin and some other cities. Germany was already fully stretched economically in preparation for war, whereas Russia still had much catch-up to do both in jacking up defense spending and upgrading military equipment. Logically, therefore, Hitler should have been the first mover. And he was.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  383. @CanSpeccy

    ‘Europe has not yet leaned how to be multicultural. … We are going to be part of that transformation that must take place. Europe is not going to be the monlithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that …’

    The horror of this is that there’s no evidence it can be done. Certainly, societies aren’t simultaneously multi-cultural, egalitarian, and integrated. Either they (a) insist on cultural uniformity — ala ‘the melting pot’ — (b) are rigidly stratified ala the Ottoman Empire or pre-modern India, or (c) practice segregation ala the Jim Crow South or modern Israel.

    Alternatively, they collapse into blood-soaked chaos: the last century of the Ottoman Empire, Rwanda, modern South Africa, the progressively more violent riots, terrorist outrages, and other disturbances shaking Europe.

    So, so far as I can see, when people work for ‘multi-culturalism’, they’re pretty much assuring us all a grim fate. They’ve said the melting pot is out. Presumably, they’re going to insist on equality and won’t favor segregation. That leaves some form of bloodbath.

  384. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    This simply isn’t true. I, for one, clearly recall reading some informed and extensive discussion of it.

    Well, it’s quite possible that you were much better read in the subject than I am. But isn’t it a bit “odd” that after the Suvorov books sold 5M copies worldwide, making him the most widely-read military historian of all time, no English language edition was ever published for almost 20 years, after the minuscule original 1990 print run? Doesn’t it remind you a bit about how Solzhenitysn’s 200 Years has never appeared in English or how David Irving was totally blacklisted?

    Even after the Naval Academy Press broke the embargo and published an English language edition in 2008, I don’t think it was ever reviewed anywhere with a wider circulation than paleoconservative Chronicles, whence I discovered it purely by chance.

    Since you say you remember seeing “extensive discussion” of the Suvorov Hypothesis, how about pointing me to some of those articles or reviews, which I’d be quite interested in reading. I do hope, for your credibility, you’re referring to something more substantial than a comment-thread on some old website…

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @L.K
  385. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Unz, the problem is that you are trying to have a serious discussion with an individual, Colin Wright, who is NOT interested in considering facts which may disturb the whole WW2 propaganda package that he ardently “believes” in.

    Don’t take my word for it, check his comments, largely under your own articles, and you will see for yourself; Colin Wright pushing all of the stale old war propaganda.
    In fact, he became quite agitated in the comment section under your article on the holocau$t tale, which he also sanctimoniously defends.

    Now, try this; ask him which books and articles questioning the WW2 dogmas he has read, which ones on Barbarossa specifically, or on the holocaust and so on…
    I bet the number is ZERO or close to 0.
    The reality is that a lot of the shills who furiously defend WW2 and even WW1 “history” hate when they see their propaganda being contested. You can bet that many of them would love to shut down debate entirely. This includes WW1, since WW2 was indeed a continuation of the great war.

    P.S. to his credit, Colin Colin Wright is anti-Zionist, unlike, say, the troll FB, who appears to be some closet Zionist gatekeeper.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  386. @Ron Unz

    ‘…But isn’t it a bit “odd” that after the Suvorov books sold 5M copies worldwide, making him the most widely-read military historian of all time, no English language edition was ever published for almost 20 years, after the minuscule original 1990 print run? Doesn’t it remind you a bit about how Solzhenitysn’s 200 Years has never appeared in English or how David Irving was totally blacklisted?

    It is odd — but the motive isn’t necessarily as illegitimate as those barring publication of Solzhenitsyn’s rather interesting work or David Irving’s books.

    At least arguably, Suvorov’s thesis is sensationalistic and not sufficiently supported by the facts to merit more attention than it has received. That people may also be reluctant to appear to be somehow justifying Hitler’s aggression could also have contributed to the silence — it wouldn’t be especially credible, but neither would it outrage me. If I felt like defending his thesis, I’d feel comfortable doing so. No one’s stopping me.

    ‘…Since you say you remember seeing “extensive discussion” of the Suvorov Hypothesis, how about pointing me to some of those articles or reviews, which I’d be quite interested in reading. I do hope, for your credibility, you’re referring to something more substantial than a comment-thread on some old website…’

    Dirty pool. I did say my interest was casual, and yes, it was on a discussion board or two that I read about it. Do you feel there’s a necessary bar to posts on a discussion board being ‘informed and extensive’? I don’t think my credibility has been damaged at all. I told you exactly what I recall.

    • Troll: Ron Unz
  387. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Both were arming at breakneck pace, with Russian military expenditures in 1940 at 20% of GDP, going on 60%, while Germany was already at 38%. Meantime British defense spending was in excess of 10% of GDP and rising exponentially.

    Is that really correct? I just happened to be looking though the AJP Taylor book today, and he cites totally different figures.

    According to him, both Germany and Britain were each spending 15% on armaments in 1938-39, and that after defeating France in 1940, Germany substantially *reduced* its armaments production because it believed the war was essentially over, then kept that lower level of spending at least until the Stalingrad defeat a couple of years later.

    He makes a very big deal of this issue, he was a renowned scholar, and his book was widely praised. Moreover, it generally accords with what I’ve read here and there more recently.

    It’s possible that more recent scholarly research has proven he was mistaken. But it’s also possible that historical corruption has gotten much worse since 1961…

  388. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Not to mention that there are a lot of other books written by serious historians in Germany and Russia amply demonstrating that the traditional view of Barbarossa is untenable and yet have never been made available in the English language.

    That it is easier to find much of this work in Germany than in the English language is so telling, considering the difficulties imposed on German historians by the traitorous establishment in occupied Germany which makes it as hard as they can for those daring to challenge the war propaganda posing as ‘history’.

    It must also be remembered that the Russian government has also defined its own ‘memory laws’, stifling the historic debate going on in Russia, legislation that includes fines and prison terms.
    They have also closed the archives, 100s of thousands of secret files from the period are not available.
    What are they hiding?

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Tim too
  389. Incitatus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “Incitatus at #366 blows off Barbara Lerner Spectre’s call for the genocide of the European people”

    Ah, come-on. “Blow off”? “Genocide”? That’s a bit unfair, no?

    I’m American. What do you want me to say? Barbara Lerner Spectre’s an idiot? Done! She’s an idiot! Thought I did that in subtle prose. Sorry.

    In my defense, there are a lot of idiots out there, all nationalities (many Americans), all races, all hawking nonsense. Buyer beware. But you know that, CanSpeccy. Or do you?

    Not surprised 54% of Swedes “care”. A niece (PhD bio-science) keeps me informed. Don’t think they’re planning a pogrom, but I could be wrong. Kindly forward reports of dead (‘genocided’) Swedes. Promise I’ll be attentive.

    Multi-culturism? I trace roots 52 generations to 260 AD. Forebears in every European country. Including Sweden [Björn de Suède is a 29G-GF]. Leaders of each crusade. Multi-cultural. Millions can say the same.

    That’s the thing. What you seek to demonize (diversity) is probably in your roots, CanSpeccy. Sorry.

    Barbara Lerner Spectre? Who cares?

    • Troll: Tusk
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  390. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    At least arguably, Suvorov’s thesis is sensationalistic and not sufficiently supported by the facts to merit more attention than it has received.

    Pure BS.

    You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are simply obfuscating.
    By now, in your case, it is clearly the second option.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  391. Anyway, since Ron seems convinced Suvorov’s thesis has been unreasonably ignored, I”ll lay out what I understand of it and point out what strike me as the problems with it.

    I haven’t read the book, but my understanding is that Suvorov argues that Russia was about to attack Germany herself in 1941, and this is demonstrated by the deployment of her troops and her war plans.

    Yes, Russian troops were deployed to advance into Poland, and yes, Russia did have plans to conduct an aggressive war against Germany. However, this had always been the case, and it didn’t necessarily imply that Russia intended to initiate hostilities. Rather it merely implied that if war came, Russia intended to take the offensive rather than await the German thrusts. This in and of itself is hardly shocking. Russia felt that the best defense was a good offense. Nu? My impression is that she always had.

    Against the notion that Russia intended to actually initiate hostilities herself in 1941 is the spectacular unreadiness of her forces in the face of the German onslaught. Artillery pieces lacked trucks to tow them, units were in the process of reequipping, tanks lacked fuel and hadn’t been maintained, the whole mechanized arm was being reorganized from the ground up — this was clearly not an army that was intending to strike any time soon. Precisely why the Red Army was so unready is an interesting subject, but it’s sufficient for now to note merely that it was unready. It wasn’t planning to go to war any time soon.

    So barring some conclusive evidence I’m unaware of, Suvorov’s thesis strikes me as interesting but ultimately indefensible — at least as far as 1941 goes. It’s perfectly possible Stalin planned to attack at a later date, of course.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  392. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    It’s possible that more recent scholarly research has proven he was mistaken. But it’s also possible that historical corruption has gotten much worse since 1961…

    AJP Taylor was correct.

    There is recent scholarly research corroborating Taylor’s work. This is pretty well established.
    I could point you in the direction of German historian Walter Post… except I have never seen any of his work translated into English.

    It seems clear to me, reading and comparing old and new texts, that historical corruption has indeed gotten much worse since the 60s.

  393. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Is that really correct? I just happened to be looking though the AJP Taylor book today, and he cites totally different figures.

    LOL. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I just grabbed those numbers by means of a google search, so I certainly wouldn’t swear by them, although they seemed to resonate with what I’ve read. Trouble is, much of what I’ve read, like AJP Taylor’s 1961 book on WWII, I read more or less at the time of publication, so my recollection of details is sketchy.

    However, Russia’s gigantic military build-up is documented in detail in the 1100-page second volume of Stephen Kotkin’s recently published Stalin bio, and there seems no doubt that, in preparation for war, Stalin meant business. In fact, Hitler’s decision to attack Germany appears extremely rash except on the assumption that the odds against Germany were deteriorating. Further, Hitler seems to have been encouraged by Stalin’s habit of shooting most of his generals and other senior military officers, from which fact, Hitler inferred that Stalin had a “disease of the brain.”

  394. @L.K

    ‘…Now, try this; ask him which books and articles questioning the WW2 dogmas he has read, which ones on Barbarossa specifically, or on the holocaust and so on…
    I bet the number is ZERO or close to 0…”

    I’ll save Ron the trouble. These strike me as the more iconoclastic of my readings.

    Most of David Irving’s works: in particular, Hitler’s War, The Virus House, Dresden, and Nuremburg: the Last Battle.

    Kubizek, ‘The Young Hitler I Knew.’

    Stolfi, Hitler’s Panzers East and Hitler: Beyond Good and Evil.

    Johnson’s What We Knew and his book on the actual nature of the Nazi police state.

    Hellstorm, two less lurid but more convincing books on Russia’s invasion of East Prussia and her invasion of Silesia.

    Sajer’s The Forgotten Soldier.

    Leon Degrelle’s memoirs.

    Melita Maschmann, Account Rendered.

    No apologies for any misspellings or omissions; I am not going downstairs in the middle of the night for this nonsense. It’s frigging inane to insist that everyone must dismiss everything conventional wisdom holds to be true because some of it has been demonstrated to be untrue and some more of it half-true. That doesn’t make the opposite Holy Writ.

  395. @Ron Unz

    https://www.cairn.info/revue-guerres-mondiales-et-conflits-contemporains-2001-2-page-7.htm

    This article in french is an anlysis of the French Air force in 1939 stating its lack of readiness to fight the war explaining part of the june 1940 defeat.

    It is stressing the obsolescence of its bombers and the lack of reconnaissance aircraft, both making this raid to Bakou impossible knowing that Bakou is 2000km away from Damas and no french plane was able to fly 4000 Km non stop.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  396. @L.K

    ‘You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are simply obfuscating.
    By now, in your case, it is clearly the second option.’

    I offer evidence to support my opinion. You offer nothing.

    I’m obfuscating.

    How much did you bet, by the way?

    • Replies: @L.K
  397. @Colin Wright

    Ron says:

    ‘…‘…Since you say you remember seeing “extensive discussion” of the Suvorov Hypothesis, how about pointing me to some of those articles or reviews, which I’d be quite interested in reading. I do hope, for your credibility, you’re referring to something more substantial than a comment-thread on some old website…’

    I say:

    ‘Dirty pool. I did say my interest was casual, and yes, it was on a discussion board or two that I read about it. Do you feel there’s a necessary bar to posts on a discussion board being ‘informed and extensive’? I don’t think my credibility has been damaged at all. I told you exactly what I recall.’

    • Troll: Ron Unz

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out in what way I was trolling anyone here. You questioned my credibility. I defended it.

  398. @Colin Wright

    Ron’s “,Troll” comment is unfair. Your honesty has upgraded your credibility IMO since it is too rare (apart from the obsessive cranks and the odd dimwit). Apart from Ron himself, and a couple of his contributors who comment, I had only got to Incitatus as I ran my eye over the field. (OK CanSpecy and ??).

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  399. @Ron Unz

    Here’s a thought to help your imaginatiin, absent employing a dozen researchers to ferret out every bit of evidence a la Lipstadt contra Irving. Think of Hitler looking for Lebensraum in the east with the same sort of dreaming hope and expectation as Netanyahu looks to clearing the West Bank of Palestinians.

  400. Here we go: the contemporary reference to Operation Pike: ‘Baku, or, The Map Game,’ by A.P. Herbert.

    ‘It’s jolly to look at the map
    and finish the foe in a day.
    It’s not easy to get at the chap;
    those neutrals are so in the way.
    But if you say, what would you do
    to fill the aggressor with gloom?
    Well, we might drop a bomb on Baku,
    or what about bombs on Batum?

    Refrain: I’m all for some bombs on Baku,
    and, of course, a few bombs on Batum.

    Quoted in Alistair Horne, To Lose a Battle.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  401. Gefreiter says:
    @Incitatus

    Agree with that Ron? Does it fit the reasonable statesman [Time Man of the Year] image you’re selling?

    Nazi’s and Hitler make the ultimate strawman for the heeb, especially here in the comments at UR. No phasing is too trivial and no fact is too self evident to keep the yids from kvetching at every goy, and even our host. Its like all the jews are tuned into a certain genetic frequency that triggers them into some satanic spittle flinging frenzy, as if their life is just one giant ritual.

    Here, again, is what they did to Petain, the hero of Verdun:

    The Marshal did not yet fully realize the situation he found himself in at this time. To the screaming crowds of rabble-rousers, he was no longer the “eminence grise” but was now called a Jew-hating war criminal. The police had to call on the army to prevent the Jews from dragging him off the train in Paris and murdering him without a trial

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  402. Gefreiter says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    I assume “Jacques” is an indicator that you have some kind of French connection? What part of France, may I ask? Ditto Alden.

    With Petain, Hitler and Mussolini all strongly anti-freemason, while Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were all blatant masons, and all having broken up the lodges and attempted to purge their governments of masonic influence, I think the freemasonry’s role in both wars has been completely covered up. It was Weishaups freemasons and illuminati that had started both the American and French revolutions, and the Oriental Lodges of France was where Frankin and LaFayette schemed for the creation of the Masonic US.

    In light of the destruction of Notre Dame by jewish lightning, the false flag at Oradour-sur-Glane is highly relevant, and I think a little revisionism has long been called for.

    In a rambling autobiography entitled “SS Panzergrenadier,” former Waffen-SS soldier Hans Schmidt, who is now an American citizen, writes about the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre from the SS point of view.

    While the reprisals were being carried out, the women and children of the village had been ordered into the village church for their own safekeeping. Then the unthinkable happened: The church caught fire, and “somehow” an inferno developed that would cost most of the women and children their lives. Young SS-soldiers tried desperately to help people trapped in the church but not many could be saved.

    The Maquis had hidden armaments and explosives underneath the roof and elsewhere in the church, and that it was this material that had caused the catastrophe.

    A retired German Army officer, Eberhard Matthes, supports Schmidt’s claim. In 1980, Matthes gave a sworn affidavit in which he stated that during a visit to the ruins in 1963, two older women in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane told him that they had been saved by SS soldiers who risked their lives to go inside the burning church to rescue them. These women also told Matthes that the SS had not started the fire in the church.

    This version of events is also cofirmed by Vincent Reynouard who is currently locked in a cage for the thought crime of “holocaust” denial.

    https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/VincentReynouard.html

    [MORE]

    In his Internet article, Reynouard said that he wrote, in his revisionist book about Oradour-sur-Glane, that he had checked the government archives and had found that partisans were regularly active in Oradour, as evidenced by records of thefts of cigarettes and gasoline. This partisan activity was contained in a government report by Guy Pauchou, who later co-authored the Official Report in which he stated that Oradour had been a perfectly peaceful village.

    Reynouard claims that, with the help of an attorney, he studied the trial testimony which was taken down in shorthand by the court reporter during the war crimes trial held in Bordeaux in 1953. From these shorthand notes, he learned that Mrs. Renaud testified that “there was a large explosion in the church.” Mr. Petit testified during the trial that he had entered the church briefly after the tragedy and “it was a terrible picture. There was no intact body. Some had been torn into two pieces.” Some of the Waffen-SS soldiers had also testified during the trial about an explosion in the church, according to the notes taken by the court reporter.

    Reynouard wrote that he had conducted his research like a Criminal Investigation, examining photos of the corpses found after the massacre. The corpses of the men were burned beyond recognition, but the corpses of the women and children in the church were torn apart with arms, legs and heads severed from the torsos; the clothing on some of the corpses of the women was not burned. The faces on the severed heads were recognizable. According to Reynouard, the corpses of the women and children looked like the typical victims of an explosion, and the church looked like the ruins of a church that had been the victim of a bombardment.

    Reynouard points out that a reporter, Pierre Poitevin, who saw the church only hours after the massacre, observed that the fabric flowers (Stoffblumen) on the altar had not burned. Those same flowers are still in the church today, according to Reynouard.

    As proof that there was an explosion in the church, Reynouard points out in his article that the roof was blown off, but there does not seem to be much damage caused by a fire inside the church. The wooden confessional did not burn, for example. A brass ball on the roof of the tower did not melt, according to Reynouard, indicating that the roof was blown off, rather than burned. An engraved inscription on the melted bronze bells can still be seen. This proves that the fire in the tower did not burn very long, according to Reynouard. The implication is that a flash fire caused by an explosion partially melted the bells. A Waffen-SS soldier was killed by a stone falling from the church, which is further proof of an explosion in Reynouard’s opinion.

    So the jewish communists “hid” their explosives in the church steeple and set it off when the SS rounded up the women and children and put them in the church for safety. The more things change, the more dirty jewish tricks a discovered to be the real game.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  403. @FB

    Mr. Unz is only concerned about the ‘Global Jewish Conspiracy’…not what those Jewish bankers actually do [albeit still vastly outnumbered by gentile bankers]

    Didn’t Ron Unz work on the mathematical instruments, which were used in the 2008 frauds? – Maybe he is ashamed?

    I still don’t get it that book like Matt Tabbi’s eye (and soul!) opener Griftopia about the big scale frauds of 2008 (and the years before) is so unknown. – What is it that keeps people from noticing? – Well, for lots of them, this stuff is over their head…

    Then there is a pattern: Fraud on the side of the elites – and no personal consequences from the side of society (some commenters talked about this pattern in the comment section of James Thompson’s brilliant MAX articles – but only a few (Biff, you, Erebus, me – I don’t remember much more – there were some more, sure, but all in all: A tiny fraction of the commentariat. Strange).

  404. nebulafox says:

    Of course, there’s the small difference that Kaiser Bill never planned on intentionally starving tens of millions of Slavs to death, or deporting them en masse to Siberia, so that hardy Aryan peasants could settle in the east and engage in perpetual war in the Urals when not tending to their estates.

    Wilhelm’s attitude toward the Nazis from his exile is an interesting one. He was happy to see Germany back in the saddle and shared in the regime’s world-view, but there’s no question Hitler as a human being deeply disturbed him on some level.

    (Hitler, for his part, always held monarchy in general and Wilhelm in particular in total contempt, to the point when forcibly reminded of the subject in Italy, he wanted to increase the pensions of politically neutered Social Democrats, just for managing to get rid of them.)

  405. @CanSpeccy

    C’mom! Where’s your sense of smell? You are not going to let him get away with his alleged “kosher Hitler quote” are you?

  406. @Colin Wright

    Yes, Russian troops were deployed to advance into Poland, and yes, Russia did have plans to conduct an aggressive war against Germany. However, this had always been the case, and it didn’t necessarily imply that Russia intended to initiate hostilities

    You probably want to look up Stavka order no. 0428, and ask yourself why this order was given by Stalin.

    3 Million Soviet pow at the beginning of Barbarossa should tell your right there, German forces destroyed the Soviet attack and invasion force amassed in the areas affected by Stavka order 0428. The pow begged to not be sent back to Stalin, because the Soviets treated every returned Soviet pow as defector and sent them off to the Gulag or executed them. It was btw impossible to supply such a huge number a pow with food in a very hard winter.
    Stalin already had prepared his armored train to leave Moscow, and was reportedly panicking.

    There is plenty documentation for NKVD border cleansing operations available, involving mass deportations of peoples, because these orders are publicly available.

    1941; May 16: Politburo Resolution on the deportation of nine categories of people (members of counter-revolutionary parties; former police officers, senior officials, judges and attorneys, landowners, industrialists, wholesale tradesmen; former officers; criminal elements; prostitutes; family members of categories 2 to 4; family members of category 1; Polish refugees) from the German occupation zone, from the three Baltic States, which had been absorbed by the USSR in 1940, and from Moldavia, which had been annexed to the USSR in August 1940.

    1941; May 22-June 20: Implementation of the 4th great deportation planned by the Politburo Resolution of May 16, 1941. Within one month, 107,000 people were arrested, 86,000 of whom were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan while the remainder were sent to Gulag labor camps (Gurianov, ed, 1997).

    https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/node/2653

  407. @j2

    There is a plan, and you are correct about its long term character, it gathered strength prior to and during the French Revolution, but its origins can be traced tentatively to the 1480s. More archival scholarship is needed to gather the evidence, such as it is, into a coherent whole. However, the cat was intentionally (?) let out of the bag in 1923 with the publishing of what is now referred to as “The Kalergi Plan”.

  408. @Gefreiter

    Where does your last quote come from? One of its inherently improbable elements is that there was somewhere in France – presumably in 1945 – where a large violent mob f Jews could set on Pètain.

    • Replies: @Gefreiter
  409. @Gefreiter

    “I assume “Jacques” is an indicator that you have some kind of French connection? What part of France, may I ask? Ditto Alden.”

    Your lack of familiarity with English slang misleads you in the case of JS – though I cannot say that there may not be a French connection.

    As for you curious, indeed almost opaque reference to “Alden”, if it matters, she is a descendant of some of the earliest 17th century Puritan pilgrims and a retired north Californian parole officer (or some such) of many decades experience. If you wanted diligently to research her contributions you would also look at several months comments by [Anon257].

  410. @Wizard of Oz

    China’s economic reforms and the acceleration of its economic growth began when you say.

    Its economic rise began earlier, in fact before the PRC was founded. Already during the Chiang Kai-Shek era there was substantial progress:

  411. @German_reader

    I stayed for some months wth a German aristocratic family whose male head had been a cavalry officer in 1914 and captured by the French (I think) very early in the invasion. I recall his saying quite solemnly in reproof to some young German’s defence of the invasion (that was the prompt to the best of my recollection) that Britain would never have committed the breach of the treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s neutrality.

  412. @Ron Unz

    Taylor was writing in 1964, when many myths about the German war economy were still quite common.

    I can’t recommend a good source on the British war economy, but on the German war economy the definitive resource is Adam Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction.

    German armaments output after Munich suffered a cut as a result of another foreign exchange crisis, forcing the country to increase its steel allocation for exports and thus reduce armaments production. Hitler in 1938, convinced that war with the western powers was inevitable, actually ordered armaments production tripled.

    There was no reduction of armaments output after the defeat of France. There was a reduction of shell output, because in expectation of of another WW1-style battle Hitler ordered a gigantic buildup of shells. This stock of shells was so vast it ended up lasting through not just the Battle of France but also the Balkan campaigns and Operation Barbarossa.

    Overall armaments output continued to increase, focused especially in the area of naval (u-boat construction tripled in advance of Barbarossa) and air force production. Capital investments needed to wage global war against the economically superior Anglo-Americans were an area of particular focus. I’ve provided more specifics in another comment made on your site and can try to retrieve this for you.

    There was also a partial demobilization of the army, which some might think supports the Icebreaker hypothesis. I think it rather demonstrates that Hitler had no master plan more than any other political leader and responded to events.

    AJP Taylor was indeed a renowned scholar and his book was widely praised as it rightly should have been. However, it was also seriously criticized and not just by the usual suspects, but also by other serious scholars including his long-term foil Hugh Trevor-Roper.

    It’s possible the Icebreaker hypothesis was ignored in the Anglophone world because of the Jewish lobby, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Anglo-Americans generally don’t much care about the Soviet-German War. Recall also this debate took place (in German and Russian) during the 1990s, a decade in which American WW2 culture was dominated by Stephen Ambrose, Saving Private Ryan, and The History Channel.

    The Icebreaker hypothesis wasn’t actually new either. A similar historical debate took place in West Germany in the 1950s.

    You might also be interested to listen to Hitler’s secretly recorded conversation with the Finnish Marshal Mannerheim from 1942, the only time he was recorded in private conversation unaware. In it he lays out some of his reasons for attacking the USSR to Mannerheim.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  413. @Incitatus

    You and another have both implied that Ron – presumably via the software that made his fortune and was called/owned by I think “Wall Sttreet Analytics” – bore some responsibility for the GFC which was arguably caused by America’s shonky mortgage markets. My understanding is that he had sold out of that business long before. Not so, you suggest? More intriguing to me is the possibility that his software in the hands of later owners, tweakers and promoters was a cause of the ratings agencies disastrous performance and/or the underlying mispricings and missellings. Anything known?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  414. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    Who was the “black-haired Jewish youth” to whom Hitler referred?

    Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Anthony Weiner, Aaron Kosminski?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  415. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    Let me ask you this: why should any American care what Babs says? She’s in the bosom of Viking socialism. Case closed! Think anyone in most of America listens to Babs?

    Armenian Genocide denial

    Spectre wrote a 2007 article for the National Review titled “History Speaks: The moral case against the Armenian Genocide resolution” where she argued the Armenian Genocide never happened and Armenians need to accept responsibility for causing Turkish-led massacres against them during World War 1. She further compared Armenians to Palestinians because they are “incompetent at governing” and “achieve great success as propagandists”

    ” have always insisted, instead, on demonizing Turks and whitewashing all Armenian actions in World War I. And, although they proved incompetent at governing, they achieved great success as propagandists. In this, Armenians are very similar to Palestinians; very different from both Jews and Turks.”

    Jewish anti-European activism (and ‘savior’ of Europe)

    “I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

    Mission in Sweden

    Through an organisation called One Sweden, which she heads, she promotes multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) against Europeans in their own homeland.

    Although born in the United States, Spectre colonised Palestine (“Israel”) in 1967 where she worked at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, though she decided to invade Sweden in 1999, which she has been occupying ever since.

    Spectre is married to rabbi Philip Spectre, who was the official rabbi at the Great Synagogue in Stockholm and the Chief Rabbi in Sweden during the early 2000s.. Paideia itself has religious aspects and promotes Holocaustianity (literally “Holocaust theology”) into heresies targeted at infiltrating institutional Christianity.

    Preparation for Operation Shylock? (see Philip Roth)

    “We need a Jewish community in Europe. Israel needs a Jewish community in Europe. Israel cannot exist, both economically and politically, without Europe. They are necessary advocates for Jewish issues.”

    Who is funding Paideia – The European Institute of Jewish Stdudies?

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  416. utu says:
    @L.K

    “considering the difficulties imposed on German historians by the traitorous establishment in occupied Germany which makes it as hard as they can for those daring to challenge the war propaganda posing as ‘history’.”

    This is true about ‘the imposed difficulties’ but you are missing one important point. Which is the motive. Why they writing what they are writing and why this is permitted despite of ‘the imposed difficulties’?

    The so-called revisionism in German historiography is focusing on downplaying Germans abilities of Wehrmacht and generals. The point is to undermine a possible pride that young generations of Germans may draw from amazing successes of German army in 1941 in Russia and emphasize that Russian resistance was actually good and so on and that German losses were high and so on. That while Russian counterattacks often were misguided and suicidal they nevertheless inflicted enough losses that in the long run it impeded German progress and sealed their fate. Obviously Russians and ‘sovoks’ in particular love this kind of revisions.

    However Stephen Kotkin (author of definitive multivolume biography of Stalin) tries to bring some balance to this. Exaggerations and self-aggrandizement on part of German generals and Soviet generals who wrote their memoirs (the latter only after Stalin death) had to be corrected. It seems that this is what Kotkin is doing. In both cases the generals liked to blame Fuhrer or Stalin for their own mistakes. Kotkin otoh gives a lot of credit to Hitler. And also to Stalin in a general sense that Stalin equaled to USSR, that Stalin was the USSR, so w/o Stalin there would be no USSR and the USSR in 1941 would have caved in. There was nobody in leadership who was ready to take it if Stalin died of cold. Reading Kotkin or listening to some of his lectures might be beneficial to you and Ron.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  417. Ron Unz says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    on the German war economy the definitive resource is Adam Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction.

    Well, that’s possible, and I just ordered it from Amazon, so maybe I’ll take a look.

    It’s 800pp long, which would seem to suggest it’s absolutely definitive and comprehensive. But I think that may fail to take into account the increasing corruption and fear pervading the historical profession in recent decades.

    For example, the 850pp Black Book of Communism never mentions a word of Schiff or the other Jewish bankers who were crucial financiers of the Bolsheviks. The 800pp book Total War is described as the “authoritative” account of Soviet Russia’s involvement in WWII, but never mentions a word of Operation Pike, fully documented in an academic monograph 7 years earlier.

    I strongly suspect all these writers are aware of exactly what they can and cannot say, and the conclusions they must reach if they want to sell copies and avoid being purged.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the enormous length of many of these “definitive” books is primarily meant to intimidate, with relatively few people actually reading them, or questioning the claims and omissions.

    AJP Taylor was indeed a renowned scholar and his book was widely praised as it rightly should have been. However, it was also seriously criticized and not just by the usual suspects, but also by other serious scholars including his long-term foil Hugh Trevor-Roper.

    Well, Trevor-Roper’s 8,000 word rebuttal appeared in ENCOUNTER, the leading neocon publication of that era, and since it’s in my system, I just read it:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088/

    I wasn’t terribly impressed. It seems to me that many of the Taylor claims it sharply challenges seem fully confirmed by Irving’s magisterial, document-based work decades later. Since Taylor’s book received such widespread initial acclaim, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trevor-Roper was “recruited” to denounce it.

    And Trevor-Roper never challenges Taylor’s military-spending claims, which he surely would if they were incorrect.

    Taylor was writing 16 years after the end of the war, surely enough time for the wartime data to have been compiled. Why would it take 60 years for someone like Tooze to correctly calculate Germany’s military spending?

    Writing in 1952, Huddleston seemed to provide a vastly more credible account of Vichy France than the totally dishonest picture produced by our academics generations later, which has become our standard narrative.

    If you read books writing by leading academics 100+ years ago, you’ll get pretty sensible and accurate views of “race.” But with the benefit of our amazing modern scientific advances, over the last couple of decades, we’ve discovered that “race doesn’t exist.”

    • Agree: utu
  418. anastasia says:

    Henry Ford said history was bunk. However, he was made to apologize.

  419. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    Suppression and distortion of history of III Reich economic success may have as high agenda as maintenance of the orthodox Holocaust story.

    Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER Told
    https://blog.kareldonk.com/adolf-hitler-the-greatest-story-never-told/

    One of the most important things you’ll learn from this documentary is that Hitler was fighting one of the most evil forces that still has humankind enslaved today all over the world, namely, the Zionist central bankers. Through their central banking financial system — based on usury 1 — they’ve created debt-slaves out of everyone. Hitler wanted to free the German people from debt-slavery (PDF), as the following quotes show, taken from the program of his political party:

  420. anastasia says:

    There is no media blackout on Suvorov’s book, but for all intents and purposes it has been almost completely undermined by western writers. Belief in Suvorov’s book makes you nothing better than a conspiracy theorist

    April 14, 2017
    Format: Kindle Edition
    My review will no doubt be unpopular and I have observed that this author has a strong fan base of conspiracy theorists who will energetically defend his thesis regardless of facts to the contrary.

    [MORE]

    Overall a poor representation of the facts, many of which are simply and willfully ignored. Some of the more glaring issues: Suvorov trumpets the 1 million Red Army paratroops as being a major piece of evidence of offensive aspirations of Stalin against Europe, yet he fails to explain that those same paratroopers lacked the necessary transport aircraft to move even a few thousand. That being said, the lack of drop aircraft also had the obvious effect of the Red Army lacking the capability to train paratroopers in jump training and conduct training jumps in the first place. That also means that these million paratroopers were that in name only, completely lacking in specialized training, equipment, doctrine and leadership. The very few aircraft the Soviets had in 1941 that could be used as drop aircraft were farmed out to non-military sections of the government.
    Another issue is his claim of the BT series tanks treads/wheels being designed for Europe and Germany’s autobahn as opposed to the Soviet Union’s rough terrain. The problem is the autobahn didn’t exist (to any significant extent) at the time of the BT tank’s design or during WWII. Also, the BT tanks served throughout the war and proved to be as good as their contemporaries with off road performance. There is substantial evidence that the track design was intended to reduce wear on the poorly designed and expensive track system (a failed design).
    A further issue with this book is that the author fails to address that the Red Army deployment plan (DP-41) was agreed upon as a direct result of the rapid fall of France and that is the reason for the late validation of it in fall of 1940. That plan supported by partial mobilization was being carried out throughout 1941. I believe Suvorov uses that plan as a vehicle to support his theory and wrongly interprets Soviet partial mobilization as preparation to invade Germany. Red Army forces were not arrayed in such a way as to support the theory of imminent strategic offensive action. Red Army equipment reports from 1940-41 clearly demonstrate that the forces in the Western Military Districts were in a very poor state of affairs as well. Most units lacked personnel, leadership, key equipment and existing equipment was in a poor state of operational readiness. The facts reveal that the Red Army was not capable of major sustained operations at any point during 1941.
    The theory that the Germans beat the Soviets to the punch as the reason of poor Red Army performance due to the Soviets being prepared for offensive operations and not defensive is a fools argument. The Red Army was in a poor state of readiness and that fact needs no qualifiers. The Red Army would have performed worse in offensive operations than it did in defensive operations due to the inherent deficiencies in its own formations that severely limited its capabilities in any form of operation. Poorly trained tactical leadership that was prematurely promoted, commandingf understrength, undertrained units that lack key equipment and/or had unserviceable equipment is a recipe for disaster. Suvorov completely glosses over these deficiencies as if to suggest that 1 Soviet tank equates to one German tank and the Soviets had thousands more. The fact is most Soviet tank units had worn out equipment or lacked equipment, lacked tactical communication (radios), had poorly trained crews, poorly trained and equipped mechanics to keep them running, poorly trained leadership and no tactical experience. When ordered from their staging areas in June/July to counter attack the German invasion many Soviet tank units simply evaporated before contact with the Germans or shortly after. Without radios they could not coordinate refuel, re-arm or recover broken down or damaged tanks. They could not coordinate artillery fire because of no communication ability of their own, plus the artillery branch in just as poor shape as they were. The Soviet artillery lacked the ability to direct their fire due to a lack of proper optical ranging equipment and trained specialists to operate it even if they had it. Imagine a newly promoted tank company commander (under trained, over tasked) sent to stop the Germans, having no idea where he is, cannot communicate to his higher HQ for help, cannot coordinate for fuel and ammo with his tanks breaking down and running out of gas (all of that before combat even happens). That was the reality of the Red Army in 1941 and not explained by Suvorov.
    5 people found this helpful
    Helpful
    3 comments Report abuse
    T. Sanders
    1.0 out of 5 starsFood for conspiracy theorists, no more
    July 28, 2014
    Format: Kindle Edition
    Historians largely agree that the embarrassing initial defeat of the Red Army by Hitler was due to the overall inaptitude of the Soviet Union, combined with Stalin’s brutal purges of the 1930s. Published in 1990, The Icebreaker by Viktor Suvorov (a pseudonym) offers an alternative theory: Stalin was in fact planning to invade Germany but saw his plans thwarted by the German invasion, in the proces losing its combat ability.

    Suvorov offers circumstantial evidence at most: the Soviet Union’s admitted desire to spread communism by all means and the fact that the nation had developed sophisticated weapons that towards the end of the war proved highly effective in defeating the German war machine.

    The author has a valid point in arguing that the nation had developed good weapons and was able to produce those in mass. Suvorov however fails to notice the gap between ideology and reality.

    On paper the Red Army was creating vast armies and purchasing arms in bulk. In reality, it was severely underfunded, poorly trained and underequipped. Suvorov argues that the Red Army had been trained for an offensive war and was simply lacking defensive skills. In reality the army hadn’t been trained at all. Training programs for regular troops were cut short or were non-existent. Officers have been in short supply since the founding of the Red Army, a situation that only worsened during the Great Terror of 1937-1938, which struck high ranking officers especially hard. When the Germans crossed the border, most troops simply didn’t know what to do.

    The Icebreaker has largely been dismissed as fiction by academics, but it continues to play well with Russian nationalists and conspiracy theorists.
    10 people found this helpful
    Helpful
    8 comments Report abuse
    bear
    1.0 out of 5 starsResearch before reading. Danger!
    December 24, 2012
    Format: Kindle Edition
    This book is written by a proven charlatan. They way this book works is that it preys on people who do not have any knowledge of the prewar history. If you do not read well researched books before reading this fantasy, you risk getting “alternatively enlightened” and it will be hard to clean out these “alternative ideas”. He wrote a set of alternative history books where the main source of his material is his “knowledge” which he pulls from his elephant-like memory (strategic secrets like troop positions, equipment specs). They all make beautiful sense, but only if you don’t know anything about those issues. GET EDUCATED FIRST! There is an army of true historians working hard in archives all over the world for you. Then read this… as a pathology.
    12 people found this helpful
    Helpful
    4 comments Report abuse

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @Ron Unz
  421. Gefreiter says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I linked to it in my comment:

    https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/SSversion01.html

    The site has several interesting articles, but I believe all my quotes were from the page above.